Dan has argued that the Marrakesh declaration is an "important" and "historic" step on the rod to social change. I'm on record as saying that is is quite possible that this is in fact the case, but that we won't know anything until time has passed and more has happened.
On a couple of occasions I asked Dan for some specifics in terms of how certain specific situations would/could/should be dealt with. Dan's response was.
"I have no plan."
It's possible that those behind the Marrakesh Declaration actually do have a plan, but if they do Dan certainly isn't aware of it or hasn't seen fit to show us what it is. I've done a few Google searches for the Marrakesh declaration and have found very little objective coverage and nothing that would explain the next steps they have planned. Much of what I've found is essentially outlets who just passed along a press release, with no other reporting. Again, I'm not saying it's not there, just that I haven't found it. If it is there, I'd sure like to see it.
Anyway, after Dan's whole "I have no plan" response, he posed this challenge.
"You've been placed in a position of authority for a week to work to
resolve the problem of Muslim/Christian/World relationships. What is one
thing you'd do to make the world a better place as it relates to this
issue? Noting that there are already efforts in place to find and stop
actual terrorist acts... so I'm speaking more of what to do to improve
Muslim/other relations."
Obviously it's interesting that one who clearly "has no plan" would expect others to provide what he will not .
It's also interesting he he felt it necessary to attempt to goad me into doing what he is clearly afraid to do, as he is completely unable to deal with criticism (Hyperbole)
Anyway, I thought about it and decided that the best way to point out Dan's inconsistency and hypocrisy (Hyperbole), was to accept his challenge and to allow my response stand in stark contrast to his "I have no plan."
But, I have to point out the fact that the challenge as posed is totally ridiculous. It is obvious that the only way to completely "solve" the problem in a week would be to literally remove every single person on one side or the other, which is just absurd. It's further ridiculous and simplistic to think that this ca n be solved by one thing in a weeks time. I realize that I've changed to parameters of the original challenge to make them slightly more reasonable, and am not adhering to the specific letter of the challenge, but I'm going to offer something more than "I have no plan."
So, what I am going to lay out is an set of bullet points of things that could be started in a week that I believe could move the situation closer to being resolved.
1. To remove any terrorist group, radical imam, government leaders and financial supporters who are engaged in fighting, arming, funding, or in any way (material or not) supporting any group or individual who is engaged in terrorism or jihad.
2. Clamp down on individuals or groups who are using social media to recruit or direct terrorists.
3. Put every effort into developing energy sources in the United States and in non Muslim countries that would limit the ability of any of the middle eastern oil producing nations to use oil as lever against efforts to stop terrorism.
4. Limit or eliminate all US foreign aid to any country which does not adopt a secular government chosen by open, free and fair elections and adopt a governing document that guarantees basic human rights for all as well as protection for religious, ethnic and other minorities.
5. Reward those who institute the changes outlined in #4 with whatever trade and development incentives seem reasonable and appropriate. Change US law to allow US businesses some sort of an incentive to operate in these countries.
6. Explore the feasibility of eliminating the arbitrary nations and boundaries established by the British and French in favor of a more rational and realistic arrangement.
I could probably go on, but it seems like that is quite a lot to get started in only a week.
I don't expect that everyone will agree with my outline. I don't expect that anyone will like it. But, the fact is that I have taken the challenge, laid out an outline and put something out there.
GROUND RULES
I am going to moderate comments on this thread. No one will be allowed to comment on anything in this post until they have laid out what specific plans they would propose under similar restrictions.
Specifically to Dan. I'm going to be very clear. If you want to comment here, "I have no plan" will not cut it. If you "have no plan", then I suggest you put your thinking cap on and pull one out of somewhere if you have any hope of commenting on this thread. If you think you can get around the ground rules by posting on another thread, those comments will be deleted also. I have been upfront and specific about the rules, so I do not want to hear any whining about how I won't let you comment. Finally, I will not save any deleted comments, so if you want to keep them for any reason it's your responsibility.
EDIT
Dan, if you like I will allow one comment here to acknowledge that I have taken up your challenge (albeit in a modified more realistic form), and that perhaps you underestimated me. Anything beyond that will need to have your plan.
