W-M,

Well said,I can't help but agree 110%...........:lifter:lifter:lifter

Big Teddy :munchin

You’ve mis-taken my words. I say again - they are ideals to strive for.
My point was that Islamists are NOT playing by the same rules, or striving for the same goal of play nice, co-exist and tolerate others as they are.

I agree. Just as it wasn't every German in Nazi Germany.

I do. You say you are not willing to accept another 9/11. But your next sentence seems to challenge that by questioning the Patriot Act.

Am I misunderstanding your remarks?

Ben Franklin is credited with saying "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

The postulate becomes “Never sacrifice liberty.”

That can be taken to one of two extremes. Delete the Patriot Act. Pretend like there’s no threat. Let them set off bombs in our street and kill our children at will. At least we have our “freedom.”

Or – take every necessary precaution to protect liberty by waging all out war against the threat to ensure our freedoms are protected.

Neither is an ideal answer to a national security challenge.

I believe that Freedom and Security are a balancing act.

Given our current environment, the Patriot Act is an acceptable compromise. I’m not worried about the FBI, CIA, DIA or any other agency listening to my phone calls. They’d be bored and wasting their time.

The Zazi case shows the effectiveness of allowing our national security apparatus to using telephonic surveillance.


I agree. There are a number of problems we need to overcome. First, what about those who do not wish to integrate? There’s no established duties and responsibilities of a citizen. Where is the legal requirement to integrate? And who enforces it?

It would be great if everyone would learn English. Are you willing to make that a law? Again, who enforces it? Do we eliminate public-school programs that have Spanish speaking teaches to help those communities where English is predominantly a second language?

Agree with the photo ID. You want to drive? You need a photo ID. You want to fly? You need a photo ID.

That’s one of the many recommendations of Moorthy Muthuswamy in his book “Defeating Political Islam.”

Sorry. That was a rhetorical “you,” not a personal one.
Let me rephrase as “If someone wants to live under sharia…”



Didn't mean to insinute that - just passionate about the issue.
Sorry if you took it that way.

Agree. Did we become what we loath when we beat the Nazis? The Japanese?

Or did we show our true strength, determination and willingness to fight and die for what we love and know is right?

Sunni Islamic law prevents the change you suggest. I don’t have much hope for the Shias either.
Enclosed is the section on Scholarly Consensus and a couple highlighted areas for your consideration.
You’ll find that once a ruling becomes consensus, it cannot be changed later on by a succeeding era.

See Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law - B7.2; and B7.4(1); and B7.5

READ IT HERE:

I am passionate about the issue as well, and I understand that sometimes sentiment gets misunderstood over the internet. I will grow some thicker skin:)

In question to the Patriot Act. Do I believe that it is important in this fight against terrorism, yes I do, but not all of it. I go back to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and our Personal Freedoms guaranteed therewithin and do not agree with some of the precepts of the Patriot Act because of the infingment on personal liberties guaranteed within the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For example, I do not agree with warrentless wiretaps. There was a process in place to get the necessary warrants signed by an on-call Federal Judge. There has never been a case, from what I understand, in which a warrant was ever denied, or not issued in a timley enough fashion to meet the needs of the requestor. Until that happens I don't believe in warrentless wiretaps.

Some say that if I haven't done anything wrong, I have nothing to worry about and shouldn't worry about someone eavesdropping on my conversation. To that I say I am guaranteed the right against unlawful search and siezure, and it doesn't matter that I am not doing anything wrong, I don't think the federal government should be listening to my conversations just because a predetermined word is uttered.

I agree there is a fine line that needs to be forged between safety and security. I also believe in a world of grey, and there is never one right answer for every problem. I believe in the "Lesser Evil" that sometimes good men/women must do evil things in order to prevent an even greater evil from taking place. But we all must acknowledge that the act is a Lesser Evil, and open ourselves up to the scrutiny that will ensue because of it. That scrutiny does not mean it is done in public in front of the MSM. But it needs to be done notheless. If a decision is made to do the Lesser Evil, those making the decision need to acknowledge it as such, and realize there may be future consequences that result; ie you may not get re-elected President, or as SecDef you may be called to task over a memo you published. But if you are going to make the command decsion, you don't throw others under the bus to save yourself and your career.

If we don't do these things, how do we ensure the Lesser Evil does not become the new status quo?

I am not being flip, I really am not, but isn't this what the enemy is seeking as well? Surely we feel justified in our means of fighting this war, but so do they. We say our way is right, and theirs is wrong, and they say the exact opposite.

How do we go about getting the rest of the world to see that and not look like hypocrits doing it.

