Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Islam - Jihad - GWOT

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by copenhagen View Post
    I think this little gem says it all really. And a good place to finish.
    How many Germans/Italians to were killed to subdue Fascism?

    How many Japanese were killed before we subdued bushido?

    How is the scourge of Islam any different than these other violent and blood thirsty ideologies?
    Last edited by Tater; 16 Sep 09, 15:23.
    Later - Tater
    "Why I have a greater affinity to Israel than to the Muslim world after 9/11: Watching a death-match fight on Animal Planet once, I found myself instinctively rooting for the mammal over the reptile."

    Comment


    • Mohammed is most popular name for baby boys in London

      Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys born in London and three other English regions, official Government figures have shown.

      London is not the first European capital to see Mohammed become the number one name for baby boys. In Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo the name has already gained the top slot.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...in-London.html

      We will fight them on the beaches of... Iraq while they take over our beaches in Europe.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Imperial View Post
        Mohammed is most popular name for baby boys in London

        Mohammed is now the most common name for baby boys born in London and three other English regions, official Government figures have shown.

        London is not the first European capital to see Mohammed become the number one name for baby boys. In Brussels, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo the name has already gained the top slot.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...in-London.html

        We will fight them on the beaches of... Iraq while they take over our beaches in Europe.
        Indeed Europe does have a demographics problem no doubt as I think certain areas are about a kind of pseudo if not defacto colonisation which will lead to major social unrest. Why because the liberal mantra of multi culturalism encourages a seperation of cultures, a lack of desire to integrate and ghettoisation. Whats to be done though? Personally I think our attitude to uncontrolled immigration has to change as has our attitude to multiculuralism (as opposed to cosmopolitanism) where attitudes contrary to western ideals such as Sharia or attitudes to woman and so forth are tolerated and militants can hide behind this crying racism to cover some of their rhetoric and worse!. Also the use of deportation to remove people dangerous to our national security especially in Britain where our idiots allow human rights legislation to allow unpleasant people to remain here. We need to tighten up massively and only have people in our economies need on a strict points system and not everyones aunt and uncle.
        Last edited by copenhagen; 17 Sep 09, 09:47.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Tater View Post
          How many Germans/Italians to were killed to subdue Fascism?

          How many Japanese were killed before we subdued bushido?

          How is the scourge of Islam any different than these other violent and blood thirsty ideologies?
          Firstly we did not defeat anything. I believe there are a couple of veterans of the war who post on the forums. They have earned the right to use "we". The rest of were n't born then. We did n't do a thing to defeat the Japanese or the rest of the Axis forces.

          Secondly it was not Bushido that was defeated but Japanese imperialism, militarism and its own blend of nationalism. Whether the traditional Bushido of the previous few hundred years was much better, given the nature and brutality of much of feudal rule in Japan is debateable. But what was defeated in the 1945 was not Bushido as such. Unless you are talking about the wider concept and its role in post war Japan society- but somehow I think you were just using incorrect terminology.

          As for "the scourge of Islam" - there are extremists in every religion. And the root causes of many of the conflicts around the world are far more complex than you allow for. You do n't seem to grasp that those who are most at risk of the jihadis are those Muslim leaders and communities who do not follow their own brand of the religion. All your wet dreams of hatred, mass slaughter and genocide will do is push them further together.

          I am an atheist so all religions are by and large equally ridiculous to me. There are aspects of Islam that I find absolutely hateful, other parts of it are just plain loopy. Then again Christianity and Judaism are no better. And their effect has been just as violent. However I will not judge all Jewish people by the lunatics in those fundamentalist Jewish groups who want to create a Greater Israel. The settlers who celebrate Goldstein's massacre of Palestinians in the mosque or who consider Yigal Amir a hero are not representative of all Jews. The Lords Resistance Army, those who go around shooting people to prevent abortion, Ian Paisley, Christian fundamentalists in India and many others do not represent the average Christian. And yet it would be easy to argue that their religions are the basis for their actions - yet you do not. I wonder why.

          And I am more than aware what the world would look like if run by the scumbags in these Islamist and jihadi outfits. It is not a world I wish to see. However what you want for the world is no different than the extremists you claim to hate.
          "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
          G.B Shaw

          "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
          Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

          Comment


          • We is a collective noun, and your damn right to say WE defeated the Nazis. To say otherwise is trite.

            And simply put, why would we be better than the "Islamic scumbags" if we stoop to their level or worse (and just for the record, there is no worse). The answer is frightenly clear: They started it. There is a huge difference between he who strikes first and he who strikes second.

            Furthermore, genocidaing the Muslims would NOT kill western civilization. Genocide is time honored tradition of dealing with folks, and this is true in any culture. There is so much more to Western Civilization than this 'Never Again' bullshit that we've mired ourselves in. With Jews in particular, the choice is not IF there will be genocide, but whether the Arabs will kill the Jews or vice versa. And what's more, we will stop the conquest, stop the killing, stop the madness, we will build a better future than the Muslims could ever DREAM of. It is there choice, as a people, whether our future comes about at the price of theirs. They hold the power, we will simply react, for that is all we can do.
            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

            Comment


            • As I said the veterans and those who were around at the time fought and defeated the Axis. I played no part as I was n't born. Neither were you. A group of people from my country, and many others of course, whom I respect greatly fought and defeated the Germans, Italians, Japanese, etc. "We" did eff all as we were not on the planet - anything else is purely an attempt at reflected glory. Of course if you did serve during the Second World War my apologies - you most certainly did defeat them.

              I am curious as to how you believe "they" started it. As well as who "they" are. Are all Muslims responsible for starting it - is there a secret Muslim batphone which informs them of when it is going to happen and therefore makes them all equally responsible? How long ago did "they" start it? By the way you still have n't explained how the genocide is to be carried out. How do you intend to eliminate all the Muslims who live in your own country? Would you volunteer to be one of the executioners - you know the whole bullet through the back of the head drill? Or perhaps you would prefer the methods many of the Jihadis use - slitting throats and cutting off heads. Men, women and children eh.

              I actually feel sorry for you.
              "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
              G.B Shaw

              "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
              Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

              Comment


              • No Sergio,

                You don't get it. THis is not about justice, it is about control, the only thing that truly matters. Killing the Muslims is not a just act, it is required for them to stop attacking us. If some are innocent and some guilty is not relevent to this discussion. I want this crap, wich began in 634 under the Caliph Omar and sanctioned by Muhammed, to stop. Now. And forever. The problem is the relgion itself, this is the causus belli of 1400 years of year, enslavement and conquest. If we want peace ISLAM must be destroyed and the only way to kill a faith is to kill it's adherents. And all of this is permissible because NECCESITY trumps all other consideration. If we want for Western Civiliztion to endure in ANY form, this is the only way to do it.
                How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                Comment


                • Actually I do get it - you have made yourself and what you want pretty clear. Why not do something about it - start a political party and see how far you get. Given the nature of the comments made by some on this thread you already have your first party members. Black and brown used to be among the favoured colours for the members of those groups you could base your organisation on.

                  I am done with this discussion as I cannot see there is anything to be gained from continuing.
                  "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                  G.B Shaw

                  "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                  Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sergio View Post
                    Actually I do get it - you have made yourself and what you want pretty clear. Why not do something about it - start a political party and see how far you get. Given the nature of the comments made by some on this thread you already have your first party members. Black and brown used to be among the favoured colours for the members of those groups you could base your organisation on.
                    I am a member of a party...their colors are Red&White&Blue.

                    Islam can either grow up or perish at the hands of those they have attacked, repeatedly.

                    I am done with this discussion as I cannot see there is anything to be gained from continuing.
                    I agree...when you are as wrong as you are...giving up is probably the best option.
                    Later - Tater
                    "Why I have a greater affinity to Israel than to the Muslim world after 9/11: Watching a death-match fight on Animal Planet once, I found myself instinctively rooting for the mammal over the reptile."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Tater View Post
                      I am a member of a party...their colors are Red&White&Blue.

                      Islam can either grow up or perish at the hands of those they have attacked, repeatedly.



                      I agree...when you are as wrong as you are...giving up is probably the best option.
                      Wrong about what? That believing that the genocide you want to happen is morally wrong? Yeah ok in your universe that is an illogical stance to take. You and those who agree with you have been asked specific points again and again, and aside from saying they started it, they are all the same and should be killed have little to offer by way of discussion. You did n't even know what was being fought against in the Second World War and you think you have proved something here?
                      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                      G.B Shaw

                      "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                      Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                      Comment


                      • Post deleted for personal attacks.
                        (This applies even when you are in RANT mode.)
                        Last edited by GCoyote; 19 Sep 09, 20:20.
                        How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                        275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                          That's it. That's your retort?!

                          OK, let's make this simple enough for European bleeding hearts. Why was it wrong for Hitler to kill the Jews? It's not because they are human beings; it is wrong because and ONLY because his rationale for killing them was false. If he had been correct, not only would it have been his right to kill them, but his DUTY to do so. That is the difference.

                          Go on, give it your best shot.
                          My best shot? The above statement illustrates just how pointless trying to discuss this further would be. I am guessing, I could be wrong of course, that you would probably believe that communism and the Soviet Union were a threat. In that case would the Nazi plan for genocide there have met the criteria you have set? Also at what point does an entire people become a threat - just what proportion of Jews would have had to have been in opposition groups or actively resisting Hitler and his followers before the camps or the execution grounds in the East became the reasoned and dutiful thing to do?

                          As long as you cannot grasp the fact that the world is not black and white - that not every Muslim is about to strap on a bomb or send money to terrorist groups. Or that there are Muslims who actively disagree and have lost their lives fighting against these extremists. And that contemporary Islamism did not develop in a historical and political vacuum. If you cannot see that then there really is no point in continuing. You believe genocide is the best option, I do n't. Each to their own.
                          Last edited by Sergio; 19 Sep 09, 10:46.
                          "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it"
                          G.B Shaw

                          "They promised us homes fit for heroes, they give us heroes fit for homes."
                          Grandad, Only Fools and Horses

                          Comment


                          • Sergio,

                            Perhaps I had better clear things up. I don't mind you and your ilk for being vicious, only WHERE you are vicious. Policy needs viciousness to back it up for all politics is about compelling someone else to do another's will, either by threat of law or in foreign politics by threat of death and destruction. The problem is that many people, most on the left but not all, are vicious in discussion. Viciousness there does no one any good, it does not convince, it does not sway, except maybe towards your opponent, and it throws away your chance to make a devastating point that makes your opponents look stupid. And I should be an EASY target in a sane world on this issue.

                            There is a long list of why Communism is not as pervasive, threatening and intractable the way Islam is and it boils down to three points:

                            1. Communism is based on the criticisms of Marx of the capitalist structure of mid 19th century Europe. It is a theory based on and subject to REASON. Islam is not.

                            2. Communism, though in practice horrible, is theoretically a humane and liberating doctrine and if it doesn't actually do it, party members can dispute the conduct of the government as not holding to the ideals of the Party. In this way Christianity and Communism are very much alike, except Communism's insistence on planned economy cannot function in a free society (as Gorbachev learned the hard way). This is FAR different than Islam, where Allah is merciful to humanity, but does not love humanity and is essentially a rule giver, one which should never be questioned.

                            3. Communism in the forties had made it's mark on ONE generation. Perhaps, if we got a time machine and wiped out the Caliphate in 650, Islam could have moderated or been discarded. Islam has shaped and poisoned the Umma for 1400 years. If the Nazis has ruled Germany for a thousand years, and that Germany was threatening us now, I would predict we would exterminate them too.

                            The issue of genocide is not one of 'want' but 'need' based on the idiosyncratic nature of our world's history. Islam, the faith, is evil. Islam, the adherents, cannot imagine losing and are pressed in these days to fulfill the destiny of a Muslim world. Islam, the culture, is so brittle and ass backward it will attack us in a vain attempt to enforce status quos the BYZANTINES would have found barbaric. And even then, genocide will be the response because the West will spaz out.

                            We need only remove Muslims from Europe and Russia (that includes native Muslims like Bosniaks), and we could have the time we need, perhaps. No Muslims in Europe means no demographic subversion's like when the Muslims outnumbered the Christians in Lebanon. But that's not how things will work. They will keep breeding, they will not assimilate, nor will Europeans let them assimilate, and nation state France will become two nations, one state, Arab and French. A house divided against itself cannot stand, especially when one part produces almost all the kids. This is just France, similar stories are emerging in Spain, in Germany and even Britain.

                            My anger is not towards you personally. Mine is that you seem to say if it comes down to us killing all of them and living or being subjugated (this being the inevitable result of immigrants who do not assimilate and won't keep their dicks in their pants), let us die with our morals. Screw that. If you believe it won't come to that fine, time is on my side, but when I'm proved right I'd rather live a sinner than die a saint. How bout you?
                            How many Allied tanks it would take to destroy a Maus?
                            275. Because that's how many shells there are in the Maus. Then it could probably crush some more until it ran out of gas. - Surfinbird

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wolery View Post
                              No Sergio,

                              You don't get it. THis is not about justice, it is about control, the only thing that truly matters. Killing the Muslims is not a just act, it is required for them to stop attacking us. If some are innocent and some guilty is not relevent to this discussion. I want this crap, wich began in 634 under the Caliph Omar and sanctioned by Muhammed, to stop. Now. And forever. The problem is the relgion itself, this is the causus belli of 1400 years of year, enslavement and conquest. If we want peace ISLAM must be destroyed and the only way to kill a faith is to kill it's adherents. And all of this is permissible because NECCESITY trumps all other consideration. If we want for Western Civiliztion to endure in ANY form, this is the only way to do it.
                              This seems harsh,and yet is not too far off. It's an ugly thing we hate to face and yet we HAVE BEEN at war long before 9/11. The concepts of Jihad are not so fully embraced by all Muslims. However in those parts of the world that are Muslim dominated, the concepts of Jihad, of Intolerance,aggression,violence, as holy are quite obviously supported or at the least not much challenged. There are Muslims who are not fundamentalists and who set aside some scriptures much as Christians and Jews tend to overlook or ignore some things that are anachronisms.

                              Nevertheless,Islam is a religion where intolerance and repression and the most intrusive kind of totalitarianism are built in to the very core. The mindset is not unlike Hitler or the Stalinists,and in fact runs much deeper and broader. The Nazi's "final solution" was not put forward as the holiest thing one could do, something to be proud of. The Core idea of Jihad is that the highest level of Paradise is for those who wage war on behalf of the religion,so from that,it's no surprise when Kamikazi style attacks are made. To the Japanese Kamikazi,suicide missions were Warrior on Warrior.
                              To the Jihadist,any Infidel is an equally valid target.

                              Thus....the problem. This is not a mindset where worldly logic or values carries weight. Nothing really is subject to negotiation,compromise or any rules you think exist. That's been displayed often.

                              The Wars we fought,were with nations that had a worldly agenda. Picture a Burglar. He's not seeing death as the ideal outcome. The Jihadist is. He's more like a raging psychotic who hears voices and is willing to die.

                              It is quite a dilemma. The mainstream Muslim,in the "Muslim World" tends to not be Pro Jihad or Anti Jihad, and so becomes almost a buffer for the Jihadists. Were the Jihadists seperate.....kill 'em all would be the logical policy. Our values are that we don't massacre the lot,even if a majority may be passive supporters.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eddie3rar View Post
                                The US response to the WTC attacks will go down as one of the biggest lost opportunities in history. All that fighting power squandered in Iraq and Afghanistan. When US tv news footage started with the 'we're at war!!' chant, it became obvious the the fix was in. No hard questions asked, just more of the same, simple solutions to complex problems, the usual spin,Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by a violent minority and Afghanistan and Iraq are the centres of terror. Such a lost opportunity.
                                Some facts are just uncomfortable. I don't quite see it as a case of all Muslims being Jihad Pit Bulls,but...what ARE the percentages? In some regions the Muslims simply don't typically buy into the Jihadist line. In other areas they mostly do. The local Mullahs get to spin it however they choose and there seems to be no standard ideology. I agree 100 % that most of us VASTLY underestimate how imperialistic and intolerant much of Islam is,or how the "militarized missionaries" doing conversion by brute force around the globe ARE the Muslims following the actual mandates of the Koran.

                                Our "response" has been tempered considerably by our addiction to OIL.
                                We handle Saudi Arabia with kid gloves,because we LOVE their crude. They put up with us because they love our money. Probably Saudi Arabia is the hardline heart of Islam, yet we've been uncomfortable allies. Even among Saudis....what % are "orthodox militant" ?

                                Obviously there is a LOT of the aggressive Jihadist wing....there's a dozen or more current civil wars based on that.

                                I don't think the Taliban/AlQaeda/Hezbollah types speak for ALL of Islam...but I think there's more acceptance of such extremes among those not personally active than most westerners imagine.

                                Is there an All Out War on the horizon? Not quite.

                                Will there be in the future? It's quite possible.

                                Within Islam there may yet be a showdown to decide what's the "true religion" and which are the heretics.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X