Al Qaeda in Syria??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/al-qaeda-in-syria

.Al Qaeda in Syria?
Arabic News Digest

Feb 20, 2012
Save this article

.

-------Al Qaeda in Syria may regroup after the release of Abu Musab Al Suri, the 'mufti of murder'

Abu Musab Al Suri, one of Al Qaeda's foremost strategists, was recently released from an Aleppo prison but the story somehow did not make big news, wrote Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi writer, in Saturday's edition of the London-based newspaper Al Hayat.

Mr Al Suri was reportedly captured by the US army in Pakistan several years ago and, oddly, handed over to the Syrian authorities. Now he is out there, but nobody knows where exactly in a very unstable Syria, the writer said.

Soon after his release, two bomb attacks hit security buildings in the city of Aleppo, north-west of Syria. Sure enough, Al Qaeda's Iraq branch issued a statement endorsing "jihad in Syria," though not explicitly claiming responsibility for the attacks.

"The Al Qaeda statement was credible, unlike the awkwardly worded and flagrantly fabricated statements the [Syrian] regime sometimes comes up with," the writer said. "It also revealed in some detail the migration of Al Qaeda's followers from Iraq into Syria."

Reports from Iraq's Anbar province, which is close to the Syrian border, say there are concerted efforts to fundraise and stockpile medicines - and even weapons - to bring support to the Syrian people against the regime of President Bashar Al Assad, the writer said.

"You can see that the right conditions are there for Al Qaeda to recruit."

Indeed, the probability of Al Qaeda becoming a key factor in Syrian affairs is undeniable, and the release of Mr Al Suri makes that probability a solid one.

He is one of "Al Qaeda's theorists," the writer said. "And I dare say that he, Abu Qatada Al Filistini and Abu Mohammed Al Maqdisi are the ones who made Al Qaeda as we know it …

"They did not join Osama bin Laden; he joined them," he went on.

"I know the man well. I interviewed him before … He is radical beyond limits. He theorised terrorism in Algeria, and issued fatwas to kill and made violating people's privacy and possessions permissible.

"He used to record his gibberish in cassette tapes and weekly pamphlets that were distributed at the entrance of mosques around London and from there would find their way to Algeria. He was the mufti of murder and blood par excellence."

If Mr Abu Musab managed to stoke fitna (instability fuelled by religious or sectarian differences) in a country like Algeria, which has an overwhelming Sunni majority, it is anyone's guess what he could achieve in Syria, which boasts an intricate constellation of sects

^^^^^^^^ This is from an Arab source. Sure we shouldnt worry abouit any of those wmds falling into the wrong hands, right Jafar?-Tyr

[jafar00]

^^^^^^^^ This is from an Arab source. Sure we shouldnt worry abouit any of those wmds falling into the wrong hands, right Jafar?-Tyr

A large proportion of Syrians are Sufis and would never fall in bed with the hated wahhabi sect of Al Qaeda.

[jimnyc]

Like I said, others here have posted supposed proof that Al Qaeda is down to like 200 members in total. Of course it only takes one or 2 to make a massive explosion, but apparently they aren't as dangerous as a whole as they used to be, or we would be lead to believe. But, some on the left will downplay Al Qaeda, as no longer a threat, but then have us worry about them in other places. Odd.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Like I said, others here have posted supposed proof that Al Qaeda is down to like 200 members in total. Of course it only takes one or 2 to make a massive explosion, but apparently they aren't as dangerous as a whole as they used to be, or we would be lead to believe. But, some on the left will downplay Al Qaeda, as no longer a threat, but then have us worry about them in other places. Odd.

Jim, they are now saying that unless USA /obama helps the Syrian rebels there Al Qaeda will. As if we must allow obama to do so by givingour support to stop Al Qaeda there. Were it not for the election being so close no doubt obama would have already had our planes and missiles hitting the govenment forces there IMHO. Just more propaganda from obama and crew! Here is the true lowdown on the guy , he will say or do anything to push his agenda and that agenda is enemy to this nation IMHO! -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Al Qaeda is fighting on the side of the rebels. If we aid the rebels we are aiding Al Qaeda.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/07/al-qaedas-war-for-syria.html

[jimnyc]

Al Qaeda is fighting on the side of the rebels. If we aid the rebels we are aiding Al Qaeda.

http://www.rand.org/blog/2012/07/al-qaedas-war-for-syria.html

I agree. That's why I said the other day that I was uncomfortable with the US "secretly" helping them, as I'm afraid money and/or weapons might end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.

[revelarts]

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NxqYnxrxHX8?feature=player_embedded" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443343704577551281530782466.html
BY SETH G. JONES The United States and its allies should consider opening a second front in the Syrian war. In addition to helping end Bashar Assad's rule, there is a growing need to conduct a covert campaign against al Qaeda and other extremist groups gaining a presence in the country.
While al Qaeda makes up a small part of the resistance movement, its strength appears to be rising. Since last December, al Qaeda has conducted roughly two dozen attacks, primarily against Syrian security service targets. Virtually all have been suicide attacks and car bombings, and they have resulted in more than 200 deaths ...




<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AMLlSYb2HGE?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


An Iraqi Al-Qaeda operative has admitted that his organization is taking part in the Syrian uprising against President Assad. The revelation comes amidst increasing evidence that Al-Qaeda is gaining a foothold in Syria.
Abu Thuha, a 56-year-old Al-Qaeda operative living near Kirkuk in northern Iraq, described the Islamist organization’s grand plans to an Iraqi reporter for The New York Times.
“We have experience now fighting the Americans, and more experience now with the Syrian revolution,” he noted. “Our big hope is to form a Syrian-Iraqi Islamic state for all Muslims, and then announce our war against Iran and Israel, and free Palestine.”
Similar revelations that "around 90 terror attacks that can be attributed to organizations that are close to Al-Qaeda or jihadist groups were carried out in Syria between the end of December and the beginning of July” have been made by the German foreign intelligence service, the BND.

The information was revealed by the German government in a response to a parliamentary question. The German government admitted that it had received several reports from the German foreign intelligence service, but noted that the content of these reports was to remain classified "by reason of national interest," in light of Germany's support for the rebellion and its political arm, the Syrian National Council (SNC).

At least three major German newspapers – Die Welt, the FAZ (Die Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), and the tabloid Bild – have published reports attributing responsibility for the May 25 massacre in the Syrian town of Houla to anti-government rebel forces or treating this as the most likely scenario.

Writing in Bild, longtime German war correspondent Jurgen Todenhofer accused the rebels of "deliberately killing civilians and then presenting them as victims of the government". He described this "massacre-marketing strategy" as being "among the most disgusting things that I have ever experienced in an armed conflict."

In Iraq, the number of Al-Qaeda attacks has been on the rise, with over 400 people killed since the start of June. On Monday, a series of bombings and shootings took the lives of over 110 people, an attack that has been claimed by the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq, Al-Qaeda’s front in the country. As for Syria, Iraqi officials have pointed to the fact that both governments face a common enemy: Al-Qaeda.
“We are 100-per-cent sure from security coordination with Syrian authorities that the wanted names that we have are the same wanted names that the Syrian authorities have, especially within the last three months,” Izzat al-Shahbandar, a close aide to the Iraqi prime minister, said. “The Al-Qaeda that is operating in Iraq is the same as that which is operating in Syria.”
Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari also noted that while in the past decade his country suffered from an influx of Al-Qaeda operatives coming in from Syria, the direction of their flow has now reversed.
“We have solid information and intelligence that members of Al-Qaeda's terrorist network have gone to Syria,” he told reporters in Baghdad on July 5. “Our main concern, to be honest with you, is about the spill over – about extremist, terrorist groups taking root in neighboring countries.”
Another piece of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda’s growing presence in Syria is the increasing number of Al-Qaeda-style suicide bombings, most of them targeting government facilities.
Last week, at least four senior government ministers were killed in an explosion in Damascus, as fighting between troops and rebels raged on in the outskirts of the city. Both the Free Syrian Army and the Islamist Liva al-Islam claimed responsibility for the bombing.
Last month, seven people were killed and 11 were kidnapped in an attack on the state-run Al-Ikhbariya TV station. The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front for the People of the Levant claimed responsibility for the attack.
In May, two car bombs detonated by suicide bombers went off next to a military intelligence complex in Damascus, killing at least 55 soldiers.
All in all, at least 35 car bombings and 10 suicide bombings have taken place in Syria this year, data compiled by the Institute for the Study of War shows. Four of these attacks were claimed by the Al-Nusra Front. Many more were alleged to have been perpetrated by the Islamist group, as well as other militant Sunni organizations connected to Al-Qaeda: the Abdullah Azzam Shaheed Brigades and the al-Baraa ibn Malik Martyrdom Brigade.
Al-Qaeda has repeatedly been voicing its support for the Syrian uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. Last week, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the pseudonymous new leader of Al-Qaeda’s branch in Iraq, issued his first audio statement in which he devoted 30 minutes to praising the Sunni struggle against President Assad, a member of the offshoot Shiite Alawite sect. The statement also served as a harbinger for the deadly Monday attacks in Iraq.
“I bring you good news: we are starting a new phase in our struggle with a plan we named `Breaking the walls,' and we remind you of your priority to free the Muslim prisoners,” he said. “At the top of your priorities regarding targets is to chase and liquidate the judges, the investigators and the guards.”
Al-Qaeda leader Ayman Al-Zawahari has also been voicing his support for the Syrian uprising against President Bashar al-Assad. In February he released an audio recording lauding the rebels and calling them “the lions of the Levant.”
Nevertheless, the Syrian National Council (SNC), the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the Syrian Revolution General Commission (SRGC) "are all united in rejecting the message of Al-Qaeda,” a February statement of the SNC read.
The Syrian government has maintained that it has been fighting terrorists since last year. This claim has repeatedly been shunned by a number of high-ranking Western officials. US State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland said the recent attacks against senior government officials in Damascus were “not surprising.”
Her position, as well as that of Susan Rice, the US ambassador in the UN, led Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov to condemn America’s stance and suggest that it was directly endorsing terrorism.
The anti-Assad rhetoric of top American officials is not being backed by evidence presented by the country’s own military and intelligence.
In February, US director of national intelligence James Clapper told Congress that a series of bombings against Syrian security targets last year bore “all the earmarks of an Al-Qaeda-like attack.”
General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, also suggested that Islamist militant organizations such as Al-Qaeda were trying to stir the conflict in Syria their way.
“Those who would like to foment a Sunni-Shia standoff – and you know who they are – are all weighing in in Syria,” he noted during a Senate testimony in February.

http://rt.com/news/al-qaeda-involved-syria-conflict-047/

[revelarts]

Old saying comes to mid.
Best enemies money can buy.


Didn't we U.S. NATO create the Taliban and Alqadea AKA "the Database" in the 1st place?
I'm reading somethings now about how we even created/backed the early muslim brotherhood in an attempt to weaken various Arab secular nationalist long ago.

what's wrong with this picture folks?
Is it a mistake or is it on purpose that we keep FUNDING and TRAINING terrorist over and over and over again?

[Gaffer]

Old saying comes to mid.
Best enemies money can buy.


Didn't we U.S. NATO create the Taliban and Alqadea AKA "the Database" in the 1st place?
I'm reading somethings now about how we even created/backed the early muslim brotherhood in an attempt to weaken various Arab secular nationalist long ago.

what's wrong with this picture folks?
Is it a mistake or is it on purpose that we keep FUNDING and TRAINING terrorist over and over and over again?

The taliban were created by...the taliban. Al quaeda was created by bin ladin. All we did was supply them with arms to fight the russians. You know, that cold war thingy. Kinda like what the russians did with Vietnam. Our troops didn't have to get involved and a lot of russians got killed.

We helped them and they turned on us. We helped the russians in WW2 and they turned on us. We helped the Chinese in WW2 and they turned on us. But helping them was in our best interest at the time.

[jafar00]

We helped them and they turned on us. We helped the russians in WW2 and they turned on us. We helped the Chinese in WW2 and they turned on us. But helping them was in our best interest at the time.

You could add, "we helped Israel but they turned on us (USS Liberty etc...), so we helped them again....."

[jimnyc]

You could add, "we helped Israel but they turned on us (USS Liberty etc...), so we helped them again....."

Unlike the other examples, there was many, many inquiries into this incident. Both governments determined it to be an accident, whether you or others agree with that conclusion or not, I'm not debating it, just pointing out the facts. Furthermore, Israel paid out a lot of money to our government and the families involved in an attempt to try and right a wrong. They remain a strong ally, unlike the formation of the taliban and Al Qaeda.

[Dilloduck]

and you could add that the Vietnamese helped us in WWII and then we turned on them.

[Dilloduck]

Unlike the other examples, there was many, many inquiries into this incident. Both governments determined it to be an accident, whether you or others agree with that conclusion or not, I'm not debating it, just pointing out the facts. Furthermore, Israel paid out a lot of money to our government and the families involved in an attempt to try and right a wrong. They remain a strong ally, unlike the formation of the taliban and Al Qaeda.

It sucks when you have to go out and buy allies.

[jimnyc]

It sucks when you have to go out and buy allies.

If that's what you comprehend out of all of it, good for you!

[revelarts]

...We helped them and they turned on us. We helped the russians in WW2 and they turned on us. We helped the Chinese in WW2 and they turned on us. But helping them was in our best interest at the time.
So how is it in our best interest to fund/train/support/arm AlQadea in Syria AND Libya at this time?


and you could add that the Vietnamese helped us in WWII and then we turned on them.

It sucks when you have to go out and buy allies.

"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
Henry Kissinger

So what exactly are our interest in Syria and Libya then?

[jafar00]

So what exactly are our interest in Syria and Libya then?

Libya has oil. Syria is next to Israel

[jimnyc]

Libya has oil. Syria is next to Israel

Make the connection then. Show us how the USA has benefited from the oil in Libya. If you so easily make that claim, then it should be easy to show us how you came to that determination.

[Gaffer]

and you could add that the Vietnamese helped us in WWII and then we turned on them.

That's only true of the democrat congress and ted kennedy.

[Gaffer]

So how is it in our best interest to fund/train/support/arm AlQadea in Syria AND Libya at this time?




"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
Henry Kissinger

So what exactly are our interest in Syria and Libya then?

We are not supporting AQ in syria or libya as far as I have been able to determine. Now barely the president may be doing so because he's a muslim lover. It's not in our nations interest to support them, but it may be in his interest.

[Dilloduck]

So how is it in our best interest to fund/train/support/arm AlQadea in Syria AND Libya at this time?




"America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests."
Henry Kissinger

So what exactly are our interest in Syria and Libya then?

What else? We gotta protect Israel again.

[Dilloduck]

That's only true of the democrat congress and ted kennedy.

Hell we turned them back over to the French after WWII.

[Drummond]

Old saying comes to mid.
Best enemies money can buy.


Didn't we U.S. NATO create the Taliban and Alqadea AKA "the Database" in the 1st place?
I'm reading somethings now about how we even created/backed the early muslim brotherhood in an attempt to weaken various Arab secular nationalist long ago.

what's wrong with this picture folks?
Is it a mistake or is it on purpose that we keep FUNDING and TRAINING terrorist over and over and over again?

What's wrong with this picture, revelarts, is that you're supplying highly inaccurate information.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organisation. It always HAS been a terrorist organisation. What I believe you're referring to as Al Qaeda, mistakenly, was 'The Mujahiddeen', then a resistance movement against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, most active in the early Eighties. Al Qaeda, revelarts, didn't EXIST until (depending on which source you quote from) 1988 or 1989 !!

The US assisted the Mujahiddeen. It has NEVER, to my understanding, assisted Al Qaeda .. why would it ? If Al Qaeda ever used materials left over from the PREVIOUS organisation, this is not something the US ever intended.

See, for example ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1670089.stm


Al-Qaeda, meaning "the base", was created in 1989 as Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden and his colleagues began looking for new jihads.

The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism.

During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.

The "Arab Afghans", as they became known, were battle-hardened and highly motivated.

In the early 1990s Al-Qaeda operated in Sudan. After 1996 its headquarters and about a dozen training camps moved to Afghanistan, where Bin Laden forged a close relationship with the Taleban.

The US campaign in Afghanistan starting in late 2001 dispersed the organisation and drove it underground as its personnel were attacked and its bases and training camps destroyed.

Revelarts, I've seen blame-game tactics used by the Left before, its only obvious purpose being to demoralise good Western intentions and therefore cause unfounded caution (at minimum) in the minds of those who'd otherwise want to act decisively. The US, revelarts, is responsible for nothing about Al Qaeda, other than how far it will go to defeat them .. their plans, their effectiveness, ultimately their very existence.

[Drummond]

and you could add that the Vietnamese helped us in WWII and then we turned on them.

In case you've forgotten, the Soviet Union was on the Allied side for most of WWII (.. or is that ALL of it, from the US point of view ?). Now, by your reckoning, should the US go off on one almighty guilt trip because it ever engaged in a Cold War afterwards ?

Perhaps you'd argue that Communist forces have never been America's enemy ? That Communists should never have been opposed ??

[Gaffer]

Hell we turned them back over to the French after WWII.

The French tried to take back their original colony. The US had no say in that. It was a UN thing. Countries and territories that had been conquered during the war were given their sovereignty back or returned to their previous status except those over run by the USSR. That's how the cold war came into being.

[revelarts]

Former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit says Alqadea Islamist on the rise BECUASE we support "democracy" in the M.E. and we Meddle in there biz.


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6BzF4to63W8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[Dilloduck]

In case you've forgotten, the Soviet Union was on the Allied side for most of WWII (.. or is that ALL of it, from the US point of view ?). Now, by your reckoning, should the US go off on one almighty guilt trip because it ever engaged in a Cold War afterwards ?

Perhaps you'd argue that Communist forces have never been America's enemy ? That Communists should never have been opposed ??

In case you didn't read the thread, Gaffer already mentioned that we helped Russia in WWII and they turned against us. The Russians were far more of an enemy of Hitler than an ally of ours. They were screwing us and reneging on agreemnets before the war even ended.

[Dilloduck]

The French tried to take back their original colony. The US had no say in that. It was a UN thing. Countries and territories that had been conquered during the war were given their sovereignty back or returned to their previous status except those over run by the USSR. That's how the cold war came into being.

http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/63812c0e-9a33-400c-b53a-272fc7669d96/en

LOL What were the French going to do to America if we had acknowledged Ho Chi Minh's assistance by recognizing their independence ? They got screwed as surely as Poland did.

[fj1200]

http://www.cvce.eu/viewer/-/content/63812c0e-9a33-400c-b53a-272fc7669d96/en

LOL What were the French going to do to America if we had acknowledged Ho Chi Minh's assistance by recognizing their independence ? They got screwed as surely as Poland did.

Saw an interesting bit last night on PBS that had Ho Chi Minh in Paris in 1919? to try and meet with Wilson and get his support in gaining independence back then. Unfortunately Wilson backtracked to appeasing the French, and others, in supporting their insistence on recolonizing. We worked with Ho during WWII against the Japanese but ultimately left them to the French and drove him further, completely?, towards the USSR.

[Dilloduck]

Saw an interesting bit last night on PBS that had Ho Chi Minh in Paris in 1919? to try and meet with Wilson and get his support in gaining independence back then. Unfortunately Wilson backtracked to appeasing the French, and others, in supporting their insistence on recolonizing. We worked with Ho during WWII against the Japanese but ultimately left them to the French and drove him further, completely?, towards the USSR.

Thanks--i'm going to look into that further. I'm sure they were hoping the Atlantic Charter would come into play for them too but upon rejection by America and with France trying to beat them into submission again it doesn't come as much of a surprise that they looked to the communists for help.

[Gaffer]

Former head of the CIA Bin Laden Unit says Alqadea Islamist on the rise BECUASE we support "democracy" in the M.E. and we Meddle in there biz.


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6BzF4to63W8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

The problem is they are creating a democracy of the ignorant, headed up by theologians. Rule by mob. The left thinks they can gain from this, when all they are doing is setting up the next dictator. They learned nothing from iran. They are using the same method in all the other ME countries and are getting the same results. Theocratic dictatorships.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem is they are creating a democracy of the ignorant, headed up by theologians. Rule by mob. The left thinks they can gain from this, when all they are doing is setting up the next dictator. They learned nothing from iran. They are using the same method in all the other ME countries and are getting the same results. Theocratic dictatorships.

The left are allied with the muslims. They think they are using the ignorant muslims but its obvious to me that it is they being used like the prettiest gal in the bordello. Islam will destroy them too when it gets ready, they are too stupid to even fathom that possibility. Islam is over 1 billion strong and growing, what are they ? A few hundred million worldwide that are nowhere near as united or dedicated as is Islam!? Islam will take them out group by group with ease because they do not transcend nationalism as does Islam .. Islam plans on further unification and will do it too. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

The left are allied with the muslims. They think they are using the ignorant muslims but its obvious to me that it is they being used like the prettiest gal in the bordello. Islam will destroy them too when it gets ready, they are too stupid to even fathom that possibility. Islam is over 1 billion strong and growing, what are they ? A few hundred million worldwide that are nowhere near as united or dedicated as is Islam!? Islam will take them out group by group with ease because they do not transcend nationalism as does Islam .. Islam plans on further unification and will do it too. -Tyr

Quite the bizarre generalization. Do you really think the liberal Jews are allied with the muslims? ( are you campaigning again? )

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quite the bizarre generalization. Do you really think the liberal Jews are allied with the muslims? ( are you campaigning again? )

Quite the bizarre generalisation on your part I'd say. So you maintain that ALL leftists are liberal Jews? If not, then why ask me about liberal Jews?
Always campaigning for the TRUTH amigo..-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Quite the bizarre generalisation on your part I'd say. So you maintain that ALL leftists are liberal Jews? If not, then why ask me about liberal Jews?
Always campaigning for the TRUTH amigo..-Tyr

Not really--you keep trying to put words in my posts that aren't there. NO--I don't maintain that ALL leftists are liberal jews. But there are quite enough of them to make your claim of them being supporters of Islam pretty absurd.

[Gaffer]

The left are allied with the muslims. They think they are using the ignorant muslims but its obvious to me that it is they being used like the prettiest gal in the bordello. Islam will destroy them too when it gets ready, they are too stupid to even fathom that possibility. Islam is over 1 billion strong and growing, what are they ? A few hundred million worldwide that are nowhere near as united or dedicated as is Islam!? Islam will take them out group by group with ease because they do not transcend nationalism as does Islam .. Islam plans on further unification and will do it too. -Tyr

Your dead on, and iran is a prefect example. The revolution to over throw the shah was originally started by leftists and communists, supported by carter. The ayatollah stole that revolution and the leftists and communists all ended up in prison and later executed. The left never learns from failure.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not really--you keep trying to put words in my posts that aren't there. NO--I don't maintain that ALL leftists are liberal jews. But there are quite enough of them to make your claim of them being supporters of Islam pretty absurd.

Too bad, obviously you ignored my suggested research of the muslim scourge in Britain and its alliance with the leftists there! Its ok my friend , I remember back when I was too lazy to look for the TRUTH! I forgive you this time. Just be prepared next time. Google, Britain politics, muslim ,leftists and hoodwinked..-;)--Tyr

Show me where I stated that ALL leftists support Islamists. They attempt to use each other each thinking to betray the other at the proper time. A simple concept really , why are you trying to make it a complex impossible feat for anybody to even try? Think WW2, Germany THEN Soviet Union-Stalin. Betrayal long been a tactic used to great effect. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your dead on, and iran is a prefect example. The revolution to over throw the shah was originally started by leftists and communists, supported by carter. The ayatollah stole that revolution and the leftists and communists all ended up in prison and later executed. The left never learns from failure.

Failure to ever admit one's mistakes leads to ever more failures, the left is proof enough of that. Islam is a more dangerous and devious beast than they are..They just fail to see that too..-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Too bad, obviously you ignored my suggested research of the muslim scourge in Britain and its alliance with the leftists there! Its ok my friend , I remember back when I was too lazy to look for the TRUTH! I forgive you this time. Just be prepared next time. Google, Britain politics, muslim ,leftists and hoodwinked..-;)--Tyr

Show me where I stated that ALL leftists support Islamists. They attempt to use each other each thinking to betray the other at the proper time. A simple concept really , why are you trying to make it a complex impossible feat for anybody to even try? Think WW2, Germany THEN Soviet Union-Stalin. Betrayal long been a tactic used to great effect. -Tyr

Since you acknowledge that only some leftist support Islamists why don't you point out some of the more outspoken American ones for us. Silly accusations like "Obama is a muslim" aren't acceptable.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Since you acknowledge that only some leftist support Islamists why don't you point out some of the more outspoken American ones for us. Silly accusations like "Obama is a muslim" aren't acceptable.

Obama, Ayers, Dorn, Pelosi, Boxer , most of the other dem politicians. Hows that for starters?
Now we have strayed from my original point about the alliance of the leftists in Britain and the muslim scourge there and the disasterious effects from that unholy alliance! I am assuming that was not your intent when switching from that to American leftists , right?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Obama, Ayers, Dorn, Pelosi, Boxer , most of the other dem politicians. Hows that for starters?
Now we have strayed from my original point about the alliance of the leftists in Britain and the muslim scourge there and the disasterious effects from that unholy alliance! I am assuming that was not your intent when switching from that to American leftists , right?-Tyr

We have strayed from the fact that Al qaeda is in Syria. Quotes please--of Obama, Ayers,Pelosi and Boxer supporting radical Islamists.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

We have strayed from the fact that Al qaeda is in Syria. Quotes please--of Obama, Ayers,Pelosi and Boxer supporting radical Islamists.

All except Ayers are dem politicians and need no quotes to prove that they are supporters of Islam and haters of Christians, thier actions prove that and have for years. -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

All except Ayers are dem politicians and need no quotes to prove that they are supporters of Islam and haters of Christians, thier actions prove that and have for years. -Tyr


In other words, you can't substantiate your assertation with any documentation.

[Drummond]

Too bad, obviously you ignored my suggested research of the muslim scourge in Britain and its alliance with the leftists there! Its ok my friend , I remember back when I was too lazy to look for the TRUTH! I forgive you this time. Just be prepared next time. Google, Britain politics, muslim ,leftists and hoodwinked..-;)--Tyr

Show me where I stated that ALL leftists support Islamists. They attempt to use each other each thinking to betray the other at the proper time. A simple concept really , why are you trying to make it a complex impossible feat for anybody to even try? Think WW2, Germany THEN Soviet Union-Stalin. Betrayal long been a tactic used to great effect. -Tyr

:clap::clap::clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In other words, you can't substantiate your assertation with any documentation.


http://www.redstate.com/breeanneh/2012/08/21/radical-islam-joins-the-dnc/

Starting at the end of this month the Democratic National Convention will open with a focus on Islam. ?20,000 Muslims are expected to attend according to the?Bureau of Indigenous Muslim Affairs (BIMA), the national Muslim American non-profit coordinating the two days of events they?claim?are non-political. ?”Jumah at the DNC” begins August 29 and will start with a Friday afternoon jummah prayer followed by other unnamed programs and events, leading up to the Islamic Regal Banquet. The following day will be an all day Islamic Cultural and Fun Fest which will include discussions on the topics of?Islamaphobia, Anti-Shariah, Middle Eastern Crisis, Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act and more. ?The purpose, according to BIMA, is to attract national and international attention to the plight of American Muslims and to hold political parties accountable for issues that affect them. ?However, not all Muslims feel that BIMA represents them and M. Zuhdi Jasser M.D., Founder and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, has expressed serious concerns.

It is troubling that the Democratic National Convention has decided to promote and lend its name and national political platform to the organizers of the ?Jummah at the DNC?. The leaders of this event ? Jibril Hough and Imam Siraj Wahhaj as advertised are no moderates. They are radicals. These individuals embrace Islamist supremacy and have demonstrated support for radical ideologies.

One example but I'll not bother further to prove that which most people know that are not blinded fools.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Political parties will lend their names to anyone who will give them money or vote for them.

[Voted4Reagan]

A large proportion of Syrians are Sufis and would never fall in bed with the hated wahhabi sect of Al Qaeda.


No... just HAMAS and Hezbollah....

as if they arent enough.... but I believe that Al Qaeda has made inroads there... they exist in all Islamic Countries in some form or another....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Political parties will lend their names to anyone who will give them money or vote for them.

As if the muslims can be bought off (duped) that easily! Why do you continue to ignore the great example of Britain and the disaster that the muslim influence in politics has yielded there ? They gave money there and bought power with money, threats and violence. You act as if we are above being bribed, scared and swayed by threats of violence , appeasement to placate them etc. Or you take the stand that we can not change their agenda(they are too powerful) so why even try? Snarky comments and expressions of futility do not cut it with some of us that have no desire to see our children and grandchildren dead or slaves to a bunch of fanatical azzwipes not worth the cost of a piece of lead ! Either you really are a Chamberlain type or else you just give a good performance at acting like the man? Saying we have no hope of stopping them doesnt cut it amigo. That defeatist attitude would have had us speaking jap and/or german right now had others took it in the not too distant past.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

As if the muslims can be bought off (duped) that easily! Why do you continue to ignore the great example of Britain and the disaster that the muslim influence in politics has yielded there ? They gave money there and bought power with money, threats and violence. You act as if we are above being bribed, scared and swayed by threats of violence , appeasement to placate them etc. Or you take the stand that we can not change their agenda(they are too powerful) so why even try? Snarky comments and expressions of futility do not cut it with some of us that have no desire to see our children and grandchildren dead or slaves to a bunch of fanatical azzwipes not worth the cost of a piece of lead ! Either you really are a Chamberlain type or else you just give a good performance at acting like the man? Saying we have no hope of stopping them doesnt cut it amigo. That defeatist attitude would have had us speaking jap and/or german right now had others took it in the not too distant past.-Tyr

I see you still have no credible plan to stop the growth of Islam.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see you still have no credible plan to stop the growth of Islam.

Giving away such secrets would be folly indeed. Dont have to stop its growth if we change its agenda.
Im for doing both if need be. But first we need to teach them that dire consequences wil be reaped if they continue on with their murdering ways. I'd say just two nukes would do the trick forever .
One on Mecca and one on Medina. Yessir, not a peep from them worldwide after that. :laugh2:
At least not for another couple thousand year IMHO..;)-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Giving away such secrets would be folly indeed. Dont have to stop its growth if we change its agenda.
Im for doing both if need be. But first we need to teach them that dire consequences wil be reaped if they continue on with their murdering ways. I'd say just two nukes would do the trick forever .
One on Mecca and one on Medina. Yessir, not a peep from them worldwide after that. :laugh2:
At least not for another couple thousand year IMHO..;)-Tyr

:laugh: You'd have better luck shootin at em with your feet.

[jafar00]

One on Mecca and one on Medina. Yessir, not a peep from them worldwide after that. :laugh2:
At least not for another couple thousand year IMHO..;)-Tyr

Well, if you want a self fulfilling prophecy where Islam really is your enemy, go ahead. I dare say that nuking two holy cities would instantly create 1.5 billion new enemies for you to deal with. You would be overwhelmed.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Well, if you want a self fulfilling prophecy where Islam really is your enemy, go ahead. I dare say that nuking two holy cities would instantly create 1.5 billion new enemies for you to deal with. You would be overwhelmed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Battle of Tours
Part of the Islamic invasion of Gaul
Date October 732
Location Near Tours, France
Result Decisive Frankish victory

Belligerents
Merovingian Franks Umayyad Caliphate
Commanders and leaders
Charles Martel ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi †
Strength
varying estimates 15,000–20,000, although other estimates range from 20,000 to 30,000 [1] 20,000-30,000, Primary Sources 300,000–400,000 with many at 300 000 but are considered exaggerated, .[1]
Casualties and losses
1500 375,000, notably Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi[2]
[show]v ·t ·eIslamic invasion of Gaul

Toulouse (721) ·River Garonne (732) ·Tours (732) ·Avignon (737) ·Narbonne (737) ·River Berre (737) ·Nîmes (737) ·Narbonne (752–759)

The Battle of Tours (October 732),[3] also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء‎ (ma‘arakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ - Battle of the Court of the Martyrs),[4] was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in north-central France, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and then-independent Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian[5][6] forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus. The Franks were victorious, ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was killed, and Charles subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus ("The Hammerer") of the Maccabean revolt.[7][8] Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived. Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle without cavalry.[9]

Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, "most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe."[10] Leopold von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."[11]

Other modern historians[who?], by contrast, are divided over the battle's importance, and considerable disagreement exists as to whether the victory was responsible — as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed, and which is echoed by many modern historians — for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam. However, there is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century. Most historians agree that "the establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent's destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power."[12]



^^^^^ Least you forget the Battle of Poitiers, which Christians won , stopped the muslim advance , saved Europe and we've had over a thousand years since Islam tried to conquer the world. Which proves a point, beat their ass right and they'll get the message! Nuke and obliterate their two holy cities Mecca and Medina, they'll get the damn message yet again! Charles Martel destroyed over (est.) 80,00 muslim fightes with only (est.)30,000 troops under his command, infantry stood up against calvary and won decisively! The muslims limped away wondering why the hell Allah had let them down, let them be destroyed like dogs! Thats because Allah was defeated before man was ever birthed! The scourge of the world--Islam + Allah --was stopped by a mere 30,000 infidels , put that in your pipe and smoke it pedro. If we nuked those two supposed holy cities we would have a billion idiots wondering how/why Allah let them down! If I had my hand on the launch button it would have been done at least a decade ago! -Tyr

Here is another link
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe

Only a few accounts of the battle were written down at the time. A Frankish chronicle related that Charles "rushed in against them," perhaps indicating that he also used cavalry. "With Christ's help," the chronicle says, "he overturned their tents, and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter." The Muslims may have turned from battle to protect their families and loot-filled tents. In the confusion, Abd ar-Rahman was speared to death. Charles did not pursue the Muslims as they burned and plundered their way back to Iberia. The Battle of Tours came to be known in the West as the great battle that stopped the Muslim advance. Muslim forces continued to mount raids north of the Pyrenees. These raids only ended after 740, when the Berbers revolted in Iberia and North Africa.

Charles continued warring against his Frankish rivals, but with the added glory as the savior of Christendom. Charles was later given the name Martel, meaning "The Hammer." His grandson, Charles the Great (Charlemagne), finally unified most of Western Europe under his rule. The Muslims, however, remained in Iberia for another 700 years. Their influence on the country remains today. The Spanish language contains many words derived from Arabic, e.g., alcalde (mayor), azúcar (sugar), café (coffee), chisme (gossip), hasta (until), ricón (corner), and cero (zero). Many Spanish buildings show the influence of Islamic architecture, which Spain brought to the New World and can be seen throughout Latin America and the Southwestern United States.

In 1492, the same year as Columbus' voyage to the New World, Christians finally reconquered all of Spain. They expelled the Jews and Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity.

[Dilloduck]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Battle of Tours
Part of the Islamic invasion of Gaul
Date October 732
Location Near Tours, France
Result Decisive Frankish victory

Belligerents
Merovingian Franks Umayyad Caliphate
Commanders and leaders
Charles Martel ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi †
Strength
varying estimates 15,000–20,000, although other estimates range from 20,000 to 30,000 [1] 20,000-30,000, Primary Sources 300,000–400,000 with many at 300 000 but are considered exaggerated, .[1]
Casualties and losses
1500 375,000, notably Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi[2]
[show]v ·t ·eIslamic invasion of Gaul

Toulouse (721) ·River Garonne (732) ·Tours (732) ·Avignon (737) ·Narbonne (737) ·River Berre (737) ·Nîmes (737) ·Narbonne (752–759)

The Battle of Tours (October 732),[3] also called the Battle of Poitiers and in Arabic: معركة بلاط الشهداء‎ (ma‘arakat Balâṭ ash-Shuhadâ - Battle of the Court of the Martyrs),[4] was fought in an area between the cities of Poitiers and Tours, in north-central France, near the village of Moussais-la-Bataille, about 20 kilometres (12 mi) northeast of Poitiers. The location of the battle was close to the border between the Frankish realm and then-independent Aquitaine. The battle pitted Frankish and Burgundian[5][6] forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, against an army of the Umayyad Caliphate led by ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi, Governor-General of al-Andalus. The Franks were victorious, ‘Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi was killed, and Charles subsequently extended his authority in the south. Ninth-century chroniclers, who interpreted the outcome of the battle as divine judgment in his favour, gave Charles the nickname Martellus ("The Hammer"), possibly recalling Judas Maccabeus ("The Hammerer") of the Maccabean revolt.[7][8] Details of the battle, including its exact location and the exact number of combatants, cannot be determined from accounts that have survived. Notably, the Frankish troops won the battle without cavalry.[9]

Later Christian chroniclers and pre-20th century historians praised Charles Martel as the champion of Christianity, characterizing the battle as the decisive turning point in the struggle against Islam, a struggle which preserved Christianity as the religion of Europe; according to modern military historian Victor Davis Hanson, "most of the 18th and 19th century historians, like Gibbon, saw Poitiers (Tours), as a landmark battle that marked the high tide of the Muslim advance into Europe."[10] Leopold von Ranke felt that "Poitiers was the turning point of one of the most important epochs in the history of the world."[11]

Other modern historians[who?], by contrast, are divided over the battle's importance, and considerable disagreement exists as to whether the victory was responsible — as Gibbon and his generation of historians claimed, and which is echoed by many modern historians — for saving Christianity and halting the conquest of Europe by Islam. However, there is little dispute that the battle helped lay the foundations of the Carolingian Empire and Frankish domination of Europe for the next century. Most historians agree that "the establishment of Frankish power in western Europe shaped that continent's destiny and the Battle of Tours confirmed that power."[12]



^^^^^ Least you forget the Battle of Poitiers, which Christians won , stopped the muslim advance , saved Europe and we've had over a thousand years since Islam tried to conquer the world. Which proves a point, beat their ass right and they'll get the message! Nuke and obliterate their two holy cities Mecca and Medina, they'll get the damn message yet again! Charles Martel destroyed over (est.) 80,00 muslim fightes with only (est.)30,000 troops under his command, infantry stood up against calvary and won decisively! The muslims limped away wondering why the hell Allah had let them down, let them be destroyed like dogs! Thats because Allah was defeated before man was ever birthed! The scourge of the world--Islam + Allah --was stopped by a mere 30,000 infidels , put that in your pipe and smoke it pedro. If we nuked those two supposed holy cities we would have a billion idiots wondering how/why Allah let them down! If I had my hand on the launch button it would have been done at least a decade ago! -Tyr

Here is another link
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-20-1-b-muslim-conquests-in-europe

Only a few accounts of the battle were written down at the time. A Frankish chronicle related that Charles "rushed in against them," perhaps indicating that he also used cavalry. "With Christ's help," the chronicle says, "he overturned their tents, and hastened to battle to grind them small in slaughter." The Muslims may have turned from battle to protect their families and loot-filled tents. In the confusion, Abd ar-Rahman was speared to death. Charles did not pursue the Muslims as they burned and plundered their way back to Iberia. The Battle of Tours came to be known in the West as the great battle that stopped the Muslim advance. Muslim forces continued to mount raids north of the Pyrenees. These raids only ended after 740, when the Berbers revolted in Iberia and North Africa.

Charles continued warring against his Frankish rivals, but with the added glory as the savior of Christendom. Charles was later given the name Martel, meaning "The Hammer." His grandson, Charles the Great (Charlemagne), finally unified most of Western Europe under his rule. The Muslims, however, remained in Iberia for another 700 years. Their influence on the country remains today. The Spanish language contains many words derived from Arabic, e.g., alcalde (mayor), azúcar (sugar), café (coffee), chisme (gossip), hasta (until), ricón (corner), and cero (zero). Many Spanish buildings show the influence of Islamic architecture, which Spain brought to the New World and can be seen throughout Latin America and the Southwestern United States.

In 1492, the same year as Columbus' voyage to the New World, Christians finally reconquered all of Spain. They expelled the Jews and Muslims who refused to convert to Christianity.

and this is relevent to today's reality somehow ? :laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

and this is relevent to today's reality somehow ? :laugh2:

Your abject failure to make the connection does not shock me in the least. I'm used to it now.
Apparently dazed and confused are two states that you live in , eh?-:laugh2:
Obama says you have 55 more to go..55+2= 57.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

I see you still have no credible plan to stop the growth of Islam.

And you do ?

Really ?

[Drummond]

and this is relevent to today's reality somehow ? :laugh2:

Actually, note the last part of Tyr's piece, and its reference to Spain.

Did you know that, following Al Qaeda's attack on the Atosha railway station, Al Q followed it up with a suggested deal offering a cessation of terrorism in Spain, one of their conditions being to hand the Andalucia region of Spain back to Islamic hands.

Needless to say, they were ignored. However, it just goes to show how rooted in history Al Qaeda is, when it chooses to be. So ... there y'go !

[Drummond]

Well, if you want a self fulfilling prophecy where Islam really is your enemy, go ahead. I dare say that nuking two holy cities would instantly create 1.5 billion new enemies for you to deal with. You would be overwhelmed.

Sorry, I'm not following. Was the 9/11 attack a 'self fulfilling prophesy' turned to fact ? Or, maybe, the perpetrators were Christian, or maybe Buddhists ?

Or, maybe, Islamists perpetrated it as their way of saying 'hello' to America in as friendly a fashion as they could manage ?

Tell me, Jafar, just how far do Muslim terrorists have to go, before apologists for them finally run out of history-revisionist pap ???

[Dilloduck]

Sorry, I'm not following. Was the 9/11 attack a 'self fulfilling prophesy' turned to fact ? Or, maybe, the perpetrators were Christian, or maybe Buddhists ?

Or, maybe, Islamists perpetrated it as their way of saying 'hello' to America in as friendly a fashion as they could manage ?

Tell me, Jafar, just how far do Muslim terrorists have to go, before apologists for them finally run out of history-revisionist pap ???

Mr Drum old buddy---you're getting daft. If anyone decides to attack another country I think you are assured that it is a good chance that it will retaliate as surely as America retaliated for 9/11. Attack the cities that are important to Islam and you can be assured they will respond like we did.

[Drummond]

Mr Drum old buddy---you're getting daft. If anyone decides to attack another country I think you are assured that it is a good chance that it will retaliate as surely as America retaliated for 9/11. Attack the cities that are important to Islam and you can be assured they will respond like we did.

So, where are you going with this ?

Are you saying ... never attack a belligerent power, say, one threatening genocide against another Nation State ?

Are you saying ... never act as a meaningful ally, a fully supportive ally, when that ally receives such a threat, and faces the prospect of its becoming reality ?

Are you saying ... just, basically, sit on your hands, do nothing, get to within a whisker of effectively surrendering to belligerents ?

Or .. are you saying .. just foist YOUR battles, YOUR problems, on to others, adopt a classic ostrich pose, and react with amazement if or when the world perceives you as the most unreliable ally seen in modern times ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Actually, note the last part of Tyr's piece, and its reference to Spain.

Did you know that, following Al Qaeda's attack on the Atosha railway station, Al Q followed it up with a suggested deal offering a cessation of terrorism in Spain, one of their conditions being to hand the Andalucia region of Spain back to Islamic hands.

Needless to say, they were ignored. However, it just goes to show how rooted in history Al Qaeda is, when it chooses to be. So ... there y'go !

I think that he gets more of it than he lets on. He figures that its just best not to discuss that and instead to use snarky remarks, spin and deflection to full advantage IMHO.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

So, where are you going with this ?

Are you saying ... never attack a belligerent power, say, one threatening genocide against another Nation State ?

Are you saying ... never act as a meaningful ally, a fully supportive ally, when that ally receives such a threat, and faces the prospect of its becoming reality ?

Are you saying ... just, basically, sit on your hands, do nothing, get to within a whisker of effectively surrendering to belligerents ?

Or .. are you saying .. just foist YOUR battles, YOUR problems, on to others, adopt a classic ostrich pose, and react with amazement if or when the world perceives you as the most unreliable ally seen in modern times ?

I'm going nowhere with it. Just stating the facts. Then you manage to misinterpret the facts.
If you blow up Medina and/or Mecca and Muslims retaliate, please don't act suprised.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I'm going nowhere with it. Just stating the facts. Then you manage to misinterpret the facts.
If you blow up Medina and/or Mecca and Muslims retaliate, please don't act suprised.

Or possibly close to a billion of them would see rather quickly that their Allah could not stop man, infidel man . With that their faith will be diminished almost to zero. I doubt they would do anything but hide and hope more power was not unleashed upon them! Until a muslim nation gets nukes and uses them to protect against nuclear attacks on Islam's two holy cities Mecca and Medina they realise that infidels can prove Allah's weakness . And that would prove that their Allah is a phoney.
Maybe we should just nuke one of them for practice and to teach a quick lesson! How is that for a good ideal, eh!-:laugh:-Tyr

[jafar00]

Sorry, I'm not following. Was the 9/11 attack a 'self fulfilling prophesy' turned to fact ? Or, maybe, the perpetrators were Christian, or maybe Buddhists ?

Or, maybe, Islamists perpetrated it as their way of saying 'hello' to America in as friendly a fashion as they could manage ?

Tell me, Jafar, just how far do Muslim terrorists have to go, before apologists for them finally run out of history-revisionist pap ???

They may have been Muslims, or maybe not when you consider they were in a strip bar getting drunk before hand. Then again, when you also consider that at least 7 of the named hijackers woke up the next day wondering why they were accused of flying planes into buildings while reading their own obituaries, maybe they weren't the ones responsible.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They may have been Muslims, or maybe not when you consider they were in a strip bar getting drunk before hand.


Practicing for their 72 virgins the night before, eh? Getting drunk to build their courage and likely banged each other that night in their rooms.-:laugh2:-Tyr

[Drummond]

They may have been Muslims, or maybe not when you consider they were in a strip bar getting drunk before hand. Then again, when you also consider that at least 7 of the named hijackers woke up the next day wondering why they were accused of flying planes into buildings while reading their own obituaries, maybe they weren't the ones responsible.

That's one very nasty migraine attack, there, Jafar. My sympathies !

Maybe they were Muslims being truthful to their nature, cherrypicking those aspects of Islam that best suited their intentions ?

But this 'it's all an unjust conspiracy against Muslims' rubbish really IS just that. It's the old thing about how conspiracy theories are introduced to undermine the known truth, but ONLY when many years have elapsed, because if it's done too soon, then memories will be too sharp and fresh, opinions too grounded in reality. to allow it.

[Drummond]

I'm going nowhere with it. Just stating the facts. Then you manage to misinterpret the facts.
If you blow up Medina and/or Mecca and Muslims retaliate, please don't act suprised.

You're going nowhere .. quite.

Have you noticed something ? Have you noticed that it's invariably the Right-wingers who are sufficiently grounded in reality to come up with realistic approaches to realistic situations ? And have you also noticed that the Left's contributions are so very often nothing more than elaborate 'tut-tutting' noises, offering criticism, but never alternative and workable suggestions ?

The Right is supposedly always 'wrong headed' ... yet ... no alternatives are forthcoming. Says it all !

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You're going nowhere .. quite.

Have you noticed something ? Have you noticed that it's invariably the Right-wingers who are sufficiently grounded in reality to come up with realistic approaches to realistic situations ? And have you also noticed that the Left's contributions are so very often nothing more than elaborate 'tut-tutting' noises, offering criticism, but never alternative and workable suggestions ?

The Right is supposedly always 'wrong headed' ... yet ... no alternatives are forthcoming. Says it all !

Obviously Dillo does not know or else disagrees with the accepted premise that the muslim advance was stopped by one great defeat at the Battle of Vienna when Charsle the Hammer Martel obliterated them with far less troops than they had!
So much so that the unstoppable advancement they were on suddenly and convincingly was STOPPED! I think nuke just one of their holy cities and it'll be stopped again for at least a thousand years. For it'll prove that Allah was not with them. Just as their humiliating defeat that the Hammer put on them did until recently!
After all we have plenty of spare nukes just laying around collecting dust.
What would using just one matter? -;)--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

You're going nowhere .. quite.

Have you noticed something ? Have you noticed that it's invariably the Right-wingers who are sufficiently grounded in reality to come up with realistic approaches to realistic situations ? And have you also noticed that the Left's contributions are so very often nothing more than elaborate 'tut-tutting' noises, offering criticism, but never alternative and workable suggestions ?

The Right is supposedly always 'wrong headed' ... yet ... no alternatives are forthcoming. Says it all !

Go ahead--get your nukes and blow shit up----it's the only answer you have. Enjoy.

[Drummond]

Go ahead--get your nukes and blow shit up----it's the only answer you have. Enjoy.

EVASIVE.

What solutions do YOU offer ?

If the thinking from the Right is so 'wrong', then there literally HAS to be a 'right' way which proves the 'wrong' way to be 'wrong'

So ... Dilloduck, what are your 'right' solutions ? Educate us .. come on !!

[Dilloduck]

EVASIVE.

What solutions do YOU offer ?

If the thinking from the Right is so 'wrong', then there literally HAS to be a 'right' way which proves the 'wrong' way to be 'wrong'

So ... Dilloduck, what are your 'right' solutions ? Educate us .. come on !!

Mr Drum---I have never labeled you as a right winger and don't see much point in the right and left labels anyway. You however are the evasive one or perhaps you are beginning to face reality. We can't nuke anybody without serious consequences to our planet and we can't kill every muslim on the planet. How about if you start from there and see which way to go.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Mr Drum---I have never labeled you as a right winger and don't see much point in the right and left labels anyway. You however are the evasive one or perhaps you are beginning to face reality. We can't nuke anybody without serious consequences to our planet and we can't kill every muslim on the planet. How about if you start from there and see which way to go.

^^More EVASION...
Why do you keep telling us what we can't do? Why not a suggestion or two on what we can do to address this problem? Is it becuase you refuse to admit that it is a problem? Surely if that is your position you can explain it better than saying - " but you can't" , to everything put forth as possible actions to take.
Why does it matter what you have or have not labeled Drummonds? Are his questions, suggestions and opinions not worthy on their own merits as presented? -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

^^More EVASION...
Why do you keep telling us what we can't do? Why not a suggestion or two on what we can do to address this problem? Is it becuase you refuse to admit that it is a problem? Surely if that is your position you can explain it better than saying - " but you can't" , to everything put forth as possible actions to take.
Why does it matter what you have or have not labeled Drummonds? Are his questions, suggestions and opinions not worthy on their own merits as presented? -Tyr

You and Drum are the ones who like to throw around labels like right and left in this conversation. I have no idea why it matters. Ask yourselves that one. I'm trying to help you here and you don't seem to appreciate having your ideas examined. Hopefully we have gotten past the idea that we can nuke their holy cities and kill them all. There's no evasion going on. I've told you several times that a religion can't be stopped.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You and Drum are the ones who like to throw around labels like right and left in this conversation. I have no idea why it matters. Ask yourselves that one. I'm trying to help you here and you don't seem to appreciate having your ideas examined. Hopefully we have gotten past the idea that we can nuke their holy cities and kill them all. There's no evasion going on. I've told you several times that a religion can't be stopped.

The subject matter is not labels. It is Al Qaeda in Syria. Al Qaeda a muslim extremist (terrorist)group. So you declare religion can not be stopped! Is that ALL religions(?) or just this extremely violent and completely intolerant one(Islam)?
Lets set this table and not be branching too far off shall we? -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

The subject matter is not labels. It is Al Qaeda in Syria. Al Qaeda a muslim extremist (terrorist)group. So you declare religion can not be stopped! Is that ALL religions(?) or just this extremely violent and completely intolerant one(Islam)?
Lets set this table and not be branching too far off shall we? -Tyr

Oh bullshit--it's all about labels. Good-bad. Right-wrong.
Al Qaeda has become such a vague label now I don't even now what they stand for or if they even belong to a particular sect of Islam. All of the violent ones seem to hate Israel and the US by association. You can't do a damn thing about Islam because it is so huge and varied that you couldn't even find a place to start. You're so desperate that you figure you can just blow up Mecca and Medina and they will all just quake in fear and renounce.
My challenge to you is to devise a way to stop Islam from taking over the US. I don't think you can do it with nuking us all along with them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Oh bullshit--it's all about labels. Good-bad. Right-wrong.
Al Qaeda has become such a vague label now I don't even now what they stand for or if they even belong to a particular sect of Islam. All of the violent ones seem to hate Israel and the US by association. You can't do a damn thing about Islam because it is so huge and varied that you couldn't even find a place to start. You're so desperate that you figure you can just blow up Mecca and Medina and they will all just quake in fear and renounce.
My challenge to you is to devise a way to stop Islam from taking over the US. I don't think you can do it with nuking us all along with them.

Bolded sections point to your major malfunction I'd say !
"You dont know what they stand for"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? Yet you want to lecture me on my opinion of them , while you just claimed that you dont know!!

Then you proclaim, "you can't do a damn thing about Islam because it is so huge" , while you attempt to tell me of my ignorance on the subject!!! Your comments clearly show that you have given up and have surrendered already! So be it but do not get high and mighty when attempting to belittle those of us that have not surrendered and will not ever surrender to such freaking scum!
Sit there and quake if you want but do try not to cheerlead and/or convince others to surrender without a fight!
I yield to no man until after I've been defeated , certainly not before even daring to fight! F-that crapola! They bleed pedro, they aint damn Supermen! They are basicly cowards , get a damn grip for heavens sake!! Our military even when being severely constrained by bullshit engagement rules scares tha' living hell out of them!! Let our Marines go WW2 style fighting on them and we'd beat their sorry asses like the ffing scum they are!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Bolded sections point to your major malfunction I'd say !
"You dont know what they stand for"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? Yet you want to lecture me on my opinion of them , while you just claimed that you dont know!!

Then you proclaim, "you can't do a damn thing about Islam because it is so huge" , while you attempt to tell me of my ignorance on the subject!!! Your comments clearly show that you have given up and have surrendered already! So be it but do not get high and mighty when attempting to belittle those of us that have not surrendered and will not ever surrender to such freaking scum!
Sit there and quake if you want but do try not to cheerlead and/or convince others to surrender without a fight!
I yield to no man until after I've been defeated , certainly not before even daring to fight! F-that crapola! They bleed pedro, they aint damn Supermen! They are basicly cowards , get a damn grip for heavens sake!! Our military even when being severely constrained by bullshit engagement rules scares tha' living hell out of them!! Let our Marines go WW2 style fighting on them and we'd beat their sorry asses like the ffing scum they are!-Tyr

I see you had to carefully cherry pick through my quotes and have retreated to your stance of violence. Good luck with that.

[logroller]

^^More EVASION...
Why do you keep telling us what we can't do? Why not a suggestion or two on what we can do to address this problem? Is it becuase you refuse to admit that it is a problem? Surely if that is your position you can explain it better than saying - " but you can't" , to everything put forth as possible actions to take.
Why does it matter what you have or have not labeled Drummonds? Are his questions, suggestions and opinions not worthy on their own merits as presented? -Tyr


Or possibly close to a billion of them would see rather quickly that their Allah could not stop man, infidel man . With that their faith will be diminished almost to zero. I doubt they would do anything but hide and hope more power was not unleashed upon them! Until a muslim nation gets nukes and uses them to protect against nuclear attacks on Islam's two holy cities Mecca and Medina they realise that infidels can prove Allah's weakness . And that would prove that their Allah is a phoney.
Maybe we should just nuke one of them for practice and to teach a quick lesson! How is that for a good ideal, eh!-:laugh:-Tyr


EVASIVE.

What solutions do YOU offer ?

If the thinking from the Right is so 'wrong', then there literally HAS to be a 'right' way which proves the 'wrong' way to be 'wrong'

So ... Dilloduck, what are your 'right' solutions ? Educate us .. come on !!
I'll bite. There is a progressive movement (for example http://www.mpvusa.org/ )within Islam that we could embrace and encourage in an attempt to show the world that world religions can coexist peaceably and work towards a stronger and safer society for all. Whn such a movement is encouraged and flourishes (as a inclusive freedom-loving group woul, right) it would be more effective than calling every Muslim a wife beating terrorist...but I've been accused of being an optimist. There's always that thermonuclear approach...btw Pakistan is a nuclear Muslim country Tyr.

[jimnyc]

They may have been Muslims, or maybe not when you consider they were in a strip bar getting drunk before hand. Then again, when you also consider that at least 7 of the named hijackers woke up the next day wondering why they were accused of flying planes into buildings while reading their own obituaries, maybe they weren't the ones responsible.

I know 2 of my buddies out of a bunch will imbibe every now and again. Far from alcoholics, but they don't avoid entirely. And an article about the Middle East as a whole:


Alcohol use on the rise in Middle East (http://www.bikyamasr.com/76700/alcohol-use-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/)CAIRO and KUALA LUMPUR: While alcohol consumption is supposedly forbidden, the Muslim world has seen nearly double the increase in alcohol consumption in the past decade, according to a new study.

Across the Islamic world, The Economist magazine said, consumption is on the rise, with an increase of some 72 percent between 2001 and 2011.

“I believe it 100 percent,” said Egyptian lawyer Ahmed, who regularly joins his friends at a bar after work for a beer.

“We just like to enjoy ourselves and this whole religion thing has not been something that hinders us,” he told Bikyamasr.com.

Surprisingly, the Islamic world’s increase in boozing has been as the rest of the world has only grown in its alcohol consumption by some 30 percent.

The magazine, in its report on the new figures, said that the “rise [in alcohol-sales in the Middle East] is unlikely to be accounted for by non-Muslims and foreigners alone.”

http://www.bikyamasr.com/76700/alcohol-use-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I see you had to carefully cherry pick through my quotes and have retreated to your stance of violence. Good luck with that.

What cherry picking? That post by me was number 75 in reply to the previous post by you number 74! I simply highlighted those points and did quote your entire post editing out nothing! Certainly no cherry pcking! My stand is for America to wake up because our government has not properly addressed the issue. It fails to take adequate actions because it has taken the position that the threat does not exist, same as it did until 9/11 woke it up briefly. They had to do something that huge to get it to act! Now its back to appeasement mode. As long as we let Islam wage war all over the globe(unimpeded) they will do so and they will win because they take on far weaker opposition. Anybody stupid enough to ignore a threat until its too late should get what their laziness and ignorance asked for. Fear keeps too many people from speaking up, speaking out . They organise and attack we sleep, they organise and attack more we sleep, repeat and repeat. The major malfunction is refusing to admit the problem and then by design refusing to take any constructive action. Next is encouraging appeasement at every turn. Which is pure insanity when we face such fanatical murdering scum!
I've repeatedly stated that we should start by helping Britain! I didnt say we should nuke Britain now did I? Thats the starting place, helping the Brits survive against the muslim scourge going on their. If it means applying great pressure on the Brit government then so be it. We must at least start to seriously address the problem and stop all this crap about , what problem, there is no problem! Why are most muslim defenders screaming no -violence to those that want action taken against those murderers but they avoid condemning all the violence by the muslims occuring around the world?-Tyr

[Drummond]

I'll bite. There is a progressive movement (for example http://www.mpvusa.org/ )within Islam that we could embrace and encourage in an attempt to show the world that world religions can coexist peaceably and work towards a stronger and safer society for all. Whn such a movement is encouraged and flourishes (as a inclusive freedom-loving group woul, right) it would be more effective than calling every Muslim a wife beating terrorist...but I've been accused of being an optimist. There's always that thermonuclear approach...btw Pakistan is a nuclear Muslim country Tyr.

This is a good attempt to answer me. Thanks for the effort.

Your stated hopes are, I think, just that .. hopes. A nice idea, to be sure, but I don't for a moment think that they reflect the realities in play.

I've looked at the link you've offered. My belief is that, even if what it states can be taken totally on face value, I've no reason to suppose that those allying themselves to the stated ideals constitute more than a fringe group within Islam at absolute best. Here's a quote from your link ...


Muslims for Progressive Values (MPV) is an inclusive community rooted in the traditional Qur’anic ideals of human dignity and social justice. We welcome all who are interested in discussing, promoting and working for the implementation of progressive values — human rights, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state — as well as inclusive and tolerant understandings of Islam.

However relatively 'good' all this sounds, it's light years away from some evident truths. 'Human dignity and social justice', for example ... do we see this practised to any widespread effect ? What about honour killings ? Hijabs, Burkhas, the generalised trampling-on of human rights for women ? Does reducing women to second class citizens equate with 'human dignity' or 'social justice' .. ??? How about the stoning of women for adultery ?

See ... http://www.religiousconsultation.org/hassan2.htm#six



Women are the targets of the most serious violations of human rights which occur in Muslim societies in general. Muslims say with great pride that Islam abolished female infanticide; true, but, it must also be mentioned that one of the most common crimes in a number of Muslim countries (e.g., in Pakistan) is the murder of women by their husbands. These so-called "honor-killings" are, in fact, extremely dishonorable and are frequently used to camouflage other kinds of crimes.

Female children are discriminated against from the moment of birth, for it is customary in Muslim societies to regard a son as a gift, and a daughter as a trial, from God. Therefore, the birth of a son is an occasion for celebration while the birth of a daughter calls for commiseration if not lamentation. Many girls are married when they are still minors, even though marriage in Islam is a contract and presupposes that the contracting parties are both consenting adults. Even though so much Qur'anic legislation is aimed at protecting the rights of women in the context of marriage[54] women cannot claim equality with their husbands. The husband, in fact, is regarded as his wife's gateway to heaven or hell and the arbiter of her final destiny. That such an idea can exist within the framework of Islam - which, in theory, rejects the idea of there being any intermediary between a believer and God - represents both a profound irony and a great tragedy.

Although the Qur'an presents the idea of what we today call a "no-fault" divorce and does not make any adverse judgements about divorce [55], Muslim societies have made divorce extremely difficult for women, both legally and through social penalties. Although the Qur'an states clearly that the divorced parents of a minor child must decide by mutual consultation how the child is to be raised and that they must not use the child to hurt or exploit each other[56], in most Muslim societies, women are deprived both of their sons (generally at age 7) and their daughters (generally at age 12). It is difficult to imagine an act of greater cruelty than depriving a mother of her children simply because she is divorced. Although polygamy was intended by the Qur'an to be for the protection of orphans and widows[57], in practice Muslims have made it the Sword of Damocles which keeps women under constant threat. Although the Qur'an gave women the right to receive an inheritance not only on the death of a close relative, but also to receive other bequests or gifts during the lifetime of a benevolent caretaker, Muslim societies have disapproved greatly of the idea of giving wealth to a woman in preference to a man, even when her need or circumstances warrant it.