I guess why I keep harping in this "hypocrit" thing is I feel we would be better off if we just go about our business of seeking to win this fight, and preserve our way of life, without trying to be PC about it.

We are continually trying to get others to think we are "above" it all, and will always take the high road. But our actions speak louder than words, and we will all probably say that we need to stop fighting this enemy with one hand tied behind our back. We need to stop trying to "pretty it up" because our words do not match our actions. And if our actions are right and justified, then we need to change our words, IMHO.

Hang Up
 

So - Military intelligence is listening in on a terrorist phone number in Parkistan. So the terrorist dials a number in the states, Omar picks up and the terrorist says "Omar, is the bomb ready to go?" "Yes, Mahmoud, I have it placed.." Click.

Intelligence agent to the other "Man, that was close. We didn't have a warrant for the US dude. Good thing we hung up quick."

I find myself wondering about the provisions of the Patriot act, including the issue of warrantless wiretaps and other, similar capabilities. I guess I'm in the camp that really doesn't know which way is best.

On the one hand, Pete brings up a good point. In a fast-developing situation, don't impede the good guys. But on the downside, it's easy to imagine an innocent person falling into a great deal of trouble.

One example I used in class was the so-called CIA letter opener - a plastic knife. I would point out that such knives could be abused and would not show up on metal detectors. Then I would do a Google search and project the picture and ordering information to a couple hundred bored undergraduates. That generally got them (well, most of them) awake. ;)

I would pose the question - should people who brought such things up on a classroom screen and told others about it be put on a watch list? Were they dangerous? Should they be monitored? That was generally good for 45 minutes of discussion. :cool:

I still don't know the answer.

I don't know if the answers to the questions are mutually exclusive. While thinking each through, additional questions came to mind. Here are some of those questions.

• Did we not use concentration camps and other methods to cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans?
• Did we not target with increasing abandon population centers in Japan and Germany? (When assessing the firebombing and the eventual use of atomic weapons, the late Stephen Ambrose summed it up succinctly, "Life was cheap.")
• While the Allied forces most certainly saved the world from utter darkness, after casting down enemies who subscribed to political ideologies that centered around notions of racial superiority, did not some of those Allies return home to countries with similar views of racial difference?
• Did the war not reconfigure permanently the relationship between the American state and its citizens? (Is today's statist government an outgrowth of the New Deal alone?)
• (Did we beat the Nazis or was it the Soviets?)

While the relocation of Japanese Americans is a dark spot in American History, those camps where nothing like the concentration camps in Europe. Not even in the same category. That is almost like a complete naive assertion.


BTW the weapons of the time were nothing like to day. Your whole list of questions baffles me. I am not sure what you are driving at. Maybe because I knew many people who served in WWII as a kid. I spent the early parts of my life as military brat living on military bases. I remember many conversations from men who fought that war.


Like today, there are claims that life, especially the citizens in combat zones are meaningless to us. Yet we spend billions to build more surgical weapons to save those civilians lives our enemies do not. Our ROE are set up to help non combatants to survive war in their A/O our enemies ROE is the opposite.

Sir,

This is the worst fear Pete, right here, what you typed, for myself and my family.

For if "they" cannot fight these barbarians, what the F**k are we civilians supposed to do to fight it? I mean these people have jobs with titles for a reason, right? It is their job, let's let them do it, and stop whining and crying about what kind of harm it might do to the perception of Islamic followers, IMVHO!:mad: (ANd will appologize to anyone who takes offense on here...but YOU try moving a totally disabled person from one location to another for safety reasons...)

Holly

My thoughts exactly. I guess my biggest fear is that most of us don't trust the government 100%, nor should we. So if a government we don't trust implicitly is recording information about us that they don't have a warrant to obtain, and someone who is unscrupulous uses that information for nefarious reasons.....

Pete, I accept your pointed example of how my disagreement of warrant less wiretaps leaves us in a precarious position. The question I have is, where do we draw the line? Who is to say that the information gathered can't be used to hurt innocent people who have done nothing wrong? Where is that line, and who gets to determine where it is drawn?

Do I think the past administration had our best intentions in mind when this was developed? Absolutely!! But do I trust the current administration, ie Attorney General Holder, to not use information obtained in a manner to hurt political adversaries of the current POTUS, if he thought it was justified? He has already proven he can't be trusted as far as I am concerned. Why would I give someone such as him that kind of power?

Actually they weren't completely Warrentless. It was just a system set up to speed the permission to Wire Tap up. Instead of going thru the process of getting a Warrant. The request was presented to a panel of Judges on call 24/7. It was used for emergency situations. It was monitored by these Judges. It wasn't just LEO'S deciding on their own to Tap a phone. The Media made us believe it was like that. There was or is actually a process in place.

