Today is the 60th anniversary of the formal fall of the Japanese Empire to the Allies. The event reminds me of a novel I read as a child.

The novel was about a Japanese-American living in a rural area outside the 'exclusion zone'--the only Japanese kid in town. After the start of the war, the other kids began to spy on him out of suspicion that maybe he was an agent of the enemy. But how did the Japanese family react to the hostility of their fellow Americans? By putting up more American flags than any one else.

The father, born in Japan but raised in America, was too old for the draft. His business collapsed as the townspeople stopped buying his products. What was his reaction? He volunteered and was eventually killed in the European theater.

That story has stuck with me through the years. I know it was just a story, but it is one based in the realities of America during WWII. Americans did mistreat Japanese-Americans, and the response of Japanese-Americans was to prove their loyalty to the nation by volunteering to fight for it.

A few facts come to mind:

In January of 1942 Japanese Americans serving in the military were segregated out of their units. On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed the Executive Order 9066 which led to the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans. How did Japanese-Americans react? Four days later the all-Nisei Varsity Victory Volunteers (Triple V) is formed in Hawaii as part of the 34th Combat Engineers Regiment. The unit would later be disbanded so that its members could become part of the 442nd Regimental Combat Team.

By June of 1942--at a time when the U.S. was forcibly removing Japanese-Americans from the West Coast--1432 members of the Hawai'i Provisional Infantry Battalion are moved from Honolulu to San Francisco and activated as the segregated 100th Infantry Battalion.

3,600 Japanese-Americans volunteered for service in the U.S. military from their internment camp prisons. 22,000 others volunteered from areas outside the exclusion zone. Between the two units there were 18,000 individual decorations, including one wartime Medal of Honor, 53 Distinguished Service Crosses, 9,486 Purple Hearts and seven Presidential Unit Citations. 21 of these Distinguished Service Crosses were upgraded to Medals of Honor in 2000 and 11 more Distinguished Service Crosses were awarded posthumously.

Were Japanese-Americans mistreated in WWII? Yes. And while some in the Japanese community reacted to this mistreatment by renouncing their U.S. citizenship, the vast majority of Americans of Japanese decent set out on a course to prove that they were loyal. The bravery of the more than 25,000 young men on the field of battle dispelled the nation's misgivings.

Two days ago we brought you a story of Lodi Muslims' reaction to the deportation of several from their community that had expressed sympathies to al Qaeda in the past. Rather than rallying to remove this anti-American element from their midsts, their reaction was to blame a government mole. Today, Jay Tea at Wizbang noted that:

The greatest enemies the United States faces right now are Muslim extremists. This puts American Muslims (of the non-extremist bent) in a conflict -- whose side will have their sympathies? Their fellow countrymen, or those who are dishonoring and besmirching their faith?

And every time another American Muslim chooses the latter, the more they lose that presumption of patriotism. And that is not any kind of penalty or discrimination, but a simple consequence of their choice.

But at every turn alleged misjustices are not met with renewed commitment to our country and its values by leaders in the Islamic community, rather it is met with scorn, contempt, and fingerpointing. Muslim leaders condemn U.S. military actions as part of a greater war against Islam. Instead of uniquivocally condemning acts of terrorism, they condemn all sides that use violence. Instead of criticizing our enemies in Iraq, they criticizes our own troops. They vocalized their worries about how prisoners are treated in Guantanamo Bay more than about how those prisoners plot to kill their fellow-citizens.

And while the U.S. military scrambles to find competent Arabic and Pashtun translators and are forced to hire locals with unknown loyalties, Muslim-Americans with these language skills do little to alleviate our nation's need by volunteering in great numbers.

I do not wish to succomb to prejudice and make the presumption that Muslim-Americans are not loyal to this country. As of this writing, I presume that there is a silent majority of Muslims in this country who are uniquivocally pro-American. But if they are out there, their silence is doing nothing to alleviate these fears. The occasional small protest against terrorism in general does nothing to signal that Muslim Americans are particularly worried about terrorism against our country any more than they are worried about terrorism against another coutnry. Groups such as Muslims Against Terrorism, from what I have seen, have little support.

At some point an irrational prejudice turns into a rational one. When meeting a Southerner, for instance, during the Civil War it would have been perfectly rational to make the presumption that they were rooting for the South to win. In fact, it would be an irrational prejudice to assume anything other than that. Assuming loyalty is a form of prejudice in itself.

If Muslim-Americans wish to receive the benefit of the doubt than they must begin to do much more than they are doing today. They may argue, rightfully, that requiring them to do more than what is expected of other Americans adds a higher duty of citizenship to them and is a form or unequal treatment.

They are right. It is a form of unequal treatment. But so what? Muslims are in a unique position to be our first line of defense against terrorism. They are the vanguard of our defense. Terrorists do not congregate in the Polish communities of Chicago, do not use Orthodox churches as places to meet up with other extremists, and do not call upon the help of a relative or mutual friend from Mongolia. Muslim-Americans have been given the gift of being able to aid our country in ways that others cannot. They can translate for us. They can infiltrate our enemies more easily than the rest of us. They can watch in ways nearly impossible for the rest of us.

With greater gifts come greater responsibilities.

The time is now to step up to the plate of citizenship and root out terrorist supporters among the various Muslim communities in the U.S. Those that turn in potential terrorists should be celebrated as patriots and heroes. Muslim youth with language skills ought to be encouraged by community leaders to join the FBI, CIA, and U.S. military. If they aren't, then Muslim-Americans reveal where their loyalties are. And the next time an act of terrorism takes place on our soil, the collective eye of the nation will be turned on our own citizens for failing to act when given the opportunity to do so. Then, what was once an irrational act of prejudice becomes a rational act of prejudice.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:25 AM | Comments (55) | Add Comment
Post contains 1223 words, total size 8 kb.

1 Well spoken. On the global scale, it would be wise for the Muslims to accept that Jews and Christians are supposed to be allies rather than enemies. I am not sure how that message has been misconstrued so badly, but clearly it has.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 30, 2005 10:47 AM (jPCiN)

2 Nice post, Doctor... Sorry for this OT, but it seems pro-Government/pro-Jihadi Sunni tribes are at each other's throats in Western Iraq now... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/30/AR2005083000735.html http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9126948/

Posted by: Ariya at August 30, 2005 11:37 AM (noCGr)

3 If the Islamic community did come forward to serve the country, I’m sure there would be legitimate concerns in the ranks of the armed services about serving side by side with them. I doubt you could find a single documented case of a Nisei serving in the US army rolling a grenade into the tent of his comrades. At the start of the war, an Islamic American serviceman killed and wounded several men in his unit with a grenade. I doubt if any Nisei troops used as translators in the Pacific deserted to the Japanese. An Islamic Marine did desert his unit after coming up with a bizarre story of kidnapping early on in the conflict. These are just a couple of isolated cases, but they do not paint a picture of an intensely loyal group of men coming out of the Muslim community to support their country. I don’t see the Muslim community stepping up to support America. I have no illusions about the loyalties of these people. In my opinion, they are for the most part passively anti American. To expect more from these “citizens” just seems very unrealistic.

Posted by: Brad at August 30, 2005 11:58 AM (3OPZt)

4 Right. So when are you lot joining up with various Christian Identity and KKK type outfits? You are in a unique position to be the first line of defense against domestic terrorism. If one of you had gotten close to Timothy McVeigh for instance you could have flipped his ass to the ATF before OK city. See youÂ’re white, American, Christian just like Tim, and sure enough there is another McVeigh out there somewhere. So chop chop, get on it or the next time an act of terrorism takes place on your soil, the collective eye of the nation will be turned on our own citizens for failing to act when given the opportunity to do so.

Posted by: salvage at August 30, 2005 12:38 PM (xWitf)

5 Brad, you're right on the first count but the allegations against Cpl. Wassef Ali Hassoun we're never proven. In fact, the Marines simply accused him of being AWOL not of treason or anything like it. So, let's not jump to conclusions there.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 12:41 PM (JQjhA)

6 Salvage You are as always, a clueless git. I'd try to point out why, using your own words, but have learned over the years how futile this effort is. Why not try taking a more objective look at what is being said? I realize it won't fit into your race/group/identity type of politics but it really will help you in the long run. As always, thanks for listening, er reading.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 30, 2005 12:46 PM (jPCiN)

7 Salvage, Er, the last time I looked there is no shortage of rednecks in the military, CIA, and FBI. There is a huge shortage of translators and Muslims who could be used in the War on Terror. Also, your ignorance is blinding if you do not understand the ways in which mainstream Muslim organizations apologize for terrorism. Crazies are one thing, but apologizing for them is another. Further, when you are in a shooting war to support the enemy--even with words--is an act of treason.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 12:48 PM (JQjhA)

8 So that'd be a no, White Christian Americans (one of whom held the terror strike record in the U.S. till 9-11) do not have the same responsibility as Dusky Muslim Americans to infiltrate and expose their radical elements?

Posted by: salvage at August 30, 2005 12:49 PM (xWitf)

9 Of course they do.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 12:53 PM (JQjhA)

10 Salvage, I am a white, conservative Christian male. I condemn without any reservation the acts of mass murder by Timothy McVey. I find no justification of any kind for his actions. I would not hesitate for a second to turn in anyone like him if I had prior information or suspicion that a terroristÂ’s crime was being planned. Tell me, where this attitude in the Muslim community? Rusty, I had not kept up on Ali Hassoun's case. Anyway, AWOL in a combat unit during wartime is still pretty serious.

Posted by: Brad at August 30, 2005 12:59 PM (3OPZt)

11 Salvage thinks its 1969 and the race hating groups are not infiltrated completely by the FBI already. Put down the bong salvage, understand that we killed that demon. Now we are working on a new one, based on a group of folks using violence to push their religion on the world. Care to climb aboard and help the fight?

