Reply With Quote
If you go to Home Depot, they sell these little ant traps.
Kind of creates the need for a lot more battlefields -- unless you plan on success in cordially inviting all of the world's Islamo-facists to the extant theaters of operation.
Wouldn't rounding them all up be a more certain and expedient solution?
If you go to Home Depot, they sell these little ant traps.
In the real world outside simple black and white Yoni thinking, there are nice Muslims and bad Muslims, and you can't tell the difference until either they start shooting at you or blow themselves up or hijack your airplane, and our leaders would prefer not to just kill all of them, good and bad, just yet.
This is why national leaders think really hard and make hard decisions about how to solve problems, because they are not easy problems to solve. On the battlefield, terrorists do not wear signs that say "TERRORIST." They look just like everybody else up until the IED blows up.
Oh, Yoni, just because I gave you an intellectual ass-whooping doesn't mean I'm some weak-kneed liberal. I understand there's a very real threat, and I accept that someday in order to prevent the destruction of our society by that violent 10% or so, we may have to kill a whole bunch of that other 90% that aren't violent.
Right now, I think it's important to remember that resorting to that is not a good thing even though if horrors befall it might become necessary, and we have to do everything in our power to make sure it never, ever comes to that, and that starting to objectify all those people is lazy, amoral thinking to rationalize the horrible last resort.
The point is not to advocate destruction of muslims, but to bring awareness to the western world that Islam is a religion of war and submission.
The western world needs to regulate muslim immigration, as europe is beggining to learn this already.
The point is, that if we are gonna fight terrorism, we need to acknowledge the truth. We won't win this with half truths, and maintain a PC fable.
Islam is dangerous. the Quran has steps in which to conquer civilizations. IT involves deception that muslims are tolerant, then once they gain a majority, they then advocate sharia law, and begin to conquer.
THis is already going on in places like the Ukraine, africa, and australia.
Shouldn't the United States then immediately expel all Muslims who won't immediately disavow their religion?
If you all haven't watched it already, I recommend you all watch the movie Syriana.
Well, they obligingly swarmed to Iraq. And, in case you didn't know, we're probably involved in various levels of conflict with terrorists in over two dozen countries.
Wouldn't it be fun to turn the tables on those bloodthirsty Muslims by declaring a jihad on them?!?!?
Just to help you realize how much of a useful idiot you and the other liberal kooks have become, the Mudville Gazette has a must-read post on the al Qaeda video depicting the bodies of the two American soldiers who were reportedly abducted in Iraq. It begins:
Greyhawk's post needs to be read in its entirety; it makes several distinct and important points. To abstract, very briefly:
1) This video is consistent with the strategy laid out in an important al Qaeda manifesto led The Management of Savagery:
- Brutal killings must be explained in a manner that justifies the atrocity.
- Public opinion must be turned against the enemy soldiers.
- Al Qaeda should be seen as the solution to the chaos/savagery - even as they foment more such atrocities (hence the le).
These efforts are to be directed at the local Muslim population in any conflict. In Iraq, with a majority non-Sunni population, they will achieve limited success. But the even more powerful response is desired from the population of the enemy state - erosion of support for the effort on the home front.
2) The video's claim that the murder of the two Americans was in retaliation for the alleged rape and murder of an Iraqi girl, and the murder of several family members, is in all probability false. al Qaeda learned of this incident, in all likelihood, from American media as a result of the military's own investigation.
3) Happily, it appears most likely from the video that the two Americans, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, were not abducted at all, but rather were killed in the initial attack, along with the third soldier whose body was left in the vehicle. In an email to us, Greyhawk writes:
This video offers evidence (if you know where to look) that those soldiers weren't "abducted", but were more likely killed in the original attack. *** Obviously I don't offer this as conclusive proof, but I am confident this was the case.
Yeah, I don't see bravery coming in the form of declaring wars based on religious disagreements.
I don't dispute that from an objective standpoint, the guiding texts of almost any religion can be read by someone in some fashion that supports elimination of non-believers. I don't dispute that there are some who pervert religion to support particular agendas. When those individuals and those who are likeminded begin killing innocents, I'm certainly in favor of killing them. Hence, my repeated support here for the effort of American troops in Afghanistan. And while my political sensibilities tell me that the decision to invade Iraq was not the correct one, I am quite certain that I've never posted anything in this forum in which I call for withdraw from Iraq or suggest that the effort there should be undermined. I make no bones about my opposition to this President and his Administration, but other than a fanatical desire to derisively label those who believe differently than you do, I don't think you can extrapolate from that statement and deduce that I am somehow opposed to the effort of our troops in Iraq now that they are there.
I also don't think that the prosecution of a war against a relative minority of religious zealots offers carte blanche to eliminate others who coincidentally share a religion but have not so distorted that religion in murderous ways.
And I'll never support the notion that an entire religious group should be eradicated because a small percentage of those who are faithful to the religion see belief as a ground for death and destruction.
If you're trying to convince me that I'm foolish if I don't see Islam as something inherently bad or dangerous or flawed and that the world would be a better place without Muslims, I can assure you that I'm quite thankful that I'll never reach your level of xenophobia.
Last edited by FromWayDowntown; 07-11-2006 at 10:02 PM.
I don't know how many different ways I can put this for you but, let me try one more.
I will be satisfied when only those Muslims who believe their religion is a peaceful religion are left.
Then why the generalizations throughout this thread about Islam? I've been glib here until my last post, largely because I find the premise of the thread to be ridiculous. I was inclined to assume a degree of glibness in your posts, but frankly, as the thread has progressed, my willingness to believe that has significantly diminished.
I distinguished between the Islamo-fascists, the "cowards" in their faith who stand by while their faith is perverted, and those who are genuinely outraged by the acts of others in the name of Islam (even if they are a small minority).
Sorry you weren't clear on that.
Sometimes I wonder whether gculo is for real or if one of the smart posters just made him up as an idiot character for laughs.
Muslims are almost as big a threat to America as those filthy sexuals.
Let's hope the two never, ever join forces!
Homuslexuals (Copywrite 2006)
No, but we should limit the flow of muslim immigration so that we won't encounter a problem like Europe is already experiencing.
I mean you could write this off as kook talk, but in the end it is you putting your head in the sand.
Is accepting the fact that a Religion has violent tenets, present a daunting problem? Will this affect your fairy tale-wonderland-Politically Correct-world in which no religion can ever be dangerous because then it would collapse your house of cards?
But if the religion is fundamentally a violent one and its adherents are disposed to violence because they are Islamic, wouldn't the better policy be immediate expulsion? I mean you limit the problem by curbing immigration certainly, but if you're right, you can completely eradicate the problem by expelling, interring, or even just executing all Muslims. After all: no Islam, no Islamic violence, right?
If you're going to take a stand, I'd think you wouldn't want to be willy-nilly about it.
The militant Muslim leaders are not in this for religious purposes. They want the
political power and wealth that goes with it. They use the religion and their
followers to gain this political power and wealth.
I do have a problem with any group that refuses to assimilate into the culture that
THEY have chosen to join. Diversity wasn't what made this country great. It was
the fact that all became one. Hence the melting pot. Diversity is what destroys.
i.e. tribes. Look at the ME countries. They have great diversity. They are called
tribes and live as such.
Look at many of the European countries. The Mullahs control many of the people
who have immigrated to those countries and dictated what they can and must
wear and live and think and you see the consequences. The same is happening
here in the United States. If you don't want to become part of the country
you have chosen, then you should stay where you were. You cannot expect
the adopted country to change their customs and way of life to suit you. When
in Rome........
Certainly that explains why most major American cities have Chinatowns, and Little Italy's and other ethnic neighborhoods where the customs and languages of the homelands are perpetuated and American customs (and even American language) is ignored.
And there can be little doubt, from the standpoint of history, that the drive for genaeity worked extremely well in Europe in the late 30's and 40's.
What happened to our soldiers is horrible. Everyone agrees. I don't want to see the video, thank you.
I don't want to see the video of our soldiers raping, killing the rape victim, and killing her whole family, and dragging them out of the house and setting them on fire either.
Okay your moral equivalence is appalling.
Who can tell me the difference between the two incidents clambake has just joined?
That's right class. The United States government is investigating and prosecuting the alleged criminals that perpetrated the crime against the Iraqi family. Al Qaeda is lauding the barbarous acts of their jihadis.
Hey, I have never heard or seen Little Italy or Chinatown blow each other up. Not the same.
Ask the British how the whole "let as many in as possible" thing is working for them.
The only thing equal is both are barbaric acts, dip .
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions