Getting Terms Right

[Nemesis]

The discussion about whether or not the Iraq war is a failure now or a failure in the future is irrelevant. The Iraq war failed before it ever started. It failed for exactly the same reasons as the Vietnam effort failed.

As people wrote of Vietnam and Iraq, "We are fighting to bring democracy to Iraq (Vietnam). In other words, the point of our fight is to permit the Iraqis to make their own decisions," and, "the Iraqi people and government could still screw this up."

Americans are fighting for Democracy, the right of the Iraqi people to vote themselves into whatever kind of government they want, including slavery. And I submit, that is immoral. There's no such thing as a right for people to vote themselves into a dictatorship, or vote themselves into slavery or vote themselves into any form of absolute or totalitarian government. There is no right to violate rights, even by public opinion poll. There is the power, but no right.

That is why the Founding Fathers of the United States damned Democracy as unfit for a free people. That is why the Founding Fathers of the United States went to the trouble of inventing a new form of government, "a form of government never before seen by man, a form of government never before even conceived of by man." That eliminates Democracy.

If any of you are thinking of posting in support of Democracy, please include an explanation of why you think a majority voting for something makes it moral or proper. For example, please explain exactly why you think it is proper that a majority, for example, of white people, can vote to have black people enslaved and sold at auction to the highest bidder. Please also explain by what moral principle you think it's right for a majority (Gentiles) to vote for death camps and for others (Jews) to be put into gas ovens and exterminated. Democracy properly defined means "Majority Rule," and "mob rule." That is the essential.

If a public vote does not make slavery of black people or extermination of Jews right, then voting for anything does not necessarily make that right either. If you claim voting for a particular form of government makes it right, then you're admitting openly your moral sanction of Adolf Hitler, who was elected to office and then made ruler by the Reichstag. You're openly admitting your moral sanction of the activities of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and in the activities of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and the activities of Hamas in Gaza. You are claiming their activities are legitimate, because they were voted into office. I disagree. That is why we are even losing in the
US.

That was one of the reasons the Founding Fathers of the United States invented, "a doctrine and system of government in which the governing power is limited by rules of enforceable law, and in which the concentration of power is prevented by system of various checks and balances, to protect the rights of the individual." The odds are that none of you know the concept that sentence defines.

As Emily Lau of the Frontier Party in Hong Kong said, "Under Democracy, your primary human right is the right to vote for your government officials." If your primary human right is the right to vote, then your right to Life (to live life as you choose), Liberty (the right to produce the material values to sustain your life), and pursuit of Happiness ( your right to enjoy the material
values you produced), is to be determined by the public vote.

That means there are no rights in Democracy, only permissions which can be altered or revoked at the whim of voters, or the whim of those who claim to represent the public vote, such as Hugo Chavez, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe and Hamas. If your permission to live is determined by public vote, you better join the biggest most powerful group to ensure that the vote does not victimize you. That is why Democracy is a form of collectivism. But, You can't win an ideological war on negatives. You have to advocate the positives and benefits of what you offer.

If you would look around you and check history, you would see that the civil strife in Iraq is characteristic of a normal, mature democracy. It is a battle for group power. The Iraqi constitution was designed for groups, not individuals. That is why the terrorists, including Hamas, are so thankful for the U.S. support of Democracy. It legitimizes the struggle for power. That's why the Founding Fathers of the United States damned Democracy as unfit for a free people.

If, as so many people say, the battle is primarily intellectual and ideological, then the primary focus should be on "the science of the study of the spread of ideas within a culture, their social acceptance, political recognition, legal enforcement, and the resulting social, political, economic and legal institutions, and their appropriateness to the human mode of existence, from a how-to standpoint." The second question is: How do you spread ideas that are appropriate for human life?. The first question is: What ideas are appropriate?

Democracy is irrefutably not appropriate for human life. It is always unstable and collapses into a physical battle for power, and loot, as the countries of South America have demonstrated for generations.

If you want to win the war against terrorists determined to enforce their religion on the world, you must start by defining your terms in essentials, and start in the United States by rediscovering the form of government that protects rights. Then spread that, among other ideas appropriate for
life.

Otherwise, the Islamists have already won. No matter the name given to the terrorists, the people will eventually vote for them, as in Gaza, because of their cultural background, and for lack of knowledge of a better system.

[Tom Odom]

Nemesis,

Without an introduction, this is merely a sermon and damn near a lecture.

Before posting such a rambling discourse, take a deep breath and go here to introduce yourself.

Tom

[LawVol]

Nemesis,

Without an introduction, this is merely a sermon and damn near a lecture.

Before posting such a rambling discourse, take a deep breath and go here to introduce yourself.

Tom

After the deep breath, perhaps a valium would be in order? BTW, nemesis, although this is an online forum, we do exercise a level of decorum. You wouldn't walk into someone's home and immediately begin a diatribe. Moreover, when attempting to sway opinion, it is typically not a good tactic to insult the intelligence of your audience.

The odds are that none of you know the concept that sentence defines

I would assume that not everyone here believes the US is a democracy. I, for one, understand its republican form. However, in popular vernacular, democracy and the republican form of government are typically one in the same. While this may be incorrect, it is nevertheless something which you should consider before launching into attack mode. Also, some frame of reference for the debate you are attempting to spark would be helpful. Maybe I missed it, but this seemed like a verbal pearl harbor to me.

Have a nice day.

[SWJED]

.. for providing me with a case study for the FAQ section "How to get off on the wrong foot with your very first post at the SWC."

You are going to have to add some context here - Who are you addressing this to (without the condescending insults), what exactly on the SWC are you addressing (issue, post, thread, member), why you are posting this here?

As Tom pointed out, you are also asked to introduce yourself on the appropiate thread.

Frankly, it looks like you did a drive by browse of the Council, jumped to some type of conclusion about the members and their beliefs and then cut and pasted from a Chalmers Johnson book into your first post.

Not a good start and a continuation will not be tolerated - 1st and last warning.

Dave

[selil]

I love the arrogance of demanding we constrain ourselves to the inadequate framework of ideology without considering the facts as purported are in error.

Like democracy versus democratic representative republic.

[Ken White]

the Constitution is being ignored. IF that's what's being said. I think I picked that up somewhere between Viet Nam and Hamas.

Or maybe it was after, I lost track. Emesis will do that, mess up your concentration, I mean...

I'm also still trying to figure out who with an ounce of sense ever dreamed of installing democracy -- really, political blather doesn't count -- in either Viet Nam or Iraq. I knew better than that both times and I'm dumber than a sack of Hockey Pucks. Naive, too -- I was raised in a convent, after all...

[slapout9]

Well you know what they...Some turds float to the top.....some turds sink to the bottom......but in the end they all get flushed

[RTK]

What an appropriate screen name.

[Shek]

Darn, I saw the thread title and thought I was going to be enlightened along the lines of the adoption of the new lexicon for the long war. Alas, while I may not have been enlightened, I have surely been entertained

[Nemesis]

Pardon my enthusiasm, but I have been doing this for my lifetime, including getting people to recogniaze that democracy is their enemy.

The form of the U.S. Government invented by the Founding Fathers is Constitutionalism: A doctrine and system of government in which the governing powers are limited by rules of enforcable law, and in which the concentration of powers are prevented by a system of various checks and balances.

After thousands of years of the same old collectivist, totalitarian government forms, the invention of a new system of government makes the Founding Fathers the greatest political philosophers in human history.

The idea that Democracy is the form of U.S. government originated in the 1920s and 1930s by Russian/communist, fellow travelers, left wing media and college professors, and left wing intellectuals. Unfortunately it was very successful. As Elssworth Toohey said, don't attack people's temple, raise a false one and they will destroy the real one.

Below is a list of some terms of use is fighting Islamists. The problem that I have read here is that the wrong theater is being targeted. The place to use
terms such as: Hirabah (unholy war, forbidden "war against society") and
mufsiduun (evildoers, sinners and corrupters), etc. is in the United States. It is here that terrorist supporting groups such as CAIR deny that Islam is at war with the rest of the world, and that Jihad refers to something spiritual.

With the proper terms, it is possible to criticize them for not explaining the "right" words to Americans, such as Irhab. That puts the apologists in the position of either disputing the label, or remaining silent, indicating agreement. If they dispute the label, then Jihadi is right and it is Islam that is at war with the West. If they agree, then it is a matter of getting the media and politicians to use those labels. Then, the terrorists around the world will no longer be able to point to the U.S. pols and media agreeing that they are holy warriors.

Ideas have consequences in action, regardless of the intent in using the terms. It is very important to use Constitutionalism and Constitutional Republic instead of Democracy and Republic as the last two are incorrect and do not embody the requirement of individual rights.

In a democracy, Muslims have some right to demand that their interests be considered and enforced in some aspects of Shiria. Under a system of Constitutionalism they have no group rights. Only Individual rights.

It appears that Muslims are very sensitive to the view of winning or losing. The present alleged Muslim view opposing suicide bombing might be connected to the appearance of the "surge" working. If so, any implied failure of the surge will inspire support for suicide bombing. When the US Navy shot down the passenger jet approaching the ship years ago, there were assertions that Muslims questioned whether or not they had lost the blessing of Allah. If so, they are psychologically weak.

**


Al-Taqiyyah is a Muslim doctrine which allows Muslims to do anything as long as it furthers the power of Islam.

mufsidoon: evildoers

Hirabah (unholy war, forbidden "war against society")


mufsiduun (evildoers, sinners and corrupters)

destined for Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire)

al Murtadd al Qaeda (the al Qaeda Apostasy) against Qur'anic Islam -- namely, for implying all Muslims have already joined a unholy war against America and the West.

irhab (eer-HAB) -- Arabic for terrorism, call them irhabis, irhabists and irhabiyoun

khawarij (outside the religion)

kuffr (infidels)

al-Shaitan al-Kabir (the Great Satan).

Umma (the Muslim World)

murtadd (apostasy)

Jahannam (Eternal Hellfire)

"Taqiyah," or self-protection, referring to: not telling the truth to the infidel to deceive

"Kitman," telling the infidel the truth, but not all the truth.

ijhtiad allow the verses of the Qur'an to be interpreted according to the "reasons for revelation" which may legitimately contradict the radical interpretation of those divine injunctions

Mujtahid -- a scholar who performs ijtihad

mu'tazila the school of Islamic philosophy that emphasizes rationality

Fard al-'ayn individual or personal duty, a duty that must be carried out by the individual without regard to the actions of the community

Ijtihad independent exegenis of law from direct reading of the sources the power to explain texts in the light of general evolution of thought and history

istihlal permitting that which Allah as forbidden -- a grave sin seen as tantamount to apostasy

Makruh reprehensible, one of the categories of deeds in Islam

Mu' amallah bi'mithl responding in kind, retaliation

mufsidun corruptors, people who cause corruption on earth

qisas retaliation, an eye for an eye

sulh peace reconciliation, momentarily, until they are stronger

Tahrif corruption of th equr'anic text or any sacred text

Naskh the Islamic doctrine of abrogation -- Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims

Dar el Salam the abode of Islam

Dar el Harb the abode of war

dhimmitude the second class citizenship of non-Muslims under Muslim rule

jizya the Muslim poll tax that non-Muslims must pay under Muslim rule, the payment of tribute (U.S. foreign aid)

Takfir apostasy by interpreting the Qur'an differently than war against all non-believers until the world is conquered

Salafis the original followers of Muhammad Islam was successful and virtuous only by expanding, by being absolute, fanatical and fundamental in spreading Islam by war.

Tahrir liberate all Muslim lands from Non-Muslims (all lands that were ever ruled by Muslims)

Tawheed dismantle all borders of independent Muslim states and make one big state

Khilafa reestablish the caliphate and continue the war of world conquest

Vilayet e fakih The mandate of the wise, a means of replacing the caliphate with a council of scholars who could issue fatwas mandating war From Quum

Fatwas legal rulings directing what actions Muslims must or must not take. The attacks on the West are all based on fatwas issued to justify and order the attacks -- from Quum, Cairo and Mecca

Sharia Muslim religious law that covers every detail of life, what position one should go to sleep in, how one should turn in sleep, to enter the toilet room with the left foot and exit with the right, etc.

pedophilia -- Mohammad married Aisa when she was six years old, and took her from her father's house to his bed when she was nine years old.

[Stan]

Well, that's much better than the last (or was that the first)

Slapout, can I borrow that one to go with Tom's ?

[Steve Blair]

But I don't see much in the way of valuable content here. Try introducing yourself as Tom suggested. Go here to do that.

Rehashing a garbled political science lecture isn't of real value to anyone. It just comes off as pedantic babble with just enough polysyllabic constructions to fool the unwary and frustrate the intelligent. Perhaps if you framed your arguments and/or positions using recognized (or recognizable) points of reference they'd meet with a better reception.

And last time I checked, pedophilia wasn't a uniquely Islamic term. If you want your list to be in any way credible, you might try leaving that one out next time.

[Tom Odom]

Originally posted by Nemesis: Pardon my enthusiasm, but I have been doing this for my lifetime, including getting people to recogniaze that democracy is their enemy.

That may be true but all you have done here is piss people off. There is more experience on this discussion board in the Middle East and elsewhere than you seem capable of grasping. I don't normally do this in public but I will echo the warning you already got and just suggest you move on.

Tom

[SWJED]

Your second post was worse than the first.

[LawVol]

SWJED giveth life and SWJED taketh away life (taps playing in the background...)

I usually miss the wackos because SWJED is so swift with the ax. That was fun, in a confusing sort of way.

[selil]

How much you want to bet the IP address belongs to a University somewhere?

[RTK]

Pardon my enthusiasm, but I have been doing this for my lifetime, including getting people to recogniaze that democracy is their enemy.

Perhaps you have been doing this for a lifetime. Evidently reading other people's posts is something new to you. Go listen to a Rage Against the Machine album.

pedophilia -- Mohammad married Aisa when she was six years old, and took her from her father's house to his bed when she was nine years old.

I almost understood what was going on with the terms till we got to this last one. The single fiber of credibility you had remaining went out the window with your "To Catch a Predator" reference.

Don't bother returning. You don't get it.

[MattC86]

cut and pasted from a Chalmers Johnson book into your first post.

Dave

Hey, I always kinda enjoyed the Professor's rambling. Actually, in truth, Autopsy on People's War was a solid work.

I did particularly enjoy the pedophilia reference. Did we really need that definition?

How much you want to bet the IP address belongs to a University somewhere?

Hey, now, I know you meant professors not students, but we're not all raving lunatics!

Matt