Radical Islam

[DogOnPorch]

Blame that medieval excuse for a nation known as Saudi Arabia for much of radical Islam. MAD worked with the Russians...still works, infact. But will it work on the religious nut-bars with a yearning for paradise? Dunno. However, it might be worth a go that the loss of Mecca would be the cost of ANY major terrorist attack ('major' to be defined) against Western interests and lives. Maybe it would make the so-called moderates actually DO SOMETHING about the radicals in their midst. If not...oh well. Give 48 hours notice and then drop a really big one. Then the 'nice Muslims' could flee the coming storm. I wouldn't want the left-tards to get too upset...lol.

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

Every dog must have his day.

---Jonathan Swift

Edited October 12, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[wulf42]

Blame that medieval excuse for a nation known as Saudi Arabia for much of radical Islam. MAD worked with the Russians...still works, infact. But will it work on the religious nut-bars with a yearning for paradise? Dunno. However, it might be worth a go that the loss of Mecca would be the cost of ANY major terrorist attack ('major' to be defined) against Western interests and lives. Maybe it would make the so-called moderates actually DO SOMETHING about the radicals in their midst. If not...oh well. Give 48 hours notice and then drop a really big one. Then the 'nice Muslims' could flee the coming storm. I wouldn't want the left-tards to get too upset...lol.

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

Every dog must have his day.

---Jonathan Swift

Exactly right!!.........the so called moderates don't seem to interested in stopping the radicals ..but like you say give them 48 hours notice then smoke em!

[Peter F]

Exactly right!!.........the so called moderates don't seem to interested in stopping the radicals ..but like you say give them 48 hours notice then smoke em!

Smoke the moderates so they will become allies and deal with the radicals...Ya. I have a sneaking leftard suspicion that things wouldn't quite work out that way.

[wulf42]

Smoke the moderates so they will become allies and deal with the radicals...Ya. I have a sneaking leftard suspicion that things wouldn't quite work out that way.

Actually there is really little difference...between moderates and radicals......the only differences is the moderates sit on the sidelines and cheer while those filthy animals radicals do their dirty work for them!

[Kitch]

Actually there is really little difference...between moderates and radicals......the only differences is the moderates sit on the sidelines and cheer while those filthy animals radicals do their dirty work for them!

You really haven't got a clue how people work. Do you really think that it's that simple??? "They" want to kill "us", so we should kill "them" first? You believe that they "breed hatred" in Pakistan? You don't sound too loving yourself. You're spewing hatred!!!

You really haven't got a clue what kinds of things the "West", aka the USA has done (with support/without objection from countries like Canada) around the world. Where, exactly, do you get so much information about how "the radicals" think? Do you converse with them often? Please, I really am interested in knowing what you read/watch/listen to in order to educate yourself about the situation. Do you really believe that Israel is an innocent bystander in these conflicts?

And do you REALLY think that it would be possible to send over a nuclear bomb, kill, perhaps, millions of people, and there won't be anyone who gets angry at "us"???

For real though, don't just answer that last question, I'd like to read what you've read... maybe you're privy to information that I am not aware of.

[wulf42]

You really haven't got a clue how people work. Do you really think that it's that simple??? "They" want to kill "us", so we should kill "them" first? You believe that they "breed hatred" in Pakistan? You don't sound too loving yourself. You're spewing hatred!!!

You really haven't got a clue what kinds of things the "West", aka the USA has done (with support/without objection from countries like Canada) around the world. Where, exactly, do you get so much information about how "the radicals" think? Do you converse with them often? Please, I really am interested in knowing what you read/watch/listen to in order to educate yourself about the situation. Do you really believe that Israel is an innocent bystander in these conflicts?

And do you REALLY think that it would be possible to send over a nuclear bomb, kill, perhaps, millions of people, and there won't be anyone who gets angry at "us"???

For real though, don't just answer that last question, I'd like to read what you've read... maybe you're privy to information that I am not aware of.

