Random musings about slipstream.....

[Dancing Doctor]

^Well, yes, of course any government has opposition, but my point is that Martok's position is now much more solidified; he has broader, stronger support and is in a much less tenuous position of leadership than he was before. So there's substantially less risk of some militant faction overthrowing him than there was before Destiny. Waiting until there's zero opposition is absurd because it will never happen, nor should it. A state with no opposition is an absolute dictatorship. What you want is stability, and that's what Martok's government has now, more than it did before.

Emphasis on the now. With several planets in ruins, with hundreds of starships destroyed, and considering the fact that the Empire was, culturally, never really very big on or receptive to the "softer" fields of study (agriculture, science, etc.), life is going to be harder than its ever been before for the Klingons. And when the grumbling starts, there's always going to be someone who will take advantage of the discontent.

Also, we have no idea how the makeup of the High Council will end up. In politics, more often than not, a majority is transitory, particularly when it comes to the aftermath of an emergency situation.

Also, the way the UFP and the Klingons fought together against the Borg has resolidified their ties. The Klingon people now see Martok as their victorious champion and the Federation as their stalwart partners in the struggle. Any lingering anti-Federation faction would have a hell of a hard time winning support for a coup. It's foolish to go up against a war hero, especially in a society that esteems warriors so highly.

That may be how it seems now, but sentiments of groups who try to tap into what will seem like a populist stance, like those who oppose the Federation are not, nor ever have been, bound by reality or logic. Further, the Klingon Empire has had its share of leaders and groups that, it would appear, would be working at a counterintuitive purpose. Look at the group Klahb. Look at General Chang and the others who tried to derail the First Khitomer Accords. Look at Gowron. Look at Kravokh.

and the fact that the Tholians and other groups who didn't join with the Federation were also left alone

That's not true. The Borg expanded outward from their entry point and slaughtered indiscriminately, regardless of allegiance. Nonaligned worlds fell too -- including the first two casualties, Acamar and Barolia.

I wasn't counting Acamar and Barolia. The Tholians, the Breen, the Tzenkethi...they didn't join the fight and they didn't get attacked.

Now, logically, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have. But it's a convenient argument to make, especially when you want to blame someone else. Further, the Federation are seen as having provoked the Borg, and so why should another group get involved when "they were asking for it"?

Logic and reason have absolutely nothing to do with most political ideologies, particularly those who try to adopt a populist stance.

 

[Christopher]

Emphasis on the now. With several planets in ruins, with hundreds of starships destroyed, and considering the fact that the Empire was, culturally, never really very big on or receptive to the "softer" fields of study (agriculture, science, etc.), life is going to be harder than its ever been before for the Klingons. And when the grumbling starts, there's always going to be someone who will take advantage of the discontent.

All the more reason to share slipstream with the Klingons and strengthen our friendship with them, rather than hoarding it and giving them a reason to resent us. Paranoia can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wasn't counting Acamar and Barolia.

Yes, and that's why you're wrong. You're alleging that whether civilizations got attacked had something to do with whether they aligned with the Federation. That's quite simply dead wrong, and the proof that it's dead wrong is that the very first planets destroyed by the Borg were unaligned worlds.

The Tholians, the Breen, the Tzenkethi...they didn't join the fight and they didn't get attacked.

They didn't get attacked because they were farther away from the Azure Nebula than the planets that did get attacked. They didn't get attacked because the Caeliar stopped the invasion before it reached them. That's all. It was purely a matter of geography, not allegiance. Plenty of unaligned worlds were destroyed by the Borg because they were in the Borg's path.

Now, logically, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have. But it's a convenient argument to make, especially when you want to blame someone else.

But it's a crap argument. It's a bald-faced lie of Fox News proportions. Any Klingon intelligent enough to look at a map can see that it's total BS.

Further, the Federation are seen as having provoked the Borg

Ohh, this argument is starting to sound familiar. More of this nonsensical notion that people would think the Federation "provoked" the Borg, rather than recognizing that it was the Federation who saved them from the Borg. If you're the same person who's continually brought up that absurd notion in the past, then it's a waste of time to debate it with you again.

 

[JB2005]

^ I thought it was Janeway blowing up the hub in Endgame that was seen as one of the theories why the borg finally came gunning for the Federation...

 

[Dancing Doctor]

^ I thought it was Janeway blowing up the hub in Endgame that was seen as one of the theories why the borg finally came gunning for the Federation...

Yeah, that was where I was coming from. And I'm not saying I believe it. But there was a line in The Needs of the Many where Janeway is blamed for that.

Also, for making Species 8472/The Undine consider humanity a major threat.

Emphasis on the now. With several planets in ruins, with hundreds of starships destroyed, and considering the fact that the Empire was, culturally, never really very big on or receptive to the "softer" fields of study (agriculture, science, etc.), life is going to be harder than its ever been before for the Klingons. And when the grumbling starts, there's always going to be someone who will take advantage of the discontent.

All the more reason to share slipstream with the Klingons and strengthen our friendship with them, rather than hoarding it and giving them a reason to resent us. Paranoia can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I wasn't counting Acamar and Barolia.

Yes, and that's why you're wrong. You're alleging that whether civilizations got attacked had something to do with whether they aligned with the Federation. That's quite simply dead wrong, and the proof that it's dead wrong is that the very first planets destroyed by the Borg were unaligned worlds.



They didn't get attacked because they were farther away from the Azure Nebula than the planets that did get attacked. They didn't get attacked because the Caeliar stopped the invasion before it reached them. That's all. It was purely a matter of geography, not allegiance. Plenty of unaligned worlds were destroyed by the Borg because they were in the Borg's path.

Now, logically, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have. But it's a convenient argument to make, especially when you want to blame someone else.

But it's a crap argument. It's a bald-faced lie of Fox News proportions. Any Klingon intelligent enough to look at a map can see that it's total BS.

Further, the Federation are seen as having provoked the Borg

Ohh, this argument is starting to sound familiar. More of this nonsensical notion that people would think the Federation "provoked" the Borg, rather than recognizing that it was the Federation who saved them from the Borg. If you're the same person who's continually brought up that absurd notion in the past, then it's a waste of time to debate it with you again.

I hope you're not under the assumption that I honestly believe any of the stuff I was writing there. I was making the case as to A) Why I could see the Federation not wanting to share slipstream and B ) Why I could see the Klingons becoming more antagonistic.

And wow, next time I'll be sure I put a giant-ass disclaimer before the stuff I write, instead of just assume my point will come across.

 

[Christopher]

I just don't think there's a good reason at this point to expect the majority of the Klingons to feel antagonism toward the Federation. They fought side by side against the most implacable foe imaginable and they emerged victorious -- mainly due to the Federation. Klingons are warriors, but they're not reflexively hateful. They see battle as something to rejoice in, and they value friendships forged in fire. The Federation fought by their side and won by their side, and so it would be the gravest dishonor to turn against the Federation now. Any Klingon who did feel hostile toward the Federation would be well advised to keep quiet about it in public.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I wouldn't say the majority of the Klingons. And honor is a wonderful thing...until your stomach starts to growl and you remember you have no place to live and your children or spouse or other family and friends are dead.

But they, even on a good day, aren't the most rational of people. Based on history and experience, when things start to go south, discontent is born, and someone will always be there to take advantage of it.

 

[Christopher]

I wouldn't say the majority of the Klingons.

Based on what? You're just asserting that without offering a shred of evidence. What, are you secretly Eeyore? Do you just reflexively assume the worst possible scenario must be inevitable?

The Federation doesn't think that way. It bases its policies on optimism and hope. I doubt the UFP government would base its policies on technology-sharing on unsubstantiated paranoia about the Klingons turning on them.

