Can we kill them all?
 

You might have noticed that the Arabs and Israelis are slaughtering each other and have been since we (and by "we" I mean the West) arbitrarily carved up the region and left them to their own devices. Well, left them to their own devices but for arming the Israelis better than their enemies.

And yes, Americans will get killed. I disagree with the term "slaughtered." But, again, Americans are being killed in increasing numbers as well.

I fear that history will prove the region to be not only the cradle of civilization, but it's Achille's heel as well. If the planet goes up in a funeral pyre, the flame will be sparked in the Middle East.

Pretty grim. I hope to hell I'm wrong. But can you show me any evidence to the contrary?

Can we kill them all?
 

India.

The United States.

George Allen
 

From the context, it was clear that he was singling the guy out; e.g., he said "Welcome to America" to a person who is from (Northern) Virginia. Allen's initial explanation was that he was referring to the guy as "mohawk," which makes no sense, both because the words are not alike and because he has a full head of hair.

It's all stupid and strange. But the stupidity of doing this to a guy who is videotaping him at the time is what is most odd. Though Allen has never been known as the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Can we kill them all?
 

Um...let's not forgot about "Dear Leader" over there in the East.

More demands in Britain
 

I am at a loss here. Don't you see, that during a conference on how to stop these terrorists, bringing up changes to the British legal system is off the reservation. Who cares how much of Sharia law they wanted to implement? The fact that they even brough it up just shows how completely out of touch they are.

Changing the law in Britian means a majority in parliament, which means a majority of the British citizens, which ain't never going to happen - especially after a terrorist attack. Not only are these changes to the law wrong, and never going to pass, but they are completely beyond the control of the people they are talking to.

Trying to use the terrorist attacks as leverage to change the political system, instead of saying they will do whatever they can to stop them is just absurd.

Can we kill them all?
 

Interesting. I suspect the spark will be in Asia. At least if it happens in the next 20 years. The mix of North Korea, South Korea, China, and Japan seems far more conducive to mass extinction than a bunch of countries that can't seem to get their missiles to hit anything reliably from more than a couple of hundred miles, let along fly much further than that.

More demands in Britain
 

The Supremes read the first amendment as doing this right now, within a limited field. Thus, courts don't step in to judge ecclesiatical matters within churches, but leave them to be resolved by whatever canon law applies - and this has been extended to cover all sorts of disputes that might, in an ordinary business, be a matter of civil suits. Likewise, churches are read as tax-exempt under the constitution - no 501(c)(3) application required. In the criminal area, freedom of religion is regularly pled as a defense to stuff (chomping on peyote, for example). I think the question is, how broad is the field where we defer to ecclesiatic authorities, not whether we do it.

More demands in Britain
 

No one said it wasn't absurd. But that also does not mean that the entire British Muslim community is the functional equivalent of the Taliban (the kindest inference I could draw from Slave's post).

And seriously, stop acting like you expect every Muslim in Britain do nothing but fall on the floor apologizing for their evilness.

More demands in Britain
 

Slave's response may have been over the top, but that's Slave. I care more about what real people are actually demanding as a political concession than about the rantings of my imaginary internet friends (however close to my heart they may be).

The situation you outline for orthodox jews is fairly common, though maybe not as explicit -- abortion or divorce or whatever may be perfectly legal for someone, but actually taking advantage of that will lead to being ostracized. That's a social decision, not a legal one. (And personally, I think the earlier you get ostracized from a comunity such as that, the better off you are).

I suspect that this won't work for those who advocate sharia, though, because sharia as I understand it involved punishments that would be considered crimes in non-sharia courts.

George Allen
 

Well, sounds like a perfectly good word. Was he using it to describe someone who is a "macaca"? If so, he should continue to use it as he pleases.

I think that is the standard I learned today, which is distinguishable from my usual arseholism.

More demands in Britain
 

No, I meant like the effectiveness of a religious divorce, not like whether divorce per se is OK, or divorce in a particular situation is OK.

eta effectiveness of divorce. I don't do marriage, or divorce, or children, and don't have any plans to in the foreseeable future, so I don't know what all one has to do to get married; for some reason I'm thinking that at least in some states the civil stuff is limited or unnecessary if the marriage is performed according to religious rites. Every marriage I've been much involved with, the officiant was a judge. I have been to church weddings, but I wasn't involved in the planning/setting up.

Like every single bit of sharia? I think sharia is quite broad and covers a lot of topics, not just familial relations. The thing slave posted said they wanted it for family stuff, not for crimes. It did not specify what family stuff. Hence my objection to his utter condemnation. There is not enough information.

Can we kill them all?
 

I think what you are advocating is pouring oil on that particular flame.

As for Americans being killed -- you ain't seen nothing yet. How many Americans did Hezbollah kill in Beirut? How much worse will it be if we were to try occupying the entire country?

You are going down the neo-con road here, where you believe that what we can accomplish is limited only by our "will", or our willingness to throw lives and money around. I disagree, and think that making Arabs and Israelis love each other is beyond our abilities (and will become more so if we invade and occupy).

George Allen
 

Don't be retarded.

What's interesting to me here, is that as everyone knows, and certainly you more than most, given our correspondence, you are close minded, sympathetic to facism, and racism, and a classist elitist greedy oppressor of the poor and minorities and really anyone disenfranchised in our society or the world. I on the other hand are progressive and open minded and rightously against everything I am so immorally for. And yet, despite these differences, when I relay a story, where Senator Allen used a word that has some common connotation, yet otoh, has gained some offensiveness in our modern day society, you respond essentially that anyone elses perceptions or sensibilities are meaningless to you, as long as your use is not directed to offend them.

And you are the asshole.

Can we kill them all?
 

That's possible. I think that, with the exception of Kim Jong Il, the Eastern governments are more pragmatic, though. And remember, more things than rockets go boom.

More demands in Britain
 

No one ever said that as far as I know. The point was their requests were absurd, and in no way helped the Muslim community in Britain.

I have never asked anyone to apologize. I have been saying it is in their interest to unequivocally denounce the terrorist acts. It would also be helpful if they said they will do whatever they can to help prevent another one without attaching any conditions to their assistance.