Islamic Terrorists: Destroy American Civilization, Establish Sharia Law Worldwide

Quote:

---

The smoking-gun 1991 document his own Justice Department introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.

This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:

---

Quote:

---

The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.

---

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4235f88.html

Gee, I think that maybe running away from the middle east wouldn't be enough to appease these scum. Heck, retreating like that might even embolden them (!).

Remember, Dr. Suess doesn't approve of appeasement:
https://img207.imageshack.us/img207/...asementsl2.jpg

CR

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?

Is there any chance in hell that "the terrorists" can invade/occupy/take over a western country? No.

Knowing that, is this something we should care about? Nope.

Is this as opposed to Western Countries wanting to take over the East and imposing Christian law? No? No similarities? Okay, my mistake.

I fail to see how finding extremists (on any side) and attempting to paint a greater population as having those views does anything to add to the resolution of the current mess a number of western nations find themselves currently in. The more you attempt to address the extremists head on, inevitably the more extremists you create as you yourself are forced to extreme measures to try to remove them.

So I ask you CR, what discussion do you seek out of this thread? What point are you trying to make. That extremists have extreme viewpoints is something that most people are well aware of - you seem more intelligent than to parrot the obvious for no apparent reason, so I must be missing something here. Alarmist babble about some master plot to take over Islamic institutions and then colonise/kill Americans requires some harder evidence than the words of extremists alone - I'm not going to start campaigning for the Muslim's I work with, who I play sports with etc. to be removed or be granted limited rights on the basis of this alone.

Incidentally, you might just have the record for Godwin's Law - a nazi reference in the original post! :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.4235f88.html

Gee, I think that maybe running away from the middle east wouldn't be enough to appease these scum. Heck, retreating like that might even embolden them (!).

CR

---

So what brilliant tactics are CR suggesting to have an efficient approach against the jihadist horde?

And considering that the article deals with the problem of radicals inside the country I'm not entirely sure what retreating from the Middle East truely has to do with it.

Edit: The art of counter-terrorism is to nail the true terrorists, without pissing off the rest of the population.

That's the beauty of propaganda, scares the enemy and bolsters the ally.

I can tell you the chances that Al-Q's perverse fantasies becoming reality are about as slim as the Pope vacationing in Afghanistan.

A few weeks ago I questioned a lot of residents and locals in a Middle Eastern country and the vast majority of people I spoke to, from all walks of life completely discredited Al-Q and all other fundamentalists (including Christian fundamentalists & Zionists). The most remarkable was a taxi driver, long beard, broken Afghan English, obviously from Kandahar (Taliban stronghold). Even this man ridiculed and insulted Bin Laden & the Taliban at leisure.

I have no fears about these whackos taking over. There needs to be a military pursuit which succeeds, but in the end they cannot be eliminated from the Earth. Their reasons for 'Jihad' must be taken from them and they shall no longer have any raison d'etre.

Quote:

---

The most remarkable was a taxi driver, long beard, broken Afghan English, obviously from Kandahar (Taliban stronghold). Even this man ridiculed and insulted Bin Laden & the Taliban at leisure.

---

That would be consistant with the pre-9/11 and pre-invasion reports the US did , the Taliban and AQ had outstayed their welcome and were now into unwelcome phase of the Pashtun tribal hospitality cycle and approaching the hostile phase .

Quote:

---

The art of counter-terrorism is to nail the true terrorists, without pissing off the rest of the population.

---

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

Nice picture about the Nazis.

Of course, defeating them helped the USSR become the power it did.

~:smoking:

Thats laughable. Are you really that frightened of a fringe group of nuts? You think they can occupy and enslave you to their religious will?

Is it better for us to illegally invade and occupy Muslim countries and impose Christian laws? Dude, wake up, and see what's going on.

Don't believe the propaganda.


By the way, the war in Iraq is Islamic Fundamentalist's greatest ally across the world and is not doing anything to defeat "terrorists".

Withdrawal from Middle East and policy of letting inside less muslim immigrants into America and Europe, while using military forces at home to defend against riots which may break out over such a decision, is the only way of stopping the extremist islamists from winning. The war in Iraq is not only meaningless but also the most harmful thing to both western society, and the most peaceful of the muslim societies, since it increases hatred towards the west, and the stream of immigrants who hate west inside the western countries.

Best thing is to leave them alone at home, and use military force to enforce your right to be left alone. If this is done, they don't have military or economical capabilities of forming a threat to the western world in any way whatsoever, without risking a quick American-European invasion (I'm talking about a quick disarmament, killing of armed men, and destruction of military facilities in a quick 1-10 week operation followed by withdrawal, without any attempt of occupation, which is the type of warfare the west can handle), which creates a good deterrent for them, and makes sure very few among them feel they have any excuse at all of fighting "jihad".

To those who want to stay in Iraq: do you really want to be forcedly converted to Islam? It's about time you just admit how wrong you were and help those who knew better in defending our cultural values instead of helping our enemies in destroying it just to please your own pride! Not to mention you've already made sure democracy has been undermined in our countries! Or go join the islamists, seeing as you share their goals!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaknafien

Thats laughable. Are you really that frightened of a fringe group of nuts? You think they can occupy and enslave you to their religious will?

---

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???

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???

---

The population of those countries put together: around 700 million?

The total death toll caused by terrorists: 10.000 tops?

Yes, I'd say we have little to worry about...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

Withdrawal from Middle East and policy of letting inside less muslim immigrants into America and Europe, while using military forces at home to defend against riots which may break out over such a decision, is the only way of stopping the extremist islamists from winning.

