Dr. Belch's Snooze Reel

[DR. BELCH]

I've been wondering what the hot new Halloween getup would be this year...and it seems a joke I considered making here but didn't for fear of poor taste, about kiddies in Bin Laden costumes, is...almost true.
A New York shopkeeper is selling latex Bin Laden masks for 95 bucks in his shop...but with a heavy caveat. They're for effigys, like yard decorations of the Afghan a-hole being strung up or electrocuted in the chair, not for wearing. Still, I've got a feeling one or two crapheads'll be donning Osama kissers just to scare the frig out of folks.

At Arkansas State University, Kyle Keith, a sophomore finance major of Jonesboro, and three of his frat buddies decided one Tuesday afternoon (Oct 9) to borrow a plane from the University's flight training center and dive-bomb the Lambda Chi Alpha House with water balloons. In light of the recent Emergency number bombings, the four buddies have been called on the carpet before Judicial Affairs. They face possible expulsion, to say nothing of what the FAA might do.
Keith has written an apology leter to the University, stating he was foolish and didn't stop to consider the ramifications of such behavior in these troubled times. Here's the link:
http://herald.astate.edu/herald/archive/opinionsF01/101801prankletter.html

It's Ramadan in the Middle East, a holy time of fasting and prayer. There's a call to the U.S. to suspend all bombing during this period because such warlike activity would be a sacrilage. Now if I recall correctly, abstaining from food and sex is only done in the day, but at night they can gorge and debauch all they wish. So it stands to reason that we can start bombing the blazes out of them come dusk and then pull out come daybreak.... ;)

Guess what, folks...that's the news, and I am out of here.

[Joe Tully]

It's another month to Ramadan, which begins on Nov. 17 and lasts until Dec. 16 but yeah...there's pressure to finish the attacks before then. Something I read at Yahoo says that eating small meals is allowed after dusk. No food, water or sexual activity during daytime.

Hmm...Ramadan is supposed to be a time of compassion and forgetting anger. Hopefully we will be able to finish up the attacks before then or else this mess could get even messier. But that's probably very unlikely...

[Failure]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
I've been wondering what the hot new Halloween getup would be this year...and it seems a joke I considered making here but didn't for fear of poor taste, about kiddies in Bin Laden costumes, is...almost true.
A New York shopkeeper is selling latex Bin Laden masks for 95 bucks in his shop...but with a heavy caveat. They're for effigys, like yard decorations of the Afghan a-hole being strung up or electrocuted in the chair, not for wearing. Still, I've got a feeling one or two crapheads'll be donning Osama kissers just to scare the frig out of folks.

I hope anybody who's planning on wearing an Osama mask would know that there's a very good chance they're going to get beat down on by some angry mob. I can see the headlines already.

[don Jaime]

Originally posted by DR. BELCH
It's Ramadan in the Middle East, a holy time of fasting and prayer. There's a call to the U.S. to suspend all bombing during this period because such warlike activity would be a sacrilage.

So? As so many of the locals in Old World Central keep reminding us, the United States is not a Muslim country. What do we care about its high holy days? I know, it's cynical, but really!

The popular costumes this year are anything patriotic - Uncle Sam, Statue of Liberty, soldiers from the Revolution on forward - as well as cops and firemen. As it should be.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by don Jaime


So? As so many of the locals in Old World Central keep reminding us, the United States is not a Muslim country. What do we care about its high holy days? I know, it's cynical, but really!


Yeah, but they think it'd be disrespectful to the religion. It's supposed to be a time of peace. I think it'd be like us getting bombed on Christmas. If anything like that happened, I'm sure we'd be even more pissed off than usual. Yeah, I see what you're saying, but I think that some of these people are just unable to understand (or maybe believe) what these people have done to us and that we need to prevent anything like this from happening again. And a month break is more than I think we can afford to give them.

[Failure]

Originally posted by don Jaime
So? As so many of the locals in Old World Central keep reminding us, the United States is not a Muslim country. What do we care about its high holy days? I know, it's cynical, but really!

We may not be a muslim country, but at the same time we dont want to make any more enemies. Right now we have a huge, unprecedented wave of support, even some countries which normally wouldn't, such as Pakistan and even Iran to a point. But I suspect some of them are on the borderline and are siding with us in hopes of influencing us to not do anything too overbearing. Doing something rash could result in borderline states deciding to side with Afghanistan. Now, I'm not sure how likely this would be and I dont know how much it would tilt the balance of power, if at all, and I'm not even saying that we should or shouldn't bomb during Ramadan, but it's important to try to understand all of the potential consequences of our actions, even when you don't think it applies to us. Goddang, I'm sure that was a run on sentence.

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Failure


We may not be a muslim country, but at the same time we dont want to make any more enemies. Right now we have a huge, unprecedented wave of support, even some countries which normally wouldn't, such as Pakistan and even Iran to a point. But I suspect some of them are on the borderline and are siding with us in hopes of influencing us to not do anything too overbearing. Doing something rash could result in borderline states deciding to side with Afghanistan. Now, I'm not sure how likely this would be and I dont know how much it would tilt the balance of power, if at all, and I'm not even saying that we should or shouldn't bomb during Ramadan, but it's important to try to understand all of the potential consequences of our actions, even when you don't think it applies to us. Goddang, I'm sure that was a run on sentence.

Yep, we need to keep this as clean as possible. Not only so it doesn't escalate but to prove we are a compassionate people. Just cause they'd do it to us isn't a reason for us to do it to them.

[Maxie Zeus]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
Yeah, but they think it'd be disrespectful to the religion. It's supposed to be a time of peace. I think it'd be like us getting bombed on Christmas.

But if the Muslims are so sensitive to religious holidays, why did they launch the 1973 war on Yom Kippur? Anyway, the Muslims themselves do not break from fighting during Ramadan.

This is a bit like the Joker putting on those spectacles and exclaiming, "You wouldn't hit a guy in glasses, would you?"

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


But if the Muslims are so sensitive to religious holidays, why did they launch the 1973 war on Yom Kippur? Anyway, the Muslims themselves do not break from fighting during Ramadan.

This is a bit like the Joker putting on those spectacles and exclaiming, "You wouldn't hit a guy in glasses, would you?"

Yeah, I agree. I think Failure summarized the way I feel very well. Once I saw Failure's post I realized that he said a lot of things that were so clear to me that I neglected to mention them. Certainly, not all Muslims will be offended by continued bombing. I think that some borderline countries might be affected by it. Pakistan's citizens aren't so happy with us right now, and bombing during Ramadan won't help make them think more of us. But hey, we gotta do what we gotta do. The thing we need to do is be kinda careful about is making this a religious war because that is exactly what Osama wants us to do. I don't think that there is any real threat of that, but I also don't think that it's a good idea to make the Muslim community any angrier. But regardless of that, it seems to me that we will probably have to bomb during Ramadan, and I think that most Muslims will take that fine.

[Failure]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus


But if the Muslims are so sensitive to religious holidays, why did they launch the 1973 war on Yom Kippur? Anyway, the Muslims themselves do not break from fighting during Ramadan.

This is a bit like the Joker putting on those spectacles and exclaiming, "You wouldn't hit a guy in glasses, would you?"

Well we're trying to do the "right thing" and prove to everyone that we're the "good guys." So we're attempting to hold ourselves to a higher standard. It's kinda like Batman and Joker. Joker kills, but it doesnt mean Batman's going to try to kill the Joker in return. He's the hero, he has to uphold what he believes is right and take the higher ground. And that's all we're doing. They say all's fair in love and war, but we're actually doing quite a bit to try to keep our noses clean.

All in all, I do think we are going to bomb during Ramadan (unless we finish before it, which might be a possibility). But we'll probably try to be very senstive about when we do the attacks and try to keep it as "clean" as possible so as not to upset anyone.

[Failure]

A little story I thought was interesting in showing how we're trying to be the good guys.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/10/25/ret.us.rations/

[don Jaime]

Originally posted by Maxie Zeus
But if the Muslims are so sensitive to religious holidays, why did they launch the 1973 war on Yom Kippur? Anyway, the Muslims themselves do not break from fighting during Ramadan.

Exactly. Or for that matter, blowing up Pan Am 103 the week before Christmas. This argument doesn't wash. It's a thinly veiled attempt to stop the US from defeating the Taliban. We would do well to remember who's been proposing this once the Taliban is defeated.

[Failure]

Originally posted by don Jaime


Exactly. Or for that matter, blowing up Pan Am 103 the week before Christmas. This argument doesn't wash. It's a thinly veiled attempt to stop the US from defeating the Taliban. We would do well to remember who's been proposing this once the Taliban is defeated.

Oh come on, whether we wait a month or not, we're going to crush the Taliban. Heck we've almost done the job already. I'll bet you every politican is contemplating this issue. I might be wrong, but it seems like you're blaming people for trying to think the consequences through. There's a lot more going on than just mindlessly throwing down bombs.

[DR. BELCH]

--Mohammed himself waged war on his enemies back in antiquity during Ramadan.
What gets me is that some depraved individuals perpetrate a heinous act and then, when it comes time for them to answer for it, they hide behind the petticoats of their religion and say, almost like children, "Can't touch me, nyaah." I say there are certain acts that, when perpetrated, negate all religious "rights". Blowing up buildings is bloody sure one of them.
Actually I'm surprised the item from ASU didn't get more mention. My brother told me this one, but he said it was a package of white powder rather than a water balloon. I'm rather glad it wasn't--imagine an entire panicked quad trampling each other to get away from a sack of baking powder or chalk dust. If people had been hospitalized or killed over their joke, there'd be no question of crimninal prosecution/expulsion.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by don Jaime


Exactly. Or for that matter, blowing up Pan Am 103 the week before Christmas. This argument doesn't wash. It's a thinly veiled attempt to stop the US from defeating the Taliban. We would do well to remember who's been proposing this once the Taliban is defeated.

The people proposing this are the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan which is probably more with us than anyone else in the world, who are suggesting the U.S. finish everything before Ramadan if possible, as well as Americans like Colin Powell who wants to continue attacks through Ramadan if necessary but be sensitive about the religion issue. Yeah, I guess we'd better look out for them.

As far as I can see, no one is saying that there absolutely needs to be no attacks during Ramadan. Rather, they are warning about the impact that there could be.

[Joe Tully]

From http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/23/ramadan.factor.ap/index.html

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Muslim allies, whose support is considered essential to the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign, are pressuring the United States to score a major victory on the ground before the Islamic holy month Ramadan begins around November 17 or agree to a lengthy delay in the Afghan operation.

"Emotionally, it will be, I think, explosive ... if military actions are still being done in Afghanistan" during Ramadan, Indonesia's foreign minister, Hasan Wirayuda, warned Sunday during a meeting of Asia-Pacific leaders.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, perhaps the strongest Muslim backer of the air campaign against Afghanistan, has also warned of a Muslim backlash if intense fighting continues during Ramadan.

During an appearance Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Musharraf said he hoped "that this campaign comes to an end before the month of Ramadan, and one would hope for restraint during the month of Ramadan."

Such a delay, however, would cost the United States considerable momentum at a critical period. By the end of Ramadan, the harsh Afghan winter will have set in, closing key passes through the mountains and limiting air and ground operations.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has played down the Ramadan factor, maintaining there is no deadline for completing U.S. military action in Afghanistan.

"History is replete with instances where Muslim nations have fought among themselves or with other countries during various important holy days for their religion, and it has not inhibited them historically," he said Tuesday.

Not all Ramadans inspire the spirit of the Christmas truces of World War I, when some British and German soldiers swapped cigarettes and played soccer. The Egyptians and Syrians launched the 1973 war on Israel during Ramadan. And there's been no tradition of pausing for Ramadan during Afghanistan's civil war.

But to America's Muslim allies, Muslims fighting among themselves during Ramadan is one thing. Non-Muslims attacking Muslims is another matter, they say.

Governments in Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere have been struggling to suppress Muslim outrage over the air campaign, which President George W. Bush initiated October 7 after the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, chief suspect in the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

Throughout the Islamic world, radical Muslim clerics have been repeating the Taliban line that the air campaign is an assault against Islam -- despite U.S. insistence that it is not.

Although the message has not been universally accepted, the Pakistanis and others fear that opposition to the air campaign may increase if Muslim civilians are being killed during a time when their religion calls for prayer and reflection.

Ramadan -- a lunar month of 29 or 30 days -- is the month when the Prophet Muhammad first began receiving revelations of the Quran, Islam's holy book. During the month, Muslim abstain from food, drink and sex from sunrise to sunset and are supposed to be charitable toward others.