You don't get it do you?...........i am not spewing hate other than for terrorist's........AND i said in retaliation for a major attack meaning a biological or Nuclear.....yes a nuclear strike would be warranted...........i am not to loving against terror groups who twist religion and who want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in it ..and that is exactly what these vermin (extremists) want to do...........they want to believe in Islam? great go ahead everyone has a right to believe in what they want to but when your religion threatens others then there is a problem.........while i am sure many Muslims want to live in peace and want nothing to do with violence they should put pressure on these groups to stop what they are doing and practice their religion in peace...............it wouldn't be that hard for a terrorist group to put a small nuclear device into a freighter... sail into New York Harbour and BOOM!!...............In such a case as this... the U.S. would be obligated to the use of a Nuclear response against states that support and train terrorist's.......and who the hell could blame them?..........this is a war to the end against extremist's and terrorism .....its not going to be won by blowing kisses at the terrorist's.............and besides all that.... look what 9/11 got them? Iraq and Afghanistan under U.S. control and it has Iran in its sights !

Here are some articles stating what the Nato doctrine is for a Nuclear response to a terrorist attack....i am simply giving my opinion and have no say in anything....lol.......but Western Governments are ready to act if they are attacked again and it won't be pretty read the following article!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...va&aid=8048

Here is an article about what the French will do if attacked by terrorist........!!

"France warns: Nukes in response to terror"

Unprecedented threat: French President Chirac threatens nuclear response to

terror attack on French soil. German intelligence: Iran 3-4 years away from

acquiring nuclear bomb

Reuters

France said on Thursday it would be ready to launch a targeted nuclear strike

against any state that carried out a terrorist attack on French soil.

In a speech defending France's costly nuclear deterrent and toughening policy

against terrorism, President Jacques Chirac said Paris must be able to hit

back hard at a hostile state's centers of power and its "capacity to act".

"The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as

those who would consider using in one way or another weapons of mass

destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and

adapted response on our part," Chirac said during a visit to northwestern

France, where France's nuclear submarines are based.

"This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different

kind."

Chirac said all of France's nuclear forces had been configured with this

strategy in mind and the number of nuclear warheads on French nuclear

submarines had been reduced to allow targeted strikes.

It was the first time he had so clearly linked the threat of a nuclear

response to a terrorist attack, but he made no mention of any specific threat

against France.

"Against a regional power, our choice would not be between inaction or

annihilation," he said.

"The flexibility and reactivity of our strategic forces would enable us to

exercise our response directly against its centers of power and its capacity

to act."

Meanwhile, Germany's foreign intelligence agency believes that Iran is at

least three or four years away from getting a nuclear weapon if it wants one,

a source familiar with the agency's estimate said on Thursday.

"Our guys believe the minimum scenario is three to four years. Our allies in

Tel Aviv and the U.S also believe it would take quite a few years," a source

familiar with the views of the BND intelligence agency told Reuters on

condition of anonymity.

Iran says it only wants nuclear technology for an atomic energy program to

meet booming demand for electricity in the Islamic republic. The United

States, the European Union and many other countries believe Tehran is covertly

developing the bomb.

The BND was not immediately available for comment.

Israel, which Iran's president has said should be "wiped off the map",

believes the earliest Iran could get an atomic weapon is 2008. The United

States believes Iran could get the bomb in the next decade.

The director general of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iran could have a weapon within months once it gets

the nuclear fuel for it.

"If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization

program along the way, they are really not very far ? a few months ? from a

weapon," he told Newsweek.

But it is getting the highly enriched nuclear material that the BND and other

experts believe is Iran's biggest obstacle.

The BND's estimate is consistent with one released last week by David Albright

and Corey Hinderstein of the Institute for Science and International Security,

a U.S. think-tank.

Albright, a former U.N. Weapons inspector, and Hinderstein said Iran could not

get a weapon before 2009, because it has not mastered the art of uranium

enrichment.

Tehran has announced plans to resume "Research and development" on uranium

enrichment, a process of purifying uranium for use as fuel for power plants or

weapons. In response, the EU and United States have called for Iran to be

hauled before the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions.

Albright and Hinderstein said that if Iran wanted an atom bomb, predicting

when it could have one would depend on the number of working enrichment

centrifuges in Iran. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning at supersonic

speeds.

They said Iran could have 1,300-1,600 centrifuges by late 2006, which would be

enough to begin producing bomb fuel. Tehran would then need another year to

install and test them.

"Given another year to make enough HEU (highly enriched uranium) for a nuclear

weapon and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapons components,

Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009.

"By this time Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the

other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be

deliverable by a ballistic missile."

Edited October 12, 2008 by wulf42

[bush_cheney2004]

....You really haven't got a clue what kinds of things the "West", aka the USA has done (with support/without objection from countries like Canada) around the world...

The "West" is not "aka the USA". The role of other nations, including Canada, goes far beyond mere "support" and lack of "objection".

[DogOnPorch]

You really haven't got a clue how people work. Do you really think that it's that simple??? "They" want to kill "us", so we should kill "them" first? You believe that they "breed hatred" in Pakistan? You don't sound too loving yourself. You're spewing hatred!!!

You really haven't got a clue what kinds of things the "West", aka the USA has done (with support/without objection from countries like Canada) around the world. Where, exactly, do you get so much information about how "the radicals" think? Do you converse with them often? Please, I really am interested in knowing what you read/watch/listen to in order to educate yourself about the situation. Do you really believe that Israel is an innocent bystander in these conflicts?

And do you REALLY think that it would be possible to send over a nuclear bomb, kill, perhaps, millions of people, and there won't be anyone who gets angry at "us"???

For real though, don't just answer that last question, I'd like to read what you've read... maybe you're privy to information that I am not aware of.

Here we have the classic 'why would anyone hate us?' POV. An event like we're talking about would be occuring after a major attack of some sort and fellows like this would be worried about how the whole thing looks to the OTHER guy.

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

What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?

---Col. Kurtz: Apocalypse Now!

[Kitch]

The "West" is not "aka the USA". The role of other nations, including Canada, goes far beyond mere "support" and lack of "objection".

It is unfair of me to label the US as the focal point of blame... but could you define "way beyond" in your attempt to disperse blame?

I hope that we're talking about the same events that the "west" is to blame for.

[Kitch]

Here we have the classic 'why would anyone hate us?' POV. An event like we're talking about would be occuring after a major attack of some sort and fellows like this would be worried about how the whole thing looks to the OTHER guy.

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

What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?

---Col. Kurtz: Apocalypse Now!

You're clearly not on a level that would enable you to accurately predict my reaction to an attack in the US... or Canada.

You're also clearly missing my point. Have at it again bud. Read a little more carefully and tell me how/why what I've said is wrong rather than weak shots at my character.

[Oleg Bach]

It is unfair of me to label the US as the focal point of blame... but could you define "way beyond" in your attempt to disperse blame?

I hope that we're talking about the same events that the "west" is to blame for.

The west has behaved badly - and now they are paying for it - Radical Islam is not a problem - those that control Islam are not religious...if you want to correct so-called radical Islam..better go to the men who stirr up the trouble...forget the mass movement - it has no mind of it's own.

[moderateamericain]

And my follow-up question is why the states that have the most fervent adherence to Christian fundamentalism, also have the highest murder rates, rates of domestic violence and divorce rates?

I simply don't believe that's true. The two cities with the Highest Murder rates are Detroit, Michigan and Washington DC. All strongly Liberal in view. Also, Christians are not blowing themselves up on a daily basis. The worst christian attack that I know of By a western christian was Timothy McVeigh. And he was hardly a christian. The video only goes after the extremist if you actually watched the video.

[Oleg Bach]

Christian funamentalists fail to grasp the true doctrines of the great teacher Christ...they are stupid - need I say more?

[Kitch]

You don't get it do you?...........i am not spewing hate other than for terrorist's........AND i said in retaliation for a major attack meaning a biological or Nuclear.....yes a nuclear strike would be warranted...........i am not to loving against terror groups who twist religion and who want to kill anyone that doesn't believe in it ..and that is exactly what these vermin (extremists) want to do...........they want to believe in Islam? great go ahead everyone has a right to believe in what they want to but when your religion threatens others then there is a problem.........while i am sure many Muslims want to live in peace and want nothing to do with violence they should put pressure on these groups to stop what they are doing and practice their religion in peace...............it wouldn't be that hard for a terrorist group to put a small nuclear device into a freighter... sail into New York Harbour and BOOM!!...............In such a case as this... the U.S. would be obligated to the use of a Nuclear response against states that support and train terrorist's.......and who the hell could blame them?..........this is a war to the end against extremist's and terrorism .....its not going to be won by blowing kisses at the terrorist's.............and besides all that.... look what 9/11 got them? Iraq and Afghanistan under U.S. control and it has Iran in its sights !

Here are some articles stating what the Nato doctrine is for a Nuclear response to a terrorist attack....i am simply giving my opinion and have no say in anything....lol.......but Western Governments are ready to act if they are attacked again and it won't be pretty read the following article!

I think I missed the part where you said this hypothetical nuclear attack would be in retaliation. I thought you meant as a preemption to attacks by 'radicals'. My bad... but my point of view doesn't change drastically.

If some one punches me in the face, you had better believe that fucker is gonna get it back. But if I'm punched in the back of the head in a crowd... turn around and really have no way of knowing with ANY certainty who did it, am I going to pick the closest clown and make myself a new enemy? (Assuming he wasn't the guy I was looking for).

Particularly with a nuclear bomb, you'd have to be a lot more sure of what you're doing... and I'd even argue that a nuclear bomb is something designed to kill far too many people to not accidentally kill people who are entirely innocent.

So, while some right-wing, red neck, kill em' all types think that I'm a liberal pussy for not advocating for lashing out immediately, my reaction would be the more prudent and just one. You can't kill people for no reason!!! You can't kill people for suspicion of anything!!!

I can show YOU articles that show how dishonest MANY people have been in the west, leading to chest beating at Iran. People have tried the exact same tactic that was used as an excuse to begin the Vietnam war. How do you attack a country based on an acknowledged lie and still claim to be justified in doing so? You can't! Do you remember that story about the Iranian fishing boat that approached an American navy ship and said "you will explode in minutes"? Well, it was all over the news at the time and painted as Iranian aggression. Did you ever see any news about how the state department/pentagon lied? Probably not. Take a look at these:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19085.htm

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/1...naval-incident/

If this is how distorted 'news' can be, then how can we trust what we hear about the islamic 'radicals'? I'm not saying at all that they're not a danger to us, but I am saying that it's worth investigating before you develop such a strong opinion. Maybe we've been lied to about how many REALLY radical people there are. Do you remember the report from US intelligence that suggested that Iran is not actively seeking nuclear weapons? Oh... here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php

Funny how quickly that was forgotten huh.

On top of THAT, you have to remind yourself of the main source of anger for muslims who hate the west. Israel. The president of Iran allegedly said that he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' while other translations have sounded VERY similar to Bush, such as 'wipe the map of the occupying regime'. Those are very different messages... but there's something to be taken from them... Israel is a point of anger!!! Why? Because of what they're doing to Palestinian people. We always hear/see on the news about Palestinian terrorists attacking Israeli cities. Don't you ever wonder why that happens? It's not simply antisemitic feelings... although that's what zionist jewish people would like you to believe.

Imagine this; you live in a nieghbourhood that is ethnically split between white and black people. Let's say the black people, with the support of the government and help of the army, begin to throw all the white people out of their houses by sending bulldozers in to destroy them. Then new houses are built and black people move in. Let's also say that the white people forced out of their homes are segregated into slums that are enclosed by huge concrete walls to keep them in. Or, the white people are simply concentrated in certain areas and THEN big concrete walls are built around them. Also suppose that the government and army restrict shipments of food into these areas and send helicopters overhead who kill people that are claimed to be 'suspicious'. How would you feel? You'd feel like a Palestinian. Imagine that was happening in a country that you felt solidarity with and another very powerful nation, that has the capability of preventing this horrible act on your people, both does not do anything to stop it and actually supports it. How would you feel then? You'd feel like a muslim person in the middle east.

This is exactly what is happening over there. The only articles that come to mind to support this are in my Adbusters magazine... but I'm sure, if you are interested/willing, you could find some information on the internet about the Israeli occupation. Now, why doesn't the US do anything? Because the small proportion of the US population that is zionist jews hold a lot of power through contributions to political parties, high ups in important companies, etc. Well, an American president cannot get elected without the support of this jewish community. Take a look at Obama who is, relative to his country, very left leaning. He's talking now like a war monger threatening to bomb Iran. Why? Because Iran wants the Israelis to leave Palestine alone and the Israelis, who have nuclear weapons, do not allow ANY criticism of their actions and attempt to hide them from the public eye. Hence why we only see bombs blowing up Israeli cities on the news. On top of THAT... Iran's president said a few weeks ago that he'd ....well, to paraphrase... would give up on his pledge of 'regime change' in Israel (notice the familiar language?). But that's nowhere to be found in the news... oh wait, Google this:

Ahmadinejad accepts Israel right to exist

How many big news corporations reported on this? Hmm. Interesting huh.

The point is two fold. 1 You can't always know who attacked you, especially if it's a "terrorist" attack... and you can't always trust the news and/or intelligence reports. And 2. The reason that these radicals exist is because of the wests support for the terrible things that Israel is doing to muslim people!

See? It's MUCH more complicated than 'threatening to bomb mecca' and hoping for the best.

[bush_cheney2004]

It is unfair of me to label the US as the focal point of blame... but could you define "way beyond" in your attempt to disperse blame?

One need only look at the history of Western civilization to know the many focal points of "blame" (if that be the intention and excuse for "radical Islam"). But even then, we know this not to be the case, as the "west" only serves as the target for "radical" and fundamentalist theology, regardless of the "west's" actual complicity. Somebody has to be the "Evil Satan".

American foreign policy has even been beneficial to "radical Islam" at times, though not by design (e.g. 1980's Afghanistan). I just think it is intellectually lazy to lay blame (if that is necessary) at the foot of the Americans given what we know about the imperialists that predated American involvement by many many years.

I hope that we're talking about the same events that the "west" is to blame for.

I don't think that matters, since Vietnamese do not currently launch suicide attacks against the "west", nor do Rwandans, or Chileans, or Ukrainains, or First Nations, or Haitians, or...well...you get the idea.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Now, why doesn't the US do anything? Because the small proportion of the US population that is zionist jews hold a lot of power through contributions to political parties, high ups in important companies, etc. Well, an American president cannot get elected without the support of this jewish community.

Nonsense.....American presidents are elected by very diversified interests and supporting electorate. The "jewish community" (sic) is only one of these.

Take a look at Obama who is, relative to his country, very left leaning. He's talking now like a war monger threatening to bomb Iran. Why? Because Iran wants the Israelis to leave Palestine alone and the Israelis, who have nuclear weapons, do not allow ANY criticism of their actions and attempt to hide them from the public eye. Hence why we only see bombs blowing up Israeli cities on the news.

More nonsense...Senator Obama is hardly a "war monger", and has only joined the EU and NATO in condemning Iran's attempts to go nuclear, regardless of Israel's capabilities and policy for Palestinians. Iran doesn't give a damn about Palestine except as a pawn to use against Israel. Israel's attacks since 1967 are well documented "in the news", if only because of anti-Israeli propaganda.

The point is two fold. 1 You can't always know who attacked you, especially if it's a "terrorist" attack... and you can't always trust the news and/or intelligence reports. And 2. The reason that these radicals exist is because of the wests support for the terrible things that Israel is doing to muslim people!

So what....the damn bombs don't care about that...on either side. A military response involving nuclear warheads has many complexities, but having to be sure who attacked isn't one of them.

See? It's MUCH more complicated than 'threatening to bomb mecca' and hoping for the best.

No..not complicated at all....we use to call it the Green Glass Parking Lot.

[wulf42]

I think I missed the part where you said this hypothetical nuclear attack would be in retaliation. I thought you meant as a preemption to attacks by 'radicals'. My bad... but my point of view doesn't change drastically.

If some one punches me in the face, you had better believe that fucker is gonna get it back. But if I'm punched in the back of the head in a crowd... turn around and really have no way of knowing with ANY certainty who did it, am I going to pick the closest clown and make myself a new enemy? (Assuming he wasn't the guy I was looking for).

Particularly with a nuclear bomb, you'd have to be a lot more sure of what you're doing... and I'd even argue that a nuclear bomb is something designed to kill far too many people to not accidentally kill people who are entirely innocent.

So, while some right-wing, red neck, kill em' all types think that I'm a liberal pussy for not advocating for lashing out immediately, my reaction would be the more prudent and just one. You can't kill people for no reason!!! You can't kill people for suspicion of anything!!!

I can show YOU articles that show how dishonest MANY people have been in the west, leading to chest beating at Iran. People have tried the exact same tactic that was used as an excuse to begin the Vietnam war. How do you attack a country based on an acknowledged lie and still claim to be justified in doing so? You can't! Do you remember that story about the Iranian fishing boat that approached an American navy ship and said "you will explode in minutes"? Well, it was all over the news at the time and painted as Iranian aggression. Did you ever see any news about how the state department/pentagon lied? Probably not. Take a look at these:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19085.htm

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/1...naval-incident/

If this is how distorted 'news' can be, then how can we trust what we hear about the islamic 'radicals'? I'm not saying at all that they're not a danger to us, but I am saying that it's worth investigating before you develop such a strong opinion. Maybe we've been lied to about how many REALLY radical people there are. Do you remember the report from US intelligence that suggested that Iran is not actively seeking nuclear weapons? Oh... here:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/03/america/cia.php

Funny how quickly that was forgotten huh.

On top of THAT, you have to remind yourself of the main source of anger for muslims who hate the west. Israel. The president of Iran allegedly said that he wants to 'wipe Israel off the map' while other translations have sounded VERY similar to Bush, such as 'wipe the map of the occupying regime'. Those are very different messages... but there's something to be taken from them... Israel is a point of anger!!! Why? Because of what they're doing to Palestinian people. We always hear/see on the news about Palestinian terrorists attacking Israeli cities. Don't you ever wonder why that happens? It's not simply antisemitic feelings... although that's what zionist jewish people would like you to believe.

Imagine this; you live in a nieghbourhood that is ethnically split between white and black people. Let's say the black people, with the support of the government and help of the army, begin to throw all the white people out of their houses by sending bulldozers in to destroy them. Then new houses are built and black people move in. Let's also say that the white people forced out of their homes are segregated into slums that are enclosed by huge concrete walls to keep them in. Or, the white people are simply concentrated in certain areas and THEN big concrete walls are built around them. Also suppose that the government and army restrict shipments of food into these areas and send helicopters overhead who kill people that are claimed to be 'suspicious'. How would you feel? You'd feel like a Palestinian. Imagine that was happening in a country that you felt solidarity with and another very powerful nation, that has the capability of preventing this horrible act on your people, both does not do anything to stop it and actually supports it. How would you feel then? You'd feel like a muslim person in the middle east.

This is exactly what is happening over there. The only articles that come to mind to support this are in my Adbusters magazine... but I'm sure, if you are interested/willing, you could find some information on the internet about the Israeli occupation. Now, why doesn't the US do anything? Because the small proportion of the US population that is zionist jews hold a lot of power through contributions to political parties, high ups in important companies, etc. Well, an American president cannot get elected without the support of this jewish community. Take a look at Obama who is, relative to his country, very left leaning. He's talking now like a war monger threatening to bomb Iran. Why? Because Iran wants the Israelis to leave Palestine alone and the Israelis, who have nuclear weapons, do not allow ANY criticism of their actions and attempt to hide them from the public eye. Hence why we only see bombs blowing up Israeli cities on the news. On top of THAT... Iran's president said a few weeks ago that he'd ....well, to paraphrase... would give up on his pledge of 'regime change' in Israel (notice the familiar language?). But that's nowhere to be found in the news... oh wait, Google this:

Ahmadinejad accepts Israel right to exist

How many big news corporations reported on this? Hmm. Interesting huh.

The point is two fold. 1 You can't always know who attacked you, especially if it's a "terrorist" attack... and you can't always trust the news and/or intelligence reports. And 2. The reason that these radicals exist is because of the wests support for the terrible things that Israel is doing to muslim people!

See? It's MUCH more complicated than 'threatening to bomb mecca' and hoping for the best.

While i am sure Israel hasn't always had the Palestinian 's welfare in mind.....that doesn't give groups like Al-Qaeda the right to fly jetliners into buildings and kill thousands who have nothing to do with what happens in the middle east................all Al-Qaeda has done has created hatred in the west towards them...........and if they were trying to gain support other than from terrorist states they failed .................You say we can't just attack countries at random...........but we know for a fact terrorists are trained armed..and encouraged by Iran and Syria..........and even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...their Governments try to keep the U.S.A. happy by saying one thing but allow terrorist groups free reign inside their borders.........and to openly train and teach hate in their mosques.............these terrorist don't just come out of thin air.............the CIA knows where these guys are and they know where they training.......only now is the USA starting to hit them inside Pakistan........and look what the Pakistani's do............freak out and fire on US troops.............i realize the U.S. is going into a Soveign nation but if Pakistan isn't going to kill the terrorist's the U.S. will.............this is the same crap America had to face in Vietnam the Viet Cong would strike American troops in Vietnam then go run across the border and hide in Laos where they knew the U.S. couldn't follow them............today terrrorist have to know we will kill them wherever they are........whereever they train.....sleep ...........give them no rest give them no peace........until they all rest in Peace!

Edited October 13, 2008 by wulf42

[Oleg Bach]

While i am sure Israel hasn't always had the Palestinian 's welfare in mind.....that doesn't give groups like Al-Qaeda the right to fly jetliners into buildings and kill thousands who have nothing to do with what happens in the middle east................all Al-Qaeda has done has created hatred in the west towards them...........and if they were trying to gain support other than from terrorist states they failed .................You say we can't just attack countries at random...........but we know for a fact terrorists are trained armed..and encouraged by Iran and Syria..........and even Pakistan and Saudi Arabia...their Governments try to keep the U.S.A. happy by saying one thing but allow terrorist groups free reign inside their borders.........and to openly train and teach hate in their mosques.............these terrorist don't just come out of thin air.............the CIA knows where these guys are and they know where they training.......only now is the USA starting to hit them inside Pakistan........and look what the Pakistani's do............freak out and fire on US troops.............i realize the U.S. is going into a Soveign nation but if Pakistan isn't going to kill the terrorist's the U.S. will.............this is the same crap America had to face in Vietnam the Viet Cong would strike American troops in Vietnam then go run across the border and hide in Laos where they knew the U.S. couldn't follow them............today terrrorist have to know we will kill them wherever they are........whereever they train.....sleep ...........give them no rest give them no peace........until they all rest in Peace!

You have a problem. The CIA in my estimation is fully privatized at this point in history...and THEY have a problem - they betrayed so many and have become so dishonourable that no one is willing to share information with these bandits - An intelligence agent is only as effective as his wealth of information - seeing they have lost the trust of almost all informers they are pretty much ineffective...Honour is important to macho eastern types and the CIA is all out of honour.

Those that stir up strife using religion are for the most part not believers in anything other than power for powers sake - power withoug purpose and that is a problem also. Now as far as realism goes when dealing with terrorists...look at this premise...IF a person is paid to murder who do you go after to seek retribution and punitive damage? - The trigger man or the person who signs the cheque that facilitates and inspires the crime - YOU go after who financed the mission - America did NOT go after the Saudis - they attacked their henchmen - this is either stupid reactionaryism - or they are afraid to deal realistically with the creeps that butter the bread of American oil merchants....THAT is your real problem - not some fanatic - or mercenary - they are not the problem - It is the person that makes it happen that has to be dealth sternly with - but that is not going to happen - THAT will always be the main problem - You do not attack your friends even if they murder 3000 of your citizens to amuse themselves.

[JB Globe]

You are obviously an idiot..............

Well if the resident board troll thinks so, it must be true.

it is the likes of you that these people get away with the things they do!

So my commitment to disrupting and containing terrorist networks through intelligence, good police work, and building public support against terrorism is the reason that terrorists do what they do?

That's cute. Now why don't you connect the dots and show me how? I mean, I'm an idiot and you're a self-proclaimed genius - it should be extremely simple for you.

[JB Globe]

The difference is until those maggots attacked the world trade center.... blah blah blah

I think he was asking you what is the MORAL difference between someone who advocates terrorism versus someone who advocates NUCLEAR GENOCIDE as a response to terrorism.

[wulf42]

You know the sad part to Islamic extremism or any religious extremism...is that it is likely all for nothing........religion is (in my opinion) simply a waste of time.......i know that will ruffle feathers............but scientific research suggests that when we die .we die!! thats it .........no 20 virgins or playing harps or Pearly Gates nonsense......or whatever else your religion teaches..........it is very likely ... matter of fact most likely that religion was simply created to make the coming of death to be more pallitable.... just like when you are a kid we are taught to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny as time goes on you realize the truth......nobody likes to think of death as the end but scientifically it probably is! ..with no afterlife....i hope i am wrong but according to most scientists worldwide i am not..........so my point is killing in the name of religion ..any religion is absolutely unwarranted......if the human race would realize we are here only for a short while and that at death there is no after existance.... then life while we are here would be more peaceful and different races would co-exist without all the problems.

[DogOnPorch]

You're clearly not on a level that would enable you to accurately predict my reaction to an attack in the US... or Canada.

You're also clearly missing my point. Have at it again bud. Read a little more carefully and tell me how/why what I've said is wrong rather than weak shots at my character.

Yeah, right. If it was the 1930s, we'd be hearing about moderate fascists and how they really aren't all that bad.

PS: I'm not your 'bud'.

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

Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.

---John Wayne

[Kitch]

Yeah, right. If it was the 1930s, we'd be hearing about moderate fascists and how they really aren't all that bad.

PS: I'm not your 'bud'.

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

Tomorrow hopes we have learned something from yesterday.

---John Wayne

You're still not going to read my post(s) again and try to form an intelligent rebuttal are you? Well, ridiculing me does little to support your point of view. So, whatever's clever, bud.

PS: I know.

Edited October 13, 2008 by Kitch

[Kitch]

You know the sad part to Islamic extremism or any religious extremism...is that it is likely all for nothing........religion is (in my opinion) simply a waste of time.......i know that will ruffle feathers............but scientific research suggests that when we die .we die!! thats it .........no 20 virgins or playing harps or Pearly Gates nonsense......or whatever else your religion teaches..........it is very likely ... matter of fact most likely that religion was simply created to make the coming of death to be more pallitable.... just like when you are a kid we are taught to believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny as time goes on you realize the truth......nobody likes to think of death as the end but scientifically it probably is! ..with no afterlife....i hope i am wrong but according to most scientists worldwide i am not..........so my point is killing in the name of religion ..any religion is absolutely unwarranted......if the human race would realize we are here only for a short while and that at death there is no after existance.... then life while we are here would be more peaceful and different races would co-exist without all the problems.

I sympathize with your thoughts... I really do. I am a strong atheist myself and am furiously anti-religion. I agree that if people would realize that we're better off as a species without it... we'd be better off.

But I have to say, you can't make claims like you have... in this post and past ones. I am a science teacher and have worked in world class research facilities at the University of Toronto under some world renowned scientists, so I have a good understanding of what science is and what it isn't. There could be no scientific evidence that refutes an afterlife. It's just not something that people can evaluate using scientific tools (not equipment, the mode of inquiry). So you can't make claims that scientific research suggests that when we die, we die. I believe that, but also know that it's not something that is 'testable'.

On that note, I have a feeling that your posts about what 'radical islamists' are all about, why they do what they do, how many of them there are, etc. are as carefully thought out as the one above. I tried to point out to you that the information available out there must be scrutinized most carefully. I gave you examples in history which illustrate the dishonesty of government agents and media outlets. I gave you examples in history that, at least attempt to, explain why 'radical islamists' do what they do... the whole Isreali occupation thing... which, in itself is information that must be scrutinized.

What you are doing is stating beliefs that are presumably based on shady information. Those beliefs don't hold well to logic and if acted upon can lead to serious consequences... so you had BETTER be sure of what you're advocating for. Dude, just read some more. Find out as much information as you can with the realization that you may very well NEVER know the answers that you're looking for. And because of that, you can't act on suspicion. Otherwise, you could be a murderer rather than a defender. Or... a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter.

[Kitch]

One need only look at the history of Western civilization to know the many focal points of "blame" (if that be the intention and excuse for "radical Islam"). But even then, we know this not to be the case, as the "west" only serves as the target for "radical" and fundamentalist theology, regardless of the "west's" actual complicity. Somebody has to be the "Evil Satan".

American foreign policy has even been beneficial to "radical Islam" at times, though not by design (e.g. 1980's Afghanistan). I just think it is intellectually lazy to lay blame (if that is necessary) at the foot of the Americans given what we know about the imperialists that predated American involvement by many many years.

I don't think that matters, since Vietnamese do not currently launch suicide attacks against the "west", nor do Rwandans, or Chileans, or Ukrainains, or First Nations, or Haitians, or...well...you get the idea.

My intention is not only to highlight possible reasons for the anger that is felt in some circles for the west. It is also to show that the west cannot assume to have gold standard morals enabling 'us' to both look so poorly on other people and punish them for doing things that 'we' have done in the past... and perhaps are still doing. We bring too many big rocks into our lovely glass house.

No, citizens of those countries do not blow themselves up. But people of those countries had to endure some terrible atrocities... such as the Vietcong, to whom you refer. Although, it was the innocent people of Laos that paid the biggest price, isn't it? Sure people wanted to chase those who were firing weapons at them. But the US, rather than killing only those responsible, killed everyone around... and somehow felt justified??? Disgusting.

THAT is my main point. Look in the mirror before you judge others.