2 +2 + ?

[gsvol]

Sadly I believe they are quiet because they know they could very well fall victim to their brothers who are extremists.

There you encapsulated the whole of Islam = submission.

The really sad part is that those who are not muslims seem to either be afraid to speak out or are just to ignorant to know.

 

[therealUT]

I understand his point.......but my point is people are getting killed in droves, what do we do....play nice and say ok, there's 2 billion of you who are ok but these 500,000 are dead set on killing the rest of mankind? The number, IMO, is simply too large to do nothing but wait and die. Like I said before, we aren't dealing with 8 guys in a cabin in Montana....this is worldwide, in massive numbers, and if we play a waiting game, we're gonna lose big time....& this isn't a football game we're playing. It's about our lives and the lives of one's we love.

So, you want to alienate 2 billion people in order to annihilate 500,000? That does not seem like a welcome trade off in my mind.

The easiest way to combat the current spread of Islamo-fascist terrorism against the West is to heighten our humint capabilities. Aside from that, our only other viable options are reducing our dependency upon Arab energy or using total war tactics against those nations and organizations who overtly act in aggression towards our interests.

If we pursue the latter option, then are action must be swift, agressive, precise, and direct. It must focus, foremost, on those who actually committed the acts of war / terrorism against our interests and those who immediately and actively support them.

Seperating those who passively support the terrorists into groups who actually believe in the cause and would be willing to fight for it if called and those who simply do so in exchange for the security and safety their passive support provides for their families is a task that is nearly impossible. When confronted with the choice, it is better to err on the side of benevolence with this group.

 

[therealUT]

I don't think you can tell one from another.

At least 80% of the time, these can be distinguished.

 

[gsvol]

Well I know you were being funny posting like gs so I wasn't going to read you two going at it being long winded on purpose. But thanks for calling me unitelligent. That was really cool of you.

Compared to what? To make such a statement you must compare Islam to like institutions.

Is Islam in dogma, doctrine, and history perverse compared to Christianity? No. Judaism? No.

Does Islam, in 2009, resemble theo-political organizations of the Middle Ages? Yes.

Here is the statement I was talking about. I don't think you have to compare Islam to anything to call it perverse. Why would you? If seeing literally dozens, sometimes hundreds of people killed daily in the name of Islam doesn't make it perverse, I don't know what does.

It's neither the dogma, doctrine, nor history that is blowing people up or shooting them. It's LARGE numbers of crazy Islamist extremist.

unrealut brought the word perverse into the discussion, saying my view was perverse.

That wasn't really the topic, just another attempt by unreal to derail the discussion.

bin-Laden and the like aren't high jacking the religion, they are trying to revive the zeal of their religious military and political movement to it's early history of conquest.

Then issues get clouded because other political movements who advocate the overthrow of any decent government in the world, cooperate with and encourage islamic unrest.

Which may or may not be Islamic principles depending on which Muslim you ask. This goes back to the point he was trying to make.

Islamic principles are thus; it isn't just a religion, it is a political force and a set prescribed law system.

The goal is worldwide domination with a Caliph at the head with local imans to administer their rule.

As far back as the 1920s Islamic missionaries from abroad unblushingly declared, "Our plan is, we are going to conquer America."

Zaid Shakir, formerly the Muslim chaplain at Yale University, believes the Koran "pushes us in the exact opposite direction as the forces at work in the American political spectrum" and from this argues that Muslims cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing order.

Siraj Wahaj, the first imam to deliver a Muslim prayer for the U.S. House of Representatives, held that if Muslims
unite, they could elect their own leader as president; "take my word, if 6-8 million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us."

Well guess what??

I understand his point.......but my point is people are getting killed in droves, what do we do....play nice and say ok, there's 2 billion of you who are ok but these 500,000 are dead set on killing the rest of mankind? The number, IMO, is simply too large to do nothing but wait and die. Like I said before, we aren't dealing with 8 guys in a cabin in Montana....this is worldwide, in massive numbers, and if we play a waiting game, we're gonna lose big time....& this isn't a football game we're playing. It's about our lives and the lives of one's we love.

How true, but I laughing at your analogy.

I agree, trying for a 'Hail Mary' the last play doesn't seem like that great of a game plan.

 

[rockytophigh]

So, you want to alienate 2 billion people in order to annihilate 500,000? That does not seem like a welcome trade off in my mind.

The easiest way to combat the current spread of Islamo-fascist terrorism against the West is to heighten our humint capabilities. Aside from that, our only other viable options are reducing our dependency upon Arab energy or using total war tactics against those nations and organizations who overtly act in aggression towards our interests.

If we pursue the latter option, then are action must be swift, agressive, precise, and direct. It must focus, foremost, on those who actually committed the acts of war / terrorism against our interests and those who immediately and actively support them.

Seperating those who passively support the terrorists into groups who actually believe in the cause and would be willing to fight for it if called and those who simply do so in exchange for the security and safety their passive support provides for their families is a task that is nearly impossible. When confronted with the choice, it is better to err on the side of benevolence with this group.

Now that is the post I was waiting to hear. Excellent points all the way around. I'm not sure we have the capabilities to use our intel to defend us from the "big one". I recognize that up until today, we have thrwarted whatever plans they have made in regards to a nuclear or biological attack....but it just takes one. I don't claim to have the answers....but dialog like this is necessary I think.

I completely agree with ending our dependence on foreign oil. IMO we can't get down that road fast enough.

 

[therealUT]

Now that is the post I was waiting to hear. Excellent points all the way around. I'm not sure we have the capabilities to use our intel to defend us from the "big one". I recognize that up until today, we have thrwarted whatever plans they have made in regards to a nuclear or biological attack....but it just takes one. I don't claim to have the answers....but dialog like this is necessary I think.

I completely agree with ending our dependence on foreign oil. IMO we can't get down that road fast enough.

I think the nuclear element is overblown. I cannot see even a rogue nation like Iran handing over any weapon, in which they have invested an incredible amount of effort (in both capital and deceit), to the tactical leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist group. The leaders of these groups are not exactly stable personalities and they do not take direct guidance and/or orders from nations (though, they often do act in accordance with the desires of Iran).

If Iran is going to deploy a nuclear weapon, then I believe they will deploy it in a conventional manner. I believe the same about N. Korea and, especially, about Russia (not exactly a friend of Islamo-fascists).

The global terrorist organizations are very decentralized. Their connection, through their name, is one based more on ideology than on actual rank and file membership. When their large scale, complex, and apparently well organized attacks are pulled off, they are usually found to be the absolute opposite of sophisticaed, in hindsight. Boxcutters and bombs that almost anyone with the will and a few connections can make at home have been their MO.

Unfortunately, for the West, these tactics do exactly what the terrorists intend. They terrify the populace and lead governments and citizens to push for irrational measures of protection. At times, they lead to a response, both militarily and by vocal citizens, which galvanize some of the fence sitters in the Arab world to turn against the West...leading to a few more recruits here and there.

How to fight this? Long term presence in the Middle East certainly helps. This means that decision makers have to wage war in territories that can easily be self-sustaining. No such presence can take place, under a democratic/republic, in which there is no return on investment. Citizens get restless and politicians change their votes in order to stay in power.

I would like to see us take the fight to Saudis. The Wahabbi sect of Islam is indeed very radical and very anti-"Infidel". The Wahabbi are also very keen on "evangelisation" and push out through the Arab world, "converting" and recruiting the less fortunate and the displaced.

 

[rockytophigh]

I think the nuclear element is overblown. I cannot see even a rogue nation like Iran handing over any weapon, in which they have invested an incredible amount of effort (in both capital and deceit), to the tactical leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, or any other terrorist group. The leaders of these groups are not exactly stable personalities and they do not take direct guidance and/or orders from nations (though, they often do act in accordance with the desires of Iran).

If Iran is going to deploy a nuclear weapon, then I believe they will deploy it in a conventional manner. I believe the same about N. Korea and, especially, about Russia (not exactly a friend of Islamo-fascists).

The global terrorist organizations are very decentralized. Their connection, through their name, is one based more on ideology than on actual rank and file membership. When their large scale, complex, and apparently well organized attacks are pulled off, they are usually found to be the absolute opposite of sophisticaed, in hindsight. Boxcutters and bombs that almost anyone with the will and a few connections can make at home have been their MO.

Unfortunately, for the West, these tactics do exactly what the terrorists intend. They terrify the populace and lead governments and citizens to push for irrational measures of protection. At times, they lead to a response, both militarily and by vocal citizens, which galvanize some of the fence sitters in the Arab world to turn against the West...leading to a few more recruits here and there.

How to fight this? Long term presence in the Middle East certainly helps. This means that decision makers have to wage war in territories that can easily be self-sustaining. No such presence can take place, under a democratic/republic, in which there is no return on investment. Citizens get restless and politicians change their votes in order to stay in power.

I would like to see us take the fight to Saudis. The Wahabbi sect of Islam is indeed very radical and very anti-"Infidel". The Wahabbi are also very keen on "evangelisation" and push out through the Arab world, "converting" and recruiting the less fortunate and the displaced.

Wolves in sheep's clothing indeed....but right now, we need the oil. Drill, more hydrogen/electric cars, increased use of wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear energies should start today. We should start construction on new refineries yesterday.

 

[gsvol]

I would like to see us take the fight to Saudis. The Wahabbi sect of Islam is indeed very radical and very anti-"Infidel". The Wahabbi are also very keen on "evangelisation" and push out through the Arab world, "converting" and recruiting the less fortunate and the displaced.

Now you are finally starting to make some sense.

Unfortunately we are doing just the opposite, we have now in the neighborhood of 800 radical Saudi funded Imans preaching their wahibbist islamic hate message in mosques here in America and if read the cards right, the present administration intends to give refuge in America to an undetermined number of those poor victimized, peace loving hamas members from Palestine.

The latest.

 

[KB5252]

Now you are finally starting to make some sense.

Unfortunately we are doing just the opposite, we have now in the neighborhood of 800 radical Saudi funded Imans preaching their wahibbist islamic hate message in mosques here in America and if read the cards right, the present administration intends to give refuge in America to an undetermined number of those poor victimized, peace loving hamas members from Palestine.

The latest.

This is where it gets difficult to fight extremists, when they are here in the US and live under the freedoms we enjoy. It makes it very hard for local authorities to stop them from setting up shop.

 

[gsvol]

This is where it gets difficult to fight extremists, when they are here in the US and live under the freedoms we enjoy. It makes it very hard for local authorities to stop them from setting up shop.

We definitely need to immediately stop following the European liberal model of dealing with the problem.

Of course that won't happen with this administration and so far Republicans aren't much help although Steele may make some very needed changes to the leadership of that party.

"That which is called humanism, but what would be more correctly called irreligious anthropocentrism, cannot yield answers to the most essential questions of our life."
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

We are asking the blind to lead us out of a dead end alley if we are to depend on government to solve our problems.

An example, statement by Hitlary Clinton, US Secretary
of State on visiting the Chinese head of state; "I don't have time to dwell on human rights, we have to deal with the economic crisis and the climate crisis."