Why We Have to Fight

[Canadian Blue]

Based on your response, I am more intelligent than you. Since I can actually comprehend that a massive war against religion is genocidal at it's core, and would mean 21% of the world becoming our enemy, even if they never once supported terrorism.

[ScottSA]

Based on your response, I am. Unfortunately you can't comprehend the difference between an attack which was supported by a government [Japan] and a terrorist group which attack's civilian's. Two different scenario's.

Your comparing a country attacking another country, with a terrorist organization which was sheltered by one nation [Afghanistan] which attacked America.

Ah, here comes the backpedalling and nitpicking. Seems to me that Islam, and in particular Wahabbist Islam, has national bases. One such base was Afghanistan. Another is Saudi Arabia. Iran is taking advantage of the situation to advance its own cause. That's how these world wars get swirling into a vortex involving quite a bit more than they started out involving. Please note that the immediate enemy in WW II were the axis powers, but that the war was fought as far south as africa and even Australia, all over asia, from Burma to China to India, throughout Europe, and I believe the Japanese even managed to drop a balloon bomb on the US at one point. So nitpicking about who doesn't change the what.

[Canadian Blue]

Ah, here comes the backpedalling and nitpicking. Seems to me that Islam, and in particular Wahabbist Islam, has national bases. One such base was Afghanistan.

Which was already invaded.

Another is Saudi Arabia.

Never going to happen, do you know how much of the US Saudi Arabia probably own's. The fact that America has been allies of Saudi Arabia for a long time doesn't help your case.

That's how these world wars get swirling into a vortex involving quite a bit more than they started out involving.

So we invade Saudi Arabia, which happen's to be one of America's allies. We declare war on Islam, which once again probably won't offend the people outside of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. That makes so much sense now, except for the fact that Saudi Arabia have been allies of the US for a long time.

Please note that the immediate enemy in WW II were the axis powers, but that the war was fought as far south as africa and even Australia, all over asia, from Burma to China to India, throughout Europe, and I believe the Japanese even managed to drop a balloon bomb on the US at one point.

Italy was in North Africa, was getting beaten, then the German's came in. Once again that's a nation not the equivalent of terrorist's in caves. As for the Japanese, once again, that's a nation, not a terrorist group plotting in a cave. To compare the action's of a nation's government to that of a terrorist group is pure folly. The reason why is doing such would more likely create more enemies in that nation, if we invade Iran and Saudi Arabia we'll be faced with a brutal guerilla war for decades.

It's not backpedaling ScottSA, it's pointing out the obvious. A soveriegn nation is different from a terrorist group. The only person backpedaling here is you, first you said you wanted a large scale war against Islam, yet now you have it narrowed down to a few countries.

Do you want this war to be against the Muslim Brotherhood?

[scribblet]

I agree. That's why the "War against Terror" plays so much kinder and gentler to the multicult ear, but its rather like the US declaring a "War against Bombers" following Pearl harbour. The war truly is against Islam...it's only a matter of time before the west finally admits it.

It is not against all of Islam, only the radical variety which may be a minority, but has the loudest voice and is heard. All you have to do is read up on what is happening in Britain et al, to know that unless they integrate better into western society, there will always be a problem. As the numbers increase, so do the demands for Sharia Law and demands for our society to change. Take this ruling in Germany for example where the Judge cites the Koran in rejecting divorce. Since when should the Koran take precedence over the laws of the land.

FRANKFURT: A German judge has stirred a storm of protest here by citing the Koran in turning down a German Muslim wife's request for a fast-track divorce on the ground that her husband beat her.

Not to mention people who do speak out have to deal with death threats.

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp...&story_id=38109

Hirsi Ali under threat in US

27 March 2007

AMSTERDAM – Former MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali is now in danger in the US as well. Her security has been stepped up for the past three weeks. Because of concrete threats, she is now receiving the same level of protection as she previously needed in the Netherlands, the Volkskrant reports.

[scribblet]

Further to this, it looks like Buddhists are getting fed up with the Islamic insurgency - how will this all end, and can gov'ts stop the spread of the radical insurgencies?>

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/214/story_21483_1.html

1,000 Buddhists Rally in Thailand Against Muslim Insurgents

Associated Press

Print Page

Saba Yoi, Thailand - Hundreds of Buddhists rallied in Thailand's restive south Monday in anger over a bloody Islamic insurgency amid fears it could erupt into a sectarian battle between religious communities, officials said.

Protesters demanded that civilians be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves, and urged authorities to resist pressure from Muslims to withdraw soldiers and police from Songkhla province's Saba Yoi district.

Army spokesman Col. Akara Thiprot said Monday's rally was the largest in three years, and estimated more than 1,000 Buddhists joined the protest.

[PolyNewbie]

For people sick of all the lies and BS, visit StopLying.ca. There are many free documentaries, some from the 60's and even earlier.

Very informative. CIA and US military people have videos posted on this site.

John Perkins has a 3 video talk on his book, confessions Of An Economic Hit Man.

Many of the people fighting and dying in these wars have never heard of Standard Oil or the Federal Reserve and don't even know what a corporation even is. Most have never injected heroine into their arm.

[M.Dancer]

were killed, and just over 1 million soldiers.

Then we have both Iraq wars. The ratio is huge.

Nonsense.

The first Iraq war the death toll of military to civilians was comparable to the non representitive World war Two figures......why world Two is non representitive? Because huge armies came from nations that suffered considerable military mortalities, had civilian populations untouched by war.

Desert Storm saw at least 25,000 miltary fatalities. Iraq claims that around 2,300 civilians were killed during the war.

The second Gulf war also saw heavy military casualties and a much smaller proportion of civilan deaths. Since the fall of the Baathists, the majority of the mortalities have been civilians and inflicted by civilians.

[ScottSA]

Ah, here comes the backpedalling and nitpicking. Seems to me that Islam, and in particular Wahabbist Islam, has national bases. One such base was Afghanistan.

Which was already invaded.

Another is Saudi Arabia.

Never going to happen, do you know how much of the US Saudi Arabia probably own's. The fact that America has been allies of Saudi Arabia for a long time doesn't help your case.

That's how these world wars get swirling into a vortex involving quite a bit more than they started out involving.

So we invade Saudi Arabia, which happen's to be one of America's allies. We declare war on Islam, which once again probably won't offend the people outside of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. That makes so much sense now, except for the fact that Saudi Arabia have been allies of the US for a long time.

Please note that the immediate enemy in WW II were the axis powers, but that the war was fought as far south as africa and even Australia, all over asia, from Burma to China to India, throughout Europe, and I believe the Japanese even managed to drop a balloon bomb on the US at one point.

Italy was in North Africa, was getting beaten, then the German's came in. Once again that's a nation not the equivalent of terrorist's in caves. As for the Japanese, once again, that's a nation, not a terrorist group plotting in a cave. To compare the action's of a nation's government to that of a terrorist group is pure folly. The reason why is doing such would more likely create more enemies in that nation, if we invade Iran and Saudi Arabia we'll be faced with a brutal guerilla war for decades.

It's not backpedaling ScottSA, it's pointing out the obvious. A soveriegn nation is different from a terrorist group. The only person backpedaling here is you, first you said you wanted a large scale war against Islam, yet now you have it narrowed down to a few countries.

Do you want this war to be against the Muslim Brotherhood?

Will you do me a personal favor and do two things? No, three.

1 Read history, at least the google version, before leaping on each post I make and blabbering at speed. The fact that something is hard or awful does not make it impossible.

2 Try to understand that, as I have tried repeatedly to explain to you, I am not "calling for war". As I have pointed out countless times, I am simply pointing out that we ARE at war.

3 Learn when to apply apostrophes. They are not mines, and do not need to be laid throughout the text every time an "s" pops its head up. Visit here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

[Canadian Blue]

1 Read history, at least the google version, before leaping on each post I make and blabbering at speed. The fact that something is hard or awful does not make it impossible.

So Italy and Germany never had military forces in North Africa.

2 Try to understand that, as I have tried repeatedly to explain to you, I am not "calling for war". As I have pointed out countless times, I am simply pointing out that we ARE at war.

Except it's a war that I haven't heard of, and from what I've read we were fighting terrorist groups not Islam.

3 Learn when to apply apostrophes. They are not mines, and do not need to be laid throughout the text every time an "s" pops its head up. Visit here: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/grammar/g_apost.html

Sorry that you don't know how to debate so you need to resort to giving me the definition apostrophe. Thank's for giving me the definition, and I'll teach you something about being rational and why you shouldn't be afraid of brown people.

[Catchme]

I'll teach you something about being rational and why you shouldn't be afraid of brown people.

That is really what it comes down to, eh? But truthfully, they really need to go to their local library and get some, Historical DVD's regarding history of the Middle East.

It was Persians/Ottomans, and their knowledge and abilities that started the Renaissance, which lead to western advancements, in: art, inventions, military activities, science, or so called advancements.

Some are being sucked into, because of their bigotry, support for a complete global hegmony by the few.

[Canadian Blue]

Catchme, you and me rarely agree, but I agree with you on this one. If you look at history in earlier days the the Islamic world in some cases was more tolerant than Christian society.

Catchme, I was referring to ScottSA's belief that the western world will be engulfed in a civil war due to Islam.

[BC_chick]

People who bring up Muslim atrocities as the reason for "why we fight" would be taken more seriously if the leaders whom you claim are fighting this "fight" would give one iota of the same criticism toward their so-called allies. You know, the fundamentalist wahhabis? You know the fundamentalist war lords in Pakistan? If the "fight" was truly against fundamentalism, SA should have been the starting point for launching "the fight." As far as I know, however, they have not even been scolded.

I agree. That's why the "War against Terror" plays so much kinder and gentler to the multicult ear, but its rather like the US declaring a "War against Bombers" following Pearl harbour. The war truly is against Islam...it's only a matter of time before the west finally admits it.

Even though my only point was to prove the "why we fight" rationale wrong, you've tweaked my curiosity here. I bite - how do you propose a war against a religion should be fought?

[Argus]

You're not very smart, are you?

Neither of them are. You're just realizing this now? Why are you wasting your time?

[Argus]

I'll teach you something about being rational and why you shouldn't be afraid of brown people.

That is really what it comes down to, eh? But truthfully, they really need to go to their local library and get some, Historical DVD's regarding history of the Middle East.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

God forbid you'd suggest people READ a history BOOK, never having read one yourself. The sniveling and whining and hand wringing from the left on this thread is just classic.

[Vancouver King]

You're not very smart, are you?

Neither of them are. You're just realizing this now? Why are you wasting your time?

And your personal slurs and attacks constitute wisdom do they? For someone with profound mental issues you seem a tad judgemental.

[Canadian Blue]

Considering ScottSA seems to have problems with his masculinity, I don't really feel the sting from his insults.

[Catchme]

Catchme, you and me rarely agree, but I agree with you on this one. If you look at history in earlier days the the Islamic world in some cases was more tolerant than Christian society.

Catchme, I was referring to ScottSA's belief that the western world will be engulfed in a civil war due to Islam.

Yes, historically, until the Dome of the Rock was threatened, Islam has been more tolerant and passive than "Christians". But then most do not understand the Sunni Shia Muslim controversy either.

The lack of historical knowledge by some here is astounding, particularily when they makes claims they no differently but never provide proof.

Why on earth would the western world be engulfed in a civil war due to Islam?

[Canadian Blue]

What I'd prefer to do is find out why this radicalism has actually built up in the Islamic world.

I'm also tiring of hearing the old "terrorist's hate freedom" bit, because nobody hates us due to our democratic process. I think it may have more to do with Israel/Palestine, and the intervention into some parts of the middle east by the west for economic gain.

[scribblet]

Islam may have been culturally ahead but not now, and was always aggressive. The Persians invaded Europe in order to conquer the Greeks in the 5th century B.C.

Islam had conquered the bulk of western Arabia and what is now southern Palestine via a dozen or so various invasions and bloody conquests. After Mohammed's death in 632, the new Caliph, Abu Bakr, started Islam into almost 1,500 years of continual imperialist, bloody conquests and subjugation of others through invasion and war, a role radical Islam appears to be continuing today.

People seem to ignore the 450 years of Muslim aggression prior to the crusades preferring to lay the blame on Europe. Christians were made slaves and eunuchs for the Caliphs, churches were burned sacked etc.

Maybe their anger is as much against their own impotence and corrupt backward governments and the failure of their culture and way of life as compared to the West.

[Remiel]

Islam may have been culturally ahead but not now, and was always aggressive. The Persians invaded Europe in order to conquer the Greeks in the 5th century B.C. .

Well, there was this guy named Alexander, and his dad Phillip the Macedonian... Exactly how far to the east did his empire stretch? Oh yeah, India. Real passive, that guy.

[ScottSA]

What I'd prefer to do is find out why this radicalism has actually built up in the Islamic world.

I'm also tiring of hearing the old "terrorist's hate freedom" bit, because nobody hates us due to our democratic process. I think it may have more to do with Israel/Palestine, and the intervention into some parts of the middle east by the west for economic gain.

It's impossible for some people to get their heads around the idea that other people don't share their paradigms. To you, the desire for "peace" is self-evident. It's unthinklable to you, as evidenced by your attitude toward Virtu and male aggression, that others hold some things higher than peace. Islam, and in particular Wahobbism holds MOST things higher than peace. Talk of "peace" has a certain amount of currency for UN talkshops and CAIR/CAIR-Can agitprop, but outside of that radical Islam has very little utility for peace.

It's the same for the appeaser faction prior to WW II. They assumed, from Chamberlain to Baldwin, that Hitler really wanted peace, and that if they redressed the alleged problems issuing from Versailles, that he would join the "community of nations" and be a productive member. So while they dreamed of disarmament treaties and angled for friendship with Hitler, Hitler rearmed with abandon. But what the appeaser faction didn't understand, and some of them never did understand, even after the war, is that Hitler wasn't "insane", or so devilish that he just lied for the sake of it, but that he lived in an entirely different paradigm; a paradigm where peace was at best incidental and at worst counterproductive to the aryan superman ideal he sought, built by hardship and struggle. Hitler WANTED war; if not with the west, at least with the east. His highest point of consideration was not the "peace" of Chamberlain, it was leibenstrau for the German volk. He built his armed forces for the expressed intention of attacking Russia; he outlined that as early as the 1920s.

But, like your view of Islam, no one believed Hitler even though he told them what he was going to do. It just didn't fit with their world view, so they threw it out and went searching for other reasons which fit their way of thinking. Like you and the left in a constant search for reasons that make sense to you for the attack by Islam..."imperialism, poverty, ignorance" and so on...notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden and everyone else on the side of Islam has been looking you in the eye for 5 or 6 years, telling you precisely why they want to kill you.

What you consider "freedom", they consider decadence. What you consider "rights", like gay marriage and equal opportunity for women, they consider abhorrent and against the law of God. And they don't want peace, because peace amounts to the status quo. They want war, because only through war can they bring back the Caliphate. And ironically, the folks who think like you are the very first ones they'll line up against the wall. They don't want "compromise"; how can mere humans compromise with the willl of God? God doesn't compromise, because he's right.

They are not living in the same philosophical world as you are. Trying to understand radical Islam by applying your reason to it won't work. It's not Bush, or Israel or imperialism or Haliburton or poverty or ignorance. It's Islam.

[ScottSA]

Islam may have been culturally ahead but not now, and was always aggressive. The Persians invaded Europe in order to conquer the Greeks in the 5th century B.C. .

Well, there was this guy named Alexander, and his dad Phillip the Macedonian... Exactly how far to the east did his empire stretch? Oh yeah, India. Real passive, that guy.

He attacked persia for the same reason Rome attacked Carthage. Read some history.

[Remiel]

He went all the way to India. What did Persia have to do with him crossing half the known world, since at that point he'd already defeated the Persians?

[Catchme]

What I'd prefer to do is find out why this radicalism has actually built up in the Islamic world.

I'm also tiring of hearing the old "terrorist's hate freedom" bit, because nobody hates us due to our democratic process. I think it may have more to do with Israel/Palestine, and the intervention into some parts of the middle east by the west for economic gain.

Societies under threat and destruction have little to fall back on, other than war/violence. This happens to be a exploitation of those by corrupt peoples who called themselves "religious" leaders, in as much as the Inquisitions and Holy Wars were.

I concurr.

[White Doors]

Scalpel Stat!