Islamic Terrorists: Destroy American Civilization, Establish Sharia Law Worldwide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

On what grounds? Indirect communication with Taliban websites (wage jihad, how to build bombs, etc.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Indirect communication with Taliban websites (wage jihad, how to build bombs, etc.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Indirect communication with Taliban websites

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Indirect communication

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

Indirect

---

I really hope you learned something. That was a pain to post.

lol, ok u guys ya got me.

or!

the taliban has been a GREAT motivation for alot of terrorist attacks (along with the obviouse, but if U still want to point that out....)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

dont build a fortress? you tell 'em

---

Problem with a siege mentality is that it often leads to a try and stop everything approach. It is hardened but not resilient, static defense works in a symmetric conventional war. In a war that is asymmetric the cost benefit of trying to harden every site is cost prohibitive. It's better to design around a system that takes into account failure and has the ability to repair itself... a good example of that is how the internet came into being.

As for the extreme fortress approach of isolationism check out what happened to the Chinese and Japanese...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Problem with a siege mentality is that it often leads to a try and stop everything approach. It is hardened but not resilient, static defense works in a symmetric conventional war. In a war that is asymmetric the cost benefit of trying to harden every site is cost prohibitive. It's better to design around a system that takes into account failure and has the ability to repair itself... a good example of that is how the internet came into being.

As for the extreme fortress approach of isolationism check out what happened to the Chinese and Japanese...

---

More relevantly, it is best not to confuse metaphors with reality.

You may want to expand on that comment so that I can more readily understand the point you are making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You may want to expand on that comment so that I can more readily understand the point you are making.

---

There is a tendency to abstract real world issues into war on this or war on that, civilisations clashing in a struggle over resources and ideology, etc. which build metaphor upon metaphor until one has to agree with a particular position being presented or one is against freedom and democracy. Much of the Backroom Left vs Right arguments take this form. If you've ever read my posts, you'll have noticed I have little patience for this kind of thing, always drawing a distinction between abstract ideas, which act as guiding principles, and the real world, where these abstract ideas have to be put into practice.

So is the internet an abstraction or in the real world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

So is the internet an abstraction or in the real world?

---

I'd dismiss that question as pointless and uninteresting. Does this give you some insight into my way of thinking?

The problem is that I'm not sure which part of my statement is a metaphor in which you were referring too or were you referring to another's statement?... also it seems strange to talk on the net and have an expectation that we focus on reality...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

The problem is that I'm not sure which part of my statement is a metaphor in which you were referring too or were you referring to another's statement?... also it seems strange to talk on the net and have an expectation that we focus on reality...

---

I was actually referring to Cossack's repeated posts, expressed as an aside to you. That it came in the form of a reply to you probably made you think it was aimed at you, but it wasn't. The point was aimed at Cossack, but my point to you was that this is what Cossack is doing, and that you were encouraging him.

My natural assumption was since you quoted my post it was in reference only to that post... that and I'm trying to steer the conversation towards a conversation rather then personal attacks...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

This does not follow logically. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

It does NOT follow that all Muslim civilizations must be viewed in the same light. Many Muslim civilizations -- e.g. Turkey, Egypt, Morocco, Indonesia -- enjoy positive relationships with Western civilizations.

I know you are enjoying the chance to set up your "a pox on both their houses" response, but you simply cannot (or certainly haven't) supported such a premise.

---

This is why I included the following phrasing in my previous post: "that is, those which actually believe in the content of the Koran". The ones you've mentioned in your response do not, therefore I was not setting up a false dichotomy. But rather the full context of my post was not included in your response to said post.

It is reasonable to conclude that slapping a "Muslim" label onto a civilization which doesn't actually believe in or obey the Koran does not reasonably equate to that actually being a Muslim civilization. At most, it is so in name only. A misnomer, as they do not actually qualify for the definition of the words via not adhering to the spirit of what the words "Muslim civilization" entails. Therefore my previous post holds up as it was originally stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This is why I included the following phrasing in my previous post: "that is, those which actually believe in the content of the Koran". The ones you've mentioned in your response do not, therefore I was not setting up a false dichotomy.

---

No, by following your definition of muslims you weren't. I'm pretty sure they'd have something to say about your essential blanket labeling of muslims who don't believe the way you do as unbelievers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This is why I included the following phrasing in my previous post: "that is, those which actually believe in the content of the Koran". The ones you've mentioned in your response do not, therefore I was not setting up a false dichotomy. But rather the full context of my post was not included in your response to said post.

It is reasonable to conclude that slapping a "Muslim" label onto a civilization which doesn't actually believe in or obey the Koran does not reasonably equate to that actually being a Muslim civilization. At most, it is so in name only. A misnomer, as they do not actually qualify for the definition of the words via not adhering to the spirit of what the words "Muslim civilization" entails. Therefore my previous post holds up as it was originally stated.

---

Since all of the cultures I named do espouse a belief in the teachings of the prophet, it should have been clearly articulated in the original point made by you that such nations as they cannot be used as a valid basis for comparing things.

The clarity of the dichotomy you were attempting to evoke would, indeed, hold up much better based on the explanation you've rendered above. Including it in the original argument would have been better practice.

Now, as I do not -- based on my current understanding of things -- accept your characterization of the above named cultures as being only nominally Muslim, would you be so kind as to delineate for me what are the essential characteristics of an "actual" Muslim culture? Sunnism? Shia-ism? Wahabism? Are there currently ANY Muslim countries whom you would describe as being "real" Muslim cultures? Or cultures/countries that have been so historically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

lol, ok u guys ya got me.

or!

the Al-Quida has been a GREAT motivation for alot of terrorist attacks (along with the obviouse, but if U still want to point that out....)

---

Oh, I will... points at post 47... :laugh4:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And f you don't get it, it's usually a bad sign when your counter-argument ends up very close to the original statement that you argued against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

dont build a fortress? you tell 'em

---

Let me put it this way, are they a threat? Yes. Are they a big threat? Maybe. Are they a threat towards the "Western civilization" or will be in the next decades? Not directly.
Are some of the responces made by us westerners are threat towards the "Western civilization"? Yes.
So there you have it, our responces are a greater threat towards us, than the current breed of terrorists.

I'm not going to bother about voting when under siege in the middle of a war, with rockets falling over my head, but that doesn't mean that I approve removing that right because a war might happen in the future.

Tsk tsk

AL QUIDA, the I was supposed to be pronounced as AE.

obviously.

Quote:

---

Tsk tsk

AL QUIDA, the I was supposed to be pronounced as AE.

obviously

---

Arabs use a different alphabet and transliterations of words can differ, without one of them being necessarily more "correct" then another one- they all just try to get as close to the Arabic pronunction as possible. In Dutch, Al-Quida is common, and "Osama" is often spelled as "Usama" instead, for examples.

Here we write "El Kaida"...:sweatdrop:

"Аль Каида" is the only way to spell it!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Shouln't that read that the US hasn't got the balls for a long war and the leadership hasn't got the brains for a sucessful war .


No but you need a viable plan and the means to implement it , not some halfbaked ideas and a pile of lies .

---

AlRighty. But Tell me, No Country likes to see a Dictator in place (talking about Iraq before invasion), off topic somewhat, but I like to know, How would you have dealt with Saddam then? Ask Him Nice


"Mr.Hussin, Can you please step down so we can bring charges against you for killing your own people"



His Responce would be


":laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: "

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

...No country likes to see a Dictator in place (talking about Iraq before invasion)...

---

Actually, most people are pretty willing to tolerate it, as long as it's not their own country.

I haven't seen the French and Germans clamoring for a chance to bring true democracy to Belorus, nor have I noticed the Italians or British ramping up to knock Qadaffi out of power.

You have to be a little Quixotic to want to solve other people's problems.

Not all dictatorships are equal... where would someone rate Singapore?

I really, really cannot accept that the US pulls out the "look, we got the bad guy"-card.

They've been supporting FAR too many despots for that to be valid. Ironically including Mr. Saddam.

True, and Iraq is much, much worse off today than it ever was under Saddam. Dictator he may have been but the average person wasnt in fear of their life every minute of the day. And the trains ran on time. Well.. buses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Here we write "El Kaida"...:sweatdrop:

---

And "Al-Qaida" (Spiegel). Not that it matters....

Quote:

---

AlRighty. But Tell me, No Country likes to see a Dictator in place (talking about Iraq before invasion), off topic somewhat, but I like to know, How would you have dealt with Saddam then?

---

Oh thats easy , I would have helped finance him , sold him weapons , gave him, intelligence , identified targets for him to attack , helped break the sanctions that I was supposed to impose, you know normal sort of friendly dictator relationship stuff , then perhaps after telling him not to fly around killing people I would have given him permission to fly around in the helicopter gunships I sold him so he can kill people ...then maybe protect some of his victims to make thimgs look nice , but remove that protection every time another one of my friends wanted to bomb the people I was supposed to be protecting .

Oh sorry , I misunderstood you , I thought you were asking what your country did because it likes dictators ...So errrrrrr....no country likes dictators , well apart from Batista , DuValier Saddam Pinochet Noriega, Mubarak Musharraf, Galtieri, somoza , Ramero, Suharto......wow so many liked dictators eh , would you like a few more contries liked ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Oh thats easy , I would have helped finance him , sold him weapons , gave him, intelligence , identified targets for him to attack , helped break the sanctions that I was supposed to impose, you know normal sort of friendly dictator relationship stuff , then perhaps after telling him not to fly around killing people I would have given him permission to fly around in the helicopter gunships I sold him so he can kill people ...then maybe protect some of his victims to make thimgs look nice , but remove that protection every time another one of my friends wanted to bomb the people I was supposed to be protecting .

Oh sorry , I misunderstood you , I thought you were asking what your country did because it likes dictators ...So errrrrrr....no country likes dictators , well apart from Batista , DuValier Saddam Pinochet Noriega, Mubarak Musharraf, Galtieri, somoza , Ramero, Suharto......wow so many liked dictators eh , would you like a few more contries liked ?

---

Forgot North Korea :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Forgot North Korea :laugh4:

---

The US, if I recall correctly, has never supported the North Korean dictatorship of either Kim Il-sung or Kim Jong-il. Unlike the many mentioned in his post. 1 out of 12 ain't bad! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Forgot North Korea

---

No its South Korean dictators your country supported :yes:

Quote:

---

Unlike the many mentioned in his post. 1 out of 12 ain't bad

---

Hey I could add a few dozen more , but whats the point , warman clearly doesn't like history or reality .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

doesn't like history or reality .:shrug:

---

I'm glad you see that the two aren't the same. :2thumbsup: