I sure am glad I have all these wingers to tell me what’s going on.

(Can I just say how tired I am of that, now I’m hearing it come out of Congress? As far as I’m concerned, fighting terrorism is a tiny piece of the real Grand, Multigenerational Struggle–getting the world fed, clothed, housed, and listened-to, and standing in the way of those who’d do others harm on all fronts. Put food in everyone’s mouths, and maybe they wouldn’t need guns in their hands.)

Anyway, you could be right. But that’s not the way I read him.

The mullahs who lead military attacks are not civilians, just as Christian religious leaders who join the marines are not civilians. But that does not mean that all mullahs aren’t civilians.

So, Reynolds is only an extremist if he meant civilian mullahs, right? Is there any reason to believe that is what he meant? I’ll admit, I’m generally inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but what sense does what he wrote make if it’s read as an any-handy-mullah extermination project? He specified scientists working on the bomb, not just any Iranian scientist. Do you really think he wants the CIA going mosque to mosque killing anything that moves?

I just wanted further clarification.

You’re going to ban me for my alleged misreading of your remarks, while at the same time, calling me names and questioning my intelligence?

Look, you still haven’t addressed the jist of my point:

Islam blurs the lines between religous, social, and political leaders… with this FACT, mullahs take on many roles within a community including: religous leader and warlord.

Labeling someone a “civilian” just because they mask their actions in the robes of divinity, doesn’t make their actions any less war-like. Sadr is a great exampleof this line being virtually non-existent. This PC bullshit is the same crap the prevents U.S. troops from firing on attackers holed up in Mosques and schools. We are having our own tolerance and cultural respect shoved down our throats.

“The mullahs who lead military attacks are not civilians, just as Christian religious leaders who join the marines are not civilians. But that does not mean that all mullahs aren’t civilians. “

I don’t recall anyone advocating killing all mullahs. I have specifically singled out those who act as warlords or orchestrate attacks. Are you intentionally misreading me? You say “the mullahs who lead military attacks are not civilians,” but somehow simultaneously hold that it is morally wrong to kill mullahs and people like Instapundit are evil for suggesting it.

WTF?

So with a label of “mullah” it is now morally wrong to kill someone who orchestrates attacks against civilians?

That, or it is ok to kill mullahs, if they orchestrate attacks against civilians, as Instapundit suggests.

“I am against theocratic fascism. I think Iran is a godbag theocracy. I think their laws and their leadership are abhorrent. I just don’t think that the solution is to go in and start assassinating scientists and religious leaders.”

I agree.

But, i’m not jumping into moral hysterics over suggestions I don’t find morally preferrable.

I’m not generating traffic by pimping my moral high-horse.

“I think we invaded Iraq preemptively when they were no threat to us, with the knowledge that thousands of civilians would be killed. Is it US policy to purposely kill civilians? No. Would I bet my life that there are US soldiers who have purposely killed civilians? Yeah. Most soldiers? Many soldiers? No. But some. And regardless of intent, those people who we write off as “collateral damage” are still pretty damn dead. And we knew that a whole lot of them would die if we invaded. That’s war. Yet we invaded anyway, for no good reason, and now we’ve killed off a substantial percentage of their population and pissed off an entire region, and now we’re setting our sights on a more powerful Islamic nation.”

I understand your position, and in fact, agree with it. What it leaves out is motives and context. You speak of the U.S. action criminally, yet you fail to point out a malicious intent… something that never existed.

That is why I always take exception to vagure equivalencies such as:

Because it’s only Sadr who’s been slaughtering Iraqi civilians, right? Not us…

This is a very cold-hearted and damaging statement. It fails to even acknowledge the reasons most Americans begrudgingly went to war. Yes, Bush and his cronies had ulterior motives for invading Iraq, but many good senators and Americans went along with it on good principle. The motives of Americans and the motives of people like Sadr shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same breath. While it’s a tragedy many Iraqis have died, there is a difference in the way and reasons for each death. Those need to be recognized, not used as political weapons.

Thanks for clearing that up, without the clarification, the statement sounded really cold.

“Well, then you’re dumber than I thought you were, and if you continue to intentionally misread what I write, I’m going to ban you.”

I’m sorry if you take my objections as intentionally irritating or disingenous, that wasn’t my intention. I read this site because I like opinionated people. If you choose to ban me because I present a disagreement, that’s your right, and to be honest, it’s not really a suprise.

I never called you names or questioned your intelligence, I simply sought clarification on your intentions, which you provided.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Speaking as a scientist, I happen to disagree with you. I think the idea of screwing with scientists is wonderful. As long as the people planning to screw said scientists are teh hawt ;)

So before she even took the job, she would have ‘sanitized’ her blog.

Amanda has a popular blog.
Supporters and enemies alike save, quote, and screenshoot blog posts.
Someone would notice the deletion, and get excited.
That is a basic reality of popularity on the internet – there is no private or reliable deletion. None.
People who think after the fact revision of websites can ‘sanitize’ their image have been getting egg on their faces since at least 1994. Granted, it didn’t get much past the regular internet users until around 2001 – but that’s still some years ago.
I must say it troubles me that otherwise intelligent people continue to misunderstand relatively straightforward side-effects of technology.

Yes, Bush=Sadr

Not what I said, genius. I said that Bush also has a moral philosophy which dictates that his religion is the best. Doesn’t mean that Bush = Sadr. Are you really this dumb, or are you being purposely irritating?

Also, you still label mullahs “civilians” when I named two regions: Afghanistan and Northern Africa, where mullahs clearly are not civilians and actively orchestrate military attacks, set social policy, and coordinate local jurisprudence.

The mullahs who lead military attacks are not civilians, just as Christian religious leaders who join the marines are not civilians. But that does not mean that all mullahs aren’t civilians.

As for coordinating local jurisprudence, if you’re referring to Islamic judges, then yes, they’re still civilians, unless you’d like to make the argument that legal scholars give up their civilian status.

You speak as though you know the “major tenets” of Islam yet you try and brush the “major tenet” of religous subjugation under the rug as if it were an idea of some far-off sect rather than a central belief itself.

Is the idea of religious subjugation only an Islamic concept? Is it not present in Christianity?

However, considering taking this position would put you in the same camp with those Christians you so love railing against, it’s not hard to see why you, and many on the left, are so unwilling to join in the battle against theocratic fascism.

I am against theocratic fascism. I think Iran is a godbag theocracy. I think their laws and their leadership are abhorrent. I just don’t think that the solution is to go in and start assassinating scientists and religious leaders.

Do you really refuse to differentiate between civilians and insurgents when we talk about who the U.S. is slaughtering?

Do you really posit that the U.S. is intentionally slaughtering civilians? Or do you mean civilians are being slaughtered inadvertanly through collateral damage?

I think we invaded Iraq preemptively when they were no threat to us, with the knowledge that thousands of civilians would be killed. Is it US policy to purposely kill civilians? No. Would I bet my life that there are US soldiers who have purposely killed civilians? Yeah. Most soldiers? Many soldiers? No. But some. And regardless of intent, those people who we write off as “collateral damage” are still pretty damn dead. And we knew that a whole lot of them would die if we invaded. That’s war. Yet we invaded anyway, for no good reason, and now we’ve killed off a substantial percentage of their population and pissed off an entire region, and now we’re setting our sights on a more powerful Islamic nation.

50,000 Iraqi civilians have died. We’ve killed a lot of them. Those who were killed by insurgents probably wouldn’t have been killed if we hadn’t invaded — remember, those insurgents are a response to our presence, not a static factor.

With that equivalency, I am forced to assume you mean U.S. troops are intentionally slaughtering civilians as the JAM do.

Pretty despicable allegation to cast upon the military as a whole.

Well, then you’re dumber than I thought you were, and if you continue to intentionally misread what I write, I’m going to ban you.