Comments on: Not So Splendid Isolation http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Sat, 20 Mar 2010 09:13:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: scriblerus http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7549 Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:17:01 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7549 I wasn't really thinking of American tourists abroad. US citizens travel far and wide over the face of the globe and can be targets wherever they go. Is the US really going to stop doing business of any sort in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, India, the Far East or Europe for that matter? That's what separationism would really require. I wasn’t really thinking of American tourists abroad. US citizens travel far and wide over the face of the globe and can be targets wherever they go. Is the US really going to stop doing business of any sort in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, India, the Far East or Europe for that matter? That’s what separationism would really require.

]]> by: cyrus http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7547 Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:24:22 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7547 Reducing the risk of harm to the relatively small number of Americans who go to, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia is hardly a good reason for keeping the gates open here for the next Muhammad Atta. Reducing the risk of harm to the relatively small number of Americans who go to, say, Egypt or Saudi Arabia is hardly a good reason for keeping the gates open here for the next Muhammad Atta.

]]> by: scriblerus http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7546 Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:21:16 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7546 Of course Muslim radicals don't have navies and air forces, but it doesn't mean that Americans abroad won't become targets. Unless, of course, we just completely pull up the drawbridge... Of course Muslim radicals don’t have navies and air forces, but it doesn’t mean that Americans abroad won’t become targets. Unless, of course, we just completely pull up the drawbridge…

]]> by: cyrus http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7542 Thu, 23 Aug 2007 21:29:13 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7542 Scriblerus: <i> One of the things that drives fundamentalisms is an “us against them” mentality and by kicking out its Muslims, blockading the Middle East, etc., the U. S. would simply be sharpening that sense of “us against them.”</i> So? If they're not here, they can't attack us here, and their hatred for us, even if a hundred times more intense than it already is, would be of interest only to academics and tourists seeking a risky vacation destination. Muslim terrorists don't have airforces, navies, or ballistic missiles. Even Muslim states, for the most part, don't have effective ones. They can only arrive because we let them in and allow them to hide in a population of sympathetic coreligionists emboldened by seditious preachers and knit together in clannishness and hostility by chain migration and consanguineous marriage. Europe's situation is a little more difficult, since they have self-sustaining Muslim communities on their soil; suffice it to say that I would rather the US not find itself in that same difficult situation in 20 or 30 years. That they have dug their own hole is no reason for us to keep digging, too. Unfortunately, under our supreme principle of non-discrimination, it's apparently preferable to construct a police state for everyone rather than to appear to distinguish between groups of people. Scriblerus:
One of the things that drives fundamentalisms is an “us against them” mentality and by kicking out its Muslims, blockading the Middle East, etc., the U. S. would simply be sharpening that sense of “us against them.”

So?

If they’re not here, they can’t attack us here, and their hatred for us, even if a hundred times more intense than it already is, would be of interest only to academics and tourists seeking a risky vacation destination. Muslim terrorists don’t have airforces, navies, or ballistic missiles. Even Muslim states, for the most part, don’t have effective ones. They can only arrive because we let them in and allow them to hide in a population of sympathetic coreligionists emboldened by seditious preachers and knit together in clannishness and hostility by chain migration and consanguineous marriage. Europe’s situation is a little more difficult, since they have self-sustaining Muslim communities on their soil; suffice it to say that I would rather the US not find itself in that same difficult situation in 20 or 30 years. That they have dug their own hole is no reason for us to keep digging, too. Unfortunately, under our supreme principle of non-discrimination, it’s apparently preferable to construct a police state for everyone rather than to appear to distinguish between groups of people.

]]> by: scriblerus http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7540 Thu, 23 Aug 2007 14:03:14 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7540 This whole separationism idea seems quite bizarre. One of the things that drives fundamentalisms is an "us against them" mentality and by kicking out its Muslims, blockading the Middle East, etc., the U. S. would simply be sharpening that sense of "us against them." This whole separationism idea seems quite bizarre. One of the things that drives fundamentalisms is an “us against them” mentality and by kicking out its Muslims, blockading the Middle East, etc., the U. S. would simply be sharpening that sense of “us against them.”

]]> by: eth9 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7538 Thu, 23 Aug 2007 04:37:30 +0000 http://larison.org/2007/08/22/not-so-splendid-isolation/#comment-7538 What would you suggest we do about Islam, Daniel? That is other than reform our immigration policy. Also to what extent would you want it reformed? Would you want a reduction of Muslim immigrants, an end to Muslim immigration or even a net migration of Muslim immigrants (e.g. the illegals and terrorists/terrorist financers)? Do you see yourself as being in between the Separationist camp and the Realist camp when it comes to America's relationship with Islam? I'm not looking for a 10 point plan, but more like a general direction of where you would like to see American domestic & foreign policy go vis-a-vis Islam. What would you suggest we do about Islam, Daniel? That is other than reform our immigration policy. Also to what extent would you want it reformed? Would you want a reduction of Muslim immigrants, an end to Muslim immigration or even a net migration of Muslim immigrants (e.g. the illegals and terrorists/terrorist financers)?

Do you see yourself as being in between the Separationist camp and the Realist camp when it comes to America’s relationship with Islam? I’m not looking for a 10 point plan, but more like a general direction of where you would like to see American domestic & foreign policy go vis-a-vis Islam.

]]>