Logroller, this description deals with what passes for normailty in Muslim societies GENERALLY. Muslim societies, if they ever get near to the ideals of this 'progressive movement' you've introduced a link to, will have to change EN MASSE. Do you see signs that they're doing so, OR, is what you've introduced nothing more than a fringe movement at best ?

Your link also makes mention of 'separation of church and state'. Logroller, this surely defies the usual state of affairs in Muslim societies ! In Iran, isn't their 'Supreme Leader' currently Ayatollah Khameini, for example ? Can you deny that many Muslim countries (and Egypt was a recent example of a country veering TOWARDS this ..) implement Sharia Law, and that Sharia Law has its roots in Islamic teachings ? Don't the majority adopt Islam as their State religion ??

No, Logroller, what's normal is for 'church and state' (more properly MOSQUE and State, I think !) to go hand-in-hand, acting indivisibly .. and Egypt shows a consolidation of that status quo, if anything, courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood (which has its hooks in several Muslim countries already, not forgetting its association with Hamas, that TERRORIST GOVERNMENT, SWORN TO SEE ISRAEL DESTROYED AS AN UNCHANGING CORE PRINCIPLE !!).

Whatever hopes you entertain, Logroller, are more dreams than anything else. The reality is rather different. And it's the reality we all ignore .. at our peril.

[logroller]

This is a good attempt to answer me. Thanks for the effort.

Your stated hopes are, I think, just that .. hopes. A nice idea, to be sure, but I don't for a moment think that they reflect the realities in play.

I've looked at the link you've offered. My belief is that, even if what it states can be taken totally on face value, I've no reason to suppose that those allying themselves to the stated ideals constitute more than a fringe group within Islam at absolute best. Here's a quote from your link ...



However relatively 'good' all this sounds, it's light years away from some evident truths. 'Human dignity and social justice', for example ... do we see this practised to any widespread effect ? What about honour killings ? Hijabs, Burkhas, the generalised trampling-on of human rights for women ? Does reducing women to second class citizens equate with 'human dignity' or 'social justice' .. ??? How about the stoning of women for adultery ?

See ... http://www.religiousconsultation.org/hassan2.htm#six




Logroller, this description deals with what passes for normailty in Muslim societies GENERALLY. Muslim societies, if they ever get near to the ideals of this 'progressive movement' you've introduced a link to, will have to change EN MASSE. Do you see signs that they're doing so, OR, is what you've introduced nothing more than a fringe movement at best ?

Your link also makes mention of 'separation of church and state'. Logroller, this surely defies the usual state of affairs in Muslim societies ! In Iran, isn't their 'Supreme Leader' currently Ayatollah Khameini, for example ? Can you deny that many Muslim countries (and Egypt was a recent example of a country veering TOWARDS this ..) implement Sharia Law, and that Sharia Law has its roots in Islamic teachings ? Don't the majority adopt Islam as their State religion ??

No, Logroller, what's normal is for 'church and state' (more properly MOSQUE and State, I think !) to go hand-in-hand, acting indivisibly .. and Egypt shows a consolidation of that status quo, if anything, courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood (which has its hooks in several Muslim countries already, not forgetting its association with Hamas, that TERRORIST GOVERNMENT, SWORN TO SEE ISRAEL DESTROYED AS AN UNCHANGING CORE PRINCIPLE !!).

Whatever hopes you entertain, Logroller, are more dreams than anything else. The reality is rather different. And it's the reality we all ignore .. at our peril.
If it werent for dreamers, we'd be living in huts at best. But a nice attempt to dismiss a plausible solution as less than, without positing a better one. The reality is that as we continue to interfere In foreign affairs of state we haven't made the world more free, peaceful or safe. Furthermore, it has fostered an ill-will against us and we're outnumbered five to one -- great peril indeed-- that's what dillo was saying. The reality is you, like many, prefer the short term gains derived from the spreading of fear and hate rather than the lasting benefit of love and understanding.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If it werent for dreamers, we'd be living in huts at best. But a nice attempt to dismiss a plausible solution as less than, without positing a better one. The reality is that as we continue to interfere In foreign affairs of state we haven't made the world more free, peaceful or safe. Furthermore, it has fostered an ill-will against us and we're outnumbered five to one -- great peril indeed-- that's what dillo was saying. The reality is you, like many, prefer the short term gains derived from the spreading of fear and hate rather than the lasting benefit of love and understanding.

Show me an example of dreaming away a threat! Show me where dreaming has ever saved anybody from murdering scum. A direct and immediate threat of this nature does not need to be solved by dreaming about it. When thousands are being murdered dreaming just dont cut it amigo! We have an enemy that only recognises brute force. We apply that force greater then we tell them what to do, as in stop the GD murdering! They refuse , we kill lots of them until they do not refuse. Its called war and nobody has been able to replace it since the dawn of man! What you aparently miss is their evil and we have to oppose that evil . Not any kiss ass understanding of murdering scum.. Did we try that with the damn Nazi's?-Tyr

[logroller]

Show me an example of dreaming away a threat! Show me where dreaming has ever saved anybody from murdering scum. A direct and immediate threat of this nature does not need to be solved by dreaming about it. When thousands are being murdered dreaming just dont cut it amigo! We have an enemy that only recognises brute force. We apply that force greater then we tell them what to do, as in stop the GD murdering! They refuse , we kill lots of them until they do not refuse. Its called war and nobody has been able to replace it since the dawn of man! What you aparently miss is their evil and we have to oppose that evil . Not any kiss ass understanding of murdering scum.. Did we try that with the damn Nazi's?-Tyr
You mentioned murder 5 times...Ooh, more scary stuff:yawn:
funny you'd mention the nazis -- near as i can tell, your proposed solution is genocide.

[jimnyc]

You mentioned murder 5 times...Ooh, more scary stuff:yawn:
funny you'd mention the nazis -- near as i can tell, your proposed solution is genocide.

Maybe not to the degree that others want to describe, but there is in fact terrorism by Muslims on an almost daily basis. The radicals amongst Islam I think ARE something to be worried about and must not be ignored. They do murder and they do terrorize. It's just not all Muslims of course and certainly not on every corner of the world and not even every corner of Islamic worlds. But it IS a monster sized problem that is only going to grow if we ignore its existence.

[jafar00]

See ... http://www.religiousconsultation.org/hassan2.htm#six


Women are the targets of the most serious violations of human rights which occur in Muslim societies in general. Muslims say with great pride that Islam abolished female infanticide; true, but, it must also be mentioned that one of the most common crimes in a number of Muslim countries (e.g., in Pakistan) is the murder of women by their husbands. These so-called "honor-killings" are, in fact, extremely dishonorable and are frequently used to camouflage other kinds of crimes.

Female children are discriminated against from the moment of birth, for it is customary in Muslim societies to regard a son as a gift, and a daughter as a trial, from God. Therefore, the birth of a son is an occasion for celebration while the birth of a daughter calls for commiseration if not lamentation. Many girls are married when they are still minors, even though marriage in Islam is a contract and presupposes that the contracting parties are both consenting adults. Even though so much Qur'anic legislation is aimed at protecting the rights of women in the context of marriage[54] women cannot claim equality with their husbands. The husband, in fact, is regarded as his wife's gateway to heaven or hell and the arbiter of her final destiny. That such an idea can exist within the framework of Islam - which, in theory, rejects the idea of there being any intermediary between a believer and God - represents both a profound irony and a great tragedy.

Although the Qur'an presents the idea of what we today call a "no-fault" divorce and does not make any adverse judgements about divorce [55], Muslim societies have made divorce extremely difficult for women, both legally and through social penalties. Although the Qur'an states clearly that the divorced parents of a minor child must decide by mutual consultation how the child is to be raised and that they must not use the child to hurt or exploit each other[56], in most Muslim societies, women are deprived both of their sons (generally at age 7) and their daughters (generally at age 12). It is difficult to imagine an act of greater cruelty than depriving a mother of her children simply because she is divorced. Although polygamy was intended by the Qur'an to be for the protection of orphans and widows[57], in practice Muslims have made it the Sword of Damocles which keeps women under constant threat. Although the Qur'an gave women the right to receive an inheritance not only on the death of a close relative, but also to receive other bequests or gifts during the lifetime of a benevolent caretaker, Muslim societies have disapproved greatly of the idea of giving wealth to a woman in preference to a man, even when her need or circumstances warrant it.


Logroller, this description deals with what passes for normailty in Muslim societies GENERALLY. Muslim societies, if they ever get near to the ideals of this 'progressive movement' you've introduced a link to, will have to change EN MASSE. Do you see signs that they're doing so, OR, is what you've introduced nothing more than a fringe movement at best ?

Drummond, what is described above is the fringe movement you described. There are places like Pakistan and Afghanistan where Islam has been used as an excuse to explain what they do but in fact Islam is not at fault. Their ancient pre-Islamic tribal customs such as "honour" killing and what you said about how sons and daughters are seen are not in Islam at all.

Daughters are seen as a blessing in Islam. In fact, if you have 3 daughters and treat them well and bring them up well, you get what amounts to a free pass into heaven.
The Prophet Mohamed (saw) said,

Whoever has three daughters and is patient with them and gives them to drink and clothes them, they will be a protection for him against the Fire

That somewhat negates the ridiculous notion stated in that article that we hate our daughters although some societies (such as Pakistan) have different core values to those presented within Islam.

In fact, if you read the article from which you quoted, it is actually a criticism of societies who call themselves Muslims, yet have rejected or strayed far from what is taught in Islam so you can't use it to attack us. All you did there was to point out that some people in this world need to go back and learn what their religion actually teaches, not what they decided amongst themselves.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You mentioned murder 5 times...Ooh, more scary stuff:yawn:

I am sure that it was not yawning material to ALL those murdered women and children despite it being so to you!!!

funny you'd mention the nazis -- near as i can tell, your proposed solution is genocide.

No , my proposed solution is to stand united against them, order them to stop the terror/murdering rampages and if they do not we begin to wage war back on them. For they are waging war now in case you missed it.
I've seen you defend Islam but where is your condemnation of Islam for its failure to stop these socalled radicals? Islam gets a pass on not taking action to stop them yet its well known any slight against Islam brings retaliation swiftly and so often unmercifully.. So why if its not part of Islam is this slight overlooked and never fought by the socalled peaceful muslims?-Tyr

[logroller]

Maybe not to the degree that others want to describe, but there is in fact terrorism by Muslims on an almost daily basis. The radicals amongst Islam I think ARE something to be worried about and must not be ignored. They do murder and they do terrorize. It's just not all Muslims of course and certainly not on every corner of the world and not even every corner of Islamic worlds. But it IS a monster sized problem that is only going to grow if we ignore its existence.
People seem to confuse nonviolent means as being weak or ignorant. I'm not proposing we ignore the problem, but rather focus on the causes and the solutions.

[logroller]

No , my proposed solution is to stand united against them, order them to stop the terror/murdering rampages and if they do not we begin to wage war back on them. For they are waging war now in case you missed it.-Tyr
Order them and then wage war...that's pretty much what they do too. ( out of palestine, or uou will be sorry!!!!!!) You've no better a plan than the terrorists. Where is this war exactly? America, Britain? Egypt, Syria Libya Iraq Saudi Arabia? A global war-- is that your solution? Do you completely fail to see how your talk will likely unite those Muslims who would have been sympathetic to our cause?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Drummond, what is described above is the fringe movement you described. There are places like Pakistan and Afghanistan where Islam has been used as an excuse to explain what they do but in fact Islam is not at fault. Their ancient pre-Islamic tribal customs such as "honour" killing and what you said about how sons and daughters are seen are not in Islam at all.

Daughters are seen as a blessing in Islam. In fact, if you have 3 daughters and treat them well and bring them up well, you get what amounts to a free pass into heaven.
The Prophet Mohamed (saw) said,


That somewhat negates the ridiculous notion stated in that article that we hate our daughters although some societies (such as Pakistan) have different core values to those presented within Islam.

In fact, if you read the article from which you quoted, it is actually a criticism of societies who call themselves Muslims, yet have rejected or strayed far from what is taught in Islam so you can't use it to attack us. All you did there was to point out that some people in this world need to go back and learn what their religion actually teaches, not what they decided amongst themselves.

I call bullshat on that. If its not part of Islam , not Jihad (which it most assuredly is) then why do the socalled true muslims turn a blind eye to it taking no action? When ALL other insults to Islam bring swift violent actions down on those that are guilty of doing so? Even so small as drawing a cartoon but not these that murder innocent women and children in Allah's name and are NOT ATTACKED by the socalled true believers!! You know the answer why they are not attacked and destroyed! Because the socalled peaceful true believers know and agree that it is right because it is Jihad and Jihad is part of Islam. Just as you know that you lying to us about it is ok in Islam as well.-Tyr

[jimnyc]

People seem to confuse nonviolent means as being weak or ignorant. I'm not proposing we ignore the problem, but rather focus on the causes and the solutions.

On that we agree. We should be concentrating solely on those committing violent acts or planning them. And it should be a concerted effort to teach and stop this way of thinking worldwide. But this is never going to happen unless we have the full support of Islamic countries as well, and have them working WITH us and doing as much to speak out and act out to put a stop to the radicalism. I don't see a lot in the line of help coming from the Muslim world. Acknowledge the problem, make plans to stop the problems and then execute the plans. I only see this happening in certain areas and by a few countries. It doesn't need to be a far reaching or world reaching effort, if each country simply acknowledged their problems and they all worked to get rid of the problems.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Order them and then wage war...that's pretty much what they do too. ( out of palestine, or uou will be sorry!!!!!!) You've no better a plan than the terrorists. Where is this war exactly? America, Britain? Egypt, Syria Libya Iraq Saudi Arabia? A global war-- is that your solution? Do you completely fail to see how your talk will likely unite those Muslims who would have been sympathetic to our cause?

Good Gawd man, its escalating because they've been ignored and allowed to organise without much interference. For well over 3 decades they've largely been ignored. A damn shame we didnt have you and your suggestion around before we mistakenly warred in WW2.-, isnt it? What you fail to admit is that sometimes war is forced !! When forced its not those forced to fight that are guilty of any bad behaviour its the scum doing the forcing, as in WW 2 the Nazis and the Japs.. They are guilty of waging war on innocent women children deliberately but you declare dont fight back because that is what they want! As if the nazis and japs didnt expect us to fight back when they attacked us!Incredible ! Exactly when do we have the right to fight back if ever ? History clearly shows Chamberlain was wrong and WW2 could have been avoided if a strong stand was taken early on , but instead weak appeasing gestures were the call of the day and Hitler rejoiced in that folly. You put forth that such murdering scum can be reasoned with while I put forth they can not be reasoned with. WW2 is a fine example of that , where war was the only answer to stop such determined foes. And these scum are even far more determined and fanatical.-Tyr

[logroller]

On that we agree. We should be concentrating solely on those committing violent acts or planning them. And it should be a concerted effort to teach and stop this way of thinking worldwide. But this is never going to happen unless we have the full support of Islamic countries as well, and have them working WITH us and doing as much to speak out and act out to put a stop to the radicalism. I don't see a lot in the line of help coming from the Muslim world. Acknowledge the problem, make plans to stop the problems and then execute the plans. I only see this happening in certain areas and by a few countries. It doesn't need to be a far reaching or world reaching effort, if each country simply acknowledged their problems and they all worked to get rid of the problems.
Saudi Arabia is pretty strict regarding its treatment of extreme factions; even works closely with MI6 and the CIA. And the sauds are anything but open religious wise.


Good Gawd man, its escalating because they've been ignored and allowed to organise without much interference. For well over 3 decades they've largely been ignored. A damn shame we didnt have you and your suggestion around before we mistakenly warred in WW2.-, isnt it? What you fail to admit is that sometimes war is forced !! When forced its not those forced to fight that are guilty of any bad behaviour its the scum doing the forcing, as in WW 2 the Nazis and the Japs.. They are guilty of waging war on innocent women children deliberately but you declare dont fight back because that is what they want! As if the nazis and japs didnt expect us to fight back when they attacked us!Incredible ! Exactly when do we have the right to fight back if ever ? History clearly shows Chamberlain was wrong and WW2 could have been avoided if a strong stand was taken early on , but instead weak appeasing gestures were the call of the day and Hitler rejoiced in that folly. You put forth that such murdering scum can be reasoned with while I put forth they can not be reasoned with. WW2 is a fine example of that , where war was the only answer to stop such determined foes. And these scum are even far more determined and fanatical.-Tyr
Good gawd yourself -- Wtf does the cause of ww2 have to do wih islam and terrorism? And chamberlain was to blamefor ww2-- If you think national socialism just came into power magically because no one watching I suggest you do a little reading on the burdens imposed by the treaty of Versailles. Because that Tyr was the precipitous kernel of the regime, not chamberlain you anglocentric bigot.

[Drummond]

If it werent for dreamers, we'd be living in huts at best. But a nice attempt to dismiss a plausible solution as less than, without positing a better one. The reality is that as we continue to interfere In foreign affairs of state we haven't made the world more free, peaceful or safe. Furthermore, it has fostered an ill-will against us and we're outnumbered five to one -- great peril indeed-- that's what dillo was saying. The reality is you, like many, prefer the short term gains derived from the spreading of fear and hate rather than the lasting benefit of love and understanding.

WHAT 'plausible solution' ? You've picked up on the output of a site which may or may not simply be putting out propaganda designed to sanitise the nature of Islam. And even if its authors don't have that objective in mind, if they somehow mean just what they say, we have ample evidence that they can only constitute a fringe sect at best.

Islamic societies do NOT, repeat, NOT, behave as this so-called 'progressive' bunch of self-proclaimed 'Muslims' (for which we are meant to take their word that this is what they ARE, apparently without question) describe themselves and their 'ideals'.

Islam is not interested in coexistence, it's only interested in dominion. Consider the case of Israel, surrounded by Arab and Islamic States which would all be delighted if one day Israel ceased to exist. Israel has fought wars for its very survival. Israel is under near-constant attack from Muslim terrorists to this day. For years, now, it's faced the overtly GENOCIDAL ambition against it, from Iran !! Hamas, too - a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT - has as a core charter principle the destruction of Israel. It's been there for many years, and has never been rescinded.

I repeat - Islam is not interested in coexistence. It sees itself as the enemy of those not like itself. And those Nation States governed by Islamic 'principles' show not tolerance, but INtolerance, towards other religions.

By the way, you keep referring to 'fear', as though I've suggested that fear is involved. Where, in any other post of mine, have I suggested any such thing ? The point is, and always HAS been with me, that REALISM has to win out.

And we've seen what's real, Logroller. The reality of Islam has not proven itself to be borne out by what your link described. Rather, the reality has been aeroplanes flown into skyscrapers; bombings; beheadings; genocidal threats; a Nation State developing a nuclear technology it cannot POSSIBLY need for the 'peaceful' purpose it claims for it, hot on the heels of those threats of genocide.

Shall we dream about 'enlightened' Muslims, Logroller, who only want peaceful coexistence ? Or, should we wake up to the REALITY of where Islam leads, as the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Iranian regime, and not forgetting Al Qaeda, ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, TEACHES US IS REAL ??

Pit that against the fringe group who may or may not be as they advertise themselves to be, Logroller, and .. if you must .. dream your dreams. But while you dream those dreams, Ahmadinejad hasn't apologised for his threats, Hamas are still intent on their terrorism, Al Qaeda hasn't given up on ITS terrorism, in fact, no militant grouping I'm aware of is showing signs of cessation or surrender. THEY STILL PERSIST IN BEING THREATS.

The only question, ultimately, is whether those who'd willfully lull us into inaction against them will succeed in that aim .. and if they did, where that would lead.

More bombings and terrorist attacks in the West, maybe ? Maybe, an abandoned Israel, to be one day pockmarked with nuclear craters where cities used to be ?

Don't confuse this with fearmongering, Logroller. It's just seeing the potential for disaster which NEEDS to be considered, and met, rather than avoided through escapist dreaming !!

[Drummond]

Saudi Arabia is pretty strict regarding its treatment of extreme factions; even works closely with MI6 and the CIA. And the sauds are anything but open religious wise.

Saudi Arabia works with MI6 and the CIA because it's been the subject itself of terrorism from Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda considers any Nation State fair game for its murderous attentions if any such State shows too much interest in being friendly with the West.

It did that with Egypt, I understand. It's now adopting the same line with Saudi Arabia. Before this, many senior figures were bankrollers for Al Qaeda .. in fact, Osama bin Laden was himself a wealthy Saudi citizen. No, Saudi Arabia is just working to preserve its own interests, pure and simple.

As a matter of interest .. did you know that Hitler was very popular with Arabs during WW II ?

http://www.wnd.com/2011/12/375617/


The extent of love or hate of public or historic figures can perhaps be determined by typing the name of that someone into Google’s search engine. Plugging most Arab dictators name these days in Arabic yields mass dissatisfaction equating them to tyrants like Hitler. But what if you typed the name “Hitler” by itself in Arabic into Google? What will you find? “Hitler” in Arabic has as many hits as the number of Jews he liquidated – over 6 million. While its impossible to read 6 million blogs and websites to determine what the Arab world thinks of him, perusing hundreds of websites in Arabic might shock Westerners to find that most of the comments in some way or another either compliment or glorify Hitler.

The first Arabic website was a blog that introduces him: “Hitler was not an ordinary individual to be spun by the wheel of history to sprinkle him behind as dust to be forgotten across this vast globe. He was neither the king of the German people alone. He is one of the greatest few. Here is the king of history.” Westerners might think that the first comment on such an article would be in disgust. Hardly. Muhammad Jasem posted: “If the greatest leaders gather together, they would not equal the magnificence of Hitler.” The rest of the comments were not far off ...

To the best of my understanding, Logroller, Hitler wasn't known for harbouring ambitions to 'peacefully coexist' with other nations and peoples ... however, they had not dissimilar INtolerances towards Jews ..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Saudi Arabia is pretty strict regarding its treatment of extreme factions; even works closely with MI6 and the CIA. And the sauds are anything but open religious wise.


Good gawd yourself -- Wtf does the cause of ww2 have to do wih islam and terrorism? And chamberlain was to blamefor ww2-- If you think national socialism just came into power magically because no one watching I suggest you do a little reading on the burdens imposed by the treaty of Versailles. Because that Tyr was the precipitous kernel of the regime, not chamberlain you anglocentric bigot.

The WW2 and Chamberlain post was made in comparing your approach to the muslim problem and the war they wage(their current goal world submission tour) with how Chamberlain went for appeasement first and what resulted from that folly.
You excuse the Nazi plan because the TREATY OF VERSAILLES was too damn restrictive! As if Hitler had a right to wage war destroying millons of lives! And rather than condemn the Islamists(as you should) and their world domination goal you put forth that they need to be understood and appeased. Ifind that to be idiotic on every level.
Because that Log is your Muzzycentric appeasing mentality complete with a healthy dose of fantasy about how you WISH they would behave towards being handled with kid gloves! When history shows that they have always viewed such as a very great weakness only worthy of being exploited!--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Obviously Dillo does not know or else disagrees with the accepted premise that the muslim advance was stopped by one great defeat at the Battle of Vienna when Charsle the Hammer Martel obliterated them with far less troops than they had!
So much so that the unstoppable advancement they were on suddenly and convincingly was STOPPED! I think nuke just one of their holy cities and it'll be stopped again for at least a thousand years. For it'll prove that Allah was not with them. Just as their humiliating defeat that the Hammer put on them did until recently!
After all we have plenty of spare nukes just laying around collecting dust.
What would using just one matter? -;)--Tyr

only temporarily--is that your plan too--stop Islam temporarily ?

[Dilloduck]

No , my proposed solution is to stand united against them, order them to stop the terror/murdering rampages and if they do not we begin to wage war back on them. For they are waging war now in case you missed it.
I've seen you defend Islam but where is your condemnation of Islam for its failure to stop these socalled radicals? Islam gets a pass on not taking action to stop them yet its well known any slight against Islam brings retaliation swiftly and so often unmercifully.. So why if its not part of Islam is this slight overlooked and never fought by the socalled peaceful muslims?-Tyr

Order them to stop:lmao:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

only temporarily--is that your plan too--stop Islam temporarily ?

Sure ,why not. In a thousand years we will almost cetainly be beyond needing the oil over there and then we wouldnt need a damn thing from the murdering scum. Since they are at least a thousand years behind in being civilised they'd have time to catch up a bit too.-;)--Tyr

[Dilloduck]

WHAT 'plausible solution' ? You've picked up on the output of a site which may or may not simply be putting out propaganda designed to sanitise the nature of Islam. And even if its authors don't have that objective in mind, if they somehow mean just what they say, we have ample evidence that they can only constitute a fringe sect at best.

Islamic societies do NOT, repeat, NOT, behave as this so-called 'progressive' bunch of self-proclaimed 'Muslims' (for which we are meant to take their word that this is what they ARE, apparently without question) describe themselves and their 'ideals'.

Islam is not interested in coexistence, it's only interested in dominion. Consider the case of Israel, surrounded by Arab and Islamic States which would all be delighted if one day Israel ceased to exist. Israel has fought wars for its very survival. Israel is under near-constant attack from Muslim terrorists to this day. For years, now, it's faced the overtly GENOCIDAL ambition against it, from Iran !! Hamas, too - a TERRORIST GOVERNMENT - has as a core charter principle the destruction of Israel. It's been there for many years, and has never been rescinded.

I repeat - Islam is not interested in coexistence. It sees itself as the enemy of those not like itself. And those Nation States governed by Islamic 'principles' show not tolerance, but INtolerance, towards other religions.

By the way, you keep referring to 'fear', as though I've suggested that fear is involved. Where, in any other post of mine, have I suggested any such thing ? The point is, and always HAS been with me, that REALISM has to win out.

And we've seen what's real, Logroller. The reality of Islam has not proven itself to be borne out by what your link described. Rather, the reality has been aeroplanes flown into skyscrapers; bombings; beheadings; genocidal threats; a Nation State developing a nuclear technology it cannot POSSIBLY need for the 'peaceful' purpose it claims for it, hot on the heels of those threats of genocide.

Shall we dream about 'enlightened' Muslims, Logroller, who only want peaceful coexistence ? Or, should we wake up to the REALITY of where Islam leads, as the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Iranian regime, and not forgetting Al Qaeda, ALL, EVERY ONE OF THEM, TEACHES US IS REAL ??

Pit that against the fringe group who may or may not be as they advertise themselves to be, Logroller, and .. if you must .. dream your dreams. But while you dream those dreams, Ahmadinejad hasn't apologised for his threats, Hamas are still intent on their terrorism, Al Qaeda hasn't given up on ITS terrorism, in fact, no militant grouping I'm aware of is showing signs of cessation or surrender. THEY STILL PERSIST IN BEING THREATS.

The only question, ultimately, is whether those who'd willfully lull us into inaction against them will succeed in that aim .. and if they did, where that would lead.

More bombings and terrorist attacks in the West, maybe ? Maybe, an abandoned Israel, to be one day pockmarked with nuclear craters where cities used to be ?

Don't confuse this with fearmongering, Logroller. It's just seeing the potential for disaster which NEEDS to be considered, and met, rather than avoided through escapist dreaming !!

I'd call it a lot of saber rattling. Is that still the only plan you got ? Nuke em all ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Order them to stop:lmao:

Why not? Agreeing with them and kissing their asses like you guys favor hasnt worked out too damn well, has it?
Give them one chance if/when they refuse lower the boom on them. I'm sure you have no concept of that by your attempted ridicule of my previous comment.
Damn sure isnt as lame as let's kiss their asses and smother 'em with kindness as their "useful idiots" suggest..:laugh:
At least I've suggested we get it together and start in Britain .
What have you suggested other than we must surrender and we can never defeat them?-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Why not? Agreeing with them and kissing their asses like you guys favor hasnt worked out too damn well, has it?
Give them one chance if/when they refuse lower the boom on them. I'm sure you have no concept of that by your attempted ridicule of my previous comment.
Damn sure isnt as lame as let's kiss their asses and smother 'em with kindness as their "useful idiots" suggest..:laugh:
At least I've suggested we get it together and start in Britain .
What have you suggested other than we must surrender and we can never defeat them?-Tyr

They are all busy killing EACH OTHER right now. I have never suggested surrendering. Stop lying

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

They are all busy killing EACH OTHER right now. I have never suggested surrendering. Stop lying

The accumulation of your posts in regards to this subject is that we not ever fight them because we will not win!
Since they intend on conquering us and will not stop that leds me to the conclusion you think we should beg and plead until we are conquered or else we surrender and save them the trouble of having to conquer us. Care to clarify any of the past posts that you made go right ahead...I believe in giving a man a chance to correct his mistakes .- ;)-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

The accumulation of your posts in regards to this subject is that we not ever fight them because we will not win!
Since they intend on conquering us and will not stop that leds me to the conclusion you think we should beg and plead until we are conquered or else we surrender and save them the trouble of having to conquer us. Care to clarify any of the past posts that you made go right ahead...I believe in giving a man a chance to correct his mistakes .- ;)-Tyr

You sound like Hitler talking about the Jews or the KKK talking about blacks. I can't help it if you make shitty assumptions. I have never even remotely hinted at surrendering to them.

[Drummond]

I'd call it a lot of saber rattling.

Why ?

Is this your standard response to a dose of the truth, such as I've described it ?

You recently claimed to be loyal to the truth, if memory serves ... so you should therefore be PLEASED with my post, and be supportive of it !

And .. talking of your 'reverence' for the truth, I see from you ...


Is that still the only plan you got ? Nuke em all ?

... do you care to point us to any past post of mine where I've clearly advocated 'nuking em all' ?

Go ahead, Dilloduck. Find that post !!

Let's be clear, then. I for one have always been fully supportive of the War on Terror, feeling that this was the only reasonable answer both to 9/11 and the Muslim capacity for terrorism generally. I believe that the only answer was to continue with it, never slackening, because to slacken sends our enemies the message that the will to fight them can be worn down and neutralised.

In fact, it should be the West's job to implement a world environment as toxic to terrorists as it's possible to arrange - it is THEIR will to terrorise that needs to be broken. So .. the carpet-bombing of Afghanistan was highly necessary. The Iraq War, ditto. I think that a war against Iran .. known to be the leading facilitator in the world of terrorism, not to mention Israel's current worst enemy .. is now called for, since Ahmadinejad and his regime show no sign of deserving anything else. After all, nothing ELSE is working, is it ?

Basically, the way to defeat terrorism is to prove that terrorism incurs consequences which negate its viability as an aggressive tactic. In other words .. make them pay massively for their disgusting murderous savagery.

Now ... who would like to reply, saying I'm being 'unenlightened' by being so nasty to terrorist trash ? H'mm ? Any takers ?

.. Come on, Lefties ... don't be shy ...

[Drummond]

You sound like Hitler talking about the Jews or the KKK talking about blacks. I can't help it if you make shitty assumptions. I have never even remotely hinted at surrendering to them.

... but I agree with Tyr's conclusion. You've been consistent, from what I've seen, in arguing that America hangs back from taking on terrorists. For example, you've been strongly against American efforts - or the possibility of them - in going in to deal with the Syrian WMD issue.

From what I've had to conclude, it seems evident that, from your point of view, to see Americans take their chances with those WMD's falling into terrorist hands is preferable to directly acting to prevent that !!

How, Dilloduck, does this fall short of surrendering power to terrorists to murder and maim your citizens on a grand scale ?

[logroller]

In fact, it should be the West's job to implement a world environment ...
That's actually your opinion, not a fact. Saying 'in fact' does not make it so. Many believe the West's interventionalist strategies, under the auspices of being in the West's interest, have fostered anti-western sentiments, making them the target for terrorist plots. You dismiss that...but the fact is billions of people do not.

[jafar00]

That's actually your opinion, not a fact. Saying 'in fact' does not make it so. Many believe the West's interventionalist strategies, under the auspices of being in the West's interest, have fostered anti-western sentiments, making them the target for terrorist plots. You dismiss that...but the fact is billions of people do not.

There is something to that. Why does the US need to spend so much on defense? Does so much of the world hate you that much that you need to sit behind the largest military spending budget in history? Apparently the Republicans want to cut welfare, food stamps and Medicare in order to reduce the budget deficit. In my opinion they are looking in the wrong place for cuts.

http://www.rickety.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/defense_spending.jpg

[Dilloduck]

... but I agree with Tyr's conclusion. You've been consistent, from what I've seen, in arguing that America hangs back from taking on terrorists. For example, you've been strongly against American efforts - or the possibility of them - in going in to deal with the Syrian WMD issue.

From what I've had to conclude, it seems evident that, from your point of view, to see Americans take their chances with those WMD's falling into terrorist hands is preferable to directly acting to prevent that !!

How, Dilloduck, does this fall short of surrendering power to terrorists to murder and maim your citizens on a grand scale ?

Don't be a dumbass. America is keeping close watch ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD on Syria's WMDs. All have come to the conclusion that there is no need for boots on the ground at this time. How you manage to see this as surrendering is beyond me. You know those drones flying around killing people ? That ain't surrendering.

[Dilloduck]

There is something to that. Why does the US need to spend so much on defense? Does so much of the world hate you that much that you need to sit behind the largest military spending budget in history? Apparently the Republicans want to cut welfare, food stamps and Medicare in order to reduce the budget deficit. In my opinion they are looking in the wrong place for cuts.


http://www.rickety.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/defense_spending.jpg

That's pretty much the average American asks himself too. Why does everyone hate us so much ?
There are several theories, one being our support for Israel. Another is that Islamic leaders drum up Arab hatred for the US. Being hated is not something that the average American sets out to be and we'd be perfectly happy for someone else to be the world's policeman.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

... but I agree with Tyr's conclusion. You've been consistent, from what I've seen, in arguing that America hangs back from taking on terrorists. For example, you've been strongly against American efforts - or the possibility of them - in going in to deal with the Syrian WMD issue.

From what I've had to conclude, it seems evident that, from your point of view, to see Americans take their chances with those WMD's falling into terrorist hands is preferable to directly acting to prevent that !!

How, Dilloduck, does this fall short of surrendering power to terrorists to murder and maim your citizens on a grand scale ?

You my friend have him and his previously stated position nailed right. He tries to slip out of it by declaring --we are watching the WMDS in Syria as if that is somehow protecting them! Unles we have boots on the ground there capable and ready to very quickly stop those weapons from being seized by our enemies then watching does about as much good as ducking after you've been hit in the head! Dillo's basic stand IMHO is America should do nothing but watch. Lets hope for the best and maybe if we are just kind enough to them they'll let us live! A slim hope and a useless prayer but apparently he puts great stock in it..Why the great confidence in that I have no earthly idea.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

I can't understand how someone can remain clueless as to the technological powers America has as it's disposal but you two have proved me wrong.
(Look out--Al qaeda could be making mustard gas in South America for all we know----better gets some boots on the ground there to huh ?)

[jimnyc]

That's pretty much the average American asks himself too. Why does everyone hate us so much ?

I doubt the 'average American' even gives it a thought. Those of us that like to debate and such discuss these topics. But the average joe couldn't give a shit either way if another country likes us or not.

[Dilloduck]

I doubt the 'average American' even gives it a thought. Those of us that like to debate and such discuss these topics. But the average joe couldn't give a shit either way if another country likes us or not.

Good point. If TV ratings are any indication of an average American we're in deep shit anyway.

[Drummond]

That's actually your opinion, not a fact. Saying 'in fact' does not make it so. Many believe the West's interventionalist strategies, under the auspices of being in the West's interest, have fostered anti-western sentiments, making them the target for terrorist plots. You dismiss that...but the fact is billions of people do not.

A more complete quote of mine would be as follows ...


In fact, it should be the West's job to implement a world environment as toxic to terrorists as it's possible to arrange - it is THEIR will to terrorise that needs to be broken.

I'm surprised that anyone, in good conscience, could disagree with my statement (Lefties notwithstanding, of course ...).

Your answer to me amounts to an apologist stance for terrorism. There is NO EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM. Though I don't believe that the West has actually been responsible for whatever anti-Western sentiment might be out there, even if I DID believe you were right, that STILL wouldn't excuse any terrorist act !!

I mean, where does this moral equivocation stop, anyway ? If a man steals another man's wife, does the husband have the right to blow the offending individual to smithereens ? Murder is murder, and terrorism is invariably MASS murder ! So I say again, there is NO EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM.

It's the West's job to to implement a world environment made toxic to terrorists, (a) because it's the West that's the prime victim of it, and (b) since we have civilised standards in the West which recognise its unacceptability, who ELSE is going to arrange such an environment ??

In case you've somehow forgotten, America was attacked on 11th September 2001. The events of that day proved beyond doubt that SOMETHING had to be done as a meaningful response to such murderous barbarity, and so, the War on Terror was born .. as a reaction to that terrorism, and as an intended process to neutralise the future instances of that.

But to be properly effective, the civilised world needed to be on board .. George W Bush, recognising this, asked other countries to join the effort. Enter LEFTIES from foreign countries on to the scene, to water down or negate the likelihood of that happening .. even in my country, though Blair became a staunch ally of Bush, he faced enormous pressure from his OWN Party to reduce that support (.. especially at the time of the Iraq War).

So, the Left crippled the international cohesiveness of the effort. America, evident leader amongst the Western powers, had to shoulder - unacceptably, in my view - the brunt of the effort. After all .. who ELSE was going to do so ?

All of this reflects a simple reality. Terrorist trash are either stopped, or, what they do is accepted. If accepted, that is nothing less than a surrender to it.

Excuses to knuckle under to terrorism, Logroller, just don't 'cut it'. Mass murder is not something to 'decide to accept'. If you want to find excuses for saying there can be conditions where it can ever possibly be justified, then you're selling your compatriots out ...

.. which leaves but one ultimate question, does it not ? If there's ever going to be a status quo which excuses terrorism, then we really need to know what death tolls of innocent human beings this stance will justify. So, how about it ? Do you have any figures to offer us of 'acceptable' numbers of the dead ?

OR, IS ALL TERRORISM UNACCEPTABLE AT ALL TIMES ??

[Dilloduck]

A more complete quote of mine would be as follows ...



I'm surprised that anyone, in good conscience, could disagree with my statement (Lefties notwithstanding, of course ...).

Your answer to me amounts to an apologist stance for terrorism. There is NO EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM. Though I don't believe that the West has actually been responsible for whatever anti-Western sentiment might be out there, even if I DID believe you were right, that STILL wouldn't excuse any terrorist act !!

I mean, where does this moral equivocation stop, anyway ? If a man steals another man's wife, does the husband have the right to blow the offending individual to smithereens ? Murder is murder, and terrorism is invariably MASS murder ! So I say again, there is NO EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM.

It's the West's job to to implement a world environment made toxic to terrorists, (a) because it's the West that's the prime victim of it, and (b) since we have civilised standards in the West which recognise its unacceptability, who ELSE is going to arrange such an environment ??

In case you've somehow forgotten, America was attacked on 11th September 2001. The events of that day proved beyond doubt that SOMETHING had to be done as a meaningful response to such murderous barbarity, and so, the War on Terror was born .. as a reaction to that terrorism, and as an intended process to neutralise the future instances of that.

But to be properly effective, the civilised world needed to be on board .. George W Bush, recognising this, asked other countries to join the effort. Enter LEFTIES from foreign countries on to the scene, to water down or negate the likelihood of that happening .. even in my country, though Blair became a staunch ally of Bush, he faced enormous pressure from his OWN Party to reduce that support (.. especially at the time of the Iraq War).

So, the Left crippled the international cohesiveness of the effort. America, evident leader amongst the Western powers, had to shoulder - unacceptably, in my view - the brunt of the effort. After all .. who ELSE was going to do so ?

All of this reflects a simple reality. Terrorist trash are either stopped, or, what they do is accepted. If accepted, that is nothing less than a surrender to it.

Excuses to knuckle under to terrorism, Logroller, just don't 'cut it'. Mass murder is not something to 'decide to accept'. If you want to find excuses for saying there can be conditions where it can ever possibly be justified, then you're selling your compatriots out ...

.. which leaves but one ultimate question, does it not ? If there's ever going to be a status quo which excuses terrorism, then we really need to know what death tolls of innocent human beings this stance will justify. So, how about it ? Do you have any figures to offer us of 'acceptable' numbers of the dead ?

OR, IS ALL TERRORISM UNACCEPTABLE AT ALL TIMES ??

yes terrorism should stop---all forms of it--how would you stop it?

[Drummond]

yes terrorism should stop---all forms of it--how would you stop it?

Isn't it obvious ? By not only fighting a War on Terror, but continuing to fight it, until such time as terrorists ultimately understand that terrorism can never be worth the effort.

Any attempt to scale down such efforts can be perceived as weakness by terrorist enemies, and they would see that as weakness to be exploited. That can only ultimately translate into one outcome ... the needless, avoidable, deaths of more people than would've been true otherwise.

Terrorist morale has to be broken. That requires much effort. It requires an unshakeable belief in the rightness of the cause, and an utter determination to see it through to the end, to ultimate victory.

Or, one can surrender to it, of course, whether completely or in 'measurable doses'. Which, surely and however indirectly, has to amount to being classifiable as a 'crime against humanity'.

So, fighting terrorism, and continuing to, has to be 'a given'. It can't be otherwise. The sheer barbarity of the enemy allows for no other reasonable outcome.

[Dilloduck]

Isn't it obvious ? By not only fighting a War on Terror, but continuing to fight it, until such time as terrorists ultimately understand that terrorism can never be worth the effort.

Any attempt to scale down such efforts can be perceived as weakness by terrorist enemies, and they would see that as weakness to be exploited. That can only ultimately translate into one outcome ... the needless, avoidable, deaths of more people than would've been true otherwise.

Terrorist morale has to be broken. That requires much effort. It requires an unshakeable belief in the rightness of the cause, and an utter determination to see it through to the end, to ultimate victory.

Or, one can surrender to it, of course, whether completely or in 'measurable doses'. Which, surely and however indirectly, has to amount to being classifiable as a 'crime against humanity'.

So, fighting terrorism, and continuing to, has to be 'a given'. It can't be otherwise. The sheer barbarity of the enemy allows for no other reasonable outcome.

I said HOW----Maybe I should have said SPECIFICALLY HOW.

Seriously--what are you worried about? There is a world wide effort to identify terrorists and prevent them from succeeding. It IS a given. Have a pint and relax. It' being taken care of by REAL people of action.

[Drummond]

I said HOW----Maybe I should have said SPECIFICALLY HOW.

Seriously--what are you worried about? There is a world wide effort to identify terrorists and prevent them from succeeding. It IS a given. Have a pint and relax. It' being taken care of by REAL people of action.

Here's hoping that your conclusion is accurate.

But I think I've cause to seriously wonder about that. For example, I've noted Obama's - surely - unbelievable 'tactic' of announcing intended troop withdrawals YEARS before they're due to occur. Now, if I was a terrorist, I'd be delighted with that, and my morale would receive a boost. I'd be saying, 'OK, all that's necessary is to hold out until the deadline passes, then go into the area and re-establish a power base once more.

I'm not sure, therefore, that just saying 'there is a world wide effort to identify terrorists and prevent them from succeeding' is nearly enough .. not with that sort of blunder (and that's a charitable interpretation !!) going on.

And I think it goes deeper than that. You see, there are those almost unbelievably shortsighted individuals who believe, for whatever 'reasons' they can contrive to suggest, that it's time for efforts to be relaxed, that investments in troop deployments can and should be relaxed. Do you REALLY not think that a terrorist would fail to view that as weakness, that a resolve to fight is ebbing away ?

The War on Terror, Dilloduck, has to live up to its name. To do that, there cannot be any slackening off for the reasons I've given. And additionally, Dilloduck, I also believe that we're in a race against time before terrorists get their hands on WMD's and then successfully deploy them. Keeping terrorists wrong-footed, PERMANENTLY, is a necessary distraction to save many lives, which means in turn keeping them occupied in their backyard, so to speak.

And .. there's the Syrian WMD issue (which may be an ex-Iraq WMD issue, unrecognised as such). For a 'reason' I've never managed to make any sense out of, you somehow seem to believe that keeping them out of terrorist hands falls outside of the range of American responsibility .. as though you're somehow 'immune' to any likelihood that any could ever be used on American citizens. Neither Tyr nor myself, as you know from our posts, comprehend where you can get any such idea from.

Obama's withdrawal plans are, in my view, criminally irresponsible. Terrorists will almost certainly be strengthened as a result. So in overall answer, my belief is that, unless the utter and permanent defeat of terrorist 'forces' in a given area can be assured, military presences need to be maintained, for as long as any terrorist threat persists.

[Dilloduck]

You'd make a shitty terrorist. These guys don't give a shit what's going on. They're fanatics--they are suicidal. They know full well that even though there are no boots on the ground in certain places that means nothing. Between drones, satellites and covert ops there is no safe place for them. Do they care? Hell no.
Go get your pint. Play some darts

[Drummond]

You'd make a shitty terrorist. These guys don't give a shit what's going on. They're fanatics--they are suicidal. They know full well that even though there are no boots on the ground in certain places that means nothing. Between drones, satellites and covert ops there is no safe place for them. Do they care? Hell no.

Go get your pint. Play some darts

Fine (and thanks for saying I'd make a shitty terrorist .. that's a compliment).

You see, to an extent at least, you're making my case for me.

It has to follow, therefore, that to achieve the victory that's necessary, all the terrorist bravado, all the fanaticism, all the bloodlust and savagery involved, this has to be countered with something truly effective, something that cuts through all of that.

The nature of the terrorist, as YOU must logically acknowledge, is such that displays of weakness will - but of course - be the WORST thing you can give them. But, taking your point on board about their fanaticism, doesn't that argue for a ramping UP of anti-terrorist efforts ?

So, we're talking about more attacks on them, stronger attacks, more sustained attacks, the very opposite, in fact, of slackening off.

The life of a terrorist needs to be made intolerable. So you attack until it becomes exactly that. Kill off the enthusiasm for terrorism. Kill off any possible attraction to being recruited as one. Give them hell, in other words. Only when that becomes an inescapable reality for them will the back of terrorism be broken.

Unless you actually manage to kill them all, of course. I don't know about you, but I'm fine with that. Why wouldn't I be ? It's not as though I can even recognise them to be human. Trash is trash. Being considerate to vermin is madness.

So they richly deserve all the hell that can be meted out to them.

Don't you agree ?

[logroller]

Fine (and thanks for saying I'd make a shitty terrorist .. that's a compliment).

You see, to an extent at least, you're making my case for me.

It has to follow, therefore, that to achieve the victory that's necessary, all the terrorist bravado, all the fanaticism, all the bloodlust and savagery involved, this has to be countered with something truly effective, something that cuts through all of that.

The nature of the terrorist, as YOU must logically acknowledge, is such that displays of weakness will - but of course - be the WORST thing you can give them. But, taking your point on board about their fanaticism, doesn't that argue for a ramping UP of anti-terrorist efforts ?

So, we're talking about more attacks on them, stronger attacks, more sustained attacks, the very opposite, in fact, of slackening off.

The life of a terrorist needs to be made intolerable. So you attack until it becomes exactly that. Kill off the enthusiasm for terrorism. Kill off any possible attraction to being recruited as one. Give them hell, in other words. Only when that becomes an inescapable reality for them will the back of terrorism be broken.

Unless you actually manage to kill them all, of course. I don't know about you, but I'm fine with that. Why wouldn't I be ? It's not as though I can even recognise them to be human. Trash is trash. Being considerate to vermin is madness.

So they richly deserve all the hell that can be meted out to them.

Don't you agree ?

If there is a specific and articulable threat identified, then absolutely, it can justifiably be met with force; but understand, when you kill a man, you've likely made an enemy of his children and friends. If you continue that reasoned plan of action, you have to kill swaths of people, which is unpalatable to many as it reeks of genocidal tendency. Add to that the dehumanization, calling them vermin or scum etc, and one has put in place yet another precursors for crimes against humanity. This concerns me greatly because I want peace. You have to have a plan on winning favor through peaceful means for any hope of long term peace. You do want peace, right?

[Dilloduck]

Fine (and thanks for saying I'd make a shitty terrorist .. that's a compliment).

You see, to an extent at least, you're making my case for me.

It has to follow, therefore, that to achieve the victory that's necessary, all the terrorist bravado, all the fanaticism, all the bloodlust and savagery involved, this has to be countered with something truly effective, something that cuts through all of that.

The nature of the terrorist, as YOU must logically acknowledge, is such that displays of weakness will - but of course - be the WORST thing you can give them. But, taking your point on board about their fanaticism, doesn't that argue for a ramping UP of anti-terrorist efforts ?

So, we're talking about more attacks on them, stronger attacks, more sustained attacks, the very opposite, in fact, of slackening off.

The life of a terrorist needs to be made intolerable. So you attack until it becomes exactly that. Kill off the enthusiasm for terrorism. Kill off any possible attraction to being recruited as one. Give them hell, in other words. Only when that becomes an inescapable reality for them will the back of terrorism be broken.

Unless you actually manage to kill them all, of course. I don't know about you, but I'm fine with that. Why wouldn't I be ? It's not as though I can even recognise them to be human. Trash is trash. Being considerate to vermin is madness.

So they richly deserve all the hell that can be meted out to them.

Don't you agree ?

Kill Kill and Kill------Drummond's three pronged strategy to defeat Islam.

[logroller]

Kill Kill and Kill------Drummond's three pronged strategy to defeat Islam.
Fight jihad with jihad.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If there is a specific and articulable threat identified, then absolutely, it can justifiably be met with force; but understand, when you kill a man, you've likely made an enemy of his children and friends. If you continue that reasoned plan of action, you have to kill swaths of people, which is unpalatable to many as it reeks of genocidal tendency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement makes it appear that you think that is a oneway street! Do you?? There were over 3,000 murder victims here and they had families too! Some of us do not , have not and will not ever forget that. I'd say an eye for an eye even if it means everybody ends up blind is far better than forgetting who attacked us and then placating them in any manner(letting them win is far worse!)! Lets kill them , ALL those murdering bastards and ALL like 'em then let the kiss ass appeasers fondle the corpses until their little twisted heart's desires burn out! Pretty much how hard one has to be to win against such crazy evil bastards as was the case in WW2 where we adopted the plan to actually --WIN!!!

AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF IT!!!--Tyr

[Voted4Reagan]

They may have been Muslims, or maybe not when you consider they were in a strip bar getting drunk before hand. Then again, when you also consider that at least 7 of the named hijackers woke up the next day wondering why they were accused of flying planes into buildings while reading their own obituaries, maybe they weren't the ones responsible.

Come to Brooklyn... I'll show you 3 strip clubs where all the Muslims go to hang out, Drink and carouse with non Muslim women...

Being Muslim doesn't equal SAINTHOOD... They make the same sins as every other religious belief... be they Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Muslims just try and Deny it more....

[jafar00]

Come to Brooklyn... I'll show you 3 strip clubs where all the Muslims go to hang out, Drink and carouse with non Muslim women...

Being Muslim doesn't equal SAINTHOOD... They make the same sins as every other religious belief... be they Christian, Jew or Muslim.

Muslims just try and Deny it more....

Deliberately rejecting the clear decree of God in the Qur'aan does not make one a Muslim.

[Drummond]

If there is a specific and articulable threat identified, then absolutely, it can justifiably be met with force; but understand, when you kill a man, you've likely made an enemy of his children and friends. If you continue that reasoned plan of action, you have to kill swaths of people, which is unpalatable to many as it reeks of genocidal tendency. Add to that the dehumanization, calling them vermin or scum etc, and one has put in place yet another precursors for crimes against humanity. This concerns me greatly because I want peace. You have to have a plan on winning favor through peaceful means for any hope of long term peace. You do want peace, right?

So, you wait for a terrorist outrage to be committed before acting, Logroller ? In reality, isn't that what your chosen policy amounts to ?

Such an approach gives a clear advantage to terrorists, to say nothing of effectively maximising the potential for death tolls of the innocent. Logroller, I do not consider that excusable.

I further note that you seem to care, and place a premium upon, PROTECTING lives of terrorists !!! You say, 'If you continue that reasoned plan of action, you have to kill swaths of people, which is unpalatable to many as it reeks of genocidal tendency.' .. this goes beyond a mere 'apologist' approach to terrorism, to placing a value on THEIR lives above that of their victims.

The terrorists you're so keen to protect, Logroller, care NOTHING for the lives of their victims. Yet YOU want to care about THEIR lives !! And that, Logroller, is surely an offence against basic humanity. You show us a human consideration for savages where none can be deserved .. you have no way of proving that terrorists are human, most certainly NOT from the evidence of their murderous actions, but nonetheless, you attribute to them 'human rights' in defiance of the reality of their bloodlust-fuelled savagery !!

I've argued in other threads, here and elsewhere, repeatedly, that terrorists prove by their actions that they lack basic humanity, therefore, are definably NOT human. Time and again, I've challenged people such as yourself to prove the contention that terrorists are human, arguing that if they WERE, their humanity would prohibit their descent into acts of SUBhumanity. And, Logroller, nobody has EVER been able to prove to me that terrorist 'humanity' could possibly exist. Their actions, you see, prove the exact opposite to be true.

Face this fact: when terrorists are called 'scum', 'vermin' etc ... this is nothing to do with 'dehumanising' them. In describing them in these terms, Logroller, all that's being done is to acknowledge a truth about them WHICH IS ALREADY EVIDENT. Consequently, Logroller, the only (as you describe it) 'precursors for crimes against humanity' lies in showing tolerance and latitude towards terrorists, because in doing so, you equate their savagery, their murders, with normal human behaviour !!!

Do you not get, Logroller, THAT THEIR ATTACKS ARE THEMSELVES CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ?? THAT PREVENTION OF THOSE ATTACKS SERVES AN HUMANITARIAN GOAL ?? While you're sitting around, pontificating about 'terrorist human rights' and saying how much you 'want peace', there'll be some group or other of savages rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of how many IED's they can plant, or how many captives they can behead, or the extent of carnage, limbs blown from bodies, entrails ditto, they can blast with their explosives, from their latest bomb outrages !!

So yes, Logroller, I will call the perpetrators of that wanton SUBhumanity what they ARE, namely, SCUM and VERMIN, and I WILL place their victims above them, way above them, in consideration.

Here are some challenges for you, Logroller ...

1. Prove to me that a terrorist intent on beheadings, bomb outrages they can choose not to commit, are actually HUMAN.

2. Prove to me, in your quest for 'peace', that there's any reason at ALL to suppose that a peaceful accommodation can ever be reached with the likes of Al Qaeda .. that's to say, one that doesn't necessitate outright surrender to them !

3. Prove that terrorist 'human rights' deserve to receive prior consideration over the rights of their victims.

If you can't satisfy these challenges, then my final challenge to you is this ...

Kindly meet the challenge of accepting that the only proper course of action to be taken against unacceptable outbreaks of vermin infestation is one of its extermination.

Rats don't plant bombs. Rats don't behead people. But terrorists DO, and they exult in their butchery. So, WHY treat them BETTER than rats ??

Chew on that reality, Logroller.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So, you wait for a terrorist outrage to be committed before acting, Logroller ? In reality, isn't that what your chosen policy amounts to ?

Such an approach gives a clear advantage to terrorists, to say nothing of effectively maximising the potential for death tolls of the innocent. Logroller, I do not consider that excusable.

I further note that you seem to care, and place a premium upon, PROTECTING lives of terrorists !!! You say, 'If you continue that reasoned plan of action, you have to kill swaths of people, which is unpalatable to many as it reeks of genocidal tendency.' .. this goes beyond a mere 'apologist' approach to terrorism, to placing a value on THEIR lives above that of their victims.

The terrorists you're so keen to protect, Logroller, care NOTHING for the lives of their victims. Yet YOU want to care about THEIR lives !! And that, Logroller, is surely an offence against basic humanity. You show us a human consideration for savages where none can be deserved .. you have no way of proving that terrorists are human, most certainly NOT from the evidence of their murderous actions, but nonetheless, you attribute to them 'human rights' in defiance of the reality of their bloodlust-fuelled savagery !!

I've argued in other threads, here and elsewhere, repeatedly, that terrorists prove by their actions that they lack basic humanity, therefore, are definably NOT human. Time and again, I've challenged people such as yourself to prove the contention that terrorists are human, arguing that if they WERE, their humanity would prohibit their descent into acts of SUBhumanity. And, Logroller, nobody has EVER been able to prove to me that terrorist 'humanity' could possibly exist. Their actions, you see, prove the exact opposite to be true.

Face this fact: when terrorists are called 'scum', 'vermin' etc ... this is nothing to do with 'dehumanising' them. In describing them in these terms, Logroller, all that's being done is to acknowledge a truth about them WHICH IS ALREADY EVIDENT. Consequently, Logroller, the only (as you describe it) 'precursors for crimes against humanity' lies in showing tolerance and latitude towards terrorists, because in doing so, you equate their savagery, their murders, with normal human behaviour !!!

Do you not get, Logroller, THAT THEIR ATTACKS ARE THEMSELVES CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ?? THAT PREVENTION OF THOSE ATTACKS SERVES AN HUMANITARIAN GOAL ?? While you're sitting around, pontificating about 'terrorist human rights' and saying how much you 'want peace', there'll be some group or other of savages rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of how many IED's they can plant, or how many captives they can behead, or the extent of carnage, limbs blown from bodies, entrails ditto, they can blast with their explosives, from their latest bomb outrages !!

So yes, Logroller, I will call the perpetrators of that wanton SUBhumanity what they ARE, namely, SCUM and VERMIN, and I WILL place their victims above them, way above them, in consideration.

Here are some challenges for you, Logroller ...

1. Prove to me that a terrorist intent on beheadings, bomb outrages they can choose not to commit, are actually HUMAN.

2. Prove to me, in your quest for 'peace', that there's any reason at ALL to suppose that a peaceful accommodation can ever be reached with the likes of Al Qaeda .. that's to say, one that doesn't necessitate outright surrender to them !

3. Prove that terrorist 'human rights' deserve to receive prior consideration over the rights of their victims.

If you can't satisfy these challenges, then my final challenge to you is this ...

Kindly meet the challenge of accepting that the only proper course of action to be taken against unacceptable outbreaks of vermin infestation is one of its extermination.

Rats don't plant bombs. Rats don't behead people. But terrorists DO, and they exult in their butchery. So, WHY treat them BETTER than rats ??

Chew on that reality, Logroller.

Bravo mi amigo. :clap:
I am so looking forward to the answers given to those questions you just asked. -:beer:-Tyr

[Drummond]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement makes it appear that you think that is a oneway street! Do you?? There were over 3,000 murder victims here and they had families too! Some of us do not , have not and will not ever forget that. I'd say an eye for an eye even if it means everybody ends up blind is far better than forgetting who attacked us and then placating them in any manner(letting them win is far worse!)! Lets kill them , ALL those murdering bastards and ALL like 'em then let the kiss ass appeasers fondle the corpses until their little twisted heart's desires burn out! Pretty much how hard one has to be to win against such crazy evil bastards as was the case in WW2 where we adopted the plan to actually --WIN!!!

AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF IT!!!--Tyr

:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting::goodpostin g::goodposting::yessir:

Tyr .. EXACTLY. Very well said.

[Dilloduck]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement makes it appear that you think that is a oneway street! Do you?? There were over 3,000 murder victims here and they had families too! Some of us do not , have not and will not ever forget that. I'd say an eye for an eye even if it means everybody ends up blind is far better than forgetting who attacked us and then placating them in any manner(letting them win is far worse!)! Lets kill them , ALL those murdering bastards and ALL like 'em then let the kiss ass appeasers fondle the corpses until their little twisted heart's desires burn out! Pretty much how hard one has to be to win against such crazy evil bastards as was the case in WW2 where we adopted the plan to actually --WIN!!!

AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF IT!!!--Tyr


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjlw4Edt-e8

[Drummond]

Fight jihad with jihad.

Nope.

Just choose not to surrender to terrorist aggression.

The War on Terror came about because of murderous terrorist aggression. It is a war which defends against that aggression. Defence is not equatable with aggression, as you seem to be saying that it is. Rather, defensive action is remedial action, an antidote to the evil of wanton mass murder.

Is curing a cancerous growth by destroying it 'fighting Jihad with Jihad' ? Or, is it an act of humanity to save a life ?

[Dilloduck]

Nope.

Just choose not to surrender to terrorist aggression.

The War on Terror came about because of murderous terrorist aggression. It is a war which defends against that aggression. Defence is not equatable with aggression, as you seem to be saying that it is. Rather, defensive action is remedial action, an antidote to the evil of wanton mass murder.

Is curing a cancerous growth by destroying it 'fighting Jihad with Jihad' ? Or, is it an act of humanity to save a life ?

Choosing not to surrender----brilliant plan. I bet Monty wished he had tried that instead of Operation Market Garden :salute:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Choosing not to surrender----brilliant plan. I bet Monty wished he had tried that instead of Operation Market Garden :salute:

Hey, hey don't knock Monty too hard, we won didnt we??:laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Hey, hey don't knock Monty too hard, we won didnt we??:laugh::laugh::laugh:-Tyr

The generation before us did. You and I didn't have a thing to do with it.

[logroller]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement makes it appear that you think that is a oneway street! Do you?? There were over 3,000 murder victims here and they had families too! Some of us do not , have not and will not ever forget that. I'd say an eye for an eye even if it means everybody ends up blind is far better than forgetting who attacked us and then placating them in any manner(letting them win is far worse!)! Lets kill them , ALL those murdering bastards and ALL like 'em then let the kiss ass appeasers fondle the corpses until their little twisted heart's desires burn out! Pretty much how hard one has to be to win against such crazy evil bastards as was the case in WW2 where we adopted the plan to actually --WIN!!!

AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF IT!!!--Tyr
You're already blind. I pity you.

[jafar00]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your statement makes it appear that you think that is a oneway street! Do you?? There were over 3,000 murder victims here and they had families too! Some of us do not , have not and will not ever forget that. I'd say an eye for an eye even if it means everybody ends up blind is far better than forgetting who attacked us and then placating them in any manner(letting them win is far worse!)! Lets kill them , ALL those murdering bastards and ALL like 'em then let the kiss ass appeasers fondle the corpses until their little twisted heart's desires burn out! Pretty much how hard one has to be to win against such crazy evil bastards as was the case in WW2 where we adopted the plan to actually --WIN!!!

AND WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF IT!!!--Tyr

So just who do you plan on killing? If you believe the reports, it was a bunch of Saudis who did it. Why haven't you attacked KSA?

On the other hand, those dodgy Israeli moving companies that packed up after 9/11, the dancing Israelis filming it, the fact that a lot of Jews had the day off from the WTC..... why haven't you attacked Israel?

Perhaps the relatives of those who died should be attacking the architects who designed buildings that fall down in their own footprints inexplicably? Or the govt for sticking thermite in the buildings and bombs in the basement?

9/11 isn't a reason. It is an excuse for more terrorism just as the holocaust and anti semitism has been used to excuse Israel from unspeakable horror.

[logroller]

So yes, Logroller, I will call the perpetrators of that wanton SUBhumanity what they ARE, namely, SCUM and VERMIN, and I WILL place their victims above them, way above them, in consideration.

Here are some challenges for you, Logroller ...

1. Prove to me that a terrorist intent on beheadings, bomb outrages they can choose not to commit, are actually HUMAN.

2. Prove to me, in your quest for 'peace', that there's any reason at ALL to suppose that a peaceful accommodation can ever be reached with the likes of Al Qaeda .. that's to say, one that doesn't necessitate outright surrender to them !

3. Prove that terrorist 'human rights' deserve to receive prior consideration over the rights of their victims.

If you can't satisfy these challenges, then my final challenge to you is this ...

Kindly meet the challenge of accepting that the only proper course of action to be taken against unacceptable outbreaks of vermin infestation is one of its extermination.

Rats don't plant bombs. Rats don't behead people. But terrorists DO, and they exult in their butchery. So, WHY treat them BETTER than rats ??

Chew on that reality, Logroller.
Of course they're human; you're just allowing your rage to cloud your moral compass, (and the definition of a human being). I'll not prove anything to you so long as you refuse to forgive those who hurt you so badly. I'm sure that's challenging, and not knowing the details, I can only say my heart goes out to you. As for AQ, I pray they find peace, as I do you and any other other person adrift in a sea of hate and vengeance. Challenge 3... I can't even make sense of that, your anger makes me sad. Should I take more time to understand your anger and answer your third challenge; Will you feel better if I do? Maybe, its that we're all equal in the eyes of the Lord. Not before or after, over-and above what have you...equal as one, through Him.

YOu want to know the difference between you and me? People love and respect me because I show them why. You preach death and violence...whilst perspective is reality...you're torturing yourself ever-closer to death, but its not too late.

[red states rule]

LR you want to forgive the terrorists who blow up innocnet civilians?

Here is a typical scene on any Arab street on any given day as the "freedom fighters" prepare for another day on the job

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/110275.jpg

[logroller]

LR you want to forgive the terrorists who blow up innocnet civilians?

Here is a typical scene on any Arab street on any given day as the "freedom fighters" prepare for another day on the job

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/110275.jpg

Can you think of anyone more in need of forgiveness?

Do you know Jesus RSR? Forgiveness is the key to salvation. See Luke 23:34 and Matthew 5:44.

Here's a pic of my freedom fighter...though some here probably think of Him as an "apologist" or "appeaser" of sorts.

3920

[jafar00]

Can you think of anyone more in need of forgiveness?

Do you know Jesus RSR? Forgiveness is the key to salvation. See Luke 23:34 and Matthew 5:44.

Here's a pic of my freedom fighter...though some here probably think of Him as an "apologist" or "appeaser" of sorts.

3920

Terrorists are misguided criminals. Most Muslims consider them to be an enemy especially since we are the victims whether it be from being killed by them, or from incessant attacks from bigoted people in media or in the street calling us terrorists when our religion is very much AGAINST terrorism.

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.(4:132)

[jimnyc]

Deliberately rejecting the clear decree of God in the Qur'aan does not make one a Muslim.

Does it immediately make them a "non-Muslim"? Sorry, but when a bad Muslim does something to make Islam look bad, and if they are going against a decree, they are still Muslims that did bad things. The men that crashed the planes were Muslim and from Islamic led countries. Whatever drinks they may have or whatever they do against what the Quran says, doesn't change those facts. They're simply that, bad Muslims who did bad things. You can't erase them from the map of Islam just because you disagree with their actions.

[jimnyc]

So just who do you plan on killing? If you believe the reports, it was a bunch of Saudis who did it. Why haven't you attacked KSA?

On the other hand, those dodgy Israeli moving companies that packed up after 9/11, the dancing Israelis filming it, the fact that a lot of Jews had the day off from the WTC..... why haven't you attacked Israel?

Perhaps the relatives of those who died should be attacking the architects who designed buildings that fall down in their own footprints inexplicably? Or the govt for sticking thermite in the buildings and bombs in the basement?

9/11 isn't a reason. It is an excuse for more terrorism just as the holocaust and anti semitism has been used to excuse Israel from unspeakable horror.

I guess the shit debunked 10 years ago and possibly longer doesn't travel well in the Islamic world. Enjoy your conspiracy theories, most people have long stopped laughing at. It was interesting for awhile. Then it was proven wrong, and idiots still hung onto it. It was further proven wrong, and idiots still hung onto it. Then many, like myself, tiring of laughing at these conspiracies, told the others - come back with some sort of actual proof, evidence found in the debris, something, anything, to prove these "charges". 11 years later and nothing but theories exist. Millions of pounds of rubble and thousands and thousands of investigators - and not a single shred of evidence.

How about I laugh just one more time for kicks. You say above - Or the govt for sticking thermite in the buildings and bombs in the basement?

Why would we ask this of the government? Do you have ANYTHING at all to show we have a reason to implicate the government in placing thermite or bombs? Post the proof that no one else has been able to, then we'll talk.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So just who do you plan on killing? If you believe the reports, it was a bunch of Saudis who did it. Why haven't you attacked KSA?

On the other hand, those dodgy Israeli moving companies that packed up after 9/11, the dancing Israelis filming it, the fact that a lot of Jews had the day off from the WTC..... why haven't you attacked Israel?

Perhaps the relatives of those who died should be attacking the architects who designed buildings that fall down in their own footprints inexplicably? Or the govt for sticking thermite in the buildings and bombs in the basement?

9/11 isn't a reason. It is an excuse for more terrorism just as the holocaust and anti semitism has been used to excuse Israel from unspeakable horror.

Who? How about we kill murdering terrorists ! They seem to be in good supply around the world.
Are you kidding, "thermite in the buildings"!! ?? bullshat dude.. I saw planes fly into those buildings and nobody has gave any proof that either of those planes had thermite on them.
Islamic radicals murdering around the globe and you pretend that its not happening, talk about blind!-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Who? How about we kill murdering terrorists ! They seem to be in good supply around the world.
Are you kidding, "thermite in the buildings"!! ?? bullshat dude.. I saw planes fly into those buildings and nobody has gave any proof that either of those planes had thermite on them.
Islamic radicals murdering around the globe and you pretend that its not happening, talk about blind!-Tyr

Do you only keep track of Muslim criminals ? At least fake some stats showing that other religions have criminals too. Unless you're just a bigot of course.

[Gaffer]

Killing terrorists does not spawn more terrorists. That is a myth. In fact the more you kill the less likely others will be inclined to join such groups. Terrorist should be made to live in fear and be killed at every opportunity. No forgiveness or understanding.

Total eradication is what's needed. And the muslim community will not do that. Why? Because of the irrational hatred of Israel. As long as the terrorist use the excuse that they are fighting against Israel and it's supporters they will have the support of the muslim community, even if just in a small way. Jafar and abso are good examples of this.

Terror is an islamic tradition. It's been used for over 1400 years to achieve dominion over lands and even over other muslims. It's being used now to bring different countries under one rule and Israel is the primary target which unites all the muslims.

[logroller]

Killing terrorists does not spawn more terrorists. That is a myth. In fact the more you kill the less likely others will be inclined to join such groups. Terrorist should be made to live in fear and be killed at every opportunity. No forgiveness or understanding.

Total eradication is what's needed. And the muslim community will not do that. Why? Because of the irrational hatred of Israel. As long as the terrorist use the excuse that they are fighting against Israel and it's supporters they will have the support of the muslim community, even if just in a small way. Jafar and abso are good examples of this.

Terror is an islamic tradition. It's been used for over 1400 years to achieve dominion over lands and even over other muslims. It's being used now to bring different countries under one rule and Israel is the primary target which unites all the muslims.
It's no myth gaffer; you kill some, witnesses who survive try to kill you back. (have you not noticed all those who witnessed the 9/11 attacks that were "awakened" ) I do agree people shouldn't support terrorism through excusing them, but such is the natural response to being accused at ever turn, which they are. Certainly blame lies with Islam and its perversions, but the near constant attacks have got to stop. I'm saddened that you can't forgive because if you cant forgive, youll not be forgiven-- get right with God gaffer, or a few jihadists are the least of your problems.

[CSM]

Killing terrorists does not spawn more terrorists. That is a myth. In fact the more you kill the less likely others will be inclined to join such groups. Terrorist should be made to live in fear and be killed at every opportunity. No forgiveness or understanding.

Total eradication is what's needed. And the muslim community will not do that. Why? Because of the irrational hatred of Israel. As long as the terrorist use the excuse that they are fighting against Israel and it's supporters they will have the support of the muslim community, even if just in a small way. Jafar and abso are good examples of this.

Terror is an islamic tradition. It's been used for over 1400 years to achieve dominion over lands and even over other muslims. It's being used now to bring different countries under one rule and Israel is the primary target which unites all the muslims.

If Israel is not involved then it is the GREAT SATAN which is the United States or the UK or just about anyone else the Muslims feel like blowing up. They will NEVER run out of enemies or excuses. We can only hope they run out of explosives.

[Dilloduck]

Killing terrorists does not spawn more terrorists. That is a myth. In fact the more you kill the less likely others will be inclined to join such groups. Terrorist should be made to live in fear and be killed at every opportunity. No forgiveness or understanding.

Total eradication is what's needed. And the muslim community will not do that. Why? Because of the irrational hatred of Israel. As long as the terrorist use the excuse that they are fighting against Israel and it's supporters they will have the support of the muslim community, even if just in a small way. Jafar and abso are good examples of this.

Terror is an islamic tradition. It's been used for over 1400 years to achieve dominion over lands and even over other muslims. It's being used now to bring different countries under one rule and Israel is the primary target which unites all the muslims.

What did Christian Europeans use to conquer their colonies and expand their empires ? Face it. There are two sides to this story too.

[Gaffer]

If Israel is not involved then it is the GREAT SATAN which is the United States or the UK or just about anyone else the Muslims feel like blowing up. They will NEVER run out of enemies or excuses. We can only hope they run out of explosives.

Yep, if Israel is taken out of the picture they will have new targets. My guess is Spain and southern Europe to begin with as those were former parts of the original empire. Muslims consider any former holdings to be muslim lands that need to be regained. And the great satan will stand against them again.

[Dilloduck]

Yep, if Israel is taken out of the picture they will have new targets. My guess is Spain and southern Europe to begin with as those were former parts of the original empire. Muslims consider any former holdings to be muslim lands that need to be regained. And the great satan will stand against them again.

Terrorists began seriously targeting America AFTER America began supporting Israel.

[CSM]

What did Christian Europeans use to conquer their colonies and expand their empires ? Face it. There are two sides to this story too.

While it is true that many (if not all) European colonial empires used Christianity as an excuse for expansion, I cannot think of any MODERN European nation currently doing so. Comparing Christian nations of today with Muslim nations of today might be more productive IMO. Alternatively, comparing Muslim nations and Christian nations across the same time period might prove an interesting discussion. Truthfully, there is little to be gained from comparing medievil societies with modern societies regarding current day actions. That is not to say that there is nothing to be gained by knowing history; of course there is.

[Gaffer]

It's no myth gaffer; you kill some, witnesses who survive try to kill you back. (have you not noticed all those who witnessed the 9/11 attacks that were "awakened" ) I do agree people shouldn't support terrorism through excusing them, but such is the natural response to being accused at ever turn, which they are. Certainly blame lies with Islam and its perversions, but the near constant attacks have got to stop. I'm saddened that you can't forgive because if you cant forgive, youll not be forgiven-- get right with God gaffer, or a few jihadists are the least of your problems.

Only supporters of the terrorists would take up arms to avenge their fallen comrades. No new terrorists come out of a strike against terrorist. They come from those that already agree and support them. And as I said, Israel is the binding factor in islam. For that reason the terrorists are tacitly supported. The same line was used in Vietnam, it's and old liberal talking point. Kill one, two more spring up. It's a myth.

I'm a right wing atheist. I'm not concerned with getting right with anything. I don't forgive or forget. I also don't argue religion as it's useless to do so. People believe what they believe. But islam is a danger to the world, because of it's desire to dominate and subjugate everyone.

[Dilloduck]

While it is true that many (if not all) European colonial empires used Christianity as an excuse for expansion, I cannot think of any MODERN European nation currently doing so. Comparing Christian nations of today with Muslim nations of today might be more productive IMO. Alternatively, comparing Muslim nations and Christian nations across the same time period might prove an interesting discussion. Truthfully, there is little to be gained from comparing medievil societies with modern societies regarding current day actions. That is not to say that there is nothing to be gained by knowing history; of course there is.

And the Christian nations used terror, murder and sheer military might to accomplish their task. Let's not confuse the methods with the religions of those that used them. Christians have no room
to judge on this one and were it not for our support for everything that Israel does we would not be nearly the Great Satan we are now.

[Gaffer]

What did Christian Europeans use to conquer their colonies and expand their empires ? Face it. There are two sides to this story too.

Your talking about the middle ages verses modern times. Not relevant. Two different stories.

[Dilloduck]

Your talking about the middle ages verses modern times. Not relevant. Two different stories.

The similarity is that both religions get condemned by the actions of those not acting as their religion commands them. It's not religions that are the problem. It is evil people that use religion to rationalize evil actions.

[CSM]

The similarity is that both religions get condemned by the actions of those not acting as their religion commands them. It's not religions that are the problem. It is evil people that use religion to rationalize evil actions.

BINGO! Evil people can and will use ANYTHING to justify their actions. The latest crop appears to be using ISLAM.

[Dilloduck]

BINGO! Evil people can and will use ANYTHING to justify their actions. The latest crop appears to be using ISLAM.

Which is why hating Islam plays right into the hands of the Imams who use it to justify evil actions. We disrespect millions of people who have no more control over the imams than we do. It's a lousy strategy.

[Gaffer]

Which is why hating Islam plays right into the hands of the Imams who use it to justify evil actions. We disrespect millions of people who have no more control over the imams than we do. It's a lousy strategy.

That may be, but as long as those people continue to follow those imams they will be disrespected.

[Drummond]

Of course they're human; you're just allowing your rage to cloud your moral compass, (and the definition of a human being). I'll not prove anything to you so long as you refuse to forgive those who hurt you so badly. I'm sure that's challenging, and not knowing the details, I can only say my heart goes out to you. As for AQ, I pray they find peace, as I do you and any other other person adrift in a sea of hate and vengeance. Challenge 3... I can't even make sense of that, your anger makes me sad. Should I take more time to understand your anger and answer your third challenge; Will you feel better if I do? Maybe, its that we're all equal in the eyes of the Lord. Not before or after, over-and above what have you...equal as one, through Him.

YOu want to know the difference between you and me? People love and respect me because I show them why. You preach death and violence...whilst perspective is reality...you're torturing yourself ever-closer to death, but its not too late.

Sure enough, Logroller, you've ducked my challenge about proving terrorists to be human. In fact, you could do nothing else.

I've seen this time and again when I've issued such a challenge to others, so of course I understand your true position.

My suggestion to you, Logroller, is that you spend less time trying to 'understand my anger', and rather more time understanding the underlying justice of it. Mine is a wholly understandable reaction to the utter, barbaric, outrages meted out by trash and the relative ease by which they recruit dupes to help make their lives easier .. I refer to those Lefties who insist upon fighting for their 'human rights' at the total cost to the rights OF THE VICTIMS !!

And here's another thought for you, Logroller ...

Cast your mind back to the aftermath of the Sept 11th attacks ... I refer to the evening following that day's events. George W Bush went on television, didn't he, to give his first reaction to those attacks.

Well, you tell me .. Bush, a Christian himself .. did he adopt your 'turn the other cheek' approach ? Did he go on air and deliver an 'I forgive you' message ??!?

Just try to imagine his attempting just such a stance for the world to see, and for a newly-shocked America to digest.

Here's the truth of it, Logroller .. if Bush had done such a thing, the outrage that would've come from the American public would've been extreme. There would have been the perception of Bush being derelict in his duty as President. He would have been seen by some, I'm sure, as selling out America's best interests. He would've been seen as utterly unfit to do his job, and calls for his impeachment would've been deafening.

Some, I'm sure, would've seen him as being a traitor to his own country.

He would have been lucky to have remained President by the following month. Some way would've been found to remove him, I'm sure, in favour of a replacement far more fit to DO THE JOB RESPONSIBLY.

BUT, Logroller, we well know what did happen. A fitting response was instead delivered ... the beginnings of the War on Terror, the ONLY proper response. Bush struck back at the vermin responsible for the attacks. He saw to it that the training camps Al Qaeda operated out of were decimated, many of the terrorists ditto. HE DID WHAT JUSTICE DEMANDED.

And the American public approved sufficiently, did they not, to vote him into a second Presidential term.

So, Logroller, let's not kid ourselves that this 'turn the other cheek' rot finds favour with a majority of your own people ! Muslim terrorist enemies must be fought and defeated, be it through an act of vermin extermination, or simply breaking the back of their morale so that they know better than to continue on.

I have one more challenge for you, Logroller, and let's see if you're able to meet it. It is this ... find me evidence from the Christian Bible that it sanctions allowing, under any circumstances, evil to triumph over good.

And if you can find NO SUCH REFERENCE, then kindly accept this: that the proper response to terrorist evil is to FIGHT it, with the aim of vanquishing it from the face of civilised society. Not to excuse it, not to 'forgive' it, but to oppose it for all you're worth.

Your duty to your country and to your fellow man, to say nothing of service in the cause of human decency, demands no less.

[jimnyc]

Comparing Christian nations of today with Muslim nations of today might be more productive IMO.

That sure limits arguments from many people on this board! If they can't compare atrocities of today with atrocities from centuries ago, then how else can they show MODERN Christianity to be just as harmful TODAY as Islam is today? LOL

[jimnyc]

And the Christian nations used terror, murder and sheer military might to accomplish their task. Let's not confuse the methods with the religions of those that used them. Christians have no room
to judge on this one and were it not for our support for everything that Israel does we would not be nearly the Great Satan we are now.

We see tons of Muslims committing atrocities in modern times, today, last year, a LOT since 9/11. It's undeniable and there are pages dedicated to the amounts of these attacks, where and what sparked it. Is this happening today, modern age, in the amount it's happening within Islam?

[Drummond]

As I see it, you don't exactly have to try very hard to see how comparisons between Christianity and Islam just don't pass inspection. And I'd have thought the arguments that could be cited were obvious ones to offer.

So, for those such as Jafar, who want to promote the idea that Muslim terrorism is the province of just a few fringe 'criminals', and for the most part it's a perfectly 'peaceloving' religion, consider :-

If a Koran is burned, Muslims become so fired up with 'offence' that their reaction is to threaten (even to perpetrate) violence against anyone they consider remotely culpable.

If a Christian Bible is burned, is any comparable reaction at ALL likely ??

If a cartoon against the Prophet Mohammed is drawn and printed, and it's seen to be at all disparaging, this sparks threats of death and destruction. When was the last time that any less-than-flattering drawing of Jesus provoked any such reaction ?

Consider this following case .. well known to the British, maybe less well known to Americans ...

http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/teddy-bear-teacher-gillian-gibbons-escapes-barbaric-sudan-home-at-last/


Gillian Gibbons is back in Britain and looking forward to chips and fish. Quite the change for the 54 year old lady who made the honest mistake of letting her 7-year-old students name a teddy bear after one of their classmates.

As much as the Sudanese President and diplomats are trying to describe the violent mobs as the “lunatic fringe” of Islam, anyone who reads the daily news knows that this “lunatic fringe” is a worldwide movement with tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of adherents – whose values are so at odds with civilized behaviour.

Need a worldwide, lifetime cause? Start with the emancipation of Muslim women – for most women in the arab world are truly nothing more than slaves.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/26873/Protesters-carrying-knives-say-execute-teddy-bear-teacher


THOUSANDS of Islamic protesters carrying knives took to the streets of Khartoum today to call for the execution of British teacher Gillian Gibbons.

The protest against the Briton comes after Ms Gibbons was sentenced to 15 days in jail yesterday for naming a teddy bear Mohammed in a school in the Sudanese capital.

OK, so who can cite me any comparable story about ANY inanimate object being called 'Jesus', and the reaction from it resulted in a rampaging mob OF CHRISTIANS wielding knives, wanting the death of the perpetrator ??

I think my case is made ....

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As I see it, you don't exactly have to try very hard to see how comparisons between Christianity and Islam just don't pass inspection. And I'd have thought the arguments that could be cited were obvious ones to offer.

So, for those such as Jafar, who want to promote the idea that Muslim terrorism is the province of just a few fringe 'criminals', and for the most part it's a perfectly 'peaceloving' religion, consider :-

If a Koran is burned, Muslims become so fired up with 'offence' that their reaction is to threaten (even to perpetrate) violence against anyone they consider remotely culpable.

If a Christian Bible is burned, is any comparable reaction at ALL likely ??

If a cartoon against the Prophet Mohammed is drawn and printed, and it's seen to be at all disparaging, this sparks threats of death and destruction. When was the last time that any less-than-flattering drawing of Jesus provoked any such reaction ?

Consider this following case .. well known to the British, maybe less well known to Americans ...

http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/teddy-bear-teacher-gillian-gibbons-escapes-barbaric-sudan-home-at-last/



http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/26873/Protesters-carrying-knives-say-execute-teddy-bear-teacher



OK, so who can cite me any comparable story about ANY inanimate object being called 'Jesus', and the reaction from it resulted in a rampaging mob OF CHRISTIANS wielding knives, wanting the death of the perpetrator ??

I think my case is made ....

Case made quite well. The defenders always call them the crazy fringe yet when their is an incident that sparks outrage that fringe is always there within the local population often to the tune of thousands and thousands. If it is as defended just misguided muslims that "arent really muslims" then why arent there similiar cases of thousands of cases involving such misguided christians going mad and murdering at the least little perceived slight of the religion!!?? Its because Christianity does not teach violence -- WHILE ISLAM DOES!
Yet Islam's defenders declare it the Religion of Peace to which I ask, "piece of what, an arm , hand ,head severed for effect"?? -Tyr

[Drummond]

Case made quite well. The defenders always call them the crazy fringe yet when their is an incident that sparks outrage that fringe is always there within the local population often to the tune of thousands and thousands. If it is as defended just misguided muslims that "arent really muslims" then why arent there similiar cases of thousands of cases involving such misguided christians going mad and murdering at the least little perceived slight of the religion!!?? Its because Christianity does not teach violence -- WHILE ISLAM DOES!
Yet Islam's defenders declare it the Religion of Peace to which I ask, "piece of what, an arm , hand ,head severed for effect"?? -Tyr

:goodposting::goodposting::goodposting:

... Yep ....

Who ever heard of Christians capturing people, then beheading them ?

I only gave a selection of examples I could've given, of course, just enough to establish my case. With just a bit of work I could've created a rather longer list.

Does Christianity contain recourse to its own version of either Jihad or a Fatwa ? Both, of course, are well established in 'peaceful' Islam.

How well known in America was the case of Salman Rushdie, author of 'Satanic Verses' ? He wrote his book, Muslims got offended, and a Fatwa was issued against him. Rushdie spent years wondering if or when some vengeful Muslims were going to come along and act on the Fatwa, and how long he could survive it. He was in fear of losing his life for many years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses


In the United Kingdom, the book received positive reviews. It was a 1988 Booker Prize Finalist (losing to Peter Carey's Oscar and Lucinda) and won the 1988 Whitbread Award for novel of the year. The Satanic Verses sparked a major controversy when conservative Muslims accused it of blasphemy and mocking their faith. The outrage among some Muslims resulted in a fatwa calling for Rushdie's death issued by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Supreme Leader of Iran, on 14 February 1989.

The novel caused great controversy in the Muslim community for what some Muslims believed were blasphemous references. Rushdie was accused of mis-using freedom of speech. As the controversy spread, the import of the book was banned in India and burned in demonstrations in the United Kingdom. In mid-February 1989, following a violent riot against the book in Pakistan, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of Iran and a Shi'a Muslim scholar, issued a fatwa calling on all good Muslims to kill Rushdie and his publishers, or to point him out to those who can kill him if they cannot themselves. Although the British Conservative government under Margaret Thatcher gave Rushdie round-the-clock police protection, many politicians on both sides were hostile to the author. British Labour MP Keith Vaz led a march through Leicester shortly after he was elected in 1989 calling for the book to be banned, while Conservative MP Norman Tebbit, the party's former chairman, called Rushdie an "outstanding villain" whose "public life has been a record of despicable acts of betrayal of his upbringing, religion, adopted home and nationality". Meanwhile the Commission for Racial Equality and a liberal think tank, The Policy Studies Institute held seminars on the Rushdie affair. They did not invite the author Fay Weldon who spoke out against burning books, but did invite Shabbir Akhtar, a Cambridge philosophy graduate who called for "a negotiated compromise" which "would protect Muslim sensibilities against gratuitous provocation". The journalist and author Andy McSmith wrote at the time "We are witnessing, I fear, the birth of a new and dangerously illiberal "liberal" orthodoxy designed to accommodate Dr Akhtar and his fundamentalist friends."

Following the fatwa, Rushdie was put under police protection by the British government. Despite a conciliatory statement by Iran in 1998, and Rushdie's declaration that he would stop living in hiding, the Iranian state news agency reported in 2006 that the fatwa would remain in place permanently since fatwas can only be rescinded by the person who first issued them, and Khomeini had since died.

Rushdie has never been physically harmed for the book, but others associated with it have suffered violent attacks. Hitoshi Igarashi, its Japanese translator, was stabbed to death on 11 July 1991; Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator, was seriously injured in a stabbing the same month; William Nygaard, the publisher in Norway, survived an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993, and Aziz Nesin, the Turkish translator, was the intended target in the events that led to the Sivas massacre on 2 July 1993 in Sivas, Turkey, which resulted in the deaths of 37 people. Individual purchasers of the book have not been harmed. The only nation with a predominantly Muslim population where the novel remains legal is Turkey.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Al Qaeda is there and thats enough to cause great concern about the disposition of the wmds there.
Despite Putins claims about who is supporting which element there AlQaeda is there and almost without a doubt seeking to gain control of some if not all those wmds. It is sheer madness for America to do as some here suggest, turn a blind eye to that critical possibility. For to do so could well doom an American city to a catastrophic attack with the potential to kill many tens of thousands! To choose to dismiss this possibility is extreme stupidity IMHO.-Tyr
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-57507365-503543/putin-suggests-u.s-backing-al-qaeda-in-syria-civil-war/


(CBS News) LONDON - Russian President Vladimir Putin has asserted that "some people want to use militants from al Qaeda... to accomplish their goals in Syria. "In a loosely veiled dig at the U.S. support for Syria's opposition, Putin argued, "in that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting." Putin was playing directly to his home crowd in the interview aired Thursday on Russian television.


Old-school Russians love it when their president talks tough - especially to their old Cold War enemy. To them, Putin's "some people" was a clear reference to Washington, and his reference to Guantanamo and - by extension - the costly invasion of Iraq, was a guaranteed crowd pleaser. Russia's President didn't say it in so many words, but he implied that America, the West, and their allies in the Middle East are backing violent Islamic extremists in Syria to bring down Bashar Assad in a policy blunder that's bound to fail.


There is a grain of truth here.

[Dilloduck]

That may be, but as long as those people continue to follow those imams they will be disrespected.

Which people ? All muslims or the criminals ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So that we do not forget, because short-term memory is often so very convenient!
When we went into Iraq , it was because the most of world knew that Hussein had WMD programs for developing them and stockpiles. This was so well known that nobody doubted it!

When we went into the Middle east the first time to free Kuwait, Hussein had WMD , some were hidden, but not completely with the detail that the Sarindar protocol engendered. We didn't go all the way to dethrone Saddam that time, and the UN took over the vetting of Iraq and it's WMD. Their reports said that he still had them and must destroy them. After a decade, the UN said Iraq had not done so. Before 911, the UN had said he was a major provider of war materiel to terrorists. After 911 we were talked into many months of diplomacy before going in. After the sanctions failed because France, Russia and Germany took payoffs in the food for oil scam and blocked serious action, the Allied world worked together to go in and rectify the problem.

It was long after the Congress and Senate gave near-unanimous authority to attack, that the British, Israelis, and many other Intel services verified all the facts. Hussein had WMD and would use them on any Allied forces if they attacked him. The Democrats made a big deal about tens of thousands of body bags needed before the invasion started. There was no Bush-led conspiracy. During those nine months, those same intel agencies noted the Russian Generals were involved with major movement all over Iraq and Syria. Our own satellite cameras documented Russian and Iraqi security forces escorting truck caravans into Syria. Just before the invasion these Generals were honored by the Iraqis and given medals.

Remember that part of Sarindar was the ability to reconstruct the WMD program after the stockpiles had been hidden or deep-sixed. Not only did we find stockpiles of WMD that were not yet removed, we uncovered the programs themselves that had been hidden away. The media covered some of the discoveries of stockpiles but minimized them as not the entire stockpile. After we had removed Saddam and secured Iraq - we went around blowing up stockpiles of weaponry, chemicals and explosives. These things were not wild guesses or conspiracy theory rather it was the history of the times.
Syria got those WMD and now conveniently Syria is under attack with AlQaeda deeply involved there .

[Dilloduck]

So that we do not forget, because short-term memory is often so very convenient!
When we went into Iraq , it was because the most of world knew that Hussein had WMD programs for developing them and stockpiles. This was so well known that nobody doubted it!

When we went into the Middle east the first time to free Kuwait, Hussein had WMD , some were hidden, but not completely with the detail that the Sarindar protocol engendered. We didn't go all the way to dethrone Saddam that time, and the UN took over the vetting of Iraq and it's WMD. Their reports said that he still had them and must destroy them. After a decade, the UN said Iraq had not done so. Before 911, the UN had said he was a major provider of war materiel to terrorists. After 911 we were talked into many months of diplomacy before going in. After the sanctions failed because France, Russia and Germany took payoffs in the food for oil scam and blocked serious action, the Allied world worked together to go in and rectify the problem.

It was long after the Congress and Senate gave near-unanimous authority to attack, that the British, Israelis, and many other Intel services verified all the facts. Hussein had WMD and would use them on any Allied forces if they attacked him. The Democrats made a big deal about tens of thousands of body bags needed before the invasion started. There was no Bush-led conspiracy. During those nine months, those same intel agencies noted the Russian Generals were involved with major movement all over Iraq and Syria. Our own satellite cameras documented Russian and Iraqi security forces escorting truck caravans into Syria. Just before the invasion these Generals were honored by the Iraqis and given medals.

Remember that part of Sarindar was the ability to reconstruct the WMD program after the stockpiles had been hidden or deep-sixed. Not only did we find stockpiles of WMD that were not yet removed, we uncovered the programs themselves that had been hidden away. The media covered some of the discoveries of stockpiles but minimized them as not the entire stockpile. After we had removed Saddam and secured Iraq - we went around blowing up stockpiles of weaponry, chemicals and explosives. These things were not wild guesses or conspiracy theory rather it was the history of the times.
Syria got those WMD and now conveniently Syria is under attack with AlQaeda deeply involved there .

I guess we blew it. How in the hell did they manage to elude us ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess we blew it. How in the hell did they manage to elude us ?

We havent blew anything yet. We just need to let our military go. Stop limiting it so damn much. Stop the insane ROE's and let our guys blast our enemies all to hell. We have so hampered our troops over there that its actually insanity IMHO.-Tyr

[Dilloduck]

We havent blew anything yet. We just need to let our military go. Stop limiting it so damn much. Stop the insane ROE's and let our guys blast our enemies all to hell. We have so hampered our troops over there that its actually insanity IMHO.-Tyr

No shit---prooves neither political party can get it right.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No shit---prooves neither political party can get it right.

Proves the libs/leftists/dems here sabotage our military every chance they get. Proves a few other things too but lets consider that one first.-Tyr

[jafar00]

While it is true that many (if not all) European colonial empires used Christianity as an excuse for expansion, I cannot think of any MODERN European nation currently doing so. Comparing Christian nations of today with Muslim nations of today might be more productive IMO. Alternatively, comparing Muslim nations and Christian nations across the same time period might prove an interesting discussion. Truthfully, there is little to be gained from comparing medievil societies with modern societies regarding current day actions. That is not to say that there is nothing to be gained by knowing history; of course there is.

Ok. Let's look at this. Which Muslim nations have invaded and bombed other nations in the last 10 years..... none.



We see tons of Muslims committing atrocities in modern times, today, last year, a LOT since 9/11. It's undeniable and there are pages dedicated to the amounts of these attacks, where and what sparked it. Is this happening today, modern age, in the amount it's happening within Islam?

And tons of Christians, Jews and Buddhists committing atrocities. You make it sound like it's a Muslim only problem. Truth is, we are all bad. We are human!


So that we do not forget, because short-term memory is often so very convenient!
When we went into Iraq , it was because the most of world knew that Hussein had WMD programs for developing them and stockpiles. This was so well known that nobody doubted it!

Remind us..... where are/were they?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Remind us..... where are/were they?

I know that this thread is long but you should go back and read it all. Answer is there but if not adequate I may care to post an answer for you if somebody else doesnt beat me to it. .-Tyr

[Gaffer]

Ok. Let's look at this. Which Muslim nations have invaded and bombed other nations in the last 10 years..... none.




And tons of Christians, Jews and Buddhists committing atrocities. You make it sound like it's a Muslim only problem. Truth is, we are all bad. We are human!



Remind us..... where are/were they?

No muslim nations have done anything in the last ten years because the US has been preventing them from doing so.

Do you have any proof of these tons of Christian, Jew and Buddhist atrocities? And I really want to see the Buddhist atrocities. I'm sure they are making headlines all over the world. And don't you dare bring up the middle ages.

The WMD's went to syria, which we have discussed here in great detail. Which is why syria was warned not to move or use them or the US would put boots on the ground along with lots of air strikes.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I know that this thread is long but you should go back and read it all. Answer is there but if not adequate I may care to post an answer for you if somebody else doesnt beat me to it. .-Tyr

What Gaffer said and this I posted previously.




So that we do not forget, because short-term memory is often so very convenient!
When we went into Iraq , it was because the most of world knew that Hussein had WMD programs for developing them and stockpiles. This was so well known that nobody doubted it!

When we went into the Middle east the first time to free Kuwait, Hussein had WMD , some were hidden, but not completely with the detail that the Sarindar protocol engendered. We didn't go all the way to dethrone Saddam that time, and the UN took over the vetting of Iraq and it's WMD. Their reports said that he still had them and must destroy them. After a decade, the UN said Iraq had not done so. Before 911, the UN had said he was a major provider of war materiel to terrorists. After 911 we were talked into many months of diplomacy before going in. After the sanctions failed because France, Russia and Germany took payoffs in the food for oil scam and blocked serious action, the Allied world worked together to go in and rectify the problem.

It was long after the Congress and Senate gave near-unanimous authority to attack, that the British, Israelis, and many other Intel services verified all the facts. Hussein had WMD and would use them on any Allied forces if they attacked him. The Democrats made a big deal about tens of thousands of body bags needed before the invasion started. There was no Bush-led conspiracy. During those nine months, those same intel agencies noted the Russian Generals were involved with major movement all over Iraq and Syria. Our own satellite cameras documented Russian and Iraqi security forces escorting truck caravans into Syria. Just before the invasion these Generals were honored by the Iraqis and given medals.

Remember that part of Sarindar was the ability to reconstruct the WMD program after the stockpiles had been hidden or deep-sixed. Not only did we find stockpiles of WMD that were not yet removed, we uncovered the programs themselves that had been hidden away. The media covered some of the discoveries of stockpiles but minimized them as not the entire stockpile. After we had removed Saddam and secured Iraq - we went around blowing up stockpiles of weaponry, chemicals and explosives. These things were not wild guesses or conspiracy theory rather it was the history of the times.
Syria got those WMD and now conveniently Syria is under attack with AlQaeda deeply involved there .

[Dilloduck]

Proves the libs/leftists/dems here sabotage our military every chance they get. Proves a few other things too but lets consider that one first.-Tyr

When Bush was CIC the ROE sucked too. Any particular reason he didn't finish the job with the wmd's that went to Syria ? Isn't that why we went there?

[jimnyc]

Ok. Let's look at this. Which Muslim nations have invaded and bombed other nations in the last 10 years..... none.

As Gaffer stated, the US is likely preventing a lot of that with our presence in various areas. But invading nations is what YOU made it about. That does nothing to explain away the endless atrocities and abuse within Islam, or what they commit in the name of religion, outside of invading a nation. It's a LOT


And tons of Christians, Jews and Buddhists committing atrocities. You make it sound like it's a Muslim only problem. Truth is, we are all bad. We are human!

Look at the list of Islamic based attacks on the website you like to ignore - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You ARE right in the fact that it's not just a Muslim problem. Man is bad everywhere. It just seems in modern times more of them are within Islam. Can you provide a comparable list of even remotely near the length of the one on that website? I do agree that Christians, Jews, and others all do bad things - just that 'percentages', in this modern age, make Islam stick out like a sore thumb. You can ignore that site, ignore the crap within Islam and try to deflect with 'everyone does it', but there's a HUGE problem within Islam that makes other religions look like peanuts in comparison.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

As Gaffer stated, the US is likely preventing a lot of that with our presence in various areas. But invading nations is what YOU made it about. That does nothing to explain away the endless atrocities and abuse within Islam, or what they commit in the name of religion, outside of invading a nation. It's a LOT



Look at the list of Islamic based attacks on the website you like to ignore - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You ARE right in the fact that it's not just a Muslim problem. Man is bad everywhere. It just seems in modern times more of them are within Islam. Can you provide a comparable list of even remotely near the length of the one on that website? I do agree that Christians, Jews, and others all do bad things - just that 'percentages', in this modern age, make Islam stick out like a sore thumb. You can ignore that site, ignore the crap within Islam and try to deflect with 'everyone does it', but there's a HUGE problem within Islam that makes other religions look like peanuts in comparison.

Islam's huge problem is the basis for its spreading. It affirms that murder is ordered by God to be delivered unto all that do not accept the Koran and Allah unconditionally ! It lives and breathes hate and violence. It is written so that those two things must always be a part of it. Because that is true we must never yield so much as an inch to its demands. For a good look at what happen when the yielding starts study Britain and its current dire problems!-Tyr

[jafar00]

As Gaffer stated, the US is likely preventing a lot of that with our presence in various areas. But invading nations is what YOU made it about. That does nothing to explain away the endless atrocities and abuse within Islam, or what they commit in the name of religion, outside of invading a nation. It's a LOT



Look at the list of Islamic based attacks on the website you like to ignore - http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You ARE right in the fact that it's not just a Muslim problem. Man is bad everywhere. It just seems in modern times more of them are within Islam. Can you provide a comparable list of even remotely near the length of the one on that website? I do agree that Christians, Jews, and others all do bad things - just that 'percentages', in this modern age, make Islam stick out like a sore thumb. You can ignore that site, ignore the crap within Islam and try to deflect with 'everyone does it', but there's a HUGE problem within Islam that makes other religions look like peanuts in comparison.

Much of the abuse happens in Africa which incidentally has a lot of Muslims who are caught up in it. Africa is also the place where western powers have invaded time and time again to steal resources and put western friendly despots in power who further degraded and demoralised their citizens. These people didn't ask for conflict or for abject poverty.

[jimnyc]

Much of the abuse happens in Africa which incidentally has a lot of Muslims who are caught up in it. Africa is also the place where western powers have invaded time and time again to steal resources and put western friendly despots in power who further degraded and demoralised their citizens. These people didn't ask for conflict or for abject poverty.

It's not all Africa. It's hardly all places invaded by western powers. Regardless - the deaths listed on the pages I give are lists of terror attacks and murders based on religion. Where that happened and how is leading the country really doesn't change that much. And still no response about all of the somewhat modernized countries and the tons of attacks coming from them. But don't worry, I've been bringing these states to various boards for years, it's not like you're the first to ignore them or fail to come up with honest answers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Much of the abuse happens in Africa which incidentally has a lot of Muslims who are caught up in it. Africa is also the place where western powers have invaded time and time again to steal resources and put western friendly despots in power who further degraded and demoralised their citizens. These people didn't ask for conflict or for abject poverty.

Man is that rich!!!! Arabs invaded there , used it as their own "stockyard" for suppling slaves all over the world and you have the damn audacity to talk of others(western powers) stealing resources there when Arabs/muslims stole people there to sell for over a thousand years!! Either you are truly ignorant as hell of history or you have balls the size of basketballs!!

I am damn sure they didnt asked to be sold as slaves too but that little fact didnt stop muslims from selling them like cattle did it? -Tyr

[Dilloduck]

Man is that rich!!!! Arabs invaded there , used it as their own "stockyard" for suppling slaves all over the world and you have the damn audacity to talk of others(western powers) stealing resources there when Arabs/muslims stole people there to sell for over a thousand years!! Either you are truly ignorant as hell of history or you have balls the size of basketballs!!

I am damn sure they didnt asked to be sold as slaves too but that little fact didnt stop muslims from selling them like cattle did it? -Tyr

Let's be honest here---everyone took advantage of Africa.