January 23, 2007

Tuesday 070123

Rest Day

OCFABurgOverhead-th.jpg

Enlarge image

Coach Burgener - CrossFit Certification, January 2007, Orange County Fire Authority


CrossFit North [video]


The Quranic Concept of War, Joseph C. Meyers, Review Essays, U.S. Army War College

Post thoughts to comments.

Posted by lauren at January 23, 2007 1:40 PM
Comments

Very interesting link. Will come back to it and give it a proper read.
I'm currently in a survey course of world military history where we covered the rise of Islam in a lecture or two, so this is a nice paper to add some more detail.

Comment #1 - Posted by: David Vessey at January 22, 2007 6:53 PM

Great video!

Comment #2 - Posted by: Michael Gregory at January 22, 2007 6:54 PM

Great video, Molly & CFN trainers!

Comment #3 - Posted by: TomW at January 22, 2007 7:36 PM

Did anyone actually read the WHOLE article posted?

Comment #4 - Posted by: Ken_Davis at January 22, 2007 7:41 PM

I just took a look at the AOFP Crossfit Austere Program. God Bless you. I could have really used this when I was a Team Sergeant. You guys are the best.

De Oppresso Liber,

Billy

Comment #5 - Posted by: Billy at January 22, 2007 7:56 PM

Great, grreat video! Very informative and appropriate for those new to the Crossfit concept.

Comment #6 - Posted by: Jason Boag at January 22, 2007 8:28 PM

I would have never thought a 3/4 inch PVC pipe could solicit such acute awareness of upper trapezius fibers........every silly strand. I learned alot in just 2 hours this past weekend.

Coach B is a great asset to the CF community and a class act. Thanks also to the blue shirts who helped out at 7am on a blustery Sunday morn.

Comment #7 - Posted by: John T. at January 22, 2007 8:51 PM

Awesome video. Congrats. and hats off to CrossFit North.

Thank you
jaison

Comment #8 - Posted by: jaison at January 22, 2007 8:57 PM

What's up, I am a muslim and let me be honest, I love Crossfit been doing it for about a year now, and frankly, I feel like if I ever went to a Crossfit certification I would literally get my Ass kicked,I got a big beard and look like your average garden variety terrorist. Alot of crossfiters have lost friends and family at the hands of muslims, You name workouts after your fallen Brothers. I respect that!

The Crossfit Martyrs (with all due respect)

I dont know ? maybe I watch to much movies? I would hate to be in a room with a spec ops dude that can do FRAN in under 5 minutes you know what I mean, He could have a flash back and BOOM there goes a 45 lbs plate in the back of my head. I don't mean to offend anybody I'm just being honest. Sorry I can't comment on the essay, I would end up writing a essay.

Peace Crossfit!

Comment #9 - Posted by: Abdullah at January 22, 2007 9:09 PM

Ken, #4:

I read the whole article this morning before I put on my ACU's and went to work at Camp Liberty, Iraq.

Here are some observations. Forgive the typos, I've not had my coffee yet:

The author analyses a work that he admits is in limited circulation. He compares and contrasts it to Van Clausewitz' "On War". I would venture that "On War" is just as limited a work. Certainly I have only a passing familiarity with it, and that because I'm in the military.

However, "On War" is a secular work about waging war, centered on socio-economic and political reasons. "Quranic Concept" is not.

"Quaranic Concept" is insightful because it gives an Islamic perspective on the nature of war as a part of Islam and a part of the spread of faith. The author cites Islamic battles from 1000 years ago during the Jihadist phase of Islamic expsansion. There is little in the way of formal Islamic war in the last few centuries, except for state funded terrorism.

It provides some understanding of how fundamentalist groups view the use of terror, and how they find justification in the Koran for that use.

Ultimately the article has an "academic in an ivory tower" feel to it.

As a citizen-soldier, and a believer in educated discourse, I hope that this rest-day topic does not dengenerate like some of the previous ones have.

Comment #10 - Posted by: Bayendor at January 22, 2007 9:27 PM

#9,

In the US military, Muslims fight along side Jews, Christians, and atheists. True patriots will not condone attacks on anyone based on their race, color, creed, or religion. Given the generally high patriotic sense among cross fitters, I think your concerns are misplaced.

Comment #11 - Posted by: Hari at January 22, 2007 9:30 PM

Thank you all for the kudos.

I'd like to really thank Molly Hawkins for her work and vision creating that video for us. Mollys website is girlandcamera.com

Comment #12 - Posted by: Dave Werner at January 22, 2007 10:27 PM

Great video, well done CrossFit North!
Now im gonna copy the idea and make my own at some stage ;)

Comment #13 - Posted by: Daz at January 23, 2007 12:24 AM

As an aging cold warrior who's shifted his center of gavity to the GWOT I can make the folling comments from my not so ivory tower at FOB Taji. I recall quite well how in the pre Regan years the difficulty was getting many Americans to accept that we had an enemy who meant us harm even though we'd done nothing to deserve it. I see it again all to clearly. The points brought out in the article are understated if anything. the islamofacists feel they've given us the nessessary call to peaceful conversion. Now we're targets for all means fair and foul. Religion of peace? Only in the liberal press.
# 9 Abdullah joins the parade of muslims who fail to condem or deny legitimacy to the brutality. #11 Hari, muslims may serve with us to some extent in our military but they also serve against us as in fragging their commanders in Afgahnistan or acting as spies like the chaplain at gitmo. Pefectly in accordance with the koran to lie to decieve one's enemies in the name of jihad. Like we're being lied to by the so called 'muslim leaders we see on TV.
#10 Bayendor, The reference to Clausewitz made a good point, we haven't a philosphy of war so much as a battle doctrine. Clausewitz's point was that war is an extension of politics by other means. A glance at our polarized electorate and Morass of a congress tells an enemy such as Al Queda that we're not coheisive enough to endure a multi generational war. At least not until the average american believes he has real enemies, and can go to a map and point to where they live. K-

Comment #14 - Posted by: kman at January 23, 2007 3:27 AM

"THE LEGITIMACY OF BRUTALITY"?

Comment #15 - Posted by: Abdiullah at January 23, 2007 3:37 AM

Seems to me we fought another fanatical army of the faithful (Imperial Japan) not too long ago and won. Takes determination and fortitude. Islam's fanatics are many, but do not make up the whole of all Muslims (or at least that's my hope anyway). Interesting read and definitely offers some insight into Islam's role in the current conflict.

I think if the leaders in the Muslim world were to take a stand against those who radicalize their religion, we'd be at peace. However, I think most of them are either in bed with the terrorists or openly support warfare against the US and the coalition. Bush had it right when he said you're either with us or with the terrorists.

In the long run, we'll win. Not because we're a society based on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but because we truly are a nation of peace and right, while those whose tenants are based on fundamental radical Islamic terrorism are based on subjugation of the weak and poor, evil, and absolute domination. Freedom, my friends, will carry the day!

Semper Fi

Comment #16 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 23, 2007 3:56 AM

Lovely video :) it should go on TV!

Comment #17 - Posted by: Alicia Zhuang at January 23, 2007 4:33 AM

Ignorance is a disease, 16# and 14# infected, possibly terminal. I am neither for american politics or terrorist politics, which would make me a terrorist by Bush's standards. Terrorist is just a label, used in this time of mass produced logos hegemonically reinforced through the media, to signify anyone who doesn't trumpet the dominant ideology.

In the long run, 16# you'll lose, because it's not your country and your nations leaders don't care about peace. " (American international relations) are based on subjugation of the weak and poor, evil, and absolute domination. Freedom, my friends, will carry the day!"

Comment #18 - Posted by: lee at January 23, 2007 4:41 AM

#14,Kman,

"[M]uslims may serve with us to some extent in our military but they also serve against us as in fragging their commanders in Afgahnistan or acting as spies like the chaplain at gitmo."

Similar acts of treason have been committed by non Muslims. I am in complete agreement with your point of view concerning "Islamofascists." However, I think we can agree that while all Islamofascists are Muslims, not all (or even most) Muslims are Islamofascists.

Comment #19 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 4:45 AM

Hello Im a Turkish crossfit fan with lots of respect for the armed forces of any nation, but a lot less respect for narrow minded political doctrines, regardless of origin.
A few points:
1) Islam does not mean peace, it literally means submission (to gods will).
2) Terrorism is not Jihad in the sense that the Prophet (SAV) waged it. It is cowardly, decietful and basically murder.
3) The "Shock and awe" attacks on Baghdad were as despicable an example of brutality as any in history.

kind regards

Comment #20 - Posted by: The Young Turk at January 23, 2007 4:56 AM

#17, Lee,

"I am neither for american politics or terrorist politics, which would make me a terrorist by Bush's standards. Terrorist is just a label, used in this time of mass produced logos hegemonically reinforced through the media, to signify anyone who doesn't trumpet the dominant ideology."

This statement doesn't make you a "terrorist by Bush's standards." It simply qualifies you as a nut.

Comment #21 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 4:57 AM

I found the article insightful and well written. How different the mentality of a unified spiritual motivation for war from our morality justified and economically tied reasoning for military action. The US subscribes to the universal morality theory and attempts to do the right thing that way, but it's a hard sell to the US people, who get in the way of the will of the army. To be facing an enemy united by religion transnationally is very dangerous indeed. More dangerous to think that killing them by the tens is only expanding their perceived martyr pool. To really defeat the enemy, we must strike terror into their hearts and challenge what they believe with a resolve of a threatened culture. We in the military have the resolve and the will, but I do not think the general civiilans realize the magnitude and realitiy of the role they play. They dictate policy indirectly by their views: they must unite in a view that their way of life is truly being threatened. The enemy must know of this resolve and we must act to threaten them and their way of life. Bring on the heavy weapons and American Military might. Shock and awe on a transnational scale. Those who hold true to the philosophy of the essay are our enemies, as individuals and transnationally, no matter what country they hail from. Those who are more willing to honor their governments' alliance and have made their peace with us are our friends. The difficulty is threatening the right people and with the right amount of force to accomplish our political objectives.

Comment #22 - Posted by: "Worm" Stoker at January 23, 2007 5:04 AM

Howdy
Work
{Ride (Airdyne) 3:00 at level 5; (:20 at ~level 9 and :40 at level ~3)x18; 3:00 at level 5}.
Duration 24:00
Distance 8.1 miles
HR following bout at one minute intervals ~170, ~130, ~110, ~105, ~100.
Push and pull work as well...

Comment #23 - Posted by: Jonathan Jensen at January 23, 2007 5:36 AM

Off topic,but anybody know of any CF friendly gyms in the Indianapolis area or where to get coaching on oly lifts in area?

Comment #24 - Posted by: mav lt. at January 23, 2007 6:26 AM

Row 8x 500m/1.00rest

ave 1:48:9 couldn't rest had to get some!

Comment #25 - Posted by: James D at January 23, 2007 6:27 AM

21# Hari: This statement doesn't make you a "terrorist by Bush's standards." It simply qualifies you as a nut.

Cashew or pea? Why does having an opinion differing to your own make me mentally unwell? Do you usually question the sanity of people who don't agree with you? What makes you a paradigm of reason? Your ability to insult and or your narrow-mindedness?

Bush says you're either for America, or against america (yes/no?). And those against are enemies -terrorists / axis of evil. Such bullying rhetoric has offended millions in recent times.

Therefore I reiterate my feeling, and suggest you improve your grammatical comprehension.
Quiet now, the grown ups are talking.

Comment #26 - Posted by: lee at January 23, 2007 6:28 AM

"can't we all just get along?"

Comment #27 - Posted by: RickA at January 23, 2007 6:37 AM

I will get back to the Essay.

Am American is an American is an American...in my book. Until he proves himself otherwise.

Kman...those guys proved not to be Americans first...We have to make the attempt to take people at their word when they sign on the dotted line...after a background check of course:)
A Traitor is a Traitor no matter what his belief system.

Abdullah ...Hari is right. I believe there was a Muslim at the San Diego Cert that I truely was more interested in how he was so good at Muscle-ups than how his appearance differed from mine.

I think you would be very safe at a Certification. As one of those Spec Ops types you mention, I doubt you find little or any anomosity. I do not know ANYONE in the Special Operations who hurt an innocent Muslim and they would go out of their way to help a fellow CITIZEN and Crossfitter to the NTH degree. If anything you would be helping us with perspective if you were so inclined to converse of such things.

As a matter of fact I would love to converse with you anyway...feel free to drop my a line if you are up to it...I would appreatiate your perspective on some current events.

It also appears in #15 you are mis-reading K-Man's post.

Hari, I believe you are correct in #21, #19, and #11...I would like to believe that all of us can seperate all of a "type" of people from the actions of a few. That can be hard though. Perhaps more will share their thoughts.

Comment #28 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 6:43 AM

Lee,

Do you want us to win in Iraq?

Comment #29 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 23, 2007 6:52 AM

Lee #17-

It's obtuse thinking such as yours that will prolong the conflict indefinitely.

Let's see - with us or with the terrorists. The principle is pretty clear to me. You either support and approve of what the terrorists are doing to us and the rest of the civilized world, (which, Lee, you obviously do) or you're with us.

By "us" I mean the civilized world where we don't blow up innocent civilians with car bombs and commercial jets, where we allow freedom of speech and the general principles of liberty to reign, where we encourage freedom of religious beliefs and allow criticism of the government without fear of having our heads cut off by barbarians who would rather live in the stone age and worship some fake god whose "prophets" encourage said barbaric behavior.

In the end, those who hate and oppress will lose. The US doesn't oppress and hate (contrary to what you might think - again you're very obtuse, so I'll try to explain it). We're the most generous nation that ever existed. We pour more money and welfare on the world than any other nation - and we don't ask those nations to submit to our will and religion. We're the type of people who will fight our enemy on one block while handing out candy and building a school on the adjoining block. We're the type of people who will come across a wounded enemy combatant and provide extreme lifesaving medical care and evacuation to a field hospital. (Sure, we'll kill them too if they still try to resist and/or threaten us! That goes without saying - even police do that on the streets of every city in the US - so don't even go there.)

And, yes, Lee, we will win. It will take us some time to adjust our way of war somewhat (on all three levels - stragetic, operational, and tactical), but America loves freedom and we'll fight for it when threatened. One more terrorist attack on the US and the world will see just how we fight (as I don't believe we've truly begun to fight yet).

And, Lee, this is my country - the great US of A! If you're an American, you'd understand what I'm talking about. If you aren't, then you don't know what you're missing. (Other freedom-loving nations are in this category too - Australia, the UK, etc.)

Time for you and people like you to understand that these Islamic fascists will stop at nothing to control your life, take away your liberty, and end freedom - all in the name of Allah. If Islam is a peaceful religion, then those who practice it can put an end to this craziness, renounce terrorism, and get the rest of the Muslim world to do the same. Until they do, we'll continue the good fight.

Lee, and all you others out there like Lee, also need to remember that we didn't ask for this war. Though some would argue that we did by invading Iraq, we didn't fly the airliners into the WTC, we didn't kidnap and kill athletes at the Olympics, we didn't bomb embassies, we didn't blow up the Marines in Beirut, we didn't kill innocent travelers in airports, airplanes, trains, subways, hotels, and buses throughout the world during the past 30+ years. What kind of civilized culture does such things? The Islamic culture does and continues to condone these actions - even by the few fanatics of that culture/religion. It's time it ended, but apparently that won't happen until Muslims get a grip, figure out what's really happening to them and their religion, and put an end to this lunacy! But until that time comes, we'll continue to take the fight to the enemy.

Semper Fi

Comment #30 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 23, 2007 6:56 AM

See not race nor creed, but those who oppose and wish to harm the country that we love.

Comment #31 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 7:01 AM

If my post comes up...It will be clear that I agree with DJ on this one. I could give a Rat's A$$ about a guy's religion until it influences, in a negative way, our country.

Comment #32 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 7:28 AM

This is one of those debates that I feel like I may regret even getting involved in, but I felt compelled to add my thoughts.

I worry about this idea that seems to be so prevalent, that there is a fundamental conflict between Islam and the West - Bernard Lewis' idea of a "clash of civilizations". I think this idea grossly oversimplifies a community of 1.2 billion Muslims whos speak hundreds of languages (only about 20% of Muslims are Arab, by the way). The fact is, most of the anti-American feeling in the Middle East is not because of a difference in values. The idea that freedom, social justice, etc. are incompatible with Islam is absurd. In fact, social justice and looking out for those less fortunate is one of the central tenants of the religion. While people like Osama bin Laden may believe in a fundamental clash of civilizations, and hate America simply for what it IS, most anti-American feeling out there is because of America's policies. Bin Laden's public statements to the wider Muslim world always focused on America's policies (support for Israel, stationing troops in Saudi Arabia, sanctions against Iraq, etc.) rather than on some fundamental problem with American values or way of life. Osama himself and others like him may have a problem with our values and society, but surveys in the Middle East repeatedly find that most people's problem is not with American values or American citizens, but with the policies of the US government. Of course, none of this justifies the killing of civilians, but many Middle Easterners who dislike America simply do so because they disagree with America's politics.

I just think it is vital that we realize that most anti-American sentiment in the world is not because of an unavoidable incompatability between American values/society and the Muslim world. It is a gross oversimplification and makes it much to easy to simply disregard the political views of millions of people as religious extremism. While extremists like al-Qaeda may believe that America and all it stands for is evil, those who simply disagree with American politics should not be lumped in with them as Islamofacists, jihadists, terrorists, etc etc etc. There are plenty of non-Muslims and non-Middle Easterners who feel the same way about America's politics, but aren't talked about in the same way because they don't fit the model.

Just my two cents.

Comment #33 - Posted by: Tom (M/19/170#/6'1") at January 23, 2007 7:29 AM

#24.

Keep an eye on the affiliate list on the main page. I went to the cert this past weekend and worked out alongside a guy who is opening a CF facility in Indy called, oddly enough, CrossFit Indy. He is also a longstanding martial artist and, from my brief interaction with him, a decent fellow. Name escapes me right now - check with CF HQ?

Comment #34 - Posted by: John T. at January 23, 2007 7:30 AM

#24.

Go here. http://www.shokfitness.com/ and ask for Jeff.

Comment #35 - Posted by: John T. at January 23, 2007 7:33 AM

#9 - Posted by Abdullah

Hang in there Abdullah it's a rest day ritual. Don't expect a lot of new or cutting edge thinking on the rest days. It's the WOD that keep the majority of the people in the game. Notice the posts drop dramaticly on rest days. The slant of CF is heavily right wing and military in nature (our boys in the field need CF)and this is not changing. Expect a NEO-CON slant with a heavy dose of jingoism regardless of logic and reason and you will not be suprised.

The gift of grossfit is the workout...the philosophy is all fox news.

ricky
richmond

Comment #36 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 7:36 AM

the gift is "crossfit" sorry not grossfit...no offense ment.

r

Comment #37 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 7:43 AM

Ricky- If it slanted heavily to the "Left", would the philosophy be all CNN, MSN, ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.... ?

The gift of America is the right to free speech and thinking... the philosophy of some is to follow ,ignorantly, the miss guided dribble of others.

Comment #38 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 7:45 AM

Ricky #36- No worries, I think 1/2 of us here are not the best spellers, nor the best users of Spellcheck. I probably head the group of such.

Comment #39 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 7:48 AM

This is important...

“Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as “strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.

This passage encompasses the issue. Where we stand today, as Americans, is a result of this protocol. Though they might not admit it or even know it...Most on the Political Left and increasingly many in the Center and Right have fallen pray to this. I am comming to believe that they do not see how this is not going to stop.

The terror has worked and political power grabs in this country are only serving the agenda.

Below is what WILL NOT SINK INTO THE POLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL OPPONENTS OF MINE in this country...

Malik then introduces the informational, psychological, or perception management concepts of warfare. Echoing Sun Tzu, he states, that if properly prepared, the “war of muscle,” the physical war, will already be won by “the war of will.”55 “Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror.

When examining the theme of the preparatory stage of war, Malik talks of the “war of preparation being waged . . . in peace,” meaning that peacetime preparatory activities are in fact part of any war and “vastly more important than the active war.” This statement should not be taken lightly, it essentially means that Islam is in a perpetual state of war while peace can only be defined as the absence of active war. Malik argues that peace-time training efforts should be oriented on the active war(s) to come, in order to develop the Quranic and divine “Will” in the mujahid. When armies and soldiers find limited physical resources they should continue and emphasize the development of the “spiritual resources” as these are complimentary factors and create synergy for future military action.

I keep hearing about American Foriegn policy as the reason...yet, the Iran Hostage Crisis happened under President Carter and the planning of 9/11 happened under President Clinton, both of who did and continue to appease these people.

This fight is not going to leave us if we leave Iraq. It is happening in Europe as described above right now...and has established a foot-hold in our country. It will not belong until some city in Michigan or a neighborhood of one our major cities is a wash with violence and intimidation by these forces. They will claim oppression in order to gain sympathy from liberals throught the courts or local and state governments. The liberals will cave not truely for the reasons they will give...but sheerly to avoid bringing the situation to a head. Liberals will tie our own hands to avoid a fight.

The Islamo-fascists know it and are already doing it in Europe. The Emums on the plane a few months ago were either a dry-run for something horrible to come (terror) or to "secure" the ability for "special" behavior under the potential Suicide Pact that we call freedom of speech.

Comment #40 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 7:48 AM

#21, Lee,

Actually, it was this sentence from your comment # 21 that leads me to believe you are a nut (as opposed to simply someone with whom I disagree):

"Terrorist is just a label, used in this time of mass produced logos hegemonically reinforced through the media, to signify anyone who doesn't trumpet the dominant ideology."

No, "terrorist" is not just a "label" or a "mass produced logo." Only a nut would assert that anyone who doesn't "trumpet the dominant ideology" would mislabeled as a terrorist. The people who fly airplanes into buildings are not simply people with a minority viewpoint. They are terrorists.

Comment #41 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 7:51 AM

Correction to my Comment #40.

It should have been adressed to #26, Lee, and the quote was from comment #18.

Comment #42 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 7:59 AM

Any clarification?

today I've got for time, 3 rounds in reps of 21, 15, 9 of: 65lb thrusters and pull-ups switching grib between over and underhand. My interpretation is as such...if so ouch!

Round 1: 21,15,9
Round 2: 21,15,9
Round 3: 21,15,9

Comment #43 - Posted by: Case at January 23, 2007 8:00 AM

#42 Case,

No. Like this.

1. 21 Thrusters, 21 Pullups
2. 15,15
3. 9,9

Comment #44 - Posted by: Andy Shirley at January 23, 2007 8:02 AM

While I don't share Lee's politics or his assertion that anyone with a minority viewpoint is directly labelled a terrorist, I think he was probably referring to the argument some make that political dissent, especially involving war-related policies, is unpatriotic because it "helps the enemy".

Comment #45 - Posted by: Tom (M/19/170#/6'1") at January 23, 2007 8:03 AM

Did CFT today. Written in saturdays comments. Ten years of bouldering does nothing for your squat...

Comment #46 - Posted by: mrjling at January 23, 2007 8:05 AM

#38 DJ

I concur in total. The gift of America is free speech and CF takes this to heart as well....as it should. Coach started it and can dress up his baby any way he wants.

It is my duty as a citizen of this country to be informed and active. Months ago we were reading on rest days how 1. we are winning the war in Iraq 2. Bush is a genius we just need to support him more. 3. global warming is a myth 4. The genius of Freedman's The World is Flat etc etc...

how much of this "information" is holding water now...and if you look at the facts CBS and the other "liberal" papers were much closer to the truth.....NOT THE SPIN BUT THE TRUTH.

No news source is unbiased! it's just weeding through the garbage to find bits of truth. Some also have a larger axe to grind than others.

r

Comment #47 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 8:14 AM

28# barry - do I want us to win in Iraq? Win what?Some notion of democracy? Capture all the terrorists, bomb everything then export a new american ideologically sound culture there?

40# hari - terrorism as a label. A concept you obviously have difficulty with. Wikipedia says:
'Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals'.

What I mean is that Big George and the dominant Anglo/american media hurl the phrase about with reference to increasingly broad spectrums of society who don't agree with their politics.

One may be forgiven for thinking that all terrorists are muslims from the tone of many on this forum. I wonder how long until venezulala joins the axis of evil and becomes a 'terrorist nation'?

I think, when I read the views of chest thumping naivettes on this forum offering carpet bombing of 'the enemy' etc that this is equally terroristic.

29# steve - if christianity is a peaceful religion, then those who practice it can put an end to this craziness, renounce undermining and destroying countries whose resources we want to plunder, and get the rest of the Christian world to do the same. I don't (obviously) support what terrorists are doing - the civilised world - what the hell does that mean? For years there were terrorists in Ireland. Does that mean Ireland is not civilised? Do the actions of the view represent the many? How far would you like America to go in persuit of freedom Steve? Grimly stating you will win and actually helping civilians are to my mind two separate things. It sounds like you don't think other religions have a right to exist.

I don't feel my freedom is threatened, nor do any of my peers. I don't think I'm better or worse than anyone else. I respect other cultures and disrespect fundamentalists of any nature. By fundamentalists I mean 'Movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles.'(wikipedia)

Comment #48 - Posted by: lee at January 23, 2007 8:37 AM

#26 0 lee-
You wrote- "Such bullying rhetoric has offended millions in recent times"
I would like to point out that generally, any time someone is offended by a statement, it is because there is a bit of truth in that statement and it is cutting close to the bone.

That is good that you don't feel your freedom threatened. That means that what our service men and women are doing is working and helping. I am also sure that on September 10 the people that died on September 11th didn't feel as though their security or freedom was being threatened.


#9 Abdullah-
The one thing that I would like to know is why aren't the peaceful, good citizen Muslims policing their own? Why have they given away their power to the extremists?

Kate

Comment #49 - Posted by: jknl at January 23, 2007 8:45 AM

#47 - You know the truth has a well known liberal bias, right?

I love propaganda, err, I mean "rest" days.

Comment #50 - Posted by: Nick at January 23, 2007 8:49 AM

Ricky- I do agree w/the opening and closing of your post. The meat of it on the other hand, I do not. Once again, the US public does need to weed through what is being put before it. It's sad that all you see is the death and destruction in the Middle East. Not the good. But then again, what sells papers? (Seeing the body count of American deaths, or seeing just how far we've gone in making a place that once was supporting terroist acts against the US and her allies) The US public has no comprehension on the fact that when war is won on the battlefield, the losing side doesn't quickly rebuilds it's self and everything is huny-dory (Read up on the happenings of post war Japan). Maybe people should try re-reading books that were written long ago, but still relate to today. Such as "The Prince" by Machiavelli. Then they would see just how far we've come in this phase of the war. And war is fought in phases.

Finally, I don't care who you are. No American publication, television channel, politican, etc... Should ever put down the President of the United States openly and publicly! All that does is show weakness and division in the country, which just aids the enemy. It's funny. I remember a previous President screwing things up, but never being put down so openly. He botched several miltary operations, that effect us today even. The economy wasn't as strong as it is right now. And he had an affair on his wife. But yet, the public media stood quietly. President Bush does what thinks is best for this country and what he feels makes it safer... He gets torn a part. He shows religious faith and values... He gets bashed and ridiculed openly via the media. I don't get it. Where have we as a country lost the way?

I didn't mean to bable there, but I got cought in the moment. Maybe I should take a writing class so my posts are actually coherent to others. Anyways, back to work. Uncle Sam doesn't pay us to sit around voicing our oppinions. But rather for our actions.

Arrrggghhh!!!

Comment #51 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 8:49 AM

Lee,

I'll take that as a no. Winning is a viable, relatively peaceful Arab state that is reasonably just, moving towards democracy, and antithetical to Islamic extremism, and committed to the material and political betterment of its' people, and that needs little or no American military help to sustain itself, and protect itself from internal and external enemies. The opposite of what you imply you want by embracing poorly thought-out policies, as I point out below.

There is a thought error in implying that dissent DOESN'T help the enemy. Was Jane Fonda helping American troops by going to No. Vietnam calling them war criminals? Should we ignore the explicit comments by No. Vietnamese generals that the American anti-war movement was critical to their battlefield success? Should we ignore current Islamic terrorists who have claimed that Western public opinion is essential to their battlefield success?

Real people die--both American and others--when misguided and stupid people here give our enemies comfort and support. What should we call people like that?

If you don't want us to win in Iraq--and most American Leftists, if they are honest,don't-- then in order to have any credibility as anything other than a tool of our enemy, you have to show how LOSING the war is more consistent with our national security. If you can't show that, then you are a traitor, not a patriot. You are getting people killed.

You don't feel threatened? You're a sheep. You're lucky to have sheepdogs out there willing to defend your "right" to "feel" however you want, and express it in intellectually stillborn rhetoric.

(side note: Why do you think Hezbollah located so many of their rocket launchers in civilian areas? Was it for military benefit? They knew darn well the Israelis would hit them, since they were attacking the Israelis. No, they did it to evoke outrage in the Western press. That is the only reason, and it worked. If you extend that logic, it becomes plain to see that the leftists who screamed the most about the civilian casualties actually have that blood ON THEIR HANDS (in addition to Hezbollah and their Iranian sponsors).)

A leftist would have to show how a bloodbath culminating in a Shia or Sunni Islamic State constituted along the lines of the Taliban or the Iranian Mullocracy--i.e. politically repressive, undemocratic, and committed to killing Americans--is actually better for the people of Iraq, and better for Americans.

I don't think that case can be made. In fact, the case that the opposite effect--that of a dramatic decrease in our collective security would occur--seems to me so obvious that I'm just not sure how anyone who has carefully considered the matter can reach any other conclusion.

Al Queda has declared Iraq their front-line. We are fighting a Global War on Terror. In what respect does withdrawing from the front line move our line forward?

In point of fact, in reviewing leftist arguments, they all revolve around either "this war is difficult", or some version of conspiracy theory, which is necessary, since reality is unfortunately not currently amenable to their pipedreams of global peace through unilateral disarmament and disengagement. I suppose we could all convert to Islam, but that's not the best mileau for your typical liberal to cat around in.

As Joey pointed out, we were attacked in peacetime, out of the blue. This attack fit perfectly within a very consistent pattern dating back to the 70's of attacking Western culture--particularly as expressed in the "obscenity" of Israel, symbol of the "naqba"--through terror. As one sees repeatedly in their rhetoric, they view us as soft, decadent, and vulnerable, and frankly the soft, decadent rhetoric issuing from their Leftist fellow travellers does nothing but encourage them in that assessment.

There are two very simple questions here:

1) Do you want us to win in Iraq? If not, why? If yes, what is your strategy (that then becomes an issue warranting rational, fact-based assessment).

2) Does Israel have the right to exist in its' current form? If not, what form should it take?

Comment #52 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 23, 2007 8:57 AM

Personally, I feel that all "religions" have done enough that their "right to exist" should be revoked. Particularly the three monotheistic Abrahamic faiths, as their "god" is particularly vindictive and harmful to humanity.

http://richarddawkins.net/images/RDFflyerIMAGINE4page.jpg

Comment #53 - Posted by: Andy Shirley at January 23, 2007 8:58 AM

DJ I think we need to put this aside. I agree whith some of what you have to say and will respect your opinion but i feel it is highly biased.

r

Comment #54 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 9:00 AM

There is no denying that CF rest days are biased to the right. There is also no denying that most major news is biased to the left. That is the reason I like to read posts on rest days it balances other sources I'm exposed to.

#30 Steve

I had to point this out

"By "us" I mean the civilized world where we don't blow up innocent civilians with car bombs and commercial jets, where we allow freedom of speech and the general principles of liberty to reign, where we encourage freedom of religious beliefs and allow criticism of the government without fear of having our heads cut off by barbarians who would rather live in the stone age and worship some fake god whose "prophets" encourage said barbaric behavior."

Freedom of speech, freedom of religious beliefs vs. "worship fake god"

???

Comment #55 - Posted by: ut steve at January 23, 2007 9:02 AM

I found that article insightful and accurate. I don't think it offers a very novel viewpoint, but since the information and conclusions seem to be correct, it can't be a step any way but forward if thinkers in our government were to read it.

It almost seems reductionist to state that people in the military and politics need to be appraised (again) of the long-term strategy of extreme radicals in the Muslim world. That's been done a number of times. You'd think that if anyone had paid attention to "Through Our Enemies' Eyes", either back when it was a training manual for the CIA or later, when it was published, instead of writing it off as another liberal-leaning tell-all -- we could all have had a pretty good understanding of the basis claimed by Muslim extremists for their war. The hijacking of the principle of defensive jihad to strengthen the position of radicals, and to justify clearly OFFENSIVE actions like terror attacks outside of a Muslim's home nation, was available for the world to take note of. But no one, on the right or the left in the US anyway, were taking it very seriously. It really seems as if the only people wise to the situation, and considering SERIOUSLY the strategy and resolve of organizations like al Queda, were a small handfull of the people working specifically on the bin Laden problem -- and not in the military, but in the CIA.

On a more general note: while Islam has more of a history of doctrinal violence than Christianity (ie, the Prophet himself led several bloody campaigns), the article is more of a review of a single book by a Pakistani general. And it's a very interesting article, although since none of the information about the motivation, justification or strategy of jihadists sheds new light, it really works more as a teaser that makes me want to get ahold of an English-translated version of that book!

But I think that any time we talk HONESTLY about the jihadist problem, as this article does, no one seems to be able to offer real solutions. It's a really hard problem.

And only once we start stepping away from the unpleasant, seemingly intractable reality do people suddenly become geniuses with plans that will solve the problem once and for all, IF ONLY WE HAD THE WILL ... right.

On both sides, we're told to imagine a world where we're hated, not because of a powerful campaign built upon accessible interpretations of our concrete policies, but because of who we are and because the Muslim world needs to be civilized.

On the left, we're told to imagine a world where brand names and Will & Grace will conquer some of the proudest and strongest peoples and institutions in the world, peoples who withstood and eventually humbled the Crusaders and the British and Soviet empires ... and, furthermore, that these inconsequential things can in any way change the game the radicals play, without giving up on certain policies in the Middle East (also not an option).

On the right, we're told to imagine a world where you can beat an insurgency with an occupation ... and then pray for that to happen, because even though it's never been done, THAT'S OUR PLAN. Imagine a world where the fuel we give to extremists, and the strength of their position and arguments, is a non-factor -- because, hey, they hate us REGARDLESS, so we may as well give them plenty of ammo. Imagine a world where we can buy off some of the proudest peoples in the world, and affect a serious and lasting change by doing so.

It's messy and well-nigh intractable, but what moves it into the category of GENUINE intractability is the unwillingness of the public and their politicians to speak genuinely about the true nature of the situation, and instead take whatever reductionist, imaginary worldview best suits their political ends at the moment.

Comment #56 - Posted by: mr_luc at January 23, 2007 9:03 AM

#46 ricky --

The real issue is that American culture has become one of pop-ideology and lazy, fast-food educations. Very few, including most of us in this group, truly does their own research for the truth or even really knows why they believe what they do. It took me about three months of service and reading as much as I could get my hands on to really form what I believe to be an educated opinion. Most people, in fact, just watch the "news" networks that seem to agree with their opinions and wait to hear the so-called facts presented by apparent experts and call it gospel. Conservatives included.

I still believe in everything America stands for. I count myself extremely patriotic. I'm a fighter pilot currently serving on the ground in Iraq. However, although we may live in the greatest country on Earth we clearly have problems. There is a such thing as right and wrong. And when we protect poisonous ideologies and thinking under the guise of "freedom of speech" we are only doing our country harm.

I watch all the networks with an open mind, but with my values firmly in place, and I have yet to hear one single reasonable alternative plan to provide protection from this terrorist threat or a chance for a productive future for the people of Iraq. Anyone truly familiar with our operations over here and the well-thought out update that the President is implementing would at the very least acknowlege its motivations and crediblitiy, even if you don't like it or think you have a better answer. If there was a better way, don't you know it would be all over every news channel? But you don't. So for those who sit back and criticize because this war is a long, hard journey. Suck it up and stop complaining. The US military is going to take care of it...if the American people can stomach doing the right thing.

p.s. your right about one thing. crossfit is like a big right to the kidneys. God Bless!

Comment #57 - Posted by: wilson at January 23, 2007 9:11 AM

#48, Lee,

"40# hari - terrorism as a label. A concept you obviously have difficulty with. Wikipedia says:
'Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals'."

You're reference above is perfectly accurate. It also has nothing to do with your original statement:

"Terrorist is just a label, used . . . to signify anyone who doesn't trumpet the dominant ideology."

You now also write:

"One may be forgiven for thinking that all terrorists are muslims from the tone of many on this forum."

In fact, in my comment #19, I wrote just the opposite:

"However, I think we can agree that while all Islamofascists are Muslims, not all (or even most) Muslims are Islamofascists."


Comment #58 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 9:35 AM

#24 --- I'm in indy and do CF workouts with another guy in town. Email me if you want to join, just get rid of the nospam part of the email address.

Comment #59 - Posted by: JB at January 23, 2007 9:37 AM

ABDULLAH... I would like to make it very clear...you would be in no danger from a Crossfitter... Spec Ops or not at a certification. To the contrary, I believe their was a Muslim at the Cert in San Diego that I attended...I think most of us were more concerned with his Muscle-up ability than his religion. I would encourage you to email me for a further discussion.

It also appears you may have mis-read Kman's post.

Hari... man I like your style.

DJ..GET BACK TO WORK!!!!

Barry...you know the answers to those questions...this is what I was talking to you about...you have entirely to much patience.

MR_LUC...I am picking up what you are dropping. However, at this point a more "in-your-face" policy is being employed to buy space and time. Which thus far it has worked...for the America. Sure there are downsides to every plan...and when you are fighting this enemy...talking has downsides, doing nothing has downsides, and fighting has downsides. The upside of fighting is, as now they are focused on the fight and we can dispatch more of them.

Andy...it was religious organizations that saved and fed New Orleans when the "government" was not up to the task.

More death and destruction has come from collectivist/secular governments in the last century that religion has in the last 2 millenia.

I say we outlaw collectivist governments.

Lee...what Christian governments are you talking about??

Comment #60 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 10:02 AM

BTW, Lee, let me help you improve on your language. I speak Obfuscatorese, which is sometimes confused with Academese. The latter is merely a linguistic convention, the former is characterized either by actually woolly thinking or an intentional effort to confuse and mislead people. One does see both in the Academy, but most the time professors simply lack the ability to write.

This should have been your response: "The rhetoric of "winning" and "losing" is inherently a hegemonic discourse privileging a non-reality based discursive logic concealing the roots of power taken through forceful economic process from affected subalterns. As such, it is an redirectional tactic utilized by overempowered entities in the interest of racist, imperialistic agendas."

The beauty of this sort of thing is it is free from the need for context. There is no there there. You don't have to review history, adequately describe the present, or anticipate the future. Your conclusion is drawn, and you only occasionally have to draw in specific examples, like the Israelis "atrocities" in Lebanon, or that Abu Ghraib happened somewhere. Even those cases don't have to be closely examined, as long as they have shock appeal.

You establish, and then conceal, a very formal semantic logic that reads something like America< any complaining entity. Freedom is not freedom if America is involved. And overt autocracies--which is the direction Chavez is going--are "free" because they distinguish their regimes from America by criticizing us.

And you aren't "free", seems to be the implication, if the police won't let you protest naked downtown, urinating on an American flag while singing the Marseillaise, or the Government won't let you leak classified documents damaging to our cause, and which cost American lives.

Mr. Luc,

It's not accurate that an occupation has never worked. It worked in the Phillipines, as the example that is most directly relevant, as that also involved Muslim terrorists. The difference there, though, is they didn't have CNN on their butts praying they would screw up, so they could get a multi-week boost in ratings.

Comment #61 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 23, 2007 10:15 AM

Joey,
I don't consider the dogmatic cult-of-peronality totalitarian regimes of the 20th century to be representative of what a rational secular government is capable. Far from it.

I also don't think religion is a prerequisite for compassion or charity. Just because religion has a few positive attributes does not make up for the harm it has caused.

And, although I think a world without religion is ideal, I hold out no hope that it is within reach.

Comment #62 - Posted by: Andy Shirley at January 23, 2007 10:19 AM

Barry...nevermind what I said before...that was a solid response you just gave...even if I had to read it twice to get it all!!

Andy...I understand your response. I would point out that religion is normally voluntary, where as collectivist governments remove that choice, even moderate collectivist governments.

I would agree with your last sentence...I would like to modify it...

"and , although I think a world without PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT STEALING STEALING LIBERTY IN ORDER TO IMPOSE THEIR WORLD VIEW, I hold out no hope that it is within reach."

Comment #63 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 10:34 AM

Wilson,

"The real issue is that American culture has become one of pop-ideology and lazy, fast-food educations. Very few, including most of us in this group, truly does their own research for the truth or even really knows why they believe what they do. It took me about three months of service and reading as much as I could get my hands on to really form..."

I totally agree with this statment and further argue this fast food thinking was relied upon by the current administration to advance this war. Never have so few in power relied on the laziness and stupidity of so many. I will argue that right and wrong is clear and worth making a stand over. Further I offer no profound solutions and have no earth shattering concepts to bring to the table. But what I know to be true is that this war is wrong, the American people were lied to (and thats why we don't support it) and we should have concentrated on Afghanistan and North Africa. Bush had an agenda and we as a country especally our "reporters" did no research to offset the spin. We jumped in to kick someones butt, anyones butt following 911 like a fired up teenager. Give me the right fight, the good fight and I am all in. This one isn't it.

Regardless of my opinion I truly thank you for putting your ass on the line. That is true of all our boys.

ricky
richmond

Comment #64 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 10:35 AM

re-try...

I would almost agree with your last sentence...I would like to modify it...

"and , although I think a world without PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THAT STEALING LIBERTY IN ORDER TO IMPOSE THEIR WORLD VIEW, I hold out no hope that it is within reach."

Comment #65 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 10:36 AM

CCTJoey,

Thanks for the awesome post. Lots 'o good posts, longer ones I printed to digest.

Abdullah, I think we'd have a grand time doing crossfit, whatever flavor of religion floats your boat. I have had the opportunity while in Iraq to learn enough about Islam to know it's as diverse as Christianity and therefore impossible to fully comprehend as a means of seeking the divine, and no doubt reflects the human failings of its practitioners as well as Christianity does.

I don't think any sort of hatred based religion can last long - it's self quenching.

It sure is interesting to see what the hatred of George Bush does to some peoples' minds.

Dreaming of the (libertarian) revolution ...

Comment #66 - Posted by: apolloswabbie at January 23, 2007 10:46 AM


Get Fit or Die Trying !

NICE ;-)

Comment #67 - Posted by: Tamas at January 23, 2007 10:58 AM

Joey,
I must respectively disagree that religion is voluntary. The childhood indoctrination makes it very difficult to break out of. If one is raised up to say, age 18, with a pluralistic approach(all major religions represented equally), then allowed to choose, then religion would be voluntary. You are told from birth that this is the way things are, if you waver you will be damned to eternal hell. Add in the mutually exclusive desire of them to convert everyone else to their viewpoint, and you have a recipe for the current disasters(bringing in the huge ideological differences within the major groups, as well as between them).

Catholic v Protestant. Shiite v Sunni. Christian v Muslim. Hindu v Muslim. Conflicts too numerous to count worldwide. I wish I knew a way to get people to celebrate our similarities and work to better mankind, but these petty differences indoctrinated during youth make progress a frighteningly difficult task.

It saddens me greatly.

Comment #68 - Posted by: Andy Shirley at January 23, 2007 11:01 AM

Does anyone CrossFit in the Lansing, MI area?

Comment #69 - Posted by: John at January 23, 2007 11:05 AM

Andy...yes people are brought up in various ways...governments lock you up or kill non-conformists...religions do not...unless they are the basis for that government's power.

Comment #70 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 11:14 AM

I'm going to let the Dawkins thing drop as it would take us too far out. I have very strong, very well thought out, and very critical opinions of him. He is, self evidently, among other things an outspoken leftist.

I will say, though, that there is considerably more reason to understand Nazism through the lense of sociobiology--as an honest expression of the notion of survival of the fittest and related notions of eugenics--than American foreign policy through the lense of Christianity. I'm not a Christian, and even if I were to become an atheist, my opinions wouldn't change. Religion is simply not relevant to notions of national security, even if common sense notions of right and wrong seem overly simplistic to some people.

Except in the case of Arabs, and it is relevant to them because they see secularizing, Scientistic (note, not "scientific"; they are two different animals) attacks on their culture and faith emanating from the West, through "our" outpost in Israel. So, to the extent that religion matters, it is the effort of people like Dawkins to destroy their religion, coupled with the manifold liberal assaults on common decency and human dignity, that creates the violence. If he were to actually practice tolerance, and if we all collectively were to actually embrace multi-culturalism as meaning something other than "blame Whitey", then we could do as well or better in avoiding violence, than in trying to eliminate Religion as a whole (of which Sociobiology is a subset, with the substantial distinction of having the least coherent or developed theology). Dawkins reads the Bible. I read Ernst Mach, Karl Popper, Stephan Jay Gould and Charles Darwin. I guarantee I can make my case with considerably more alacrity and honesty than he can make his. And without the intolerant bombast.

Dang, I got started. He's on my short list of most annoying, self righteously hypocritical human beings on the planet. I better be careful, or I'll say what I really think.

Question: was it worse when Jimmy Swaggart got caught with a prostitute he didn't have sex with, or when Dawkins got called out as having fabricated the story of the computer simulation of the evolution of the eye out of thin air?

Comment #71 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 23, 2007 11:24 AM

I posted a question to Abdullah that I would like to have answered because I'm very curious as to the answer. I would believe that it would be a different sort of answer that would have come from a WWII German soldier, but it is the same sort of question. I do know tht there are some Islamic countries fighting against the extremists and I think it would be interesting to know how many are doing it wholeheartedly (not like how Pakistan is doing it).

I remembered now that Abdullah will not be able to answer my question because I posted it and I am a woman. So, perhaps I could impose upon the men of the community to either ask the question for me or direct me to some sort of article that may help me find the answer.

Please note that I am not offended in the least by this, some times things are as they are and I can accept that.

My question is- Why aren't the peaceful, good citizen Muslims policing their own? Why have they given away their power to the extremists?

Thanks, Kate

Comment #72 - Posted by: jknl at January 23, 2007 11:26 AM

AWESOME Video Crossfit North!

Comment #73 - Posted by: dan colson at January 23, 2007 11:37 AM

barry coopper:

That's true, but

1) The Phillipinos, being an island nation, had a hell of a time when it came to the supplies needed to continue an insurgency. The actual majority of their fighters didn't even have rifles, of any kind, to fight with! Contrast with the Middle East, a place where arms will never be in short supply.

2) The entire Phillipine army didn't just go underground at the first sign of the overwhelming US offensive, but that's basically what happened in Iraq. The Phillipine army obligingly attempted, in the early years, to fight a "traditional" war, despite often doing so with a rifle for every three men.

3) The methods used to win the war in the Phillipines would not be acceptable to the voting public. You can't put this one on CNN's shoulders, either -- the actual facts were that the US had to use concentration camps and scorched-earth. Now, while some may choose to imagine a reality where most Americans WOULD support those policies if we could just remove that weakening, minority liberal media elite, that's exactly what it is: imaginary. In the real world, when it comes to the kind of force necessary to actually subdue this insurgency and win this war, it's not that the country is being stolen by a powerful minority of bleeding hearts. The reality is that the country doesn't think those policies are the kind of thing that America should be doing, period. And that's not likely to change soon, and it's not because of the media. It's because that's how Americans think.

Anyone who supports using the bloody levels of force necessary to really conquer the insurgency and stabilize Iraq is going to find themselves in the minority among their fellow citizens. That's not a terrible thing, and in fact, our freedoms of speech protect you as a minority opinion.

But recognize that a) this is harder than the phillipines (hell, we have to build a nation-state, not just democracy!) and b) even the tactics that worked in the phillipines aren't on the table, and the people preventing their use are your next-door neighbors, not some shadowy and corrupt elites.

The way to change that would be to, I guess, engage in discourse with your neighbors who feel differently, and support people who side with your views. Just like the minority of extreme liberals on the other side have to do, when they try to convince us that man-on-pumpkin sex is an inalienable right that should be taught to children.

Comment #74 - Posted by: mr_luc at January 23, 2007 11:42 AM

To Abdullah or any other moderate Muslim...

Why aren't the peaceful, good citizen Muslims policing their own? Why have they given away their power to the extremists?

Comment #75 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 11:43 AM

Ricky- Biased maybe... probably... w/out a doubt, just as much everyone else in society. But be sure, my oppinions are based on what I believe is best for this country. Not for myself. I agree though, we can put this to the side. Though I do enjoy debating. Enjoy the rest day.

CCTJOEY- Galley food BAD! Hard to get back to work after a gut bomb like I just had. How are things up north there?

Comment #76 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 11:54 AM

DJ...SLOW!!!! Lots of studying right now...my mind is full of useful information and I am not used to that.

Freaking snow!!!...where is global warming at??

I took my shoulder out of socket on the WOD this morning..."Filthy Fifty". The last rep on the last exercise...a stupid double-under... must have been very fatigued. My brother-in-law was in awe as I put it back in..

Comment #77 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 12:07 PM

DJ No Worries! We will resume this fine argument later. Again, respect and best wishes to all. Were all Americans looking to the best solution as we see it.

r

Comment #78 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 12:14 PM

#72 Kate,

I'm sure you mean well, but to assume that Abdullah has not answered yet because you are a woman is taking it a bit far. I may be wrong, but our bearded friend does not sound like a fundamentalist, and refusing to address a woman over the Internet is pretty hardcore.

Regular "moderate" Muslim men look at and speak to women every day, just like many Christians work on Sundays.

Maybe Abdullah will come and clear this up himself - unless he has better things to do right now than read rest day comments, which would be perfectly natural.

P_J

PS: mr_luc gets my vote in today's battle of ideas, but who's counting?

Comment #79 - Posted by: P_Joe at January 23, 2007 12:18 PM

CCTJOEY- I've felt your pain bro. I had 2 surgeries on my R shoulder partly for that reason. The Filthy-50 bites back.

Ricky- Rest day conversation = a WOD for the mind. I agree.

Comment #80 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 12:19 PM

CCTJOEY, Barry Cooper and others with similar way of thinking.... I would like to ask your opinion on where do you draw the line between freedom of speech and being patriotic. This is an issue which caused much confusion to me (and also to other people by looking at the comments above).

Do we have freedom to express our opinions or we cannot critize our leaders since that makes us weaker ?

Do we have freedom to practice our choice of religion or only the ones which do not declare holy wars (aka Crusades) ?

Do we defend the right for free press or do we censor what is thought as politically not correct ?

Do we have a right of freedom of association or we draw special zones where you cannot protest and topics about which you cannot carry placards ?

Do we support the human rights (if there is such a thing) of all human beings or only the ones who are not enemy combatants, terrorists or just simily "not with us" ?

I know that this new enemy doesnt play nice or by the rulebook. They hide their soldiers behind civilians and project a twisted picture about their true motives. But the question is : can we win against them without dropping the principles of freedoms other generations have died for ?

Do not misunderstand me, I do not feel safe in this world, very grateful of all the soldiers who are sacrificing their safety for my (our) benefit. Also know that centuries ago we would not have debated this, just would have went in and killed them all.

However if you stand up in the western world and deny the Holocaust because that is what you have learned at the main university of your religion (in Riyadh), you get imprisoned in France and most likely arrested in the US for an indefinite period of time until charges can be found against you.

But if you establish the "Flat Earth Society" or even better claim that God created Earth 6000 years ago, then you are just pratcticing your beliefs or religion.

So, we have a tough stance against our enemies. But where do you draw the line between patriotism and freedom?

-some more food for thought work and family safe undercover video on UK mosques
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtf0p2ScGPg

Comment #81 - Posted by: Tamas at January 23, 2007 12:19 PM

CCTJOEY,

Now I know better than to go after you being you are a true regular if not founding father, but I just wanted to suggest that it my not be fair to ask Abdullah to act as the voice of Billions.

ricky
richmond

Comment #82 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 12:20 PM

Mr_luc,

Word! That explains my History teachers love for, "The Great Pumkin Charlie Brown".

Comment #83 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 12:21 PM

I think there's a major flaw in saying that any one religion is responsible for terrorism or violence in any way. The real problem is fanataciscm. Hitler claimed to be acting as a christian, as did Cortez, and how many people did they brutaly murder? I consider myself a christian, in that I try to look to how Jesus lived, not listen to the doctrines that are meant only to control the masses, and have nothing to do with Jesus. Whether you're Jewish or Christian or Muslim or Hindu or whatever, I really can't believe that murder can be condoned in the name of God. If someone says it is, they are wrong. By saying that the Islamic faith is the reason for violence, you are avoiding the real issues and taking the easy way out. This kind of thinking has been a problem in our history, and we have to overcome it if we want to succeed as a just society.

Comment #84 - Posted by: Jonathan at January 23, 2007 12:27 PM

CFT posted there. 620, PR by 10

Interesting, it takes me longer to do the CFT than almost any other WOD. I do the CFWU as usual, then warm up on each of the three exercises 5-3-1-1, then the CFT. Total 1 hour in the gym. Anybody else have this experience, or am I just being a leeeetle too compulsive?

Comment #85 - Posted by: bingo at January 23, 2007 12:30 PM

D.J I agree with you but I'm not thinking with bias but with the knowledge that where ever there is "leaders that are commited to the slaughter of thousands and where humanity is being destroyed some one better care!I may not always agree with my leader but I will support him and beleive that he may know more than I do, and I do believe he is a good man and for what ever reason we are in Iraq does not matter now!We are in there and need to be a united front here if for know other reason than the fact we are one country under God and one people.United in this country we can stand anything and our men and women should have us behind then 100%.If I am wrong then time will tell, but I will have faith in my country and my god and know that where ever americans stand and fight we have over history done so with the best intent.

Comment #86 - Posted by: agle at January 23, 2007 12:41 PM

Ricky...I am mean know harm nor foul by my question. Perspective, if only one person's, about a subject that might be a difficult one for him to share, might be important to hear.

That question is not meant as an indictment...I am sure I could well be asked a similar question as a means for "Baiting" I am not trying to bait.

Abdullah appears to have offered a clear and peaceful post. His respect for our military and stated concerns of possible implications of him being a Muslim around us, make him a unique participant.

Please, feel free to go after me all you want...I am not a moderator or a Founding Father of Crossfit. At worst, you may not get a post through the filter/moderators...that happens to me as well.

Comment #87 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 12:42 PM

4 laps of the mill (1720m)
then 2 rounds of;
50 Wall Ball (20lb ball)
25 GHD Back Extension
25 GHD Sit Ups
4 laps of the mill

time - 26.55

Comment #88 - Posted by: karl at January 23, 2007 12:43 PM

Bingo/Darrell- If you think about bro, there is a total of 15 total sets of lifts to complete the CFT right. Give yourself an avg break of :03 between each. That would equals :42. W/that in mind, an hour seems about right when you mix in warming up. Try warming up w/some skill building stuff to mix it up a bit. The CFWU is a good one, but I believe that slow lift days are a good opportunity to work on other stuff and let your body rest from the usual mov't. Try knocking out a 500 or 2 on the rower and then the Burgener warm-up followed by some light lifts. Good job by the way. I've been watching you improve on the posts w/the WODs.

Comment #89 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 12:48 PM

Lee - In response to your post #48, you mock my point that the Muslims are the ones responsible for the transnational terrorism we're faced with worldwide by saying that you think I'm anti any religion other than Christianity. Quite wrong; however, I am against the use of religion, any religion for that matter, to control and manipulate the weak and poor into performing acts of terrorism against peaceful nations and citizens.

Interesting that you point to Ireland and the terrorist tactics there against the Brits. The IRA were not transnational terrorists. I didn't lie awake in my bed at night wondering if the IRA was going to detonate a nuke in an American city just because they hated America. And the IRA were willing to come to terms with the situation - unlike the terrorists we now face in the Islamic world.

I do agree with Kate in post #72 - "My question is- Why aren't the peaceful, good citizen Muslims policing their own? Why have they given away their power to the extremists?"

On another note, I also don't believe everything our government tells me and I'm not a fanatical Bush loyalist; however, I do agree with DJ that you don't criticize the President openly and, in effect, aide and abet the enemy by helping to sap our national will through open dissent, which in turn only strengthens the resolve of the terrorists.

The question I have for you, Lee, is what have you done to preserve liberty?

Comment #90 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 23, 2007 12:49 PM

Mom- You said it!

Comment #91 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 12:51 PM

#81, Tamas,

In America, we have absolute freedom to criticize (or support) our leaders. What we don't have is the right to have our statements go unchallenged by either the government or our fellow citizens. Free speech cuts both ways. We (including the press) do not have the right to leek classified information.

We do have certain places where we cannot protest or discuss certain topics. (Under the First Amendment, these are known as "time, manner, and place" restrictions.) A simple and obvious example would be a courtroom. We do not have the right to wear buttons saying "guilty" or "innocent" inside a courtroom.

I seriously doubt that anyone kooky enough to deny the Holocaust in the US would be arrested. Laughed at, mocked, booed, but not arrested.

Your question of whether we can win against an enemy that does not play by the rule book is a good one. I certainly hope so, and if not I hope we stop playing by the rule book. Because if we lose, there will be no rulebook.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Comment #92 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 12:52 PM

Kate, assuming that Abdullah hasn't answered you because you are a woman is pretty ridiculous. You posted your original question at 8:45 am, and since you didn't get a response in less than three hours you assume he is refusing to address you because of your gender? Is it possible that there is some other explanation? Making that assumption is like a black person assuming someone must be in the KKK because they didn't call them back within three hours after they left a message at 2 am.

Perhaps Abdullah doesn't want to continue debating this issue. Or, more likely, maybe he doesn't have time to check the crossfit comments page every hour on a Tuesday morning.

Comment #93 - Posted by: Tom at January 23, 2007 12:55 PM

Question ??? Some days I do the wod from this site and some days I do the CF San Diego wod. Is this ok.. I mean are the workouts set in a certain order for a reason or is that not so important. I realize the obvious like doing deadlifts 2 days in a row. Anyone have any thoughts on this.
Thanks.
SKIng

Comment #94 - Posted by: sking at January 23, 2007 1:04 PM

Sking- STOP imdiately! If you continue this, you will inplode.

j/k There is no problem w/this. I know first hand that CFSD has some tough ass WOD's. Just be sure that you don't just go back and forth doing the WOD's that you are good at. You will not improve that way. You need to make sure that are challenging your weaknesses as well. Hope it helps.

Comment #95 - Posted by: DJ at January 23, 2007 1:09 PM

Hari and barry,

thanks for telling me what I think. I hadn't realised my none neo-conservative words would put hairs up so many upstanding asses. Barry, you're more eloquent but that doesn't make me agree with you. I haven't immersed myself in the subject to the level you guys have. I don't care enough, which seems to be a crime around here. I don't feel, as someone was arrogant enough to presume, that my percieved sense of freedom is due to american and british people being in another country killing and getting killed in a heavily media- saturated situation. The right wing media often refer to arrested muslims as 'terror-suspects' then sheepishly admit there is no evidence and no charges made. You may pick the bones of that point and chew them how you will, but it's the sort of thing that influences my opinion. I might well be a sheep. It doesn't mean I have to like the sheepdog. Especially when the sheepdog lies about the reasons for attacking the wolf.

Re Bush - I know 10 year olds with stronger powers reason and articulation.

Comment #96 - Posted by: lee at January 23, 2007 1:09 PM

Thanks DJ.

Comment #97 - Posted by: sking at January 23, 2007 1:15 PM

#96, Lee,

"I might well be a sheep. It doesn't mean I have to like the sheepdog. Especially when the sheepdog lies about the reasons for attacking the wolf."

Well argued!

You're perfectly free to hate the sheepdog, and clearly you do.

Comment #98 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 1:17 PM

#96, Lee,

And I guess I should add that the sheepdogs are equaly free to hate the wolves.

Comment #99 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 1:20 PM

#75- Thanks Joey!

#79 P_Joe- It might seem hardcore to you to see what I wrote but I was showing respect to Abdullah and his religeous practices. Since we don't know how religeous or orthodox he is, I have to take a non-assuming position.

Tom- Yes, I also understand that he may be a very busy man, different time zone, etc. I was actually scrubbing the floor when that particular thought occured to me and I wanted to get it down before I had to run out the door to get my kids from school. Now I am responding to your post before starting some other work. When I believe that I might have offeneded I try and clear it up as soon as possible or as soon as I think about it. So, maybe it seems like I was jumping the gun a bit to post that only 3 hours after my first post but that's when it was in my head and I wanted to get it down.

If someone else wants to answer my question for me that's fine too.

Kate

Comment #100 - Posted by: jknl at January 23, 2007 1:20 PM

TAMAS...

"Do we have freedom to express our opinions or we cannot critize our leaders since that makes us weaker ?"

both...everything has a consequence. the point is "why are you doing it?" Is it to disrupt this administration for political reasons? Is it to postpone success until another leader takes charge? With respect to the political left in this country...that is exacly why. They have admitted it.

"Do we have freedom to practice our choice of religion or only the ones which do not declare holy wars (aka Crusades) ?"

Freedom of religion is the law of the land...if that religion undermines other points of law or others's freedom of religion than it is going to have problems.

"Do we defend the right for free press or do we censor what is thought as politically not correct ?"

We defend freedom of the press...The press has no right to undermine national security and has an obligation, I believe, not to purposely report only the negative aspects of events that have our people in harm's way just to beat up on a political figure they do not personally like (Journalistic institutions and individuals).

"Do we have a right of freedom of association or we draw special zones where you cannot protest and topics about which you cannot carry placards ?"

Depends...are the protesters there to protest peacefully or are they their to disrupt through thuggary and intimidation and ...hence, stopping others from their freedom of association. The dirty hippies who protest the Republican conventions come to mind....

"Do we support the human rights (if there is such a thing) of all human beings or only the ones who are not enemy combatants, terrorists or just simily "not with us" ?

We support human rights, primarily the right to live, by getting information that saves lives from enemy combatants and terrorists. We do not however, in my view confer CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS on those that mean to harm us.

"I know that this new enemy doesnt play nice or by the rulebook. They hide their soldiers behind civilians and project a twisted picture about their true motives. But the question is : can we win against them without dropping the principles of freedoms other generations have died for ?"

yes, and it will not always be pretty...I ask you to remember that our Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact. I wish it could be different, but this is how they want it...so this is how they get it.

"However if you stand up in the western world and deny the Holocaust because that is what you have learned at the main university of your religion (in Riyadh), you get imprisoned in France and most likely arrested in the US for an indefinite period of time until charges can be found against you."

I have not seen this to be the case...however, it does tend to be a telling indicator. Do you have examples?


"But if you establish the "Flat Earth Society" or even better claim that God created Earth 6000 years ago, then you are just pratcticing your beliefs or religion."

sure people believe all sorts of things...it is actions that get you in trouble.

Islamo-fascists burn an American flag in the streets of New York...is it free-speech or hate-speech.

Anon-Muslim American burns an Islamic Nations flag next to the Islamo-fascist's burning the American Flag...is it free-speech or Hate-speech.

Which will the press report as the intolerant one and which will they ignore? In this environment the non-Muslim is going to be the bad guy.

PLEASE WATCH THIS: (it is about 4 minutes and directly deals with this discussion)

This is not work/family safe, but still should be seen by all to add clarity to this discussion and coincide with the Artical posted.

http://www.anti-cair-net.org/DesecrateFlag.wmv

If violence broke out, who would the liberals (ACLU types) stick up for? My bet is even if the Islamofascists started the fight the non-Muslim would be blamed.

Comment #101 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 1:23 PM

#94 sking

I see no problem. The WOD's are randomized as I understand the protocol, although not fully random. As long as you aren't selecting only a specific type of WOD (e.g, heavy lifts) but a randomized sample from each, you should be okay. If you are selecting a specific type of WOD from each, then you are not realizing the full potential of the CrossFit methodology and likely not strengthening you weaknesses.

Comment #102 - Posted by: ScottH at January 23, 2007 1:27 PM

I come back to check comments, and ... what the hell is this sheep/dogs analogy?!?

It's like a surreal, neocon-versus-hippy interpretation of Floyd's "Animals".

/me sings "bleating and babbling they fell on his neck with a scream ...."

Comment #103 - Posted by: mr_luc at January 23, 2007 1:35 PM

I'm a few days behind so I did "Helen"
21 minutes

Comment #104 - Posted by: ralph99mba at January 23, 2007 1:51 PM

CCTJoey,

Understood, I just felt he was taking on a lot of weight for one person.

I try not to go after anyone but sometimes argument in the true since is taken in the wrong since by many. I love CF and rant to anyone who will listen but am still in the process of honing my CF rest day debating skills.

I think we are seeing one of the basic weaknesses we have in this new era. We as a country know very little about cultures that aren't western in nature and practice. In this case we are (many) seeking knowledge from any source we can and I'm wondering if the source in this case feels a bit battered. I surely (don't call me Shirley) don't want to be the mouthpiece for the liberal agenda in here let alone the sole Islamic voice in this conservative arena.

In essence I was just trying to ease the pain of a fellow CFer.

ricky
richmond

Comment #105 - Posted by: ricky at January 23, 2007 1:57 PM

#94 - I wouldn't recommend swapping-up WODs. There's definitely a style, method and pattern to the programming, or many of smart fellows here would be making up their own WODs.

For example, let's look at part of January:

12/31: 5 rnds: run 400m; 95lb OHS, 15 reps
01/01: 5 rnds: run 400m; 225lb DL, 12 reps
01/02: 5 rnds: run 400m; 135lb Thruster, 10 reps

01/04: BackSquat 5x5
01/05: ShoulderPress 5x5
01/06: Deadlift 5x5

01/08: 20mins: 65lb Thruster, 12 reps; 10 pullups
01/09: 20mins: 65lb PSnatch, 12 reps; 10 pushups
01/10: 20mins: run 100m; 55lb KBswings, 12 reps; 10 pullups


there's hardly a reason to swap, skip or substitute on the programming. Coach is an expert at this.

Comment #106 - Posted by: John Messano at January 23, 2007 1:58 PM

#92 Hari,

Thank you for your point of view. I agree that ultimately survival is more important than whether you play by the rules or not. Yet in the western society there is a layer of civilization which says that if you have to use the methods of the bad guys than you are no better than them.

Most fundamentalist Islamic societies have a rulebook so different that we no more recognize it (or associate it with medeival times)
here are some (safe) links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=138&report=40

I bet the Saudi muslims do not have to fear about the safety of their way of life. Enemies of the state and religion (ie Jews) are banned from the country. There are no terrorists, revolutionaries or flag burners. They have access to the best military technology at their fingertip and US forces keep vigil over their source of income.

Still I would not be happy to live under such "rulebook", as the powers that may be keep the common people in fear and insist that such rules are necesseary in order to maintain the Islamic way of life.

The problem of the "leftists" is that the western leaders are now also using the power of fear, uncertainty and doubt. The goverment says, we may have to throw out parts (or the whole ?) of our current rulebook in order to maintain our way of life.

As such the terrorists are winning. Either by sabotage or by removal of human rights and freedoms the western way of life will cease to exist as we grant more and more powers to the government to continuously wage war against terror (or communists, drugs, etc...).

It is exactly because the terrorists do not play by the rules is why we have to. When we stop, they have achieved their objective. Most people who oppose the war in Iraq have in fact nothing against the principle of going to a foreign country and killing terrorists or dictators. What they have a problem with though is how the current administration is using their tax dollars to lie, spread fear and change rules about human rights/freedoms, so that they can remain in power.

Comment #107 - Posted by: Tamas at January 23, 2007 2:00 PM

Abdullah: I'll work out with you any time, bro! Come to the Raleigh Cert & I'll stand with you. The uber-lethal Spec Ops guys who introduced me to CrossFit are out there ready to defend America, and they are some of the most polite, respectful and quiet guys I have ever known. They reserve their game face only for the tangoes, not us CrossFitters! Fear them not!

And, will the awesome Muslim guy with the amazing muscle up ability please teach me his technique?

CCCTJOEY- you rock. keep posting, you are right on. btw: sorry about the shoulder. I'm pulling a filthy fifties tonight and am in paralyzing fear of similar distruction.

Barry: uhh.. yeah, what you said. Just kidding, I love to read your eloquent posts. Thoughtful words from and thinking mind.

I went to Iraq last year. It sucked. We've got to stay and slug it out. Or leave and let it collapse. We broke it, we bought it. Too bad, since it looks like I'm headed back again this year...

And, Islamic extremists are waging a muli-generational war, with a 100 year plan. Their patience and steady dedication will remain unwaivering. They're a little group, but wicked effective. We Americans (together with our capitalistic, peace loving allies) need to get ourselves together, face that fact, and act accordingly. And, when I say "we Americans", I mean each last one of us. Whatever our political leanings. Bombs do not discriminate between sheep and sheepdogs. When a bomb goes, everyone in the blast radius gets it. The 100 years Islamic Extremist War really is coming. Here. Again. Soon. And, it will involve bombs. Sorry, but so it is.

Are we, as an individuals, and us as a country, going to do something about it or not? Placation of these terrorists is utterly ineffective. Well, unless placation involves turning the USA into the United Servants of Allah... We bend to them or they fight us. We won't bend. They're not kidding around, and are fighting us until they get their desired outcome. They do this whether we want to fight or not. So, here they come. What are you going to do?

Oh, and just imagine where they'll go if Iraq is no longer the hot spot. If not there, then perhaps some other place, hmm? Closer to home? Perhaps home even? It's happening in France and now the UK. Next stop, New York, Washington and Los Angeles...

As per the Quranic Concept of War" article, it states, "Respect” therefore is achieved psychologically by, as Brohi suggested earlier, “beautiful” and “handsome ways” or by the strategic application of terror." Respect, huh? I am never ever going to submit, nor wear a burkah, regardless of "handsome ways". Nor am I going to monkey around making worthless agreements with terrorists. Nor am I going to participate in sitting by while terrorism happens to my family, friends, country or its allies.

Count me in on the side of standing up for America. Whatever it takes. Again. Even if I have to make a sacrifice (apparently to some it's a supreme sacrifice to just shut their pie hole and refrain from taking pot-shots at our elected officials). Or, perhaps I may have to do something a bit more challenging, like ruck up and go back to Iraq. Or, something a bit more annoying. Like we as a country have to change everything in our lives (FOOT STOMP) and gear ourselves towards American security. Inconvenient stuff like parking my SUV, and refusing to enrich the Middle East with gas sales. Maybe "Greatest Generation" stuff like buying war bonds or supporting a draft. Whatever your victory garden is. Perhaps that's not asking much considering my best friends are out there doing the wet work.

What's it going to take for us to prevail? The same dedication and singlemindedness of purpose that it took for the allies to win WWII. Yes, including the brutal stuff, like firebombing Tokyo on a lovely breezy warm night... OH, and historically speaking, pissed off Americans are quite adept at such things. Are we pissed off yet?

Let's hope we have the selfless guts it takes to win, like our grandparents had. I would look like @$$ in a burkah.

Enough.. off to the filthies!

-Karen

Comment #108 - Posted by: Spider Chick at January 23, 2007 2:07 PM

#105, Tamas,

"The problem of the 'leftists' is that the western leaders are now also using the power of fear, uncertainty and doubt. The goverment says, we may have to throw out parts (or the whole ?) of our current rulebook in order to maintain our way of life."

Suppose, as a hypothetical, that some of these western leaders are right, that we do have to throw out (or temporarily modify) parts of the current rulebook in order to maintain our way of life? Suppose the rulebook is sufficiently flexible to allow for protecting itself. Perhaps the "fear, uncertainty, and doubt" that you describe is not the fault of western leaders, but the fault of our enemies.

Comment #109 - Posted by: Hari at January 23, 2007 2:16 PM

Karen - Kelley and I look forward to meeting you in Raleigh!

I know you're Air Force, but Semper Fi anyway.

Steve

Comment #110 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 23, 2007 2:17 PM

I am a white male. Very white. There is no mistaking me for anything other than a westerner. If I talk you know I am american and if you know dialects and accents you could probably figure out that I am from Texas.
In 2004 a friend and I traveled to Israel for Passover. I wanted to do a pilgramige to fulfill my faith. My friend that went with me was a blond headed voluptuos female. We bought one way tickets to Spain then traveled overland to the Middle east. Having to travel through Turkey, Kurdistan, Iraq, Jordan, The West Bank, Israel, and finally Egypt before coming back stateside. While in Europe we stayed in hostels. Once the "muslim"countries though, we found that every single city that we went into people were overwilling to take us into their homes and feed us and shelter us. There was never a time when we felt threatenend or intimidated by our hosts. As a matter of fact they were excited to be meeting real Americans.
There were many time that the various members of the households would engage in their daily prayers. Never once did they try to convert us. Never once did they put conditions or threats against us because we were from a different culture. We were never called infidels or even made to feel like we were inferior. We were often given the best beds in the houses and the first to be served food whenever there was a meal.
Most of the conversations were centered around helping them with their English and asking how Americans would treat them. I bet we all know the answer to this one. I was often embarrassed for my country knowing that we would shut the doors in their faces.
If we wanted to know something about Islam or a ritual that they were doing we would ask and they would share.
We even explained to them why we were traveling to Jerusalem and they never even considered us an enemy. The majority wanted us to stay with them longer than we did.
I won't even get started on the behavior of the Israelis but it wasn't near as nice or compassionate. (unless you told them you were a Jew)
I just thought that you should know. The propaganda that Islam is a religion of war and that Muslims want to kill everyone is not correct. I walked through the heart of that country and found out for myself.
What I found was a region of people that have more manners and respect for others than anyone I know in America has. I was truly amazed at the hospitality.


I really enjoyed the video too!

Comment #111 - Posted by: R.Fielder at January 23, 2007 2:19 PM

Awesome video from Crossfit North. Good work, folks!!

Comment #112 - Posted by: gaucoin at January 23, 2007 2:26 PM

101# Mr.Luc - Apologies for the affront to your mature hedge sitting stance. While you lay out a nice dichotomy of the situation, I offer a personal analogy. Both of us as entitled as each other. I was referring to the accusation of being a sheep someone levelled at me. Yor reaction dissapointed me as I thought up until now your post was one of the more balanced perspectives - apart from the liberal pumpkin sex thing - what the hell was that? I could generalise about conservatives, but someone already mentioned Jimmy Swaggart.

Comment #113 - Posted by: lee at January 23, 2007 2:35 PM

Well, my orignal message is being held. So, if it never shows up here are some of my thoughts (if I can remember them)-

Thank you Joey!

The comment to Abdullah was made out of respect to him and his religeous practices, since we do not and don't need to know how orthodox he is, I was taking a non-assuming position.
Also, I typed that up as the thought came to me as I was doing something else before leaving the house and wanted to get it down before I would forget it or any offense would be taken. I understand about busy lives, different time zones, etc.

I too, might end up just having to find the english version of the book in today's essay or do some more thourough searching and asking of the right questions.

Kate

Comment #114 - Posted by: jknl at January 23, 2007 2:42 PM

It seems that many of the problems we face are encountered when an individual or group of individuals decides their beleifs (or faiths) are the correct ones and/or they wish to impose their beliefs upon others willing and unwilling. This continues with our current proclaimed enemies and in our own country quite rampantly. We were by no means innocent in our involvement with other nations prior to 11SEP (which in no stretch of the imagination justifies the attack) and I can understand why some would not take favorable view toward the US. However, some individuals abroad take advantage of these points and the poor conditions and use religous rhetoric to convince people that terror must be used to fight the West. And the condition perpetuates with repeated retalliation on each side.

As a military member it is my duty to follow the policies set down by my chain of command and carry them out completely and effectively without hesitation. However, that does not mean that I an required to take the stance of a closed minded Islam destroyer. These are complicated times and this is an even more complicated war. We need to use strict discretion when dealing with others of another culture and not lump everyone in the same category from that culture.

The world is always more complicated than we first realize and in the end we and all of our descendants from all cultures will have to co-exist.

Comment #115 - Posted by: Josh at January 23, 2007 2:45 PM

Really great video!

Comment #116 - Posted by: Travis L @ Home at January 23, 2007 3:07 PM

Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said (paraphrased), "I don't care what God you believe in as long as you don't try to force me to believe in him."

Comment #117 - Posted by: MikeC at January 23, 2007 3:28 PM

did the 5k right after the Filthy fifty, claves feel like stones. gonna do some chest and shoulders today, no rest for me.

Comment #118 - Posted by: LeprechaunMan at January 23, 2007 3:30 PM

Mr. Luc,

You're getting into military tactics. Is this something you know a lot about? Guns don't grow on trees, even in the Middle East, and it appears credibly clear that an awful lot of the weapons being used to kill our troops are coming from other countries. Countries with names, that start with letters like I and S.

In any event, on contemplation and close scrutiny, your arguments deflate to "this war is difficult", and you are in effect wanting to play Cassandra and comment with somewhat supercilious certainty that victory is all but impossible, based upon what you believe OUGHT to be the case. Who says? I disagree. I talk to guys on the ground, and there are a lot of Iraqis who want us to help them succeed. As R. Fielder points out, there are a lot of Muslims who just want to live and let live. And really who wants war? I don't. I just feel it has been brought to us.

Oh, and Mr. Luc, it is no surprise that those terms are unfamiliar to you, as you would very definitely be one who would get grouped with the sheep. Here is the article, which has appeared a number of times here: http://hobbes.ncsa.uiuc.edu/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html

Tamas,

You will note I am not advocating arresting the people I am happy to call traitors. I AM advocating the arrest of those responsible for breaking the law by publishing classified information, such as the publishers of the New York Times.

The question is really one of propriety. If I'm at a dinner party, and decide that farting and burping as loud as I can would be funny, I can get away with that. I can't expect not to be told to stop, or not to be considered rude and never invited again, but I'm not technically violating any laws.

Likewise with criticism of the war. If you give aid and comfort to our enemies, then you are putting American lives in jeopardy. The debate on the war happened before we invaded. THAT was the time for dissenting opinions. NOW is the time to focus on victory, and I can call--using my freedom of speech--anyone a treacherous coward I want to. See, that's how it works. If it hurts peoples feelings, it is doing considerably less harm than the actual treason being perpetrated by those who help our enemies, directly and indirectly. Sticks and stones, and all that. There are sticks and stones over there, and just words here. For now.

I did have a chance to read the article through, and I think that we need to be careful about conflating theory and actual practice. I think Osama Bin Laden, in his own mind, thinks of himself as a sort of romantic hero, rescuing an unwashed and often distressingly ungrateful mass of people he considers poor Muslims from the tyranny of rationalizing humanism: “Islamic jihad is both offensive and defensive” oriented on liberating man from humanistic tyranny."

One of the defining issues of modernity is that of identity. When people fight over religion, in a deeper sense they are really fighting over an identity. Multiculturalism has had, in America at least, a levelling effect in almost mechanically culling unique senses of self from our collective selves. Confederate flags have to be taken down. Indians can't be used as mascots. Many ideas can't be broached in public without immediate excoriation. And it leaves a lot of us pissed off that, whoever it is that we want to be, somebody somewhere is going to get pissed off about it.
This comment will piss people off, and I haven't unloaded the half of it.

We don't know crap about true multiculturalism, now. Back in the day, everybody did their thing, looked at everybody else funny, the WASPS who founded this country ran it, and people didn't need to tell someone else NOT to do something, just so they could do their thing. You do your thing, I do mine, we all coexist using the liberty guaranteed us by the Constitution.

Now, in the interest of egalitarianism--a manifestly stupid ideal still somehow hanging on from the French Revolution--we have a lot of people doing their best to end democracy in this country in the name of increasing it.

Not sure what my problem is today, but it should be gone by tomorrow. End rant.

Comment #119 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at January 23, 2007 3:32 PM

#101 Joey-
That was a very interesting link. The hypocracy was amazing.

Here's a link that is a little long but a good one. Not sure how family friendly this is considered but my husband and I used this as a teaching aid to show our kids how the media can be biased and how apparent the need for truth and accountability in the press is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_B1H-1opys

#119 Barry- "This comment will piss people off, and I haven't unloaded the half of it."
Why hold back? I always tell people that my talent is pissing people off and you can see what happens when I try and fix where I didn't want to have pissed someone off!

I think I've been a humming bird to here all day.

Kate

Comment #120 - Posted by: jknl at January 23, 2007 4:03 PM

I believe Barry has MR-LUC confused with Lee as it pertains to the "SHEEP"

Comment #121 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 4:14 PM

These comments kind of blow my mind...

A question for Barry and the others in the Fox news camp,

What exactly makes our lives worth more than the lives of the innocent Iraqi men, women and children being killed by our military actions?

Thanks.

Comment #122 - Posted by: Marshall at January 23, 2007 4:33 PM

#120 Kate...great video!!!

Comment #123 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 4:34 PM

NUMBER ONE

#26 Lee
"Cashew or pea?" actually I think both Cashews and peanuts are legumes not nuts... were you trying to trip Hari up?

NUMBER TWO

#20 Young Turk
"3) The "Shock and awe" attacks on Baghdad were as despicable an example of brutality as any in history."

I think its tough to put it in the top 10. I would list the holocaust, the bolshevik revolution, stalin's various attacks on his own people, the great leap forward, turkeys massacre of armenians, iraq's attack on the kurds, congo's civil wars, the indonesian communist massacres and the cambodian killing fields... and those are just countries attacking their own.

Furthermore, I would argue that diehard critics of the US wouldn't rank "shock and awe" near the top of us campaigns. cases could be made for the firebombing of dresden, the fire bombing of tokyo, the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima, the battles in the philipines, the burning of atlanta, the trail of tears, etc.

I am not trying to take sides, or straddle a fence, just point out various factual innacuracies.

NUMBER 3

Without wading into the debate, or addressing the issues at hand ,or even touching on the political bent of this site (which has no implicit commitment to neutrality or even objectivity thus makes any comparison to mainstream media a bit improper) i would like to say I am a bit disturbed by the tone of some posters.

To label community member who serve in the armed forces as reactionary and / or biased thus unqualified to comment on these issues -- or even that their comments need to be qualified is disturbing on many levels.

First, these warriors are willing to lay down there lives for us. They don't pick the wars. They don't plan the wars, they just go when ordered. No matter what you think about the war, I think that they have earned the right to be listened to. That doesn't mean they have to be agreed with, but to tell someone under attack and under constant duress that they are missing the subtleties of the situation that are readily apparent from the vantage point of the old living room couch reeks of unpardonable arrogance.

Second, from a purely academic view, i think its intellectually dishonest to label those with direct first hand knowledge of a situation biased an inherently less objective than those of us who depend on tertiary accounts to follwo day to day developments.

Comment #124 - Posted by: fmb at January 23, 2007 4:42 PM

Marshall,

You've completely missed the boat on this one. It isn't about whether Iraqi men, women, and children are innocent and being killed by our military actions. Some might be, but the vast majority of the killing of Iraqis going on over there is due to those Islamic fascist jihadists we've been discussing all day. They're the root of the problem, not the US.

If Islamic whackos hadn't attacked us on 9/11/01, we wouldn't have had to attack them. Our attack and success in Afghanistan was worth it and in the long run what we did will benefit that country for centuries to come. I did not agree with our invasion of Iraq, but that wasn't my call to make. Our leaders made some serious errors in going into Iraq in the first place. Had our initial success been followed up with a large number of occupation troops (350,000 comes to mind) to squelch the uprising from the beginning, we'd have had a huge success politically, socially, and economically and George W. Bush would have been the hero of the Western World. Instead, no one in our senior leadership foresaw the insurgency and their was a serious lack of preparation and planning for what we in the military call "Phase IV." That's water under the bridge now. As Karen said (post #108), "we broke it, we bought it." Since we're in Iraq now, we're going to have to stay and finish the job, or the end result will be worse.

Marshall, we're not there to slaughter innocent Iraqis. I don't know of any military service member that would do so willingly. But many more Iraqis will die, along with Americans, until this Islamic fascists terrorist backed insurgency is crushed. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Comment #125 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 23, 2007 5:01 PM

5 rounds:
DB DL x 5
DB Hang Clean x 5
DB Push Press x 5
DB Squat x 5

30-35-40-45-50

then

135# OHS 5x5

"Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the Lord." "The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them. The he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath." "Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and rejoice with trembling." "Blessed are all who take refuge in him." Psalm 2

Comment #126 - Posted by: Newlin at January 23, 2007 5:08 PM

Steve,

With all due respect, I don't think I've missed the boat, and you didn't answer my question, you sidestepped it.

That aside, you concede that we made errors going into Iraq, and that those errors have now resulted, either directly or indirectly, in the slaughter of who knows how many thousands of innocent people. Who should be accountable for this? Should we be invaded and/or carpet bombed by some other country to insure we don't make an "error" like this again?

Also, we may not be there expressly to slaughter Iraqis, but if it happens in the process of acheiving our objective (what objective is that anyway?), then so be it. To me, it doesn't seem all that different than terrorists rationalizing killing innocent civilians as a means to whatever their ends may be.

Whatever gets the job done, right?

Comment #127 - Posted by: Marshall at January 23, 2007 5:16 PM

Finally! A well-written response, even if not intellectually honest one.

I just mentioned some ways that the only counter-example anyone points to, the Phillipines, was different from Iraq.

I also highlighted the cold, hard fact that the only proven methods for dealing with insurgencies are not acceptable to most Americans. They may be acceptable to you, but not the majority of your countrymen.

You somehow extracted, from that, that I'm seeing the world through rose-colored glasses, and seeing things as I *want* to see them rather than as they appear to be.

Really? Yes, Cooper, nothing gets me going in the morning like knowing that tens of thousands of people are suffering and continuing to suffer. Car bombings give me boners!

And you go from that, to suddenly turning into a hippy who believes that if Iraqis and Americans could just get together and, you know, give peace a CHANCE, things will be okay. Iraqis want peace. We want peace. It'll all be all right. Never mind that man behind the curtain.


Now, as to your screed about being, quote,

"... pissed off that, whoever it is that we want to be, somebody somewhere is going to get pissed off about it."

Maybe this is a case of where *I'm* in the minority, but I think that anyone who gets their panties in a bunch over what other people think or say about them has some growing to do.


...

whew! Rock on, mate, I feel as though the Crossfit Nation worked up a good lather on that one. As much as I hate to admit it ... I mean, this is a FITNESS website ... I'm starting to enjoy rest-day discourse.

Comment #128 - Posted by: mr_luc at January 23, 2007 5:27 PM

DJ:
Thanks! The time makes perfect sense when you break it down. Thanks also for the compliment. It's rare to find something as valuable as CF later in life, rare and pretty darned cool.

Regarding the Rest Day conversation, is it possible to get brain rhabdo from reading the article, followed immediately by 124 posts?

D.

Comment #129 - Posted by: bingo at January 23, 2007 5:28 PM

#119

I find it disturbing that our liberty or identity boil down to fond memories of slavery, childish sports franchise traditions and "WASPs" running the country (when did -that- change?). Is this really what gets you riled up the most, is this what US soldiers around the world are fighting for? They might be a bit pissed off themselves to learn this.

Comment #130 - Posted by: P_Joe at January 23, 2007 6:02 PM

Push Press
165 x 5
165 x 5
165 x 5
170 x 5
175 x (4+1)

3 rounds of Big Fat Mary:
10 HSPU
20 Pistols
30 Pull ups

13:30

Comment #131 - Posted by: Jeff at January 23, 2007 6:05 PM

#96 lee
Actually, unless you truly are a sheep, like mutton, you shouldn't hate the sheepdog. We're not the ones who lied to you buddy. Maybe my boss did but I didn't nor did the other sheepdogs around here. We're here to protect you and your precious rights even if you don't like us. "Sleep soundly..."

Comment #132 - Posted by: Bob Taylor at January 23, 2007 6:46 PM

#32 CCTJOEY,

"I could give a Rat's A$$ about a guy's religion until it influences, in a negative way, our country."

Isn't that exactly why they supposedly flew planes into our buildings?

Comment #133 - Posted by: WG at January 23, 2007 6:56 PM

WG...

Yup, and they have my attention now.

What does the "Supposedly" mean in your question?

"....supposedly" flew planes into our buildings?

Do you have a doubt that the ones accused did it or you doubt planes where flown into buildings?

Comment #134 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 23, 2007 7:05 PM

I hate the fact that so many Americans have had to make the ultimate sacrifice to help the moderate Iraqis and to keep everyone safe here in the States. I wonder what will happen in the future when America decides that Iran's Anti-Americanism has gone to far?

Will we invade Syria, or Iran?

Comment #135 - Posted by: DaveC at January 23, 2007 7:22 PM

#43
rnd 1: 21 thrusters, 21 pullups
rnd 2: 15 thrusters, 15 pullups
rnd 3: 9 thrusters, 9 pullups
Check out the FAQ, lots of good stuff in there. Hope this helps.
-John

Comment #136 - Posted by: john at January 23, 2007 8:44 PM

Lee, I challange to make a post that does not contain ad hominen and implied ad hominen attacks, stays on topic and makes refernce to something real as ooposed to contrived. Substantiate your claims that "our nations leaders dont care about peace" or President Bush's limited powers of reason.
Put downs, clever insults and misdirection do not constitute enlightened discourse. No matter how good they might make you feel.
I find it revealing that you can address your fellow americans and say "this is not your country". Whos country is it and what are your plans for us? Deportation? Concentration camps? The irony is that arch conservatives like myself wouldn.t dream of denying you your rights but it seems as though we cannot expect the same from you. You may consider yourself educated and enlightened. I see you as a fundementalist liberal who coundlt say "left wing" even if you WERE talking about an airplane.
"Quiet, the grown ups are talking"
Enjoy your freedom. Someone else bought and paid for it but it's yours to squander. K-

Comment #137 - Posted by: kman at January 23, 2007 9:41 PM

#36 Ricky, why does it have to be "neo-cons"? Ive been conservative long enough to be considered a "paleo-con"
I've followed the news and listened to folks like you for a long time and have concluded that there's no such thing as a "left wing" or a "liberal". Those words are never ever mentioned on msm. I guess aircaraft have a right wing and port side lifting surface. K-

Comment #138 - Posted by: kman at January 23, 2007 10:02 PM

Sorry D.J but my last entry was done and my name came out scrambled it should have been "gale" not agle.Did the 5k from yesterday in 34:25.And thanks son for your support!!!!!!!!

Comment #139 - Posted by: gale at January 23, 2007 10:20 PM

#135 - interesting questions.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0119/p09s02-coop.html Iranians' love affair with America

Any one interested in the topic may find the article above interesting - or this one: IRAN'S BLAME BATTLE, http://www.nypost.com/php/pfriendly/print.php?url=http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_blame_battle_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm

Comment #140 - Posted by: apolloswabbie at January 23, 2007 11:11 PM

Thanks ya'll, I feel much better, seriously. KATE you still there?

Comment #141 - Posted by: Abdullah at January 24, 2007 12:15 AM

Kate, I tried e-mailing my answer to you but it won't go through

CCTJOEY I'll drop you a line bro, Thanks again.
Its been fun!

Comment #142 - Posted by: Abdullah at January 24, 2007 12:39 AM

CFWU + 4 minutes on C2

1 Pd KB workout:
swings to warm up
1-10 Clean and press ladder each arm
1-5 Snatch ladder each arm
2 TGUs each arm

total time: 20 minutes

Comment #143 - Posted by: jeftyg at January 24, 2007 1:18 AM

#135 Dave C--

When do you think we should invade Syria and/or Iran? When Iran has the ability and definite plans to detonate a nuclear weapon in your hometown or after they send in terrorists to kill your family? Maybe our national intelligence and military will recommend an earlier intervention to the President and he will be forced to make a tough decision on the best recommendations of the experts that surround and counsel him. Sound familiar? Iraq?

Or, instead of listening to the best and brightest intel/military minds we have, the President could call you or the Good Morning America show and see what you guys think. Maybe you guys know more about the classified intelligence that our leaders reference? Maybe if we just close our eyes the bad man will go away. I don't know any military individual at any rank that wouldn't prefer to never kill anyone and be able to stay home with their family. But I'd rather take all the accusations of being a war-loving country and actually protect freedom than sit by and wait until it's too late.

To the poster that commented on the "countless" innocents we've killed. You have no idea the restraint we've used in this fight. I can't tell you how many times we've seen someone emplacing an IED that could potentially kill US soldiers but we don't strike because we are not convinced they are hostile. Don't believe the hype you see on TV. The truth is almost always removed.

The very reason this war is taking so long is because we are so careful and sensitive. It would have been over a long time ago had we come in heavy and said "if you are out at night or caught doing anything suspicious you will be killed on site". But we are a just country/military that would rather risk our own lives to be humane.

Comment #144 - Posted by: wilson at January 24, 2007 1:25 AM

#142 Adbullah-
I usually only put up half of my email to cut out on the spam and the hate mail. I would still love to hear your response.
Thanks,
Kate

Comment #145 - Posted by: jknl at January 24, 2007 3:31 AM

It offends me that you assume the Confederate Flag equates to racism. Just in the interest of the free exercise of imagination, can you think of anything else it might connote?

For that matter, I would challenge anyone to come up with ANY sign or symbol of any actually existing group that ever held power anywhere that is unblemished by violence of any sort. I've racked my brain, and can't come up with any.

Comment #146 - Posted by: Barry Cooper at January 24, 2007 4:56 AM

#-146 The Red Cross.

Comment #147 - Posted by: John Messano at January 24, 2007 6:55 AM

They are anti-Semitic, having admitted the Red Crescent, but refused the Star of David: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2790895

And their protégé, which they did allow, has used what are in effect Red Cross ambulances to smuggle explosives: http://info.jems.com/jems/news02/0415a.html

That's a cursory inspection. I'm sure I could dig deeper. My point is not that they aren't a great organization, but that human being have the tendency to be human, for both good and bad.

Comment #148 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 24, 2007 7:49 AM

apolloswabbie...

those are interesting articles

Delima...how much force do we use to keep the Iranian's from influencing Iraq?

How far do we let Iran go with their Nuclear Program before force is an option?

If force becomes a viable option in Iran, what type of force?

Comment #149 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 24, 2007 8:01 AM

"To the poster that commented on the "countless" innocents we've killed. You have no idea the restraint we've used in this fight. I can't tell you how many times we've seen someone emplacing an IED that could potentially kill US soldiers but we don't strike because we are not convinced they are hostile. Don't believe the hype you see on TV. The truth is almost always removed.

The very reason this war is taking so long is because we are so careful and sensitive. It would have been over a long time ago had we come in heavy and said "if you are out at night or caught doing anything suspicious you will be killed on site". But we are a just country/military that would rather risk our own lives to be humane."

Wilson, what exactly gives us the right to decide if Iraqis should be allowed to go on THEIR streets at night?

You act like we are basically doing them a favor by not just mowing them all down on sight! Could you prove my point any more in regards to our arrogance?

And people wonder why most of the world hates us...

To CCTJOEY - Why should we not let Iran develop Nuclear weapons? What gives us the right to decide what they do, to impinge upon their freedom?

Also, can you blame them for wanting a Nuclear weapon? What else is going to stop us from invading them?

Comment #150 - Posted by: Marshall at January 24, 2007 9:23 AM

Marshall,

We're not in Iraq to slaughter innocent Iraqis and it isn't that the ends justify the means. We're not there to kill Iraqis - period! We don't kill Iraqis - period. We are, however, killing insurgents by the thousands and I'm glad we are. The more we kill over there means the fewer we'll have to kill here at home when they decide to relocate their efforts to the US.

We went into Iraq with the best of intentions and it just didn't turn out. Again, I didn't agree with it, but you'd have to agree with me that it was a noble concept and endeavor - to provide freedom and liberty to a people oppressed by removing a tyrant (who also happened to have used WMDs in the past and who our leaders felt threatened our existence). Since we're there, we'll continue to fight and die alongside the Iraqis until we either give up and leave (disastrous outcome there) or win, which I firmly believe we'll do.

As for you thinking that Iran has a right to WMDs, on one plane I would agree; however, Iran, like N.Korea, is controlled by a madman who would not think twice about using those weapons against us. So, that's why I'm with our leaders on this - Iran shouldn't have nukes.

I know you and I can agree to disagree on this issue. The beauty of our country is that we can have a peaceful discourse on this, or any other, issue and maybe even work out together. We don't have to worry about killing each other over words and/or beliefs. Not so in many other parts of the world.

Regards and happy CrossFitting!

Comment #151 - Posted by: Steve Rakow at January 24, 2007 9:50 AM

Marshall,

"what exactly gives us the right to decide if Iraqis should be allowed to go on THEIR streets at night?"

Their Government's policy and our troops security. At this point, no more is necessary.


"Could you prove my point any more in regards to our arrogance?"

Have you ever been shot at by criminals hiding umongst the geneal populace or ambushed by an IED? I don't find the well being of myself and my cohorts arrogance. I don't find keeping the free world stable arrogant at all...I find many Europeans Arrogant for allowing to live under the security that we provide, while bitching all the way to the bank with the money they make off of it.

"Why should we not let Iran develop Nuclear weapons?"

They are unstable and have proven over and over that they are incapable, within the bounds of recent history, to act in according to International Law and UN Resolutions. The US is not alone in this view. Though we might be the only one's with the balls to do anything about it.

"What gives us the right to decide what they do, to impinge upon their freedom?"

see above.


"Also, can you blame them for wanting a Nuclear weapon?"

Yes. They have the lack of sanity to use children to clear minefields. They are arming terrorists and "Death Squads" in Iraq. They are threatening Isreals right to even exist. They a get to sit in the MUSH POT until they have developed the ability to function with the free world.


"What else is going to stop us from invading them?"

Not building a nuclear weapon. Stop encouraging, funding, and harboring terrorism. Join the Free World through both economic and political accountability.


Comment #152 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 24, 2007 9:54 AM

For those who think Iran has a "right" to nuclear weapons: If I went to a gun store and said in all seriousness, "I want to buy this rifle, I'm gonna go out and shoot some Jews today!" Do you think they should actually let me walk out with it? After all, I have a "right" to it, don't I? ...Oh wait, I forgot about the leftist view: Governments SHOULD have weapons, people should NOT. Maybe I need a different example......

Comment #153 - Posted by: Duncan at January 24, 2007 10:36 AM

CCTJOEY--

Thanks bro. I couldn't have said it better myself. Had I checked this earlier I would have said the same. I don't mind the difference of opinions. It just blows me away what some, well intentioned Americans believe that we are imposing our will on innocent cultures for selfish motives. I didn't agree with anything that came out of Clinton's mouth and I think he is a man of reprehensible morals but I could never believe that he would purposefully act maliciously or illegally on a scale that Bush is being accused. Yet the opposing public is ready to stamp Bush as a murderer and acting only for his own interests. It's just hard for me to see where their "honest" opinions are coming from other than spite.

Comment #154 - Posted by: wilson at January 24, 2007 11:32 AM

This is excellent: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp

It's a few years old, but entirely relevant.

Comment #155 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 24, 2007 12:50 PM

I would like to bleat out a big thanks to all the sheepdogs out there. You face the ugliness of the real world so that the rest of us can continue to live our ignorant and sheltered existences. You are a unique and special group. Hats off to you for protecting the rest of us!

Comment #156 - Posted by: Kevin at January 24, 2007 2:40 PM

Barry-
The question that you posted in #146 has had me thinking all day. I posed it to some of my friends today and they all could think of no one organization to fit your criteria. One of my friends is going to shoot her husband an email and ask him, so it may be a few days for that answer, but I think you have "stumped the audience".

Kate

Comment #157 - Posted by: jknl at January 24, 2007 9:07 PM

12 rounds exactly in 19:59 of:
150 m Row
10 25# DB Thrusters
8 Pull-ups

Comment #158 - Posted by: rick ihrie at January 24, 2007 9:29 PM

I'm not a Christian--or at least an orthodox one--but I think there is great wisdom in: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Bush is often accused of arrogance, but in my view he's simply making the decisions--right or wrong--that he feels are right, and ignoring the chorus of screams from groups of people who sound like awkward teenagers afraid they'll get embarassed in front of their peers. That they won't be able to hang with the "cool kids", like the Europeans, who collectively have contributed probably less than half of the money it took to protect them over the last 100 years.

This criticism of Bush is particularly hypocritical in that leftists nowadays--like leftists in the days of the French Revolution--seem to feel that they are somehow specially empowered by their unique intellectual powers to stand outside of society--lets' be honest, ABOVE--and tell us with absolute confidence what is wrong, without reference to facts, or the historical utility or lack thereof of their ideas. This is the background of Political Correctness. If that isn't manifest arrogance, the word is without meaning and should be removed from the English language.

People lie, cheat and steal. It shouldn't shock us, but somehow some groups of people still are. I know the history of the United States, and know our numerous shady episodes better than most people. That doesn't prevent me from loving this country. Our flag, to me represents not just our past--which is mainly good, and flecked with some bad--but an idea, a vision, for the future. If someone has a better idea for the future than a world of prosperous, self-governing democracies in peace with one another, I haven't seen it.

For those who claim that isn't our vision, what is your vision? Something where everyone is at peace, in love with their neighbors, and rich? Do you understand seeing an end result doesn't constitue a plan? And that in the real world you need plans?

Is your vision Hugo Chavez, who was just called an autocrat by the guy who helped put him in power? Is it Iran? China?

If it's Europe, then I guess we will all need to learn how to read ideograms. Supposedly they work your right brain too. I found the tonal system difficult to learn, so we might get the option of Cantonese, which I think is easier.

Of course, having in the interim learned how to write backwards, and spatially orient ourselves toward Mecca, perhaps our learning skills will be better.

Or we can defend who we are and what we believe, wherever we have to, and as long as we have to.

Comment #159 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 25, 2007 5:40 AM

I can't resist adding a couple other things.

In that article, he duly noted the standard definition of Jihad as an internal struggle against forces of darkness, weakness and really all manners of infirmity. Now, the normal next step is to point to the actual wars also prosecuted in the name of Jihad, but I don't think we should neglect to consider both that the first meaning actually is intended seriously, and that it is potentially a useful link to modernity for the believing Muslim.

Our challenge is not to kill all Muslims, or even to demonize them. Our challenge is to convince them that their societies can exist in the modern world without the fear of internal decay of morality and faith. There are many forces attacking faith--of all stripes--in the modern world, with a philosophically maladroit Scientism being the foremost, coupled with an unthinkingly destructively social liberalism.

Believe it or not, I've talked with many Muslims, and they will often point to our rates of divorce and crime rates as evidence of our social failings. The implication is, if this is what the West is peddling, they don't want any of that snake oil. You know what? I don't blame them a bit. I think most of the leaders we are combatting are sociopaths, but I think most of the "troops" are sincere in their belief that they are defending their faith against encroachment, which is clearly shown as a duty in Koranic tradition, if not specifically in the Koran.

Some people simply have to be killed, just as some criminals need to never be free again for the duration of their lives. Yet, from the same logic the author of the essay used, in "preparing" a battle before the shooting begins, we likewise need to be smarter in how we present who we are, and what we represent.

I've said before, and will say again, we should create a group of highly skilled and trained salesmen to go out to any and all "prospects" who will talk with us, and sell America and what we stand for. And just as in real selling--versus the stereotype of selling--there needs to be a genuine value proposition on the table, customized for that group, that genuinely makes sense for both parties.

We are not going to convert Muslims from Islam. We don't want to kill them all. Therefore, sooner or later, we are going to have to do a better job than we seem to be doing now in helping them reconcile their traditions and beliefs--their identities--with the modern world.

This is the smart way to do it. We have been smart in the past, and can do it again. In the meantime, though, we need to win on the battlefield.

Comment #160 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 25, 2007 6:15 AM

I would like to make a few points clear.

1. People risk their lives floating on cardboard rafts through shark infested waters to get to America.

2. We prop up the UN and NATO directly and ensure Europe's freedom indirectly and they know it.

I know this is a great country.

If I am on the other side of the political isle and ideology from people like Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Che, Cindy Sheehan, SEN John Kerry, SEN Ted Kennedy and SEN Clinton; then I know my political views are correct.

All I have to do is ask myself what would these people do...then I can act with a 99% certainty in the opposite direction and come out on the right side of history.

I don't wait for these people in order to make my decisions...but it is always comforting knowing that for the short amount of time that we agreed, that they eventually changed directions.

I find this comforting like a nice Starbucks...

Comment #161 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 25, 2007 6:22 AM

War College for Rocket Scientists, Take-Home Exam, Quranic Concept of War.

1. Consider two scenarios, A and B. Leader A is an ideologue, personally convinced of the correctness of the Quranic Concept of War (QCW), the Qur’an, and all the teachings of Mohammed. He conveys these principles to the populace and recruits a useful, secret militia of committed jihadists who do his terrorist bidding against civilians and coalition forces. Leader B is the same in all respects, except he is not an ideologue, and is known to be personally and privately cynical about the Qur’an, Allah, and the QWC. Question: How do the President and his field command distinguish between the two, and how do their strategy and tactics differ between A and B?

2. Consider a pair of mutual terrorist exchanges between any two among Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Q.: How does the QWC apply to an attack by one Islamic group upon another?

3. Consider a suicidal attack by some means. Consider two scenarios, C and D. In C, a police patrol in Baghdad sees two women, each in heavy clothing with wires coming out of a sleeve, approaching a crowded marketplace. In D, a checkpoint guard sees an old automobile approaching, riding markedly low in the back and high in the front, with a single driver. Your forces know the attackers to be either (a) jihadists, (b) Japanese State Shinto kamikazes, (c) members of Rev. Jim Jones People's Temple, or (e) Applewhite’s Heaven's gate cultists. Q.: What do you do differently to nullify the attack, and what do you do to reduce the risk of further attacks? How did the Qur’an or other scripture or teaching affect your choices of action?

4. Multiple Choice (check all that apply, answer twice, once for scenario A and once for scenario B). What is the American plan for the leader?
a. Leave him to future indigenous, democratic processes.
b. Invite him to negotiations.
c. Destroy his effectiveness by education of the public.
d. Engage his militia as targets of opportunity, killing or capturing them.
e. Seek out members of the militia by Clear and Hold operations.
f. Reduce his location to a crater with the largest conventional bomb or missile.
g. Kill or capture the leader with special forces.

5. Extra credit: How would Gen. Petraeus answer Question 4, based on his Counterinsurgency (COIN) manual, FM 3-24?
Answer 5: for both scenarios, a-d. For e, the manual has no “Clear and Hold” tactic except as part of “Clear, Hold, and Build”, a nation building mission. For f, the Manual has no tactic for insurgency leaders. For g, while COIN is a primary role for special forces, Petraeus’ Manual on the other hand has no role in COIN for special forces operations!

Comment #162 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at January 25, 2007 7:47 AM

Mr. Glassman,

Excellent observation...however since SOCOM is the MAJCOM responsible for GWOT...I believe he will feel a considerable urge to use Army SF as a lead for on-ground considerations for the overall COIN and use other "assets" SOCOM furnishes as well for C,D,F,G.

A and B are only an invitation to spread infection to a wound that you are afraid to remove the foriegn object from. Take the pain now and let the healing begin.

Thanks for your response.

Joey

P.S. I hear you are/were a speed skater from wayback.

Comment #163 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 25, 2007 11:56 AM

Jeff,

That is a great take home. I'm going to have to ponder over that one. Ultimatley, CCTJoey is correct... failure to remove the source will only allow the wound to fester.

I just found this video about seeking liberalism and democracy in the Arab world. It's a different viewpoint from the Arab perspective. It's refreshing to see someone standing up. However, one thing you'll notice is that there are a few captions that are quickly pulled off the screen to make them hard to read.

http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ai=214&ar=9999wmv&ak=null

Comment #164 - Posted by: Blake at January 25, 2007 1:27 PM

Joey and Mr. Glassman,
In order to use Army SF they would first have to start letting SF do their job again. It is becoming more and more conventionalized.

On another note-
I did find an article that is an adaptation from a book called "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and It's Responsibility for 9/11" by Dinesh D'Souza. I was able to start getting some answers from the article alone. I'm going to order the book.

Kate

Comment #165 - Posted by: jknl at January 25, 2007 1:32 PM

I thought about this, and when Clausewitz said "war is a continution of politics by other means", although I haven't read the book, I'm going to assume he means roughly the following.

In any negotiation, the strength of your position is defined--according to at least one school of thought--by your BATNA, which stands for Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement. If you have no need to cut a deal, it's easy to walk away. If you HAVE to cut a deal, you're going to get reamed. Our position in ending the Vietnam War was greatly weakened by the perceived need, on our part, to reach A deal, ANY deal, as quickly as possible, in order to cave in to domestic political pressures. That's my understanding at any rate.

And on the other side, a good place to begin any negotiation is by comparing what the two sides have in common.

I think one possible commonality we have with the Jihadists, is jihad, as understood as struggle against infirmity. I personally, and I think a lot of the people on this board, see a tremendous amount of personal weakness and moral cowardice emanating throughout our nation and body politic. I don't think that, in a sense, the work I do in trying to think and write coherently on serious issues, here and in other places, is anything other than a jihad. I see a lot of things that make me mad. I'm not going to blow anybody up, but the emotion is there.

Our basic issue in the Islamic world is that the thought leaders, the Ummah, are in every case I know either encouraging or turning a blind eye to actual violence created by their constant invective against Israel and the United States, and the West in general. It is sort of like a wind blowing that is moving sand from one place to another. When enough sand accumulates somewhere--a person, family, community, nation--terrorists pop out. In the long run, we need to either reverse the direction of this wind, or at least reduce or stop it. As long as we have muezzins calling the faithful to prayer and destruction, we will have a desire for destruction.

And we need to be clear: the contention that the basic issue is primarily economic or related to purported American hegemony is unsupportable, as far as I can tell. It is related to the use of Israel as a scapegoat for all Arabic problems, and to a reasonably coherent resistance to the paradigm of modernity.

The former is likely clear enough. That scapegoating need not go on forever. There can come a time when the Palestinians are treated the same way war refugees anywhere else have been treated in every period of history until their particular case: they resettle elsewhere. They are not going to get the Right of Return, and leftists who continue to ignore that fact by supporting continued terrorism there are only going to prolong the violence, which could have ended many, many years ago.

In the latter case, it is a bit more tricky. Culture, broadly speaking, can be construed as a "meaning creation system". The Muslims perceive their faith as under attack by Western Materialists. This is easily understood when books like "The God Delusion" become international bestsellers. Now, his solution is that everyone should just drop, this moment, every vestige of the individual, social, and cultural identities that are tied up in notions of God--which, for Muslims, is pretty much everything--and instead adopt a materialistic Scientism that has difficulty explaining things like altruism, and which can only do so using mechanical concepts. Compared to the "revelation" of the Koran, that is a pretty ugly doctrine, and only a stupid person would suggest it seriously, particularly given the shaky epistemological basis upon which those statements were made.

We need to win on the battlefield. This gives us a good BATNA. But, longer term, we are being challenged by the Muslims, those we define as backwards, to redefine ourselves. What DO we stand for, besides the right to stand for something?

Historically, America can really only be fully understood through the prism of Christianity, and it is a profound irony that leftists attempt to place the blame for our war at the foot of Christian Fundamentalists (Nancy Pelosi's daughter just made a "documentary" that appears to have all the impartiality of "Triumph of the Will") while ignoring the fact that their continued efforts to destroy our social fabric--which used to include non-ironic notions of character, patriotism, and personal responsibilty--are precisely what most Muslims fear most, in my assessment.

Another irony, in my view, is that Fundamentalism can really only be understood as a reaction to assaults on cultural norms, but is portrayed, in popular leftist media, as the enemy they were fighting to begin with. This is necessary, because they have no real goal, and no real end game.

Food for thought.

BTW, Jeff, very good post, as usual. It seems to me the obvious candidates for "salespeople" are the SF guys.

Comment #166 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 26, 2007 7:00 AM

Joey,

Speed skating? Yeah! Was that you?

Barry,

You wrote,

>>“Historically, America can really only be fully understood through the prism of Christianity, and it is a profound irony that leftists attempt to place the blame for our war at the foot of Christian Fundamentalists”.

To survive in engineering at UCLA, one had to learn the difference in world view between those schools “On the Hill” (Liberal Arts) and engineering and other sciences.

Liberal Arts selected facts and opinions to support theories intended to organize, explain, and describe the world. The Liberal Arts view is indeed prismatic -- as distorted as a fun house mirror, except for the fact that effects of prisms or fun house mirrors are reversible. What is not reversible are the discarded data.

The scientific method must accepts all the facts (measurements compared to standards) at face value, and from them construct models with the inherent power to predict the next measurements. Contrary to popular belief, the mission of science is neither to explain to describe, for those are subjective qualities. Further, science remains perpetually skeptical of its results.

Science is objective; liberal arts subjective. Science is rigidly logical, rational. Liberal arts is feel good emotional, convenient, and rationalized.

What the rightists (to be symmetrical) don’t recognize is that while Americans are dominantly religious and Christian, their government is secular. That is the brilliant achievement of our founders, invented to preserve religious freedom.

Laplace allegedly said to Napoleon about the absence of God in his mathematics, “I didn’t need that assumption.” One doesn’t need to assume a cultural model to understand the Middle East. All such models are imperfect and subjective anyway.

Lest someone leap to the wrong conclusion, no one rational expects scientific models to predict specific human affairs. But the principals of objectivity and rational processes apply nonetheless. Lacking scientific literacy does not condemn one to subjectivity and irrationality.

Looking at the Middle East without any prisms, one might observe the following.

• Moslem leaders do not accept the nation of Israel.

• Every Palestinian leader has rejected the two-state solution to their conflict.

• Moslem leaders create automaton soldiers for their cause through the madrassas and the shari’a.

• Western influence, dominantly led by the United States, while instrumental in the creation of Israel, more importantly interferes with the shari’a through the media, through international trade, and through its presence in the Middle East, and it interferes with the Islamic eradication of Israel.

• The stated target of the Islamic fundamentalists is Israel. That is its short term goal, and the US is squarely in the way.

• The War on Terror has Balkanized the jihadist camp. Where it once extended from Lebanon on the west to Pakistan on the east, and south to Palestine, it is now three island states: Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia with Lebanon, Palestine, and Afghanistan in ruins. Iraq is the keystone state.

This is not a cultural battle. It is not a battle for hearts and minds. It is material, about territory and control of people.

The enemy needs to pay a penalty as a consequence of its aggression. And the West has seen to it that it has: Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and soon perhaps, Palestine.

Of course, it’s far from over. Baghdad and soon Lebanon are Battles of the Bulge. Time for the timid, and frightened, and disloyal to sound recall.

If the Democrats and the other jihadists prevail, the result will not likely be an attack in the United States. It will be a WMD attack on Israel. And Israel is likely to be forced into a nuclear attack, whether preemptive or responsive.

Then we will be involved, jihadists or no!

The ideal candidate for the Democrats has to be Barack Obama. Optionally Moslem, madrassa trained. He can honestly say, “Why, my middle name is Hussein!”

Comment #167 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at January 26, 2007 1:36 PM

Jeff,

That is of course a very common perception of liberal arts. However, the fact of the matter is that rigor of thought logically precedes the scientific method. Science can tell you how to do things, but it can't tell you why. It can only speak to the brute facts necessary for biological survival. When it trys to exceed that domain, it has exceeded its' own acknowledge philosophical limitation, those laid down by PHILOSOPHERS of science, who--depending on the person--may also have been scientists.

Ernst Mach and his logical positivist descendants explicitly rejected "metaphysical" notions which were non-amenable to experimental falsification. This lands us in situations where consciousness itself is regarded as external to the scientists somehow. It is hard to explain, and becomes a problem. I keep seeing books in the bookstore seeking to explain the "problem" of consciousness.

As Bishop Berkeley pointed out--and he has never been refuted--the basic principle of science that assumes the evidence of our senses is accurate--is itself unfalsifiable, making science inherently metaphysical, in that it presumes a specific ontology. This fact is omitted in discussions of science.

Further complicating things, physicists have been entirely unsuccessful in generating agreement on what "reality" is. This is far from an irrelevant question. If our consciousness is somehow entangled with our observable reality, that is a significant factor in evaluating our subjective experience.

There is no question that the scientific method has been exceptionally successful in the MATERIAL improvement of mankind. However, it assumes--inaccurately--that meaning itself is a projection of matter and material process, and not consciousness. It is not something that exists without ideational support, without cultural support, and scientists really have no business even attempting to speak to this part, in that they are dealing with unmeasurable qualities in things like love, kindness, generosity, etc.

I'm sure you're familiar with Contact. How do you prove you love someone?

Scientists need to build things, and let people who work with ideas work with ideas. I will not dispute the fact that most professional thinkers are incompetent, but I will also argue most scientists are insufficiently skeptical. I have not observed them to be "logical" or "rational"; merely that that is their self image. Like all of us, they fail consistently to live up to their own ideals. That's why CrossFit has so much trouble generating mainstream support.

"This is not a cultural battle. It is not a battle for hearts and minds. It is material, about territory and control of people."

Please understand me. I am just as hawkish as you are. It just seems to me that it is better for people to not want to attack us, than to occupy the entire Middle East in perpetuity. We're not going to pull that off.

This doesn't mean we invite everyone to a cocktail party, and negotiate some treaty that gets broken immediately. I'm not advocating stupidity. I know many of these people are unreliable, deceptive, and hatefully violent.

At the same time, what is the plan for the next 50-100 years? 200? 500? Continued war? Having spent my entire adult life studying the creation of meaning, I can tell you my firm belief is that material conditions will NEVER exceed in importance the Why's of life. If you give people lousy Why's, you can give them the world, and they will waste it. We can develop rocket cars, teleportation, and even computer aided immortality, but if nobody can figure out any purpose to life besides hedonism, it will decay and die.

I don't know that a belief in God is necessary to generate sustainable ideational paradigms, but a proper focus on the necessity and importance of them is, and this dictates philosophical rigor.

Comment #168 - Posted by: barry cooper at January 26, 2007 5:49 PM

Look you two....(Barry and Mr. Glassman)

I don't know much about scientific blah blah, or metaphysical yada yada. This I do know:

1. Some men you reach through words. (diplomacy)

2. Some men you reach through words backed up with the threat of force. (negotiate)

3. Some men you reach through force followed by words (threats of more force)

4. Some men you reach through force only (victory in battle)

5. Some men, you just can't reach!!!

In the words of the prison warden with the cool shades in "Cool Hand Luke"

"That's the way he wants it...that is the way he gets it"

So the choice at that point is when to stop reaching out with your hand of friendship and reach out with your Louisville Slugger.

None of the above choices are mutually exclusive in the case of COIN. Actually, used properly, any level encourages people throughout the 1-5 spectrum to move down the scale. The trick is to be consistant with what gets each level of treatment and move with lightning speed between each level as behavior changes.

Afford them no time to plot or scheme to use your weariness against you. Our hesitation buys them time and space.

Essentially you are training a dog or a child or even a Berkley Student for that matter...

Perhaps it is Pavlov with an Aimpoint.

Mr Glassman,

yup that was me...if I can get find an email for you I will send you some pics of some of the new technology out there (inline roller)...I am sure you track the advancements with Ice and the "Clap-skate". Carbon fiber is the great equalizer now with boots.

If I had stumbled across Coach and Lauren's methodology years ago, I would not be fighting through the issues of muscle imbalance that I got from years of bad training habits from Speed Skating. Though, I have to admit, my years skating helps me accept being "uncomfortable" more than most.

I have recently taken back up the sport in a very minor way (roller)...waiting until it gets warmer.

When I was on the ice, I haunted West Alice, WI...Eau Claire, WI ...and Roseville, MN.

Were you up North on the big ice or in SO-CAL doing short track circuit?

Comment #169 - Posted by: CCTJOEY at January 26, 2007 6:36 PM

Barry,

We’ve stepped off the slippery slope of warfare into philosophy. Let me restate, the few points I wanted to make for all the CrossFit readers, then respond briefly on the philosophy.

• Cultural analysis of the Middle East conflict is fruitless. At best it involves the narrative of the enemy, which is solely for recruiting. If we were successful at breaking down shiri’a and the madrassas, we might accomplish something on this point in about three to five generations. The motivation of the enemy for warfare is something else, and it is all material.

• As long as we continue to allow the leaders of the opposition to operate with personal impunity, the fight will end when we run out of gas.

• Once we quit, an objective analysis points to a scenario where Israel becomes the trigger of a far greater conflict, one so grave that Biden will demand our participation of even a Republican president.

Re the philosophical points, I submit the following:

You cite Bishop Berkeley for a false proposition: that science relies on the accuracy of the human senses. To the contrary, Science relies not on mere observations, but on facts, which are measurement compared to standards. Counting events is a bit more complicated, but it can be reduced to the same standard.

Science deals with the real world if and only if the real world makes itself available for measurement. Those things that can be measured arise from the scientific real world. Subjective experience is outside the domain of science.

In practical science, the Real World is an axiom. Scientists dismiss concerns about its existence, but some day some scientist might assume it does not exist and see what comes of it in this models. So, too, scientists don’t bother with falsification in the Popper sense. In the practice of science, as opposed to its metaphysical characterization, a scientific model must support predictions, and the value of the model lies in its predictive power.

Whatever you mean by consciousness (e.g., awake, or self-awareness), if it can’t be measured it is outside the domain of objective knowledge and science. The trick is to define the thing so that it can be measured, but sometimes the defining is subjectively unsatisfying.

You are correct, and reinforce these propositions, when you say that science is out of bounds speaking to unmeasurable things.

I’m not sure what you mean by “ideational support” for science, but science regularly deals with things outside cultural support. GWB is trying to stop experimentation with fetal tissue by denying both federal and cultural support. Regardless, it and much less acceptable science will proceed.

Competent scientists manage to prove themselves incompetent outside their field with great regularity. We produce scientists without the most elementary epistemological notion of what science is. They become arrogant, acting as if knowledge in their field conveys some superhuman intellectual prowess. Famous examples: Fleischman & Pons on cold fusion. Carl Sagan on nuclear winter. Linus Pauling on Vitamin C. For the same reason (lack of training), some scientists fail to achieve competence in their chosen fields. As examples here, you may lump in all the Anthropogenic Climate Warming theorists, most of social science, studies of the paranormal. The list goes on.

Comment #170 - Posted by: Jeff Glassman at January 27, 2007 5:47 AM

coed sex parties coed sex parties [link=http://agrecruit.com.au/csv/csvexport/comment-470.htm]coed sex parties[/link] virgin airways virgin airways [link=http://samenlevingsopbouwbrussel.be/files/backupDB/dump/cnazelzar.html]virgin airways[/link] transit ceo transit ceo [link=http://jerryyatesbluegrass.com/album/albums/userpics/10002/resource381.htm]transit ceo[/link]

Comment #171 - Posted by: transit ceo at June 25, 2008 9:15 AM

twiggy [URL=http://sttc.com.tw/xoops/class/mail/temp/text-1824.html]twiggy[/URL] [url=http://sttc.com.tw/xoops/class/mail/temp/text-1824.html]twiggy[/url] [url]http://sttc.com.tw/xoops/class/mail/temp/text-1824.h[@#~#@]centennial free ringtone [URL=http://agrecruit.com.au/csv/csvexport/comment-1778.htm]centennial free ringtone[/URL] [url=http://agrecruit.com.au/csv/csvexport/comment-1778.htm]centennial free ringtone[/url] [url]http://agrecruit.com.au/csv/csvexport/comment-1778.htm[/url] website [URL=http://romulin.com/files/cache/index.html]domain[/URL] [url=http://romulin.com/files/cache/index.html]home[/url] [url]http://romulin.com/files/cache/index.html[/url] respiratory infection treatments [URL=http://logabottle.com/home/labels/lb/pics/202.htm]respiratory infection treatments[/URL] [url=http://logabottle.com/home/labels/lb/pics/202.htm]respiratory infection treatments[/url] [url]http://logabottle.com/home/labels/lb/pics/202.htm[/url]

Comment #172 - Posted by: twiggy at June 25, 2008 9:15 AM

home [URL=http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html]page[/URL] [url=http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html]site[/url] [url]http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html[/url] home [URL=http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html]page[/URL] [url=http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html]site[/url] [url]http://amacrecruitment.com.au/uploadFiles/images/pics/sitemap.html[/url]

Comment #173 - Posted by: page at June 25, 2008 9:16 AM

http://www.message_bocrolnorel.com/

Comment #174 - Posted by: nick_ouzelc at April 9, 2009 10:03 PM

I totally admit and these are my sentiments exactly. We had high hopes when the republicans won the house in nov and today all we see is posturing. We are disgusted and fighting furious. We need to elect people in 2012 who will do what they say and stand up for the american taxpayers!

Comment #175 - Posted by: Toni Belmonte at October 18, 2011 12:10 PM

kbnbjnbjotjuf/dspttgju/dpn, Alteril doctor, RufzcOl, [url=http://alterillearning.com/]Alteril[/url], MpiQBUb, http://alterillearning.com/ Ingredients in alteril, yptqxNH, Eye Secrets, JlnACSP, [url=http://eyesecrets-advice.com/]Eye Secrets[/url], UbOUvwE, http://eyesecrets-advice.com/ Eye Secrets, mNEzVjS, Kollagen Intensiv, tmmaZhL, [url=http://kollagenintensivfaq.com/]Does kollagen intensiv[/url], pLfmikO, http://kollagenintensivfaq.com/ Kollagen Intensiv, tTWIrGA, Miroverve, SpQbPRV, [url=http://mirovervearea.com/]Miroverve[/url], cKSyEML, http://mirovervearea.com/ Miroverve, xXECVCB, Triactol, LqDrtrW, [url=http://learnabouttriactol.com/]Triactol[/url], ftooHTK, http://learnabouttriactol.com/ Triactol, JsaybjX, Size Genetics, TdCugVJ, [url=http://sizegeneticsfaq.com/]Review size genetics[/url], xerqymh, http://sizegeneticsfaq.com/ Sizegenetics device instruction dvd, LCQStIC.

Comment #176 - Posted by: Lilys eyes secret garden at July 15, 2013 9:25 PM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?