Islamic Terrorists: Destroy American Civilization, Establish Sharia Law Worldwide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not really, these kind of things go back a long way. In eastern europe war has always been about numbers, no chivalry there.

---

Yes really. The muslims have not done anything to the serbs of that scale. So yes, the christians were the bad guys in that conflict.

Heck, they still have blood feuds down there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Thats laughable. Are you really that frightened of a fringe group of nuts?

---

A fringe group of nuts brought down the WTC.

Quote:

---

You think they can occupy and enslave you to their religious will?

---

I don't think they can impose sharia law on the whole population with force. But though the naive actions of political correct multiculturalists, radicals have been helped in promoting sharia law. Muslim women in Canada were allowed to go to the voting booth with their face covered. In Germany a judge didn't grant a Muslim woman a divorce because getting abused is part of her culture.

To ignore the threat of extremists and just pretend everything is lollipops and sunshine is foolish.

Quote:

---

Don't believe the propaganda.

---

That's the stupidest thing. This is what the radicals themselves are saying. How on earth is that propaganda?

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Yes really. The muslims have not done anything to the serbs of that scale. So yes, the christians were the bad guys in that conflict.

---

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: Sorry but you are wrong. Maybe not in that particular conflict, but these things don't come out of nowhere you know. They hate eachother for a reason, centuries of conflict being one of them.

Quote:

---

Not really, these kind of things go back a long way. In eastern europe war has always been about numbers, no chivalry there.

---

Is there ever Chivlery in war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Is there ever Chivlery in war?

---

If there is a word for it it usually exists.

Theres a word for Utopia to and we havn't achived that. Chivlery is an ideal rarley held up to in times of war. Find me one war without its actrocities be they civillian causilties shoting prisoners, using gas ect...

yeah, and supposedly US soldiers don't kill civilians or children either. Hm, so much for chivalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

yeah, and supposedly US soldiers don't kill civilians or children either. Hm, so much for chivalry.

---

Well since we've brought up U.S. soldiers killing civs, how many have you killed today Zaknafien???


Also, was my argument was disproven because of disease killing more than terrorists?

why would anyone use the excuse of Aids killing more than terrorists, thus meaning terrorist are not a bad problem?!?!?

You all got me confused:dizzy2:

I have no support for Islamic terror, but one things strikes me:

We impose Democracy because we believe it a good system for government, They believe Islam a good system of government and so seek to impose it on us.

Now i dont think they are right, but i can see how the forced introduction of Democracy such as in Iraq, could be made with little properganda effort to resemble from their perspective. Somthing as bad as the forced islamizing that people here fear.

Al Qaeda as an organisation has been blown out of all proportion. In fact it exists today both due to the attention it has received in the media, the way that George Bush and co have spun it as the James Bond style "international terror network" and due to the 11/9 WTC attack. Every budding homegrown "terrorist" claims links with Al Qaeda, to gain some credibility. And any big attack that comes off, such as 11/9 turns out to have Al Qaeda behind it. It suits the agenda of the UK and US governments, that there be a "terror mastermind" behind the scenes coordinating these operations - as this is far more simplistic and easier for the masses to understand. The root of the problem is not this shadowy organisation but an ideology that uses religion as a cover story and a bait. This ideology is held in high contempt by the overwhelming majority of muslims. Unfortunately, like fascism or any other extreme politics, it gains ground in deprived areas and among the disillusioned populace in war zones such as Iraq.

Thats an excellent point, Byzantine Merc. Democracy is not the be all end all of governmental systems, especially for many cultures in the world. Democracy even in the west is not what we think it is; its just been imposed upon our collective psyche for decades, leading us to believe we are "free".

Iraqis, paticularly view democracy as a dirty word. Their previous tastes of democracy all ended very poorly, more people should research the British and even the Ottomans in Iraq and look at all the parallels to today's silly war there.

K Cossack, why, none today, since I'm in Louisiana. Ask me again in December when Ive been in Doura for awhile and I'll let you know how many have been killed by my comrades or me indirectly or directly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The root of the problem is not this shadowy organisation but an ideology that uses religion as a cover story and a bait. This ideology is held in high contempt by the overwhelming majority of muslims. Unfortunately, like fascism or any other extreme politics, it gains ground in deprived areas and among the disillusioned populace in war zones such as Iraq.

---

Wise words.

'cept for that "blown out of proportion" thing. These guys cannot be underestimated.

No, he's exactly right. Al Qaeda is the boogeyman of the 21st century. The same people who blew the "Commie" threat out of proprotion in the 20th century have done it to "Islamo-Fascists", a hilarious word if ever there was one, in this century. Its the same fearmongering used to goad the public into giving up their civil liberties and providing excuses for continuous wars of profit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Wise words.

