Terrorist warfare

[NewGuy]

That was ONE instance. There is far more being enacted. You are on the right track though. That combined with the immigration situation of muslims brings an entirely new situation to their government.

 

[preemptingyou03]

NewGuy, you've failed to address the topic. I'm done.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
NewGuy, you've failed to address the topic. I'm done.

I have adressed EVERY statement you have made.
You love to look important so you have to give up and blame me for your lack of discussion.

Be gone with you.

 

[gaffer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Ok....wake up and read the Koran. The people you are talking about have a faith they proclaim. It is Islam. It MIGHT be helpful to know what that is since they die for it.


They didn't do it from a religious base which conquered the world by sword in the past already, now did they?



Since your assumptions appear to result from ignorance,I will let you have your tirade. When you understand logic, have a grasp of politics, religion, and MAYBE how to PROVE your point, I will discuss it further.

Thank you oh great newguy for gracing me with your logic and grasp of politics and religion. I am humbled that you would dicuss it further after I have acquired all the knowledge of history, politics and religion that you profuse to have.

Have you read the koran? All of it? In arabic? I don't have time to learn arabic so I won't read it. I've only had a chance to read bits and pieces. And numerous articles and had discussions with people familiar with it.

As for the Japanese. The Bushito Code was the code of the warrior. The whole nation of Japan worshiped the emporer as a god. Thats called religion. Bushito was about honor. Dying for the emporer was both honorable and got you straight into heaven.

That is the mentality of the radicals we are dealing with today.

 

[preemptingyou03]

NewGuy,

You have a very poor way of not only replying to any points I make, but to fully explain your points. You say they hate us for our support of dictators. Well then, if we don't support their dictators, we're favoring Israel, something they hate us for. And if we oppose their dictators, we come across as opposing Islam to all the radicals out there.

Your fix on the EU and Canadian law is diverting from the topic.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by gaffer
Have you read the koran? All of it? In arabic? I don't have time to learn arabic so I won't read it. I've only had a chance to read bits and pieces. And numerous articles and had discussions with people familiar with it.

I have read much of the koran, in context, and know what says. You claim to not have time for it. I also have reference material involving disection of the koran. You don't want to learn arabic so you WONT read it. Discussions with people familiar with it is equivalent to discussions with catholics or mormons or jehovas witnesses about the Bible. Each has their own version, each has its own radically different idea of how to be saved. The problem with Islam is that all of the koran is centered on a belief system using Jesus as a profit, therefore justifying their book as Holy in their eyes, and is always centered on the death of non-believers.

Any follower of Islam has that same text to follow. Wether they do or not is a different matter. The idea of not following it is radical- (different)- when the idea of following the text is what any faith using a written text is all about.

As for the Japanese. The Bushito Code was the code of the warrior. The whole nation of Japan worshiped the emporer as a god. Thats called religion. Bushito was about honor. Dying for the emporer was both honorable and got you straight into heaven.

That is not a religion of faith, but a religion of honor. A religion of faith is about what happens to you when you die. It is about everything you do on Earth being small in comparison to the afterlife. It is about being one with the creator. This is what most faiths involving diety are today.

The Japanese had a faith of honor. This was a PHILOSOPHY of how to live. They worshipped the emperor LIKE a god. He was their superior example. They tried to be like him. That was as far as it got. Appeasing his wishes by honor. That is a far cry from the resolve of someone reaching out to be one with their creator. If you had a faith, you would understand that.

That is the mentality of the radicals we are dealing with today.

Again, if you do not believe in a God and know anything about religous faith, then you obviously disqualify yourself from understanding the enemy.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by Scourge
If someone invaded my town and killed my family I would drive a truck loaded with explosives into their midst in a heartbeat. Even if I hated my former dictator, it's about defending your country. Wouldn't you do the same? I mean if the whle world hated Bush and tried to remove him and they invaded you'd still fight, right? Know matter what your politics are.

Actually im not so sure that all Democrats would fight to defend our nation. thats the sad thing.

As for the rest of it. If the "invading" army was going to hand power back over to us to begin with, why on earth would i be angry with them?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
NewGuy,

You have a very poor way of not only replying to any points I make, but to fully explain your points.

Fire a direct no BS question and I will answer it. If you do not like my answer ask more questions. I answer with enough detail as I think you will want or understand.

You say they hate us for our support of dictators.

I never said that, nor did I imply it. When you quit spouting garbage and ask a real question, you will get an answer.

Well then, if we don't support their dictators, we're favoring Israel, something they hate us for. And if we oppose their dictators, we come across as opposing Islam to all the radicals out there.

If we do not support their dictators we are favoring Israel?

Not all things are that black and white, but lets assume you are correct. We would then favor Israel. They would then hate us. We would then appear to oppose Islam. That much is true.

Lets flip it. We condemn Israel's policies against people of Islamic faith--Palistinians. We now appear to be in full support of Islam and condemn the Jews. It would appear that by support of Islam we oppose Jewish and therefore Christian faith. Notice how things look to the mideast?

While politics involving the world is complex, faith is not. Christianity and Islam will always be at war. The reason is that they both claim only 1 way to "heaven" and they both claim they have the one true god. The problem is that Islam condemns to death by murder all those who oppose, -Jews and Christians more specifically than all others. This leaves zero reason for compromise. Therefore you have to take a stand. Which faith do you support? In the mideast, that is what it is. Nothing else matters to them.

We are a Christian nation by admission of populace and by foundation. That is inescapable. We support Israel. (quite POORLY these days). We will need to be killed according to Islam.

Your fix on the EU and Canadian law is diverting from the topic.

No, it is a bird's nest. Remember the previous example 3 paragraphs up. Imagine we supported Islamic nations. We would then be opposed to Israel, Jews, and Christianity. Newsflash: This is the official stance in documentation of the European Union as a whole. That makes it quite interesting, doesn't it? Now you pit the US against the EU by FAITH. Considering the EU backs Islam and Canada is being sucked into Islamic favoritism, what does that mean for the US?

In a world that measures its policy by agreements with nations, who you shake hands with is critical. In the mideast, who your God is is critical. In today's political stuctures, Socialism vs. Capitalism is crucial. Remember, the EU is a socialist collective while the US is capitalist. This whole thing is an explosion of the highest order waiting to happen.

Until you realize these outside factors, this whole Iraq thing just looks like a political Faux Pas or land dispute. In fact, this is the start of a world war where the faiths do battle as well. He who has the biggest faith wins.

 

[preemptingyou03]

You are trying to explain the politics of this, yet you fail to address your point and stance every single time. I don't know where you are going. You're saying Canada is favoring Islam, and the socialist EU is doing the same, then you say it may be the beginning of a World War... with who? This war is for the Islam religion. Not against it. This war is for freedom in the Middle East, not the death of all Muslims.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
You are trying to explain the politics of this, yet you fail to address your point and stance every single time. I don't know where you are going. You're saying Canada is favoring Islam, and the socialist EU is doing the same, then you say it may be the beginning of a World War... with who? This war is for the Islam religion. Not against it. This war is for freedom in the Middle East, not the death of all Muslims.

Does anyone else have difficulty following my posts, or is this guy not reading?

 

[preemptingyou03]

I asked you several times why you think terrorists hate us. Rather than give me a real answer, you mocked mine, and called it bullshit.

Trust me, the reasons I gave, are the reasons Osama bin Laden gives in every audio tape: support for Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, and non-Islamic law in our country.

The difference between you and I, is I want to understand the enemy, to change the enemy... to defeat it. It seems as if you want to understand the enemy, so we may reform, conforming for the enemy.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
I asked you several times why you think terrorists hate us. Rather than give me a real answer, you mocked mine, and called it bullshit.

I have told you in no uncertain terms, my 3rd grader- no-comprehension- unpatient -nonreading aquaintence, that they hate us because of our faith the most, followed by our capitalism, followed by our success.

And, yes, your answers ARE BS, and I didn't mock your answers, I mocked YOU for being stupid enough to knock ME and not read what I post.....which you did again.

Trust me, the reasons I gave, are the reasons Osama bin Laden gives in every audio tape: support for Israel, troops in Saudi Arabia, and non-Islamic law in our country.

Are you dumb enough to believe Islam does NOT teach lying to achieve martyrdom?

The difference between you and I, is I want to understand the enemy, to change the enemy... to defeat it. It seems as if you want to understand the enemy, so we may reform, conforming for the enemy.

Read what I post. I KNOW the enemy FAR better than you do, I KNOW the enemy will die before changing, and knowit is futile to try when the EU and Canada are trying to now shut us down in alliance with them. It is a slow process, but through politics, economics, and religion this IS reality.

Quit flappin yer gums, and listen. Shut off your TV and READ. Quit believing what people say and try to find truth. Life, politics, and reality DO exist beyond your fishbowl.

 

[preemptingyou03]

So under your logic, the terrorists kill believe they want to. They are Muslims. We are not. Therefore, they want us dead. That is your stance? You are honestly saying that our support of Israel doesn't create any anti-Americanism with Arabs? You are honestly saying that our bases in Saudi Arabia didn't get OBL pissed off at all?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by preemptingyou03
So under your logic, the terrorists kill believe they want to. They are Muslims. We are not. Therefore, they want us dead. That is your stance?

I will repeat this only 1 more time.

1. Muslims by faith hate America because of their faith. The country THEY live in is irrelevant.

2. The SECOND thing that they would NOT like (obviously) is our capitalistic society as it opposes their strict Islamic law. We also appear to have most of the worlds wealth BECAUSE we are capitalistic. This is stated clearly all over the world and the statement is used to support socialism as a remedy. -Which Islamic nations would embrace.

You are honestly saying that our support of Israel doesn't create any anti-Americanism with Arabs?

Again, if you READ, what I said was that any alliance with Jews is in direct opposition to their faith. Add this to the other reasons they don't like us, and you begin to see the picture.

You are honestly saying that our bases in Saudi Arabia didn't get OBL pissed off at all?

THAT is pretty irrelevant in scope and doesn't have much to do with the bigger agenda, now does it? It all ties back to the core beliefs. Just as if you are starving, you don't care how much salt is in the burger you are eating, you just want food. They have a war to fight, they don't care to much about the few details of where we have outposts in 1 country out of the entire world. They have a superior fighting model of terrorist cells backed by undying resolve to cary it out. This has been their thinking for over 1000 years. We aren't going to change a dang thing when the rest of the world is in alliance with their core desires.

 

[gaffer]

[






Again, if you do not believe in a God and know anything about religous faith, then you obviously disqualify yourself from understanding the enemy. [/B][/QUOTE]

BAsed on your many posts I must determine that you are both a muslim and a radical islam supporter.

One of the major points of the koran is that islam cannot exist along side other religions and beliefs. They must be wiped out utterly. I don't believe in islam and will always be an enemy of islam. The only interest I have in understanding my enemy is that which helps me destroy him.

As for talking with them and working things out. Their single goal is to kill me. That leaves no room for discussion. You go back to studying you koran and I'll go have some dinner. mmmmmmmmmmmmm pork.

 

[Annie]

Hanson:

April 08, 2004, 8:15 a.m.
Western Cannibalism
Eating each other while our enemies smile.



This war grows stranger here at home and abroad all the time. Despite the horrific barbarism in Fallujah and the gun-toting and killing by the Shiites, the United States is ever so steadily establishing a consensual government of sorts under impossible conditions in Iraq. Meanwhile the Middle East watches the pulse of the conflict, wondering whether the Fallujah savages and the primordial Shiite extremists will succeed in Lebanonizing Iraq.

Or will the American pressure for democracy and reform reverberate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to move Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and the Saudis to greater transparency, consensual rule, and an end of their support for terrorists? The courage and sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers now determine whether those who dream of freedom step forward boldly into the light, or retreat meekly into the shadows — and whether we will be safe in our own homes.

Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness — and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists — until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists — and got assassination plots as thanks.

Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad — flaming ships, embassies, planes, skyscrapers, and people the wages of its mollifying. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory — low profiles, tolerance for looters and militias, allowance for vicious mullahs — we have seen more, not fewer, killed.

The sad truth is that civilization itself is engaged in a worldwide struggle against the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Just this past month the killers and their plots have been uncovered in London, Paris, Madrid, Pakistan, and North Africa — the same tired rhetoric of their hatred echoing from Iraq to the West Bank. While Western elites quibble over exact ties between the various terrorist ganglia, the global viewer turns on the television to see the same suicide bombing, the same infantile threats, the same hatred of the West, the same chants, the same Koranic promises of death to the unbeliever, and the same street demonstrations across the world.

Looking for exact professed cooperation between an Islamic fascist and the rogue regime that finds such anti-Western violence useful is like proving that Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler all coordinated their attacks and worked in some conspiratorial fashion — when in fact Japan had no knowledge of the invasion of Russia, and Hitler had no warning of Pearl Harbor or Mussolini's invasion of Greece.

In fact, it didn't matter that they were united only by a loose and shared hatred of Western liberalism and emboldened by a decade of democratic appeasement. And our fathers, perhaps better men than we, didn't care too much for beating their breasts about the exact nature of collective Axis strategy or blaming each other for past lapses, but instead went to pretty terrible places like Bastogne, Anzio, and Okinawa to put an end to their enemies all.

Now, in the middle of this terrible conflict, unlike the postbellum inquiry after Pearl Harbor, we are holding acrimonious hearings about culpability for September 11. And here the story gets even more depressing than just political opportunism and election-year timing. After eight years of appeasement that saw repeated attacks on Americans, Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons under Dr. Khan, and Osama's 1998 declaration of war against every American, we are suddenly grilling, of all people, Condoleezza Rice — one of the few key advisers most to be credited for insisting on using our military, rather than the local DA, to defeat these fanatics.

Over the last two years, each time a U.S. senator in panicked and wild-eyed passion screamed that we could not win in Afghanistan, she proved resolute and confident. On every occasion that an ex-general, a dissatisfied bureaucrat, or a wannabe journalist-strategist pontificated about what the United States could not do, she was unwavering in her determination to take the war to rogue regimes in the Middle East with a history of hostility against Americans and a record of providing easy sanctuary for terrorists. This present charade would be like holding public hearings on the eve of the 1944 election about the breakdown of intelligence and missed opportunities before Pearl Harbor — and then blaming Harry Hopkins and Secretary Stimson for laxity even while the country was in the very midst of a two-front war.

Then we have the creepy outbursts from commentators and screams from Democratic senators. We are told by Senator Graham that we smashed al Qaeda only to discover that we had hit a mercury-like substance that now has hopelessly scattered. Well, yes, that is what happens when you strike back in war. The alternative? Allow this elemental terrorism to remain cohesive and united? War is not a decision between good and bad choices, but almost always between something bad and something worse — and so it really is preferable to have toxic mercury scattered than to have it concentrated and pure.

Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes — in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies.

Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis, has gone beyond his once-wild charges of Texas conspiracies to slur Iraq as Bush's Vietnam — his apparently appropriate moral boosting for the young Marines, who, even as he spoke, were entering Fallujah to hunt down murderers and mutilators.

But did he say Vietnam? Apparently the senator thinks that the cause of these medieval fanatics who want to bring the world back to the ninth century will resonate with leftists the same way Uncle Ho's faux promises of equality and egalitarianism swayed stupid anti-war protesters of the past. Or is the real similarity that, once more, as promoters of anti-Communist realpolitik, we Americans are installing a right-wing government rather than promoting pluralism, elections, and the protection of minorities and women — the "dream" of the 1960s? Or perhaps Kennedy's comparison revolves around 600 combat dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberation of 50 million from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and the emergence of proto-consensual governments in less than two years of hostilities? Does all that suggest to Senator Kennedy that we are embarking on a 12-year war, will lose 50,000 men, and are stymied by a bellicose nuclear China and Russia on the borders of Iraq?

Yet Kennedy is right on one count in his evocation of Vietnam. If there is any similarity between Vietnam and the current war, it is not 1963, when his late brother convinced us to commit troops to stop Communist aggression. A better year for comparison is 1974, when Kennedy and other senators began to cut off funding for air support promised to enforce the Paris peace accords, resulting in the collapse of South Vietnam, mass murder in Southeast Asia, and over a million boat people, with more still sent to the Communist reeducation camps.

A New York Times columnist (who before the routing of the Taliban warned us of hopeless quagmire in Afghanistan) chimes in about Fallujah with neat metaphors like "block party" and "slam dance," and then ends by quoting the old tired canard from Vietnam that "We're going to destroy the village to save it" — apparently unaware that the supposed postmodern aphorism was probably made up, was never traced or attributed to any particular military officer, and was more likely the creation of a like-minded journalist also eager for some cute phraseology.

There are plenty of things to argue about and there will be plenty of time in which to do it. In a crisis and with worries about national security, many of us thought it was the wrong time to embark on deficit spending, allow near amnesty for those who cross our borders illegally, and not compromise about the need for both American conservation and exploration of oil, in an effort to wean us off Middle Eastern petroleum.

More specifically, in our postwar paranoia about being too brutal in Iraq, we were too lenient — and thus ultimately will probably be more brutal than we would otherwise have had to be. During the prewar exegeses, there was too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other legitimate casus belli, ranging from violations of the 1991 armistice agreement and U.N. accords, Saddam's past invasion and assassination attempts, the unending no-fly zones, Baathist mass murder, environmental catastrophe, and bounties for suicide killers.

More troops were probably needed; the Iraqi army should have been immediately reconstituted; and Iraqi officials might have had a more public role in the reconstruction. All these are legitimate tactical issues that could have been discussed and debated within the general parameters that we are at war against horrific enemies who wish to end our civilization, and who cannot be bought off or talked to, but only defeated, and yes, often killed.

Instead, we see more of the same hysteria and invective. It has been almost three years now and many Americans are becoming sickened by this continual procession of collective madness delivered up in doses of twenty-four-hour new cycles. This country has gone from the shouting and screaming about quagmire in Afghanistan, its high peaks, Ramadan taboos, the supposed unreliable Northern Alliance, Guantanamo meals, our failure to get bin Laden — to "millions" of refugees in Iraq, the toppling of moderate governments in the region, an envisioned 5,000 American dead in battle, Saddam and his sons forever uncatchable, worry over legal rights of the Husseins, Bush's landing on a carrier, looting of museums, WMD acrimony, tell-all books from ex-Bush-administration employees, and the present election-year 9/11 inquiry circus.

And this culminates now in the animus toward Condoleezza Rice, who has weathered it all and never for a moment evidenced the slightest lack of resolve. I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution — journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime.

So let us get a grip. Bush yet again must remind the American people that we are at war not merely in the Sunni Triangle or in the Afghan badlands, but rather globally and for the liberal values of Western civilization. There is no mythical pipeline in Afghanistan; Halliburton executives are not lounging around the pool in Baghdad chomping on cigars and quaffing cocktails; and in this age of sky-high gas prices there is no sinister cabal that has hijacked Iraq oil. Sharon is not getting daily intelligence briefings about Iraq. The war is what it always was — a terrible struggle against an evil and determined enemy, a Minotaur of sorts that harvested Americans in increments for decades before mass murdering 3,000 more on September 11.

Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.

 

[preemptingyou03]

Kathianne, that was very, very interesting and exactly how I feel.

 

[gaffer]

My thoughts exactly.