View Full Version : War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims
A US serviceman explains how he keeps anger over Islamist terrorists from becoming prejudice against Muslims in general.
However - YMMV...and so it goes...
Richard :munchin
War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims
CSM, 30 July 2010
This September and October, Americans mark the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and the ninth year of war in Afghanistan, respectively. This war has become arguably the longest in our history. Given the jihad-until-doomsday rhetoric of the Islamists, the war on terror will probably stay with us in one form or another for the foreseeable future.
As the costs mount in blood and treasure, little wonder that the war corrodes the way we think about Muslims and Muslim countries. After all, the worst attack on American soil was hatched in Afghanistan, allegedly planned by a Pakistani, and carried out mainly by Saudis.
It is admittedly tempting to let conflict define our relationship with Muslims. Controversial bus ads about Islam in several US cities are forcing an uncomfortable conversation about this relationship. For those of us who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, it becomes personal. Nobody likes getting shot at.
Firsthand Experience In A Muslim Country
But several years ago, I had a different kind of experience in a Muslim country – one I like to recall in contrast to the events that dominate the news today.
On the first flight of my deployment, our Air Force C-130 cargo plane lifted off from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Water the color of mocha rippled beneath us, inundating slums and hovels, streets and fields. Bangladesh was suffering a flood of historic proportions.
Unlike most floods in the US, where a river overflows its banks and runs swollen along its course, the Bangladeshi flood had no identifiable river channel. Just a flat, drenched expanse – miles of it. As we climbed, the water stretched to the horizon. It was like an inland sea, dotted with treetops and shanty roofs. Tarp shelters clustered on the few patches of ground high enough to remain dry.
We carried about a dozen Bangladeshi air force cadets; it was the first time most of them had ever flown. Several minutes after takeoff, an oil pump failed. In less than 90 seconds, all the oil from one of our four engines spewed and misted into the floodwater. We shut down the engine, declared an emergency, turned around, and landed back at Dhaka. Muddy water lapped at the airfield’s perimeter.
I apologized to the cadets for their short and perhaps nerve-wracking ride.
They did not seem fazed.
“Not a problem, sir!” one of them barked, locked at attention. We could not get those guys to relax, but even through extreme military protocol, they exuded goodwill. “Thank you for the experience, sir,” another offered.
Due to the flood, our mission to demonstrate the capabilities of the C-130 Hercules quickly turned into a real-world relief operation. Working with Bangladeshi civilians and military personnel, we delivered food and medical supplies to places where floodwater had cut off highways. The Bangladeshis ended up buying four refurbished C-130s for just that purpose.
Not A Single Moment Of Hostility
We encountered not one single moment of hostility, not from anyone anywhere in that devoutly Muslim country. It was 1998.
I still have fond memories of the Bangladeshis, their delightfully subtle sense of humor, and their grit and creativity in the face of adversity.
Heartbreakingly poor, they knew how to get the most from whatever they had.
“Sir, we must save the fuel in this generator if you really do not need electricity now,” one soldier told me. Second to Islam, the guiding creed of Bangladeshis seemed to be common sense.
Granted, this was all before 9/11, but it shows that Americans and South Asian Muslims are not necessarily natural enemies. Bangladesh does have its radical Islamists, but the country has never become a major schoolhouse, refuge, and transit point for them like its historical cousin, Pakistan. Islam alone is not the problem.
Sloppy Thinking
In the post-9/11 world, it’s way too easy to get sloppy in our thinking and extend our anger over terrorism to Muslims in general.
I understand the root of this anger: My wife works in the Pentagon. In 2001, I worked as an airline pilot – friends of friends were on the hijacked planes that slammed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. On my first missions in Afghanistan, I carried in my flight suit pocket an outdated navigational chart that depicted the Twin Towers.
Yes, I still harbor anger about 9/11. I get angry about continued efforts to attack the US, such as the attempted Times Square bombing earlier this year.
I get angry when I hear of soldiers maimed by improvised explosive devices. I get really angry when my aircraft’s cargo compartment contains flag-draped boxes.
But when I feel that anger metastasize into prejudice, I try to remember that Bangladesh mission, when the allies were Muslim, and the only enemies were hunger and waterborne disease.
Thomas W. Young is a flight engineer with the West Virginia Air National Guard, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the author of the “The Mullah’s Storm,” a forthcoming novel set in the Afghanistan war.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0730/War-on-terror-s-other-cost-undeserved-anger-at-all-Muslims
Bordercop
08-02-2010, 08:50
The link: http://article.nationalreview.com/438932/its-about-sharia/andrew-c-mccarthy
July 31, 2010 4:00 A.M.
It’s About Sharia
Newt Gingrich resets our national-security debate.
by Andrew C. McCarthy
The 2010 midterms have not happened yet, but the 2012 campaign is under way. For that we can thank Newt Gingrich. Not because Gingrich is a candidate, though he almost certainly is. And not because he can win, because that is by no means certain. We should thank Gingrich because he has crystallized the essence of our national-security challenge. Henceforth, there should be no place to hide for any candidate, including any incumbent. The question will be: Where do you stand on sharia?
The former speaker of the House gets the war on terror. For one thing, he refuses to call it the “war on terror,” which should be the entry-level requirement for any politician who wants to influence how we wage it. Gingrich grasps that there is an enemy here and that it is a mortal threat to freedom. He knows that if we are to remain a free people, it is an enemy we must defeat. That enemy is Islamism, and its operatives — whether they come as terrorists or stealth saboteurs — are the purveyors of sharia, Islam’s authoritarian legal and political system.
This being the Era of the Reset Button, Gingrich is going about the long-overdue business of resetting our understanding of the civilizational jihad that has been waged against the United States for some 31 years. It is the jihad begun when Islamists overran the American embassy in Tehran, heralding a revolutionary regime that remains the No. 1 U.S. security challenge in the Middle East, as Gingrich argued Thursday in a provocative speech at the American Enterprise Institute.
The single purpose of this jihad is the imposition of sharia. On that score, Gingrich made two points of surpassing importance. First, some Islamists employ mass-murder attacks while others prefer a gradual march through our institutions — our legal, political, academic, and financial systems, as well as our broader culture; the goal of both, though, is the same. The stealth Islamists occasionally feign outrage at the terrorists, but their quarrel is over methodology and pace. Both camps covet the same outcome.
Second, that outcome is the death of freedom. In Islamist ideology, sharia is deemed to be the necessary precondition for Islamicizing a society — for Islam is not merely a religious doctrine, but a comprehensive socio-economic and political system. As the former speaker elaborated, sharia embodies principles and punishments that are abhorrent to Western values. Indeed, its foundational premise is anti-American, holding that we are not free people at liberty to govern ourselves irrespective of any theocratic code, that people are instead beholden to the Islamic state, which is divinely enjoined to impose Allah’s laws.
Sharia, moreover, is anti-equality. It subjugates women and brutally punishes transgressors, particularly homosexuals and apostates. While our law forbids cruel and unusual punishments, Gingrich observed that the brutality in sharia sanctions is not gratuitous, but intentional: It is meant to enforce Allah’s will by striking example.
On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.
It makes no sense to dismiss our enemies as lunatics just because “secular socialist” elites, as Gingrich called them, cannot imagine a fervor that stems from religious devotion. We ought to respect our enemies, he said. Not “respect” in Obama-speak, which translates as “appease,” but in the sense of taking them seriously, understanding that they are absolutely determined to win, and realizing that they are implacable. There is no “moderate” sharia devotee, for sharia is not moderate. Gingrich noted that in response to global outcry against the prospect of death by stoning for an Iranian woman, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, convicted of adultery, the mullahs’ great concession appears to be that she will be hanged instead. Islamism is not a movement to be engaged, it is an enemy to be defeated.
Victory, Gingrich said, will be very long in coming — longer, perhaps, than the nearly half-century it took to win the Cold War. Invoking JFK, he urged that the survival and success of liberty will still require an unwavering commitment to pay any price and bear any burden, for as long as it takes. Will that entail an ambitious project to democratize Islamic countries — notwithstanding that sharia dictates waging jihad against Westerners who try? Gingrich’s embrace of President Bush’s second inaugural address suggests that he may think so.
How we go about it and whether we use our military to spearhead a “forward march of freedom” are matters the former speaker did not flesh out. He also wondered aloud why, after nearly nine years in Afghanistan, we had not tasked military engineers and contractors to blanket that backward land with highways, the roads to advancement and prosperity. But we haven’t defeated the enemy yet. One can agree wholeheartedly with the former speaker that, having taken on a war against Afghan Islamists, it is imperative that America win. But in World War II, which Gingrich invoked repeatedly, and to great effect, we had our priorities straight: unambiguous victory first; then, and only then, the Marshall Plan’s ambitious reconstruction of Europe and Japan.
Debate over all of this is essential. The crucial point is that we must have the debate with eyes open. It is a debate about which Gingrich has put down impressive markers: The main front in the war is not Afghanistan or Iraq but the United States. The war is about the survival of Western civilization, and we should make no apologies for the fact that the West’s freedom culture is a Judeo-Christian culture — a fact that was unabashedly acknowledged, Gingrich reminded his audience, by FDR and Churchill. To ensure victory in the United States we must, once again, save Europe, where the enemy has advanced markedly. There is no separating our national security and our economic prosperity — they are interdependent. And while the Middle East poses challenges of immense complexity, Gingrich contended that addressing two of them — Iran, the chief backer of violent jihad, and Saudi Arabia, the chief backer of stealth jihad — would go a long way toward improving our prospects on the rest.
Most significant, there is sharia. By pressing the issue, Newt Gingrich accomplishes two things. First, he gives us a metric for determining whether those who would presume to lead us will fight or surrender. Second, at long last, someone is empowering truly moderate Muslims — assuming they exist in the numbers we’re constantly assured of. Our allies are the Muslims who embrace our freedom culture — those for whom sharia is a matter of private belief, not public mission. Our enemies are those who want sharia to supplant American law and Western culture. When we call out the latter, and marginalize them, we may finally energize the former.
It’s that simple. Not easy, but simple.
The link: http://article.nationalreview.com/438932/its-about-sharia/andrew-c-mccarthy
<<SNIP>>
On this last point, Gingrich offered a salient insight, one well worth internalizing in the Sun Tzu sense of knowing one’s enemy. Islamists, violent or not, have very good reasons for the wanting to destroy the West. Those reasons are not crazy or wanton — and they have nothing to do with Gitmo, Israel, cartoons, or any other excuse we conjure to explain the savagery away. Islamists devoutly believe, based on a well-founded interpretation of Islamic doctrine, that they have been commanded by Allah to kill, convert, or subdue all who do not adhere to sharia — because they regard Allah as their only master (“There is no God but Allah”). It is thus entirely rational (albeit frightening to us) that they accept the scriptural instruction that the very existence of those who resist sharia is offensive to Allah, and that a powerful example must be made of those resisters in order to induce the submission of all — “submission” being the meaning of Islam.
<<SNIP>>
It’s that simple. Not easy, but simple.FWIW, Jessica Stern has spent time getting to know the enemy in a number of different settings and contexts.
Foreign Affairs published her view of the enemy in its January/February 2010 issue. That essay is available here (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65896/jessica-stern/mind-over-martyr). Her view differs markedly from that of Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Sullivan. Ms. Stern avers:...Terrorist movements often arise in reaction to an injustice, real or imagined, that they feel must be corrected. Yet ideology is rarely the only, or even the most important, factor in an individual's decision to join the cause. The reasons that people become terrorists are as varied as the reasons that others choose their professions: market conditions, social networks, education, individual preferences. Just as the passion for justice and law that drives a lawyer at first may not be what keeps him working at a law firm, a terrorist's motivations for remaining in, or leaving, his "job" change over time. Deradicalization programs need to take account -- and advantage -- of these variations and shifts in motivations.
Interestingly, terrorists who claim to be driven by religious ideology are often ignorant about Islam. Our hosts in Riyadh told us that the vast majority of the deradicalization program's "beneficiaries," as its administrators call participants, had received little formal education and had only a limited understanding of Islam. In the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, second- and third-generation Muslim youth are rebelling against the kind of "soft" Islam practiced by their parents and promoted in local mosques. They favor what they think is the "purer" Islam, uncorrupted by Western culture, which is touted on some Web sites and by self-appointed imams from the Middle East who are barely educated themselves. For example, the Netherlands-based terrorist cell known as the Hofstad Group designed what one police officer described as a "do-it-yourself" version of Islam based on interpretations of takfiri ideology (takfir is the practice of accusing other Muslims of apostasy) culled from the Internet and the teachings of a drug dealer turned cleric.
Such true believers are good candidates for the kind of ideological reeducation undertaken by Task Force 134 in Iraq and by the prison-based deradicalization program in Saudi Arabia. A Saudi official told the group of us who visited the Care Rehabilitation Center in Riyadh last winter that the main reason for terrorism was ignorance about the true nature of Islam. Clerics at the center teach that only the legitimate rulers of Islamic states, not individuals such as Osama bin Laden, can declare a holy war. They preach against takfir and the selective reading of religious texts to justify violence. One participant in the program told us, "Now I understand that I cannot make decisions by reading a single verse. I have to read the whole chapter."
I respectfully choose to disagree with Mr. Young for the following reasons, which I posted in a similar thread.
1. It took me almost ten years to go to the WTC site and pay my respects.
(I lived on Leonard Street btw Church & Brdway)
2. A VIVID NYC memory from that time frame: Muslim cab drivers beeping their horns and being extra jovial towards each other, while the city picked itself up…that day and for weeks after the attack.
3. My wife has three really close girl friends. One lost her entire wedding party that day. I mean, who comprises a wedding party, your very best sisters, friends etc…now all dead; is but one permissible islamic example: the right to kill anyone at anytime.
I knew so many people that died that day, people I trained and had worked with, innocent people that dined in my restaurant, companies that we catered events for, or just the Joe who said hello on his way to work, the guy that doesn’t get to see his kid grow up…fuck these scumbags muslims. They will never assimilate to/in our culture. ..but you know that already?
4. You want me to be politically correct in response to a belief system that a. see’s no value in our openness, or personal freedoms.
b. actively engages with deadly force on a NOW current/regular/routine basis while simultaneously seeking to smother and suppress any mention of their muslim belief/religion campaign. Especially, as it continues to destroy/subvert our freedoms to confront it.
5. There is no solution in appeasement, accommodation, or tolerance with muslim ideology. They must be confronted without compassion or mercy, as an entire culture and destroyed with the same deadly indiscriminant force.
6. I am beyond anger, I am hateful to the core of my being. If you're a rag head, I do not believe anything you say, and I don't trust you, Not because I don't want to, but because Your religion taught me that.
There a section in Philadelphia that has been declared a muslim only section, by native converts no less. Do the math on that, and then look up what a former Mayor Frank Rizzo did when confront with the Move organization in the 70's.
We can't be far from the edge at this point. Farrakhan stated recently that he wanted to push the devils over the edge; all he has to do is order/send his true believers into the street with their AK's. Do It!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edited for inaccurate word choice. Richard
Thomas Paine
08-02-2010, 11:59
FWIW, Jessica Stern has spent time getting to know the enemy in a number of different settings and context.
Foreign Affairs published her view of the enemy in its January/February 2010 issue. That essay is available here (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65896/jessica-stern/mind-over-martyr). Her view differs markedly from that of Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Sullivan.
Her resume (Harvard) automatically puts her argument into question due to a conflict of interest. So too would Georgetown or other Ivy league schools on the Saudi pay roll.
As for Saudi's "Deradicalization Program," converting AQ Terrorists into Muslim Brotherhood operatives hardly constitutes success. YMMV.
I really don’t see it that way, my beef isn’t with ALL Muslims, my anger, or should I say my loathing, is directed towards the supremacist ideology of Islam. Most of the people who are now Muslim never chose to be so, simply because almost all of their ancestors were forced into being Muslim, whole countries were conquered, and Sharia law was imposed - and the penalty of death - is levied towards those who want to leave.
c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law-giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment, while one who refrains from it out of obedience to the command of Allah is rewarded.
(3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…
o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed
(A: though if there is no Caliph (def: o25), no permission is required.
o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:
(The Reliance of the Traveller)
Countries with theocratic regimes or tendencies, puts pressure on everyone to become Muslim. I’m certain most Muslim’s as a rule, are pretty good folks, yet the ideology of Islam, encourages the struggling towards the political goal of the dominance of Islamic law. However, the existence of good a Muslim does not invalidate Islamic teachings from the Qur’an that advocate intolerance and violence toward non-Muslims.
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
(2) a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim
(3) ….for killing an apostate…
(pgs. 580-590 / Reliance of the Traveller)
o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)
How many Generals during WWII would have been willing to kiss Mein Kampf :confused:
If the anger towards the Muslim population is as predominant as the original article indicates, wouldn’t there be a backlash?
The Phantom Backlash
by Robert Spencer
Backlash fever is sweeping the nation...
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith.” She said that DHS was taking steps to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.”
The media was mining the same territory. AP reported Friday that there had been “immediate” anti-Muslim “backlash.” What happened? Did armed bands of furious Islamophobes throw molotov cocktails at mosques? Did ferocious white supremacists maul fragile little girls in hijabs on their way to school? Did angry bigots spit at pious imams quietly going about their business?
No.
Had there been any report -- any report at all -- of any innocent, random Muslim being attacked in a “backlash” after the Fort Hood jihad?
Nope. Not one. Americans are decent people. Americans believe people are innocent until proven guilty...
The rest here > http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34363
I respectfully choose to disagree with Mr. Young for the following reasons, which I posted in a similar thread.
1. It took me almost ten years to go to the WTC site and pay my respects.
(I lived on Leonard Street btw Church & Brdway)
2. A VIVID NYC memory from that time frame: Muslim cab drivers beeping their horns and being extra jovial towards each other, while the city picked itself up…that day and for weeks after the attack.
3. My wife has three really close girl friends. One lost her entire wedding party that day. I mean, who comprises a wedding party, your very best sisters, friends etc…now all dead; is but one permissible islamic example: the right to kill anyone at anytime.
I knew so many people that died that day, people I trained and had worked with, innocent people that dined in my restaurant, companies that we catered events for, or just the Joe who said hello on his way to work, the guy that doesn’t get to see his kid grow up…fuck these scumbags muslims. They will never assimilate to/in our culture. ..but you know that already?
4. You want me to be politically correct in response to a belief system that a. see’s no value in our openness, or personal freedoms.
b. actively engages with deadly force on a NOW current/regular/routine basis while simultaneously seeking to smother and suppress any mention of their muslim belief/religion campaign. Especially, as it continues to destroy/subvert our freedoms to confront it.
5. There is no solution in appeasement, accommodation, or tolerance with muslim ideology. They must be confronted without compassion or mercy, as an entire culture and destroyed with the same deadly indiscriminant force.
6. I am beyond anger, I am hateful to the core of my being. If you're a rag head, I do not believe anything you say, and I don't trust you, Not because I don't want to, but because Your religion taught me that.
Very well said, Chef.
Lost a lot of co-workers that day, and a part of my soul. A lot of folks did.
In addition, each and every precious American Soldier, who has since given their life in battle against this enemy, are the ones whom I would ask, "Is The War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims?"
Some Americans will never forget, and will never forgive.
Holly
...and will never forgive.
Gawd...how un-WWJD...or is it. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
This posting was the lunch conversation with me and Big H. He knows where I am coming from albeit rather a bit more emotional (cuz I am a girl) than for some of you. Penn, hadn't posted his comments before I left for lunch...but I am 100% with him.
The interesting thing about the lunch, my fortune cookie stated "Hate does not conquer hate. Only love can conquer hate". How appropo, right?
I agree with Echoes to an extent....I did forgive but I didn't forget. I will never forget and until every last one of them is either sent packing or they realize this is America, not another nation of islam...none of them will be my friend. None of them are the slightest bit removed from suspicion. Those monsters that perpetrated the most heinous attack on our country...they assimilated. They were neighbors, co-workers, friends, fellow students. Look what they did!!
I appreciate and respect everyone's opinion on this forum. We are all entitled to our feelings ...especially about things we are passionate about. But no amount of "feel good, kumbyah" stories will change my mind about them. And when I am put in a position where I HAVE TO deal with them, I am polite and businesslike but I do not go out of my way for them.
Gawd...how un-WWJD...or is it. :rolleyes:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Richard Sir,
If you so choose, you will have to explain the above abreviations, because I do not know what you have said, Sir.:( Sorry....
My sentiment remains the same:
"...Each and every precious American Soldier, who has since given their life in battle against this enemy, are the ones whom I would ask, "Is The War On Terror's Other Cost: Undeserved Anger At All Muslims?"
Holly:munchin
Delusional political correctness, but in the end, muslim strategy at work.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared: “We object to, and do not believe, that anti-Muslim sentiment should emanate from this. This was an individual who does not represent the Muslim faith.” She said that DHS was taking steps to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.”
Appeasement, Accommodation, & rationalization
I really don’t see it that way, my beef isn’t with ALL Muslims, my anger, or should I say my loathing, is directed towards the supremacist ideology of Islam. Most of the people who are now Muslim never chose to be so, simply because almost all of their ancestors were forced into being Muslim, whole countries were conquered, and Sharia law was imposed - and the penalty of death - is levied towards those who want to leave.
Appeasement, Accommodation, & rationalization
Rationalization….yeah….however, I do not believe they should be accommodated nor appeased, and I think Islam should be demoted to cult status.
Nevertheless, my views fall more in line with those of Hassan Yousef: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odTyzaKYYd8
My father was an employee of Marsh and the impact of 9/11 was nothing short of devastation - 295 employees & 60 contractors were killed :mad:
Gawd...how un-WWJD...or is it.
IMO, Muslims are like Obama voters, a few of them may mean well, but they know not what they do...
...a few of them may mean well, but they know not what they do...
According to some theologian somewhere in History, some Jewish guy may have said that once...;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Or,
I remember the Jesuits were very firm disciplinarians, and no matter how much I wanted Hey Suez to intervene, he was a no show.
WWJD, what HS always does, transcend into vapor, put the mojo on the next spiritual leader who has been echoing his direct contacts and construct a musk-ox at ground zero, as a faith based test on true enlightment, forgiveness, and oneness with the various single deity belief systems; all mind you, as a marketing ploy to create revenues streams tied to sales insuring the believers resting spot next to the pearly gates. Or, Hey Suez, in his galactic comedic awareness has you invest your life savings not in Jim Jones, but in Bernie Madoff. HS, then reclines in his chair, lights a cobia, chuckles over Fidel, and Hugo, and thinks " Damm that was a great last name I gave Bernie". While in the background, you hear someone complain' to no one in particular "Jesus Christ what are you doing".
Out of the whirl wind you hear " Oh nothing , just Giving Nuclear weapons to I'm in Jihad".
According to some theologian somewhere in History, some Jewish guy may have said that once...;)
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Richard Sir,
Again, am confused.:confused:
:(
Holly......
I remember the Jesuits were very firm disciplinarians, and no matter how much I wanted Hey Suez to intervene, he was a no show.
The days of the sign gifts have ceased, or at least… until you see those from Judea fleeing to the mountains :D
Meanwhile, the TJ principle applies :D
“I abuse the priests indeed, who have so much abused the pure and holy doctrines of their master, and who have laid me under no obligation to reticence as to the tricks of their trade. The genuine system of Jesus, and the artificial structure they have erected (clergy), to make them the instruments of wealth, power and pre-eminence to themselves, are as distinct things in my view as light and darkness: and while I have classed them with soothsayers and necramancer, I place him among the greatest of the reformers of morals, and scourges of priest-craft that have ever existed. They felt him as such, and never rested until they had silenced him by death.”
Richard Sir,
Again, am confused.:confused:
:(
Holly......
Holly,
Sir Richard is referring to Jesus on the Cross saying "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" Luke23:34
Wow, some very strong emotions on display in this thread. I myself am very confused on the Muslims issue because I see some say Islam is a religion of peace where the majority of the adherents are good people, but it is being given a bad name by a few extremists, whereas I also see some say that the previous is politically-correct nonsense, that Islam is not any religion of peace, and that any peaceful followers of it literally do not understand their own religion.
I am not educated enough on it to make any decision right now however.
IMHO, Islam as a religion is not peaceful, however, some Muslims are - trust is an issue - al Taqiyya.
Those that undertake Islam's political goal as an earthly religious duty, the subjugation of all non-Muslims to Islamic law, are just as dangerous as the ones blowing themselves up. Extremely devout mainstream "moderate" Muslims who've succumbed to Islamic ideology who are active, working towards the end-goal of worldwide Islamic dominance, are just as dangerous as the radicals IMO.
You be the judge...
o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.
o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,- (Qur'an 4:95)
‘Fighting is prescribed for you’ (Qur'an 2:216)
‘Slay them wherever you find them’ (Qur'an 4:89)
‘Fight the idolaters utterly’ (Qur'an 9:36)
(A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).
Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due (Jizya), then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (Qur'an 9:5)
o9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians [kafirs] (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) - which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High.
(A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).
Sources - have at it :D
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/
http://www.amazon.com/Reliance-Traveller-Classic-Islamic-Al-Salik/dp/0915957728
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/The_Lesser_vs_Greater_Jihad_Myth
My best friend's Grandpa taught me how to fish and throw a football as a kid. He was tough, honest, and extremely generous. He had served at Okinawa in WW2 and hated the Japanese. He would not own anything made in Japan, let us watch Godzilla movies at his house, or even eat at a Japanese steakhouse. He was never rude to anyone, but he would tell us, "boys remember you just can't trust them." I don't know what he experienced during the war, and though I don't share this belief, I don't judge his views either.
9/11 is emotional for many Americans. I still don't like Ground Zero, I lost friends there. The notion of that Mosque going up there is reprehensible to me. I want AQ and their supporters terminated, no questions asked.
America is a great melting pot of immigrants, a land of freedom and opportunity, yet have we forgotten the past errors of singling out fellow Americans in times of crisis because of their heritage or background, instead of their actions and character?
A Sikh taxi driver who often took me to work in 2001 , draped his cab with US flags after 9/11. He said " imagine the irony of this, they actually think I am Muslim"
Bad men are bad men, whatever they choose to call god.
Frankly, a man I respect had "TAC AIR" on the last line of his dog tags in Southeast Asia... which as faith goes is elegantly pragmatic, and perhaps a solution for all sorts of crisis....
Her resume (Harvard) automatically puts her argument into question due to a conflict of interest. So too would Georgetown or other Ivy league schools on the Saudi pay roll.
Mr. Paine could you expand on this train of thought?
Bad men are bad men, whatever they choose to call god.
Interesting...
The theology and legal system of Islam codified by sharia with Muhammad as the role model is nothing more than a system of legally-mandated hatred.
Big "Mo" hated non-Muslims and advocated the enslavement, robbery, rape, and torture of the Kafir - nice guy he was :munchin
Thomas Paine
08-03-2010, 06:09
Mr. Paine could you expand on this train of thought?
How much funding from overseas does it take before we realize that it has significantly influence academia to promote an agenda?
http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1741
http://www.breitbart.tv/gingrich-slams-harvard-hypocrisy-over-saudi-funding/
http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=85
As one key example, John Esposito is perhaps the highest paid intellectual prostitute out there:
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1443/john-esposito-reputation-vs-reality
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/12/AR2005121200591.html
http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=29951
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/georgetown-professor-john-esposito-a-saudi-puppet/
This disgusting issue has to be re-framed, the marketing argument should not be a political discussion based in 1st amendment religious rights, a musk-ox constructed at ground zero. It should not be called a religious center. It should be address by member of the press sympathetic to the subtleties of muslim intent for what it is, as:
"The Muslim Victory Center Located At Ground Zero".
By re-framing the center as a triumphant memorial maybe all of America will refocus
and see how insidious and determine muslim are, by employing our cultural sensibilities(freedom of choice/right to worship/ speech) against us.
I do not support the construction of the "Muslim Victory Center Located At Ground Zero".
Listening to FOX this morning, the vote is coming this morning, is it or is it not a go. If this building is NOT landmarked (the one they want to tear down for the Palace of Evil), up goes the Palace of Evil and hello to tons of asspain!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/03/panel-vote-clear-way-ground-zero-mosque/
They TRIED to interview two gentlemen regarding this matter. One, a muslim who "over spoke" the American when he was trying to give his argument as to why this mosque should not happen and as he related a story of a Mother, who lost her FDNY son in Tower 1. She left the committee meeting last week, after arguing with these dhimmis, and had a heart attack. Immediately, of course, it's a lie and its hate spewing.
T-Rock, I find your posts very informative and I thank you for them. However, I do not see islam as a religion. It is an ideology. It encompassed the very definition of an ideology. And for the fanatics....a cult!
Broadsword, yes this is a very emotional issue. I think it should be for every American who loves, respects and values this country and what she has stood for. Now, with the help of the new Emperor and the amount of money that the muslims have poured into this nation, we are going to hell in a handbasket.
UPDATE: The dhimmis have approved the Palace of Evil. They did not landmark the building. Mayor Bloomberg and this committee has spat all over the people we lost that day and their families.
When every enemy organization that is at War with the U.S right now. Referes to their religion when talking about the defeat of their enemy, The U.S. How is it prejudice when we hate this enemy.
When we fought the Japanese we hated Japanese in general. Maybe Bloomberg thinks if they build enough Mosques in the City they won't attack NY again. You know, it's called Surrender.
When every enemy organization that is at War with the U.S right now. Referes to their religion when talking about the defeat of their enemy, The U.S. How is it prejudice when we hate this enemy.
Sir,
My question is not so much prejudice as precision. America has to fight and kill those at war with her, this won't change, I am grateful for your service, and of all the vets here. There are veterans here of several conflicts. However, reading through the posts here on Southeast Asia for example you don't see this bile for the Vietnamese people. The NVA, and the VC who did barbaric things to villages etc, yes. The corrupt South Vietnamese administration, yes. If anything there is compassion for the sufferings of the Vietnamese people, an understanding that terror and Marxist ideology were forced upon them. There is also respect and admiration for those who fought at our side, the Montagnards, and ARVN when properly led. Folks might say the Vietnamese never attacked America, okay then how about the Japanese, WW2 especially in the Pacific with the cultural differences was a different scenario, the conventional nature of the conflict as well as the geography dictated the only contact our troops had with the Japanese until the occupation was with determined enemy soldiers. Yet during the occupation many veteran accounts of Axis civilians were they were just like people everywhere good and bad, led into a brutal conflict by militant dictators.
Once again at the point you take up arms against the USA, you are the enemy period. What were our views on the Mujahideen when with our support and training they were taking on the Soviets? There are folks here who worked with them, They were still Muslims, were they all evil back then too, was it simply the lesser of two evils?
What happens in 2050 if our grandkids are eyeball to eyeball with the Chinese in a big conventional war? If Iraq has developed into a modern secular state, and both they and NATO Turkey have sent troops to fight on our side, what will our views on Islamic allies be then? History seems to guarantee our friends and enemies flip flop as time and shared interest passes.
This thread is an emotional topic for many of us. By my read the original post here cited Flight Engineer Young's positive experiences with Muslims in Bangladesh, just his $.02. Many folks here are familiar with the views on Islam that BTDT types like MSM Billy Waugh and Major Gant have. IMHO their experiences are extremely salient, not because they were SF, on an SF site, but due to the depth of their experience, because they are both soldiers who lived among the people in Islamic nations, they fought against and with Muslims, yet they were clear on who exactly the enemy is.
How much funding from overseas does it take before we realize that it has significantly influence academia to promote an agenda?
Robert Heinlein: 'I never learned from a man who agreed with me.'
Mr. Paine,
I read through the provided links with the above quote in mind. Thank you for posting them, by my read I formed the following impressions.
1) Harvard was hypocritical in accepting Saudi money, given their views on homosexuality, and then turning on the ROTC for the same reason.
2) $20 million doesn't buy you much Islamic influence at Harvard, remember this was the school who's endowment was so profitable they were considering doing away with undergraduate tuition before 2008 hit.
3) Kagan and Esposito are misguided and myopic at best.
4) The Saudi prince's allocating money to two colleges in the US and the Middle East for greater education and cultural understanding isn't a bad idea, he lost me with his views on American responsibility for 9/11, kudos to Rudy Giuliani for telling him to shove his $10 million check given these views.
Finally, having worked almost extensively with Ivy League graduates my experience, other than an annoying persistent sense of entitlement and increasing lack of "common sense" ( no monopoly here), on the whole they tend to be very bright and capable once you hit them over the head a few times.
Eagle5US
08-03-2010, 16:02
America is a great melting pot of immigrants, a land of freedom and opportunity, yet have we forgotten the past errors of singling out fellow Americans in times of crisis because of their heritage or background, instead of their actions and character?
.
America was this once....true. But no longer. Instead of a melting pot of cultures and ideals becoming that which made us uniquely "American", we have become a salad bowl of individual cultures existing within the same space. Each entity fighting for it's own identity within our borders. We are no longer striving to be "Americans" - we are Latin Americans, African Americans, Italian Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islander Americans, and any other "de-jour" cultural or ethnic title to be placed in front of what we USED to be....Americans.
Everyone wants their own month, week, leader recognition, poster, tax break, college fund, grant, statue, etc....the Statue of Liberty no longer good enough for all.
So too when it comes to jihadists and the Muslim community, only we (collectively) as now "Culturally Sensitive America" bend over backwards to ALLOW freedoms of those trying to DESTROY us. We abhor "profiling" of Arab looking men at Airports or on aircraft while they are speaking in their own language...but stop the 4 year old blonde haired, blue eyed, white kid going through security with his blue haired grandmother.
We are building a FRIGGING MOSQUE at the site of one of the worst attacks on US Soil EVER, and "we" are supposed to be OK with that. The NYPD will have to defend it, investigate threats against it, and people who lost loved ones at GZ will have to walk by that abomination of poor taste EVERY TIME they visit the place where their family member was killed. No doubt call to prayer will be broadcast 5 times daily.
Our government now lacks the will to do the EASY right, for fear of hurting the feelings of others. Whether it be from Islamic Extremists, or from illegal immigrants. Oddly enough, the same person can indeed be both.
Penn said it best...it is a victory monument. And it, as well as the cowards who have allowed it to come to fruition, absolutely disgust me.
Eagle
The Reaper
08-03-2010, 17:15
If they ever get it built, I hope they have excellent security, for their sakes.
I, for one, cannot get the image out of my mind of the cheeering crowds throughout the Middle East on the afternoon of 9/11.
That told me everything I needed to know right there.
We just gave the Paks $10,000,000 in aid money yesterday, for a nation where almost 90% of the public hates us more than Al Qaeda. Just put it on our kids' and grandkids' tabs.
I do not like this. At all. But that is just me.
TR
greenberetTFS
08-03-2010, 17:18
My best friend's Grandpa taught me how to fish and throw a football as a kid. He was tough, honest, and extremely generous. He had served at Okinawa in WW2 and hated the Japanese. He would not own anything made in Japan, let us watch Goodwill movies at his house, or even eat at a Japanese steakhouse. He was never rude to anyone, but he would tell us, "Boys remember you just can't trust them." I don't know what he experienced during the war, and though I don't share this belief, I don't judge his views either.
9/11 is emotional for many Americans. I still don't like Ground Zero, I lost friends there. The notion of that Mosque going up there is reprehensible to me. I want AQ and their supporters terminated, no questions asked.
America is a great melting pot of immigrants, a land of freedom and opportunity, yet have we forgotten the past errors of singling out fellow Americans in times of crisis because of their heritage or background, instead of their actions and character?
A Sikh taxi driver who often took me to work in 2001 , draped his cab with US flags after 9/11. He said " imagine the irony of this, they actually think I am Muslim"
Bad men are bad men, whatever they choose to call god.
Frankly, a man I respect had "TAC AIR" on the last line of his dog tags in Southeast Asia... which as faith goes is elegantly pragmatic, and perhaps a solution for all sorts of crisis....
AKV,
My father,bless his soul,was Sicilian and was drafted at 37 years old in 1942,he was married and had one child,my self,big teddy........He could have easily gotten out of serving his country because of his age and dependent status but he didn't,his only request was not to have to serve and fight in the European front because he had significant family n Sicily,believe it or not,the Army honored his request..........:confused: He was a Combat Medic who served in the Pacific from Guadacanal to Okinawa..........He HATED the Japanese and with good reason,he saw more shit than most men are required to see......... Heavy duty experiences that left him with memories he tried to forget,but never,ever to forgive.........My point is those like Saoirse, who have suffered, and find this request appalling and so it should be!............. Its like putting a Japanese Memorial on the very site of the USS Arizona !!!!! And yes,Richard I saw your post,I thank GOD my father never had to....... I'm an old man who looks at WTF is happening regarding this particular issue and I just thank GOD,and if you should happen to get a little tear in your eye from remembering that hallowed day,well thank God for you your still an American............... :) (Excuse my grammar and spelling I'm sure I'll be taken to task by my brother QP's,but as always, in a PM as not to embarrass me in front of the Forum)........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
:munchin
KKK Plans To Build Center On Ruins of 16th St. Baptist Church
Ruins of the 16th St. Baptist Church in Which 4 Young Girls Lost Their Lives
August 2, 2010
African American leaders greeted with enthusiasm KKK plans to erect a church and cultural center on the site of the September 15th, 1963 bombing of the 16th St. Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama in which 4 young girls were killed.* Leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party as well as national progressive personalities applauded the plans to construct the house of worship as an expression of healing and reconciliation.* J Street, the "Pro Israel", "Pro Peace" organization joined in an expression of solidarity with the KKK.
Isaac Luria, J Street's official spokesperson, issued the following statement in response to opposition to the construction of the cultural center and church:
"I am proud as an American and as a Jew that our heritage is grounded in a strong belief in equality, justice, and religious freedom...I was taught that if freedom can be denied to a single person because of who they are, it can happen to anyone of us.It is time for those of us who share these beliefs to stand up as another religious minority looks to exercise its legal rights in the United States."
Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York added in support of the project, "“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?* Montgomery should welcome this project as enthusiastically as New York would."
The fact that the Grand Wizard* refused to name the KKK a "terrorist" organization was apparently not sufficient to deter the project's proponents from endorsing it.
Profound and to the point...
Read the rest here > http://www.jstreetjive.com/2010/08/kkk-plans-to-build-center-on-ruins-of.html
Green Light
08-03-2010, 17:36
On 9/12 one had a one-time opportunity for all Americans to come together. All did. Except the Muslims. Did you see them marching in the streets in protest of the attack on our country? No. They just stayed home. We could have stood there, arm in arm as fellow countryment. But no.
I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated. A man cannot serve two masters. He will love the one and dispise the other. That's a quote, Richard.
They have not joined the right side so they must be on the wrong side.
I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated.
These scenes will be forever seared in my memory :mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uOfPPpEBo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMOZvbYJMvU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3u3rMIs5hw&feature=related
Defender968
08-03-2010, 18:26
On 9/12 one had a one-time opportunity for all Americans to come together. All did. Except the Muslims. Did you see them marching in the streets in protest of the attack on our country? No. They just stayed home. We could have stood there, arm in arm as fellow countryment. But no.
I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated. A man cannot serve two masters. He will love the one and dispise the other. That's a quote, Richard.
They have not joined the right side so they must be on the wrong side.
Absolutely couldn't agree more, if theirs is a religion of peace why don't they publically denounce those who do evil in the name of their faith and their god? Why is it that the only clerics/imams we hear from are those that preach hate...why do we never hear from any who preach peace... I was raised Catholic and every time some idiot shot up or blew up an abortion clinic I heard how wrong it was from priests and bishops on the news and in my churches, I have yet to see an imam or cleric on TV denouncing the CONSTANT attacks on innocents by extremists both here and around the world, maybe they say it in their Mosques, it’s hard to say as non believers are not allowed to enter....I guess they don’t want to have to be constantly cleaning the floors of the blood of infidels after they remove their heads as dictated by the Koran...
On 9/12 one had a one-time opportunity for all Americans to come together. All did. Except the Muslims. Did you see them marching in the streets in protest of the attack on our country? No. They just stayed home. We could have stood there, arm in arm as fellow countryment. But no. I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated. A man cannot serve two masters. He will love the one and dispise the other. That's a quote, Richard. They have not joined the right side so they must be on the wrong side.
Sir,
I see the clips of Palestinians cheering 9/11 and my first thought is lets just pull our troops back and turn the whole place into a glowing parking lot. But Sir, where does this end? My question is who exactly is "They"? At the core of our legal system, is a belief which though maddening at times, states we would rather see guilty men walk then innocent men convicted of crimes, such beliefs make us a great nation. Operating under the assumptions we put America's interests first, the people of Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are currently relevant in that enhanced modernization and stability in the Middle East will reduce the chance of nuclear proliferation and further more devastating attacks on our shores.
I was a NY'er in 2001, by my recollection the city was in a state of shock for weeks. People were good to each other for the most part yet there was a lot of fear. Frankly most people I saw with olive skin or Middle Eastern features were scared of retaliation, and the ignorance/backlash of mobs. There was an Afghan Kebab House draped with US flags, Sikh taxi drivers hoping folks would know the difference, and a third generation American of Lebanese Christian descent friend of mine reading a Sports Illustrated was kicked off a flight home to Memphis because some lady said he made her nervous? In this environment would you expect American Muslims to take to the streets arm in arm to show solidarity, perhaps the brave ones. I wonder how Japanese Americans would have been received in Times Square on December 8, 1941? Many of them went on to serve our country bravely in combat while their parents were interned.
If "They" are AQ terrorists or insurgents, or frankly anyone planning or taking up arms against America, they gotta go period. But is "They" law abiding Americans who call god a certain name, or folks in rural Afghan villages who are human currency for the Taliban, or folks like the Bangladeshi cadets Mr. Young mentioned, how are they the enemy?
We have seen instances of Muslims denouncing radical Islam, AQ, terror tactics etc, and they are brushed aside as crocodile tears, Taqiyah or disingenuous by those who advocate The Heart of Darkness solution.
We are Americans, not Soviets or Nazi's their eternal infamy has already shown us the dangers of this path; personally this issue brings the following two quotes to mind. My fear is our enemies cause us to abandon our values and turn on ourselves.
"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate — and quickly."
— Robert A. Heinlein
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
—Friedrich Nietzsche
Hitler's Jews of Mein Kampf are Muhammad's Kafir of the Qur'an...
Thomas Paine
08-03-2010, 22:40
Hitler's Jews of Mein Kampf are Muhammad's Kafir of the Qur'an...
Powerful. Poignant. Too bad most Americans don't even know what a Kafir is.
LINK:
www.politicalislam.com/blog/kafir
ZonieDiver
08-04-2010, 00:06
AKV,
My father,bless his soul,was Sicilian and was drafted at 37 years old in 1942,he was married and had one child,my self,big teddy........He could have easily gotten out of serving his country because of his age and dependent status but he didn't,his only request was not to have to serve and fight in the European front because he had significant family n Sicily,believe it or not,the Army honored his request..........:confused: He was a Combat Medic who served in the Pacific from Guadacanal to Okinawa..........He HATED the Japanese and with good reason,he saw more shit than most men are required to see......... Heavy duty experiences that left him with memories he tried to forget,but never,ever to forgive.........My point is those like Saoirse, who have suffered, and find this request appalling and so it should be!............. Its like putting a Japanese Memorial on the very site of the USS Arizona !!!!! And yes,Richard I saw your post,I thank GOD my father never had to....... I'm an old man who looks at WTF is happening regarding this particular issue and I just thank GOD,and if you should happen to get a little tear in your eye from remembering that hallowed day,well thank God for you your still an American............... :) (Excuse my grammar and spelling I'm sure I'll be taken to task by my brother QP's,but as always, in a PM as not to embarrass me in front of the Forum)........;)
Big Teddy :munchin
Not by me, Big Teddy. Never!
ZonieDiver
08-04-2010, 00:17
Hitler's Jews of Mein Kampf are Muhammad's Kafir of the Qur'an...
Personally, I think you missed, or deflected, AKV's point.
Thomas Paine
08-04-2010, 01:52
Personally, I think you missed, or deflected, AKV's point.
He didn't miss the point. He was making a different one altogther.
AKV is right that we aren't Nazis. But it seems he's happy to accept the "good" Nazis.
How did we fix Nazism? We destroyed the ideology through military might.
This was has been going on for 1,400 years.
The success of Israel in the 6 day war caused a long period of self-doubt in the Muslim world...as they believe "Allah controls all" So why did he allow them to get their ass kicked? Because they weren't on the "right path."
What will it take to stop this islamist, totalitarian, supremacist ideology?
I don't know. But giving them a big fat hug and making them feel good about themselves isn't the answer.
T-Rock is seeing things with crystal clear vision.
Personally, I think you missed, or deflected, AKV's point.
I see his point, it's noble and honorable - but I'm speaking of Islamic doctrine that oppresses the "Kafir" - the supremacist ideology of what the devout Muslim is to do if they are truly following the example of their prophet. Devout practitioners of Islam have been oppressing and exploiting the "Kafir" for the better part of 1400 years - tolerance and mutual respect is great as long as it is mutual...why defend the Muslims right to exercise Islams doctrine of supremacy and supercessionism ? :confused:
"Muslim chroniclers described the ongoing jihad (holy war), involving the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of their populations, the enslavement of women and children, and the confiscation of vast regions. This picture of catastrophe and destruction corresponds to the period of gradual erosion of Palestinian Jewry. According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost…" ~Bat Ye'or~
How did we fix Nazism? We destroyed the ideology through military might.
We did not destroy Nazism, it still exists. There are pro Nazi rallies across the country every year. We permit them to participate in these rallies, and express their beliefs. Many of which call for the extermination of people based on religion or skin color. We do not, however, permit them to start killing jews, blacks or hispanics. This is where we draw the line.
I am all for allowing Muslims to express their beliefs. If they believe that their religion requires them to attack others though, they need to find another country. Many chose religious paths other then what we call extremism and literal interpretation. This is similar to how I and many Christians chose to behave differently then Charles Martel when he ordered 1200 captured Muslims executed for not converting to christianity (A World Lit Only By Fire, William Manchester).
I do not personally know any Muslim who was happy when they heard the news on 9-11. Most of them have expressed genuine anger at the fact that their religion was used as an excuse.
My personal and religious values go against religious prejudice, as does my oath to the Constitution.
Islam is a very confusing subject, I do not yet really understand my feelings on it. Its mixture of politics and religion is troublesome, especially in a multicultural society, yet we can not allow our fears of Islam force us away from our foundations of freedom.
These scenes will be forever seared in my memory :mad:
[youtube videos of Palestinians celebrating the 9-11 attacks
I don't see these as religious celebrations. I believe that the Palestinians saw 9-11 as a strike back against a seemingly untouchable oppressor rather then a religious victory. Many Palestinians have been kicked out of their homes and treated as second class citizens by Israel, paid for by the United States. I can understand their anger against the United States, regardless of religion. I equate it to watching a school yard rival getting beaten by someone else.
The Reaper
08-04-2010, 05:25
I do not personally know any Muslim who was happy when they heard the news on 9-11.
How old were you on 9/11?
Cause I saw mobs of them celebrating in the streets, worldwide.
TR
How old were you on 9/11?
Cause I saw mobs of them celebrating in the streets, worldwide.
TR
I was in middle school at the time, so yes quite young. I do not remember any celebrating in or around Seattle. I may have missed it however. I do remember the reports from Palestine and Iraq.
With regards to those that I know personally, I did have a few muslim peers at school at the time. Most however are relationships that have been built up since then, through high school and college. None of whom have I ever seen express an emotion other then anger after any of the more recent terrorist attacks. I have heard many of them reference 911 as a blow against Islam.
- Xavier
TOMAHAWK9521
08-04-2010, 07:22
I had nephews in Junior High and Highschool over on west side of Columbus, OH who had to deal with their Somali classmates jumping up and cheering "Death to America" when news that the towers fell got to their school. The Somalis didn't like the fact that no one else shared their joy and were furious to discover the 1st Amendment didn't include the requirement of anyone else having to stay around and listen to them.
One of those nephews, had an additional incident in school a couple years later. When one of his Somali classmates was vomiting an anti-US diatribe as part of a class project, my nephew packed up his books and began to walk out. The teacher asked where he was going to which he replied "The principle's office." The teacher said she didn't excuse him, at which time the aforementioned Somali got in my nephew's face and demanded why he shouldn't have to listen. My nephew explained how many of his relatives, to include his older brothers, were currently fighting I-slamic militants overseas and pretty much anything this guy uttered was complete BS. When the Somali kid tried to prevent him from leaving, my nephew naturally folded the kid in half and then asked if he could go to the principle's office.
Once the principle gone the whole picture of what had transpired, he quietly took my nephew out to lunch.
That same nephew and I linked up in Mosul 2 years ago, he on his first assignment and I on my last. I was a team daddy and he was a combat engineer doing route clearance twice a day. I assured him there was no envy on my part as to who had the trickier job.
I don't see these as religious celebrations. I believe that the Palestinians saw 9-11 as a strike back against a seemingly untouchable oppressor rather then a religious victory.
Can you expound on this a little more because if anything, the United States and Israel are the only ones doing anything to help the poor, oppressed Palestinians - even as they‘re launching rockets into Israel, to kill innocent civilians - I’m waiting for archaeology’s “BIG FIND” the treasure trove… LOL - an Arab Palestinian yield of artifacts that show who the first king of Palestine was, when Palestine was founded, and by whom, what the language was, what the name of the currency was, what the religion of ancient Palestine was, and what is demise was…
You may want to take a look at the PLO or the Hamas charter, here’s part of article 7 and article 8, from 1988:
The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).
Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur’an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief.
> http://www.thejerusalemfund.org/www.thejerusalemfund.org/carryover/documents/charter.html
..... I have heard many of them reference 911 as a blow against Islam.
- Xavier
And many do so not because it was a blow against the west but because it was a visable sign of the march of Islam.
Many of the "group hug" people in the west are thinking with their hearts.
Me? I just believe what Islamic people say the Koran says. I take them at their word.
The slow march of Islam? How about Turkey?
Once held as the true model of a secular Islamic nation. The military was able to keep things from going too far. But now? If you've been paying attention over the past few years the radical Islamists have slowly taken over the government - and through appointments the major administration of government and schools. The key leaders in the military have also been replaced.
A few years from now Turkey is going to do something we consider over the top and the "group hug" people are going to say "How did that happen?" and then "Can't happen here."
The slow march of Islam continues - time and population are on their side.
Pete
Islam, the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids and comforts the shark on it's journey.
DJ Urbanovsky
08-04-2010, 10:23
How old were you on 9/11?
Cause I saw mobs of them celebrating in the streets, worldwide.
TR
This.
Personally, I have a huge problem with any group that would make me into a slave or consider me as a lesser human because I refuse to swallow whatever flavor of religious horseshit they're shoveling on that particular day. I think I'm intelligent enough to make my own decisions about what I want to believe, and I have no tolerance for those who would foist their dogma upon me.
In our modern times, show me another religious group other than Muslims that has taken such apparent delight in the bombing of public places with such scale and frequency. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.
GratefulCitizen
08-04-2010, 12:18
Neither hate muslims nor harbor anger towards them.
Some are benign, others are not.
If a mountain lion came up on my campsite, no hate or anger would be directed towards it, either.
If it appeared to be a threat to my family, I would kill it.
Don't know what the best method is for dealing with foreign threats, whether those threats are rooted in nations or idealogies.
Only care what will keep the threats at bay.
If diplomacy works, fine.
If diplomacy doesn't work, and a little force is required, fine.
If a little force doesn't work, and greater force is required, fine.
Whatever is necessary should be done.
Some 65 years less two days ago, it took strategic nuclear strikes to quash a particular threat across an ocean.
There were powers with imperial ambitions in the first world war.
There were powers with imperial ambitions in the second world war.
There were powers with imperial ambitions in the cold war.
There are powers with imperial ambitions carrying green flags now.
Previous generations kept the barbarians on the other side of the wall.
Different generation, different barbarians.
Means aren't the problem, it all comes down to political will.
We either have the political will to survive as a nation, and pass the blessings of liberty to posterity, or we do not.
Too many citizens looking for handouts have put weaklings in charge of our government.
Votes matter.
mojaveman
08-04-2010, 13:24
Please forgive me, but I've sure become more suspicious and prejudicial since 9/11.
If I hear Arabic being spoken anywhere in my vicinity I take a good look at the folks, especially if they're young males.
A month or so ago I was browsing in one of my favorite gun stores when four college age Arabic speaking men pulled up in a brand new Mercedes. They were interested in looking only at M-4 style firearms. I stood and watched them the entire time that they were in there and they knew I was looking at them. In retrospect I probably should have written down the license plate number of the vehicle and given it, as well as a SALUTE report, to the FBI.
AKV is right that we aren't Nazis. But it seems he's happy to accept the "good" Nazis.How did we fix Nazism? We destroyed the ideology through military might. This was has been going on for 1,400 years. The success of Israel in the 6 day war caused a long period of self-doubt in the Muslim world...as they believe "Allah controls all" So why did he allow them to get their ass kicked? Because they weren't on the "right path." What will it take to stop this islamist, totalitarian, supremacist ideology?I don't know. But giving them a big fat hug and making them feel good about themselves isn't the answer.
Mr. Paine,
"Good Nazis" would seem to be an oxymoron for anyone with common sense. People in Italy joke that at least Mussolini made the trains run on time, but other than providing comical villains for Mel Brooks movies, there is little silver lining to the Fascist cloud. A day spent at Auschwitz weeping over the ceiling high pile of baby shoes would cure any delusions of an absence of evil in this world. Interestingly given the massive crowds cheering Hitler's speeches in the old black and white newsreels of 1939, astonishingly there apparently wasn't a single Nazi in Germany the day after Berlin fell. Religious folks might see this as a miracle, akin to turning water to wine, agnostics might also see it as a miracle, though one of TAC AIR and boots on the ground, finally pragmatists may explain away this transformation as simple fear among the German people. Ironically it was this same fear that Hiltler took advantage of in 1932, and IMHO remains our greatest challenge. If there is a lesson to be learned from the Nazis, it is we should never forget how they came to power, how they suspended civil rights bit by bit, how they turned on subsections of their own citizenry, the evils they perpetuated by manipulating fear, and most importantly how it ended for them.
I agree with your signature, John Adams has a beautiful quote about enduring hardships so our grandkids have a better life. We must win this war on terror, it would be convenient if AQ or similar thugs would line up and face us in conventional battle as the Nazis did, but they wouldn't last a week and they aren't stupid. Given their guerilla tactics, we have to kill them, and only them, the way white blood cells attack an infection without destroying the surrounding healthy tissue. A .45 with Le Mas ammo isn't the best remedy for a staph infection.
IMHO the difference in our beliefs, is you think of Islam as a disease, that once exposed turns you into a mindless zombie, which supercedes everything else in life, character, family, tribe, ethnicity, nationality etc. it doesn't matter if you are a man, woman, or child, once exposed you are fockered forever, period.
I see it as just another operating system. I'm amazed at folks who believe they are privy to the true thoughts and intentions of men, woman, and children they don't know or of a particular faith they don't share. I don't think I can selectively interpret the true meaning of their scripture, or give them lectures on the evils of their faith, nor am I omnipotent enough to identify crocodile tears from condemnation of violent acts perpetuated in the name of their faith. You can argue talk is cheap, yes but that is a double edged sword. I don't imagine most Muslims like being told they are all terrorists anymore than Christians would appreciate being reminded men of your faith started WW2 and perpetuated the Holocaust.
Our constitution is something to believe in, and sets us apart, we can't bend it in instances when we find it's freedoms and protections distasteful, history has shown us where that can lead. We have good fair laws for the most part, if a citizen breaks them then bust him.
I don't believe in hugging America's enemies I believe in killing them, and only them. The fact "this is hard" is no excuse, if we truly are the good guys, there is no other course. I would extend the you are responsible for every round fired from your gun rule Mr. Howe teaches as an analogy to this issue. I suppose I wouldn't make a very good Christian since I don't believe in redemption for violent criminals or pedophiles either, IMHO this is their true incorrigible nature, however I don't extend such absolute beliefs across the board to Islam or whatever the faith is of the group we have to fight next. If every Muslim converted to Christianity tomorrow could we all put away our guns and work on our golf game? Or would there still be war and competition for resources as part of human nature? Maybe the Russians will get their malevolent act together again and we can go back to them being the obsessive great threat, they aren't Muslims, Eastern Orthodox Christians I believe and they have nukes and quite a track record.
Mr. Paine as I express my opinions I remind myself I have not walked in your shoes as a military officer, however Major Gant has, he has lived among Muslims, eaten their salt, played with their kids and fought their insurgent enemies. Sir, what are your views on his experiences, beliefs, and suggestions? I believe he is brave, and insightful, am I wrong?
The Qur'ans Islamic Doctrine codified by sharia, as well as Mein Kampf are political treatise, should Nazism be elevated to religious status?
----------------------------------------
* "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews {Kafir} (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
* "...fight and slay the Pagans {Kafir} wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity (Jizya), then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful" (Sura 9:5)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
* "You should know that seeking to kill Americans {Kafir}and Jews {Kafir} everywhere in the world is one of the greatest duties [for Muslims], and the good deed most preferred by Allah, the Exalted," (UBL)
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7326/al-qaeda-reader-and-mein-kampf
* The penalty for Kufr (unbelief) & the Kafir (non-muslim) = DEATH
c2.5 (3) and unbelief (Kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada)…
f1.3 Someone {Kafir} (who knows Islamic Jurisprudence) or denies something…which there is scholarly consensus…is executed for his unbelief…
o4.17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim {Kafir}…
o8.7 (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it;
(2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…
(3) to speak words that imply unbelief…
(20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)
(Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)
-----------------------------------------
* Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day {Kafir}, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book {Kafir}, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Sura 9:29)
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
* "In fact, Muslims are obligated to raid the lands of the infidels {Kafir}, occupy them, and exchange their systems of governance for an Islamic system, barring any practice that contradicts the sharia from being publicly voiced among the people, as was the case at the dawn of Islam,"
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7326/al-qaeda-reader-and-mein-kampf
* The Objectives of Jihad
o8.7 (20) ... the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24)
o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims {Kafir}, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.
o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
(Reliance of the Traveller - A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law)
No need quoting the peaceful Sura because:
* al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh
* “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?" (Surah 2: 106)http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/002.qmt.html
* “When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not." (Surah 16:101)http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/016.qmt.html
* o22.1 ( I )
(9) those (nasikh) which supersede previously revealed Koranic verses;
(10) and those (mansukh) which are superseded by later verses.
(The Reliance of the Traveler. Pgs 625, 626)
--------------------------------------
He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.
THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE
~John Quincy Adams~
olhamada
08-04-2010, 21:31
I've been off line for a while, but grateful to see some PASSION behind this issue finally. :D
I was infuriated when I first heard about it, and am simply in stunned disbelief that NYC is actually thinking of allowing this for PC's sake.
We need to stop being PC and finally get some balls and be Americans with national defense as a first priority. Where did "defend her from all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC" go? Starting with our CinC.
I love the sign I saw on the news yesterday - "We'll build a mosque in NYC when you build a synagogue in Mecca".
6. I am beyond anger, I am hateful to the core of my being. If you're a {deleted}, I do not believe anything you say, and I don't trust you, Not because I don't want to, but because Your religion taught me that.
As one of Lebanese ancestry, I must admit that I'm a bit sensitive to this, so I've gotta ask - What's your definition of a "{deleted}" - a Muslim or an Arab? Keep in mind that they are not interchangeable groups. Many Arabs are Christian and most Muslims are not Arab - in fact only 1 in 4 are. That said, most Lebanese don't really consider themselves Arab.
Thomas Paine
08-05-2010, 01:05
"Good Nazis" would seem to be an oxymoron for anyone with common sense.
Glad we can agree on one point. Have you studied the doctrine of islam enough to know that is or is not evil. Clearly not given your remarks. And let’s not make this a theological discussion of the significant differences between the Judeo-Christian God and the prince of darkness known as Allah (yes, the Allah of islam was/is the pagan moon god.)
If there is a lesson to be learned from the Nazis, it is we should never forget how they came to power, how they suspended civil rights bit by bit, how they turned on subsections of their own citizenry, the evils they perpetuated by manipulating fear, and most importantly how it ended for them.
My point exactly. And what do you know of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda and their ilk are NOT the only enemy. Yet you seem solely focused on those who would pull triggers or plant bombs. What about the financiers? What about those engaged in legal warfare as an active method of advancing sharia law? And those involved in political warfare and cultural warfare?
Shall we ignore ALL of the other aspects of jihad?
You claim not to know the doctrine in one breath, yet unwilling to accept the possibility that when you pick up that rock there will be snakes under it. Read the sharia. Read their doctrine. Study it. Until you do, STFU.
IMHO the difference in our beliefs, is you think of Islam as a disease, that once exposed turns you into a mindless zombie, which supercedes everything else in life, character, family, tribe, ethnicity, nationality etc. it doesn't matter if you are a man, woman, or child, once exposed you are fockered forever, period.
I have never said that. There are some, few, who have escaped the evil grip of islam. Nonie Darwish is one whom I admire deeply. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is another. Dr Zuhdi Jasser is a muslim whom I believe has the best of intentions, but his personal opinions simply cannot overcome the weight of the doctrine he is attempting to reform. The laws surrounding scholarly consensus simply do not allow for the reformation of islam.
Do you even know what scholarly consensus is?
What the requirements are to reach scholarly consensus?
What the implications are?
How can you change scholarly consensus? You can’t. End of discussion.
I see it as just another operating system. I'm amazed at folks who believe they are privy to the true thoughts and intentions of men, woman, and children they don't know or of a particular faith they don't share.
I NEVER claimed to be privy to anyone’s thoughts. This is an analysis of their doctrine as they have written and confirmed it’s translation as true and accurate. If you want to talk about someone who claims to know the thoughts, lets talk about Georgetown’s John Esposito, who wrote an entire book on a survey without including a copy of the survey or the methods which it was administered.
I don't think I can selectively interpret the true meaning of their scripture, or give them lectures on the evils of their faith, nor am I omnipotent enough to identify crocodile tears from condemnation of violent acts perpetuated in the name of their faith.
Not discussion faith here. Islam is a political doctrine. Faith deals with what one has to do to get to heave. The preponderance of islam is focused on how muslims should deal with non-muslims. And that is political, not religious.
You can argue talk is cheap, yes but that is a double edged sword. I don't imagine most Muslims like being told they are all terrorists anymore than Christians would appreciate being reminded men of your faith started WW2 and perpetuated the Holocaust.
I don’t care what muslims do or don’t “like” being told. If they don’t like being told that their faith makes them adherents to an evil ideology, perhaps they should renounce that evil ideology.
But THEY CAN’T!
Why?
That evil ideology REQUIRES them to be KILLED for apostacy in renouncing their faith.
Nice huh?
I remind myself I have not walked in your shoes as a military officer, however Major Gant has, he has lived among Muslims, eaten their salt, played with their kids and fought their insurgent enemies. Sir, what are your views on his experiences, beliefs, and suggestions? I believe he is brave, and insightful, am I wrong?
You are wrong. But not about MAJ Gant. This is an interesting attempt at a digression towards getting me to denigrate a Special Forces Officer. I will not take the bait. MAJ Gant is as brave and as patriotic as any American willing to put on a uniform and cross the pond to face our enemies. He is well intentioned and may have had luck on a LOCAL basis.
This is a GLOBAL threat. It’s an evil, racist, supremacist ideology that was promulgated by a 6th century mass-murdering gangster pedophile.
And it MUST BE STOPPED.
Mr Paine,
I admire your passion, and am grateful for your service to our country. I have the deepest respect for Major Gant, I think he has the best solution out there on this topic, which is why I asked your opinion. I would think less of anyone who denigrated him. I think he is a dynamic warrior, yet still a humble rational man who is destined for great things. Folks here enjoy healthy debate and learn from one another, if I have offended you in expressing my opinions, that was not my intent. At the same time hypersensitive abrasive rants are rarely convincing, and the realm of those consumed by fear, which seems a tough way to go through life...
....... At the same time hypersensitive abrasive rants are rarely convincing, and the realm of those consumed by fear, which seems a tough way to go through life...
Are you talking about TP's posts?
Just wondering.
Can you name one Muslim country that is moving to a more liberal (in the classic sense) stance? Or does it seem that all are slowly coming under the tighter and tighter grip of Islam?
It is not the people - it is the religion. Once it hits a critical % it drops it's "nice face" and takes over. There is no share and be nice in the Koran.
Old beliefs die hard even when demonstrably false.
- E.O. Wilson
McPrayer - one prayer for all appetites.
Richard :munchin
Peregrino
08-05-2010, 06:54
Historically the only times Muslim expansion has been slowed/temporarilly halted is when enough of them were killed that they had to regroup/rethink their strategy. Tours and Vienna come instantly to mind. That's why jihad has two faces - war for periods of strength, stealth for periods of weakness. (Weakness doesn't mean the same in "oriental" parleyance - it's actually more along the lines of "not prepared/positioned to fight".)
I will not go quietly into the dark.
The Reaper
08-05-2010, 07:20
Historically the only times Muslim expansion has been slowed/temporarilly halted is when enough of them were killed that they had to regroup/rethink their strategy. Tours and Vienna come instantly to mind. That's why jihad has two faces - war for periods of strength, stealth for periods of weakness. (Weakness doesn't mean the same in "oriental" parleyance - it's actually more along the lines of "not prepared/positioned to fight".)
I will not go quietly into the dark.
And Malta.
Yet as a people, we fail to understand the history behind the Crusades, and the Islamic invasions of Europe.
TR
At the same time hypersensitive abrasive rants are rarely convincing, and the realm of those consumed by fear, which seems a tough way to go through life...
By stating that Islam is a political religion that mandates violence and intolerance towards the “Kafir” - constitutes fear ? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make any sense.
Why slander those who have legitimate concerns about the implications and the consequences of the fascist teachings of Islam? Doing this merely prevents legitimate criticism and debate about an important global problem. It’s not fear, it’s legitimate criticism.
Is it not OK to point out that the Catholic church frowns upon birth control, or that communism and free enterprise are incompatible?
Since Islam itself is relentless about prohibiting any criticism of Islam, and the death penalty is imposed on Kafir for doing so, isn’t that one of the most appropriate things to abrasively rant and criticize Islam for ?
The longer the issue of this cancer is ignored, the larger the problem will be when someone finally has the balls to tackle it…appeasement isn’t working…
I have the deepest respect for Major Gant
I have the deepest respect for Major Gant as well, and for Major Stephen Coughlin too...
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf
Since everyone likes to through Major Gant's name around in this thread lets ask a question.
Nobody has ever said Muslims as a whole don't treat guests and visitors well.
Would Major Gant have been treated differently if he said "Guys, I just love this place. I'm getting out of the Army, coming back here and opening up a church"? Would his friends treat him the same? Would they protect him - or just stand by? Would the church do well?
I see it as just another operating system. I'm amazed at folks who believe they are privy to the true thoughts and intentions of men, woman, and children they don't know or of a particular faith they don't share. I don't think I can selectively interpret the true meaning of their scripture, or give them lectures on the evils of their faith, nor am I omnipotent enough to identify crocodile tears from condemnation of violent acts perpetuated in the name of their faith. You can argue talk is cheap, yes but that is a double edged sword. I don't imagine most Muslims like being told they are all terrorists anymore than Christians would appreciate being reminded men of your faith started WW2 and perpetuated the Holocaust.
Not so much an operating system as a part of an OS. And, since we are not omniscient, we cannot know their thoughts. Fortunately, we don't have to. At a conceptual level, we can replace the group with a black box.
What goes into the box? What comes out? Knowing exactly what the processes involved are may be nice, but is not necessary. When we apply this to Islamic societies, the answers suggest to me that they are a threat to us. Please notice that I refer not to individuals, but rather to the societies in aggregate, as well as the members. So long as their OS, particularly the Islamic component, remains the same, they will continue to be a threat. And, from their perspective, we will remain a threat to them.
Now, about WW2 and the Holocaust - those, too, represent an element of the OS. And they should be considered carefully - but, perhaps, not for the same reason you suggest. The Holocaust, in particular, has formed a background which has substantially modified Western thought, behavior, and policy - and, in many instances, those changes are counter to the West's best interests.
Because the West recoils from the Holocaust, it retreats, tail between its legs, when accused of racism. It refuses to press its values as true or correct, lest it be accused of intolerance. Whether in Europe or the US, we will not profile despite good reasons to do so. Thus, we see self-destructive absurdity piled upon self-destructive absurdity.
Collective aggression is an element of Islam. Collective guilt seems to be an element of the Western view. The interaction of these guarantees conflict as Islam expands and the West refuses to check that expansion. At some point, either Islam will win and the West we know will fall, or the West will conclude that tolerance can be overdone and will decide to resist. In my opinion, it is getting late in the day to choose resistance, so Islam just may win.
Recall the black box I mentioned? Look at the economy of Islamic states. Not very robust, are they? Their science doesn't seem to be cutting-edge, either. So if they win, we may have consigned the world to quite an unpleasant future.
MOO, YMMV,
Since everyone likes to through Major Gant's name around in this thread lets ask a question.
Nobody has ever said Muslims as a whole don't treat guests and visitors well.
Would Major Gant have been treated differently if he said "Guys, I just love this place. I'm getting out of the Army, coming back here and opening up a church"? Would his friends treat him the same? Would they protect him - or just stand by? Would the church do well?
Pete,
Ya hit the nail on the head with that question. It is one I have been asking for years and I get blank stares. At the end of the day, is your muslim friend (when forced to choose) still your friend or will he be your judge and killer if it is decreed?
I believe I know the answer to that question. I will admit that there might be a smattering of them that would stand their ground against that ideology and stand by their nonmuslim friends/family members but that would be like a needle in a haystack.
IMO
MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.
IMO, many of the broad references being made in this thread to Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust are historiographically sustainable only if one willfully ignores entirely the majority of research and debate over these topics that has occurred over the last forty or fifty years.
My $0.02.
1stindoor
08-05-2010, 10:44
MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.
What did we as a nation believe them capable of on September 10, 2001?
IMO, many of the broad references being made in this thread to Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust are historiographically sustainable only if one willfully ignores entirely the majority of research and debate over these topics that has occurred over the last forty or fifty years.
My $0.02.
IMO, not recognizing, and learning from, our own intel gaps in regards to Nazism and the rise of the third reich, will only cause us to repeat those same mistakes. Forty or Fifty years from now...what do you believe the research and debate will show regarding radical islamists.
I'll give you a hint...we choose to ignore the first attempt on the WTC, we choose to ignore the attack on the Cole, and we choose to forget attacks on Marines.
The Reaper
08-05-2010, 11:01
AMEMB, Tehran?
Beirut Barracks?
WTC 1?
Khobar Towers?
USS Cole?
9/11?
Is there a pattern here?
We intervened to protect Muslims from Christian (Bosnia) and Islamic (Iranian) aggression/oppression, and liberated Afghanistan from the Taliban. What did we get for it?
TR
MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.
My $0.02.
Intentions + capabilities = problem. True.
Intentions + demographics = bigger problem. (IMO)
Consider the population characteristics and growth of predominantly Islamic nations, factor in their intentions, then compare the demographics of Western nations.
Demographics is destiny.
Are you talking about TP's posts?
Just wondering.
Sir,
Yes, my fear comment was directed toward Mr. Paine and only him. For the simple reason, while folks here often disagree on issues, debate is thought out and respectful. I freely admit I have learned from both you and T-Rock, and will go read up on Major Coughlin as per his suggestion.
Specifically, I question the efficacy of citing pagan moon god references, claiming I read Islamic text, thus I have the answer, and emotionally telling another man to STFU for disagreeing with you. Given the depth and intellectual firepower of this forum there are better ways to make one's point.
I don't know the answer to your question about Major Gant. I do know it took guts for him to write that paper, and he is one of the few people articulating a solution on a topic we are all concerned with.
What did we as a nation believe them capable of on September 10, 2001?FWIW, in the spring of 1999, after India test fired an Agni II, my forecast was that a coalition of states (what Bush the Elder latter labeled "the axis of evil") was going to drag the planet into a global war after Pakistan and India nuked each other. In this scenario, Iraq would use WMDs against Israel and the United States, someone was going to detonate something in Eastern Europe, and the DPRK was going to attack ROK.
From the stares I received from a classroom of undergraduates, I got the sense that people didn't really care what I thought. (How little things have changed.:()IMO, not recognizing, and learning from, our own intel gaps in regards to Nazism and the rise of the third reich, will only cause us to repeat those same mistakes.During the Cold War there was a running debate among diplomatic historians that America's responses to international events after 1945 were too narrowly focused on the 'lessons' of the Second World War. (In general, the ups and downs of 'summitry' , in particular the conferences held in Munich, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam.) Similarly, American military historians frequently pointed out that the United States seemed intent on refighting its last war, that the general public placed too much emphasis on World War II as 'the Good War,' paid too little attention to the Eastern front, romanticized the military effectiveness of Nazi Germany, and under appreciated the military effectiveness of the United States.
Forty or Fifty years from now...what do you believe the research and debate will show regarding radical islamists.I have no idea.
One hot spring day in the early 1990s, Robert Divine, while going over page after page of a bibliography/reading list on the history of American foreign relations, pointed out how the Spanish Civil War, once the most contentious topic of political and historical debate among Americans, had since faded into obscurity in the United States.
His graduate students looked up from their furious note taking, confused frowns on their faces. He did not specifically mention Chevy Chase's running joke on Saturday Night Live, but that's what came to at least one student's mind. The moment of levity quickly vanished as the stress of understanding his comments (is he saying we do or do not have to read this particular book) was compounded by the thought that what is vitally important today may not be tomorrow.I'll give you a hint...we choose to ignore the first attempt on the WTC, we choose to ignore the attack on the [I]Cole, and we choose to forget attacks on Marines.Of late, I wonder when was this choice made? After these attacks occurred? Or was the choice made when the American people picked Ronald W. Reagan over James E. Carter, Jr.? (The greatest 'failure' of his presidency was Carter's inability to make a convincing case for his vision of American power. If one plows through his public remarks dating back to the 1976 presidential campaign, one can find ample evidence that he envisioned the geostrategic environment that America faces today.)
GratefulCitizen
08-05-2010, 13:54
Or was the choice made when the American people picked Ronald W. Reagan over James E. Carter, Jr.? (The greatest 'failure' of his presidency was Carter's inability to make a convincing case for his vision of American power. If one plows through his public remarks dating back to the 1976 presidential campaign, one can find ample evidence that he envisioned the geostrategic environment that America faces today.)
Lots of words by lots of politicians.
On April 15, 1986, 300 bombs and 48 missles spoke loudly.
Didn't have too many problems from gaddafi thereafter.
Some people don't understand anything but force.
Lots of words by lots of politicians.For better and for worse, American strategy is formed largely in the arena of political culture. Does dismissing this influence help or hinder one's ability to understand and to influence American strategy?
On April 15, 1986, 300 bombs and 48 missles spoke loudly.
Didn't have too many problems from gaddafi thereafter.
Some people don't understand anything but force.IMO, your assessment of Operation ELDORADO CANYON over looks both the operation's diplomatic and political contexts* as well as the destruction of Pan American flight 103 in 1988.
__________________________________________________ ________
* Edward Schumacher, "The United States and Libya," Foreign Affairs 65:2 (winter 1986/86); Robert Oakley, "International Terrorism," Foreign Affairs 65:3 (special issue, 1986); Mark E. Kosnik, "The Military Response to Terrorism," Naval War College Review (spring 2000): 13-39.
On 9/12 one had a one-time opportunity for all Americans to come together. All did. Except the Muslims. Did you see them marching in the streets in protest of the attack on our country? No. They just stayed home. We could have stood there, arm in arm as fellow countryment. But no.
I don't trust them because of their religion. I don't trust them because they never cried with us. They celebrated. A man cannot serve two masters. He will love the one and dispise the other. That's a quote, Richard.
They have not joined the right side so they must be on the wrong side.
I suppose people such as this soldier don't count in your view?
How old were you on 9/11?
Cause I saw mobs of them celebrating in the streets, worldwide.
TR
True.
And others held candlelight vigils for those that were killed.
http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/vigil/
I suppose people such as this soldier don't count in your view?
Nidal Malik Hasan was an American Soldier who was also a Muslim.
Going tit-for-tat is a useless game.
Nidal Malik Hasan was an American Soldier who was also a Muslim.
Going tit-for-tat is a useless game.
I agree that it is useless. It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.
Judging people as individuals, based on their specific actions, seems like it would be much more helpful.
If we accept the notion that we can judge the many by their silence over the actions of the few, are we willing to accept similar judgments passed on us?
I agree that it is useless. It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.
Judging people as individuals, based on their specific actions, seems like it would be much more helpful.
Individual people with a collective religion that does not allow them to be individuals - religion related.
Judging people as individuals, based on their specific actions, seems like it would be much more helpful.
In a world with complete and accurate information, perhaps. In one with incomplete, contradictory, and ambiguous information, the approach remains an unavailable ideal.
If I can say that 90% of a hypothetical group are a problem, then 10% are not a problem, then we are faced with the problem of how to filter out the different subgroups. As matters stand, we are unable to do this.
Keep in mind that even in a courtroom environment, some innocent people are convicted, and some guilty ones escape justice. It seems impractical to pursue even that level of accuracy.
So...MOO, YMMV...we either fight and accept that some innocents will be inconvenienced, hurt, and killed, or we embrace defeat. I suspect defeat will be remarkably uncomfortable. Therefore my conclusion is clear.
I disagree, this war must be fought with the mindset of MMD, It must be fought with the idea of slaughtering millions and millions of muslims until they realize they can not win. Fighting any other way is to fight a war of attrition. That fight is their strength, due to people, like Bloomberg, who believe that common sense will rule the day and muslims will adapt a social system which contradicts every belief and the very essence of their cultural traditions that make them muslims. Its foolish and dangerous.
Kill them wholesale, without mercy, without remorse.
Lots of words by lots of politicians.
On April 15, 1986, 300 bombs and 48 missles spoke loudly.
Didn't have too many problems from gaddafi thereafter.
Some people don't understand anything but force.
And such reigns the power of myth.
I was the FAO-DET CDR in the DAO at the AmEmb-Bonn in 1990-1991. The 'de facto' US Ambassador to Libya (who was not a career diplomat but an SES-level careerist from another department as we did not 'officially' recognize Libya diplomatically) was a close friend and an extremely busy man who spent much time in Switzerland and Malta in the performance of his duties.
Gadhaffi was fairly quiet publicly - but he held no real power and those wielding power under the political structure which actually controlled Libya was, to our dismay, a very actively engaged and disruptive force in North African and Mediterranean political matters.
"America, hell yeah!" felt better - our staunchest allies became leery and distrustful of our 'cowboy' diplomacy mentality - and our true enemies grew even more determined as they went further underground and became ever more difficult to identify, locate, and keep at bay.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I disagree, this war must be fought with the mindset of MMD, It must be fought with the idea of slaughtering millions and millions of muslims until they realize they can not win. Fighting any other way is to fight a war of attrition. That fight is their strength, due to people, like Bloomberg, who believe that common sense will rule the day and muslims will adapt a social system which contradicts every belief and the very essence of their cultural traditions that make them muslims. Its foolish and dangerous.
Kill them wholesale, without mercy, without remorse.
People often refer to Islam as an Islamo-facist ideology on this board. It's ironic that it is you that sounds like Hitler, though. :munchin
People often refer to Islam as an Islamo-facist ideology on this board. It's ironic that it is you that sounds like Hitler, though. :munchin
Godwin's law. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :cool:
No - not like Hitler at all. Kill them until they realize they cannot win is qualitatively different that kill them all because they are untermensch.
If we accept the notion that we can judge the many by their silence over the actions of the few, are we willing to accept similar judgments passed on us?
Perhaps you're just not paying attention?
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism
Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians:
“The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15).”
MSANews, September 14, 2001, http://msanews.mynet.net/MSANEWS/200109/20010917.15.html;
Arabic original in al-Quds al-Arabi (London), September 14, 2001, p. 2, http://www.alquds.co.uk:9090/pdf/2001/09Sep/14%20Sep%20Fri/Quds02.pdf
Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani, U.S.:
“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents, and those who permit the killing of non-combatants without a justifiable reason. Islam has declared the spilling of blood and the destruction of property as absolute prohibitions until the Day of Judgment. ... [It is] necessary to apprehend the true perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those who aid and abet them through incitement, financing or other support. They must be brought to justice in an impartial court of law and [punished] appropriately. ... [It is] a duty of Muslims to participate in this effort with all possible means.”
Statement of September 27, 2001. The Washington Post, October 11, 2001, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40545-2001Oct10.html
Full text of this fatwa in English and Arabic.
Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt:
“Attacking innocent people is not courageous, it is stupid and will be punished on the day of judgement. ... It’s not courageous to attack innocent children, women and civilians. It is courageous to protect freedom, it is courageous to defend oneself and not to attack.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001
Abdel-Mo'tei Bayyoumi, al-Azhar Islamic Research Academy, Cairo, Egypt:
“There is no terrorism or a threat to civilians in jihad [religious struggle].”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 20 - 26 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/552/p4fall3.htm
Muslim Brotherhood, an opposition Islamist group in Egypt, said it was “horrified” by the attack and expressed “condolences and sadness”:
“[We] strongly condemn such activities that are against all humanist and Islamic morals. ... [We] condemn and oppose all aggression on human life, freedom and dignity anywhere in the world.”
Al-Ahram Weekly Online, 13 - 19 September 2001, http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/551/fo2.htm
Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, spiritual guide of Shi‘i Muslim radicals in Lebanon, said he was “horrified” by these “barbaric ... crimes”:
“Beside the fact that they are forbidden by Islam, these acts do not serve those who carried them out but their victims, who will reap the sympathy of the whole world. ... Islamists who live according to the human values of Islam could not commit such crimes.”
Agence France Presse, September 14, 2001
‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
“Firstly: the recent developments in the United States including hijacking planes, terrorizing innocent people and shedding blood, constitute a form of injustice that cannot be tolerated by Islam, which views them as gross crimes and sinful acts. Secondly: any Muslim who is aware of the teachings of his religion and who adheres to the directives of the Holy Qur'an and the sunnah (the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) will never involve himself in such acts, because they will invoke the anger of God Almighty and lead to harm and corruption on earth.”
Statement of September 15, 2001, http://saudiembassy.net/press_release/01-spa/09-15-Islam.htm
‘Abdulaziz bin ‘Abdallah Al-Ashaykh, chief mufti of Saudi Arabia:
"You must know Islam’s firm position against all these terrible crimes. The world must know that Islam is a religion of peace and mercy and goodness; it is a religion of justice and guidance…Islam has forbidden violence in all its forms. It forbids the hijacking airplanes, ships and other means of transport, and it forbids all acts that undermine the security of the innocent."
Hajj sermon of February 2, 2004, in "Public Statements by Senior Saudi Officials Condemning Extremism and Promoting Moderation," May 2004, http://www.saudiembassy.net/ReportLink/Report_Extremism_May04.pdf, page 10
ETC, ETC, ETC.
you are confusing genocide with with total war. There is a difference, and since you are fishing, I'll jump in your boat, where do you sympathies reside, in detail please.
People often refer to Islam as an Islamo-facist ideology on this board. It's ironic that it is you that sounds like Hitler, though.
Godwin's law. LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) :cool:
No - not like Hitler at all. Kill them until they realize they cannot win is qualitatively different that kill them all because they are untermensch.
As someone else said elsewhere more eloquently than I ever could...
"I'm sorry, but call me out with Godwins law all you want, but when I see thread after thread filled with this such vitreole about a minority religious group, complete with commments about them being enemies of the state, not real Americans, etc. I will call it as I see it. The parallels in the rhetoric are downright spooky."
you are confusing genocide with with total war. There is a difference, and since you are fishing, I'll jump in your boat, where do you sympathies reside, in detail please.
My sympathies? LOL.
I'm advocating that we define who the enemy truly is, and engage in target discrimination. To kill only those that have hostile intent, and not slaughther innocent people wholesale, and that makes me an enemy sympathizer? :rolleyes:
Please reference the quote you use in your reply.
My sympathies? LOL.
I'm advocating that we define who the enemy truly is, and engage in target discrimination. To kill only those that have hostile intent, and not slaughther innocent people wholesale, and that makes me an enemy sympathizer? :rolleyes:
No one is calling you an enemy sympathizer.
I am asking you a direct question so that I may address you properly.
Please reference the quote you use in your reply.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1065901&page=3
Perhaps you're just not paying attention?Perhaps if you had read my post (as well as my previous posts on this topic) you'd realize that:
(a) you and I are in agreement, and
(b) the question I was posing was hypothetical and constructed to parallel the view point offered by other members of this BB.
The discussion over the nature of Islam arcs back years, across many forms and threads on this BB. People often refer to Islam as an Islamo-facist ideology on this board. It's ironic that it is you that sounds like Hitler, though. :munchinAlso, you comparing Chef Penn to Hitler is, IMO, inappropriate for three reasons. First, if you were to take the time to read his posts as written you would find him a man worthy of your respect. Second, the vision of war he presents is quintessentially American. Third, the theory of land warfare that Penn references differs from the Nazi theory of land warfare in that his offers the opportunity for conflict resolution short of utter annihilation.
GratefulCitizen
08-05-2010, 16:59
And such reigns the power of myth.
I was the FAO-DET CDR in the DAO at the AmEmb-Bonn in 1990-1991. The 'de facto' US Ambassador to Libya (who was not a career diplomat but an SES-level careerist from another department as we did not 'officially' recognize Libya diplomatically) was a close friend and an extremely busy man who spent much time in Switzerland and Malta in the performance of his duties.
Gadhaffi was fairly quiet publicly - but he held no real power and those wielding power under the political structure which actually controlled Libya was, to our dismay, a very actively engaged and disruptive force in North African and Mediterranean political matters.
"America, hell yeah!" felt better - our staunchest allies became leery and distrustful of our 'cowboy' diplomacy mentality - and our true enemies grew even more determined as they went further underground and became ever more difficult to identify, locate, and keep at bay.
And so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Well I'm obviously at an informational disadvantage in this, and my primary tool of influence over foreign policy is rendered once every 4 years.
Considering the orginal context of my comment to Sigaba, and to help make better educated choices at the ballot box:
-In your professional opinion, how would you compare the effectiveness of foreign policy with regard to threats when Carter, Reagan, and Clinton are put next to each other?
-Would the effectiveness of the current administration be cause for recommending replacement?
MK262, make no mistake the previous post have fully expose where you loyalties lie, but you should rethink your argument, its hallow.
MK262, make no mistake the previous post have fully expose where you loyalties lie, but you should rethink your argument, its hallow.
Hallow how? Details please.
as for the ar site I have never been on it so the reference means nothing to me. BUT, if you are referencing moo of the musox downtown thats a different story. I am completely against the victory center being constructed down town.
Though I do understand that all the union construction crews will be using tolite paper with the quran printed on it. Should prove interesting, don't you think?
your argument s built around post # 85, Quotes from muslims whose ideology tells them to deceive non believers. Therefore, anything you post to a kafir like me, is discounted as untrue. So, in order to make your argument, you must address it from a point of departure which is true.
by the way, go back and correct you disrespectful post #91.
as for the ar site I have never been on it so the reference means nothing to me. BUT, if you are referencing moo of the musox downtown thats a different story. I am completely against the victory center being constructed down town.
Though I do understand that all the union construction crews will be using tolite paper with the quran printed on it. Should prove interesting, don't you think?
LOL. If people want to waste their money buying Korans to use as expensive toliet paper, that is their choice. It's a free country.
Same as it would be for some Satanist to buy a stack of bibles to take a shit on.
I'm personally an agnostic. I couldn't careless.
As for the Mosque, I don't have a problem with it. The Mosque that is to be built is 3 blocks away from ground zero. It isn't as if they are going to build it on the WTC site itself. They will be building on top of what is currently the old Burlington Coat Factory.
Your profile state you were an LEO, where was that and how long were you on the job?
Your profile state you were an LEO, where was that and how long were you on the job?
PERSEC.
this is not:how long were you on the job
this is not:how long were you on the job
With all due respect, how is that relevant in the context of our discussion?
Base on this post, I have serious reservation that you were ever an LEO
1) Saddam was never religious.... he only showed himself to be a muslim when it was politically necessary or convenient. Had he been interested in 72 virgins he wouldn't have been found hold up in a damn spider hole for god knows how long.
2) You totally disregarded the article I posted from the Army War College that specifically negates your views on 12er Shiism and Iran's supposed messianism. I suppose you're inclined to disagree, knowing your view of Islam and how you lump all muslims together in their outlook and thinking; I believe this view to be incorrect.
My instinct is we are natural enemies, you spend your time mining information for your cause, and thats OK. At some point if you are truly committed you'll cowboy up and be a responsible member here and respectfully support your position, not as the agnostic you wish to present, but as the believer you are, my call may be off, but not my gut.
Base on this post, I have serious reservation that you were ever an LEO
My instinct is we are natural enemies, you spend your time mining information for your cause, and thats OK. At some point if you are truly committed you'll cowboy up and be a responsible member here and respectfully support your position, not as the agnostic you wish to present, but as the believer you are, my call may be off, but not my gut.
LMAO.
I was indeed an LEO.
Long enough to put 3 strikers away for life and to ruin many a gangbanger's day.
From PM's I have received during this conversation, I've been informed that you suffered a tremendous loss on 9/11.
I'm sorry for that. I really am. You have my sympathies.
And it explains much of the hate and the anger. But the fact that I do not agree with you, does not make me your enemy. It just means my heart isn't filled with the hate that is in yours.
I have read all your post, from your expressed sympathies for KIA's, to defensive sensibilities, and the epressed understanding of the islam, in a phrase, aggressively sensitive, with purpose. I like that to watch a road being constructed.
I am not, muslim ideology is the exact opposite of my entire belief system.
This is the second time you have been intentional disrespectful. Correct it.
I have read all your post, from your expressed sympathies for KIA's, to defensive sensibilities, and the epressed understanding of the islam, in a phrase, aggressively sensitive, with purpose. I like that to watch a road being constructed.
I am not, muslim ideology is the exact opposite of my entire belief system.
I sent you an IM. I hope that clears some of this up.
It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.
What religious ideology inspires those we are fighting? Who said anyone was judging 1.2 billion individuals on their personal merits? Islamic ideology is very straightforward. Islamic ideology, if practiced to perfection by its founder calls for violence and intolerance towards the “Kafir” in an unrelenting effort to make the “Kafir” submit to its ideology - Sharia Law. Is this constitutional?
Do you think a large portion of that 1.2 billion would choose to live their lives in the ME without the constant domination of Islam if they had the option?
The problem is not with Muslims, IMO, the problem is with Islamic ideology and those who adopt it, that demands the earthly oppression and submission of the “Kafir”…
The problem is not with Muslims, IMO, the problem is with Islamic ideology and those who adopt it, that demands the earthly oppression and submission of the “Kafir”…
But the problem remains - how to differentiate between "Muslims" and "Islamic ideology and those who adopt it"?
Resolving the problems seems to depend on changing the ideology. But that seems to imply coercive power...which is just a fancy way of saying things others have said more clearly. ;)
The Reaper
08-05-2010, 19:22
I agree that it is useless. It's just as useless as saying 1.2 billion people should be judged as a whole due to the actions of those who we are actually fighting.
Judging people as individuals, based on their specific actions, seems like it would be much more helpful.
Did the Japanese and German citizens that we blasted and burned to death deserve to die because of the actions of their leaders?
Was the decision to nuke the largely civilian target cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified, in the context of the time and not knowing if it would force the Japanese government to surrender or not?
If it would drive them to peace with the rest of the world, how many Muslim deaths would be acceptable? How many American deaths would it take for you to believe that those harsh measures might need to be taken?
I would also say that serving in theater and losing friends there might change your perspectives.
On another note, please keep your replies here civil, you are a guest in our house.
TR
Did the Japanese and German citizens that we blasted and burned to death deserve to die because of the actions of their leaders?
Was the decision to nuke the largely civilian target cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified, in the context of the time and not knowing if it would force the Japanese government to surrender or not?
If it would drive them to peace with the rest of the world, how many Muslim deaths would be acceptable? How many American deaths would it take for you to believe that those harsh measures might need to be taken?
I would also say that serving in theater and losing friends there might change your perspectives.
On another note, please keep your replies here civil, you are a guest in our house.
TR
First, who are the leaders of Islam who are to make this grand surrender? Is there a Caliphate I don't know about that will abdicate surrender? I don't think there is going to be any signing of terms on a Carrier like in WWII.
Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.
To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.
It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics. You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.
As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.
First, who are the leaders of Islam who are to make this grand surrender? Is there a Caliphate I don't know about that will abdicate surrender? I don't think there is going to be any signing of terms on a Carrier like in WWII.
Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.
To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.
It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics. You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.
As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.First, the Missouri was a battleship, not a carrier <<LINK (http://0.tqn.com/d/americanhistory/1/0/F/A/uss_missouri.jpg)>>.
Second, the statement that "the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time" needs clarification if it is going to support your point of view. At present, you're hinting at a counter factual argument that belies the history of combat operations in Europe and the Pacific and also discounts the fact that technology was but one of several factors that shaped tactics. (FWIW, I'd place civil-military relations, logistics, and grand strategy before technology but that's just my two cents.)
Third, I think you're confusing the amoral use of war as a means to an end for the immoral use of violence for its own sake.
Fourth, saying that the killing of civilians is "untenable in modern warfare" turns the definition of modern warfare on its head and flies in the face of global history.
First, the Missouri was a battleship, not a carrier <<LINK (http://0.tqn.com/d/americanhistory/1/0/F/A/uss_missouri.jpg)>>.
Thanks for the correction. :)
Second, the statement that "the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time" needs clarification if it is going to support your point of view. At present, you're hinting at a counter factual argument that belies the history of combat operations in Europe and the Pacific and discounts the fact that technology was but one of several factors that shaped tactics.
True... there were other driving factors at the time as well. But as it applies in today's context, we have the military power and technological means to make any such past justification irrelevant (I would argue).
Third, I think you're confusing the amoral use of war as a means to an end for the immoral use of violence for its own sake.
No... I'm not.
The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
Fourth, saying that the killing of civilians is "untenable in modern warfare" turns the definition of modern warfare on its head and flies in the face of global history.
Allow me to clarify. The indiscriminate killing of civilians to force some sort of capitulation is untenable in modern warfare. This is what Penn and TR were advocating.
Peregrino
08-05-2010, 20:41
Secondly, the tactics we employed in WWII were due to the limited technology of the time. As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.
Your "immoral and untenable" comment bespeaks a complete lack of understanding about armed conflict/war. The ONLY immoral act in total war is losing when you have the ability to win. Though I might make allowance for including the stupidity of attempting to wage "humane" war. The sooner the enemy population can be forced to capitulate, the sooner the war is over and the fewer the atrocities/suffering of the affected populations. The world has not had a general or total war since WWII. The Soldiers I know all lose sleep praying the next one doesn't happen in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, indications are as soon as Achmed IMANUTJOB gets his nukes (or the ISI sells him some) we'll see if Einstein was right about WWIV.
Interesting irony from someone advocating restraint that your screen name is the military designation for a cartridge adopted to make the 5.56 round a more effective "hadji killer".
Your "immoral and untenable" comment bespeaks a complete lack of understanding about armed conflict/war. The ONLY immoral act in total war is losing when you have the ability to win. Though I might make allowance for including the stupidity of attempting to wage "humane" war. The world has not had a general or total war since WWII. The Soldiers I know all lose sleep praying the next one doesn't happen in the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, indications are as soon as Achmed IMANUTJOB gets his nukes (or the ISI sells him some) we'll see if Einstein was right about WWIV.
Interesting irony from someone advocating restraint that your screen name is the military designation for a cartridge adopted to make the 5.56 round a more effective "hadji killer".
I'm aware of what my screen name means. I'm glad the round is available to our troops and I hope it helps them put more effective rounds on target.
As for your advocacy of Total War.... I'm no Col. Kurtz... I'll leave that to others.
The Reaper
08-05-2010, 20:51
As someone who hasn't been in the military, but who has studied both International Law, the Laws of Armed Warfare, and the concept of Just War Theory, what you are arguing for is immoral and untenable in modern warfare.
Where did I argue for that? I asked you a couple of questions that you have refused to answer.
Let me ask you again.
1. Were the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo justifiable?
2. Were the two nuclear weapons employed against Japan reasonable?
3. Were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable targets?
4. In the event of an Islamic WMD deployment killing a large number of American citizens, would Mecca or Medina be an acceptable target? How about a lesser Islamic shrine?
5. Are you familiar with reprisals, as permitted by the laws of land warfare?
Finally, when did the era of modern warfare begin, as you define it?
To ask servicemen to kill indiscriminately, until some ultimate Islamic authority emerges from the shadows to give some symbolic gesture of surrender, is ridiculous.
That is your construct. Where did I suggest that?
It is even more ridiculous to ask how many dead I would accept before adopting such tactics.
I asked if there was number of American dead that could ever justify that level of response again. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? 100,000,000? Surely with all of your studies, you must have a general idea of how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice before striking back. You are the POTUS and CINC. Do you just avoid taking action and accept the losses? What if the casulaties destroy America, or make it open to invasion? What if your family was among the casualties. Does that make any difference?
You're asking me what it would take for me to become a killer of innocent men, women and children.
Did I? Where?
Hypotheticals here.
You are in a convoy of three vehicles. The lead and trail vehicles are destroyed by command detonated IEDs. Your buddies are trapped inside,screaming as they are burned alive. You are close and know their families. Your remaining crewmates move quickly and you catch the trigger man still holding the detonator, but otherwise unarmed. What do you do?
Your team is receiving small arms and RPG fire from a family dwelling. You know that there are women and children there. In fact, the insurgents have deliberately selected that structure to avoid artillery and air attacks. Ground reinforcements are hours away. You lose several teammates to the fire, run low on ammo, and are at risk of being wiped out. A B-1 is on station and has acquired the target. Do you clear him to deliver the ordnance on the house?
As for the civil discussion... understood. I will keep my comments within bounds. I would hope you could understand though, that when someone questions both your loyalty, your word, and your love of country, they are being insulting as well.
Where did I do that to you?
TR
Where did I argue for that? I asked you a couple of questions that you have refused to answer.
Let me ask you again.
1. Were the firebombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo justifiable?
At the time, sure. It's not like precision strikes were available back then.
2. Were the two nuclear weapons employed against Japan reasonable?
We didn't have the overwhelming advantage in military power in WWII that we have now, so sure. Many many hundreds of thousands of US troops would have died had we had to invade. Now that we do have such conventional military superiority, it would not be reasonable to "nuke them til they glow".
3. Were the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki acceptable targets?
Yes. See above.
4. In the event of an Islamic WMD deployment killing a large number of American citizens, would Mecca or Medina be an acceptable target? How about a lesser Islamic shrine?
No. It would serve no military or strategic utility. Furthermore, it's likely that non-state actors would be responsible; under such circumstances, how you would nuke a definitive country as retaliation for the actions of a non-state organization? It would be beyond any logical reasoning I could see, unless that state has helped facilitate the attack in some way.
5. Are you familiar with reprisals, as permitted by the laws of land warfare?
Yes. Of strategic and military value. Decapitation of leadership, destruction of critical infrastructure, military targets, etc. The concept of Proportionality comes into play with such strikes.
This does not include holy places or civilian populations centers by and large. Only in a M.A.D. scenario are civilian population centers and civilian targets brought into the picture.
Finally, when did the era of modern warfare begin, as you define it?
I would say during the Cold War.
That is your construct. Where did I suggest that?
When you advocated for Total War as was done in WWII. You don't think fire bombing of population centers was indiscriminate killing of men, women and children?
I asked if there was number of American dead that could ever justify that level of response again. 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? 10,000,000? 100,000,000? Surely with all of your studies, you must have a general idea of how many Americans you are willing to sacrifice before striking back. You are the POTUS and CINC. Do you just avoid taking action and accept the losses? What if the casulaties destroy America, or make it open to invasion? What if your family was among the casualties. Does that make any difference?
Do you see terrorists as having the capability to even make such a scenario likely?
Say they got hold of a Soviet era Bio Warfare strain of virulent airborne virus that could kill 100,000,000 Americans. And say they made it here with it and released it. Who do you retaliate against? Islamic countries? Russia? Who would you target and who would you retaliate against? See the difficulty in such a scenario?
Did I? Where?
I assumed that's what you were getting at when you were defending WWII fire bombing and implying that such tactics might be applicable to situations today.
Hypotheticals here.
You are in a convoy of three vehicles. The lead and trail vehicles are destroyed by command detonated IEDs. Your buddies are trapped inside,screaming as they are burned alive. You are close and know their families. Your remaining crewmates move quickly and you catch the trigger man still holding the detonator, but otherwise unarmed. What do you do?
He's still holding a detonator. How do I know he doesn't have yet another IED he's trying to set off. Smoke him!
Your team is receiving small arms and RPG fire from a family dwelling. You know that there are women and children there. In fact, the insurgents have deliberately selected that structure to avoid artillery and air attacks. Ground reinforcements are hours away. You lose several teammates to the fire, run low on ammo, and are at risk of being wiped out. A B-1 is on station and has acquired the target. Do you clear him to deliver the ordnance on the house?
In that scenario, you are left with no other option. I see what you are trying to do, but the matter of fact is, we do have other options in persecuting this war other than killing civilians wholesale. That is why the war is being fought as it is today. Civilians are killed in war, but we do everything we can to prevent civilian deaths, and that is the way it should be. I am no pacifist. I believe there are plenty of people out there that need killing. I believe that WAR SUCKS and that people, both good and bad will die. It's unavoidable. However, we should do everything possible to make collateral damage as minimal as we can. It's the moral and ethical responsibility we have when conducting war.
Where did I do that to you?
Not you, I was speaking of Penn. He was insulting toward me, and I was disrespectful in response.
TR
Done
craigepo
08-05-2010, 21:29
The Just War theory is an authoritative Catholic Church teaching confirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops in their pastoral letter, The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and Our Response, issued in 1983. More recently, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 2309, lists four strict conditions for "legitimate defense by military force":
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War
Pursuant to the Catholic Church's above-mentioned 4-part test, I doubt even the American civil war would have been fought. Surely, taking life as necessary in waging war is a greater evil than slavery. (Not to mention Christ's dictate to slaves to remain slaves).
MK262--
IMO, it is interesting that your tone is so markedly different when you write about the killing of civilians during the Second World War compared to your objections to inflicting civilian casualties today. By my reading, the crux of your argument is that it was okay to vaporize Japanese nationals and to incinerate Germans during the 1940s because of 'technological' limitations. As an example, you state:Seeing as we didn't have the overwhelming advantage in military power at that time that we do now, sure. Many many hundreds of thousands of US troops would have died had we had to invade. Now that we do have such conventional military superiority, it would not be reasonable to "nuke them til they glow".However, by 1945, the United States had the most powerful navy in human history while the Soviet Union had the world's greatest army. Are you suggesting that there was no application of the two that might have served as a viable alternative to using nuclear weapons?
My point here is that then, as today, it was people, not machines, who made choices. If you're going to apply moral judgments now, why not also do so for historical figures?
Two other points. First, I think you are in error in your discussion of "MAD".Only in a M.A.D. scenario are civilian population centers and civilian targets brought into the picture.IMO, this statement is debatable. It suggests that counter-force and counter value targets are mutually exclusive categories. What about the Alameda NAS? Do you think anyone in the navy believed the Soviets were not willing to vaporize Oakland in the hope of catching VP-9 off guard? As for the Soviets, given that they designated Moscow as one of the two areas defended by anti-ballistic missiles under SALT I, it clear they understood that a counter-force target (i.e. the Kremlin) could also be a counter value target.
Second, your dating the start of "modern warfare" to "during the Cold War" stretches the "modern war" debate among military historians beyond recognition. Consequently, I must ask: In your view, what is "modern" war?
MK262--
IMO, it is interesting that your tone is so markedly different when you write about the killing of civilians during the Second World War compared to your objections to inflicting civilian casualties today. By my reading, the crux of your argument is that it was okay to vaporize Japanese nationals and to incinerate Germans during the 1940s because of 'technological' limitations. As an example, you state:However, by 1945, the United States had the most powerful navy in human history while the Soviet Union had the world's greatest army. Are you suggesting that there was no application of the two that might have served as a viable alternative to using nuclear weapons?
Not that I could see. Can you suggest some alternatives with the technological limitations that existed at the time? Perhaps, set up a Navy blockade and siege of the cities and starve them into surrender? Not sure that would have been effective or doable at the time.
My point here is that then, as today, it was people, not machines, who made choices. If you're going to apply moral judgments now, why not also do so for historical figures?
I give historical figures more of a pass because they had less alternatives at their disposal.
Furthermore, I put more blame on the Germans and Japanese because they had a formal leadership that was responsible for their actions and for ensuring the safety of their people. No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole; to make the whole Islamic world responsible for the actions of a few seems totally unjust under such circumstances. The national command authorities of Germany and Japan had the will and legitimacy (well, in theory) to act on behalf of their people. Al-Queda and like groups can act on the behalf of no one but themselves.
Two other points. First, I think you are in error in your discussion of "MAD".IMO, this statement is debatable. It suggests that counter-force and counter value targets are mutually exclusive categories. What about the Alameda NAS? Do you think anyone in the navy believed the Soviets were not willing to vaporize Oakland in the hope of catching VP-9 off guard? As for the Soviets, given that they designated Moscow as one of the two areas defended by anti-ballistic missiles under SALT I, it clear they understood that a counter-force target (i.e. the Kremlin) could also be a counter value target.
Can you name such a target in the Muslim world that serves both as a counter-force and counter value target? If not, your point is somewhat moot in our context, at least in my opinion.
Second, your dating the start of "modern warfare" to "during the Cold War" stretches the "modern war" debate among military historians beyond recognition. Consequently, I must ask: In your view, what is "modern" war?
I had written out an answer to this part but my web session timed out. I lost it and will have to type it up again later. :(
Response
"No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole;..."
IMO, this is somewhat disingenuous - Leadership starts with liquid gold...,and the region where Islam was first revealed...
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=HXz0B_j9eHI
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpCOaJuBx4
Thomas Paine
08-06-2010, 01:16
MOO, it is a mistake of monumental proportions to assess the threat of radical Islam primarily upon perceived intentions. Capabilities matter.
IMO, many of the broad references being made in this thread to Nazism, the Second World War, and the Holocaust are historiographically sustainable only if one willfully ignores entirely the majority of research and debate over these topics that has occurred over the last forty or fifty years.
My $0.02.
It is a historiographically sustainable FACT that the Koran is more anti-semitic than Hitler's Mein Kampf.
http://www.cspipublishing.com
Thomas Paine
08-06-2010, 01:33
LMAO.
I was indeed an LEO.
Long enough to put 3 strikers away for life and to ruin many a gangbanger's day.
From PM's I have received during this conversation, I've been informed that you suffered a tremendous loss on 9/11.
I'm sorry for that. I really am. You have my sympathies.
And it explains much of the hate and the anger. But the fact that I do not agree with you, does not make me your enemy. It just means my heart isn't filled with the hate that is in yours.
Who are you to judge a man's heart? Knock it off. You seem like a Troll of late.
As for my posts, I am unapologetic if I offended you or anyone else by calling a supremacist ideology founded by a pedophile just that. My namesake was a polemicist when necessary to help call this colony to action in order to defend her against an oppressive threat. And if that's what it takes to wake Americans up - to alert them to the threat, so be it.
Paul Revere warned "THE BRITISH ARE COMING!"
Let it never be said that I didn't warn that "SHARIA IS COMING!"
it explains much of the hate and the anger. But the fact that I do not agree with you, does not make me your enemy. It just means my heart isn't filled with the hate that is in yours.
This is what I don't get..., someone who accuses the "Kafir" of hatred in his heart, yet fails to recognize that Islamic ideology is full of hate, and under Sharia, it is a system of legally-mandated hatred. How can someone who objects to a supremacist ideology of hate be considered a hater by pointing out the hateful teachings, and legal system, of an evil ideology which condones the rape, torture, and murder of those unwilling to join the club of "Mo-Allah" ?
By pointing out and exposing the teachings of Sharia Law, which is legally mandated hatred - if anything,... those who do are anti-hatred...
If someone points out that Conservatives are for less Government, or that Liberals are for big Goverment, does this make one a hater by exposing an ideology?
Complacency on the part of the apologist can only serve Islam.
Islam deserves criticism on account of the logical consequences of its dogma, namely, that the murder of fellow human beings is to be rewarded with sensual pleasure in a hedonistic “Paradise”—a concept born in the fantasies of an Arab rebel some fourteen centuries ago. The religion of Mohammed is a dangerous system when the teachings and example of the “prophet” are believed and followed.
~Richard Dawkins~
Thomas Paine
08-06-2010, 04:58
IMO, this is somewhat disingenuous - Leadership starts with liquid gold...,and the region where Islam was first revealed...
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=HXz0B_j9eHI
> http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=rdpCOaJuBx4
Let's be clear. Islam wasn't revealed. It was invented.
I asked you a question a while back and you blew it off. Why? Was the answer to difficult to find?
I had asked you a question about Islamic governments. Something along the lines of were they becoming more liberal (in the classic sense) or becoming more radical.
Is there a country with a Muslim majority where all religions and all people enjoy the same protection under the law? In this day and age why not?
In the majority of countries run by Muslims do people of other religions enjoy equal protection under the law as Muslims?
As the Muslim population grows in a country or the hard liners take over do the laws remain the same or are they screwed down on non-Muslims?
Do Muslims live in peace with their neighbors until they reach a certain % of the population and then as their population grows they become more radical. Any studies on this? Maybe Europe? But most of them are poor and live in gettos - not like the US? Any growing Muslim population centers in the US?
Pete
Islam, the sea in which the terrorist shark swims. It aids the shark and comforts it in it's journey. The deeper the sea the larger the shark.
Furthermore, I put more blame on the Germans and Japanese because they had a formal leadership that was responsible for their actions and for ensuring the safety of their people. No formal leadership exists in Islam to dictate and exert command authority over the Islamic world as a whole; to make the whole Islamic world responsible for the actions of a few seems totally unjust under such circumstances. The national command authorities of Germany and Japan had the will and legitimacy (well, in theory) to act on behalf of their people. Al-Queda and like groups can act on the behalf of no one but themselves.
Herein lies their brilliant strategy, and a clear path to denying them safe harbor in their muslim sea. MOO, only through prosecuting total war will there be peace.
Declaration of War
To all muslims.
As of today, August 6, 2010, with this Declaration of War, we will begin killing muslims with the same indiscriminate weapons, and ideology that muslims have chosen to employ worldwide.
We will kill anyone who supports you in any way.
We will kill muslims where ever we find them.
We will Kill you at work.
We will kill you in your homes.
We will kill you in your schools.
This means your children are considered combatants. We justify this targeting in response to the Beslan School Massacre. Knowing full well that muslims have no respect for human life, we will incorporate the same methods of destruction to muslim families.
We will kill you in your mosques.
We will give no quarter, we will not rest.
Annuit coeptis, Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
Edit to add:In regard to this particular thread, I want to apologize to the board for my temperament.
The face of Islam: LINK (http://www.fayobserver.com/articles/2010/08/06/1019515?sac=Home)
Who made the problem? Islamics.
Who is fixing the problem? The U.S.
My, my.
olhamada
08-06-2010, 06:48
Let's be clear. Islam wasn't revealed. It was invented.
I strongly disagree. It was revealed. By Satan himself.
There is a deeper problem here that we're missing. This isn't simply a political and sociological problem. This is a spiritual problem. It is more than a physical war. It is a spiritual war.
Let's be clear. Islam wasn't revealed. It was invented.
My apologies :D I was sort of quoting the POTUS…
“I have known Islam on three continents….before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction”
> http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023771.php
There is a deeper problem here that we're missing.
I’m an ardent admirer of Lieutenant General Boykin, he doesn’t beat around the bush… :cool:
Herein lies their brilliant strategy, and a clear path to denying them safe harbor in their muslim sea. MOO, only through prosecuting total war will there be peace.
Declaration of War
To all muslims.
As of today, August 6, 2010, with this Declaration of War, we will begin killing muslims with the same indiscriminate weapons, and ideology that muslims have chosen to employ worldwide.
We will kill anyone who supports you in any way.
We will kill muslims where ever we find them.
We will Kill you at work.
We will kill you in your homes.
We will kill you in your schools.
This means your children are considered combatants. We justify this targeting in response to the Beslan School Massacre. Knowing full well that muslims have no respect for human life, we will incorporate the same methods of destruction to muslim families.
We will kill you in your mosques.
We will give no quarter, we will not rest.
Annuit coeptis, Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere
Edit to add:In regard to this particular thread, I want to apologize to the board for my temperament.
This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I'm honestly wasting my time and my efforts trying to serve as a counter point to this kind of insanity.
I just wanted to point out that what Penn wrote above is absolutely evil, and I hope he gets help.
Targeting Children???? Yeah.... you go sign back up and put a uniform on for that one. Let's see if you can take an M240 and mow down a couple schools worth of Muslim kids. :rolleyes:
This has become some kind of sick joke. I don't know if you're being serious or just trying to provoke a reaction. If you are serious, you have lost your soul and your humanity.
I'm going to go back to doing what I came here for, reading and learning about the military and SF. I leave the Holy War to those who are so inclined. :rolleyes:
....Targeting Children???? Yeah....
Once again ducked my questions. Oh,well..
By the way its the Muslims who like to target children - even their own if it advances Islam.
Not too many parents in the west are proud all their kids grew up to be suicide bombers.
Team Sergeant
08-06-2010, 10:10
This is going to be my last post in this thread, because I'm honestly wasting my time and my efforts trying to serve as a counter point to this kind of insanity.
I just wanted to point out that what Penn wrote above is absolutely evil, and I hope he gets help.
Targeting Children???? Yeah.... you go sign back up and put a uniform on for that one. Let's see if you can take an M240 and mow down a couple schools worth of Muslim kids. :rolleyes:
This has become some kind of sick joke. I don't know if you're being serious or just trying to provoke a reaction. If you are serious, you have lost your soul and your humanity.
I'm going to go back to doing what I came here for, reading and learning about the military and SF. I leave the Holy War to those who are so inclined. :rolleyes:
Penn was making a point, one which you clearly missed.
I take it you would not be party to a group/tribe that employed such violent means?
Most "civilized" humans would agree with you, well all except muslims.
The muslims of the world have yet to speak as one and denounce such violent acts against humanity, they will continue to use children as weapons, use the mentally challenged as bombs and deliberately target children. And to what end? Is the western world denying them their religion? No. They wish to dominate the world through violent means, and in this ideology, islam, the end justifies the means.
Please explain to me how could any half intelligent human being justify the deliberate attack on school children?
Chechen terrorists are muslims, they deliberately killed 300 children. For what, Freedom?
As a warrior, if my leaders told me to deliberately target and kill children, any children, I would kill them (my leaders) where they stood.
In a civilized society the end does not justify the means.
Tell me, where do you as an individual draw the line?
Team Sergeant
Targeting children???? Yeah...
The religion of peace.:rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=favzluXtznM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rT_jm0pW6c
The religion of peace.
Targeting children????
…and exploiting them….sickening…:mad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jrCyWDdSN8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU9SsB-P84c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg1EYKg12Pc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5671220264306422368&hl=da#
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (Sura 9:111)
You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle [j-h-d] for His cause with your possessions and your persons—that is better for you, if only you knew—12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph (61:10)
"Just give me that olde tyme religion..."
Richard :munchin
Penn,
I realize you were trying to make a point, collectively we all want to win this war. With that sole objective in mind, given the tactics employed by the enemy, non state actors in the case of AQ, and insurgency in Afghanistan, don't we sow the seeds for perpetual and expanded conflict with anything other than precise use of force? General McChrystal touched on the expansive risk characteristics of "insurgent math". Specifically in this type of conflict can we kill our way to victory? Wars end when one side loses the will to fight, WW2 while not easy, was simpler, we took Berlin, Germany surrendered. Here we face a decentralized criminal organization (focused on political coercion instead of profit) complete with global cells, and an insurgency. Folks have addressed total war, unfortunate civilian casualties, and our moral limits in previous posts, my question is can we brutalize our way to victory in the scenario we face? For example, The Soviets didn't namby pamby anything when it came to brutal force, they had no restrictive ROE. TS's point is valid, when you are ordered to place mines designed to maim children it's clear who you should shoot. Despite using such tactics and brutality the Soviets still lost. The Israelis are closer to our values system, yet despite their military superiority over the Palestinians and blunt force mindset, what results have they achieved?
In an earlier thread IIRC Richard likened the war in Afghanistan to a police officer making a repeated call out to a domestic violence situation in poor urban neighborhood. A dangerous situation which can escalate into substantial and perpetual community blowback if mishandled.
There are domestic instances of success against organized crime organizations specifically the war on the Mafia using RICO etc in the 70's. Our challenge is different we need to kill them not convict them, but our enemies operate across borders. IMHO it is equally important to note what the NY authorities did not do. They declared war on the Mafia, not Italian Americans. They didn't go into Italian boroughs and shake the people down until they produced mafia. Basically, they knew most Italians here weren't mafia and were scared of the mob. They didn't disparately target Catholic churches or Italian businesses, or question every last name in the white pages that ends in a vowel. We think of the past as the good old days, but the abbreviation for term With Out Papers isn't that old, neither was the era without tensions and stereotypes. At the same time there were plenty of civilians in the neighborhoods who know who the bad guys were, most chose other paths, but we didn't condemn them for minding their own business and keeping their mouth shut. It wasn't easy but with the discerning granularity and precise use of Humint ,infiltration and an evolution in legal technology (RICO) they broke the mobs back.
With Islam it is easy to fall into this same trap, what emeritus sociology and politics professor Sami Zubaida of Birckbeck College in London refers to as " a totalizing vision". Specifically
It conceives the political world as one of confrontation between Muslims on the one side and hostile Christians, Jews and Hindus on the other. It is a variant of the "clash of civilizations". It is a totalising vision which eliminates actual politics. The complexities of Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine/Israel, of the ethnic politics of Europe, of the struggles of Chechnya, all these are collapsed to a single dimension of religious/communal confrontation.
While I don't agree necessarily agree with his views on religion and ideology , he earlier also clarifies;
Muslims in western societies follow diverse religious and political orientations and have diverse lifestyles. Indeed, Muslims do not constitute a "community", but are differentiated by ethnicity, class and generation and education. The assertion of Islam as their primary identity is, indeed, a misleading ideology, upheld equally by Islamist publicists and many institutions and authorities of the "host societies". Many sectors are secular and only nominally "Muslim", though all the signs are that these are declining in a wave of religious assertion. Others are occasionally observant and "cultural" Muslims. Rigorous Salafism may be a minority orientation, although an increasingly prominent one. Its authority and influence are assured by the lavish financial provisions of Saudi sources, establishing mosques, schools and charities, and dispensing clerics and preachers.
IMHO we play right into AQ's hands by upping the brutality quotient without precision targeting. We are not AQ's objective their objective is to recreate a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate, and they are failing. The security forces of Islamic nations are hunting AQ as well now realizing their barbaric ways, this was not always the case. We absolutely need to identify, engage, and terminate the enemy, yet if we aren't careful we will then in fact create a world of Umma nationalism needlessly and the very "clash of civilization" AQ and the insurgents need to survive.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/islam_religion_ideology_4346.jsp
IMHO we play right into AQ's hands by upping the brutality quotient without precision targeting.
There is a cost, in terms of time, effort, and effectiveness to such precision. Is it worth it? That depends on the aggregate cost - in other words, the cost per target times the number of targets.
I do believe there are lots of individuals that ought to be designated as targets. Couple that with a high cost-per-target and the effort becomes impractical.
Rhetorical question: How does one identify a Taliban sympathizer in the wilds of Afghanistan, and do so with high confidence, low risk, and reasonable cost in terms of blood and treasure? I'm sure I don't know. If someone does know, they probably shouldn't say.
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism
“…This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. ( Mustafa Mashhur, General Guide, Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt; Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, Pakistan; Muti Rahman Nizami, Ameer, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh, Bangladesh; Shaykh Ahmad Yassin, Founder, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas), Palestine; Rashid Ghannoushi, President, Nahda Renaissance Movement, Tunisia; Fazil Nour, President, PAS - Parti Islam SeMalaysia, Malaysia; and 40 other Muslim scholars and politicians)
“All Muslims ought to be united against all those who terrorize the innocents” (Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi, Qatar; Tariq Bishri, Egypt; Muhammad S. Awwa, Egypt; Fahmi Huwaydi, Egypt; Haytham Khayyat, Syria; Shaykh Taha Jabir al-Alwani)
“Attacking innocent people is not courageous,…” (Shaykh Muhammed Sayyid al-Tantawi, imam of al-Azhar mosque in Cairo, Egypt)
ETC, ETC, ETC…
What constitutes an innocent life under the legal system of Islamic Law or under the ideology of Islam?
According to Islamic Sharia Law, the agnostic or “Kafir” are “NOT INNOCENT” - they are the worst of all creatures - so says Islam…
Don’t take my word for it, listen to the Ummah and read what Islamic Law says…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAbPeUJ0HHQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-bW95DQdns&feature=player_embedded
"...whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)
"The only reward for those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom..." (5:33)
The first part (5:32) sounds like a prohibition against murdering any innocent, but the second part (5:33) permits the killing of non-Muslims under many circumstances (kufr/Kafiroon) because, they have committed corruption, or mischief in the land by not believing in “Mo-Alla” which puts one “beyond the pale of Islam”
Islamic Law says - not my words or feelings :
* Kafir - Non-Muslim / Non-Believer/ Pagan / Agnostic /Jew / Christian, etc…
* Kufr - Unbelief/infidelity
* Apostate - One who denies the ultimate truth of Islam.
* Apostacy - The act of any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief, and leaves the faith.
(Reliance of the Traveller - index for above - see pages 1132,1170,1172,1207).
c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Law giver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment...
(3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and neccessitate stating the Testification of faith (Shahada)...
(pgs 30-31)
o4:17 There is no indemnity for killing a non-Muslim...
(pgs 588-595)
o8.2 In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed
o8.7 (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one therby immediately commits unbelief:
(15) to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent:
(Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law Pages 30-45, 588-595, 595-610).
Arafat said to the non-innocent world that they wanted peace with the Jews, yet among his fellow Muslims, he was only offering "the peace of Saladin"
"al-Taqiyya" - “wAllahu khayru al-makireen”
:munchin
It is a historiographically sustainable FACT that the Koran is more anti-semitic than Hitler's Mein Kampf.I think we have different definitions of "historiography," divergent views of historical causation, and differing interpretations of modern European history in general and modern German history in particular.
MK262 & AKV
MK262
I just wanted to point out that what Penn wrote above is absolutely evil, and I hope he gets help.
Targeting Children???? Yeah.... you go sign back up and put a uniform on for that one. Let's see if you can take an M240 and mow down a couple schools worth of Muslim kids.
I. Yes, it is absolutely evil. If executed by a muslim it is not judged as evil, it’s part of jihad, disguised as: we need our own state separatist movement, and the sea of islam say's what? And your defense is what?
2. Who ever said anything about being in uniform. My cousin in the 70's, much to the horror of the family, ran guns for the IRA. I see the future as Non state actors executing policy against muslims on their own.
3. The declaration of war I presented is the muslim & bin laden song book.
4. There is no defense for muslims other than they are primates who have not evolved, that plausible, they do after all, destroy(MURDER) their children for sake of family honor, which must bring a sense of relief for the victim, it seems the culture it rooted in primal familial rape and abuse; would being put out of that vicious misery be considered one allahs blessings? I would think it would, so praise be to allah in all his mercifulness.
There is a direct correlation of reinforced cultural conditioning reflected in the chickenian (pun intended) Muslim slaughter of 300 innocent children in a Russian School.
Did you see that blatant propaganda on the cover of Time Magazine. A beautiful Afghan girl with her ears and nose hacked off because she ran away from her husband. The back story was: Her father sold her to a Taliban fighter, while away, his family beat her and abuse her, locking her in a room for a year while he was out jihading.
You can tell from the picture, even though she is all hacked up, she is beautiful. I can image the threat she must have pose as an uneducated, dirt floor village, subservient prisoner. The thought of Beauty as a threat to cultural domination; seems a strictly muslim construct. Portraiture is outlawed.
Now if you do want to make a counter point, and are truly magnanimous, get some friends together find a way to get her here, NYC; because the best plastic surgeon in NYC (and that pretty much means world class best) is a dear friend of mine. He would love the opportunity to help restore some sense of being human to this young girl. The Only culture that permits this animal behavior is muslim!!! It is not a defensible position.
Back on topic:
The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?
As for the help I need, I need to get in touch with my cousin, and I need private LR SOTIC classes. Other than that I feel balanced and on target.
Edited for inaccurate word choice. Richard
Richard, Thank you for the correction, I know I was over the line, but passion and emotion when combined often lead to inappropriate displays of behavior; my sincere apologies to the board.
The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?
I hate to get sucked back into this thread, but since you are lying about what I have said, I might as well correct you.
I never defended any ideology as espoused by extremists. To say I have ever done that, is an outright lie.
What I have said is that not all Muslims are our enemy. That is the counter point I have made.
Having corrected you, I now leave this thread again. Discussing this issue with people like you who are completely devoid of rationality is pointless.
Entire post.Bluntly, I'm increasingly convinced that you are not reading what other people post.
Moreover, your 'counterpoints' would have more merit if they were consistent with each other and did not reflect the values that you attribute to others.
As I pointed out earlier, you and I are in broad agreement on this issue. Unfortunately, at present you are doing more to undermine that position than to support it.
My $0.02.
Checking out at Costco this morning, a mother and son were in front of me. She had her head covered, they spoke Arabic together. While she placed her grocery on the counter, the son, in his Rutgers shorts, texted; spoke fluent English on his cell, with a nasal NJ accent, there is no doubt an American raised young man.
The only one thought that crossed my mind: As an American, I wondered were his loyalties laid.
A breach of trust occurred. It continues to split the relationship between muslim and all other non muslims, by the refusal of muslim people and cleric’s worldwide to assist in the capture of bin laden and the rest of his ilk.
Your defense, and for that matter anyone defense of: “Not all muslims are terrorist” is incorrect.
All muslims are culpable due to the continued silence in denouncing the wanton slaughter of innocent people, not to mention the easy denouncement in the wholesale killing of children.
There is no movement, as in protest, in the muslim community worldwide to confront its radical cleric’s inciting hate and advocating the killing of innocent people. The logic being: non muslims do not matter, jihad is a cultural impetrative, and to do so would be putting their life on the line, by not adhering to Islamic doctrine.
If not all muslim support terrorism, or are not sympatric to terrorism, then why is there not a worldwide movement by muslim; let’s say on the order of the anti-war movement in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, that developed in America and worldwide to stop the war.
Surly with a billion muslim worldwide, statistically speaking of course, there should be some form of protest movement?
Except for the fact of the, 999,900,999 million illiterate muslims the power elite refuses to educate.
The defense of muslim ideology, or muslims as “not all are terrorist”, fails the accessory test in all capital cases. As a former LEO, silence automatically makes one a co-conspirator; therefore, in the execution of any terrorist acts that wantonly kill innocent people, all muslims are implicated by association affirmed in their silence, which translates as condoning the action.
MK262,but since you are lying about what I have said
I am not lying, I am interpreting, inferring, what you are implying, in the defense of "not all muslims are terrorist" its that simple.
I guess there's something I just don't understand.
Let us suppose that not all Muslims - which I will call group B - are bad. Some are good, some are bad, some are neither.
There is another group which consists of non-Muslims. Let's call them group A.
Members of group B sometimes do bad things to members of group A. The reader may be inclined to point out that members of group A may sometimes do bad things to members of B, but that is beyond the scope of this posting. Let's focus on B doing things to A for the moment.
Members of A want the bad things to stop. How to do this?
1) Group A can eliminate B.
2) Group A can surrender to B.
3) Group A can filter out the bad elements in B and remove them and no one else.
Members of group A generally reject solutions (1) and (2). That leaves solution (3).
I do not know how to discern who within group B is a bad person. I have not yet addressed (and will not address, in this post) how to deal with the problem after identification. So the question is - how can we know who is a bad guy within group B? For our purposes here, this is a rhetorical question; however, in the real world it is deadly serious. The evidence suggests that we do not know, although I would welcome information showing otherwise.
And this brings us back to Chef Penn's woman and children at Costco. If we suppose that the woman is Muslim, and further suppose her child is a Muslim, how can we determine whether the child is (or is not) a bad guy? Other than the Muslim factor, I see no way to accomplish this. However, we have evidence - a growing pile of evidence - that American born Muslims have some possibility of turning into bad guys. Therefore our problem is not theoretical; rather, it becomes a matter of life and death.
Now this has an implication which may be worthy of reflection. If we don't know how to filter out the bad guys, then the survival of our society and civilization depends on the elimination of group B. Note I did not say killing all the members of group B, or even some of the members of that group. Neither did I suggest giving all, some, or any of them a wedgie. Elimination of group B means some set of actions that causes them to stop the attacks.
So, then, our choice - we must eliminate them, or accept our own elimination. Again, in this context, elimination is not a synonym for kill.
My impression is that Western civilization prefers its own demise. I cannot say I like that choice.
Entire post.nmap--
I think you could develop more options than (a), (b), and (c) if you expanded the forms of political activity beyond the choices of capitulation and annihilation.
As for defining the 'bad guy,' I think that defining the enemy primarily by intent is not the way to go. Earlier, you argued that 'demographics are destiny.' I think that statement is false. History is made by people making choices in their everyday lives. From a historical perspective, most of these choices will be inconsequential. People are simply too busy doing their own thing to worry too much about 'the big picture.'
Some in this thread think that this inattention is a bad thing, that it leads to complacency, that if we don't wake up now, we'll wake up one day living under sharia law. I respectfully disagree. To me, that's just the way of the world.
In my opinion, the greater danger is limiting the options people face so that they feel pressured to make choices and decisions they otherwise might not. Heated rhetoric that radicalizes the discussion is a sure way to put pressure on folks and get them to feel hemmed in.
Everyone has buttons to push. Are there ways we can communicate and not push those buttons unnecessarily?
Make no mistake, I am absolutely sure that at this moment there are Americans who have succumbed to their hate and to their fear and are plotting something horrible. (I work at a facility that the DHS considers an attractive target.) These people need to be found out and stopped.
But while the high speed low drag types hunt down these scoundrels, I think we low speed types should be temperate in our judgments, provisional in our conclusions, and moderate in our rhetoric.
YMMV.
craigepo
08-07-2010, 18:05
MK262
Please tread carefully when accusing people of lying on this forum. Discussions on this forum are often pursued with great vigor. They do not become personal. Terms such as "lying" make things personal.
There are some brilliant minds on this forum. Many will have opinions wholly contrary to your own. Logic and manners win the day, friends, and respect.
MK262
Please tread carefully when accusing people of lying on this forum. Discussions on this forum are often pursued with great vigor. They do not become personal. Terms such as "lying" make things personal.
There are some brilliant minds on this forum. Many will have opinions wholly contrary to your own. Logic and manners win the day, friends, and respect.
Ok.
He was being disingenuous. I'll leave it at that.
ZonieDiver
08-07-2010, 18:44
While callling someone out as a "liar" is a big step, and a gross violation of what I consider to be "PS.com manners," it is hard to mistake these words:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penn
The declaration of war I presented is current muslim warfare ideology, a ideology you are defending, by, as you say, the offering of a counter point, a counter point to what, truth?
I never got the impression that MK262, someone I do not know and with whom I have never exchanged a PM, was saying that.
I think it is time we all took a step back. This is a very personal, volatile, and complex issue. I would ask that we all temper our remarks. I would further ask that perhaps we wrote our messages elsewhere, let them "distill" a bit, and then pasted them into a message box here... and used the "preview" button extensively before posting.
Thank you.
Peregrino
08-07-2010, 18:53
ZD - Quality advice, thanks for stepping up.
First, an example of someone who apparently thought he could predict (and, perhaps, influence?) the bad guys and failed. LINK (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38604010/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/)
nmap--
I think you could develop more options than (a), (b), and (c) if you expanded the forms of political activity beyond the choices of capitulation and annihilation.
No, not really. I chose those for a reason, and I limited the choices for those same reasons. That said, I urge you and others to offer more nuanced choices. I would ask that those offering such alternatives suggest how they differed qualitatively from the three choices I included.
Keep in mind that eliminating group B can be as simple as changing their views to something more tolerant of group A. The old group B would cease to exist. So you see that the choices offered are not necessarily kinetic in nature. ;)
As for defining the 'bad guy,' I think that defining the enemy primarily by intent is not the way to go.
I am open to better ways. Please, tell me more.
Earlier, you argued that 'demographics are destiny.' I think that statement is false. History is made by people making choices in their everyday lives. From a historical perspective, most of these choices will be inconsequential. People are simply too busy doing their own thing to worry too much about 'the big picture.'
Demographics creates an overall environment that influences those individual decisions, whether in terms of money and finance or population movements. I would contend that it an important (perhaps predominant) factor in human behavior.
Now you bring up those individual decisions, often inconsequential. Agreed. Still worse, individual behavior is hard to predict. Aggregate behavior, on the other hand, seems quite another matter. The advertising industry, in their efforts to promote both deodorants and politicians, seems confident that they can change overall behavior of populations.
The current economic malaise? It was predicted 15 years ago, and that was based on the demographics.
I suppose we'll have an agree to disagree position on this one.
Some in this thread think that this inattention is a bad thing, that it leads to complacency, that if we don't wake up now, we'll wake up one day living under sharia law. I respectfully disagree. To me, that's just the way of the world.
Predicting what's over the horizon is always perilous, and often amusing when viewed in retrospect. And one can reasonably argue that people muddle through somehow, with the dire consequences never quite occurring.
Is this different? Hard to say. I think it's entangled with other issues (including demographics) that are rather wide-ranging. In the end, this may be another agree-to-disagree issue.
In my opinion, the greater danger is limiting the options people face so that they feel pressured to make choices and decisions they otherwise might not. Heated rhetoric that radicalizes the discussion is a sure way to put pressure on folks and get them to feel hemmed in.
Could be. On the other hand, choosing to do or say nothing is a decision in its own right. And, too, there is a positive to the pressure you mention - it can manifest itself in the desire to offer alternatives. I sense that dynamic in your own post, which I quote from here. Creative alternatives might be a really good idea; however, I regret to say I'm not seeing many of those. But perhaps I've missed something?
Everyone has buttons to push. Are there ways we can communicate and not push those buttons unnecessarily?
Well...actually....no. :D
As ZonieDriver suggests, this is an emotionally loaded topic. We can use the kindest, most civil language...show the utmost in mutual respect...adopt the careful discourse of the disengaged scholar...but the emotion remains.
If you haven't read Hayakawa's book, Language in Thought and Action, I urge you to do so. It is a brilliant text. Per the book, we could modify the choice of buttons to hit - and, if we wanted to guide some particular discussion, we would do so. But that isn't the same as not pushing the buttons. Rather, we choose which buttons to hit - Christian Red, or Islamic Green, for example. (Yes, that's me pushing buttons, and having fun doing it.)
Make no mistake, I am absolutely sure that at this moment there are Americans who have succumbed to their hate and to their fear and are plotting something horrible. (I work at a facility that the DHS considers an attractive target.) These people need to be found out and stopped.
So what I hear you saying is that some percentage of the U.S. population have some probability of being bad guys, per the definition in my earlier post. And I see that you are urging some sort of filtration to discern who they are such that their action can be prevented.
I agree. This is all good.
Here's the problem - I don't see how to filter them out. DHS has tried, with notable failures. Perhaps there have been successes - if so, that's great! Perhaps DHS (or others) are good at filtering out bad guys - in which case, we have nothing to worry about.
However...big however...if the filtration I mention is not effective, then we have no way to stop the bad guys. This brings us back to those three options I've mentioned.
So, please tell me what I should conclude, so long as it is suitable to discuss in this public forum.
But while the high speed low drag types hunt down these scoundrels, I think we low speed types should be temperate in our judgments, provisional in our conclusions, and moderate in our rhetoric.
YMMV.
Now, Sigaba, I ask you - how much fun is that?
Seriously, though, this seems to lead to something like a shrug, followed by diligent searches through cable channels in search of a ball game. In essence, for the lower speed participants in the discussion to scratch themselves and defer the hard thinking to others.
I would contend that this is the very area where we need to have a broad societal dialog. Yes, it will sometimes become emotional. There will, from time to time, be anger and hurt feelings. And yet, societal evolution seems to demand exactly that sort of process.
MOO, YMMV.
LOL, simply Brillant
The advertising industry, in their efforts to promote both deodorants and politicians, seems confident that they can change overall behavior of populations.
It is deeply emotional, my button requires only the slightest movement of air.
Thank you all. I state earlier, and I repost it here again for anyone who has contributed to this discussion and missed it in post #141
Edited for inaccurate word choice. Richard
Richard, Thank you for the correction, I know I was over the line, but passion and emotion when combined often lead to inappropriate displays of behavior; my sincere apologies to the board.
That said, I urge you and others to offer more nuanced choices.
I agree with Sigaba - especially when we're talking issues which do not simply reduce themselves to a singularity as described in that "a, b, or c model", but which lend themselves to nearly infinite complexity among literally several billions of individuals and huge numbers of families; villages; tribes; ethnic groups; cultural affiliations and intra-cultural polychotomies; linguistic groupings; shared or divergent views of legends, myths, and histories; nations and non-governmental organizations - usw.
Either a, b, or c - the Forest Gump Model - "Simple is as simple does"?
I would reasonably think the model for such an issue calls for a much larger alphabet than that.
However, YMMV - and so it goes...
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Either a, b, or c - the Forest Gump Model - "Simple is as simple does"?
I would reasonably think the model for such an issue calls for a much larger alphabet than that.
Well...sorta. ;)
Models can be horrifically complex, and perhaps this is one of them. That does not mean that simplified approaches cannot address the predominant effects and provide useful insights.
Let's consider a baseball. Someone throws the baseball, and it lands in an open field (no broken windows!) We can describe much, but of course not all, of the motion by looking a the initial speed and the effect of gravity. Not a perfect effort by any means, but it gives us a rough understanding of what happens.
Should we add factors? Maybe. There is wind resistance. We might even want to take the effect of wind speed and its direction over the entire course of the baseball. The effects of roughness on the baseball surface and spin might be of interest. No doubt long-range snipers do this - they have a need for greater accuracy than does our baseball tosser, so they incorporate additional factors to accomplish a closer (but imperfect) approximation of the path of the object.
We extend the theory to long range artillery, firing a shell at a target 25 miles away. Gravity predominates. Wind speed and resistance may have an effect. And, the time in the air may mean we have to add the rotation of the Earth into the mix. Our simple model is becoming messy, isn't it?
This continues. At some point we're faced with a host of factors including relativistic effects as we approach the speed of light.
But...do we really need to add the effects of relativity to the path of an ordinary baseball? I think not. And as we grapple with basic understandings of a problem the minor factors (supposing they are minor) may distract rather than illuminate. Therefore, let's start out with a Forrest Gump approach - something that clears away as many factors as possible - and attempt to define primary effects.
In doing this, let's consider boundary effects - how do our approaches work at the limits? If we're looking at a baseball, this might mean we would wonder what would happen if we just dropped it - what path it might describe. Or, what would the path look like if we threw at at a very high speed. Some models fail at the boundary, you see.
So my Gump model (personally, I prefer the a,b,c model, but we may as well have some fun with this) is very simple. And yet, a variety of approaches are included. Let's consider...
In the category of eliminating the other group, we can include everything from cultural transformation, for example improving the rights of women, to causing (by whatever means) increased tolerance for other faiths, or even nuking Mecca. Whether any of these would actually work is beside the point - they all collapse down to a single broad category.
For surrender - the destruction of our group, in this case - we can include the do-nothing strategy. Surrender does not necessarily mean that we'll put all of our women in burkas - though it might. It just means that whatever we become will be very different than what we are.
Filtering is anything that tries to designate and locate the individuals (or, for that matter, groups of individuals) and do something with or to those groups or individuals. Notice that General Petraeus is trying this approach by dispersing the troops and attempting to get them to interact with (and gain the trust of) the local residents.
So, while I continue to urge people to add to or improve the Gump model, I don't see anything better at the moment. Hopefully, someone will.
I agree - scrimshaw is a funny sounding word.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Thomas Paine
08-08-2010, 15:33
What I have said is that not all Muslims are our enemy. That is the counter point I have made.
How can you say that?
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat. And by definition- that is Sharia Law, Zakat supports jihad.
Ultimately, ALL Muslims are required to provide material support to the destruction of the United States.
How does that NOT make them our enemy?
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat.
BOOK H
ZAKAT
h1.0 WHO MUST PAY ZAKAT
((Muhammad Shirbini Khatib) Lexically, zakat means growth, blessings, an increase in good, purification, or praise. In Sacred Law it is the name for a particular amount of property that must be paid to certain kinds of recipients under the conditions mentioned below…”
h1.1 Zakat is obligatory
(a) for every free Muslim (O: male, female, adult or child):
THOSE FIGHTING FOR ALLAH {Jihad}
h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in military operations {Jihad} for whom no salary has been allotted …
(Reliance of the Traveller, pages 244-274)
“rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat." ~Barack Obama~
> http://www.meforum.org/2438/zakat-muslim-charity-in-context
o9.0
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion.
o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others.
(The Reliance of the Traveller, page 599-600)
How can you say that?
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat. And by definition- that is Sharia Law, Zakat supports jihad.
Ultimately, ALL Muslims are required to provide material support to the destruction of the United States.
How does that NOT make them our enemy?
Sir, as we as pay billions to the Arab members of OPEC are we not the enemy? It would seem to me step one has to be stop the billions of our dollars from flowing to them.
greenberetTFS
08-08-2010, 16:59
ZD - Quality advice, thanks for stepping up.
I totally agree................:):):)
Big Teddy :munchin
Peregrino
08-08-2010, 18:55
This for your "religion of peace". http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/healthteam/story/8103708/.
This for your "religion of peace". http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/healthteam/story/8103708/.
That is tragic news.... they were good people doing important work. It's a terrible loss that they were killed.
I still believe that some do want peace though. For example...
Palestinian's organs go to Israel
The parents of a Palestinian boy killed by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank have donated his organs for use in Israel, in the hope of promoting peace.
Twelve-year-old Ahmed Ismail Khatib was shot in the town of Jenin by troops who mistook his toy gun for a real one.
His organs were transplanted into five Israeli children and a woman aged 58.
His father, Ismail, said saving lives was more important than religion, and added: "I feel that my son has entered the heart of every Israeli."
Ahmed died in hospital from his injuries after being shot in the body and head while throwing stones at Israeli soldiers who were hunting suspected militants in Jenin.
The Israeli army expressed regret over his shooting.
'Gesture of love'
Israel's parliamentary speaker, Reuven Rivlin, praised the Khatib family's action as a "remarkable gesture" after decades of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
Mr Khatib said he was very proud that his son's organs would help six Israelis.
"I have taken this decision because I have a message for the world: that the Palestinian people want peace - for everyone," he told the AFP news agency.
"We have no problem whether it is an Israeli or a Palestinian [who receives his organs] because it will give them life," added the boy's mother, Ablah Khatib.
Ahmed's kidneys, liver, heart and lungs were transplanted into Israelis including Jews, Arabs and a Druze girl, medical officials said.
The girl, aged 12 and from Israel's Arab minority, received Ahmed's heart, bringing to an end a five-year wait for a transplant.
Her father, Riad Gadban, called the donation a "gesture of love" and said his daughter was regaining strength after the operation.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/4417354.stm
Dozer523
08-08-2010, 21:51
Well...sorta. ;)
Let's consider a baseball. No.:mad: Let's not.
Baseball is too beautiful, too pure . . .
I agree - scrimshaw is a funny sounding word.
Haberdashery is another funny word
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat. And by definition- that is Sharia Law, Zakat supports jihad. Ultimately, ALL Muslims are required to provide material support to the destruction of the United States. How does that NOT make them our enemy?
Fascinating, I suppose Captain Ahab felt the same way. I must confess like many American boys growing up, there were Muslims I admired. I had posters of them on the wall, cheered their exploits with passion, admired their courage and dominance, and hoped to emulate their achievments. One in particular was a hero for a great many Americans. There were two of the them, you might have heard of Muhammad Ali, or Kareem Abdul Jabar? If what you say hold true, that every Muslim is the enemy, as a patriotric American I'm in quite a quandry, all this time I just thought of them as gifted athletes who dominated their respective sports and were Americans of a particular faith. Since both of them are wealthy and could contribute significantly to Zakat, perhaps we should monitor them just in case, since by definition there is nothing else in their lives of greater importance or identity? I guess I have to root for the Celtics going forward...:eek:
The following is an interesting read > http://www.nefafoundation.org/hlfdocs.html Zakat...
Edited to add:
My neighbor, knowing the killers endeavor, willingly gave bullets to the man who shot my wife - Is my neighbor guilty?
How can you say that?
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat. And by definition- that is Sharia Law, Zakat supports jihad.
Ultimately, ALL Muslims are required to provide material support to the destruction of the United States.
How does that NOT make them our enemy?
Unless those Muslims view attacking the U.S. as a false jihad. You seem convinced that because some Muslim clerics advocate attacking the United States, all do. I fail to understand that logic.
You would make a pretty good extremist cleric, given your conviction that being a good muslim requires attacking the United States.
There are over a billion Muslims in this world. An Estimated five to seven million living in the United States. If all these people were supporting jihad against the United States, I think there would have been more attacks against us in the last 10 years. It appears most muslims disagree with your belief of jihad. MOO.
Thomas Paine
08-09-2010, 01:12
Unless those Muslims view attacking the U.S. as a false jihad. You seem convinced that because some Muslim clerics advocate attacking the United States, all do. I fail to understand that logic.
You would make a pretty good extremist cleric, given your conviction that being a good muslim requires attacking the United States.
There are over a billion Muslims in this world. An Estimated five to seven million living in the United States. If all these people were supporting jihad against the United States, I think there would have been more attacks against us in the last 10 years. It appears most muslims disagree with your belief of jihad. MOO.
Why are so many Islamic Charities implicated (and often shut down) for supporting terror finance?
Supporting jihad is required by Sharia law. Where the jihad takes place is up to the zakat workers discretion. Clearly much of that money is going to funding jihad against the United States and certainly the rest of the Western world as well.
And just because shit isn't blowing up, doesn't mean it's not jihad.
Whether the individual Muslims like where the money is going or not is irrelevant.
Thomas Paine
08-09-2010, 01:17
Sir, as we as pay billions to the Arab members of OPEC are we not the enemy? It would seem to me step one has to be stop the billions of our dollars from flowing to them.
We are our own worst enemy. That's a Dhimmi administration (yes both 43 and 44) paying jizyah.
Quran 9:29
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
LINK:
http://www.thespiritofislam.com/text/Q14.html
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat.
Is that a fact or an opinion?
Richard
Is that a fact or an opinion?
Richard
h1.1 Zakat is obligatory
(a) for every free Muslim (O: male, female, adult or child):
h8.17 The seventh category is those fighting for Allah, meaning people engaged in military operations {Jihad} for whom no salary has been allotted …
(Reliance of the Traveller, pages 244-274)
For the Sunni, 80-90% of the Muslim world are required to pay, unless they're MINO's :D
For Shia, that would be Khums, the first category which go to the Imam, lets hope he's nice... :D
ALL Muslims are REQUIRED to pay Zakat.
Nisaab PP 11-12.
http://www.zikr.co.uk/books/Zakaat.html
This article also lists a number of exceptions - is that true? :confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakat
Richard
I see your scrimshaw and haberdashery and I raise you "zakatability".
MOO, there is clearly a misunderstanding going on here as to who is paying for the bulk of --Islamist efforts in the west including peaceful and non-peaceful efforts-- I was hinting at Saudi Arabia and Iran and their fellows.
:munchin
ETA: oops- had zakat on the brain and mistyped. All Muslims do pay zakat when they are not under hardship themselves, which Richard referred to. But not everyone is a great Muslim, either, especially the rich international Muslims.
I guess I have to root for the Celtics going forward...:eek:Now THAT'S crazy talk.
MOO, there is clearly a misunderstanding going on here as to who is paying for the bulk of zakat.
Are ALL Muslims required to follow the 5 pillars of Islam?
“It is not correct that Shias avoid paying Zakat as prescribed by the Holy Quran.
Zakat is one of the five pillars of religion. It is mentioned in the traditions that, Prayers will not be accepted from those who do not pay Zakat. And if someone avoids giving one carat of Zakat, he will die a death of Jew or Christian”
I think it would be a misconception to think Shia didn’t pay Zakat, nevertheless, The Five pillars of Islam in Sunni schools of Fiqh have this to say:
Hanafi Fiqh:
9.2.1Those Who May Receive Zakat
7)In the Path of Allah: are the stranded fighters. (Jihadists)
http://www.ummah.net/Al_adaab/fiqh/saheefah.html
The Hanafi books mention that the way of Allah refers to those fighting as well as those wanting to offer the Hajj.
Maliki Fiqh:
The soldier (Mujahed): Those fighting for the sake of Allah
In the Maliki school of thought a person fighting for Allah is given Zakat money even if he or she is considered affluent.
http://www.rahima.org/zakat.htm
Hanbali Fiqh:
Those fighting for Allah…
http://mac.abc.se/~onesr/h//#_Toc50551565
Shafi'i Fiqh:
See the Reliance of the Traveller.
80 percent of 1.2 billion is quite a large number…even just 20% - let us hope for MINO’s :D
Raymond Ibrahim discusses how Islamic charitable contributions often end up in the hands of Islamic jihadists in the videos below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BRGG-BhlY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voff1QJVzIM
Bostom discusses Sufism:
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/sufi_jihad.html
I think this thread has some more mileage in it- especially in regard to nmaps proposition.
The idea that is us or them- dying or fundamentally changing- has come up before. The solutions have been, one the one side- it better be them either way. On the other, it is 'we have more options than just those two and one of those options or several will come to light and save the day'.
Neither of these approaches take grasp of the factors driving the region. Overpopulation and Saudi Arabia are two of those.
There is a business theory about "influentials"- that finding a 10% section of the population that influence the other 90% disproportionately will be an effective way to influence the entire population of consumers. That same theory is applicable here, but perhaps not to people.
What are those 10% factors in the region, and are they being addressed?
:munchin
GratefulCitizen
08-09-2010, 20:56
I think this thread has some more mileage in it- especially in regard to nmaps proposition.
The idea that is us or them- dying or fundamentally changing- has come up before. The solutions have been, one the one side- it better be them either way. On the other, it is 'we have more options than just those two and one of those options or several will come to light and save the day'.
Neither of these approaches take grasp of the factors driving the region. Overpopulation and Saudi Arabia are two of those.
There is a business theory about "influentials"- that finding a 10% section of the population that influence the other 90% disproportionately will be an effective way to influence the entire population of consumers. That same theory is applicable here, but perhaps not to people.
What are those 10% factors in the region, and are they being addressed?
:munchin
Influence would appear to be what the terrorists tactics are all about.
Their strategy is long-term.
They cannot reverse the battlefield decision.
Their actions are directed at influencing the political will of the American voter.
"Useful idiots" in this country further the terrorist agenda in the hopes that they may be perceived as wise philospher kings, above the fray; as if they're breaking up a fight between misbehaving children.
Meanwhile, the infiltrations and alterations of society continue.
The terrorists' agenda may take decades or much longer to achieve.
They are fine with this timeline.
The useful idiots care not what happens to posterity.
They just might get to enjoy "peace for our time".
What are those 10% factors in the region, and are they being addressed?
:munchin
That's an interesting idea. Use the influentials to modify the value system, and you modify the overall group.
By the way - you mention overpopulation. I agree. Combine water issues with population pressures and add some poverty, and it seems likelihood radicalism of some sort will follow.
There is a business theory about "influentials"...
Although it doesn't address the Supremacist Ideology of Islam, or Taqi ad-Din Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah, meet the influentials :D It's short & sweet, most of what you already know...
(Part 1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zp4yHd0tCRQ
(Part 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQn5yahsCBM
Don't leave out Fetullah Gulen or Tarq Ramadan...
Look, T Rock, to be frank, most Muslims on the street are not aware of the people you reference. They are influenced by imams on the radio. I looked through them and some of the things your references mention match up-- and some of them don't. Arab Muslims care about Gaza, and most edicts are in reference to that.
There is apparently a culture of academia which studies Islam in the M.E. and another in the ME which seeks to counter. Having met with reps of both, I have to say neither is connected to the street reality significantly.
I met an Egyptian high senator (they do it british house of lords style) who insisted that Iran needs nukes to stabilize the ME-- and an Israeli who insisted that nuclear war was upon them-- and Palestinians who didn't have anything against Israelis. There are all kinds of people.
NMAP-- I met a CA officer attached to SF in Djibouti (sp?) who was convinced that water wars are what my generation will face in Arabia and North Africa and South America. Good thing to know some Spanish too huh?
Look, T Rock, to be frank, most Muslims on the street are not aware of the people you reference.
What influences the Imams on the radio, where do they get their source material ?
What influences the Imams on the radio, where do they get their source material ?
BLUF: Saudi Arabian style governments that have an interest in creating another billion Muslims in the next decade.
Not the what but the WHY is the important point. Where? the holy Quran. Why? Very important question, one we have all danced around.
MOO-- Why I am hearing dictates to slaughter Westerners-- I pretty much attribute the whole thing to Saudi style Muslim Brotherhood types.
Another thing-- There is no free media in the ME. There is no independent journalist who would report you were captured, tortured, and killed, if that happened. There is only state media, and only what Mubarak wants to hear comes on the air. That's a fact, Jack.
So the entirety of this imamish advertising is very much supported by governmental powers (MB), although Mubarak would send them all to Mars if that would keep him in power for another 30 years.
I heard a joke in the East once--
God is reading a newspaper and realizes Mubarak has been in power for 30 years. He sends Gabriel down to bring him home. Gabriel says, It's time to part ways with your people Hasni. Hasni says, "Really? Where are they going?"
I saw this in the Economist eventually and it is a real joke! But it's illegal. Consider yourself part of Arab culture.
Why?
I'm thinking the influentials, liquid gold, and the general goals of Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is an Ikhwan entity, as well as what you are alluding to...
http://www.hizb-america.org/multimedia/video/191-video-usa-khilafah-conference-2009
Look, T Rock, to be frank, most Muslims on the street are not aware of the people you reference. They are influenced by imams on the radio.
Not unlike people in the U.S. who listen to various radio and television shows. Limbaugh does influence people in the U.S., so I can see how some imam might do the same. However, there is a deeper level - for example, the Republicans gained Limbaugh's help by giving him a certain amount of recognition. So we have a case where someone influenced the radio personality.
To change values...to introduce a sort of computer virus of the mind that subtly modifies the target audience...we would need to find the core of influence. They exist, surely - but I don't know who they might be. Of course, I don't really need to. Hopefully, someone does.
Rhetorical observation: perhaps the drug gangs, with their offers of "gold or lead" provide a notion of how to address specific elements. It does not matter how the centers of influence are turned, only that they are turned.
NMAP-- I met a CA officer attached to SF in Djibouti (sp?) who was convinced that water wars are what my generation will face in Arabia and North Africa and South America. Good thing to know some Spanish too huh?
Water is likely to represent a global phenomenon. Take a look at the book "When the rivers run dry" by Pearce - there is a remarkable correlation between conflict and water. Pakistan, their floods notwithstanding, is a case in point. Combine population growth with more volatile weather patterns and limited water resources, and you have a formula for resource wars. In my opinion, we will see them. This is not the time to cut the Pentagon budget.
It isn't just Spanish that we'll need. I strongly suspect that we will enter a period of general warfare - with the enemy, perhaps, being innocent men, women, and children who seek only to survive. Yet make no mistake, if we suppose a limitation of essential resources, including food and water, those hypothetical innocents may constitute quite a deadly enemy.
The above paragraph may imply that our own culture - Western civilization, for lack of a better term, or group A if you prefer - may face its own crisis of values and beliefs. Thus, the underlying value system of our own culture may be destroyed and reformed, purely in the interests of survival. For examples, see Diamond's book "Collapse", with particular focus on the failure of rains in Central America several hundred years ago. As I recall, casualty rates approached 99%.
Thomas Paine
08-10-2010, 15:18
Look, T Rock, to be frank, most Muslims on the street are not aware of the people you reference. They are influenced by imams on the radio. I looked through them and some of the things your references mention match up-- and some of them don't. Arab Muslims care about Gaza, and most edicts are in reference to that.
There is apparently a culture of academia which studies Islam in the M.E. and another in the ME which seeks to counter. Having met with reps of both, I have to say neither is connected to the street reality significantly.
I met an Egyptian high senator (they do it british house of lords style) who insisted that Iran needs nukes to stabilize the ME-- and an Israeli who insisted that nuclear war was upon them-- and Palestinians who didn't have anything against Israelis. There are all kinds of people.
NMAP-- I met a CA officer attached to SF in Djibouti (sp?) who was convinced that water wars are what my generation will face in Arabia and North Africa and South America. Good thing to know some Spanish too huh?
Is this confusing the difference between the doctrine and it's requirements (IDEOLOGY) and the PEOPLE who are under it's influence?
I'm referring to people I met who are active participants in US institutions and also hold positions of influence in the M.E.
One that sticks out was a guy who was just educated as all hell and insisted the entire M.E. needed nuke technology. Each country. For nuclear energy, of course. :rolleyes:
There is a very influential Arab faction, the rich internationals, who are not under the influence of Islam in the same way as the poor. But, their loyalties still lie very strongly on their own side.
alright4u
08-10-2010, 17:35
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html
GratefulCitizen
08-10-2010, 20:51
That's an interesting idea. Use the influentials to modify the value system, and you modify the overall group.
By the way - you mention overpopulation. I agree. Combine water issues with population pressures and add some poverty, and it seems likelihood radicalism of some sort will follow.
Overpopulation is an issue because of increased life expectancy.
The world fertility rate has been in decline.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=world+fertility+rate
Worldwide, the replacement rate is something like 2.3 children per woman.
The world could be below that rate within 20 years.
What happens when there are a bunch of old people depending on a bunch of young people and resources are limited?
What happens when old people and unborn children become disposable?
With socialism, nobody needs kids to take care of them in old age, they'll just borrow the labors of someone else's kids.
Tragedy of the commons.
Don't think overpopulation will be the problem.
Japan is suffering from demographic implosion.
The EU is suffering from demographic implosion.
China is a demographic time bomb.
What happens when all those boys grow up and want wives?
As you love to say, Nmap, "demographics is destiny".
ZonieDiver
08-10-2010, 20:53
What happens when old people and unborn children become disposable?
At least that one is easy:
Soylent Green!
Don't think overpopulation will be the problem.
(Chuckle) Will be? I'm of the view that we are presently in population overshoot, and hence that the overpopulation event has already occurred. The consequences remain to be experienced. All MOO, YMMV.
As you love to say, Nmap, "demographics is destiny".
Full agreement there.
At least that one is easy:
Soylent Green!
I suspect so....
1stindoor
08-11-2010, 06:41
At least that one is easy:
Soylent Green!
So much better for you than Soylent Red too.
There is a very influential Arab faction, the rich internationals, who are not under the influence of Islam in the same way as the poor. But, their loyalties still lie very strongly on their own side.
This fraction is the power elite, all their power is vest in the belly of the beast, they use it as a weapon:the uneducated, dirt poor, religiously suppressed masses. Decapitate this structure, and the entire culture implodes. MOO
This fraction is the power elite, all their power is vest in the belly of the beast, they use it as a weapon:the uneducated, dirt poor, religiously suppressed masses. Decapitate this structure, and the entire culture implodes. MOO
Interesting. Would this not imply that there is no real way to influence them, leaving only more traditional approaches such as worked in previous wars?
And, might it be to their advantage to excite and export their undesirables - much as Europe did during the Crusades? Relief of population pressures just might be their hidden agenda.
Interesting. Would this not imply that there is no real way to influence them, leaving only more traditional approaches such as worked in previous wars?
And, might it be to their advantage to excite and export their undesirables - much as Europe did during the Crusades? Relief of population pressures just might be their hidden agenda.
They're educated in the West, and then return home to take positions of influence, in business and in the government.
Perhaps influencing immigrants deliberately during the educational period is the main opportunity our society has to work positive changes into the mentality of the international power group of Muslims; but, that's a thin hope. We have already had their educations for a while, and the university system here hasn't produced any pro American 'International Muslims for America' support groups.
Instead, we have the reverse, with Americans on convoys to Gaza. :munchin
And, to the relief of population pressure/colonization/cultural invasion-- that's a tried and true strategy for them. It's right there in the manual, and in their history, and in their current preaching. Europe is getting flooded with them. The US is just starting to see the front of a tidal wave.
We have already had their educations for a while, and the university system here hasn't produced any pro American 'International Muslims for America' support groups.
Instead, we have the reverse, with Americans on convoys to Gaza. :munchin
Well...I guess I'm not surprised. The U.S. University has lots of people who are remarkably critical of the U.S. and its policies. According to many within the university system (them, not me!) the U.S. is a racist, brutally unfair, fascist society that is designed to exploit persons of color around the world. (Again, that's NOT my attitude!) So if Islamic society says the the U.S. is evil, and they come over here and are told exactly the same thing, it's hardly surprising that they believe it.
And, too, the U.S. seems to be in a period when it questions (denies?) all the old values and assumptions. In fact, for the general population, it almost seems that there are no values. But I think people yearn for values and standards, and Islam seems to supply that. If the above is true, then we face an uphill fight.
I go back to my theory. We're group A, they're group B. Either A will be destroyed and B will win, or vice-versa. Perhaps both A and B will be destroyed. By destruction, I do not necessarily mean killed - the elimination I speak of could be the ruin of their culture. I do not think the West should be sanguine about victory.
GratefulCitizen
08-11-2010, 21:18
It is important to remember that the war on terror is not about anger at muslims.
The warriors of this nation are not driven by anger or hatred.
Their motivations and thoughts are much higher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr7DcJdbCS0&feature=player_embedded#!
Thank you to all who have sacrificed so much.
Stingray
08-30-2010, 03:12
It is important to remember that the war on terror is not about anger at muslims.
The warriors of this nation are not driven by anger or hatred.
Their motivations and thoughts are much higher.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nr7DcJdbCS0&feature=player_embedded#!
Thank you to all who have sacrificed so much.
+1. Thank you.
Sincerely,
This is the wrong headline, it has nothing to do with Asian men, it's not racial, its Muslims and their world view.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/9-men-sent-to-jail-in-uk-for-raping-abusing-girls-in-case-that-stirred-racial-tensions/2012/05/09/gIQAzavdCU_story.html
9 men sent to jail in UK for raping, abusing girls in case that stirred racial tensions
“All of you treated (the victims) as though they were worthless and beyond any respect,” the judge told the nine men. “One of the factors leading to that was the fact that they were not part of your community or religion.”
This is the wrong headline, it has nothing to do with Asian men, it's not racial, its Muslims and their world view.
D - I don't think it's as simple as that.
Based on their ancestry, I think Islam may be a contributing factor for a number of this group, but we don't know that all of these men are, in fact, Muslim.
Geographically speaking, they are Asian men.*
Such racially motivated behaviors remains a factor amongst groups where social alienation and the latent effects of various international policies (e.g., colonialism, slavery, religion, etc) continue to be used as perverse justification for people's misbehaviors throughout our modern world.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
* South Asia - Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh.