• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Al-Zawahiri target of Predator Drone.

Cremaster77 said:
The Sunnis are at the table? Last I heard, the Sunnis were threatening to block the new government if the results weren't changed. The majority Shia are electing hardline religioius extremists who will turn the country away from Democracy. The Kurds are looking to break away the first chance they get to establish an Independent country.

This is success? I suggest you stop listening to the filtered results of one of Bush's scripted town halls. Iraq is moving away from democracy and entering a civil war. Bush is looking to get out of Iraq and withdraw troops as you have suggested, even if he won't admit it. No way has he shown the ability or desire to make post-war Iraq work.


The Counter insurgency has to be won by the Iraqi's themselves that's why we are training more and more Iraqi security and police forces. As for the Sunnis not coming to the table well they voted didn't they? They have a vested interest in participating in the new Iraqi govenrment. As for the extremists taking over I suggest you read their Constitution that they adobted regardless of who is elected they will still be bound by their Constitution. It's going to be an Iraqi Democracy of that there is no doubt just as Japan and Germany are unique in their own rights but they are still Democracies none the less.
 
GySgt said:
Do you even know what the target was? It was not a village. You must understand that there is no cure for Radical Islam and you must also understand the religion in which it is based. This is not about diplomatic table manners where we go into a foreign country with a search warrent and arrest the criminals. The Radical element is indeed as guilty as the terrorists they cheer for. This is not whether we have a choice on a war of attrition - we're in one.


I know that terrorists were the target and not the village. However villagers were harmed none the less. This is unacceptable to me. I'm not afraid of terrorists or death. I don't need others to kill for my safety. We simply disagree on this matter.

Radicalism isn't a disease. Much can be done to change the conditions that cause radical Islam. It takes compasion and uderstanding to change people. Radical Islam isn't much different than the social issues our nation faces. The main difference is that our discontented population has yet to find a way to export their violence.


GySgt said:
I guess all of the prisoners we have in Gitmo, Iraq, Jordan, Indonesia, India, Bosnia, and Israel should be released, because though we caught them after they graduated from their extremists camps......they're innocent until proven guilty. Maybe we should wait for the inevitable attack on our troops or on one of our "allies" soil. Maybe we shoulod wait until they drop a couple planes in your city. You know....that way they are guilty.:roll:

I think they deserve a day in court. If the government is so sure they are terrorists, why not prove it in court? If they are guilty, they should be detained.


GySgt said:
What has America ever done for Arabs? Are you kidding me with this garbage? Do your own homework. I'm willing to bet you have no idea as to our guilt in the rising of Islamic Radicalism. We are guilty of one definate thing, though I bet it completely escapes you. Enlighten us. The feelings of the large populations of the world are as ignorant as many Americans. They pass on the same old rhetoric of the Arab masses and their Palestinian tools.


Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about. The United States government has been involved in Middle East politics for many years. We are not linked to their fate by mere chance. Don't deny this. It clouds your vision from the truth.


Iran-Iraq War
--
Saddam reached out to other Arab governments for cash and political support during the war, particularly after its oil industry severely suffered at the hands of the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf. Iraq successfully gained some military and financial aid from the United States, the Soviet Union, and France, which together feared the prospects of the expansion of revolutionary Iran's influence in the region.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
--

Soviet war in Afghanistan
--
By the mid-1980s, the Afghan resistance movement, receptive to assistance from the United States, United Kingdom, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others contributed to Moscow high military costs and with a strain in relations with the international world.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Afghanistan
--

Osama bin Laden - I know you will dispute this. I don't know if it is true or not, as the article states. I do know that the United States government has and continues to manipulate Middle East politics for its own good.
--
Some argue that MAK was supported by the governments of Pakistan, the United States[8] and Saudi Arabia, and that the three countries channelled their supplies through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This account is vehemently denied by the U.S. government, which maintains that U.S. aid went only to Afghan fighters, and that Afghan Arabs had their own sources of funding, an account also supported by Al Qaeda itself.

....

The accounts of some journalists and investigators, however, do suggest that CIA money and weapons reached the Afghan Arabs and bin Laden indirectly through the ISI [10]. According to Ahmed Rashid, Central Intelligence Agency Chief William Casey in 1986 "committed CIA support to a long-standing ISI initiative to recruit radical Muslims from around the world to come to Pakistan and fight with the Afghan Mujaheddin. The ISI had encouraged this since 1982 and by now all the other players had their reasons for supporting the idea.
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden
--


Huh. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

These few instances helped shape the Middle East as we know it today. Our current actions will yet again change the landscape. The seeds of our current actions won't mature for a time. Let us hope that they ripen instead of rot.


GySgt said:
You should do yourself a favor and study the region and religion. I'm not in the mood to re-invent the wheel. If you want a class ask for it, otherwise, here is your popsickle.


Islam doesn't promote terrorism anymore than the bible does. Most of the harse Muslim/Arab customs you see today are tribal and not directly linked to Islam. I had a great link to a site that listed myths about women in Islam. Alas, I cannot find it at the moment. Anyway, this site listed two texts that were not the "word of God", but made by man. These two texts contributed greatly to various tribal customs throughout the Middle East.


--
4) Islam oppresses women
Most of the ill-treatment that women receive in the Muslim world is based on local culture and traditions, without any basis in the faith of Islam. In fact, practices such as forced marriage, spousal abuse, and restricted movement directly contradict Islamic law governing family behavior and personal freedom.

5) Muslims are violent, terrorist extremists
Terrorism cannot be justified under any valid interpretation of the Islamic faith. The entire Qur'an, taken as a complete text, gives a message of hope, faith, and peace to a faith community of one billion people. The overwhelming message is that peace is to be found through faith in God, and justice among fellow human beings. Muslim leaders and scholars do speak out against terrorism in all its forms, and offer explanations of misinterpreted or twisted teachings.
--
http://islam.about.com/od/commonmisconceptions/tp/myths.htm
--


My main reason for responding to your original post was to say don't judge too quickly. I'm so tired of everyone throwing around the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" to justify all acts. I don't deny that US action has done good. I also know that US action has caused much suffering. Thank you for attempting to educate me. Perhaps when I'm older, beaten down by the harsh realities of this old world. I will better understand your opinion on this matter.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The Counter insurgency has to be won by the Iraqi's themselves that's why we are training more and more Iraqi security and police forces. As for the Sunnis not coming to the table well they voted didn't they? They have a vested interest in participating in the new Iraqi govenrment. As for the extremists taking over I suggest you read their Constitution that they adobted regardless of who is elected they will still be bound by their Constitution. It's going to be an Iraqi Democracy of that there is no doubt just as Japan and Germany are unique in their own rights but they are still Democracies none the less.

You honestly think that coming to the table means voting but only accepting the result you want? The Sunnis have clearly stated that they will not participate in the new government of the results of the election are changed. This is participation in a democratic government?

As for your suggestion that extremists are bound by their Constitution, try taking a look at Russia. How well has Putin been bound by the Russian Constitution?

I just don't understand why so many on the Right (you included) refuse to acknowledge the situation as it is. It's exact the refusal to look at the reality of the situation that got us into this situation in the first place. We need someone, anyone, to have the guts to stand up and say that we are in Iraq for the long haul, meaning years of occupation. The most successful post-war rebuilding in history came with years of military occupation. Take a look at Japan and Germany. The worst results come from cutting and running. Take a look at Afghanistan. Bush's falsely rosey picture of Iraq that you buy into is his way of cutting and running...and your buying what he's selling at retail prices.
 
Cremaster77 said:
You honestly think that coming to the table means voting but only accepting the result you want? The Sunnis have clearly stated that they will not participate in the new government of the results of the election are changed. This is participation in a democratic government?
Good for them they sound like the Democrats, so what's your point? If they don't participate then they're only going to hurt themselves and they know this that's why they voted.
As for your suggestion that extremists are bound by their Constitution, try taking a look at Russia. How well has Putin been bound by the Russian Constitution?

Yadayadayada, successful elections, ratified Constitution et al.

I just don't understand why so many on the Right (you included) refuse to acknowledge the situation as it is. It's exact the refusal to look at the reality of the situation that got us into this situation in the first place. We need someone, anyone, to have the guts to stand up and say that we are in Iraq for the long haul, meaning years of occupation. The most successful post-war rebuilding in history came with years of military occupation. Take a look at Japan and Germany. The worst results come from cutting and running. Take a look at Afghanistan. Bush's falsely rosey picture of Iraq that you buy into is his way of cutting and running...and your buying what he's selling at retail prices.


Look at the situation for what it is??? OK successful elections, a ratified Constitution, increased Iraqi security forces U.S., troop withdrawal, et al. And what's your problem with Afghanistan exactly?

Do you know how long it took the U.S. to form a Democracy? It's your: "I want it now mantality," that's the problem,

The U.S. revolution lasted from 1776-1783,

The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787,

Washington wasn't elected until 1789,

The Iraqis have done all this in 4 years they're ahead of the game partna it's just that you don't understand the big picture here.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Good for them they sound like the Democrats, so what's your point? If they don't participate then they're only going to hurt themselves and they know this that's why they voted.

Your response to the fact that the Sunnis clearly aren't at the table is they sound like Democrats? Way to deflect from the point. It's not participating in the government if you refuse to accept results of the election.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Yadayadayada, successful elections, ratified Constitution et al.

Your response to the fact that Constitutions do not keep extremists from seizing control of the government and suppressing the very rights dictated by that Constitution with Russia as the prime example is "Yadayadayada"?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Look at the situation for what it is??? OK successful elections, a ratified Constitution, increased Iraqi security forces U.S., troop withdrawal, et al. And what's your problem with Afghanistan exactly?

When the Soviets left Afghanistan after they invaded without seeing through with the reconstruction, what happened? The Taliban took over. It's the perfect example of what happens when the post-war reconstruction is poor to non-existent.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Do you know how long it took the U.S. to form a Democracy? It's your: "I want it now mantality," that's the problem,

The U.S. revolution lasted from 1776-1783,

The Constitution wasn't ratified until 1787,

Washington wasn't elected until 1789,

The Iraqis have done all this in 4 years they're ahead of the game partna it's just that you don't understand the big picture here.

I clearly don't want it now. I stated I recognized the need for years of occupation with decades of reconstruction, and to you that means "I want it now"? The Dems want to cut and run and Bush wants to do the same. That's why they (and you) want to paint a falsely rosey picture and ignore the impending civil war in the country. To cut and run, but say you didn't.
 
Cremaster77 said:
Your response to the fact that the Sunnis clearly aren't at the table is they sound like Democrats? Way to deflect from the point. It's not participating in the government if you refuse to accept results of the election.
The Sunnis are at the table what more do you want besides them voting and running for office?

Your response to the fact that Constitutions do not keep extremists from seizing control of the government and suppressing the very rights dictated by that Constitution with Russia as the prime example is "Yadayadayada"?
Russia is still a Democracy, they are a Russian Democracy just as Japan is a Japanese Democracy, just as Germany is a German Democracy.
When the Soviets left Afghanistan after they invaded without seeing through with the reconstruction, what happened? The Taliban took over. It's the perfect example of what happens when the post-war reconstruction is poor to non-existent.
Have we left Iraq has anyone in the administration suggested that we're going to leave Iraq anytime in the near future.
I clearly don't want it now. I stated I recognized the need for years of occupation with decades of reconstruction, and to you that means "I want it now"? The Dems want to cut and run and Bush wants to do the same. That's why they (and you) want to paint a falsely rosey picture and ignore the impending civil war in the country. To cut and run, but say you didn't.

The Bush administration has never suggested to cut and run he has stated the exact opposite that we're going to stay till the job is done. What you're saying is that Iraq is a failure and you don't want us to stay but then you don't want us to leave either tell me sir just what exactly is your solution?
 
SouthernDem Says:
Those foreign insurgents make up less than 10% of the insurgency.

You’ve got to link some proof of this. I don’t believe it and I don’t think there’s any way to prove it.

and...

I might add that when polled, 45% of Iraqis believe that attacks on U.S. forces are justified, and nearly 80% want us out now.
I’ve seen several recent polls of Iraqis, but I’ve never seen one in which “nearly 80%” of the Iraqis wanted us out now. In every poll I’ve looked at the Iraqi people want us out, but not until security is stabilized and a working government is in place.

Cremaster77 says:
When the Soviets left Afghanistan after they invaded without seeing through with the reconstruction, what happened? The Taliban took over.
The Soviets left Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. They lost that war so they could not have possibly helped with any reconstruction.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The Sunnis are at the table what more do you want besides them voting and running for office?

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. When one side refuses to participate in a democratic government because election results don't turn out they way they want, they aren't "at the table". They are making demands and trying to hold the country hostage.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Russia is still a Democracy, they are a Russian Democracy just as Japan is a Japanese Democracy, just as Germany is a German Democracy.

Do you have any idea what's going on in Russia? Putin has seized almost total control of the country, suspending rights protected in the Constitution. Are you really so naive to believe that because someone says they are a democracy that they truly are? I guess since it's called the People's Republic of China, the Chinese government really is a Republic and all about the people.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Have we left Iraq has anyone in the administration suggested that we're going to leave Iraq anytime in the near future

The Bush administration has never suggested to cut and run he has stated the exact opposite that we're going to stay till the job is done.

Again, naive much? The Bush Administration states they will stay until "the job is done". But when is the job done? When Bush says so. That's why they paint a falsely optimistic view of Iraq. The elections are over (even though the Sunnis and Kurds will be breaking away soon). The Constitution's written (even though hardline extremists who have been voted into office will honor that Constitution just like Putin has honored Russia's). Job's done. Just because Bush says he isn't cutting and running doesn't mean he isn't. I urge you to open your eyes and honestly evaluate the situation for yourself.

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What you're saying is that Iraq is a failure and you don't want us to stay but then you don't want us to leave either tell me sir just what exactly is your solution?

When did I ever say I didn't want us to stay? The best examples of reconstruction have come with years, even decades of occupation. More than a decade after we went into Bosnia, we still have troops there. The region is more stable then it has been in the past century. My father-in-law was one of the last US commanding generals of NATO forces there, and when he went, he TOOK GOLF CLUBS WITH HIM. Bosnia is safe precisely because we elected to stay. We need to up the troop commitment and be willing to stay for years in Iraq if that's what it takes to rebuild the country.

Your response shows exactly how little you are willing to evaluate the situation for yourself. Because I think the Bush Administration has done a horrible job in Iraq, I must be a crazy liberal. So you pull out your anti-crazy liberal talking points and repeat them ad nauseum. I never said I wanted to pull the troops out, but since I'm against the Bush administration, make sure to use the cut and run talking point. Instead of the same tired rhetoric, I suggest honest and open-minded evaluation of the facts.
 
Gill said:
The Soviets left Afghanistan with their tails between their legs. They lost that war so they could not have possibly helped with any reconstruction.

You're right. But they destablized the region and left a vacuum which the Taliban quickly filled. A similar situation is at hand in Iraq. The vacuum there has left a hole that religious fundamentalists are all too eager to fill. Witness the results of the last elections.
 
AndrewC said:
Perhaps when I'm older, beaten down by the harsh realities of this old world. I will better understand your opinion on this matter.

Perhaps you can start understanding the "proffessional" opinion better simply by waking up and staring at the problem instead of finding excuses to exonerate by spewing forth the passed down ignorant traditions of blaming your own country. Well, this may shock you and though you are dead wrong on some of it, most of everything you just "taught" me has been written by me over and over and over and over again. As always, a new member has jumped into something without knowing the other members. Maybe you "shouldn't judge too quickly."

Though desperately hanging on to your "politically correct" notion that we shouldn't blame a religion, you are wrong. This was a mistake practiced throughout the 90's. It was deemed "taboo" even in the intelligence world to discuss such things. When well-meaning officials, academics or pop singers assure us that Islam is not the problem, they are utterly wrong. Do not be fooled or fall into their state of confusion and Politically Correct blindness. Islam, as promoted by Saudi Arabia and practiced by fanatics elsewhere in the Arab world, is precisely the problem. Islam is the problem—because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions. Islam’s inherent divisiveness lends itself to radical interpretation of Qur’an and Hadiths; these texts support a potential for violence not found in other major religions, despite your compromise that the "Bible is just as bad."

We have spent half a century backing the wrong players. Oil smeared our vision and we concentrated on the self-destructive Arab states and oil-rich Iran. We insist that Saudi Arabia, a police state that funds Islamic extremism around the world, is our friend. This is wrong and has been a mistake that we have been paying for decades. Our President (As much as I appreciate him) even plays host to its de facto king at his ranch. As long as the oil flowed, we have looked away as the Arab elite have exploited and twisted Islam to deny priveledge and freedom to their people. We did not tell them to refrain from building universities, libraries, industry and infrastructure. We did not tell them to hang dearly onto passed down traditions and stagnate their civilization. They have been left behind by history and they have done it to themselves. The problem isn't what we have done to keep stability in the Middle East and we haven't been involved simply for "America's" oil. Hatred taught to the young seems a lingering cancer of the human condition. And the accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunities, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the selfish choices of their own leaders to remain in power. The rise of Radical Islam has been the result and blame is the narctic of choice. We are a scapegoat - an imagined enemy and we have allowed this to happen.

Baghdad fell, to the collective shame of those Islamists in power who prefer homegrown despots to Western-inspired democracy. The Islamist revenge is to slaughter their civilians. Millions of Muslims find such atrocities inspiring. Millions more view such cruelty as just. This is Islam in the Middle East. The Muslim majority are powerless to do anything but act as victim to their own leadership, as they listen to cleric sanctioned hate speech, which blames all of their troubles on America. The House of Saud are to blame for all of the religious perversion that has run amok in the Middle East and are guilty of every murder inflicted by Islamist extremists. These crimes are not just simply the act of a cluster of terrorists, but a reflection of the failure of the entire Middle Eastern Islamist world.

For all of their Muslim rantings, the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have returned to pre-Islamic practices, to behaviors that Moses, Christ and Mohammed uniformly rejected: They practice human sacrifice. The grisly decapitations caught on film and the explosives-laden cars driven into crowds, skyjacked commercial airplanes, the bombings of schools and the execution of kidnapped women are not sanctioned by a single passage in the Koran. Their ceremonious message is clear in their videotaped beheadings. The sermon always precedes the sacrifice. Then the human calf, shivering with terror, has his throat slit by the 'priest.' We might be watching a ceremony from 4,000 years ago. The attack on 9/11 was not a political act. It was a religious act, but it wasn't Islamic. This is a perversion. The Koran forbids the murder of innocents (as well as the taking of hostages and the abuse of prisoners). The 9/11 attacks were cult behavior from the dawn of civilization, employing modern tools.

Muslim clerics do not stand and point fingers at the viciousness of their own world. They are silent until America fights back. It is they that have been the cause and the root of the hate that is spewing out of the Middle East. For every rent-a-cleric the House of Saud pushes in front of a microphone, there is another one somewhere else that remains silent. When an entire civilization embraces such butchers, both the civilization and the religion are in trouble. When the rest of the world chooses to deny and tolerate such behavior rather than face it, they are doomed to be consumed by it.

The hard-core terrorists spawned by the breakdown of the Middle East quote the Koran. They wear Muslim garments. They perform the daily rituals prescribed by the faith into which they were born. But all of us, in the West and the Middle East, have mistaken the identity of these butchers. Many still are. They are not simply “rogues” of Islam. This is a civilization.

Islam certainly is not hateful in its essence—but a disproportionate number of its current adherents need to hate to avoid the agony of self-knowledge. The terrorists may believe that they're good Muslims — self-awareness is not a widespread human trait — but their deeds are those of the pagans Mohammed condemned. We live in an age of change so profound that entire cultures cannot cope with the stress. In the Middle East, we see more than the routine "clash of civilizations." Instead, we are eyewitnesses to an event without precedent: the crash of the once-great, still-proud civilization of Middle Eastern Islam. They have been left behind by history and their response has been to blame everyone but themselves—and to sponsor terror (sometimes casually, but often officially). Much of the Arab world has withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive. They are, through their own fault, as close to hopeless as any societies and cultures upon this earth.

In the Middle East, the heavens are falling, and the Earth is wracked by failure. The result was predictable, had we been willing to open our eyes. History has seen human beings react to cultural crises by fleeing into cults that sought revenge. Instead of returning to a "pure" Islam, the terrorists are building a blood cult, a deformed offshoot of their faith that revives the most primitive and grotesque of religious practices that many other religions have partaken throughout history. Make no mistake, the terrorists swim in a sea of millions of Radical Muslims throughout the Middle East. This crisis has never been as intense as in the Middle East, where treasured values and inherited behaviors simply do not work in the 21st century.

....and your excuse for them is that America did this? Try not to gift wrap their narcotic for them.
 
Last edited:
AndrewC said:
I know that terrorists were the target and not the village. However villagers were harmed none the less. This is unacceptable to me.

What is acceptable to you? A sniper rifle positioned on a satellite so that individuals can be pin pointed? Maybe placing some Snipers in Pakistan to take him out (Who cares if it risks their lives?) Send the Pakistani Police to arrest him and have a good old fashion trial?

What you have not woken up to is that this is a war in which the goal is to kill and destroy the enemy. Those "villagers" (As if that gives them a poor little victim status) were the enemy. As I have said, Terrorists surround themselves with Radical Islamists. Radical Islamists do not change. They do not simply decide that "Allah" and the Qu'ran is wrong and turn from what they have been indoctrinated into from birth. This is a war on attrition. As this civilization removes the Radical element from within and roll up their sleeves, Islamic Radicalism will fall to the way side as every great Religion has had to do. Every religion has seen fanatics withdraw into a fortress of intolerance to defend their religions and condemn "non-believers." Every Religion has allowed for their religion to change to suit the needs for the society to progress. Every great religion has had to accept that their core beliefs might be wrong and is in need of a change. Islam has not done any of this and their "holy book" forbids it. Imagine the Bible with no "New Testament." Now imagine what our civilization would be like today if we held tightly to passed down traditions that do not work with today's sciences, discoveries, and technologies. Our civilization would have stagnated too.



AndrewC said:
Radicalism isn't a disease. Much can be done to change the conditions that cause radical Islam. It takes compasion and uderstanding to change people. Radical Islam isn't much different than the social issues our nation faces. The main difference is that our discontented population has yet to find a way to export their violence.

This is just pathetic. Allow me to lay out a few definitions for you.

1) Radical Islam is a precursor to terrorism. It lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired violence and, as such, represents a long-term threat to the national security of the United States of America. The ongoing Global War on Terrorism targets the current generation of terrorists; however, unless the ideology that spawned them is also countered the long-term threat to the U.S. will exponentially grow with time.

Some Characteristics:
a) Primary objective of reforming all of Islam in its image, and spreading that vision of reformed Islam throughout the world.
b) Ideologically opposed to non-Muslim states of the West and the US in particular.
c) Supports the imposition of universal Islamic law (Sha’ria).
d) Believes in the subordinate position of women.
e) Demonstrates intolerance towards moderate Islamic sects.
f) Believes that Jihad comprises violent acts committed against infidels, and that this version of Jihad is in accordance with Gods’ desires.
g) Goes under many names: Wahhabi/Deobandi, Salafi, Muslim Brotherhood…etc……

2) The disease is Radical Islam. The cancer of Radical Islam grows where socio-economic conditions are poor; governments are repressive and unable to provide essential social services, such as providing adequate oversight of their educational system….or have allowed / sanctioned Radical Islamic curricula. Radical Islam is an intentional religious insurgency spread through a variety of means.

3) The symptoms of this disease is terrorism. People see the acts of 9/11 and people like Bin laden as a rogue element of Islam - an anomaly. They would be wrong. Islamic Terrorism has risen in many forms, from many different people within this civilization, many different organized groups, and from everywhere in the Middle East for four decades.

The diseased culture of our enemy suffers from deep flaws which condemns them to failure in the modern world…

1) Restrictions on the free flow of information.
2) The subjugation of women.
3) Inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure.
4) The extended family or clan as the basic unit of social organization.
5) Domination by a restrictive religion.
6) A low valuation of education.
7) Low prestige assigned to work.

It's really difficult to exactly delineate who our enemies are, but they number in millions. They're Arab and Muslim, but not every Arab is among them, and most Muslims are not. While we must deal with fanatical, soulless killers in the present, Islam’s future is undecided. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. Millions of Muslims are willing to keep that door open to a brighter and truer Islam, despite the threats of a legion of fanatics. A struggle of immense proportions and immeasurable importance has been under way for the soul of Islam, a mighty contest to decide between a humane, tolerant, and progressive faith, and a hangman’s vision of a punitive God and a humankind defined by prohibitions. The U.S. military has been screaming this to deaf ears since the mid 80’s. Still, the majority of the world refuses to see it or even notice it and our own Government refuses to really deal with it.

AndrewC said:
I think they deserve a day in court. If the government is so sure they are terrorists, why not prove it in court? If they are guilty, they should be detained.

Prove what? An attack that hasn't occurred yet? What you fail to understand is that these are not citizens that are scooped up for no reason. These are not people who might shoplift or kill someone, because they have anger issues. These people are on a mission. These are people that have attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan, Sudan, and Bosnia. These are Radicals who board airplanes and fly to other countries and meet up with fellow Radicals where we gather more intel into plots and discover more terrorists. They are followed all over the world and this is what greatly makes up our anti-terrorist network. You think "Bush spying" on citizens was an act to destroy civil liberties? What a joke. This program as well as many programs in many other coutries were all in corporation with this effort. These Radicals are busted and sent to prisons during a time of war from a multiple of host countries. They are prevented from carrying out any attacks and from infecting other futureless youth from seeing terrorism as the only way to change their political, social, economic, and religiuous environments. Your answer to this is to "give them their day in court?" And after they are freed to carry on with their business, because we can't hold them under civil laws, they will continue their work for "Allah." If there is a lack of information, they are released. They are detained because they are guilty. Clearly you completely miss the nature of who these animals are. Maybe, because you've never faced them or their environments. Maybe it's because you haven't done the study. Maybe it's because you don't want the problem to be as big as it is. Maybe you just don't want to accept that it is possible for a civilization to fail in today's world and that from that their are symptoms of terror as revenge.
 
Last edited:
GySgt,

I disagree with you, but I hope you are right. A lot of people have died because many share your view. Some good has to come from this, for all our sakes. Thank you for your time.
 
GySgt said:
Prove what? An attack that hasn't occurred yet? What you fail to understand is that these are not citizens that are scooped up for no reason. These are not people who might shoplift or kill someone, because they have anger issues. These people are on a mission. These are people that have attended terrorist training camps in Pakistan, Sudan, and Bosnia. These are Radicals who board airplanes and fly to other countries and meet up with fellow Radicals where we gather more intel into plots and discover more terrorists. They are followed all over the world and this is what greatly makes up our anti-terrorist network. You think "Bush spying" on citizens was an act to destroy civil liberties? What a joke. This program as well as many programs in many other coutries were all in corporation with this effort. These Radicals are busted and sent to prisons during a time of war from a multiple of host countries. They are prevented from carrying out any attacks and from infecting other futureless youth from seeing terrorism as the only way to change their political, social, economic, and religiuous environments. Your answer to this is to "give them their day in court?" And after they are freed to carry on with their business, because we can't hold them under civil laws, they will continue their work for "Allah." If there is a lack of information, they are released. They are detained because they are guilty. Clearly you completely miss the nature of who these animals are. Maybe, because you've never faced them or their environments. Maybe it's because you haven't done the study. Maybe it's because you don't want the problem to be as big as it is. Maybe you just don't want to accept that it is possible for a civilization to fail in today's world and that from that their are symptoms of terror as revenge.


Exactly what radicals are you talking about? The ones that were/are imprisoned at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?
 
GySgt said:
1. I guess these scholar's reports and studies are also "statistically invalid?" Don't stop here. Continue on and study what you obviously know so little of. There is such a wide margin between numbers because it is a difficult thing to narrow. All that can be done is to statistically use the Muslim countries (63), determine how much of that 90percent of the world's current conflicts involve Muslim countries and study the social structures within. How embarassing for you.....

Lastly, until God comes down and fixes his screwed up world, judgement is afforded to who ever has the power to act. Be thankful, America has that power and our enemies do not.

Any study that produces a wide range, or several studies that produce several (more narrow, but wide between study) ranges must be questioned, if not discarded. Furthermore, of course, the definitions of "extremist" are likely to vary, and one study would inidcate an extremist is one willing to combat, domestically, to produce a theocratic state, whereas others internationally, and some, not at all.

If 20% of the "Muslim world" of 1.2 billion (thus 240,000,000) muslims were extremists, this would be a full on world war of unprecidentted magintude. Even in the Theocratic Muslim states I'd venture 20% is rather high. At 5% 60,000,000 Muslim extremists would be constantly assailing the west, or fully taking over major islamic governments, they are not.

These higher numbers, I fully expect include all levels of sympathizers in addition to actual extremeists, thus a political method of expanding the scope of "etermists" to those who are not actual extremists in an attempt to pad the numbers.

Mind you I do think the etremists are real, But I also think a great deal of those expressing extremist ideologies are doing so purely for political purposes, and not religious ones.

Again, such a broad range, expecially an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE different, must either be discarded in total or in part.

Lastly, still judgement is not afford to you.
 
Stinger said:
You know if I invited some mafioso's over to my house for dinner and the police showed up and shooting started....................I don't think I'd have a claim of "innocent bystander".

Yeah, but what if the mafioso's inveted themselves over? This is typical behavior of crimminal organizations to impose themselves upon innocents and non-participants. It's why we have the 3rd Amendment.
 
Last edited:
libertarian_knoght said:
Again, such a broad range, expecially an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE different, must either be discarded in total or in part.

Lastly, still judgement is not afford to you.

You seem to be objecting to the theories of the academics that Gunny has mentioned. Which is of course, fine. How about empirical evidence instead? Just take a look at the list of terrorist incidents posted by the State Dept.

Counting only those since the Iranian hostage taking in '79, which was the first really serious Islamic radical incident with serious implications for the US, and eliminating those not directly connected with Islamic radicals (i.e., Colombian FARC rebels, etc.) and you still have a 19 page listing in Word. I may have missed one or two or miscounted here and there, but I came up with over 200 incidents of radical Islamic terrorism (even after discounting some recent incidents of attacks on civilians in Iraq included by the State Dept).

Perhaps more significant than the number is the breadth. These incidents take place all the way from the ME to the UK to the US to Indonesia and the Phillipines. This is a significant portion of the world.

Discount the theoretical studies if you wish. Note, however, that the empirical evidence strongly suggests that radical Islamic terrorism has a global breadth and reach.
 
libertarian_knight said:
Yeah, but what if the mafioso's inveted themselves over? This is typical behavior of crimminal organizations to impose themselves upon innocents and non-participants. It's why we have the 3rd Amendment.

I have yet to read a new report that suggests the al Qaeda attendees at that meeting were nothing other than invited guests. In fact, later news reports are now suggesting that the meeting was a planning meeting concerning planning for a 'spring offensive' in Afghanistan. According to ABC News:

"Authorities tell ABC News that the terror summit was called to funnel new money into attacks against U.S. forces in Afghanistan… “Pakistani intelligence says this was a very important planning session involving the very top levels of al Qaeda as they get ready for a new spring offensive,” explained Alexis Debat, a former official in the French Defense Ministry and now an ABC News consultant."
 
Middleground said:
Exactly what radicals are you talking about? The ones that were/are imprisoned at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo?


Abu-Graib is more reserved for prisoners of local war. Hardened and definate terrorists are sent to Guantanamo and other places. Radicals are among all the prison populations, but the effort is made to identify (as best we can) and seperate them from the moderate Muslim (Most widely Sunni) prisoners in Abu-Graib.

Radicals who graduate from there extremist camps in various countries are followed and grabbed up at their destinations along with who they lead us to. These individuals are not sent to Abu-Graib.
 
libertarian_knight said:
Any study that produces a wide range, or several studies that produce several (more narrow, but wide between study) ranges must be questioned, if not discarded. Furthermore, of course, the definitions of "extremist" are likely to vary, and one study would inidcate an extremist is one willing to combat, domestically, to produce a theocratic state, whereas others internationally, and some, not at all.

If 20% of the "Muslim world" of 1.2 billion (thus 240,000,000) muslims were extremists, this would be a full on world war of unprecidentted magintude. Even in the Theocratic Muslim states I'd venture 20% is rather high. At 5% 60,000,000 Muslim extremists would be constantly assailing the west, or fully taking over major islamic governments, they are not.

These higher numbers, I fully expect include all levels of sympathizers in addition to actual extremeists, thus a political method of expanding the scope of "etermists" to those who are not actual extremists in an attempt to pad the numbers.

Mind you I do think the etremists are real, But I also think a great deal of those expressing extremist ideologies are doing so purely for political purposes, and not religious ones.

Again, such a broad range, expecially an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE different, must either be discarded in total or in part.

Lastly, still judgement is not afford to you.

This is where your are being stubbornly obtuse. The reason the numbers are wide is because it is impossible to narrow such a thing down. All that can be done is to take the data and estimate.

That studies show that Radical Muslims account for between 1% to 20% of Islam = between 12 and 150 million people. ONCE AGAIN...Not all Radical Muslims carry guns or strap bombs to themselves….the majority are the “sea within which the Radical Islamist terrorists swim.” So, we will not see an "unprecidented magintude" of soldiers for "Allah." They are spread all over the world and are not organized to work as if they are together. You will not see them "taking over a major Islamic countries." What you will see is an IO war they are waging to gain sympathy for their "victim" status. This problem was born in Egypt and it rooted in Saudi Arabia. The "Muslim Brotherhood" was founded in 1928 and it was exported to Saudi. Where is Radical Islam right now? In northern Africa, southern Europe throughout the Middle EAst, and west Asia. It has spread and it did not spread through some "unprecidented magintude" of Radicals.


Why do you continue to type that "judgement is not afforded to me?" Just how am I judging? It has nothing to do with "judgement." This is the reality. Perhaps your fear to be less than "politically correct" has you dodging the truth. Or perhaps you are so trying to find a middle ground or a rational observance to an irrational reality. If you do not agree then there are only two reasons why...

1) You have studied more on this subject than the professionals that have dedicated their lives to such and have come to your own conclusions. If so, please share with us your studies.

or

2) You simply do not want the reality of this to be true.
 
Last edited:
[You know if I invited some mafioso's over to my house for dinner and the police showed up and shooting started....................I don't think I'd have a claim of "innocent bystander".]

libertarian_knight said:
Yeah, but what if the mafioso's inveted themselves over? This is typical behavior of crimminal organizations to impose themselves upon innocents and non-participants. It's why we have the 3rd Amendment.

I don't think the people were imposed upon it was a planned meeting. And what does the 3rd amendment have to do with anything here?
 
Back
Top Bottom