KrustyKidd

Ghandi's Passive resistance. Most Jihadists are Conservative Wahabbists. You think they are only a fringe group in Saudi Arabia? The lack of confornting the group that continually called for the killing of the Royal Family was a testament to their strength in that particular country. Do you have alzhiemers? I thought I explained to you that they attack the west in order to provoke a response whereby they can show the Islamic world that the west is attcacking Islam and thereby unite them under one banner. Theirs. As for decreased support for the terrorists goals, exactly what are terrorists goals Black Dog? Yes ondeed. The Pious Sutdents (Taliban) had no idea Al Queda had aspirations other than to simply hang out and shoot pool in Afganistan. The two go hand in hand. Taliban is support for 'The Base.' The Iraqi insurgency is not a Jihad. One of the factions or considerations of the insurgency is Jihadists. The rest are gangs, groups, mentalities and idealologies. To tell the truth, it was the only one I looked at and when I saw that, knew the rest had to be just as bogus. Here, I'll get quotes from Rush, Hannitty, Bush, Savage and so on and forth. Conservative Wahabbists and their supporters are not a racial group. Is that why almost evdery country on earth is engaged in the War on Terror? Because there is no threat. Wow. Better tell France, Russia, China and so on and forth not to mention the ninety or so countries working alongside the US and the rest of the coalition that they are worried about squat. See, this is where it is proven that some people do not learn from history. The Nazi party began pretty small, as did the communists. The internet brings these people together pretty close and they are hero worshiped in a lot of places. In fact, one picture of victims of the Tsunami shows a guy reciving aid while he is sporting an OBL T shirt. Ya, don't worry BD, there is no threat. If nothing else, there is a threat to people in general just by getting bloown up on planes and buildings but that is secondary to me as the real threat is seeing people back these guys up. I mean, OBL is being hidden by somebody. The Jihadists are being helped in Iraq by somebody and, fed, financed, clothed and given transport but that doesn't enter into your mind does it?

Let freedom ring! Lincoln killed a million Americans and is revered by the left and right. Should we turn a blind eye to the repressive dictators of the world or free the people?

Now, they create conditions for voters to actually decide for themselves. My things have changed.

Tell me what matter a terrorist might try to smuggle in using a container. In my mind, it would have to be something they cannot find readily available here to use as a weapon of sorts correct? Second, secrecy. they undoubtably do not wish this item or items to be s=discovered and hence have probably taken great care to hide what they are shipping from a lot of people in the ports they shipped from and to along with the loaders and manufactureres of whatever it is. Next, they have had to constitute this item from afar meaning they hade to transport it in secret to the port they shipped from and undoubably have had to pay off a lot of people. Inevitably there is a group waiting for this item (s) to use when it arrives. Laying low and in secret for months if not years at great expense to the organization all waiting for the time when material and people can use it. So, what is in that container has taken a lot of money, effort, risk and [prayer to get there. If it is discovered the game is up and they lose something more valuable than their lives. A sweating person filling out a manifest jor, a wron g answer at a checkpoint could blow the whole thing. ANd, there is a one in twenty chance they will have the container opened and the whole scheme blown to hell with arrests, cells being destroyed that have worked together for years, the entire shipping rat trail exposed. One in twenty. Great odds for a weekend frolic but terrible for a years wages and spending the rest of your life in an Ifidel jail for. Now, what if the container has only a part of what is needed and there is a second one on it's way? That makes the dicovery of the plot ten to one or, ten percent. Now, that's opening them up to have a look. WHat about x raying, dogs, radioactive measuring etc. Wow, starting to look like not worth it to ship dsomething to get your Jihadist buddies discovered. Then, when they start talking, they rat out the shippers details when given some harsh language in a cell. A lot of risk to mission and self just to ship it via container. I should think that most terrorism tools will be home grown ie: US manufactured guns and explosives if at all. If somthing is shipped by this means it would have to be so irreplaceable that it means a lot. To risk it for a five to ten percent chance of blowing the entire plot along with losing the cells involved on both sides of the trasaction that that risk is unacceptable. So, please give me a scenario of something that is worth that kind of risk for an organized Jihadist group.

You really are a right winger! Now, back to brass tacks. A great idea can't be lined up against the wall and threatened, shot or imprisoned. That is a philosophical saying and a truism. The quest for the Caliphate's recreation after eight hundred years of Islamic and Arab supression is a goal that is so common only an idiot would not see it happening. No groups need to be co ordinated (as we see with the Toronto 17, Madrid bombings and Brisitsh and Indonsesian and so on and forth.) they all believe the same thing and they all use the same methods and, all are cemented by the vision of the finished product. You ask for groups and I say there are no hard groups save Al Zarkowie's group in Iraq, Al Queda and a few more. See, the hard part of the war on terror is there is no center to any of them as it is an idealology that has to be beaten. Beaten by countering the attraction of it by instilling hope and a future here on earth rather than a reward in heaven comrised of sins they are not allowed to enjoy on earth. They are not atempting to beat the shit out of the government rather, sdeparate the government from the people by showing the government inept, unable to keep the people safe and then, offer a counter choice such as religion or, a better way of life in prayer to their belief system. Lowering and intensifying the attacks as per the flow of public opinion. Won't work in the states but it sure will in Afganistan, Iraq or the Phillipines if no US support is shown. You obviously didn't care who or what their agenda was or you would have picked something with a less bigoted mind sao why should I?. It is. The Taliban controlled an entire country, Suadi Arabia was afraid to confront them until pressured by the US, attacks from Spain to the Pacific all by people with the same goal - to attack and attack until they win. And you consider them no threat. In Iraq, the Sunnis permit them to operate to adjust the heat on the goverment to gain concessions and you consider them no threat. At least now, you know what a Jihadist is. Thanks for taking the time to come around.

Crap? You made the garbage poll, not me. Trueman used it soon as it was available and Kennedy nearly got us all killed by having it on red alert. So, you are going to tell us that if any other president lived those few hours on 911 and nobody had a clue of how large the attack was, they never would have considered using nukes? Or, in the aftermath with public outcrys for action not have used one or two to take out either Saudi Al Queda nests or Afganistan? Not Regan, not Trueman, not Kennedy? And of course, you have all of these guys rated equally even though only one had to sit through a direct attack on his country too right? What would they have done to Japan after Pearl had they had a nuke? Keep it in a box?

Thousands of people felt safe enough to go to work in the Towers that morning. Niche Ideaology? Who are these morons? Iran, 1979, Al Qeda in 88', WTC in the nineties, Cole, Towers, embassies etc. Of course it doesn't. You never knew there was a threat so now you do you blame the government for not handling it properly and instead of backing them up, you blame them for it. With clowns like you at home, it's a wonder anybody can stop terrorism. And your suggestion is to just sit and wait for them to come and negotiate with us in return for letting them take over the Middle East? Brilliant! New kind of war in that democracy is the tool to be used to thwart the enemy. So, instead of allowing people to wallow in a corrupt regime and join Jihadists out of nothing to lose they can now gain a life to work with. Very novel actually. How so? First you bitch because the US didn't run a steam roller over Afganistan and western Pakestan killing tens of thousands of villagers to kill Bin Landen and now bitch because they have over ninety countries cooperationg with them in the war on terror globally. Deteriorating because NATO troops are not making enough headway. Are you serious that Afganistan would have been better off and us safer if AL Queda ran the place again? What a moron. To get rid of a thorn called Saddam, install democracy within the troubled region, give the US a non Saudi base with which to place pressure on any government within the area to take care of their Al Queda infestations. This worked very well as SA did take that action almost immediately. Yes, it means investing money, having elections, negotiating with nations, supporting nations in their own anti terrorism actions. Ya, like living under a murderous dictator or oppressive regime you clown. Some great essay. Hey Newbie, So you don't think going through the UN in negotiations with Iran is the right way to go? Wanna attack don't you. Kill ten or fifteen million Iranians? 6% is a lot and more than enough to thwart the threat there. Wanna look like an idiot and call me on it? You want to attack don't you? See all those Liberal South Koreans on the border die in a day don't you?

It's not a weapon for starters, it's a method of placing pressure on a society. And, it does not directly induce anything but fear within that populaton that it has targeted. The aim though is to induce social change in the terrorist's favor. So, if coupled with a 'good cop bad cop' sort of thing where the attacks eventually may be followed up with a solid aid program or a cohesive strong alternative to a weakened government then it can be more fruitfully exploited. We have not seen that aspect of it - yet.

Looks more and more?????? You never noticed the shift in disarmement to Regime Change back in November of 2002? Looks like it worked? Comon, Saddam's support of terrorism was only one of a whole bunch of reasons to take him out. I never thought that so, does that mean I am smarter than most or perhaps just able to read?

First, there is no group that are Jihadists. That is why I knew you were not correct. A Jihadist is a Sunni for starters who is sympathetic to the Conservative Wahabbist vision of a greater Caliphate. They see the opportunity in Iraq to further their cause or, at least stop it from being pushed back decades or possibly forever into failure. That's why they just go and raise hell to stop the government from stabilizing. Not a concentrated coordinated process but a general push in the same direction. Chaos. Now, once you confirm you have a grip on what a Jihadist is, then I will go further. hWow. No wonder your arguments are so lost. Hope this helps Oxford Dictionary Here are a few articles which can give you some context. More Jihadists “”I am going to be talking about a group of people who are generally known as fundamentalists, extremists, or (as I have grown to call them) "jihadis." The term jihad suggests what they believe their lives are about--holy war that is directed against people they believe are their enemies and the enemies of their way of life. “” From the hated wilkpedia The Key to Jihadist Ideology and Strategy “” Individuals involved in the political or military forms of jihad are often labeled with the neologism "jihadist". “” Frontpage's Jihadists “” This is jihad, organized violence against non-Moslems for the purpose of building up the wealth and power of the Islamic community and bringing the world under a single Islamic state. Jihadists conceive and rationalize their own activities in terms of these paradigms. Thus when Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan, and when he later left Sudan for Afghanistan, he saw those journeys as corresponding with the hejira, leaving a corrupt land, where he was powerless, for a more pure Islamic place from which jihad could be waged. “” Time even has them “” Jordanian authorities have told Mansour that after leaving Jordan on Jan. 27, his son crossed into Syria, the favorite route for Iraq-bound jihadists.“” What’s comical is that you actually agreed they were in Iraq and now don’t know what they are or even what the word means. Your quote; Alright, I got lazy tonight and just did a google and here is the first article Jihadist Strategies in the War on Terrorism From the article “” Grand strategy is basically the same for almost every jihadi group. This is, I think, the only place where you can say that there is something unifying these groups and holding them together. The objective is, almost across the board, the same. They want to restore the greatness of their vision of Islam by defeating every rival to its power. The means by which they are going to attempt this are also the same and fit into this grand strategic vision. They are hoping to create an Islamic state. “” Thanks for making it easy. As for having to be a registered GOP member no. Just something more impartial than a solid Bush detractor (as the authors by line describes him to be) would do fine. As I said, posting an opinion of a Bush hater can easily be refuted by just quoting GWB or Rush Limbaugh and, I know you don‘t value their biased opinions so why should I value the reverse? Oh, swearing doesn't make your point any more valid but, it is funny watching you get unwound. Black Dog's origional question; My answer; Black Dog's reply; Ok. You want names and phone numbers or what? Jihadists intent on recreating the Caliphate. Wahabbists who are Sunnis. There are a lot of them and, they are not organized in any way save for the overall direction they push. Kind of like our capitalistic system where people from all walks of life work towards it without actually knowing who is in charge or with direct supervision. 911 was that master plan. Surely you know the Saudis stateside were flown immediately back home to help prop up the House of Saud to thwart a possible coup. Michael Moore to no surprise misinterpreted that action as being a friendly gesture on Bush’s part. As for the rest, I think you are begining to get it. I can't expect you to run when you are still crawling. Get the Jihadist idea down, Al Queda's goals in your head then we can go further. Jihadist Goals “” However, I am going to argue that, in fact, this is not true. These are not random attacks; they are not entirely counterproductive. They do have strategies that are rational, systematic, and followed rigorously. These new terrorists believe that they have an ideology that is so important that it must be followed rigorously. There are many different groups and each one of them is carrying out its own rational systematic strategy. “” “” In addition to the three stages in the growth of the Islamic community culminating in jihad, there are three basic approaches to waging jihad, called collectively the Method of Muhammed, that various Islamist groups respectively adopt toward the ultimate goal of establishing the world-wide rule of Islam. “” Separate state from population by creating havoc and showing the state as ineffectual to protect the population. Provide an organized front against the west via propaganda. Gain the support of the population via a common thread such as hatred of the regime, west or Israel. Further stress the regime by taking out economic capability such as oil, gas and tourism. Then, up the pressure on the government with the backing of the people. Then, weak regime in chaos ready for a political move on their part. It has been argued countless times by the Left on this board that Iraqis would gladly have Saddam back if he brought stability or, gladly have a regime of Jihadists if they were to give them same. So, this method is not so far fetched to some. Steps To Caliphate “” The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." “” Who they are “” There are two major "trees" of Jihadism: The Salafists and the Khumeinists. The Salafists, influenced by the radical Wahabis and the "Muslim Brotherhood" call for the removal of the current Arab and Muslim Governments and their replacement by a worldwide power they call "Caliphate." American and other democratic societies around the world, including Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and other, have been subjected to an international ideological campaign by the "Jihadists" who aim to bring about a worldwide domination, that is the creation of a totalitarian global regime, similar to the Taliban. Their ideology opposes Democracy, Pluralism, Secularism, and is a direct threat to Peace. “”

Objectives being society rather than military targets. Classical Greek Warfare which is adopeted by every Western Nation on earth destroys the military capability of the enemy.

Which part for crying out loud? Come on, the entire forum population is dying with suspense. Stand that comment down or provide the proof. My goodness Black Dog. What is your problem? I origionally said ""The state could shut anyone of these gangs down at will. Are you telling us that Al Sadr could withstand a direct attack on his neighborhood if the government wished to shut him and his people down? The only reason they don't is that he is a unifying factor and, is able to be negotiated with. If they take him out, then they have to start all over again."" To which you replied; So, now the state is strong enough to take him out but they don't. So, I was right after all. They just don't as they have other reasons not to. Therefore, he is not a threat to them and more of a benifit alive and in power. Cut me some slack here on the leftist scale. You then went onto quote a lot of stuff about Shiite politics and whatever. Funny, you were saying how Jihadists were taking over and then to back it up, quote some things about how Shites were gaining power. Before I answer your shit, get it right, the Jihaddists are Sunni based and the Shiites are not. Now, if you wish to have the reason, at least get a grip on two of the more fundemental sects and organizations running here. Otherwise, anything I do explain will go over your head and waste both of our time. Sorry, mised that one. Perhaps, if you would, please provide the link. Thanks. Judging by the quote below where you have a guy highly critical of the Bush Admin actions to support your arguments, I really have to see this stuff in context to even consider it. Huh? Garbage time. Possibly I could provide GWB's view to counter this one? I mean both would be biased on opposite poles I am sure. You must be the left wing counter part of the comic book right wing hillbilly. Remember me - Krusty Kid. I think I explain who that is in almost every post. Right Wing Muslim Extremists, then I always narrow it down further to be Conservative Radical Wahhabists. Not mom and pop immigrant Arabs running a quickie mart in TO or Iranian PMs. The above to be exact. If America had attacked Saudi Arabia that would have coincided with a coup there. Then a gravitational anti western movement which would have been caliphate wide amongst the Sunnis in the ME and beyond. So, therefore, your question is a possibility as soon as they can get that momentum which they hoped to gain by 911 reaction. Black Dog, I never thought you were an idiot. A bit smarmy and immature perhaps but not a moron and, certainly not a racsist. Here, you cite a guy who is lumping all of Islam into one racially profiled enemy and you jump in there with him. Read the above response where I cite who the enemy is, not Islam but a cetain group of Islam who, with the right circumstances (many of which are fabricated by themselves against weak regime led nations) can poise themselves for the action that can enhance their position in stronger Islamic countries. Iran is not one of those countries they are shooting for BTW. Please return once you educate yourself.

That is Black Dog replying to my statement of "If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out." Here is what you said previously. Which part? Name it and tell us all who the supporters are or retract. There is a reason why I know this is a crap staement so lets see your proof. Oh, as I said, anarchy at best. An e mail from someone perhaps? Make some proof up or whatever. Can you at least provide a link to the link which you had? A link Big wrong. When they become the government of our trading partners or, a shoadow goevernment, then we trade with them. And, once they have economic power, they have political power and military power. They won't be sending envoys with belt bombs to garner favors of air bases and such to the west, they will be cutting off oil, bullying smaller countries adjacent to them and so on all with the intent of furthering Conservative Islamic values (that means adherence to the Koran to the letter as it was written thirteen hundred years ago.) If you don't agree with that then there will be lots of fourth world countries that will toe the mark and give them the means to get what they wish from second worl countries to make Jihad with the first world ones. Funny thing is, it's happening right in front of us and most people think it is pell mell radom violence when in fact, every terrorist action in Indonesia or the Phillipines is in preparation to topple weak regimes. Not topple them now, but weaken them so they can be toppled at will when the time is right. The US would never deal with a Conservative Wahhabist Saudi Government but hey would deal with a Royal Family which was controlled by them.

Crap poll for sure. Bush is a mediocre president in extraordinary times. Best compared to Lincoln, the man who started a war that wasn't necessary and killed a million of his own people in the process. Good bad? The idiocy of the quiz tells a lot about the questioner and his ability to decipher world events. Bush is a normal person who is in a position amidst advisors and military people and, in charge of the world's superpower. To not have launched a nuclear weapon by now is to be a good president as many might have, to not have done as Lincoln did and imprisoned and banished senators for dissention is pretty good too. The war is abvout minds, democracy and economics and he is doing ok. Better than Lincoln and most of the others. So, which is he worse than had they encountered a force that was radicalizing conservative Islam? I have no idea. He is in his second term so he can't be all that bad.

I want a place where the governement allows me to get loaded and drive my 70 foot semi. In fact, I demand it.

Believe it or not, Black Dog is bang on in his accessment of the Iranian situation. Iran has a modern population to play to and they need points on the world stage. The government has been in place for twenty five years now and has failed to deliver substance and every play is directed towards that. With Iraq out of the way they are in competition with Saudi Arabia to become the region's hegemon. That requires money, military, oil, Islamic leadership, public (if none priovately at all) hatred of Israel and international clout. Positining for nuclear plants and taking on the world in negotiations is playing big at home and keeping the masses in faith of the revolution which to this point has not delivered.

If the state wanted Sadr they would take him out. Just one example. Are you telling me they could not? Sure it does if you wish to call any violence a civil war. The phrase civil war broken down to an untrained ear or mind would denote people in a popular uprising rather than a whole lot of different armed gangs. Where are the people marching in the street, the women and children pissed off and demanding their right to wear veils or have the army reintsated? You've got turf wars and protection rackets going. Not one group is a threat to the government however, most groups are benificial to the government as they stop the Jihadists from taking power in that region they operate in. Link SVP. Gangs and turf wars - check. Goody. In the meantime, gangs and turf wars along with terrorism against the only open targets which are the government and unprotected turf and weaker gangs. Anarchy at best. Moving on ..... So in your mind terrorists are simply trying to kill westerners one by one rather than create an action or reaction of some kind? Simply being promised a virgin is fairly lame as an incentive to kill ones self don't you think?

Cool. Dismantling OPEC one chip at a time. See, now cheaper prices are comming! Soon as we see Iran needs a hand here, we give them one and .... cheap oil comes our way at the expense of all the other members. The EU can start by laying off the UN to enact sanctions. BTW, how is that one going?

Three points. 1. Al Queda's manifesto is just what I said. Look it up sometime. Do you actually think there is terrorism all over certain countries that were coincidently former Caliphate rulings simply because they have nothing else to do? Caliphate An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps 2. I was 20 years military, eight of them in the Airborne Regiment. Three tours of the Middle East. At fifty, I think I can pass the torch on with dignity. 3. I also believe in gay rights but feel no need to show solidarity by sucking a pole to show support. We don't need to draft people as there are enoujgh volunteers to do the job. However, every man and woman should be behind those who do the work a hundred percent as their children's future will be adversely affected should they fail in this fight. You on the other hand obviously feel that all the terrorist actions (which if you take a look at closely all have a pattern in that they are destabilizing weaker regimes, displaying power for Islamic Conservatives to show their would be followers and influencing western politics in their favor) are simply designed to kill a few people as the end result. Of course if you are that two dimensional much of this won't make any sense to you whatsoever. However, look at it from their perspective. For eight centuries, the greatest and largest empire the world has known then nothing except being walked over by everynation on earth from Attila the Hun to the bloody Dutch. The whole movement has an appeal to all Islamics and Arabs and, makes complete sense if you are one of them. The US cannot invade SA asa that would play into the hands of the Wahhabist Conservatives. That was the intent of 911 to percipitate an action such as that to unify the Arab masses under the Radicals. Instead, the US did the next best (or next lest worse thing) by invading Iraq and placing direct pressure on SA to clean up their AL Queda infestation or they would in cross border operations. SA did just that and has the radicals and AQ on the run in the kingdom for the first time in half a century. Doesn't let them but, is in the same boat as SA was in that if they directly comnfront them then there may be a revolution so, it has to be handled with pressure rather than a a sudden smashing movement.

So, in your opinion then, the conservative Islamist G=Facsist movement should be allowed to topple weak regimes and take control. Then, with a growing movement in a stronger oil rich country such as Saudi Arabia, they should also be permitted carte blanche and trade petro dollars for weapons to take other countries with. Then, when they have recreated the former Caliphate (which stretched from Spain to the Pacific) they should also be allowed to control world markets in trade and energy. While enforcing their rule of law on those they have taken over both militarily, subverted or simply ground into submission economicly. Yes indeed, nothing worth fighting for. Just our children's and grandchildren's security and way of life. May as well give up and let them have free run.

And Israel is dependent on Iranian oil as well and therefore will allow them to have a nuclear bomb. Got it. So, if Iran stops selling oil and goes into a financial meltdown while the rest of the world is undergoing uncomfortable prices, they will be showing us eh?

You think that if we all leave Afganistan to the Taliban that it would not be used once again to harbor terrorists?

Ok, semantics. What he is preaching is the elimination of Israel by whatever or whatever. You don't eliminate a country without killing poeple as we all know, Israel will not hand over a government to anybody without a fight of some sort. Anyhow, this is all crap to begin with as Iran has no true agenda to do anything to Israel as they are merely postioning to usurp Saudi Arabia as the patriarch of the Islamic world and, hatred of the Jews is a given if they are to assume that postition. Along with that goes the rest such as holding back the great powers and gaining nulcear power etc. The other end of the stick is the Wizard (council and all) being found they didn't bring the progress and rewards the revolution promised. Instead of servitude under the Shah it brought them so called freedom, war, oppression and a look into the outside world that that shows their government cannot or will not permit them real freedom. Yes, if I were Ahmadinejad and had been a member of the goverment for over twenty years and, were commited to carrying out the council's will then I certainly would be toeing their line as well. A line that is carefully composed to play all sides to keep their country in place rather than allow another government to take over.

Yes for sure. That way, instead of drawing out the negotiation process for years getting concessions from the Euros, US and Chinese they can simply be bombed by the Israelis now.

Give up everything for a commodity they can get from any other place in the region? Get real. If Iran stops selling then they go down so in reality, they need to sell as much if not more than others need to buy. The oil argument is crap as the Saudis learned in the seventies, it nearly destroyed them.