---

I hope Britain never takes such a course. The one good thing about the War in Iraq is that it keeps the troops away from home. If British soldiers are to be posted in mainland Britain, they should be resting, or used as an emergency reserve in case of natural disasters. They should never be used against people at home. Northern Ireland was bad enough, and that's across the sea. But we do not want another Peterloo, thank you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The population of those countries put together: around 700 million?

The total death toll caused by terrorists: 10.000 tops?

Yes, I'd say we have little to worry about...

---

Wow not caring about mass murderers in one thing, but not caring about those who died?

Arent you saying that, just to argue for your position?

When you look at the big picture 10,000 people dead in 6 years is not that much. 1.5 million people die from malaria every year, now add in AIDS, Darfur, malnutrition, unclean water, etc. Remember, the key word in terrorism is terror.

Sudan and Al-Quaida are kinda connected you know. That makes for hundreds of thousands of deaths, or quite possibly the largest ethnic cleansing of our times. And Darfur was a relativily arab-minded region when they were mutually respecting the south, look what it got them.

Could you explain how Al-Q and Darfur are connected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Sudan and Al-Quaida are kinda connected you know. That makes for hundreds of thousands of deaths, or quite possibly the largest ethnic cleansing of our times. And Darfur was a relativily arab-minded region when they were mutually respecting the south, look what it got them.

---

You're linking Darfur with terrorist attacks? Wow, I thought Powell was out on a limb when he presented his "evidence" against Iraq to the UN...

BTW, you're forgetting Rwanda ~;)

@Woad: Just like I could've said it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're linking Darfur with terrorist attacks? Wow, I thought Powell was out on a limb when he presented his "evidence" against Iraq to the UN...

BTW, you're forgetting Rwanda ~;)

---

Nope, I am linking Al Quaida with ethnic cleansing in Sudan. Not sure about the current happenings in Darfur, but in the south uh-huh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're linking Darfur with terrorist attacks? Wow, I thought Powell was out on a limb when he presented his "evidence" against Iraq to the UN...

BTW, you're forgetting Rwanda ~;)

@Woad: Just like I could've said it myself.

---

LOOOOL ! That was award winning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

Could you explain how Al-Q and Darfur are connected?

---

http://books.google.nl/books?id=v2ss...JTnBVaA46AqACw

Basicly exterminated the 'Dinka' people

edit, oh dangit the relevant part isn't there. Should have been on page 40/following. Buy the book.

Ah, http://www.sudanreeves.org/Sections-article383-p1.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nope, I am linking Al Quaida with ethnic cleansing in Sudan. Not sure about the current happenings in Darfur, but in the south uh-huh.

---

I'd say that's about as valid as linking people with your views(right-wing christians/euro's nationalists) to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

Quote:

---

Not sure about the current happenings in Darfur, but in the south uh-huh.

---

Now that is interesting , especially considering this ....

Quote:

---

Basicly exterminated the 'Dinka' people

---

Now then Frag , I am a bit thick so could you help me out here .
This extermination of the dinka , does that include the various "dinka" factions slaughtering each other , does it include those who didn't like the peace settlement and went to Darfur to start fighting a new war .
I get really lost with the British French Chinese and American involvement plus all the regional players , so can you explain the Al-Qaida bit as that is really confusing , and while you are at it explain how an exterminated people now have one faction running the interim government and the other faction fighting a whole new war ?
Are they ghosts or something ? Zombies perhaps ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I'd say that's about as valid as linking people with your views(right-wing christians/euro's nationalists) to the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia.

---

Well, also linked, many jihadi's from afghanistan fought in Bosnia and were pretty nasty. Not sure about the report of crucifications but a serbian friend says he has seen it himselve. They have been expelled only a few months ago. Why not look up Hitler's islamic SS-devisions during WWII in that area, who also, were very very nasty, in fact even shocked the german SS because of their enthousiasm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

This extermination of the dinka , does that include the various "dinka" factions slaughtering each other , does it include those who didn't like the peace settlement and went to Darfur to start fighting a new war .

---

Nope. The rebels are just as bad, hey it's africa.

The rest, no can't explain that, hey it's africa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Well, also linked, many jihadi's from afghanistan fought in Bosnia and were pretty nasty. Not sure about the report of crucifications but a serbian friend says he has seen it himselve. They have been expelled only a few months ago. Why not look up Hitler's islamic SS-devisions during WWII in that area, who also, were very very nasty, in fact even shocked the german SS because of their enthousiasm.

---

You're trying to make the bosnian muslims look worse than the serbian christians? Good luck. Ever heard of, oh, Srebrenica, for example? Sorry, whatever the bosnians did pales compared to that.

Quote:

---

Nope.

---

Oh so it wasn't an extermination then , you had me really worried then , what with the prospect of ghosts and zombies:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Well, also linked, many jihadi's from afghanistan fought in Bosnia and were pretty nasty.

---

Hey don't forget Kosovo ....now who was it that was arming and supporting those jihadis ?

Quote:

---

Why not look up Hitler's islamic SS-devisions during WWII in that area, who also, were very very nasty, in fact even shocked the german SS because of their enthousiasm.

---

Would they be more or less shocking than the croation catholic ones who did them nice little concentration camps or the orthadox ones who thought it was best in the long run ?
How about the Latvians , Ukranians , Lithuanians , French , Dutch , Norwegians , Danes , Spaniards......so many to choose from eh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You're trying to make the bosnian muslims look worse than the serbian christians? Good luck. Ever heard of, oh, Srebrenica, for example? Sorry, whatever the bosnians did pales compared to that.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Hey don't forget Kosovo ....now who was it that was arming and supporting those jihadis ?

---

So? Rules of the game is making alliances and breaking them, doesn't change individual aspirations. It's a complex thing.

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.

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