When is a concentration camp not a concentration camp?
 

My point is that if we're going to review the history of American civilization and compare it to the history of other civilizations, we shouldn't just look at the highlights. How many 'dark spots' need to be documented before we admit to ourselves that our past has not always been as exceptional as we would like? The writing of the story of American freedom has seen the inkwell spilled on many occasions.

In regards to the "naive" assertion that the concentration camps in America were not in the same category as those in Europe, I ask "Who determines the categories? What is the standard of measurement?" Yes, there's a difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing. However, the fact that we have to make that distinction when we're discussing our own recent past speaks for itself.

I will hold our "Evils" up to comparison with the "Evils" of any other Country and not think twice about weighing them in light of "Greater" vs. "Lesser" - and that includes our treatment of the American Indians and the entire institution of slavery. The difference is - I'm not about to apply modern sensibilities to the discussion. I do believe in American Exceptionalism - unashamedly. Sometimes growth is a messy business. The ancient adages about omelets and sausage come to mind. To our credit the stumbles along the way have generally occasioned the type of soul searching afchic is presently engaged in - to the betterment of all.

Compare the death rates for the Japanese-Americans detained against the camp residents of the Nazis (or the Soviets), or for that matter, the U.S. guests of the Emperor of Japan.

Targeting of German population centers began as a reprisal for Nazi targeting of British cities. Both Germany and Japan dispersed their industries in population centers to protect them, and as I am sure you are aware, weapon CEP was measured in miles rather than feet. It took 1,000 planes to hit a target that a pair of B-2s could eliminate today with conventional weapons.

I seriously doubt that American soldiers in WW II returned as Nazis or worse, unless they left as racists, or fought the Japanese, who fought a different type of war with no quarter asked, or given. On behalf of my family and friends who served in that war, I resent that implication.

My impression is that the New Deal social programs are the underlying cause of the big government problems we face today.

I think that if we are going to engage in a what if, the Soviets would have been hard pressed to defeat the Nazis, had they not been engaged with the Brits and ourselves elsewhere. We also would have been able to play a bigger role in the ETO had the Japanese not redirected our attention temporarily by a savage sneak attack against not just Hawaii, but the Phillipines and across the Pacific. I would maintain that we were significantly more helpful against the Nazis than the USSR was against the Japanese, until the final weeks of the war. North Africa and the Italian campaigns were not diversions. Many American vehicles and aircraft served in the Red Army, care of the U.S. taxpayers. The question is not a simple, "who really defeated the Nazis?" A good discussion can be had over it though.

TR

I don't suffer from collective guilt, especially when there is none. I am very well aware of the dark sides of the US history, so your point is?


Again, to compare the US Internment camps with Auschwitz is beyond the pale.

From my perspective you sound like someone who is very comfortable calling the shots from your armchair. For me, I have seen my generation slandered for doing their duty, serving honorable, dieing in a foreign country so some could call them names, insult them and consider their sacrifices as something meaningless. It is easy to set at a nice clean table, eating fine foods, enjoy civil conversation while bloviating about the person who is living in the mud, on very limited food and water in a very hostile environment fighting a enemy who knows no humanity, and yet those at home calls that soldier/Marine the evil doer.

BTW, I am one of those Viet-Nam Evil doers, accused of things we never did.

I will take the actions of any US service person over that of our enemy any day. Those serving are paying a high price and so are their families so we can all enjoy a fine dinner with friends and a civil conversation while those at home only see their actions as evil.


BTW over 99% of the Chinese POWs did not survive the Japanese Prisoner of War camps. I personally find it offensive that you try to paint the actions of the US with the nazis who butchered millions in death camps and the Japanese who where no better and some say worse.

Excellent point. Would anyone care to point out an American atrocity equivalent to "The Rape of Nanking"?

:eek: - I don't think this is what anyone was trying to do here - certainly not someone with the historiographic background of Sigaba - and I took his original point to be in reference to the early KZs - as well as our internment camps for US Citizens of Japanese ancestry - both of which were originally designed for a collecting and removal of government labeled undesirables from society.

What the KZs eventually went on to become vs how we eventually returned our citizens to society - although many Nisei families suffered great personal, social, and economic losses - is where the path to what might have been diverges.

I grew up with many Japanese farm families who had been interred and they never fully trusted the US Government after that time - even when their elected representatives were honorable people like Matsui.

If anyone woulld like to review the history of the American internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry during WW2 vs perpetuating the myths associated with it all, a couple of good books I would recommend are Jewel of the Desert by Sandra Taylor and The Great Betrayal by Audrie Girdner and Anne Loftis.

This is a part of the myth left over from WW2 - and many prominent historians have reviewed the documentation and shown it to be otherwise. And as far as dispersing their industrial base into population centers - the facts are that the population centers had grown up around the German industrial base and transportation hubs during the first and second industrial revolutions, and Germany actually sought to disperse its important industries away from their population centers during WW2 in an attempt to hide and protect them from the unrelenting allied bombing campaign.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Richard you could also add the Japanese Americans who fought in Europe was one of the most highly decorated units. Very Honorable and patriotic Americans. As I mentioned internment was a dark spot in our history, but no way comparable to the death camps in Europe.

War does not bring out the best in people, but it is strange that you can also see the greatest of humanity too. Discussion like this, shows that American do wrestle with the negative aspects of waging war. Considering the barbarity of the Japanese and nazis, I really can not feel for them. Any acts committed by our soldiers that were less than noble, I just can not get excited about. It is not a American bias, or a bias for Americans, it is from understanding human nature. Considering how the Japanese and nazis treated civilians, our allies and our own POW, one might say our soldiers handled themselves in great resolve.

My Dad was in the China Fleet (USS ALDEN) during the invasion of China and was off of the Philippines when war broke out. In the ports of China he also witness the act of Japanese barbarity against the Chinese people. My mother had family in Europe. Two of my uncles survived the nazi's camps. Over time and with friendship developing between Japanese and Germans with American people, may be there is a need to water down history. Maybe especially for the Japanese and Germans. I don't think we need to water down our dark spots either, all in all, our fellow Americans had conducted themselves with honor in waging all out war against a barbaric enemy. Just like today, there are those who equate our Soldiers/Marines as worse than the tangos for political reasons. That equation is just wrong and leads to the culture of defeat and self loathing for our Military just like in the Viet-Nam war.


As for the Soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese, I know why some developed a sour taste for the Japanese. Personally I am glad, that over time, we have moved on as a people.


Back to topic at hand, Our system is based on checks and balances, I do have a good respect for SCOTUS. I took a year of Constitutional law and gained a large respect for how the court works. Also a good friend taught Constitutional Law at a local law school. Our system is not perfect but, it is not the government that tin foil hat types drone about.


A good site on the myths of the Viet-Nam. A good read to see how many myths a person accepts as fact. Many of the myths are assumed to be general knowledge and true.

http://www.25thaviation.org/johnkerry/id27.htm



Comparisons are important and need to be close or they paint one side much worse and the other side much better.

A small high-jack here.

Not that I can compare any experience to what you and my father experienced as VN Vets upon returning home, but recently I had the displeasure of experiencing similar action in a person whom I considered to be a reasonable human being.

I guess what I'm saying is the freaky ultra-left, with their out-there "thinking" is still alive and well. No kidding.

I have a friend who runs a school that trains young people in cross cultural situations and then provides a off the beaten track "service abroad" experience, a gap year service. Needless to say she has a lot of influence over the minds of these young people.

Recently I "caught" her posting on a board about the atrocities of the US SOLDEIRS in Iraq and how many babies they had killed (sounds familiar). Needless to say I was shocked having known and worked on and off with this individual for 8 years.

Now having a good relationship with her, I approached her and tried to uncover this misunderstanding. She denied it and after a couple more attempts at reasonable conversation she cut off all comms.

Not only is the Ultra-Left BS still alive it's still gutless.

High Jack over.

Hollis--

With all due respect, I don't think it is appropriate for you to take me to task for your own inferences. Yes, the questions I posed are open ended but it is you who decided to make the exercise of comparing America to other combatants instead of comparing America to her own standards of that era.

In essence, what you're doing is taking the question "Am I ____?" and answering "I'm not as ____ as the other guy."

Your broad swipes at my legitimacy are at best curious when one looks at how you establish yours.
In essence, you are suggesting that what you learned as a young person from people you knew is of greater intellectual value than the many pathways traveled by historians on several continents working with archival sources, private papers, oral history interviews, memoirs, and other forms of evidence.

Historians ask themselves and each other tough even unpleasant questions, not because they don't respect the past and the people who made it, but because they do.

No that's not what he said, he said he spoke to the men that made history, not those that wrote it or taught it. He said he spoke to men with a high moral code and learned from warriors what he might expect from war.

These men would not have used a term of "greater intellectual value" as they know we're all created equal. As "Honorable and patriotic Americans" have almost always maintained the moral high-ground.

It's one thing to read about war and another to be there. Sort of like some of the "reality" shows on TV, some actually believe that how life is, others know better, they have lived it.

HOLLIS: The 442d RCT was THE most decorated unit in WWII. Its ironic that their patch was Lady Liberty's arm holding the "Torch of Freedom".

And, like TS says. I'd rather listen to the ones that actually made the history vs those that would interpret it.

Experience, memory, and history
 

TS--

With respect, I agree that the military history of the Second World War must center around the battlefields and the people who fought. I disagree that the history of the Second World War was made by warriors alone.

In regards to the former, in 1942, S.L.A. Marshall was on Kwajalein as part of the general staff's efforts to find ways to chronicle the army's combat operations. Marshall was interviewing one soldier about an engagement when another chimed in with a drastically different account. It was not until after Marshall had interviewed the rest of the two men's platoon that he felt confident in his reconstruction of the previous night's actions. From this experience, the army began its practice of conducting multiple oral interviews.*

Acknowledging the differences among such accounts did not (and does not) imply a lack of character or integrity of the soldiers involved. Instead, recognizing the differences and seeking to reconcile them into a single narrative reflect the fact that human beings remember shared experiences differently and that memories may change over time.

I understand that many warriors question the propriety, value, and utility of interpretations of the history of war, contemporaneous military affairs, and the armed services offered by civilians. I accept this skepticism.

However, what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences? Are only African Americans allowed to offer views on the experiences of blacks in the United States? Are only lawyers and judges to comment upon the law?


____________________________________________
* S. L. A. Marshall, Bringing Up the Rear: A Memoir, ed. by Cate Marshall (San Rafael: Presidio Press, 1979), 71-72. To clarify, I am aware of some of the controversies surrounding Marshall's life and career. In this specific instance, I am unaware of any evidence that should cast into doubt Marshall's experiences with post-combat oral interviews.

I think it was SLA Marshall who intoned that if a million men went into battle and all of them returned - there would be a million different narratives of what actually happened.

Richard

Each man's view...
 

Credit lies squarely on those who "actually" do the work. While truley not only the Warriors much can be offered to those working to build and supply the effort.
That doesn't give much credit to journalists, who regardless of how much stupidity shown in life threatening exposure they incur. They don't add to the combat effort but are mere observers of the real effort.
In combat as well as other greatly hazardous events the individual view of the participants will be from a very predator's myopic (hunters) view of the particular threat and not so clear of the whole, hence so many varied views of the same whole. Just my zwei centavos. Blitzzz

I enjoy reading the narratives of Ernie Pyle and the cartoons of Bill Mauldin - so did my Dad who served in the PTO and my uncle who served in the ETO - both felt they told the true GIs story.

On April 18, 1945, Pyle died on Ie Shima, an island off Okinawa Honto, after being hit by Japanese machine-gun fire.

The captions for the cartoons read:

• "Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient."
  
• No caption necessary for the old Cav NCO putting his 'mount' out of its misery - one of Mauldin's most famous and popular cartoons.
  
• "Radio th' ol' man we'll be late on account of a thousand-mile detour." This 'dig' at Patton caused quite a stir - Patton and Mauldin didn't like each other and Patton sought to censor Mauldin at one point - but the GIs loved Mauldin whose humor reflected theirs, and Patton couldn't do anything about his cartoons being published in Yank magazine.

Richard

I found the last cartoon especially funny given the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan...

Useful in a Democracy?
 

I agree with the gist of what you are saying here, the soldiers who do the actual work should absolutely get the credit. But how are they going to get the credit they deserve without somebody telling the world about it? Particularly in a Republic and Democracy where our military answers to civilian leadership, who in turn are voted into office.

Maybe we just need better journalists as opposed to clueless liabilities like Geraldo who actually endanger our troops, ( no tears here if he had an accident in theater). Ernie Pyle in contrast was adored by our combat troops, he wrote stories which improved morale both overseas and back home. He took risks and was eventually killed by an enemy sniper in the Pacific. Perhaps I'm naive but politicians are essentially re-election whores, if enough noise was made about look at the incredible job our boys are doing in Afghanistan, and the message the nation heard was we can win if we give them what they need, Obama's gutless not stupid, okay maybe he is both, but if politicians feel the votes wanted this, ie more troops helps them win "Midterms-istan" General McChrystal would have had his 40,000 troops weeks ago.

IMO WWII was decided once the United States entered the war.

I never said warriors alone made all the history, I am not that ignorant. Politian's start wars, warriors fight and finish them.
I will tell you that even "history" can be distorted quite a bit by those that write it and those that report it. I also understand the theory of "oral reports", funny how many of us were never asked for an oral report yet our history has been written.

Not all of us require such in-depth history, some just want to hear one man's perspective on the battle he fought, share his thoughts, see his emotions, all things one cannot glean from a history book.

I am that sort of person, I have listened to old warriors, their stories from their perspective. You said: "what happens when the logic is applied to other types of professions and experiences" I can tell you this; that unless you have been in that specific profession, a warrior, it sure would be difficult to distinguish between the truth and the bullshit.;)

I'm sure they're quite a few warriors on here that have been involved in historic events or missions that have made "history" but will never be written about..... ;)

BTW there's quite a long list of "individuals" I'd rather talk to than read any number history books about what they did or the battles they fought. Some I have spoken with at length, some I have worked with and some I have only read about.

"Of every One-Hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are nothing but targets, nine are real fighters...we are lucky to have them...they make the battle. Ah, but the One, one of them is a Warrior...and He will bring the others back." Heraclitus (circa 500 BC)
Some here have had the honor to have spoken to, worked with and even fought along the side of that "One". History books, movies, news articles all pale in comparison.

My Dad told me he really enjoyed Mauldin because they lightened up the war for the guys overseas.............:D

Big Teddy :munchin

Read In Defense of Internment, the Case for "Racial Profiling" in WWII and the War on Terror by Michelle Maklin for a look at why the "internment camps" were created in the first place. Ever hear of MAGIC?

There was no "ethnic cleansing" when it came to the evacuation and relocation of Japanese, Italians and Germans and other undesirables from the West Coast and proximity to Military installations/Naval bases.

Unfortunately history has already been rewritten when it comes to "American concentration camps" and Japanese racial discrimination. :rolleyes:

I think there was some confusion here over the terms 'cleanse ethnically Japanese Americans' as in to merely move or relocate (cleanse) Americans of Japanese ethnicity from among American communities for whatever reasons and forever how long versus the euphamistic terminology employed by the Nazis to enigmatically obfuscate their so-called 'Final Solution' programs of 'ethnic cleansing' (cleansing as in literally destroying or erasing entire ethnic cultures).

Richard

Ah, ok...I originally took Sigaba's comment to mean the "Final Solution" kind of ethnic cleansing.

Historians are not some great keeper of all things past. The war that I enjoy reading about is the US Civil War. I no longer read historians accounts of that war, mostly personal accounts. There are a few people like Bruce Catton who I do like to read. He has a good feel for the life of a soldier. Like reading [I]All Quite on the Western front[I] by E. M. Remarque. I read it when I was in High School and later when I came home from RVN. On the second reading I felt a brotherhood, so to speak. I knew he was there.

I am sorry for academics who feel they are different and because of their studies they can see in to things us mortal can not. IMHO, they are out to lunch. They are full of their own greatness and can not realize there is more to the story. Something that can not be read about, something that must be experienced.

I am not saying all historians are like this, I mentioned B. Catton. I am not interested in playing the game "armchair quarterback". I am interested in History, but form the actual players themselves rather than those who only watch.

To quote " T. Roosevelt;

Thank you Hollis
 

definintly a shared belief, great post, Thanks.

Not all historians are correct - nor are all incorrect - and not all participants in a historical event tell the truth about what happened to them, either. History is complicated - and not nearly as 'cut and dry' as many - including historians - would probably prefer.

As for reading History, Stephen Ambrose's style of using the greater view of historical perspective - combined with personal narratives of those involved and a 'tell the story' literary style - is IMO what continues to make his works so readable and popular - and why more historians have adopted such a style.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

To me, individual participants in combat have perspectives like the blind men examining the elephant. They each have differing viewpoints, based on where they were and what they were doing. The shooter may not even know if the battle was won or lost, merely that he survived. An infantry PFC is going to have a far different view of the conflict that the Major in his S-3 shop. The individual combatants have a raw visceral impression of the war that the historian has to capture and put in its proper place with the overall context of the tactical, operational, and strategic perspectives.

A good historian (in the sense that it reads well) takes the individual accounts of actions, and melds them into the dryer aspects of what was happening from the higher levels. Think of "The Killer Angels" or "Gates of Fire". Both have a liberal amount of fiction, mixed with vignettes and historical accounts. Both are also excellent novels based on military history and read very well.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

Resurrecting this Thread...
 

Since it's been several months since our last post here, I'm resurrecting this thread in it's original spirit ....

Ex-Muslim on Why Islam Should Be Criticized
Jan 23, 2010
Arslan Shaukat

Hello Miss Geller,

You are a superwoman. Bravo . I am Arslan, ex-Muslim atheist, and an anti-islamist. You have spoken truth about islam on many forums which is very brave and praise worthy.

I have also strived to make the truth about islam known to people by any means available. I believe its the duty of those people who know the truth!!

I am member of CEMB ( British council of ex-muslims), Leeds Atheist society and an author on Islam-watch.

What the West Needs To Understand about Islam
January 2010
Arslan Shaukat

How unfortunate it is that whenever someone attempts to show the facts of true Muhammadan Islam in unflattering manner in a public forum, he risks being tortured or killed by pious Muslims, even in the West. Alas!

The Muslim Ummah is utterly intolerant to criticisms of the Quran, Prophet Muhammad and Islam. Nonetheless, there are individuals who are brave enough to face the challenge of exercising their freedom of speech, their freedom of expression. Ibn-Waraq, Ayan Hisri Ali, Wafa Sultan and Maryam Namazie are some of the courageous individuals, who have chosen not to indulge in appeasing Muslims and political correctness. They have chosen to speak the historical, factual truth about Muhammadan Islam. And, unsurprisingly, they have been living under constant danger to their lives.

Another brave individual is the Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard. He drew the cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in a Danish newspaper in 2006 that hurled the entire Muslim world into violent frenzy. They started demonstrations and demanded death of the cartoonists and their publishers. On January 2, 2010, a Somali man, armed with axe and knife, entered Westergaar’s house and tried to kill him. This incident prompted me to write this article.

The reason for the attempted murder of Westergaard is his comical depiction of Muhammad, produced here:

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/....240f970b-popup

He has drawn other depictions of Muhammad as well. It’s interesting to note that although the illustration may appear somewhat derogatory toward Muhammad, but it does make an accurate point in artistic form, i.e. the blood-soaked and war-filled life of Muhammad. That is exactly what the bomb depicts. I personally believe that it’s not inflammatory at all; it just makes a true representation of Muhammad in pictorial form.

This incident entails a number of issues within the context of western nations and within the context of a truly democratic set-up, which I will address in this article.

First: Why criticize Islam? And why should non-Muslims/atheists etc. indulge in such criticisms and ‘inflammatory actions’ when it’s already given that Muslim world will react violently.

Second: What is the use of such ‘transgressions,’ i.e. what good will come out of it?

WHY ISLAM SHOULD BE CRITICIZED:

Here, I am quoting a few points from one of my presentations.

1. Firstly, Islam is an unproven and unsubstantiated religious dogma. Islam is a truth claim. It’s a claim; nothing more. There is no logical reason whatsoever as to why a claim about the basis of existence and morality should not be questioned and analyzed. In fact, reason tells us that such a monumental claim that affects humanity in a big way should be critically analyzed vigorously.

2. Secondly, a great many aspects of Islamic teachings, namely from the Quran and Muhammad’s life, are very disturbing and worrying. It’s not an opinion but a fact. Although somewhat unnecessary, I will back up the above mentioned statements with a few examples:

1. Al-Quran: This supposedly ‘holy’ book incites violence, aggression, hatred and bloodshed:

- O Prophet! Urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand (Quran 8:065).

- Fight those who do not believe in Allah...nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Quran 9:29).

-Warfare is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know (2:216).

The list goes on and on. I believe I have made the point as to why Quran should be criticized and questioned.

1. B. Muhammad: The person responsible for inventing Islam had less than stellar prophetic career:

- He was involved in many wars and looting of caravans. He ordered the killing of those who showed dissent. He was a polygamist and a rapist. It is also a fact that he married Ayesha when she was very young (Life of Mahomet, William Muir (1861); Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 234, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad%27s_marriages).

I believe I have made the point as to why the character of Muhammad should be criticized and questioned.

3. Thirdly: The western civilization and nations believe in democratic values. In democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is of paramount importance. Without freedom of speech and expression, a democratic society will become stagnant. It also includes criticism of religious dogma. So, it’s nonsensical to say that Islam should be or is somehow immune to criticism. Such a stance goes against the very core of liberal humanism and democratic values.

4. I believe these three reasons are more than enough justification as to why Islam should not be considered protected against criticism by the west.

Why criticize when Islamists will react violently

Now, why critics in the West, or everywhere for that matter, should criticize Islam despite however violent way the Muslim Ummah would react.

Firstly: Let me give the answer by asking a question:

1. Why should we criticize anything at all then? Isn’t it possible that Buddhists, Jains, Christians, Marxists etc., living in the West will react violently if I criticize their ideology? Why not just ban criticism all together? Why not just ‘respect’ everything than?

Secondly, it is the responsibility of every conscientious citizen to uphold the ideals of democracy and civil liberty by exercising their sovereign right of freedom of speech and expression. To not criticize an ideology that is manifestly anti-democratic and against human freedom is tantamount to giving into imaginary fears and cowering to political correctness.

Thirdly, One may argue that it is counterproductive to indulge in unnecessary attacks and ad-hominem statements with regards to Islamic ideology. Most western countries have Muslim populations and it will decidedly be counterproductive and unintelligible to drum up misdirected rhetoric against Islam. But, Islamic dogma warrants criticism on many levels as I have striven to show. So, on one hand, we have Muslim populations in the West, and, on the other, we have Islamic dogma.

The correct approach should be a justified and well-articulated criticism of Islam without indulging in too much anti-Islamic rhetoric. A balance so to speak (although it is extremely hard to imagine how such a feat is possible!!!)

Of course, disenfranchising Muslim populations in the west is not a good idea, but that does not mean that Islam is off limits. Muslims should be made to realize that they are living in a democratic system, and, in a true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very essential and healthy activity.

Therefore, I do not believe that a possibility of backlash is any justification to keep away from criticism of Islam.

Continued...
 

What good will come out of criticizing Islam?

Now, what good will ever come out of such criticism of Islam? Let me Explain.

I will take England as an example. England is witnessing a subtle surge in fuming Islamic rhetoric, being propagated by different UK-based Islamists.

Although the majority of Muslims in England are well adjusted within its socio-cultural and economic milieu, there is a strong and vocal minority that is trying to win over these ‘westernized and liberal’ Muslims and convert them into true Muslims.

One such example is that of Anjem Chaudary, currently the head of Islam for UK (Islam4UK), established by pious Muslims as a platform to “propagate the supreme Islamic ideology in the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law."

In November 2008, Chaudary convened a meeting for Islam4UK to "convince the British public about the superiority of Islam, thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power, to the Muslims in order to implement the Shariah (in Britain).”

In 2004, he said that a terror attack on the British soil was "a matter of time"; following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, he refused to condemn the atrocities. He glorified the perpetrators of 9/11 atrocity as the ‘Magnificent Martyrs.’ (Wikipedia).

Anjem wants Sharia implemented in UK. He wants to dismantle the democratic system and replace it with Islamic law and Jurisprudence.

England has approximately 1.6 million Muslims. Now, suppose a raving, hate mongering, idiotic lunatic like Anjem Chaudary can sway even 2% of this Muslim population, that will amount to ~20,000 radical Muslims. Suppose out of these, just 2% are radicalized enough to engage in terrorist activities, there will be 200 to 400 Islamic terrorists on the streets of Britain. That is a large number, given that the 9/11 atrocity was orchestrated by no more than 20 individuals.

So, how can we meet this challenge?

The answer is simple; exercise the sovereign right of freedom of expression and speech. Show these radicals that their dogma is flawed, hollow and incompatible with civilized ethos.

There is no other alternative. Political correctness, appeasement and other such strategies will simply not work.

The reason is: these Islamists are utterly convinced of the supremacy and transcendence of Islam. To them, all that matters is forwarding the message of Islam. They can only be challenged by facing them squarely.

Such Islamists, although a small minority, must be challenged squarely; no more, no less. Their so-called divine religion, which they claim to be the best of all, must be analysed and duly criticized. That is the only way to confront challenge of the Islamists.

What the West must understand is that such Muslims will inevitably increase in number, so will there radical voice. They will make increasing demands; there already are Shariah complaint courts in England. Next, there will be demands like separate schooling for Muslim children, segregation of Muslim women from non-mahram (unrelated) men in work places, and so on and so forth.

Again, ad-hominem attacks and empty rhetoric against Islam will accomplish very little, but rational criticism of Islam, namely of the Quran and Muhammad, will accomplish a number of things:

1. It will make the Islamists realize that they are living under a democratic system

2. and in true democracy, criticism of a truth claim is a very natural and healthy activity.

3. Criticism of Islam will make Islamists realize that no matter what they do or say, democratic system (which they are enjoying) will not become subservient to their rhetoric.

4. Such criticism will impact the psyche of Muslim and non-Muslim population and make them, at least, think that there, perhaps, are aspects of Islam that are incompatible with many a things they take for granted in the West.

5. Rational criticism of Islam will, in the long run, lead to greater understanding of issues and problems within Islamic dogma, and how they can be addressed.

Currently, many ex-Muslims, atheists and liberals in the West are raising concern about messages of the Quran and life of Muhammad. Individuals like Geert Wilders and Wafa Sultan are trying to shed light on exactly how dangerous the Islamic Dogma is. But much more needs to be done.

Every ex-Muslim, Humanist, liberalist, and atheist must do whatever in his or her power to make sure that sovereignty of basic human rights such as freedom of expression and speech is protected.

If the West is to remain truly democratic, then there is simply no other choice then to assert their core values in effective and efficient manner.

SOURCE:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...riticized.html