12 comments:
This is a tough challenge regardless of who is making it. I don't know about time limits, and I'm not sure one can choose to focus only on "improving relations". I think that there is little doubt that the US does in fact seek to improve relations with all nations. That's a given, in fact. The question is how do we get the other side to actually do their part?
1. Sanctions on muslim nations that are suspected of supporting terrorism is automatic. Blockades would also go well with sanctions, to whatever extent we can impose them
2. Infiltrate where we can with Christian Arabs who can move about as if muslim, to gather intel as well as to be a means of verification where possible.
3. I like the idea of halting aid to countries that won't adopt an equitable secular government that protects the rights of the people. No sharia.
4. Identify those arab/muslim countries willing to donate a portion of their land for refugee camps that can be protected by UN troops as well as members of the host nation military. Hosting refugees in an area that is akin to their homelands is better for the refugees. It also allows for aid to be funneled more directly to those who need it.
5. The key in my plan, such as it is, is to put pressure on those causing the problems in every way possible, from direct military force, to economic sanctions and blockades. No act of terror should be left without swift and powerful reprisal of a sort that leaves the bad guys wondering what hit them and if its worth it to go on.
6. All the while we are pounding the crap out of the bad guys, we can let them know that we would prefer the people giving support to them, from low level fighters as high up as possible, lay down their arms and live peacefully...or else.
There can be no peace without the knowledge that acting aggressively in the name of allah will no longer be tolerated by the peace and liberty loving nations of the world. Dan finds this incongruous. But it has always worked where a peace and liberty loving nation stepped up and proved itself willing to fight with everything available, and fight to win.
Now here's the exit strategy: Total and unconditional surrender or total and complete annihilation of the enemy. The result will then be peace and the usual demonstration of United States largess.
Art, I didn't even think of the refugee issue. One of the problems in the Muslim world is the fact that not only did they refuse to accept those who were displaced from Israel (even though they could have stayed and gotten Israeli citizenship), but the kept them in camps under horrible conditions. This failure on the part of the Muslim countries that caused the problem by invading Israel directly accounts for a significant number of deaths of innocent Muslims (due to the conditions), but also have been a hotbed of "Palestinian" terrorists.
No doubt. I simply add that issue to the discussion because how we deal with it reflects our willingness to have peaceful relations. Helping to care for those who are victimized by the terrorists would improve relations with any "moderate" muslim that might exist within the collection of muslim controlled nations.
I agree, I should have thought of it. I'm tempted to go back and add it to my original list, but that would just be stealing your idea.
Feel free. I don't care who takes credit.
No big deal. Aren't you impressed with Dan's detailed plan?
Yes. It's scintillating.
I can see peace coming any day now.
Should I hold my breath?
After today, probably not.
It just seems reasonable to me that as we see all of these attacks which have taken time to plan and involved numerous people, that somewhere there are people who were, if not aware then at least suspicious about what was happening. I also suspect that some of those people might be what people consider to be "moderate" Muslims. I'm really starting to wonder (obviously assuming that my premise is correct), why it is that these "moderate' Muslims aren't standing up and alerting the authorities when they see or suspect that something is not right.
Brussels seems to be a place with a very large, or at least significant muslim population. Among them must be some of the "moderates" of whom we hear so much about. I hope they actually exist and would suspect the odds are high that they do. But like you, I wonder when we can see them actually step up and finger those who are most likely to be a problem. I understand the risks. It is no different than black people living in neighborhoods with high gang activity. Testifying is dangerous. But until such people step up, or at least welcome more aggressive police activity against the truly violent and dangerous, I don't see how this will ever go away.
I often wonder how I would respond to this happening among those like me. Would I have the courage to put myself, my family and my property at risk? Would I welcome profiling knowing that others like me are responsible for so much harm? I think for the latter question, the answer is "absolutely! Bring it on! I know I've done nothing wrong!" Would I have the courage to testify against friends and family members in order to prove that not all of "my kind" are like those causing trouble? Tough calls, but again, such things are required.
Post a Comment