And honor is a wonderful thing...until your stomach starts to growl and you remember you have no place to live and your children or spouse or other family and friends are dead.

The Klingons have been through hard times before. But aside from a 2-year conflict resulting from Gowron's arrogance and the Founders' manipulation, the Klingons have kept the peace with the Federation for most of the past 90 years, and maintained a formal alliance with the Federation for at least two decades. So it simply isn't logical to assume they'd turn against the Federation at the drop of a hat. The preponderance of 24th-century history argues against it.

But they, even on a good day, aren't the most rational of people.

I'm sorry, but that's just racial profiling. The Klingons put on a big show of posturing and aggression, but they couldn't realistically make a civilization function if they weren't capable of a reasonable degree of restraint and judgment. Heck, Americans on the whole aren't the most rational of people -- we publish horoscopes in the newspaper, we build museums to promote Creationism, and the rhetoric in our political discourse is every bit as hotheaded, gratuitously hostile, and unconstructive as any bat'leth duel -- yet we don't declare war on Canada every time we have a bad year.

Based on history and experience, when things start to go south, discontent is born, and someone will always be there to take advantage of it.

No. Based on history and experience, whatever internal struggles the Klingons may have, they don't automatically take their frustrations out on the Federation -- not since Praxis. Even Gowron wanted the Federation to be his ally against Cardassia; as he saw it, it was the Federation that betrayed the alliance by refusing to join him. As long as the Federation does nothing new to provoke the Klingons, there's no reason to assume they'd break the alliance again. The weight of history argues against it.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

I wouldn't say the majority of the Klingons.

Based on what? You're just asserting that without offering a shred of evidence. What, are you secretly Eeyore? Do you just reflexively assume the worst possible scenario must be inevitable?

I reflexively assume that the worst possible scenario is possible (usually highly possible) and would rather develop a plan to prepare and end up not needing it. Better safe than sorry.

Further, I'm offering an analysis of the situation, and my interpretation as to why something hasn't or may not have happened yet.

S'il vous plaît, pardonnez-moi for being skeptical about anyone and everyone.

The Federation doesn't think that way. It bases its policies on optimism and hope.

Like denying the cure to the morphogenic virus, or extending the Starfleet Operational Security Act, or keeping the deaths of thousands of Starfleet officers quiet to use in a ruse against the Romulans, among others.

I doubt the UFP government would base its policies on technology-sharing on unsubstantiated paranoia about the Klingons turning on them.

"Unsubstantiated paranoia", no, that wouldn't be a base for policies. But, I'd rather be careful and cautious with the one technology giving me an upper hand against an unfriendly power like the Typhon Pact than be free and open and end up falling behind.

The Klingons have been through hard times before. But aside from a 2-year conflict resulting from Gowron's arrogance and the Founders' manipulation, the Klingons have kept the peace with the Federation for most of the past 90 years, and maintained a formal alliance with the Federation for at least two decades. So it simply isn't logical to assume they'd turn against the Federation at the drop of a hat. The preponderance of 24th-century history argues against it.

And at what other point, apart from Praxis, has the Klingon Empire been this badly wounded? It's a whole brand new ballgame, now that the Borg Conflict is over and the pieces need to be picked up. It's perfectly logical to assume that the Klingon Empire could turn against the Federation. The Andorians did, for similar reasons, and they were with the Federation for far longer.

I'm sorry, but that's just racial profiling. The Klingons put on a big show of posturing and aggression, but they couldn't realistically make a civilization function if they weren't capable of a reasonable degree of restraint and judgment. Heck, Americans on the whole aren't the most rational of people -- we publish horoscopes in the newspaper, we build museums to promote Creationism, and the rhetoric in our political discourse is every bit as hotheaded, gratuitously hostile, and unconstructive as any bat'leth duel -- yet we don't declare war on Canada every time we have a bad year.

We also haven't almost been completely wiped out by an almost-implacable enemy, and we haven't had anywhere near the conditions that the Klingon Empire, among other Alpha Quadrant entities, have been experiencing.

Frankly, the only times that the Klingon Empire has changed its behavior is when an "outside" force acts upon it, and even then it's usually nothing more than a minor course correction.

No. Based on history and experience, whatever internal struggles the Klingons may have, they don't automatically take their frustrations out on the Federation -- not since Praxis. Even Gowron wanted the Federation to be his ally against Cardassia; as he saw it, it was the Federation that betrayed the alliance by refusing to join him. As long as the Federation does nothing new to provoke the Klingons, there's no reason to assume they'd break the alliance again. The weight of history argues against it.

The weight of history was almost made meaningless by the utter annihilation the Borg brought to many and came close to bringing to all. As I said earlier, it's a whole brand new ballgame.

And my point is, and has been, that there would be nothing automatic about the frustrations being taken out on the Federation. I'm not saying that a group will immediately rise up and start broadcasting such sentiments.

Martok is a great leader, and yes, his people are behind him because he led them to victory in an epic conflict.

Winston Churchill was in a similar position, and yet he was voted out at the next election after World War II ended.

Discontent is based on experience: My family is dead. I have no home. There's not enough food. After a while, resentment builds. Aid supplies aren't enough. We're not getting the proper amount.

And then, people will start asking questions. Why are all of those questions true?

Now, most people will understand why. And hell, most people in power will explain why, truth and all.

But if someone has a simple, easy-to-understand, emotional argument, more often than not, that will resonate more, even if it's patently untrue. And if it can be shown that it's someone else's fault as to why your life sucks, why, that's even better!

 

[SicOne]

^ Thus the foundation behind the Islamic narrative, in Valeris's two final sentences...

And don't you DARE disparage the great and powerful Fox News!

 

[Christopher]

I reflexively assume that the worst possible scenario is possible (usually highly possible) and would rather develop a plan to prepare and end up not needing it. Better safe than sorry.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume going in that people will be your enemies, you make them your enemies. You can't make friends without extending trust. Paranoia just makes your situation worse.

"Unsubstantiated paranoia", no, that wouldn't be a base for policies. But, I'd rather be careful and cautious with the one technology giving me an upper hand against an unfriendly power like the Typhon Pact than be free and open and end up falling behind.

The nations that fall behind the fastest are those that isolate themselves. History shows that the societies that have the most progress and prosperity are the ones that engage with others, that share ideas and resources with others and gain dynamism from the interaction. The Federation is not a siege state, always cowering behind walls and isolating itself out of fear. Its very nature is anathema to that.

And at what other point, apart from Praxis, has the Klingon Empire been this badly wounded? It's a whole brand new ballgame, now that the Borg Conflict is over and the pieces need to be picked up. It's perfectly logical to assume that the Klingon Empire could turn against the Federation.

No, it isn't. Yes, the Klingons were crippled after Praxis -- and the Federation helped them. And so it won their trust and eventually their friendship. Now the Klingons are crippled again, and I have no doubt that the Federation is helping them again. Because that's what the Federation does. It doesn't wallow in fear and hoard resources like some survivalist nutjob in the woods. It helps out its neighbors, and thereby gives them a reason to be friendly toward them.

The Andorians did, for similar reasons, and they were with the Federation for far longer.

The Andorians had specific reasons to be frustrated and angry with the Federation for failing to help them save their species, and for keeping secrets that could've helped them. There's no such specific reason to assume the Klingons would have any such animosity.

I mean, we've already had that story. Let's step out of the in-universe analysis and treat this as the fiction that it is. We've already had a story of the Klingons breaking the alliance with the Federation and becoming an enemy, in DS9's 4th and 5th seasons. Now that that story's already been told, what would be the point of doing it again? Give us writers a little credit for originality here.

But if someone has a simple, easy-to-understand, emotional argument, more often than not, that will resonate more, even if it's patently untrue. And if it can be shown that it's someone else's fault as to why your life sucks, why, that's even better!

^ Thus the foundation behind the Islamic narrative, in Valeris's two final sentences...

That is a hideous, hateful lie. That is NOT "the Islamic narrative," any more than the teachings of the Ku Klux Klan are the Christian narrative. It is the foundation of the political rhetoric of a corrupt, extremist fringe of Islamist militants whose primary enemies and targets are other Muslims who don't agree with their reactionary goals. It is also the foundation of the political rhetoric of American bigots and extremists who exploit the actions of those extremists as an excuse to indulge their virulent hatred of non-Christians. Both groups are motivated primarily by political ideology and merely exploit their respective faiths as rationalization for their militancy and intolerance, and both groups make a mockery of the basically peaceful, humanitarian religions they claim to represent.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I just don't think there's a good reason at this point to expect the majority of the Klingons to feel antagonism toward the Federation. They fought side by side against the most implacable foe imaginable and they emerged victorious -- mainly due to the Federation.

Victorious?
The federation and the klingons defeated no one. They were crushed like insects by the borg. By the end of 'Destiny', this was made abundantly clear.
It was the Caeliar that defeated the borg - with no help from the federation (being a taxi service hardly counts as 'help') or the klingon empire.

And this 'victory' redefined the term 'pyrrhic victory' - 64 BILLION dead is no victory.


Also - the borg came in large numbers, far sooner than normal for them and with intent to exterminate, not assimilate.
What provocked this highly atypical behaviour of the borg?

There are only three options, really - either Janeway's liberation of Unimatrix 0, Janeway's destruction of the transwarp hub, or both.
All other 'victories' against the borg were too small to merit such retribution - in the Delta quadrant, species annoyed the borg much more without such consequences.

The klingons are well aware of the federation provocations that lead to the death of BILLIONS of klingons and the destruction of much of their empire.
And they are supposed not to care? The klingons generally demand blood for FAR, FAR smaller offenses.
Plus - the figureheads for the anti-Martok faction were killed in the borg invasion, yes. But these figureheads were not in a vacuum, they had a power-base, support from a large part of klingon society. And, after 'Destiny' - unlike before - these klingons actually have a reasonable - and VERY serious - grievance against the federation.
The anti-Martok faction not reappearing with a vengeance after 'Destiny' is unrealistic.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

I reflexively assume that the worst possible scenario is possible (usually highly possible) and would rather develop a plan to prepare and end up not needing it. Better safe than sorry.

Self-fulfilling prophecy. If you assume going in that people will be your enemies, you make them your enemies. You can't make friends without extending trust. Paranoia just makes your situation worse.

In the Typhon Pact's case - not quite.

A self-fulfilling prophecy would be - you treat the pact as an emeny and it gradually becomes an enemy due to that.

In the Typhon Pact's case the situation is quite different - as ZSG or PoD show (and state directly on a few occasions), the Typhon Pact is already an enemy of the federation from its formation, from the start, pursuing a cold war agenda against it, replete with political and concrete sabotages.

"Unsubstantiated paranoia", no, that wouldn't be a base for policies. But, I'd rather be careful and cautious with the one technology giving me an upper hand against an unfriendly power like the Typhon Pact than be free and open and end up falling behind.

The nations that fall behind the fastest are those that isolate themselves. History shows that the societies that have the most progress and prosperity are the ones that engage with others, that share ideas and resources with others and gain dynamism from the interaction. The Federation is not a siege state, always cowering behind walls and isolating itself out of fear. Its very nature is anathema to that.

History also shows that the nations that survive and prosper are not the suicidal ones that give away their military secrets to clear enemy states engaged in cold war, leaving themselves a second-rate power by comparison.

By your logic, after WW2, USA should have given the secret of the fission and then fusion bomb to Stalin. I wonder how Stalin would have acted vis a vis Berlin if he had the atomic weapon at that point? He blockaded it even without the atomic bomb, while the other side had it.

And then, USA should have given to USSR its secrets regarding ICBMs, multi-warhead missles, any other military technology of worth it possessed - making sure USA is the only country to feel the strain on its economy, sparing USSR of the huge expenses needed to create these technologies (expenses which were one of the main reasons for the end of the cold war).

I mean, we've already had that story. Let's step out of the in-universe analysis and treat this as the fiction that it is. We've already had a story of the Klingons breaking the alliance with the Federation and becoming an enemy, in DS9's 4th and 5th seasons. Now that that story's already been told, what would be the point of doing it again? Give us writers a little credit for originality here.

You're proving my point, Christopher.

'Destiny' especially, but also the Typhon Pact books painted the trekverse so darkly that the only way the federation is to survive in its current shape (as in - with most of its member worlds and allies not abandoning it/turning against it) is by some meta-textual writer's licence, by deus ex machina.

 

[JD]

Ok, how did you jump from sharing technology with one of the Federations closest long time allies to sharing the tech with enemies? All Christopher was saying was that you share the technology, he didn't necessarily say you should share it with everyone.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

From Christopher's post and the post he is responding to, I understand he is talking about the federation giving the slip-stream technology to the Typhon Pact in an attempt to gain the friendship of said Typhon Pact.

Also, in a previous thread talking about ZSG, Christopher directly said this.

 

[Christopher]

I'm saying that if you refuse to share the tech, you give others reason to mistrust and fear your intentions and may make them enemies. Whereas if you reach out in friendship and cooperation, you may make them friends instead. And that's the whole core philosophy of the Federation. If Earth had pre-emptively assumed that the Andorians and Tellarites and Denobulans and so on would turn against them at the first opportunity, then the Federation would never have existed.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

If Earth had pre-emptively assumed that the Andorians and Tellarites and Denobulans and so on would turn against them at the first opportunity, then the Federation would never have existed.

And this is the essential difference:
Now, the federation does not 'pre-emptively' assume the Typhon Pact is hostile.
The Typhon Pact more than proved it is hostile, by actively following a cold war agenda with the federation.

And this ties into the larger point I have been trying to make:
In the recent 24th century books, the trekverse was depicted so dark, the 'fall of the federation' has become very hard to realistically prevent in-universe - Andor left, Vulcan has a good cause for leaving, continuing federation political instability among other worlds, the Klingons have a good cause - for a change - to have a grudge against the federation, the Typhon Pact has been depicted as hostile, with barely a trace of ambiguity, etc.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

From Christopher's post and the post he is responding to, I understand he is talking about the federation giving the slip-stream technology to the Typhon Pact in an attempt to gain the friendship of said Typhon Pact.

Also, in a previous thread talking about ZSG, Christopher directly said this.

That'd be like giving the codes to the "football" to Al-Qaeda.

 

[SicOne]

...But if someone has a simple, easy-to-understand, emotional argument, more often than not, that will resonate more, even if it's patently untrue. And if it can be shown that it's someone else's fault as to why your life sucks, why, that's even better!

^ Thus the foundation behind the Islamic narrative, in Valeris's two final sentences...

That is a hideous, hateful lie. That is NOT "the Islamic narrative," any more than the teachings of the Ku Klux Klan are the Christian narrative. It is the foundation of the political rhetoric of a corrupt, extremist fringe of Islamist militants whose primary enemies and targets are other Muslims who don't agree with their reactionary goals. It is also the foundation of the political rhetoric of American bigots and extremists who exploit the actions of those extremists as an excuse to indulge their virulent hatred of non-Christians. Both groups are motivated primarily by political ideology and merely exploit their respective faiths as rationalization for their militancy and intolerance, and both groups make a mockery of the basically peaceful, humanitarian religions they claim to represent.

Respectfully, Christopher, I disagree.

As background to my disagreement, I have over a dozen family members, friends, and coworkers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, front-line and rear support, active duty and Reserve and Guard units, from "shock and awe" to current deployments...and all of them, ALL, to a man (and woman), have said that they hate and fear us over there. Publically, in deference to their professional military careers and with conviction appropriate to the length of time they wish to sustain said careers, they wholeheartedly support the effort...privately, over family get-togethers or drinks with friends, it's another story altogether.

Unless the West is willing to expend and invest vast sums of money, manpower, and lives in a multigenerational effort to educate the populace, eradicate the "extremists", and drag that section of the planet kicking and screaming into the 20st century (much less the 21st...), it will all be for naught. They don't want what we have to offer. Theywill cheerfully take our money and our efforts and smile sweetly and wave tiny American flags and cheer "Blah-blah-democracy-freedom-blah-blah" while they do so...but outside of individuals they as a group don't want the responsibilities that are attendant with freedom, and not the hard work and mindset change involved in bringing that about, culturally-speaking. The only thing we're accomplishing at this point is giving the extremists a reason to stay put and shoot at our troops over there, where it's much more convenient than running the gauntlet and traveling to the West to cause mayhem. The same "Haji Video" vendor selling you illegally-burned DVDs out of his ancient VW bus outside the main camp gate today is giving somebody troop information tomorrow, just to hedge his bets that he's not the first against the wall to be shot after the Americans leave in due time. All of those military installations we've constructed in Iraq and Afghanistan, from tiny outposts to the gigantic permanent bases in Iraq? They're referred to by the troops as "terrorist sinks". Think about it.

Before you contemplate comparing what's happening in Egypt to what could occur in Iraq and Afghanistan, or many of the other nations over there, it's apples and oranges...Egypt is on the "high-functioning autism" end of progressive thought (such as it is...) in the Middle East.

Personally, I'm a liberal Republican union member who has voted Democrat more often than not, thinks Beck and Limbaugh and Palin are not just idiots but dangerous idiots, and I'm not much of a church goer aside from holiday times with family. I keep my faith to myself...and respect the right of Islamics and the whole panoply of faiths worldwide to worship, or not worship, as they see fit. I wouldn't want anyone else to push their faith upon me anymore than I'd do that to someone else. I believe I fit four-square smack in the middle of American religious attitude, so consider that before you lump me into the American religious extreme right category who want to fire up the Crusades all over again and put the entire Middle East population to the sword.

Which was exactly what al-Queda wanted to occur.

Andthough I always support the troops, I don't necessarily support the war, then or now. There were better ways to handle al-Queda without the hideously expensive goatfuck we've got going on now.

If you wish to test your naive hypothesis that the "Islamic narrative" is a indeed a foundation of a political rhetoric espoused only by extremists and not an immutable fact of life in that region of the planet, feel free to go on walkabout without military escort to Iran or Afghanistan, solo, speak with the peace-loving populace thereof, then write us of your adventures upon your safe return. Please include pictures.

Insha'Allah, Chris, you will keep your head...

BTW, it is not at all bigoted or extremist to recognize an unpleasant reality for what it really is...no matter how much one wishes the world operated otherwise.

 

[Dancing Doctor]

To be fair, the

...if someone has a simple, easy-to-understand, emotional argument, more often than not, that will resonate more, even if it's patently untrue. And if it can be shown that it's someone else's fault as to why your life sucks, why, that's even better!

has been a standard of demagogues and populists and politicians going back to the beginning, and is not the sole province of just one group or ideology.

Really, that is the explanation behind the big events at the end of Paths of Disharmony. And that's why it's foolish to even think about handing over slipstream technology. That was a big point in Zero Sum Game, since there's really no defense or countermeasure to act against slipstream, save for that it takes time to implement and install, and why President Bacco (correctly, in my opinion, authorized that covert ops mission to recover the information and/or prevent it from being acted upon).

"No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies."