Islamic Terrorists: Destroy American Civilization, Establish Sharia Law Worldwide

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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".

---

Only if you use an absolutist definition of "free." In an absolute sense, none of us are "free" in that any decision we make or action we take is constrained by circumstance etc. That is simply the facts of existence. I do not, and never have, accepted the argument that our freedom is completely illusory and that the entire game is rigged by some self-interested cabal so that my entire spectrum of choices is moot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

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.

---

Sources for this? Numerous anecdotal points of evidence (local radio broadcasts, news articles, personal discussions with those who've served there -- I live in Hampton Roads, lotsa service folk about) don't give me that impression at all. Worried more about security than democracy per se -- you could make a good argument here. But I am not getting a picture as bleak as you depict from my sources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

It's a matter of scale. I prefer to keep responses scaled to the level of threat, neither too much that it infringes unnecessarily on my everyday life, nor so little that it ignores the threat altogether. For this, one needs knowledge of the nature of the threat, and a sensible assessment and decision regarding its nature and the appropriate response to it. Now this may seem nebulous about what should be done, but the alarmist tracts I've seen here and elsewhere are clearly how it should not be done. For one thing, over-reactions lead to OTT, expensive yet ineffective actions being taken, and I'd rather my government avoid wasting money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

But that is a big not much. (sry getting sleepy)

@woad&fangs- I have? (changed some of ur opinion) YES!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

---

Terrorism like bullying both seek attention.

Both should be dealt with maximum force that is applicable to the ones who perpetrate while giving them minimal bad boy publicity. Neither event should lead to group think or group punishment.

Also if you want political leverage then saving lives buys more then being seen as the ones blowing up homes. Terrorists rarely get what they want from the act of violence that they instigate, it is the violent reaction that they get the political mileage from.

To defeat terrorism we should hunt down the terrorists while making the rest of their community feel obliged to help us. Generally people feel obliged to others that fulfill their needs and wants not to those who are taking them away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

But that is a big not much. (sry getting sleepy)

@woad&fangs- I have? (changed some of ur opinion) YES!!!!!!!!!!!

---

It looks like I made someone happy. I think that's a good way to end my day.
Good Night Everyone~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope

Yes but being in Iraq is givening them a nice recuirting poster to wave around. Lets think of this for now in pure millitary terms. Is our presence in Iraq really making a difference in disrupting any terriorist organization that could attack us here?

---

it will only show that the United States has no balls for a long and sucessfull war.



Do we another 9/11 for you doubters to "support" a invasion? do we need another one of these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

It's a matter of scale. I prefer to keep responses scaled to the level of threat, neither too much that it infringes unnecessarily on my everyday life, nor so little that it ignores the threat altogether. For this, one needs knowledge of the nature of the threat, and a sensible assessment and decision regarding its nature and the appropriate response to it. Now this may seem nebulous about what should be done, but the alarmist tracts I've seen here and elsewhere are clearly how it should not be done. For one thing, over-reactions lead to OTT, expensive yet ineffective actions being taken, and I'd rather my government avoid wasting money.

---

Yours is a far more focused criticism, Pannonian. You might argue that the response was out of proportion, or poorly executed/thought out as to long-term ramifications based on your stated perspective. Such criticisms have, for me, a far greater degree of validity than does the perspective to which I responded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

To defeat terrorism we should hunt down the terrorists while making the rest of their community feel obliged to help us. Generally people feel obliged to others that fulfill their needs and wants not to those who are taking them away.

---

To listen to my coterie of returning veterans, that's exactly what we are attempting to do in Iraq, though our miscues and idiotic mistakes (e. g. Abu Gharib) seem to garner far more of the attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

But that is a big not much. (sry getting sleepy)

@woad&fangs- I have? (changed some of ur opinion) YES!!!!!!!!!!!

---

A LOT less than what we will get if we continue to ignore problems like AIDS, malaria, starvation, water supplies, global warming, etc etc

Face it, counter-terrorism is not the most cost-effective way to save lives. In fact, it's one of the worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

To listen to my coterie of returning veterans, that's exactly what we are attempting to do in Iraq, though our miscues and idiotic mistakes (e. g. Abu Gharib) seem to garner far more of the attention.

---

Pick any mainstream newspaper of any political leaning (not something like Epoch Times)... now go and count the number of bad news articles to good news ones... unless you read the lifestyle magazines the newspapers generally report bad news to good news at about a ten to one ratio... once you minus sports (which tends to focus only on the wins), lifestyle and comics that is.

So I don't think it is a deliberate campaign to show the Iraq war in a bad light... its simply the way news is focused and how the media makes their money. Heck even political campaigns are more smear then dear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

long and sucessfull war.

---

How do you fight an -ism, an idea? There is no means to attack fog (ignoring low temperatures of course), no physical weaponry to kill a notion, a simple radical belief structure. Can you fight feminism or racism? In some ways I guess you can, and you do it though education and opinion control not through brute force. Let me draw upon a simple idea (much the same as how terrorism is an idea), if you were to go into an Arabic town and takeover, would hostility be perpetuated through destroying their village and killing many or through assessing the needs of the people and meeting the basic demands of a better standard of living for the inhabitants? If you could either kill a thirsty man's family or give his family a well, which would make him regard your efforts in good stead?

Hamas (and this is true, they actually do, I'm currently studying this era and locality) goes to towns and offers education, security and aid, and in return the people pledge their loyalty to Hamas, the group that helped them in dire times of need.

But, is anyone clear of wrong-doing? No. But are we all to quick to blame? I believe so.

P.S: That's a hectic video, especially the reflection in the building next to the WTC. Very sad. I found out something interesting though, the buildings fell in 8 seconds, which in psychics terms means that for such a velocity to have been reached there must have been a vacuum inside, or some sort of catalyst. But I don't believe in that conspiracy stuff, so most likely due to something used in the construction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

How do you fight an -ism, an idea?

---

Propaganda is by far the best way to do that(and yes, "education" is propaganda in this respect).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Only if you use an absolutist definition of "free." In an absolute sense, none of us are "free" in that any decision we make or action we take is constrained by circumstance etc. That is simply the facts of existence. I do not, and never have, accepted the argument that our freedom is completely illusory and that the entire game is rigged by some self-interested cabal so that my entire spectrum of choices is moot.



Sources for this? Numerous anecdotal points of evidence (local radio broadcasts, news articles, personal discussions with those who've served there -- I live in Hampton Roads, lotsa service folk about) don't give me that impression at all. Worried more about security than democracy per se -- you could make a good argument here. But I am not getting a picture as bleak as you depict from my sources.

---

Im leaving for morning PT, so I dont have time to write a detailed response, but I can offer several books that cover the subject pretty well:

Inventing Iraq: The Failure of Nation Building and a History Denied by Toby Dodge

Iraq 1941: The battles for Basra, Habbaniya, Fallujah and Baghdad by Robert Lyman

The Creation of Iraq, 1914-1921 by Gary Sick

Among others, these books show the history of imposing democracy in the region from the british side, at least. You'd be eerily famillar with everything the brits did in the 20s in Iraq, from the Constitution to the arming of a ethnic-dominant police force. You think our great planners would have learned a thing or two from a previous failed occupation.. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Islamic Terrorists: Destroy American Civilization, Establish Sharia Law Worldwide

---

Yet America and all the self-proclaimed "civilized" nations of the world have the goal to destroy all Muslim Civilizations (that is, those which actually believe in the content of the Koran) and Establish a Secular Humanist Law Worldwide.

Which is pretty much just two sides of the same coin. Therefore I don't see how "scum" can be attributed to the Muslim combatants (as it is done so in the OP) any more validly than it could also be applied to the combatants from "civilized" nations which are striving from the exact same type of nefarious goal, only on the opposite side of the fence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

P.S: That's a hectic video

---

My Answer Right there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

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

---

:inquisitive: So you claim that the Madrid, London, Istanbul and 9/11 bombers all had contact with each other? On what grounds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K COSSACK

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.

---

Keeping the guard up is one thing, building a fortress for the clash of civilizations is another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

it will only show that the United States has no balls for a long and sucessfull war.

Do we another 9/11 for you doubters to "support" a invasion? do we need another one of these?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

---

It usually helps if you do things like invade something that actually has something do with the reason on why you invaded (to prevent terrorism right?).
But everyone can get off a bad start. But if you then start to make about every mistake in the text-book about how to occupy and rebuild a place, then you ratings isn't exactly gonna improve.
From what I've red, the surge and Petraeus is one of the few things that haven't been a failure, that said they haven't been that successful on reaching the supposed goal (a partial goal has been reached though).

Currently it has been handled about a good as giving a shotgun to a blind man to stop a criminal running in a crowd, to advocate gun rights. Doesn't matter if you agree with the issue or not, it's still folish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Yet America and all the self-proclaimed "civilized" nations of the world have the goal to destroy all Muslim Civilizations (that is, those which actually believe in the content of the Koran) and Establish a Secular Humanist Law Worldwide.

Which is pretty much just two sides of the same coin. Therefore I don't see how "scum" can be attributed to the Muslim combatants (as it is done so in the OP) any more validly than it could also be applied to the combatants from "civilized" nations which are striving from the exact same type of nefarious goal, only on the opposite side of the fence.

---

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

Rabbit ascribed these "destroy and replace Western Civ" goals to a muslim terror fringe group. Rabbit implied that most other such groups could be presumed to share a similar goal (which can be debated, but is a reasonable inference).

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.

Quote:

---

it will only show that the United States has no balls for a long and sucessfull war.

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Do we another 9/11 for you doubters to "support" a invasion?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Yours is a far more focused criticism, Pannonian. You might argue that the response was out of proportion, or poorly executed/thought out as to long-term ramifications based on your stated perspective. Such criticisms have, for me, a far greater degree of validity than does the perspective to which I responded.

---

I think that the response to 9/11 and the direct terrorist threat to the US was so obviously out of proportion with regards to numbers (troops, funding...) as well in targets (Iraq in particular) is what has raised the most doubts about what exactly the US administration's real goals were and are. The constant balancing act between actual and stated goals and the compromises in actions is what has done some of the greatest damage to the war on terror, the war in Iraq and to the credibility of the US overseas.

And, for that matter, to the credibility of European countries in the US and among their own populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

:inquisitive: So you claim that the Madrid, London, Istanbul and 9/11 bombers all had contact with each other? On what grounds?



Keeping the guard up is one thing, building a fortress for the clash of civilizations is another.

---

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


dont build a fortress? you tell 'em

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.