[jaguar]

But it is not a new policy. It is a mix of mostly hawkish opinions without the stuff that annoys the libertarians while condemning both sides of mainstream politics for their extremes. There is nothing new, nothing interesting, and nothing of real value. It also is a very superficial analysis of the situation, taking only the most obvious facts and symptoms without looking at the causes or underlying reasons before deciding a course of action designed to solve the problem in the long term without understanding the implications of asymmetrical warfare on traditional defense policy and mentalities. Thus the course of action addresses the symptoms in an incomplete way without facing some of the harder facets of the problem and does nothing to alleviate the underlying issues that have played a signifigant role in the rise of the problem let alone suggest (and i admit this is the signifigantly more challanging issue) methods by which the root causes of islamic terrorism can be erradicated.

For a 'manifesto' its also lacking definitions of key terms which makes it deeply inarticulate adding to the fundamental problems that already exist. In fact the only definition is that of IDIOTARIANISM, which according to their definition attempts to reinvent the wheel with a grammatical abomination. The fact it defines itself by what it opposes rather than what it stands for is telling in the extreme. The only good thing about is it is not guilty of the circumlocution that many similar documents are rife with, sadly this is not due to good writing or reasoning.

It’s knee-jerk in point form. I hope UT, that explains why it’s silly.