mattp

I hear you Mr. K, but they can sideslip all they want on spring corn in the backcountry and there will be plenty left for you.

You might also consider leaving out the snide put-downs -- at least when you agree with the other guy. It will give you all the more reason to be smug.

Castle Rock (photo from Jeff Smoot's site)

I hear you, Bug. Spray sessions could be a lot more fun if there was SOME modicum of respect or something like that.

What? You aren't going to "call bullshit" on him and accuse him of hating America? He's agreed with what I argued back on page two and you found offensive or alarming or whatever your exact reaction was.

Certainly almost every political figure who spoke against the war - and I listed four from very different backgrounds - WAS called that by the right wingers her on cc.com, by many commentators in the media, and in most cases by spokesmen for the Bush administration (I think they just tried to ignore their own general and he promptly shut up and went away). It didn't hurt their career, necessarily, but those names were called. As for those who knew we were going to war on false pretenses and were in a position where it was THEIR JOB to speak out - anybody in Congress, any spokesperson for an ally, anybody at the U.N., or any member of the miltary who was interviewed and did not mention it, they were either a naif, a dupe, or a participant, or maybe just a coward or lazy. Anybody who didn't know Bush was lying? They simply were not paying attention - whether it was due to their being an idiot or an ideologue or in some other fashion impaired. As I said: we COULD have had a discussion about what we should do about Saddam. We did not have that discussion, because the whole premise of the discussion we did have was B.S.

You, KK, apparently could not accept such blasphemy. Is this what you thought I wrote?

Kiss off with the snide quips there, JayB. I did not claim any special familiarity. I reported that I read ONE book on ONE climbing trip, and I was surprised to learn that there was a time when Islamic rule in their golden age was relatively tolerant. It had been posted here that Islam is and always was intolerant and that is certainly what I had thought until I read a little history. As to what happened? Good question. In the context of a discussion entitled "Islam: fear trumps freedom," it is equally important, in my opinion, to ask how any potential policy on our part now may feed or not feed the mindset behind terrorism, of which a general intolerance is probably only a part.

Jay, I already stated that McDermott was one of a small handful of American politicians who spoke against the war and I am proud of the fact that he did so. Despite even Hilary Clinton's assertions to the contrary, I bet she and most of them knew that Bush was lying. But most did the math and figured they'd lose votes because they be branded a traitor or coward or they just didn't want to face the political attacks that would follow. I said at the time that we should have been talking about how "Saddam is a bad guy and we are going to have to do something sooner or later." I would have had some respect for them had, in THIS context, somebody spoken in favor of the war while acknowledging that there was no present urgency except or unless we thought it tactically advantageous. I don't recall a single member of Congress putting it that way. They were all afraid to call the liar in chief a liar - except McDermott and a half dozen others who spoke AGAINST the war, not for it. I find it interesting that you would care to comment on Lindberg but not McDermott.

Only if you assume that we had a right to carry out enforcement of UN resolutions without letting the UN decide how to do so, or if you assume that the reason we invaded Iraq had much to do with enforcing any UN sanctions. Neither is true. As for the history of Islam, you have rejected the idea that there could have been any historic tolerance or liberalism or whatever associated with the Golden Age of Islam, but you are incorrect in your argument on this point. It is not "moral relativism." It is history. It is simply not the case that Europe (or Europe and the U.S.) = good guys and Moslems = bad guys. It wasn't true a thousand years ago and it is not true today.

Nobody here seems to be doing that as far as I can tell. I argued that the history of the world isn't as one sided as you would like it to be and Bug argued that we should look at the world as it is and try to make choices that will promote the peace and stability that our leaders say in their speeches that we are seeking. Its too bad you find that so threatening and that other Americans, like you, respond with "f-that. We're going to continue being idiots."

I posted notes from my phone conversation on the WCC website. The guy at Anacortes parks responded to my e-mail to indicate my notes were "accurate." My take-away is that there is potential for the kind of loss of access that started this thread, but it is not clear that is really a threat at this point. Climbers should get involved to make sure that our concerns are addressed in the planning process. As posted above, this week's meeting may be your best chance to participate though there may be other ways to comment or influence events.

Nope. Just history.

I had no trouble confirming my email address and the guy replied to me.

I though you claimed to be a history buff? My point, on page 1 or 2 of this thread, was that "kill the infidels" is not necessarily a part of Islam in practice. I wrote that the early Islamic empire in fact showed more tolerance than the later crusaders - and I believe that at least by some measure that is true. I agree with those who have suggested that Islam seems to have become generally more intolerant, and whether you agree with my historical references or not, there are certainly plenty who call for killing the infidels.

KK, did you ever hear of the order: "kill them all and god will know his own?" This came from the Albigensian Crusade, ordered by Pope Innocent III. About 1209. From manbottle.com: Pope Innocent III ordered the Albigensian Crusade, to purge southern France of the Cathari heretics. It began in the summer of 1209, with their first target - the town of Beziers. The Catholic faithful in Beziers refused to give up the Catharis among themselves. The crusaders invaded. When Arnaud-Amaury was asked whom to kill he replied "Kill them all. God will know his own." They did. The crusaders slaughtered nearly everyone in town, over 20,000, either burned or clubbed to death. Thus they achieved their goal of killing the estimated 200 heretics who were hiding in the town among the Catholic faithful. The brutal crusade continued on for the next twenty years. Eventually the Catholics devised a new approach for dealing with the remaining Cathari heretics in France. It was called "the Inquisition".

I spoke with a staff person with the City of Anacortes today. He says that some of the information posted here may be inaccurate in that there are no specific plans for the trails on Mount Erie at this time. It IS in their general plan, he says, to reduce trails and they MAY decide to reduce or reroute some of the trails on the south slope of Mt. Erie. However, he says, most of their management concerns have had to do with large instructional groups and recreational climbers are likely to see little change -- though he certainly indicated that nothing is certain at this point as the process is still under way. Climbers are invited to attend the meeting this Thursday, and also to view the draft plan on the City of Anacortes website. Anacortes Parks I posted a little bit of information on the Washington Climbers Coalition site this afternoon. It is linked on the climbing area profile for Mount Erie. Washington Climbers Coalition

Your point wasn't lost - at least not on me.

That's rich, coming from you.

Fair enough, Arch. And if you look back at this thread, you may find that it was me who in fact first used that word - and depending on how you react to my use of the term you may conclude I did so in error because in discussing the history of Islam there wasn't any accusation that someone was racist per se - but related notions that I sought to sum up in one word.

Where did I equate it? If you read the thread, my only real argument was that the history was slighly misrepresented. I didn't suggest anybody was racist, but I said I thought that "bad words" have been used on cc.com.

I hope to attend. April 3rd 7:00 pm ACFL Board meeting at the Fidalgo/Senior Center at 1701 22nd Street in Anacortes. This is the primary public meeting scheduled before the public comment period is over April 30

You guys and your "tee hee. We can use the words cunt and ragheads and isn't this fun" are missing the point. Off White posted a political cartoon that suggested McCain or his supporters might use such a term and it was Serenity who objected that this was way out of line. KK said nobody on CC.COM would ever use that term, and I said I think they have. OffWhite searched, and guess what: Gotterdamerung actually did (I'm pretty sure others did, too, but OW didn't find it). I'm not one to enforce or obey a politically correct lexicon and you can find where I've used the term here myself. I have also suggested more than once that I don't fully understand the sensitivity over the word cunt. But what we are talking about in this thread - or at least where we started out - was that Islam is the root of all our trouble in the MidEast and responding comments that this conclusion was rooted in some racism and some misunderstanding of history.

Apparently not you.