tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post5350657659885380577..comments2020-10-03T06:18:18.780-07:00Comments on Progressive Positive: Extremists: get out of my partyLanceMillerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12967321155433918187noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-65649687221778744672008-05-19T12:20:00.000-07:002008-05-19T12:20:00.000-07:00This is a reply to Ryan's "Is an extremist someone...This is a reply to Ryan's "Is an extremist someone who chooses an opinion and sticks to it?"<BR/><BR/>No, an extremist is someone who is for X, for everyone, and for all time. Examples: <BR/><BR/>always for against communism<BR/>always against communism<BR/>always against war<BR/>always for war<BR/>always for spread of Christianity<BR/>always for black people in every multiracial scenario.<BR/><BR/>A complex hybridized world is the most resilient. <BR/>The no war, no police crowd are not ready for large scale social design.LanceMillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12967321155433918187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-81180294898677501002008-05-19T10:53:00.000-07:002008-05-19T10:53:00.000-07:00so an extremist is someone who choosing an opinion...so an extremist is someone who choosing an opinion and sticks to it. George W for example. but Obama is willing to use different methods including diplomacy and waging war. <BR/><BR/>i've always been curious about how one wins a war against terror. its like winning a war against apathy. a kind of amorphous outcome...without specific goals that define an end. there will always be terror, just like there will always be apathy in some form. <BR/><BR/>of course in the war against terror, the use of fear is a key component. it is perpetual and unending. will obama let the use of a war against an emotional state continue?Ryan Hawkeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03553031705067486676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5931227998239921482.post-69555472133153138252008-05-19T10:18:00.000-07:002008-05-19T10:18:00.000-07:00"If we have actionable intelligence about high-val..."If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will"<BR/><BR/>That sounds extremely naive to me. Al Qaeda is just one of many violent extremist islamist groups in Pakistan. If the US intervenes in Pakistan in a way that undermines the authority of our allies there, it threatens human life and global security in a way that the odd Al Qaeda provocation cannot. The 5 million casualties of the recent <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War" REL="nofollow">African World War</A> should remind us that the stability of nations and economic systems is more important than the occasional toppling skyscraper.<BR/><BR/>Of course that was a year ago. I much prefer the better researched and politically sensible Obama in the David Brooks article.<BR/><BR/>Q: What is this "appeasement" crap? Isn't that just the fallacy of reductio ad Hilterum? (i.e. Neville Chamberlain's policy regarding Nazi Germany.)<BR/><BR/>Somehow I doubt the most naive right-winger thinks anyone is trying to appease <I>terrorists</I> with clean water and voting. Rather they are more worried about not appeasing their other enemy: poor and oppressed non-terrorists.<BR/><BR/>The methodological extremists (against-all-violence and against-all-diplomacy) must deliberately suppress thoughts that support nuanced or balanced tactics, or they actually want to create a system which undermines global security to bring about their secular or theological apocalypse. <BR/><BR/>There's an old joke in object-oriented programming methodology circles:<BR/><BR/>Q: What is the difference between a terrorist and a methodologist?<BR/><BR/>A: You can negotiate with a terrorist!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03072541194513236270noreply@blogger.com