There is no guarantee that a stepped-up U.S. bombing campaign will crack the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies by the time Ramadan begins.

Former Pakistani generals with long experience dealing with the Taliban warn that the Islamic militia will put up stiff resistance.

"The pressure is now on for the American military to do something before winter and preferably before Ramadan," said Hamid Gul, a retired Pakistani general and former head of Pakistan's secret service. "They now have to achieve a certain target in a certain time-frame. The clock is ticking."

And the goal of bringing about a new, broad-based government in Afghanistan is not one that can be quickly arranged.

A fractious alliance of opposition groups has been battling the Taliban since 1996, but made little progress. Pakistan and others have pressed for the alliance not to be allowed to take power for itself. When they ruled Kabul from 1992 to 1996, they destroyed most of the capital.

"If you allow the northern alliance to capture Kabul, a massacre will follow," retired Pakistani Gen. Talat Masoud warned. "And if they capture Kabul, how will you dislodge them from there and put in a broad-based government? That will be quite a dilemma for the Americans."

Fearing chaos if the alliance seizes Kabul, Musharraf has called for declaring Kabul a "no-go" area.

"I would go to the extent of saying that Kabul should be maintained as neutral zone that nobody enters, because I see that maybe atrocities (could) start in Kabul, if at all, if the vacuum is filled by the northern alliance," Musharraf told a Lebanese television station.

[Joe Tully]

Another comment--sorry for multiposting--but Don Jaime, your Christmas comment is invalid since it was not caused by all Muslims, and it is possible (maybe not likely) that those who carried out the attack didn't know about Christmas or thought that it was no problem that it was only a week beforehand. Even if they did do that knowing that this would hurt because of Christmas, it is wrong to assume that those people were representatives of all Muslims.

[don Jaime]

Tully, I'm not interested in your apologies. With no tradition of peace during Ramadan, and anti-American protests taking place in both Indonesia and Pakistan, the entire "stop fighting for Ramadan" argument can only be viewed as further evidence that these countries condone the 9/11 attacks, if not officially then popularly. Neither can be trusted 100% even after the war ends. Powell's job is to deal with diplomatic problems such as this; I don't think he supports a month-long truce.

And Failure? A month would give our enemies more than enough time to retrench and potentially cause more damage. Well begun, half done.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by don Jaime
Tully, I'm not interested in your apologies. With no tradition of peace during Ramadan, and anti-American protests taking place in both Indonesia and Pakistan, the entire "stop fighting for Ramadan" argument can only be viewed as further evidence that these countries condone the 9/11 attacks, if not officially then popularly. Neither can be trusted 100% even after the war ends. Powell's job is to deal with diplomatic problems such as this; I don't think he supports a month-long truce.

And Failure? A month would give our enemies more than enough time to retrench and potentially cause more damage. Well begun, half done.

Uhh, yeah. Whatever. Are you actually reading our posts? Because the things you say in response make little sense and seem to ignore what we post. I do not want to start a flame war here, but if you read that article I posted, you will see that it specifically says that even people who are our allies in this are trying to help by suggesting that we end this by Ramadan. Your responses do not argue with this with any kind of logic: according to you, these countries are against us in spite of the fact that they support us. However, you give no evidence to support the idea that they are against us other than the fact that you think that their suggestions imply that. The article also explains the "tradition of peace" that you mention.

You say that Indonesia and Pakistan are anti-American by population if not officially. Maybe. So? Last I checked, the officials ran the government. And there is no evidence that says that the government was anti-American.

As Failure and I have said, neither one of us believes that it is necessary to end attacks before Ramadan. Personally, I think that we should continue bombing through Ramadan if the job isn't finished yet. I am merely pointing out potential problems if attacks continue during Ramadan. Hopefully these problems will amount to nothing, but I think that it is not too smart to dismiss this quickly.

And finally, in response to what you just said, I posted earlier (you mustn't have read that...I hope that you read it this time) that Powell does want to end this before Ramadan if necessary but, if it comes to that, he wants to continue attacks with sensitivity. I do not understand why you refuse to admit potential problems (and I am not saying that they are definite...I am saying POTENTIAL) problems with continuing attacks during Ramadan. If you want, I will post the CNN article that says so, but you probably won't read that either.

I think you are being a little paranoid about all of this.

[Failure]

Well put JT, you basically covered what I would've said. Just to make sure though, I am not advocating stopping bombing during Ramadan either, all I'm saying is there are potential consequences and you HAVE to take them into account. So I think we should try to be sensitive in at least addressing the issues, even if we decided to do what we want.

And DJ, the Taliban has little resources and no support. We could wait a year. they could retrench, and we could crush them in a month again. The only problems were the ones stated in the article JT put up, where Rumsfield said the Afghan winter could slow us down and etc. Check it out it's interesting. As for terrorists causing more damage, I hope you are aware that killing Bin Laden and replacing the Taliban while it may make us feel more secure, it doesnt mean the end of terrorism. They're out there, everywhere, even part of us. This will be a very long, non-glamorous project. That's why we want to keep as many allies for as long as possible.

I'm not trying to start a flame war either, I'm just trying to get you to understand there's more than a "we hate you" "you hate us" thing going on. I think I said this before, but you have to try to understand the consequences, even if you dont agree with them.

[Maxie Zeus]

OK, I kinda doubt this is going anyplace healthy. Whatever reasons can be given either for or against a Ramadan ceasefire, nothing is gained by leveling charges that some of us are "more patriotic" or "more sensitive" than others.

My advice: Drop it, before someone says something we'll all regret.

[The Mad Hatter]

I was just about to post something to that effect. Attack arguments if you must, but never attack a person directly.

[DR. BELCH]

--that I impartially reported the news (a shred of the old journalist still swimming in my bloodstream) and absolve myself of all flame-war activity. I never expected it to get out of hand, or inspire so many strong feelings. Sweet mother of crap.
But I will stand by my assertion that the ASU balloon prank was one of the most irresponsible acts I've ever heard. One would think with all the preparation it took renting the plane someone would've had time for a second thought--it's not like they just had the idea, climbed up on the roof, and lobbed the ballon in five minutes. THere's drive time...pony up the fee...rev the engine...check the instruments...by then my fire would've cooled and I'd have said, "Bugger it; too much work. Let's stop off for Chinese and go back to the dorm, huh?" :p

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Or if you have an unpopular political opinion, hold your tongue. I was about to respond in delicate ways to this thread, but found that I wasn't up for a war (in which everyone would be against me), so I deleted my argument. You must resist the temptation....:p

[Nightwing]

You don't have to hold your opinions on any subject. The reason for message boards is to be enlightened by other opinions, because you've only been exposed to and conditioned by your own. All there is to do is just practice control.


JOE TULLY: Not all Ramadans inspire the spirit of the Christmas truces of World War I, when some British and German soldiers swapped cigarettes and played soccer. The Egyptians and Syrians launched the 1973 war on Israel during Ramadan. And there's been no tradition of pausing for Ramadan during Afghanistan's civil war.

Here I'd like to illustrate a point I think everyone just might like. If there's a time durring war where people have the control over their emotions to stop for a while, LET ALONE share a cigarette and play soccer, then I say why fight at all. If you can exsist, why spoil it. Why start something. :)


CROC: Yep, we need to keep this as clean as possible. Not only so it doesn't escalate but to prove we are a compassionate people. Just cause they'd do it to us isn't a reason for us to do it to them.

This is the basis of what my point generally is, although at the same time I don't want to stop America from doing what we have to do. There's GOTTA be a way around all this.

There has to be a way where America can express physically what it feels mentally as a nation. I.E. get justice for our country and the victims, AND respect the Muslim people and their religion at the same time.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

Thing is, I don't like stating wild opinions with no basis in fact. I don't believe everything that's fed to me by CNN, and I certainly ain't gonna believe everything the Taliban claims. I have no idea of how successful we actually are, and what we are actually accomplishing. I have no idea if what we are doing at the present time is actually "crushing" the Taliban. Are we knocking out important strategic camps as the news say, or are we just moving rubble from one place to another? Can reporters be trusted to give the truth? A lot of these reporters are outside the warzone and are fed info by the government.

Many people in the American media (I won't say who) who have had controversial opinions before being slapped on the wrist (by their editors, supposedly) would turn around and say the exact opposite after apologizing. I find that disturbing. Even if their opinions were senseless or unfounded, I think, as Nightwing said, we need varied points of view.


Will the government always give the public the truth? Of course not--some facts need to be kept secret. But there have been many lapses of judgement even before Sept 11, and sometimes you wonder what is true and what is not.

I'm not trying to start something here, and heck, I don't know enough to be even sure of stating a strong opinion. All I know is that I'm in the dark about many things and I'd rather wait and see what the outcome of this is before saying anything.

EDIT ADD: About the Anthrax, when I first heard about the stations and the mail incidents, I immediately wondered about the people delivering the mail. Wouldn't they catch it too? It wasn't brought up in any newspaper articles following the initial incidents, not even a thought or quote about it. Sure enough, A WEEK LATER, mail guys turn up sick and ailing--severely. I wondered why nobody tried even reeling in some of these postal workers for checkup hours after the incidents. All it took was to ask who does those routes, and get them checked. More questions.

I guess in the end, I have more questions than opinions.

[Failure]

Originally posted by Nightwing
[B]You don't have to hold your opinions on any subject. The reason for message boards is to be enlightened by other opinions, because you've only been exposed to and conditioned by your own. All there is to do is just practice control.


I agree. Communication is a good thing. Thinking for yourself is great, but you should be at least exposed to differing opinions as well. It's a learning process. And I think we've all been pretty good at keeping the arguments to the topics on hand and not towards the people. There's some disagreements, as well there should be, but it's been civil.


Here I'd like to illustrate a point I think everyone just might like. If there's a time durring war where people have the control over their emotions to stop for a while, LET ALONE share a cigarette and play soccer, then I say why fight at all. If you can exsist, why spoil it. Why start something. :)

I read an interesting reading for my PolySci class a month or so ago, where during WWI, the British and German troops in the trenches had this "tit for tat" strategy up. Their officers would require the soldiers to fire rounds routinely, but the soldiers didn't want to kill each other. So they'd play a game, say the British soldiers would shoot at a certain place in a certain time, like clockwork, without intent to hurt anyone, then the German soldiers would respond by doing similarly. If someone did shoot to kill, those actions would be reciprocated by the other side. But they got friendly enough that apologies were accepted for some mistakes and even some direct truces were made. Then the officers put an end to this by having troops make direct charges at the enemy which basically killed the chances of shooting to miss and etc. But it got me thinking what it must have been like for the soldiers who had to do that. You're enemy may not be your friend, but in a case like that where you do get a chance to decide that they might not be bad guys after all, it's got to be real tough and try to kill people you trusted. But in the end, it was something they had to do and really had no choice over.


This is the basis of what my point generally is, although at the same time I don't want to stop America from doing what we have to do. There's GOTTA be a way around all this.

There has to be a way where America can express physically what it feels mentally as a nation. I.E. get justice for our country and the victims, AND respect the Muslim people and their religion at the same time.

That would be the best of both worlds.

[Maxie Zeus]

Here's the difficulty:

There are basically two objections to conducting a military campaign during Ramadan. (1) Moral objection: It is wrong to fight during a religious period. (2) Prudential objection: The US and its allies will cause themselves more problems by inflaming Muslim opinion by fighting during Ramadan.

The moral objection is easily dealt with: Historically, Ramadan has apparently not been used as an excuse or reason to cease fighting until very recently. Furthermore, since Ramadan is not one of our religious periods, and hence places no special burden on us.

That leaves the prudential argument. It is also easy to make a reply here: Probably the sort of people who would be inflamed by a campaign conducted during Ramadan are already unfriendly to us; they would not think worse of us if we did fight, and would not think better of us if we didn't. Hence, the prudential grounds are overblown, and would not make a substantial difference to Muslim opinion; the propaganda gains would be more than offset by the lost military opportunities.

But there is plenty of room here for reasonable disagreement. Most certainly there are a number of people who will hate us no matter what we do during Ramadan; equally there are a number of people who would not be offended by a Ramadan campaign. And there are a number of people in the middle who may be influenced negatively or positively to one degree or another. The problem is that there is no good way that we in this forum can figure out the degree to which a Ramadan suspension would genuinely affect attitudes; whether such attitudes could genuinely alter the military situation; and whether the military costs associated with a suspension would outweigh the benefits of a suspension.

That is why a debate here on this topic is apt to be arid and to degenerate into unenlightening squabbling.