Why Cathlolics should read, THEN write:

Versus Mormons who cursory glance, drink and text.

What's wrong with you? I realize you are a prolific reader, I'll grant you that, but I am beginning to suspect that this has less to do with your proficiency in literacy and more to do with skipping every third word while making your way to the end of my posts. I've been off the site for nearly a week, so given I have a little time on my hands at this moment, I will read each in chronological order, and respond in this post, accordingly.

You wrote as of 13 January,

"Your post mentioned 9-11 (generally), but surely you don't think that is the beginning of the Islamic animosity towards the USA, do you? The WTC bombings, the Marine barracks attack in Beirut, the Iranian hostage crisis... my modern list doesn't even begin until the late 70's. I can still make "devil's advocate" statements linking the Barbary Wars (our nation's first foreign wars) with Islamic tyranny and terror targeted at American interests, so MY list of anti-American focus among Muslim states and societies goes back to 1784."

Now Titus, if you reread, strike that, read my post "Yes, a good question", you will plainly see that the entire thing was geared towards linking modern Islamo-fascist (a term I am genuinely comfortable with), to hatred multi millinea old. Furthermore, I went out of my way when mentioning 9/11 to specifically state that our clash with Islam did NOT, I repeat NOT, begin with 9/11. To the former, I was making a more existential argument that in a sense this strain of Islam (you would just refer to it as "Islam" I see now) has been at war with what the USA stands for - liberty represented in the choice not to submit to Allah - for centuries predating 1784 by 2,300 years; and that the USA is the focus of current hostility because we unapologetically represent the greatest exercises of that liberty in the world today - and damn right that we do.

Had you read my post rather then peruse through looking for the type of answer you wanted, versus the type I gave, you would have known this. The difference between you and I is when I "peruse" a post and get a hair over a word or phrase, I restrict any less then sober responses to a cell phone text, rather then publicly demonstrate my lack of contemplation her, in our forum ... like some people.

Furthermore ...

"So, does anyone have specific examples from history to support or negate my premise?"

The "premise" you write about here is that Islamic extremist hate not just the US, but the West in general. My entire point in the post referenced above was that "Islamic extremists" have long rejected the very existence of individual liberty that the West has so embraced, and that the US was the brightest example of the best of what the West has to offer in terms of that liberty (and a cadre of other things, but I'll digress), thus we are the focal point, or the spear head of that Islamic aggression. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, and no I didn't list a specific example outside of a vague reference to 7th century Islam, but Titus, how could you NOT see the argument I was making was in lockstep with this very "premise" of yours?

Now let me pause for a moment here. A moment ago I flanked the words ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS with quotation marks. Now as I understood it you were uncomfortable with the term Islamo-fascists because it didn't go far enough. Far enough, that is, in properly identifying the aggressive, dominating nature of the basic character of Islam in general. Now you've moved on to use "Islamic extremists" or some variation thereof. I'm not being sarcastic here at all, but which is it? Is Islam itself inherently aggressive? Or have, as some have suggested, a small percentage of extremists perverted "the religion of peace" to their own political (via terrorism) ends? Seriously? I distinctly remember that we, as a group, opted for the term ISLAMO-FASCISM precisely because it was the most accurate description of whom we face in this 21st century war. A hyper conservative, totalitarian, violent, oppressive ideology (or regime in the case of Iran) - that sounds fascistic to me. On the one hand it seems as if you are making an effort to separate out "extremist Islam", while on the other chastising me (indirectly) for attempting to separate out any variation on the word Islam, given that every Muslim from Bin Laden to Westernized moderates all read from the same Koran, or in other words to BE a Muslim is to embrace violent aggression in one form or the other.

Look if that's your point, that Islam is domineering by nature, and inherent in it is the need to spread by either the mouth or the sword, then fine. I guess I'm just a little surprised to read that point of view being espoused by you - the guy that was quick to point out Timothy McVeigh in the light of post 9/11 "Arab" profiling (which drove me sufficiently insane). And it's not a completely unsupportable position (on Islam that is). You did rather nicely picking apart factual historical examples of this need to dominate in even the most "benign" ancient Muslim kingdoms, all the way up to modern Palestine's treatment of domestic Christians. Of course politically can this be uttered allowed? No. Should it? Probably, if for no other reason then to test its merit in an open discussion. I suggest you pick up the book "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. Don't "look out for it" or give me any other such vague response, just go lay out the 12 bucks for the paper back edition and read it. His thesis is that Islam is domineering by nature, and gives oogles of raw data, historical and modern examples, etc of its (conscience or otherwise) desire to establish a "Eurabia." It's not some right wing bomb throwing fire and brimstone about "foreigners." Its clever, funny, chilling in its statistics, and with the type of subtle flair only a US patriated Englishman can offer. Plus, it's been banned in Canada - has there ever been a better reason to buy a book?


*****
14 January

Underground command post huh? Well, I know who that is, lets call him "Mark." You realize that while he is a talented constitutional attorney, that clerked with some famous Supreme Court justices (if I remember right), his shtick is precisely the "bomb throwing" brand which I mentioned above. I can't attest to FDR's mental health either, but my best guess at what he was referencing was the well known fact that Roosevelt's physical health was rapidly deteriorating at the time of Yalta. That they had to shorten meetings, Churchill inquired about his health throughout, and Stalin noted on his frail, pale appearance. I have read and actually heard many a historian espouse the theory that FDR was in no physical condition to negotiate treaties of such magnitude and complication. Not that he had mental deficiencies but that his physical ailments were such a drain that he couldn't expand energy on the type of intellectual critic's eye needed to review what Stalin wanted. You see the difference? He was just too worn, sick and tired to conduct himself in a manner that would have placed more limits on the Soviet Empire, or so the argument goes. Now unless we find some journal of FDR's that confirms this, it is but a theory. But a reasonable theory none the less, for his deteriorating physical health is a matter of record. As is your accurate description of where and what the Soviet Red Army controlled by the time FDR sat down at the first table at Yalta. The point of the just mentioned "theory" was that FDR wasn't up to even contesting those areas verbally during Yalta, and that perhaps "something" more could have been done were a spry young CIC present. But I must agree, you could of put FDR's mind in Arnold Swarchenegger's body, and the task of protecting Eastern Europe from Stalin, by anything short of WW III, would have been improbable at best, and more likely, impossible.

****

15 January.

On the Larry Elder article for Jewish World Daily ...

First, I'll note that even though defending the Iraq invasion from 2003 - 2007 fell almost SOLELY on my shoulders, and even though Elder's point that "not acting" would have been the height of irresponsibility on behalf of the CIC in a post 9/11 world, was one of the two pillars of my defense of the invasion low these many years, Titus STILL finds one of the few articles he wrote which contain a quasi defense of the invasion. Now look, I am willing to embrace just how "conservative" you have turned in your writings (regardless of where you claim to have been ideologically "all along" both the content and subjects of your posts have turned noticeably "right"), but lets be clear about the record - you, Tutus, for years, OPPOSED Bush's decision to invade. You did. Not pulling out, strategy, forget all that for a second, I'm not discussing that. You flat out OPPOSED Bush's decision to invade in March of 2003. Yet here you are, citing an article that flatly defends the decision to invade as not only the a former president of the United States. THEN, and here is the real salt in the wound, you take that defense, and pat us ALL on the back as if you'd had that line of reasoning as your own all along. Rather then, more appropriately, CREDITING ME, F. RYAN, for consistently employing the argument that "it was the only responsible move given the Intel he had" (along with injecting democracy as a vaccine against Islamo-Fascism) as the 2 pillars of MY, not TITUS'S, defense of the Iraq invasion, and as an answer to finding no WMD's to speak of post invasion. I know you support "finishing the job", etc, etc, and always have, but from my back porch, to Jambo's driveway, to your OS fire pit, to this forum, to NEPA you have consistently, and unapolegetically OPPOSED Bush's decision to invade ... yet here you are, citing Larry Elder's piece which was a succinct defense of that decision, and now claim it as part of your own, "all along." Well, well, well ... your engagement in near endless self aggrandizement, expertly honed hubris, and professional sophistry truly knows no bounds. I'm beginning to think Napoleon had a Titus complex.

****
Oh, and one more thing: 16 January.

Teetotalism (or T-total) is the practice and promotion of complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages. A person who practices (and possibly advocates) teetotalism is called a teetotaler or teetotaller (plural teetotalers or teetotallers).

Ok, I admit, I deserved that one ... hehe.