I've been thinking about how some posters seem to believe that you shouldn't negotiate with terrorists (I understand the reasoning behind this completely) and that you need to be tough with them (I understand this too). I've started to think that some people here believe that a military victory is possible in the war on terror.....this I don't understand......I can't see how this is possible.....the people educating the next generation of terrorists use the ongoing military effort to eliminate terrorism as evidence that 'violent resistance' is needed....that is to say that they tell the youth that they need to defend themselves and that terrorism is the only effective weapon that they have.

I'm not wanting to discuss whether you agree with what I have said above....I'm interested in hearing from the people who think that a military victory in the war on terror is possible and what these people think that a likely scenerio or scenerios could be in which a military victory solves the terrorism problem.

Quote (I'm interested in hearing from the people who think that a military victory in the war on terror is possible and what these people think that a likely scenerio or scenerios could be in which a military victory solves the terrorism problem.) Unquote.

I guess you must be waiting for Boon Mee to respond then?

Obvioiusly Boon Mee would be a likely candidate to respond to this but I'm interested in anyone's reply if they can come up with some REASONABLE scenerio as to how a military victory can be had in the war on terror. I'm asking because I can't really see how it could be done....but I'll admit that I have a bias that could be keeping me from seeing it.

Off topic slighty:

You need some type of mind finding machine that immediately detonates from a remote location as soon as a potential terrorist has the thoughts of destruction. Spose everyone is allowed those thoughts but if they think about it long enough to come up with some type of plan, the button is pressed. Not a large detonation, just enough to implode their head and the inevitable death throes. Problem is, this machine will be able to seek everyone's thoughts and that wouldn't be much cop...no privacy and the chance for it getting it wrong.

Back OT. Surely the military option will be ongoing in that there will be a potential terrorist born every second from what you have described. What other option would there be? I think they'd still come at us if we put the guns back in the holsters...trciky dilemma

Simply put kill them when you can and able.

Total eradication of everything they know is the other option - far from likely and not politically correct.

In military terms – forgetting about morality or “rules of combat” – it is impossible to “defeat” (i.e. gain a military victory over) terrorism, or even to 100% successfully prevent it.

No military force in the history of terrorism has successfully eradicated this phenomenon. Even totalitarian states such a Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union or especially Nazi Germany could not prevent terrorist attacks (the assassination attempt on Hitler was an act similar to a terrorist attack).

What distinguish modern terrorism from its historical counterpart are the terrorists’ clearly defined goals: political goals and the creation of an atmosphere of terror amongst communities in order to help to achieve these goals.

This aspect of modern terrorism allows for the only way to successfully combat this evil:

• Those, with the power to do so, must NEVER repeat NEVER give in to the terrorists’ demands

• We, in our communities who are fortunate not to be directly effected by any terrorist action, must do all that we can to ensure these evils do not disrupt the way we live our daily lives.

• We must never forget the innocent victims of terrorism, and make sure that all necessary care and support is available for them and their families.

By all means let the military and security forces continue their hunt for the terrorists. And allow the Police to use the necessary measures in order to try to prevent these attacks.

But only the Politicians and we, the people, will ever defeat terrorism.

Well, Ann Coulter maintains the best way to a military or any other type-victory would be to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert the masses to Christianity.

Myself, I'd convert them to Buddhism!

Well, Ann Coulter maintains the best way to a military or any other type-victory would be to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert the masses to Christianity.

Myself, I'd convert them to Buddhism!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would be more than helpful also, if a few neo-cons could follow the words and actions of Prince Gautama Siddharta, don't you think?

In military terms – forgetting about morality or “rules of combat” – it is impossible to “defeat” (i.e. gain a military victory over) terrorism, or even to 100% successfully prevent it.

No military force in the history of terrorism has successfully eradicated this phenomenon. Even totalitarian states such a Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union or especially Nazi Germany could not prevent terrorist attacks (the assassination attempt on Hitler was an act similar to a terrorist attack).

What distinguish modern terrorism from its historical counterpart are the terrorists’ clearly defined goals: political goals and the creation of an atmosphere of terror amongst communities in order to help to achieve these goals.

This aspect of modern terrorism allows for the only way to successfully combat this evil:

• Those, with the power to do so, must NEVER repeat NEVER give in to the terrorists’ demands

• We, in our communities who are fortunate not to be directly effected by any terrorist action, must do all that we can to ensure these evils do not disrupt the way we live our daily lives.

• We must never forget the innocent victims of terrorism, and make sure that all necessary care and support is available for them and their families.

By all means let the military and security forces continue their hunt for the terrorists. And allow the Police to use the necessary measures in order to try to prevent these attacks.

But only the Politicians and we, the people, will ever defeat terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

Well, Ann Coulter maintains the best way to a military or any other type-victory would be to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert the masses to Christianity.

Myself, I'd convert them to Buddhism!

Would be more than helpful also, if a few neo-cons could follow the words and actions of Prince Gautama Siddharta, don't you think?

Perhaps the question should be perhaps these fine folks should follow in his footsteps, eh?

1985 Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro

1988 Pan AM 103

1993 Feb, WTC bombed

1993 Oct, 18 US troops killed in Somalia

1996 Air Force complex bombed in Saudi.

1997 Iraq threatens to shoot down US planes.

1997 An Islamic militant opened fire on the observation deck of the

Empire State Building in New York/1998 US Embassies in Kenya

and Tanzania are bombed by Muslims.

2000 USS Cole bombed by Muslims...

-the list goes on

Well, Ann Coulter maintains the best way to a military or any other type-victory would be to invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert the masses to Christianity.

Myself, I'd convert them to Buddhism!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would be more than helpful also, if a few neo-cons could follow the words and actions of Prince Gautama Siddharta, don't you think?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the question should be perhaps these fine folks should follow in his footsteps, eh?

1985 Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro

1988 Pan AM 103

1993 Feb, WTC bombed

1993 Oct, 18 US troops killed in Somalia

1996 Air Force complex bombed in Saudi.

1997 Iraq threatens to shoot down US planes.

1997 An Islamic militant opened fire on the observation deck of the

Empire State Building in New York/1998 US Embassies in Kenya

and Tanzania are bombed by Muslims.

2000 USS Cole bombed by Muslims...

-the list goes on

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...Ah..of course, I had forgotten, your principle thesis is based upon the premise, "Two wrongs make a right".

How silly of me.

So, now that we have taken a sharp turn off of the topic I'd like to try to sum up the reaction to my query. It appears that most people who responded feel that military action is necessary (not everyone seems to differentiate between military and police it seems...but that's ok) but that it will never END the terrorist actions. So, in a certain sense we seem to agree that there will/might never be a clear military victory in the war on terror and that the military and police action will mostly serve to limit terrorism......sort of like a holding pattern.

Is this a fair summary? Anyone feel that I have misrepresented or forgotten something important that should be added to this summary?...in a few words?

I'm going to try to extrapolate a bit here and say that the general sentiment here is that if there ever will be a victory over the terrorists that it will be because some other activities are employed....this does not mean that we should abandon the military/police activity but that it should be supplemented with something else. Is this a fair extrapolation or do you take exception to it?

So, now that we have taken a sharp turn off of the topic I'd like to try to sum up the reaction to my query.  It appears that most people who responded feel that military action is necessary (not everyone seems to differentiate between military and police it seems...but that's ok) but that it will never END the terrorist actions.  So, in a certain sense we seem to agree that there will/might never be a clear military victory in the war on terror and that the military and police action will mostly serve to limit terrorism......sort of like a holding pattern.

Is this a fair summary?  Anyone feel that I have misrepresented or forgotten something important that should be added to this summary?...in a few words?

I'm going to try to extrapolate a bit here and say that the general sentiment here is that if there ever will be a victory over the terrorists that it will be because some other activities are employed....this does not mean that we should abandon the military/police activity but that it should be supplemented with something else.  Is this a fair extrapolation or do you take exception to it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you were asking for our opinions, in order to see the diversity of proposed solutions to the problem.

I am not so sure I see the value or the function of your "consensus" appraisal.

So, now that we have taken a sharp turn off of the topic I'd like to try to sum up the reaction to my query.  It appears that most people who responded feel that military action is necessary (not everyone seems to differentiate between military and police it seems...but that's ok) but that it will never END the terrorist actions.  So, in a certain sense we seem to agree that there will/might never be a clear military victory in the war on terror and that the military and police action will mostly serve to limit terrorism......sort of like a holding pattern.

Is this a fair summary?  Anyone feel that I have misrepresented or forgotten something important that should be added to this summary?...in a few words?

I'm going to try to extrapolate a bit here and say that the general sentiment here is that if there ever will be a victory over the terrorists that it will be because some other activities are employed....this does not mean that we should abandon the military/police activity but that it should be supplemented with something else.  Is this a fair extrapolation or do you take exception to it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought you were asking for our opinions, in order to see the diversity of proposed solutions to the problem.

I am not so sure I see the value or the function of your "consensus" appraisal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was sort of looking for a diversity of proposed solutions but my assessment of what got posted was that there really wasn't a diversity of suggestions for how a military victory could be had in the war on terror.....so I'm trying to sort of sum this up and then maybe post another topic (or continue this one) but in a direction that bears more fruit......probably because I posed the wrong question...so I'm thinking of trying again....it may be hard for some Bedlamists to understand but sometimes I just like to have a reasonable discussion of a serious topic....sort of low key....seeing if we can agree on some things and then to discover what we can politely disagree on....perhaps a new concept to some.....no sinister intention or name calling is what I'm hoping for.

So, now that we have taken a sharp turn off of the topic I'd like to try to sum up the reaction to my query.  It appears that most people who responded feel that military action is necessary (not everyone seems to differentiate between military and police it seems...but that's ok) but that it will never END the terrorist actions.  So, in a certain sense we seem to agree that there will/might never be a clear military victory in the war on terror and that the military and police action will mostly serve to limit terrorism......sort of like a holding pattern.

Is this a fair summary?  Anyone feel that I have misrepresented or forgotten something important that should be added to this summary?...in a few words?

I'm going to try to extrapolate a bit here and say that the general sentiment here is that if there ever will be a victory over the terrorists that it will be because some other activities are employed....this does not mean that we should abandon the military/police activity but that it should be supplemented with something else.  Is this a fair extrapolation or do you take exception to it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We can't abandon military/police action and should always be ready to find a different means to deal with the terrorist groups. The actions of armed forces should be to prevent acts of terror and to find those responsible and bring them to justice, but I don't we can use them to stop the acts althogether ( I say this because even if one group falls another will take it's place, maybe different cause to fight for but same tactics) For any victory to be had by military means one would have to turn their weapons on women and children, kill as many as possible thus leaving few alive to fight for the cause and to kill off a new generation of terrorist thus being able to take control of a weakened and scared people and making it easier to reeducate the children never to rise up again. It can be done but at a cost that many westerners would not feel comfortable with. To much like Nazis for my taste.

For any victory to be had by military means one would have to turn their weapons on women and children, kill as many as possible thus leaving few alive to fight for the cause and to kill off a new generation of terrorist thus being able to take control of a weakened and scared people and making it easier to reeducate the children never to rise up again. It can be done but at a cost that many westerners would not feel comfortable with. To much like Nazis for my taste.

Expanding on what bebop posted: do what they did in the past keep killing men, women and children until there is none left but the meek.

Next introduce alcohol and a new culture for the young to become accustomed to. Assimilate those that remain. Destroy any grounded sense the youth may have by teaching them relativism. After relativism has destroyed their mooring introduce the new culture via humor. Sarcastic British and American television that makes comedy of disrespectful behavior towards elders should cut the youth off from the guardians of their past culture and it should speed up the assimilation of the youth into the new culture. Encourage youth to aspire to be like television actors. They are cool and hip. If any of the elders complain respond by saying, it's nothing threatening, it's only a joke. How can a joke threaten a culture? There's probably more but this is not the path intended by the original post.

From thaibebop and aughie's posts I think I should add this to my summary:

"In theory a victory in the war on terror based on military and police actions alone would probably involve genocide or at least unacceptable harm to innocent parties. It is clear that military and police action is needed but that it can not in and of itself provide the victory."

and this should be incorporated into my original summary:

"So, now that we have taken a sharp turn off of the topic I'd like to try to sum up the reaction to my query. It appears that most people who responded feel that military action is necessary (not everyone seems to differentiate between military and police it seems...but that's ok) but that it will never END the terrorist actions. So, in a certain sense we seem to agree that there will/might never be a clear military victory in the war on terror and that the military and police action will mostly serve to limit terrorism......sort of like a holding pattern.

Is this a fair summary? Anyone feel that I have misrepresented or forgotten something important that should be added to this summary?...in a few words?

I'm going to try to extrapolate a bit here and say that the general sentiment here is that if there ever will be a victory over the terrorists that it will be because some other activities are employed....this does not mean that we should abandon the military/police activity but that it should be supplemented with something else. Is this a fair extrapolation or do you take exception to it?"

Well, perhaps we'll just start issuing these permits for a nominal sum.

Think the idea falls under 'supplemented with something else'?

Chownah, I am not sure how it could be handled today. I was citing (not advocating) how it was handled in the past. I thought of how the US Army dealt with Native Americans who resisted and how the Spaniards dealt with NAs too (at least the catholics thought intermarriage was an acceptable form of assimilation). Then I threw in the Left's use of relativism to breakdown a person's beliefs so the beliefs can be remolded.

Actually the US military uses more than force to deal with terrorism. It tries to use the concept of winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population. (I can hear the laughs out there) Anyways, there are special Marine units trained to act as liaisons with local civilian representatives. The marines are charged with establishing schools, re-establishing the infrastructure and organinzing a local legal system to address grievences in a court setting so things don't reach the point of civilians shooting each other. I don't know how well it's working. The media doesn't cover it much. I did communicate via the internet with an aussie civilian security contractor who is presently in Iraq. He said from his observations the US Marine mission was well received by the Iraqi civilains compared to the US Army mission. He said sentiments changed towards marines after marines were used to end the insurgent occupation of Faluja (sp.)

So the US military is addressing the terrrorist issue from and economic standpoint of getting the infrastructure up and running and providing employment for civilians.

Chownah, I am not sure how it could be handled today.  I was citing (not advocating) how it was handled in the past.  I thought of how the US Army dealt with Native Americans who resisted and how the Spaniards dealt with NAs too (at least the catholics thought intermarriage was an acceptable form of assimilation).  Then I threw in the Left's use of relativism to breakdown a person's beliefs so the beliefs can  be remolded.

 

Actually the US military uses more than force to deal with terrorism.  It tries to use the concept of winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population. (I can hear the laughs out there) Anyways, there are special Marine units trained to act as liaisons with  local civilian representatives.  The marines are charged with establishing schools, re-establishing the infrastructure and organinzing a local legal system to address grievences in a court setting so things don't reach the point of civilians shooting each other.  I don't know how well it's working.  The media doesn't cover it much.  I did communicate via the internet with an aussie civilian security contractor who is presently in Iraq. He said from his observations the US Marine mission was well received by the Iraqi civilains compared to the US Army mission.  He said sentiments changed towards marines after marines were used to end the insurgent occupation of Faluja (sp.)

So the US military is addressing the terrrorist issue from and economic standpoint of getting the infrastructure up and running and providing employment for civilians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that you disagree with my summary? I understand what you are saying but to me it seems that what you describe does not fall outside the scope of my summary. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying entirely. Are you saying that a military victory over terrorism can be had by having the US Marines invade all the countries who educate and train terrorists and then have athe US Marines set up schools to retrain them?

Chownah, I am not sure how it could be handled today.  I was citing (not advocating) how it was handled in the past.  I thought of how the US Army dealt with Native Americans who resisted and how the Spaniards dealt with NAs too (at least the catholics thought intermarriage was an acceptable form of assimilation).  Then I threw in the Left's use of relativism to breakdown a person's beliefs so the beliefs can  be remolded.

 

Actually the US military uses more than force to deal with terrorism.  It tries to use the concept of winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population. (I can hear the laughs out there) Anyways, there are special Marine units trained to act as liaisons with  local civilian representatives.  The marines are charged with establishing schools, re-establishing the infrastructure and organinzing a local legal system to address grievences in a court setting so things don't reach the point of civilians shooting each other.  I don't know how well it's working.  The media doesn't cover it much.  I did communicate via the internet with an aussie civilian security contractor who is presently in Iraq. He said from his observations the US Marine mission was well received by the Iraqi civilains compared to the US Army mission.  He said sentiments changed towards marines after marines were used to end the insurgent occupation of Faluja (sp.)

So the US military is addressing the terrrorist issue from and economic standpoint of getting the infrastructure up and running and providing employment for civilians.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you saying that you disagree with my summary? I understand what you are saying but to me it seems that what you describe does not fall outside the scope of my summary. Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying entirely. Are you saying that a military victory over terrorism can be had by having the US Marines invade all the countries who educate and train terrorists and then have athe US Marines set up schools to retrain them?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Taking the piss more like it!!!

While going through the ballots of the old ones from 4 years ago.

Selective Muslim Silence

Judith Apter Klinghoffer, senior associate scholar at the Political Science department at Rutgers University, writes about the highly disturbing issue of Selective Muslim Silence

"Where is the sane moderate peace loving Muslim world? Why is its voice so rarely raised in condemnation of Islamist atrocities? It is a question which has been raised in ever increasing urgency since 9/11 and not only by Westerners. A few Muslim commentators have raised it too, but they remained the exception rather than the rule. Last time I raised the issue, it was in the context of a number of cased involving the charge of “insulting Islam,” a charge which led to anti-Coptic riots as well as to the imprisoning a 78-year old Iranian Ayatolla and an Afghani editor of a woman’s magazine.

An Indonesian (and Harvard graduate) editor responded by directing me to an article published in Islamica after the brutal public murder of Theo Van Gogh. It focused not on the disturbing phenomena of Islamic extremism but on the Dutch response to it characterized as “Islamophobia.” Muslims are no more responsible for the murder of Van Gogh it argued than mothers are responsible for Susan Smith drowning her children. Of course, I am not familiar with any organization of mothers encouraging mothers to drawn their children, arguing that doing so would assure their place in haven or supporting the death sentence for people who insult motherhood. I have yet to meet a judge who has sent to prison a person who wrote a book considered critical of mothers.

Leaders of Muslim countries have similarly shirked responsibility for the actions of their extremists. “The Arab world’s silence is deafening,” wrote the St. Petersburg Times editors after the recent Iranian president’s declaration that “ Israel must be wiped off the map.” This silence (with the notable exception of the Palestinian Authority) seemed strange even to Muslim analysts. After all, Ahmadinejad’s speech was an attack of Muslim governments which have moved towards accommodation with Israel. So some pundit suggested that "Arab states may be pleased if Iran is further isolated.” If so, they covered it rather well. When the UNSC gathered to condemn this unprecedented attack of one UN member against another, it was Muslim Algeria which not only failed to condemn Iran but made sure that the resolution will “condemn” but not “strongly condemn” that extremist country. Extrapolation from the case of Israel is misleading, some would argue. Perhaps, but Arab states offered similar protection to Syria following the murder of Hariri and remain silent about the mass murder in Darfur."

Read the whole thing.

IMHO

The way we are fighting the war on terror we will never win. We are playing by the book and they are not. Our only option is to fight them on the same terms. Send small units(SAS, etc) into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Indonesia and of course Iraq and start taking out the people who are running this sh1t. Give them a taste of their own medicine and you will soon see what cowards they really are.

Yes, this is not politically correct but wars never have been.

IMHO

The way we are fighting the war on terror we will never win. We are playing by the book and they are not. Our only option is to fight them on the same terms. Send small units(SAS, etc) into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Indonesia and of course Iraq and start taking out the people who are running this sh1t. Give them a taste of their own medicine and you will soon see what cowards they really are.

Yes, this is not politically correct but wars never have been.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hahahahhahahaha you're joking of course....or else you are just naive. Terrorists are not cowards....they're deluded....they think they go straight to heaven when they do what they do...you would be doing them a great favor by doing what you describe because you would be proving that they have been right all along about christian will to dominate AND you'd be giving anyone who wants to strike back a ticket straight to paradise!!!! or, on the other hand, you might ignite WWIII.

IMHO

The way we are fighting the war on terror we will never win. We are playing by the book and they are not. Our only option is to fight them on the same terms. Send small units(SAS, etc) into Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Indonesia and of course Iraq and start taking out the people who are running this sh1t. Give them a taste of their own medicine and you will soon see what cowards they really are.

Yes, this is not politically correct but wars never have been.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hahahahhahahaha you're joking of course....or else you are just naive. Terrorists are not cowards....they're deluded....they think they go straight to heaven when they do what they do...you would be doing them a great favor by doing what you describe because you would be proving that they have been right all along about christian will to dominate AND you'd be giving anyone who wants to strike back a ticket straight to paradise!!!! or, on the other hand, you might ignite WWIII.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing hasn't already been done. They certainly aren't going to put that in the newspapers.

VDH: The Real Global Virus

Victor Davis Hanson on the spreading plague of jihadism: The Real Global Virus.

Either the jihadists really are crazy or they apparently think that they have a shot at destabilizing, or at least winning concessions from, the United States, Europe, India, and Russia all at once.

Apart from the continual attacks on civilians by terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the West Bank, there have now been recent horrific assaults in New Dehli (blowing up civilians in a busy shopping season on the eve of a Hindu festival), Russia (attacking police and security facilities), London (suicide murdering of civilians on the subway), and Indonesia (more bombing, and the beheading of Christian schoolgirls). The loci of recent atrocities could be widely expanded (e.g., Malaysia, North Africa, Turkey, Spain) — and, of course, do not forget the several terrorist plots that have been broken up in Europe and the United States.

The commonalities? There are at least three.

First, despite the various professed grievances (e.g., India should get out of Kashmir; Russia should get out of Chechnya; England should get out of Iraq; Christians should get out of Indonesia; or Westerners should get out of Bali), the perpetrators were all self-proclaimed Islamic radicals. Westerners who embrace moral equivalence still like to talk of abortion bombings and Timothy McVeigh, but those are isolated and distant memories. No, the old generalization since 9/11 remains valid: The majority of Muslims are not global terrorists, but almost all such terrorists, and the majority of their sympathizers, are Muslims.

Second, the jihadists characteristically feel that dialogue or negotiations are beneath them. So like true fascists, they don’t talk; they kill. Their opponents — whether Christians, Hindus, Jews, or Westerners in general — are, as infidels, de facto guilty for what they are rather than what they supposedly do. Talking to a Dr. Zawahiri is like talking to Hitler: You can’t — and it’s suicidal to try.

Third, there is an emboldened sense that the jihadists can get away with their crimes based on three perceptions ...

Read the whole thing...

A Military Victory In The War On Terror?, Is it possible?

Well, only if Karl Rove shoots himself in the foot, then it ricochets off Cheney, takes out Scooter Libby, bounces off Snow and Rumsfeld (course Tom Delay already shot himself in the foot so not counted;) and ultimately nails Dubya. Sorta like 'friendly fire' (as is happening at the moment;)... but appoint enough republican appellate, local, state and supreme court judges (thru any means possible and it'll all be blamed on the dems for being 'un-american' course

Edit- PS, if you think for even a sec I'm a jihadist apologist, or left wing liberal, you'd be dead wrong. High time for America to NOT go it alone but that would take a paradigm shift in Rove's agenda (domestic political strategies) and won't happen untill he and dubya and the dinos are out

Paris still burning

They’re up to one full week of nightly riots in Paris; and now the police are getting shot at.

And the morons are still calling the rioters “youths.”

And the MSM is declining to mention an entire week of riots in one of Europe’s Capitols. Amazing...

A question for the social engineers:

As you’ve been urging us to be tooolerant of the repulsive cultural notion that adult, civilized males cannot control their behavior or lust at the sight of a woman’s breasts, are you now going to urge us to be toooooerant of burning of cars and buildings and throwing rocks at police as simply another aspect of cultural diversity?

Link