Do you support the global war on Islamic Fascism IE the GWoT?

[Kasmos]

Probably one of the most complicated polls out there ToT, not a simple question.

Do I support going after terrorist sects and organizations and taking them out? Damn straight I do.

Do I support invading a country (like Iraq) based off of false pretenses when we should have been focusing our efforts in Afghanistan? Absolutely not.

So yes, I support the global war on terror, but don't support the way we've gone about doing it.

 

[Gardener]

That's why we need to support the WoT anywhere it is being fought.

Including on the internet.

War of Ideas.

I agree that it is a war of ideas. That's why we should be shifting much of our focus towards those who finance the mechanisms through which the ideology is spread.

As far as I'm concerned, it IS all about oil, but not in the way those who spout the platitude usually think. It is the oil money that finances the wahhabist maddrasses that pump out the ideology. It also greases the European political machinery and influences dialogue in such a way that Europe is becoming a satellite of the Arab world in terms of political world view.

The west needs to find away to become energy independant so we stop contributing towards the funding. THats what we should be focusing on IMO as much or more than the more corporeal battle.

 

[Kasmos]

The west needs to find away to become energy independant so we stop contributing towards the funding. THats what we should be focusing on IMO as much or more than the more corporeal battle.

And who would have thought that by doing so and finding alternative fuel America can generate, we'd be helping decrease CO2 emissions as well!

Talk about killing two birds with one stone.

 

[DivineComedy]

Simple question yes or no?

NO. {period}

***** Doing more than Yes or NO *****

For all I know a future terrorist that really hurts us could be domestic, like in the topic (posted July 07, 2001 11:16 PM) where I attacked the Right Wing white guy that said this:

“the Davidians had every right to defend their lives against government terrorist thugs. I am not yet convinced that we have reached that point, and I involve myself in the political process in the hopes that we can return to the confines of our Constitution Republics, with it's limits on invasive and repressive goverment.
On the other hand, if Gore had won the election...well, I'd rather not go there.”
“Be it with the vote, or with a "Bang!", America will eventually be reborn and return to her Constitutional limits.”

There I was a Republican, that voted for Bush, defending Al Gore‘s right to be elected. In discussion with domestics I had to say this:

“I do have a problem with the acceptance of terrorism as a justifiable method to achieve change by a minority that has representation and the freedom to exercise it. If we allow such ideas to flourish the ultimate result is draconian big brother, and the iron fist of oppression.
It’s like one of those nightmares I had as a child that just loops around.” (posted July 14, 2001 12:57 PM)

Do you really want your life on Allen Funt’s Candid Camera?

“Responsibility! Who cares?” (September 11, 2001, 10:59:42 AM)

How can we morally go after foreign terrorists and really be safe from “draconian big brother” if we have our own domestics that say, “Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski)

Are we going to pick and choose and say the guy that goes boom if an Al Gore gets elected is a “freedom fighter?”

Since there is no guarantee that the first terrorist to use a Weapon of Mass Destruction against us or one of our allies will be “Islamic,” I see no reason to link the “Global War on Terror” to anything “Islam.”

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Probably one of the most complicated polls out there ToT, not a simple question.

Do I support going after terrorist sects and organizations and taking them out? Damn straight I do.

Do I support invading a country (like Iraq) based off of false pretenses when we should have been focusing our efforts in Afghanistan? Absolutely not.

So yes, I support the global war on terror, but don't support the way we've gone about doing it.

Regardless if you believe that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism (I personally believe he was) the fact of the matter is that AQ is there now.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

It's not a simple question.

Do I support taking out proven terrorists that pose a demonstrable terrorist threat to the United States? Certainly. Do I support invading sovereign nations because George Bush decides he doesn't like them and they might support what George Bush decides support "terrorism", even if it isn't a direct threat to the United States, deposing the government and spending billions upon billions of dollars trying to impose a western-style democracy on the citizens whether they want one or not? Hell no, what kind of a stupid question is that?

If you support taking out proven terrorists that pose a demonstratable threat to the U.S., then even if you don't believe that Saddam Hussein was not supporting and harboring terrorists, you still have to recognize the undisputable fact that AQ is there now.

 

[Kasmos]

If you support taking out proven terrorists that pose a demonstratable threat to the U.S., then even if you don't believe that Saddam Hussein was not supporting and harboring terrorists, you still have to recognize the undisputable fact that AQ is there now.

And you still have to recognize the undisputable fact that by taking down Hussein we, as a country, allowed for AQ to be there.

When you take down a system of government (even if it is corrupt) that stabilizes the country (like Iraq had) you can expect to see what we're witnessing today.

 

[Red_Dave]

Simple question yes or no?

I would love to support a war on islamic facism, let me know when it starts

 

[bhkad]

It sounds like you're not in the army, so I suggest you walk the talk big fella. No you'd love to go kill yourself an a-rab, for good ol' uncle Sam right. I know there are millions of Jihadists trying to destroy America, but there are 5xs as more murderers, rapists, child abusers, environment destroying, politicians, greedy evil people already destroying America. Serving this country would to better this country to try to divert it away from slurpees, fries, greed, spoiledness, stupidity, and ignorance. You are acting as if I like Jihadists, because that's a clever little trick to manipulate the masses, "if you don't do or believe this the terrorists win", or "with us or against us". Jihadists are evil and souless.

Every American has the right to criticize our foreign policy, whether they serve, will serve, have served, can't or won't serve. Every American who enjoys liberty should want to secure liberty in the world and at home.

I do. And I think every freedom loving person in the world joins me in supporting this philosophy: When diplomacy, sanctions or other methods can't stop the Jihadists from trying to attain the leadership of mankind -- city by city, region by region, nation by nation -- those people must be stopped by use of violence. If they are not stopped they will swallow up land that will only be freed by use of force, they will swallow up resources that they will use to feed their future aggression and violence and they will swallow up freedom and give the conquered these three choices:

1. Convert to Islam and support the extremist's interpretation of the Koran.
2. Pay a Jizyah tax and accept the persecution and unequal treatment afforded to non-Muslims living in a Muslim society.
3. Be killed.

The siege in Pakistan's Red Mosque is a fight for liberty. The fight in Lebanon is for liberty. In Somalia, liberty is on the line. Afghanistan, liberty. Darfur, liberty. Iraq, liberty. Glasgow, liberty. London, liberty.

Without regard to race or national origin.

Everywhere extremists seek to swallow up liberty:

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and...

...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World

They must be stopped because they won't stop on their own accord.

And once they swallow up enough land, resources and freedom they will be unbeatable.

So the choice is made to stop their aggression where the aggression is today. Not to ignore it until it is here.

And the minute they stop waging war on liberty is the minute we will stop fighting.

Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -- surrender.

Ronald Reagan, "The Speech"

You want US to surrender even though we stand for liberty.

We want the extremists to surrender because they stand for Islamic oppression.

It isn't all that difficult to understand.

If you want us to quit after reading this it is because you support Jihad.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And you still have to recognize the undisputable fact that by taking down Hussein we, as a country, allowed for AQ to be there.

Debatable but it's irrelevant at this point.

When you take down a system of government (even if it is corrupt) that stabilizes the country (like Iraq had) you can expect to see what we're witnessing today.

I would not consider a nation that continually attacked its neighbors, continually threatened its neighbors, and was letting its people starve to death to be all that "stable."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I would love to support a war on islamic facism, let me know when it starts

Are you suggesting that the U.S. is not currently engaged in an all out hot war against Islamic Fascism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Red_Dave]

Are you suggesting that the U.S. is not currently engaged in an all out hot war against Islamic Fascism in Iraq and Afghanistan?

No but ild dispute that its possibile to declare a titantic struggle against islamic facism as a whole while fighting it with one hand and proping it up with the other. Trying to incoportate the removal of the ba'athist regime into this absurd concept makes it all the more non-sensical.

I,ld agree that the U.S is at war with some islamic facists but portraying the conflict as one where islamic facism on a whole is on the one side and the U.S and it wonderously democratic allys are on other is simply not true. Look at saudi arabia and the like.

If the U.S where really at war with islamic facism it would be targetting the most extreme islamic facist regimes rather then arming them. Give the fact the saudi religious establishment make the mulluahs look like sufis i doubt this is the case.

 

[Kandahar]

Regardless if you believe that Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism (I personally believe he was) the fact of the matter is that AQ is there now.

Al-Qaeda is there BECAUSE we are there. And even so, their presence is very small. Do you really think that they'd take over Iraq if we pulled out? The first thing the Sunni insurgents would do would be to massacre the foreign fighters amongst them. And if the Sunnis didn't get them, the Shiites would.

 

[Cephus]

If you support taking out proven terrorists that pose a demonstratable threat to the U.S., then even if you don't believe that Saddam Hussein was not supporting and harboring terrorists, you still have to recognize the undisputable fact that AQ is there now.

Sure, they're there now because we're there now. They weren't there before we arrived. Bush lied to the American people to get into a personal dick waving contest with the guy who tried to kill his daddy and thousands of American lives are being lost because of it.

If anyone is a terrorist, it's Bush.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Al-Qaeda is there BECAUSE we are there. And even so, their presence is very small. Do you really think that they'd take over Iraq if we pulled out? The first thing the Sunni insurgents would do would be to massacre the foreign fighters amongst them. And if the Sunnis didn't get them, the Shiites would.

So you think that if we leave AQ will just pack up and go home? :roll:

And did the Taliban slaughter the Mujahadeen foreign fighters as soon as the USSR pulled out? What the hell makes you think the Sunni insurgents would do that to their fellow Sunni's?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No but ild dispute that its possibile to declare a titantic struggle against islamic facism as a whole while fighting it with one hand and proping it up with the other. Trying to incoportate the removal of the ba'athist regime into this absurd concept makes it all the more non-sensical.

I,ld agree that the U.S is at war with some islamic facists but portraying the conflict as one where islamic facism on a whole is on the one side and the U.S and it wonderously democratic allys are on other is simply not true. Look at saudi arabia and the like.

If the U.S where really at war with islamic facism it would be targetting the most extreme islamic facist regimes rather then arming them. Give the fact the saudi religious establishment make the mulluahs look like sufis i doubt this is the case.

AQ is officially at war with the House of Saud and have been since the 1996 Fatwa.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Sure, they're there now because we're there now.

Uh huh but you admit that they are there now, what you think that if we leave they'll leave and disarm and no longer pose a threat?

They weren't there before we arrived.

Debatable but irrelevent.

Bush lied to the American people to get into a personal dick waving contest with the guy who tried to kill his daddy and thousands of American lives are being lost because of it.

What lies? And I thought people are currently dying because appx. 10% of the population of Iraq does not want to allow the Iraqi people to have Democracy and freedom.

If anyone is a terrorist, it's Bush.

So Bush is a clandestine or subnational organization or individual who uses or threatens the use of force against non-combatants in order to coerce and intimidate a government or a society?

 

[Red_Dave]

AQ is officially at war with the House of Saud and have been since the 1996 Fatwa.

AQ is also at war with iran but does that make them any less islamic facist? What other kind of facist would the House of Saud be? Surely a "global war on islamic facism" would constitute fighting islamic facists all over the world, not just in the convient places?

 

[aquapub]

Sure, they're there now because we're there now. They weren't there before we arrived.

:bs

We caught notorious terrorist fugitives like Abu Abbas being harbored there when we invaded. More importantly, terrorists didn't have to be inside the country for a regime change to be warranted over the terror-sponsoring and other umpteen reasons Bush stated.

Bush lied to the American people to get into a personal dick waving contest with the guy who tried to kill his daddy and thousands of American lives are being lost because of it.

Prove it. You people never can...because your assertions are based on hysterical, slanted assumptions and conspiracy theories.

If anyone is a terrorist, it's Bush.

Removing terror-sponsors does not make Bush a terrorist. If anyone's policies make them a terrorist, it would be the party that has but one common thread among their extensively contradictory positions: whatever opposes national defense at the moment-Democrats.

This outrageously false post has enabled you to work your way to the bottom of the credibility barrel with stooges like Bill O'Really.

:applaud

 

[Arillious]

Wee! I love a good false dilemma as much as the next guy. This looks like fun, ToT. Can I try it too?

Have you stopped trying to kill your fellow citizens?
Do you enjoy raping albino spider monkeys?
Did you become conservative before or after ending your secret love affair with Hillary?

Yeah, I'm not nearly as good at it as you are. I guess I should leave these things to the experts.

Brilliant isnt it?

 

[Arillious]

Prove it. You people never can...because your assertions are based on hysterical, slanted assumptions and conspiracy theories.

Bush is either a liar, or he just really stupid. You choose.

Almost everything he has said has turned out to be false.

 

[Arillious]

To answer the question of the poll...

Do I support the global war on Islamic fascism, the way its currently being fought? No.

Do I support a intelligently thought out war against Islamic fascism, with the backing of the international community, after all other reasonable alternatives have been exausted? Yes

I'm pretty confident that if the question was asked in a un-biased manner that the poll would show that the majority of people are with me on this one.

 

[Volker]

"Islamic fascism" is nothing but a stupid propaganda term.

Why should someone support a war against a stupid propaganda term?

 

[The Mark]

"Islamic fascism" is nothing but a stupid propaganda term.

Debatable. I believe that someone has posted evidence supporting it on this website before. I have yet to see any evidence which proves it is "a stupid propaganda term."

Why should someone support a war against a stupid propaganda term?

Because they don't think it's a stupid propaganda term?

 

[Kandahar]

Debatable. I believe that someone has posted evidence supporting it on this website before. I have yet to see any evidence which proves it is "a stupid propaganda term."


Because they don't think it's a stupid propaganda term?

The term implies that all of these "Islamic fascists" are a monolithic entity, who all have the same goals and are allied with each other. This is incorrect. Thinking like this can cloud our judgment when deciding on a course of action, as proven by TOT, who proudly declares that he doesn't care about nuance when assessing the situation.