'cept for that "blown out of proportion" thing. These guys cannot be underestimated.

---

Which is precisely what you're supposed to think. You are right in a way though. Uncoordinated groups of budding terrorists cannot be underestimated. A huge international terror network can at least be infiltrated by the intelligence services and foiled, an isolated group acting entirely alone cannot. Just as an unhinged madman with a knife, acting entirely alone, cannot.

The US has a very much 'heroes and villains' culture which has been perpetuated by both the government over there and the film industry. George W Bush's words after 11/09 "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" make this 'heroes and villains' strategy quite clear. If 11/9 had turned out to be a group of Saudis that had worked all of this out on their own and managed to pull this thing off, it wouldn't have sounded as good as a group of fanatics working for a hollywood "terrorist mastermind" hiding out in Afghanistan - which is coincidentally exactly where the US had wanted to invade anyway.

Since when did the US plan on invading Afghanistan before september 11th?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Since when did the US plan on invading Afghanistan before september 11th?

---

The US launched missiles into Afghanistan, as well as Sudan in 1998, as retaliation for the embassy bombings but perhaps that doesn't really count as a possible lead up to an invasion? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Could you send a letter to the White House Ironside , perhaps you will have more luck than Karzai or Maliki did .

---

Eh, I rather not, it's a bit harder to pull off in those areas. And it takes a few years to study the situation to get it done properly. But it would be quite funny to wreak havok fireing the incompetent people in Iraq. Should be a quite long list by now.

Those CR mention is easier, treat them as regular terrorists and not as some special kind, forever interlinked with Islam. They're the Baader-Meinhof Gang of Islam and linking BMG with SPD because they're both in the political left would be folish, as will it be to link AQ factions to Islam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Theres been attacks by al qaeda in

New York (twice)
pentagon
London
Madrid
Saudi Arabia
Afganistan
Pakistan
Sinai
Istanbul
Aden
Niarobi
Jakarta and Bali
Djerba

Really, sure you wanna feel all powerful against these guys???

---

You're aware that it isn't one organisation behind those attacks right? Al-Qaida is currently more or less a fashion statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The US launched missiles into Afghanistan, as well as Sudan in 1998, as retaliation for the embassy bombings but perhaps that doesn't really count as a possible lead up to an invasion? :inquisitive:

---

no that doesn't count as a lead up to an invasion. For starters, Clinton was the president in 1998 and Bush was the president in 2001.

I'd like to reiterate two main points:
This document is from 1991, and is not from AQ, and far before Iraq II, and even predates the USA not pulling out of Arabian military bases when OBL wanted us too.

It shows the focus of this group, at least, is not solely for defense of Muslim countries, as apologetics for AQ have claimed. We could go all isolationist on them and they'd want to make Sharia law in the USA.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

No, he's exactly right. Al Qaeda is the boogeyman of the 21st century. The same people who blew the "Commie" threat out of proprotion in the 20th century have done it to "Islamo-Fascists", a hilarious word if ever there was one, in this century. Its the same fearmongering used to goad the public into giving up their civil liberties and providing excuses for continuous wars of profit.

---

If you're talking about McCarthyism and the marginalization of home-grown communists, I'd have to agree that it was blown out of proportion. But then there was at least an actual threat involved - the Soviet Union was a dangerous enemy (arguably less so in Breznjev's years, but that's hindsight) wich had a network of spies throughout most, if not all NATO countries. I agree that the War on Terror is a misguided conflict against a seriously overestimated danger, but the Cold War was not.

Well certainly the SU was diametrically opposed to Western commercial intrests; but as a military threat is was largely exaggerated. There was never going to be a Fulda Gap or a nuclear armaggedon.


Crazed Rabbit,exactly. there are dozens of tiny groups of madmen and dispossessed radicals who want to destroy "American culture" whatever that is. Most of it being homegrown, actually. America has a long history of producing insurgents who want to take down the corrupt government, the even before the Constitution was ratified with patriots like Luke Day and Daniel Shays.

This is far from an orchestrated effort by global "Cobra command" terrorist groups that Bush would have us believe "Al Qaeda" is to take over America and convert its population into goodly Muslims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Well certainly the SU was diametrically opposed to Western commercial intrests; but as a military threat is was largely exaggerated. There was never going to be a Fulda Gap or a nuclear armaggedon.

---

Actually a year or so back the Polish government realeased old Warshaw documents that showed that the SU did have an outlined strategy for bombing western Germany and then pushing troops through it. Of course they were more "just in case" preparations instead of actual invasion plans.
As for a MAD never happening, I'll have to insist that that's purely hindsight. I'm glad that JFK was in charge during the Cuban crisis and not a figure like GW Bush. I don't think that the MAD doctrine existed at that point, and some generals erronously believed that they could pull of a first strike with little losses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

You're aware that it isn't one organisation behind those attacks right? Al-Qaida is currently more or less a fashion statement.

---

So which part attacked the twin towers? was it a different orginization that attacked the pentagon too?

Blowing up large places in coordinated attacks should point something out to you people, or do you want to let your guard down and slip up (have hundreds or thousands die) agian.

The thing about Daniel Shay and other 'individuals' is that now the individuals can all connect on the internet, and plan things across the globe, not just limited to postal area or region.

4,000 people died from malaria today and 4,000 more will die tomorrow and 4,000 more the next day...I'll say it again, the terrorists main weapon is terror. If you treat the terrorists like a disease(and thats what they are) they are much less frightening and thus less powerful. Of course we should keep our guard up but most likely if there is another terrorist on US soil, it will be carried out by homegrown Americans who claim to be part of Al Q but in reality are working alone and trying to get celebrated as martyrs by radical muslims by claiming to work for Al Q. .

Malaria is not a terrorist.

Keep our guard up eh? finnaly I've gotten through!

But think, what happens if we stop paying attention to terrorists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

Actually a year or so back the Polish government realeased old Warshaw documents that showed that the SU did have an outlined strategy for bombing western Germany and then pushing troops through it. Of course they were more "just in case" preparations instead of actual invasion plans.
As for a MAD never happening, I'll have to insist that that's purely hindsight. I'm glad that JFK was in charge during the Cuban crisis and not a figure like GW Bush. I don't think that the MAD doctrine existed at that point, and some generals erronously believed that they could pull of a first strike with little losses.

---

Try a read of Allison's Essence of Decision for some good info on October 1962.

Given the USA's superiority in Strategic weapons at the time of the "Missile Crisis" the USA would have "won" the nuclear war that would likely have resulted from an invasion of Cuba by the US Army and Marines. Soviet control of the USSR would very likely have collapsed following the catastrophic impact a US nuclear attack would have had on their strategic forces and military/industrial infrastructure.

By contrast, the Soviet arsenal was far less reliable, far less accurate, and (at least for the non ICBM forces) somewhat more prone to interception. The USA would have survived, and would have maintained some measure of strategic capability along with command and control therefor.

Fortunately, nobody in DC thought the 10s of millions of dead price-tag for such a "victory" (far too much of the Soviet arsenal would, perforce, have been counter-value) was worth it.

As later history efforts have shown, U.S. Generals were incorrect in their estimation that the Soviets would not have pulled a nuclear trigger over the invasion of Cuba. The Soviets had already granted authority for tactical nuclear weapons to their local theatre commander, who subsequently confirmed that he would have targeted the invasion fleet with those weapons as he was hopelessly outclassed conventionally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

But think, what happens if we stop paying attention to terrorists?

---

Not much. We'll have more freedom than now though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Malaria is not a terrorist.

Keep our guard up eh? finnaly I've gotten through!

But think, what happens if we stop paying attention to terrorists?

---

If we completely stop paying attention to them then they will eventually realize that their tactic of terror doesn't work and they will give up. Of course, no one is willing to accept the body count that would occur before they gave up.

Also, you will find that I am one of the few people who is a moderate in just about every subject and my opinions can be changed by a good argument, so I encourage everyone to challenge my beliefs.:yes:

Horetore & Woad & Fangs:

You ask the impossible. In a coldly rational world, it might make sense to simply ignore terrorists and accept the 1,000's of casualties they have caused as a "cost of doing business." It is true that putting malaria into the smallpox category or halving the number of traffic deaths would save far more lives than terrorists are likely to kill (barring the use of multiple nuclear weapons by terrorists). Human beings simply can't -- and I don't think they should -- be that dispassionate. If you hurt me and mine, it is exceedingly difficult not to strike back in defense of self and community.

Your advocated approach boils down to: Excercise some precaution, but mostly ignore it. Once ignored, they'll stop since they're not getting a reaction.

I disagree. The bullies I dealt with as a schoolboy -- terrorism on a small scale -- were only encouraged to "keep up the skeer" whenever they were not confronted. After a few confrontations, I was no longer targeted.

I recognize that my analogy is simplistic, but I have yet to see any credible argument that your approach would yield truly beneficial results.