I sort of hinted at this in my comment in response to Lyle’s comment here but I’ll elaborate a bit now.

One thing I find lacking in our current form of government is a counter balance to creeping government power. In my Utopian vision the only function of the Federal government would be to protect our union of states from foreign threats (purposely left vague to include regulation of immigration and other issues) and to prosecute state government officials who, under the color of law, violated the U.S. and state constitutions. Hence the Feds would not have it in their power to legislate restrictions on, or enhancements for, individual citizens because that would be the sole domain of the states. This would mean, for example, any state/city/local officials that passed and/or tried to enforce laws against firearms would find themselves being prosecuted for violation of the 2nd Amendment. And any effort to fund roads, education, or social welfare would also be categorically out of the scope of Federal jurisdiction.

If you were to squint and hold your head just right you could say that is what our current U.S. constitution says the current state of affairs is (the constitution doesn’t explicitly say they are to police the state/city/local officials). But of course that’s not current reality. We have a long way to go before reaching utopia. I’m pretty sure even the “Skycycle” I mentioned in my comment will be inadequate to make that leap.

In England there appears to be some thought given to the concept that all cultures are not just as valid:

Ms Kelly acknowledged that suspicions between communities were being fuelled by the events of 9/11 and its aftermath, as well as the recent arrests in Britain over an alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners.

“For some communities in particular, we need to acknowledge that life in Britain has started to feel markedly different since the attacks on 9/11 in New York and on 7/7 in London – even more so since the events of two weeks ago,” she said.

But in an interview on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme earlier, she ruled out changing British foreign policy in response to the strong disapproval voiced by some sections of the community. “I certainly don’t accept that it is the root cause of extremism, which I think is based on twisted ideology.”

Ms Kelly questioned whether exaggerated respect for multiculturalism in Britain had driven communities apart, an issue already addressed by Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality.

“We have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism, to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness,” she said.

This is just a baby step but it is a step in the right direction. Ultimately they must realized that we must Destroy Their Culture.

Islam, in and of itself, however, is an Allah-worshipping, Kamikaze Nation, exactly like pre-World War II Imperial Japan. It’s Bible, the Koran, can be read like Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It demands to rule the entire human race. Islam’s only idea of freedom of religion is the freedom of Islam to rule everything. Islamic Political Parties should be no more trusted than neo-Nazi, White Supremacists and David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan have been trusted. Tragically, the only language Islam, like Hirohito’s Japan, understands is violence. The measures Harry Truman took to end the war with Japan may prove tragically necessary with Islam.

Michael Moriarty
August 16, 2006
An Interview with Emmy-Winning Actor Michael Moriarty, Presidential Candidate

The majority opinion over here is pretty much what Ry and I have concluded. We’ll have to take a serious hit before we stop swatting at the “wasps” and instead destroy the “nests” and kill the “queens”.

Clayton asks, What, Exactly, Is The Purpose Of Blowing Up A Bunch of Airliners?

A couple years ago I was talking with a guy in the CIA. He was a manager over, among others, a bunch of psychologists. What he told me was that “these people” think differently than we do. “Perhaps more differently that we can think.” Most important about this is that we understand what to do and/or say to get them to do the things we want them to do, next week, next month, and next year. And these means to these different goals may be in conflict with each other.

Now for my speculation. We probably think so differently that they have difficultly thinking like us as well. They probably are doing what they think should cause us to do what they want us to do, but as Clayton points out, it is going to make us more determined to capture and/or kill their extremists. It’s sort of a messed up communication channel.

Another possibility is they just want to kill as many infidels as possible. They are just delivering on the “convert or die” offer from their leaders. If you look at the kill ratio when our military goes up against them it’s probably 1:20 to even 1:100 in our favor. The numbers are against them in that situation.

Ry and I once did an informal study of kill ratios for various “occupations” such as military, mass killers, serial killers, terrorists, etc. This was a little different than your normal ratio of dead on one side to dead on the other side. In this case what is the ratio of people involved on one side to the number of people dead on the other. So if Ted Bundy acted alone, which I think is most likely true, and he killed 43 (or maybe 143–who knows?) then the kill ratio there is 1:43 (or 1:143). In the Oklahoma City bombing 168 were killed and there were probably two people involved for a ratio of 1:84. In 9-11 there were 19 (plus some organizers and support people) who killed something like 3500 people for a ratio of (on the high end) of 1:184. In the case of the military dropping a nuke you have to include all the people that helped make and store the nuke and it’s delivery system, as well as the people in the chain of command who delivered the nuke.

It’s not difficult to concluded that 1:200 is about the upper limit.

Therefore, if the goal is to kill as many infidels as possible losing one “martyr” per airplane full of infidels is pushing the limit of what is the “current state of the art” in dealing out death.

But who can know if that’s right? My guess it’s going to be difficult for us understand even if they were to explain it to us.