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 30, 2005 12:59 PM (jPCiN)

12 > Er, the last time I looked there is no shortage of rednecks in the military, CIA, and FBI. And they could always use more no? There is a huge shortage of translators and Muslims who could be used in the War on Terror. Yeah funny thing about that: SAN FRANCISCO -- Nine United States Army linguists, including six trained to speak Arabic, have been dismissed from the military because they are gay. Not funny ha ha though. Kind of sad and ignorant (No! They canÂ’t translate they may have touched man flesh! They will get the AIDS all over the intel!) >Also, your ignorance is blinding if you do not understand the ways in which mainstream Muslim organizations apologize for terrorism. Crazies are one thing, but apologizing for them is another. I canÂ’t really comment on this until you give me an example please. >Further, when you are in a shooting war to support the enemy--even with words--is an act of treason. Imagine a world where Jane Fonda didnÂ’t go to Vietnam and didnÂ’t cavort with a Vietcong AA crew and generally behave like a retarded monkey who was used in a lobotomy experiment. She stayed home and made Barabarella 2 or something. Do you honestly think that Vietnam would have ended any other way without that grotesque bit of betrayal? So no, words are not in themselves an act of treason unless theyÂ’re actually lead to actual damage against the country. If Jane had spent her time in Nam showing Ho Chi Min maps of U.S. troop movements that would be treason. SheÂ’s an idiot and a cow, not a traitor. Habib going on about what a great guy bin Laden is, while vile and reprehensible, is not treason, itÂ’s moronic which is a protected right Which is a good thing because weÂ’d all be in jail otherwise. . Habib not rushing off to join the CIA is also not treason, thatÂ’s called freedom.

Posted by: salvage at August 30, 2005 01:16 PM (xWitf)

13 Yes, I think Jane Fonda is a traitor. We lost in Vietnam because after the Treaty of Paris we let our South Vietnamese allies down by not supplying them arms or money. Her words, and the words of those like her, led to a defeatist attitude even though the North had admitted defeated. Words in the context of war are far different than words in the context of peace. During WWII there was an office of censorship. Yes, real censorship. Wars are won and lost based on what people say.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 01:21 PM (JQjhA)

14 Salvage, you are so ignorant. We're not asking them to join the jihad groups and put themselves in danger to get information. We're simply asking that if they have information to come forward with it. They are in a unique position, as Rusty stated, to be privy to much information on those who intend to do us harm. We are asking them to do more than say "I condemn the terror acts, BUT..." Perhaps you're also ignorant of the surveys taken in the UK after the bombings there that only 73% of the muslim community said if they knew of a plot, they would report it. And that's only if they absolutely knew of it. Only 14% said they would speak up if knew of something suspicious. What part of that don't you understand? Does that answer your stupid little question and thinly veiled accusations? I'm not convinced it's any different here. And Tim McVeigh was NOT a christian. You're not the first to allege that so I'm not surprised that you've taken a sip off someone else's kool-aid cup to be spouting that one.

Posted by: Oyster at August 30, 2005 01:39 PM (fl6E1)

15 Wow Rusty! That was terrific!

Posted by: tyler at August 30, 2005 01:58 PM (Y9Lwb)

16 Let's not forget that what motivated McVeigh was the Clinton appointee Janet Reno setting up the whole Mt. Vernon deal with the press so she could prove how tough a woman Attorney General could be. Vernon could have been picked up by the Sheriff at the Grocery at any time. Two auto weapons kits were not worth those children's lives. We could have built a fence and waited them out but no. Got to be tough, show the government is boss right? Yep McVeigh was wrong but at least he stood up and said, " yep I did it" and went to his death like a man. Ok Janet you're tough alright. They planned to show the ATF dragging the the cult out on the evening news. "Cult Busted" instead they got "Babies Barbecued". Not to take away from the Oklahoma bombing but it seems to me we always forget all those "others" and the root cause of the Oklahoma bombing. Tim did not just wake up one morning and bomb the FBI because it seemed like a fun idea and he was bored. Hey any unmarked horse trailer dumping out armed men. Yelling not = serving a warrant. The whole deal is a mess and Tim didn't start it but he sure as hell finished it. No fire in Waco or Whacko no Oklahoma bombing. Yes Vernon was a freak but those kids were just that kids. Blame Tim? sure he was guilty and admitted as much. But don't let Janet and Bill off the hook either. I'll never forget the compound burning and the stupid look on everyones face. Credit where credit is due. I doubt the Government will try that again. Oh wait of curse they will they are the government. sorry I just can't thing those hids in Waco deserved to burn and more or less than the Kids in OK.

Posted by: Howie at August 30, 2005 02:21 PM (D3+20)

17 rusty, when the US forces departed vietnam we left behind enough aircraft and epuipment that the south vietnam airforce was the fifth largest in the world...we left behind enough weapons and support equipment to supply all men at arms in that country for years of fighting at increased levels...you are wrong about the facts in vietnam...the equipment we left behind was for sale in the blackmarkets in thailand and laos within afew days...tha fact is that the vietnamese people choose the north as their government...we were fighting for the wrong side in the vietnam war...some misguided woman visiting the north during the war had no effect in the south or on the fighting anywhere... just as the woman in texas trying to see bush has no effect in iraq or on the enemy cause...to think that our enemies need anymore reason to fight is laughable...they fight for power and the income from the natural resources just as we do...grow up... the invasion of iraq was driven by the greed of the contractors that got the support jobs that pay so well after bush sold out through privitization of military food and fuel and other necessary needs of the troops in the field...halliburton charges $1.59 a gallon in iraq, at a iraqi gas station the locals pay $.06 a gallon..go figure...wake up fools...

Posted by: romanwalls at August 30, 2005 02:30 PM (iBuUi)

18 So when are you joining up to find the next McVeigh? Or, er...is it just someone else's problem?

Posted by: Lars Kefauver at August 30, 2005 02:43 PM (kJpdI)

19 When are you starting that search for the next Janet Reno?

Posted by: Howie at August 30, 2005 03:15 PM (D3+20)

20 Did you just say we were fighting for the wrong side in Vietnam? Er, ok.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 03:16 PM (JQjhA)

21 >Yes, I think Jane Fonda is a traitor. We lost in Vietnam because after the Treaty of Paris we let our South Vietnamese allies down by not supplying them arms or money. Her words, and the words of those like her, led to a defeatist attitude even though the North had admitted defeated. That is wrong in everyway possible it is to be wrong. Vietnam was lost long before Fonda opened her festering gob. The U.S. could have left behind a fleet of giant MegaZoids with every color of Power Ranger to pilot them and the corrupt South still would have collapsed. Defeatest words, oh gawd puh-lease... this Tinkerbell theory of warfare is just plain silly. If you took Fonda out of the equation what would be the impact of that versus taking out the Ho Chi Minh trail? If Jane had come down on the side of Nixon and Johnson and yarbled about Peace with Honor and secret plans versus say the generals in the field making calls about what to bomb rather than the White House what kind of difference would that have made? Did Fonda put bullets in the guns? Did she create an insurgency that was able to hit and run time and time again? Did she allow VC to infiltrate every level of the South's government and army? Did she did the traps? Man the tunnels? Encourage VC to fight with their guts being held in place by a helmet? You think the guys squatting in the Bush sharping his tiger trap gave a shit what some airhead actress thought? Sure it was a propaganda coup, but propaganda doesn't win a war, killing and taking land wins wars. You can check the history books on that one. Fonda's dumb assery doesn't even register in the final outcome of Vietnam beyond trivia and a good reason to hork a wad of 'baccy in her face. But since the U.S. is gearing up for another "declare victory and pull out" you'd best start getting your excuses in order. Me I'd look at the guys and gals that launched and managed this war for blame, but I'm goofy that way, I'm sure it's the fault of protesting mothers, hack film makers and anyone who said "Iraq doesn't have WMD and invading it is a stupid idea."

Posted by: salvage at August 30, 2005 03:20 PM (FyLRE)

22 words are not in themselves an act of treason unless they're actually lead to actual damage Tell that to McCain and others who had Hanoi Jane's words thrown at them between beatings. Rusty, I appreciate your post, but I can't help feeling that our comfortable perch and the roots of unchallenged academia feed this entitlement/anti-America behavior, e.g. Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill. Rooting out internal enemies is part of the work ahead, but I fear we're facing a brick wall. Look at the Timothy McVeigh analogy - McVeigh lived out of the light of scrutiny, only having contacts with other terrorists. His employer, friends and family did not know what he was planning. That is not what's happening in the Muslim communities, but, under the smear of "McCarthyism," appropriate challenges are squelched and derided as fascist oppression of free speech, and we are left helpless to eliminate or ameliorate the damage in terms of propaganda, strategy and good will. Nonetheless, I am far from a defeatest; but there's a lot of work that needs to be done to make headway in the WOT thanks to the Moveon crowd and their ilk, and the failures of parsing Islam in America.

Posted by: tee bee at August 30, 2005 03:36 PM (q1JHF)

23 Salvage, Armies only fight when they think they can win. Bolstering the morale of the enemy is the same as putting bullets in their guns. That is why during times of total war we have practiced censorship. Whether we win or lose in Iraq depends largely on whether we are willing to control the flow of information there. In Vietnam, we had effectively won the war, yet media images made most Americans think that we had lost. The same may happen in Iraq. Not because we can't win, but because the images that our enemies see makes them believe they are winning. I suggest reading the Chrenkoff good news from Iraq post that I linked today.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at August 30, 2005 03:37 PM (JQjhA)

24 It wasn't just Fonda, it was the evening news telling the people that the war could not be won. It was the people insisting that the government get out now, and it was the government forcing to fight a war in a box that the enemy was not constrained to. The last was probably the worst of all the offenses, and we are seeing some shades of it now. If we are to send them to war for us, we must let them fight it to win.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 30, 2005 03:52 PM (jPCiN)

25 I can't believe noone has criticised Howie yet. That guy is a wack job, and what he is saying is seriously scary. Anyone who tries to "understand" what drove the terrorists to attack on 9/11 is screamed down as a soft (and dangerous) wimp/liberal/wacko. But McVeigh? Well, that's different, we all "understand" why he blew up babies in OK City. It was that pesky 'Gubmint'.. evil Janet Reno, I mean just looking at her makes you want to kill a few hundred INNOCENT AMERICANS ...and Bill! That was it, it was Bill Clinton's fault! (Isn't everything though?) Amd those no-good pork-barrelling, out-of-touch, politicians in Washington that we all hate...

Posted by: Dude at August 30, 2005 04:20 PM (IKGiV)

26 Hear that, muzzie Americans? If you don't take on a greater share of citizen responsibility than your co-citizens to route out America haters, then real Americans will be coming after ya! And it will be "rational" prejudice. Tell me, what color will be the crescent moon they will have to wear? Anyone who tells me my burden of responsibility is somehow greater because of whatever group I identify with can kiss it long and hard.

Posted by: Iceman at August 30, 2005 04:39 PM (ZNNSx)

27 Why thank you Dude.

Posted by: Howie at August 30, 2005 04:47 PM (D3+20)

28 What McVeigh did was wrong OK, but what happened in Waco was not much better in my opinion.

Posted by: Howie at August 30, 2005 04:50 PM (D3+20)

29 "Anyone who tries to "understand" what drove the terrorists to attack on 9/11 is screamed down as a soft (and dangerous) wimp/liberal/wacko." Allow me to rephrase that for you "Anyone who tries to say what drove the terrorists to attack on 9/11 was because America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that's ever happened in the Middle East and anywhere else will be screamed down as a soft (and dangerous) wimp/liberal/wacko." There. Wimpy, liberal, wackos only want to understand if they can blame America. Otherwise they just keep looking for a way to blame America by some twisted logic. They'll settle for nothing less.

Posted by: Oyster at August 30, 2005 08:59 PM (YudAC)

30 Its good to see the 442nd remembered as the most decorated unit of its size in WWII. During the fighting in southern France this unit rescued a battalion of cut off Texans and suffered more casualities than there were troops surrounded but they did rescue them. Texans made the unit honorary Texans. Its hard to imagine that people who lost everything would choose to demonstrate their loyalty rather than whine about the injustice. One should remember that the majority of the Muslim community today isn't made of of foreigners but Americans who have converted, like the older of the two snipers who terrorized DC about two years ago.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at August 31, 2005 12:39 AM (PNF/W)

31 umm...muslims translating...what language exactly? muslish? see, muslims come from many, many countries and speak many, many languages. i'm guessing you meant arabic. but remember--not all arabs are muslims, and not all muslims are arbs. and now all you good christian folk should start turning in your extremists. have you called the fbi to turn in that radical cleric pat robertson yet? are you monitoring the amtaliban? just curious.

Posted by: moon at August 31, 2005 07:07 AM (rE86O)

32 Moon: I'll tell you just like Salvage. We're not asking anyone to play Mata Hari and risk their lives by "infiltrating the enemy". We're not asking that anyone become a super spy. If you, like Salvage, are implying that any of us have information we're withholding to protect a nut case bent on killing someone then I take serious offense. If you are implying that we wouldn't go to the authorities if we had any such information then you are just an accusatory loud mouth. Why would we have to turn Pat Robertson in to the FBI? His words are all over the net and the news. Shall I call the FBI and say, "Hey guys, have you read the news?" Get real, moon. What are you doing to help? Or is it just easier to sling mud and twist words?

Posted by: Oyster at August 31, 2005 07:23 AM (YudAC)

33 Rusty >Armies only fight when they think they can win. You should tell that to the soldiers who fought against the Japanese horde barring down on them in the days after Pearl Harbor. What a silly thing to think, history is full of armies that fought even thought they knew they were going to lose. Oh and let’s not forget the Alamo. >Bolstering the morale of the enemy is the same as putting bullets in their guns. Morale is important sure but the antics of Fonda didn’t do anything of the sort any more than Sheehan’s protest. You seem to think that the enemy pays as much attention to this stuff as you do, they don’t. They’re too busy planting IEDs to watch CNN. >That is why during times of total war we have practiced censorship. More for security than home front morale. I was at the war museum here in town, in the WWII section they had an exhibit of old newspapers and magazines from the time. They talked about the defeats and used them as rallying points. >Whether we win or lose in Iraq depends largely on whether we are willing to control the flow of information there. That is simply ludicrous. Are you suggesting that if anti-war protestors in the U.S. were censored or locked up the Insurgents in Iraq would simply give up? I’m sorry I don’t get the cause and effect there. >In Vietnam, we had effectively won the war, yet media images made most Americans think that we had lost. You had done no such thing. The VC lost every major battle but because they were fighting a guerilla insurgency fight that didn’t matter. They didn’t need to win; they needed to survive to fight again. What happened in Vietnam was Nixon, LBJ and others went on and on about lights at the end of tunnels and the commies were beat and the public believed them, then the Tet Offensive and the “beat” commies were all over the place. Sure they lost that fight too, but it didn’t matter because they could keep on fighting. It’s like Aliens, you don’t win till they’re all gone. >The same may happen in Iraq. Not because we can't win, but because the images that our enemies see makes them believe they are winning. You can’t win in Iraq because the insurgency can keep on going, every time you nail one of them two more spring up to take their place. Bush has given al Qeada the perfect requirement and training ground. The terrorists that survive Iraq? They are going to be fucking machines. Again you honestly think the Insurgents sit in front of their TVs and computer monitors going “Hey Daily Kos poster ChimpySux0343 says were winning! I didn’t know that!” They are not “winning” any more the VC “won” what they are doing is what all insurgencies do, hit and run, bomb and fade, look for the weak spots and terrorize the locals into helping or at least staying neutral and above all surviving. I suggest reading the Chrenkoff good news from Iraq post that I linked today. I read that every week and think “That’s nice, but that doesn’t matter until we can go a day without a fresh disaster.” Reading that thing is like reading the bank statement of a rich cancer patient with a 20% chance of survival; “Wow, if you don’t die you’re going to live very comfortably.” In other words it’s a round up of superfluous fake nipples; they calm the baby down but they don’t provide any substance. When the bombings stop, when one can get to the airport in Iraq without having to hire a convoy of Delta Force guys than maybe I’ll start to give the “good news” a bit more weight, till then it’s whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by: salvage at August 31, 2005 07:52 AM (xWitf)

34 Interring Japanese in camps in WWII seemed like it was effective in a way, though probably not necessary given the Japenese psyche and culture of loyalty. However, doing the same thing to American Muslims or any other Muslims we find in this country would be quite effective. If there aren't any of them running around, then there won't be any to attack us inside our borders. Given the doubts we have about the loyalty of average American Muslims, this seems like a good idea, though in this day and age, I don't think we would do it until it's too late.

Posted by: Slice at August 31, 2005 08:41 AM (ZSDaZ)

35 Iceman Think for a second. As a white man during the fight for Civil Rights, was not the burdon upon you higher to effect change? Were you not in a better position to actually get something done? This is no different. Group affiliations do matter. Please try using your brain for critical thinking instead of just ignorant indignation.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 31, 2005 10:06 AM (jPCiN)

36 Slice You may be right, but there is one huge freaking problem with that plan. You cannot tell a muslim by simply looking at him/her. Unless the intent is to use muslim as a euphamism for arab, in which case, that's just dumb.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 31, 2005 10:08 AM (jPCiN)

37 What a fucking scumbag. This racist bullshit doesn't rate any further response.

Posted by: dave at August 31, 2005 11:21 AM (EUnjh)

38 dave I have a feeling you would cover for any real racism, should it be right in front of you. So stuff your outrage. Mentioning that Americans should act as patriotic americans is now racist in bizarro land, not the real world. Less drugs or more, not sure which to prescribe in your case.

Posted by: Defense Guy at August 31, 2005 11:46 AM (jPCiN)

39 There's actually an easy way to tell if they're Muslim: offer them sausage and a glass of wine and ask them to pay homage to a statue of George Bush afterwards. If they don't do all three, in they go. hehe...

Posted by: Slice at August 31, 2005 12:45 PM (ZSDaZ)

40 Re: the current salvage/Rusty exchange... I can only assume what Rusty meant was Armies only START fights when they think they can win. The examples you give as evidence against this are not of those choosing to fight, but those choosing to die fighting, since death was almost certain. Even a 98 year old grandmother may choose to stand and fight rather than die submissively. This is not really a function of choice, rather defiance of despair. Rusty's point here is perfectly valid. The ability of an army to successfully engage an enemy is directly affected by the will of the people to support their actions. This also ties to the issue of morale. Anything done to bolster the morale of the enemy logically detracts from the morale of our side. If the morale of the people/government is low, the will to carry out the job at hand is weakened, and support, both tangible and intangible, for those in harm's way falters. The opposite is also true. Armies MUST start "fights" to win wars. They must choose to risk themselves, not because there is no choice, but because they believe that they are the business end of the will of their government and, by extension, the people it represents. People like Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Fonda detract from the morale of the American people at times when standing united are most important.

Posted by: Jeremy at August 31, 2005 04:13 PM (KuG4L)

41 Defense Guy- Why do you keep imploring others to use 'critical thinking' when your arguments are far from rational? Your thinking is much more perception-based and flag-draped - which is fine but you shouldn't confuse the two. The anti-war movements and people like Jane Fonda are not the reason Vietnam and Iraq are/were stupid, unjustified and unwinnable wars. The anti-war movement and Jane Fonda exist BECAUSE the wars are stupid, unjustified and unwinnable. A simple survey of History validates this (A quick look at Persian Gulf I and Afghanistan should be an easy hint). If you actually did think critically you would've been able to figure that out, but sadly you don't think critically, you think emotionally - which is fine, just stop accusing other of perpetrating your crime. BTW, despite the rest, you seem somewhat ok - aren't you embarrased to be associated with boxes of hair like Slice and Oyster? Oh, and Brad, you assbag, the percentage of Muslims in the military is exactly the same percentage as in the general population. That means thousands of enlisted Muslims. I know Marines who serve with Muslims and consider them great friends and allies. Most people, and especially soldiers, aren't as hysterical as you and some of the other fucktards at this site.

Posted by: elemental at August 31, 2005 04:55 PM (8Kl47)

42 Elemental Language buddy. Regulars here I'll let pass a bit but no cussing from leftards. Next time I'll delete your ass you have been warned. Remember PG 13 guys.

Posted by: Howie at August 31, 2005 05:02 PM (D3+20)

43 I guess what IÂ’m still looking for is the leadership in the Muslim community in the US to issue an unequivocal condemnation of the mass murders carried out by Islamic terrorists that does not contain the word Jew. TicÂ….ticÂ….ticÂ….ticÂ….ticÂ….ticÂ…. Element, I'm sure we have some great Muslim servicemen in the armed forces. However, one did roll a grenade into the tent of his buddies. ThatÂ’s at least cause for concern. Where does the rational for this come from? Where are the posts from Islamic Americans calling him a filthy murdering traitor? IÂ’ll tell you whereÂ…they donÂ’t exist.

Posted by: Brad at August 31, 2005 06:13 PM (3OPZt)

44 Actually sorry there I was on a drunken power binge. DSM miffed me off a while back and I used a bad word too. I feel I set a bad example because as I watch comments scroll by I see a certain word more and more. Yes it's the same dastardly word I used. So skip a vowel or something, be creative. I've said freaking so many times I can now type it on auto. So I don't really care what gets said it's the manner in which you say it. We all do it especially when upset let's all try our best and I will too.

Posted by: Howie at August 31, 2005 08:23 PM (D3+20)

45 Howie - double standard? oh well, your place, I won't complain, but it does fit the stereotype. My apologies for any harsh language (not of right wing origin) Brad - true, that single incident did occur, and it was crappy (I would use stronger language, but anything that comes to mind might get me banned). As far as posts from Islamic Americans calling him a F.M.T., well I'm not sure how many Islamic people actually visit this site, I would imagine about none, but you never know. I know many people from that community were very upset about the incident and quite disgusted by his behavoir. Editorials condemning his actions were pretty common on sites like Al Jazeera and The Dawn and a lot of the Arab/persian forum sites had posts from people who were disgusted/pissed at his actions. Frankly, your assertion that those people don't exist is hogwash, just like when people complain about how the Muslims never condemned 9-11, which they did and a simple Google search would have brought up thousands of examples of them doing just that. It's really not that hard to do a little research these days people, you don't even have to get off your butt - you just need to get past your petty hatred and fear of anything that would mess up your narrow and pitiful view of the world. Defense Guy - I know you haven't responded to my last post yet but also let me add that your very first post is hilarious - how the message got construed so badly? Just do a little history lesson. Start where millions of Arabs are run out of their homes by westerners while at the same time being compared to cockroaches. Proceed to where the Democratically elected President of Iran, Mohammad Mossadeq, is overthrown by the CIA (he was Hugo Chavez before Hugo Chavez) and continue on from there all the way up to today where most Arabs have seen images and video of child rape and murder inside Abu Graib. So the 'message' is very clear to them and should continue for many more years - great! Don't get me wrong, plenty of Islamic assholes have amplified the message for all the wrong reasons over the years, but there's plenty of kindling for them to work with.

Posted by: elemental at August 31, 2005 08:24 PM (T6Nsp)

46 Yeah I'm not sure who you are but I saw that one and the language has been slippin a bit. You just got lucky and I saw you it's not personal.

Posted by: Howie at August 31, 2005 08:34 PM (D3+20)

47 Actually I'm kind of wondering where the good Professor Pete went. I was all feeling bad for him as I saw the others giving him hell. Then he called me a name first thing on one of my threads. REALLY NO ONE GETS ANY SMARTER IF THERE IS NO ONE TO ARGUE WITH

Posted by: Howie at August 31, 2005 08:50 PM (D3+20)

48 How about going back to acknowledge the millions of people run off their ancestral homeland by an aggressive enemy who demolished their religious shrine and built a temple to their own god on their land. The criminals were driven off recently, and the rightful owners of the property now reside in their place. Just come out and say it, to you its Palestine, to me its Israel. At least I can admit it. Israel will not be removed; the world will end before that happens. Best to build a Middle East based on that fact You forgot one small detail, you can read some Islamic condemnation of 9/11, Sadam’s murderous rule, no democratic states in the Middle East outside of ..You know who. But can you read a condemnation of these crimes without the author bringing up the Joooos? Never. Time to fight it out or surrender. We could give up and let the 1st democracy in the Middle East be turned over to another despotic tinhorn dictator. Interesting to me how you and yours put forth the political agenda of the Islamic Fascist. I wonder why the left turns such a blind eye to their social agenda. ...”my narrow pitiful view of the world” Yes, if only we could export Saudi, Egyptian, Syrian and Iranian political systems to the rest of the world, what a great place this world would be.

Posted by: Brad at August 31, 2005 09:40 PM (6mUkl)

49 How about going back to acknowledge the millions of people run off their ancestral homeland by an aggressive enemy who demolished their religious shrine and built a temple to their own god on their land. I would agree with that, however most of my Jewish freinds and professors have always claimed the diaspora to be voluntary, but I'm not going to argue the point either way. My culture was driven out of our homelands by Arab invaders in the middle ages so it's not as if I wouldn't believe it. Nonetheless, I was speaking to Defense Guy's question of why Muslims are not getting the message that Christians and Jews should be allies to Muslims (a message I agree with, but was explaining why it was getting lost). The events surrounding the re-patriation of Israel is a modern day event that contributes to that mis-understanding and moreso in how it was handled (very poorly, and with no regard for the current occupants, which regardless of past history, have been there for quite a few centuries). Just come out and say it, to you its Palestine, to me its Israel. Don't even try to pull that B.S.. I've been to Israel and support it completely. I am trying to have an honest discussion of reasons that events/hostilities/misunderstandings continue. If you are going to be intellectually dishonest and use canards like I don't believe in Israel then this conversation is going to go nowhere. I understand that you have a hard time seeing anything beyond the black & white of it, but to really understand an issue you have to be willing to be a little more objective. But can you read a condemnation of these crimes without the author bringing up the Joooos? Never. I've never seen any evidence of this on a widespread basis (and definitely not always as you proclaim). I think it's wishful thinking on your part, again, fitting into your convenient, simple and narrow worldview of the Jew-hating Arab. Mostly I've seen 2 different types of ideologies from that side of the world - those who hate the Jews/Israel and are basically troglodytes and idiots. And the more educated/liberal viewpoint which accepts Israel and Jews as their lifelong neighbors but have issues with some of their policies and practices. You'll notice this parallels our own society. And from spending a decent amount of time throughout the M.E. and S. Asia the latter is definitely the more prominent and widespread. People, just like here, want to live their lives, and really couldn't give a rat's ass about Israel or Jews or all the bickering and violence between people who crave power. Nonetheless, just like here, it's the idiots that get amplified. With regards to your exporting Saudi, Egypt, etc. comment - you are just a paler, softer version of their idiocy. By saying your viewpoint isn't narrow in contrast to the Saudis isn't really saying a whole lot! Our version of the anti-semitic troglodyte is the anti-arab trogolodyte. If I say someone should be less narrow-mided, I'm not saying they should be more like the Saudis - I'm saying they should be less like them.

Posted by: elemental at September 01, 2005 08:32 AM (8Kl47)

50 It's cool Howie - we'ld all probably make better points if we don't cuss as much. I'll try to pay attention to it.

Posted by: elemental at September 01, 2005 09:48 AM (8Kl47)

51 In response to my comment that you never hear an Islamic condemnation of a terrorist act without bringing up the J word to rationalize the mass murders elemental writes: “I’ve never seen evidence of this on a widespread basis” Good God Dude, are you kidding?

Posted by: Brad at September 01, 2005 10:10 AM (6mUkl)

52 elemental Interesting that you limit your discussion to wars which were in fact lost. Do you suppose that while WW1 or WW2 or pretty much any other one that has ever been fought in the history of man, it looked as if the cause may be lost. So yes, perception plays a great part of anything, I just wish yours wasn't limited to only the negative side of the spectrum. Also, you should read my posts more carefuly, as Jane was a minor part compared to the US governments unwillingness to fight a war to win.

Posted by: Defense Guy at September 01, 2005 11:36 AM (jPCiN)

53 In addition, elemental, I note that in your 'reasoning' for why muslims (or arabs as per your limitations) should feel as if the world is out to get them, you pretty much carry all the same water that allows them to play the victim card. They never did a damn thing wrong eh? Crybaby pussies do not get to rule the world, and do not even get invited to the table with those who will. Please remember that arab and muslim are not synonomous even when it is politically expedient to make them so. In the future, you could just save time and blame it all on the Jews. Thanks for listening.

Posted by: Defense Guy at September 01, 2005 11:40 AM (jPCiN)

54 Actually Defense Guy I did listen to you, perhaps you could listen as well? I agree the Arabs wrongly play the victim card, and I agree they do a lot of things wrong. Like Brad, you inferred the opposite because at the first mention of objectivity you can't help but fly into a fit of regurgitating every ridiculous canard that's been shoved into your sponge. I have repeatedly alluded to the fact that Arabs need to take responsibility for their own people and actions, but you were the one that whined about how they weren't getting some alleged Christian/Jewish/Muslim unity message. I was simply trying to provide you a few hints to why that was. As you are clearly one who has no interest in that unity I find it even more hysterical that you would pose that question, obviously disengeniously. The fact that you are unable to disassociate from your indoctrination forces me to confront you with a reality that you are apparantly to insulated to understand. My ability to reason is not in any way sympathetic or supportive of the Arab view, it is simply an explanation, and one that is clearly too difficult for you to comprehend which is one of the reasons that any society ruled by the right is doomed for failure at the hands of its own arrogance and blindness. I completely agree that sitting around and whining about how the Jews are ruining their lives is abhorrent and retarded. Nonetheless, their greivences are not without merit in some cases and the violence and vitriol used on the Arabs at the re-patriation of Israel is not something that can or should be overlooked in any reasonable discussion of East/West politics. Now if you plan to counter this argument with some statement about how the Arabs are guilty of violence too, let me pre-empt you by saying "No Sh!!" in advance. Now as far as your previous post about only focusing on the 'lost wars'. Your missing the point entirely. First of all, I guess you missed my mention (and the reason I mentioned them) of Afghnistan and the Persian Gulf war (let's go ahead and add WW I + II to that list also). Those wars weren't won because of a lack of an anti-war movement any more than Iraq and Vietnam were lost because of it. The Anti-war movement existed then and now because Iraq and Vietnam wars were pointless, unneccassary and unwinnable. The wars we won didn't have significant anti-war movements because people actually believed in the causes. We didn't win those wars because people believed in the causes, people believed in the causes because they were good causes. Just accept the fact that Bush dragged us into a pointless, and unwinnable war and stop blaming the anti-war movement and a host of other non-factors into it. I guess it just hurts more because everything the anti-war movement said would happen, is happening. You'll just have to get over it and pick better leaders next time.

Posted by: elemental at September 01, 2005 02:10 PM (8Kl47)

55 Brad, No I haven't seen this as widespread as you make it sound, but amplifying the negative in others is a real talent for the right wing. I know that it does exist though and I would prefer all idiots, on both sides of the issue would vamoose. In any case, whatever the issues between Arabs and Jews the solution is definitely not coming from you or the little slimeballs at LGF because as I said before you guys are essentially the polar opposite of those troglodytes that blame Israel for their problems

Posted by: elemental at September 01, 2005 02:47 PM (8Kl47)

Hide Comments | Add Comment