Guns Don't Kill People, The Religion Of Peace Kills People

[MSgt]

Very good point per the US drifting strongly towards the theocracy of fundie extremists.

This is just a retarded statement. A statement like this without any regard for real oppression and theocratic rulership smacks of self-centeredness and ignorance. America is not the center of attention and is far from what really exists in this world. :roll:

 

[MSgt]

This is illogical with your own statement that perceived threat increases radicalism. What you are suggesting is that nothing the US does will either decrease or increase the perceived threat to their religion. That's nonsense.

:roll: It is not nonesense and it is very logical. If you would stop trying to understand this problem with American "black and white" rational thinking and instead placed yourself in the problem you might begin to see the very large problems emersed in a gray reality.

America can't do anything to solve the problems in the Middle East. If we left the entire Middle East, would Radical Islam go away? It started before our involvement, so on the contrary, it would get worse and it is going to get worse anyway. Our absence will not make the Saudi elite build schools. Our absence will not back the Mullahs off and allow a more liberal form of Islam. Our absence will not make the Muslim elite build infrastructure and industry so that masses can have jobs (many can't even afford to get married). Our absence will not slow the population boom and produce the fresh water supply that will be needed. The only thing that can fix Islam is Muslims and the only thing that can fix the Middle East are the greedy Arabs and Persians who now maintain it.

I agree. And what we can best to do to stop the growth of Radicalism is to stop doing things that some can use as an argument that we are threatening their religion.

Like our freedom of speech? Like our fighting in Chad and Ethiopia (and sometimes across the border in Sudan)? Like western inspired freedom in Bali? Your just not getting it. We ignored them for the last thirty years. It did nothing. We absolutely ignored them throughout the 90's. The result was 9/11. They are determined to be involved with us no matter what we do. We can come to their rescue when a fellow Muslim invades them, we can come to their rescue when a natural disaster strikes, and we can come to their rescue when they need financial aid, but none of that matters to them. none of this trumps their need to blame away their problems.

The question isn't whether there are or are not or have been or have not been radicals in the Islamic world. There are radicals everywhere; we have them here. The question is whether the acts our nation takes is perceived as threateining to Islam, and therefore encouraging more to the Radical cause; or are perceived as not threatening to Islam; which would reduce the number joining the Radical cause.

Like a cartoon? Is this threatening enough to riot, burn, destropy, kidnap, and murder? There's just no getting around it. It is a determination to use anything to place blame off of the "believers" shoulders. The Radicals of Islam are only equivelent to the Radicals of Christianity in the early 16th century. The west is today looking forward. The Middle East is facing back. Their crisis is now.

 

[Iriemon]

:roll: It is not nonesense and it is very logical. If you would stop trying to understand this problem with American "black and white" rational thinking and instead placed yourself in the problem you might begin to see the very large problems emersed in a gray reality.

Exactly. It is not black and white. Your position is that Islamic Radicalism is a fixed phenonema; there is nothing that the US can do to change that. That is the black and white view.

I disagree. I think US policy can very much affect the degree of Radicalism in the Islamic world, the number of people who support it or will join it, and whether that radicalism focuses its attention on us. Your view of fixed Radicalism isn't supported by history -- prior to the 1990s there were few Islamic attacks on the US, putting aside our brief invertention in Beruit. Attacks directed towards the US have grown in the 90s and 00s. Why?

Finally, the only logical conclusion for your black and white view is the final solution - mass extermination. And once we start that, we can't do it halfassed, because anyone left over, if they weren't radical and felt threatened before, is really going to be radical after we kill off a few million Sunni. We have to do it the Roman way -- mass genocide and salting the earth.

The problem is, while you seem to think that is a swell solution, you are right that most Americans, including myself, don't like to think of themselves or their country as genocidal murderers. Your "final solution," Herr GySgt, is not likely to be acceptable to most Americans.

So then what? Is the goal to keep batting the nest until we get stung again so hopefully more people will support your final solution?

 

[MSgt]

Exactly. It is not black and white. Your position is that Islamic Radicalism is a fixed phenonema; there is nothing that the US can do to change that. That is the black and white view.

I did not say it was black and white and I did not say it was a fixed phenomena. Try to keep up. Radical Islam began it's rise in 1929. We had nothing to do with it. That is "black and white." The reasons the Middle East is a breeding ground for Radical Islam and why they target the west, and especially America, is not "black and white."

I disagree. I think US policy can very much affect the degree of Radicalism in the Islamic world, the number of people who support it or will join it, and whether that radicalism focuses its attention on us. Your view of fixed Radicalism isn't supported by history -- prior to the 1990s there were few Islamic attacks on the US, putting aside our brief invertention in Beruit. Attacks directed towards the US have grown in the 90s and 00s. Why?

Attacks on our allies are the same thing as attacks on us. M<aybe you should stop thinking of yourself, and start thinkinjg about the world in which Radical Islam has targetted. It is shameful that until 9/11, we have done our best to ignore it.

What the hell does "fixed radicalism" mean?

It has grown, because the civilization is failing. It has grown, because the world is changing at such an alarming rate that many cultures can't keep up. It has grown because, the information age has defined cutlures that can cope with the free flow of information and cultures that resist and cannot process information. It has grown, because we did nothing to retaliate against every attack in the 90's. It has grown because with every "successful" terrorist attack in the 90's, jobless and desperate youth saw hope.


Radical Islam represents a long-term, continuing threat to the U.S. in that it lays the ideological and religious foundation for Islamic-inspired terrorism.
Armed with an ideological foundation, making the leap to Islamic-inspired terrorism requires only a charismatic leader for direction, continued social pressures to solidify the will, and the means (weapons, money) to conduct terrorist acts. Bin Laden is that leader and Bin Laden is why Al-Queda exists. Without Bin Laden, this Radical mentality would still exist.

There is no way not to antagonize these people. You should really think about what you believe is occurring in the Middle East. Think about what exactly we have done there. You will find that it really isn't a lot. There is nothing "black and white" about the Middle East.

Finally, the only logical conclusion for your black and white view is the final solution - mass extermination. And once we start that, we can't do it halfassed, because anyone left over, if they weren't radical and felt threatened before, is really going to be radical after we kill off a few million Sunni. We have to do it the Roman way -- mass genocide and salting the earth.

Again...I do not have the "black and white" view. You do. If you would keep up like individuals who are reading this are, you would find that I was the one that called the situation grey. There is nothing "black and white" about the Middle East. The situation isn't as simple as many want it to be.

The "final solution" may be a tactic for the future as I have said. Your insistence on continuing to bring this up isn't getting you anywhere. It's getting boring. We can not soothe "apocalyptic terrorists." They have to be klilled or imprisoned for life, however, "political" prisoners are martyred in this civilization.

The problem is, while you seem to think that is a swell solution, you are right that most Americans, including myself, don't like to think of themselves or their country as genocidal murderers. Your "final solution," Herr GySgt, is not likely to be acceptable to most Americans.

Still with this? All you are typing is what I have already typed. It is repetitive. Like I said.....our "politically correct" civilization doesn't have the stomach to do what will one day become necessary. Our future involves waves of suicide bombers and nuclear explosions in American cities with absolutely no Arab or Persian government claiming it. We will be left with a choice....suck it up and continue this obtuse sentiment that we can't fight terrorism or destroy the civilization that breeds their terrorists.

So then what? Is the goal to keep batting the nest until we get stung again so hopefully more people will support your final solution?

This must have really hurt your feelings. Get over it. If you're not mature enough to handle solid military tactics stay away from them. The ultimate peace is the non-existence of an enemy. Allowing them to dictate who our friends are and what we print is not acceptable. You are in the wrong country if you wish to bow to threats, attacks, and a terrorist letters. We were stung throughout the 90's, bt most American could care less until 9/11. Hell of an alarm clock wasn't it?

Seperate your emotions from your logic.

 

[Iriemon]

...

The ultimate peace is the non-existence of an enemy.

...

Seperate your emotions from your logic.

Is that is what one has to do to support your "final solution" of mass murder and genocide? Sorry, I'll support another way.

 

[steen]

This is just a retarded statement.

Oh, good denial there. The US has become increasingly more religiously rightwing and intolerant, to the pount of talking about crusades and absolutist nationalism. Your denial is what is "retarded."

A statement like this without any regard for real oppression and theocratic rulership smacks of self-centeredness and ignorance.

But theocratic imposition into civil law very much is going on. terry Schiavo, abortion, homosexual marriage, all that is religiously fdriven with the desire for control and imposition of one "right" belief. That is the "culture war" of theocratic radicals that gives rise to people like Mcveigh and Eric Rudolph.

 

[steen]

The ultimate peace is the non-existence of an enemy.

It is that kind of war mongering mentality that makes conservatism unacceptable. I reject your military theocratic "utopia." Your mentality is that of a world where you have killed of everybody else, because we won't accept your radical extreemism. At WHAT point to you question whether you perhaps are wrong? When you have killed everybody but yourself? bevcause with that mentality, **I** am your enemy. Will you have to kill me off as well? When do you stop?

 

[Iriemon]

It is that kind of war mongering mentality that makes conservatism unacceptable. I reject your military theocratic "utopia." Your mentality is that of a world where you have killed of everybody else, because we won't accept your radical extreemism. At WHAT point to you question whether you perhaps are wrong? When you have killed everybody but yourself? bevcause with that mentality, **I** am your enemy. Will you have to kill me off as well? When do you stop?

Good point.

 

[MSgt]

Is that is what one has to do to support your "final solution" of mass murder and genocide? Sorry, I'll support another way.

"Mass murder" and "genocide" are your words. When it comes right down to it, it really doesn't matter what you "support" does it?

 

[MSgt]

It is that kind of war mongering mentality that makes conservatism unacceptable. I reject your military theocratic "utopia." Your mentality is that of a world where you have killed of everybody else, because we won't accept your radical extreemism. At WHAT point to you question whether you perhaps are wrong? When you have killed everybody but yourself? bevcause with that mentality, **I** am your enemy. Will you have to kill me off as well? When do you stop?

When those that would cause us harm is dead. Skyjack any airplanes lately? Raised any suicide bombers? Save your dramatics.

Your sentiments are the same as those conservatives who reject a woman's right to choose and refuse to experiment with stem cells. They cower behind closed doors because they lack the courage to open it for fear of where it could lead.

 

[Iriemon]

"Mass murder" and "genocide" are your words. When it comes right down to it, it really doesn't matter what you "support" does it?

I admit you did not use those words. Don't you have the stomach to use them yourself? Are you too PC? Isn't that what you are saying that is the ultimate fix?
It seems to be a fair description to me.

If Arab Sunnis wish to live in the past, then we should employ the tactics of old that guaranteed a longing peace - slaughter the problem.

Along with your analogy to the utter destruction of Carthage, in which the Romans killed every living person and then salted the earth, and your reference to the use of a nuclear bomb against Japan.

Mass murder and genocide seem a fair description of your proposal to me. What would you call the "slaughter" and "utter destruction" of Sunni Arabs and our enemy, the failed civilization of Islam, that those with the PC "sickness" can't stomach?

It is true what I support may not really matter. I'm hoping that is the case for what you support as well.

 

[Iriemon]

When those that would cause us harm is dead. Skyjack any airplanes lately? Raised any suicide bombers? Save your dramatics.

Your sentiments are the same as those conservatives who reject a woman's right to choose and refuse to experiment with stem cells. They cower behind closed doors because they lack the courage to open it for fear of where it could lead.

Just being a member of the Islamic faith seems to be enough if I understand what you are saying.

 

[MSgt]

I admit you did not use those words. Don't you have the stomach to use them yourself? Are you too PC? Isn't that what you are saying that is the ultimate fix?

If Arab Sunnis wish to live in the past, then we should employ the tactics of old that guaranteed a longing peace - slaughter the problem.

Along with your analogy to the utter destruction of Carthage, in which the Romans killed every living person and then salted the earth, and your reference to the use of a nuclear bomb against Japan.

Mass murder and genocide seem a fair description of your proposal to me. What would you call the "slaughter" and "utter destruction" of Sunni Arabs and our enemy, the failed civilization of Islam, that those with the PC "sickness" can't stomach?

It is true what I support may not really matter. I'm hoping that is the case for what you support as well.

Hmmm. You "admit" that you were using your own words to satisfy your inadequicies. ..say's a lot about your obviously simplistic tactics doesn't it?

Do you completely lack any sense of creativity to think for yourself? Must you use my own words to whine your thoughts? I am attempting to treat you like an adult, but as always you find yourself wanting and you resort to childish antics. There is absolutely nothing "PC" about me. You already know this, but since you lack the intelligence to debate with maturity, you mire yourself in trite sophomoric pouts.

I will, once again, attempt to treat you like an adult. We'll see how you handle it. What I said was that....."we should not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Look to Rome. It is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed." There was the willingness of the Roman Empire to completely crush any resistance and every military structure. Today, we fight with kids gloves. Our civilization does not have the stomach to do what will most likely be necessary in the future. Radical Islam will dictate. What seems "a fair description" to you is only so, because you lack the knowledge of the day or the events of history.

I will also say this again....that our future involves waves of suicide bombers and nuclear explosions in our cities. When this happens, will you be able to stomach destroying the civilization from where it came despite no Arab or Persian government claiming it or will you continue this cowardice stance as American cities go up in smoke one by one by Islamic terrorists that come from all over the region?

 

[MSgt]

Just being a member of the Islamic faith seems to be enough if I understand what you are saying.

No, you obviously lack the skills to comprehend anything outside of your pathetic idealogue fantasies. Allow me to embarrass you again....

There are 1.2 Billion Muslims Worldwide and Muslims are the majority in 63 countries. (It is interesting that over 80% of the worlds current conflicts involve Muslim countries.)

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. Now, it is estimated that Radical Muslims account for between 1% to 20% of Islam, which equals between 12 and 150 million people. Not all Radical Muslims carry guns or strap bombs to themselves….the majority are the "sea within which the Radical Islamist terrorists swim."

This means that the vast majority (80% to 99%) of Islamists are not the problem.





So much for your sophomoric, simpleton posts.:3oops: If you lack the knowledge of the day, you will never keep up with arguing against someone like me.

 

[Iriemon]

Do you completely lack any sense of creativity to think for yourself? Must you use my own words to whine your thoughts? I am attempting to treat you like an adult, but as always you find yourself wanting and you resort to childish antics. There is absolutely nothing "PC" about me. You already know this, but since you lack the intelligence to debate with maturity, you mire yourself in trite sophomoric pouts.

I will, once again, attempt to treat you like an adult. We'll see how you handle it. What I said was that....."we should not look for answers in recent history, which is still unclear and subject to personal emotion. Look to Rome. It is the nearest model to the present-day United States. Mild with subject peoples, to whom they brought the rule of ethical law, the Romans in their rise and at their apogee were implacable with their enemies. The utter destruction of Carthage brought centuries of local peace, while the later empire's attempts to appease barbarians consistently failed." There was the willingness of the Roman Empire to completely crush any resistance and every military structure. Today, we fight with kids gloves. Our civilization does not have the stomach to do what will most likely be necessary in the future. Radical Islam will dictate. What seems "a fair description" to you is only so, because you lack the knowledge of the day or the events of history.

I will also say this again....that our future involves waves of suicide bombers and nuclear explosions in our cities. When this happens, will you be able to stomach destroying the civilization from where it came despite no Arab or Persian government claiming it or will you continue this cowardice stance as American cities go up in smoke one by one by Islamic terrorists that come from all over the region?

That is a hypothetical. If we continue to whap the hornet's nest, I agree we are inviting that result. That is why the Iraq war was a mistake from a strategic perspective, and we should get the hell out of there, and the whole ME, if you ask me.

If Islam is going through a period of change, the worst thing we can do is unnecessarily interfere and encourage the radical element.

If we are attacked, I support responding in kind.

 

[Iriemon]

No, you obviously lack the skills to comprehend anything outside of your pathetic idealogue fantasies. Allow me to embarrass you again....

There are 1.2 Billion Muslims Worldwide and Muslims are the majority in 63 countries. (It is interesting that over 80% of the worlds current conflicts involve Muslim countries.)

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. Now, it is estimated that Radical Muslims account for between 1% to 20% of Islam, which equals between 12 and 150 million people. Not all Radical Muslims carry guns or strap bombs to themselves….the majority are the "sea within which the Radical Islamist terrorists swim."

This means that the vast majority (80% to 99%) of Islamists are not the problem.

So much for your sophomoric, simpleton posts.:3oops: If you lack the knowledge of the day, you will never keep up with arguing against someone like me.

What happened to "slaughtering" the Sunnis?

Now you are backtracking and contending you don't think we should slaughter the Sunnis, but only the 1% of the "radicals" who are the problem? Or if I just misunderstood, I apologize for misunderstanding you. But heck, I'd agree with going after the radicals. I thought that is what we were trying to do? What is so un-PC and hard to stomach about that?

The only problem is figuring out who and where those 1% are. And, more imporatantly, what we can do to keep the other 99% from joining the 1%. And I agree, one thing we should avoid doing are things that are they would perceive as threatening their religion, because as you said, that only encourages more of the 99% to join the 1%.

 

[MSgt]

That is a hypothetical. If we continue to whap the hornet's nest, I agree we are inviting that result. That is why the Iraq war was a mistake from a strategic perspective, and we should get the hell out of there, and the whole ME, if you ask me.

If Islam is going through a period of change, the worst thing we can do is unnecessarily interfere and encourage the radical element.

If we are attacked, I support responding in kind.

What you are suggesting is idealogue nonesense. We cannot leave the Middle East and you know it, yet you make silly statements that conflict with the reality. Do you enjoy driving? How about going to store to buy something that a car, plane, or boat brought to you? The entire world needs an uninterupted and stable oil supply and we are the world's scapegoat as they benefit from our protection of said energy source. The "House of Saud" (The true lords of terror) are the business brokers. It is a quagmire and we are pledged to protect those bizaars of terror. However, people like Bin Laden, who claim to be trying to "free" the Muslim lands from "Satanic clutches," would only achieve in a corrupt Islamic government of his own. It is the culture. These people do not march in protest in Saudi Arabia or Syria. They are lazy and choose to blame an outside source for their problems. At least with Iran, we see Persian Muslims marching all of the time against their government. They do not suffer totally from the narcotic of blame, but they do sample from it.

 

[MSgt]

What happened to "slaughtering the problem"?

Now you are backtracking and contending you don't think we should slaughter the Sunnis, but only the 1% of the "radicals" who are the problem? Or if I just misunderstood, I apologize for misunderstanding you. But heck, I'd agree with going after the radicals. I thought that is what we were trying to do? What is so un-PC and hard to stomach about that?

The only problem is figuring out who and where those 1% are. And, more imporatantly, what we can do to keep the other 99% from joining the 1%. And I agree, one thing we should avoid doing are things that are they would perceive as threatening their religion, because as you said, that only encourages more of the 99% to join the 1%.

I don't back track either. I said "slaughter", because the word has an intense meaning behind an act we may one day be faced with. I'm a military realist.

The problem with the Radical element within the Middle East is that they are spread out all over the region. Our enemy is a culture, which is deeply diseased. 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. This is what I meant by "stomaching" something that we one day may have no choice but to do. It is not as easy as dropping a bomb and hitting only Radicals. With Iran seeking nuclear capabilities, we are setting ourselves to face this very real possibility. The people of Russia had communism. Islam has God. One group is much more susceptable to irrational action. If a nuclear bomb went off in Washington D.C., set off by a Radical Islamist, would Iran claim it? No, but what will we do at this point knowing that Iran is probably "losing" nuclear bombs? The word "slaughter" now becomes a necessity.

 

[FallingPianos]

My point is that even though you are right in the fact the individuals themselves are committing the violence, not the religions, some religions promote violence.

religions are not a living speaking entity. they dont promote anything. people promote violence.

 

[vergiss]

Practical/apocalyptic terrorist etc...

You're obviously not very familiar with one of the Army of God's favourite son, Eric Rudolph. Not only did he bomb an abortion clinic and a gay nightclub (what do you mean it didn't prey on people who weren't involved? I've been in a gay club, and I'm straight, doesn't mean I'm "involved". What if the family of a patient or staff member was waiting in the clinic and had been harmed?), but he was also the man behind the Centennial Olypmic Park bombing. He explained later that he wanted to punish the US for permitting "abortion on demand". Sounds pretty indescriminate, religiously-motivated and devoid from reality to me.

Furthermore, Paul Hill (another abortion clinic bomber) said just before his execution that he expected "a great reward in Heaven". Sounds familiar, don't you think?

 

[alphamale]

when was the last time you've heard of atheist serial killer? .

How about this guy?

http://www.murdervictims.com/watts.htm

 

[Iriemon]

What you are suggesting is idealogue nonesense. We cannot leave the Middle East and you know it, yet you make silly statements that conflict with the reality. Do you enjoy driving? How about going to store to buy something that a car, plane, or boat brought to you? The entire world needs an uninterupted and stable oil supply and we are the world's scapegoat as they benefit from our protection of said energy source. The "House of Saud" (The true lords of terror) are the business brokers. It is a quagmire and we are pledged to protect those bizaars of terror. However, people like Bin Laden, who claim to be trying to "free" the Muslim lands from "Satanic clutches," would only achieve in a corrupt Islamic government of his own. It is the culture. These people do not march in protest in Saudi Arabia or Syria. They are lazy and choose to blame an outside source for their problems. At least with Iran, we see Persian Muslims marching all of the time against their government. They do not suffer totally from the narcotic of blame, but they do sample from it.

1) It is not our oil. The fact that we cannot control our gluttonous apettite to fuel our SUVs does not give us some kind of right to dictate what governments they have to ensure they keep selling it.

2) There is no rational basis to think that whatever governments come in charge, even radical ones like took over in Iran in 1979, would stop pumping oil. One thing they all want and need is money.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't back track either. I said "slaughter", because the word has an intense meaning behind an act we may one day be faced with. I'm a military realist.

The problem with the Radical element within the Middle East is that they are spread out all over the region. Our enemy is a culture, which is deeply diseased. 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. This is what I meant by "stomaching" something that we one day may have no choice but to do. It is not as easy as dropping a bomb and hitting only Radicals. With Iran seeking nuclear capabilities, we are setting ourselves to face this very real possibility. The people of Russia had communism. Islam has God. One group is much more susceptable to irrational action. If a nuclear bomb went off in Washington D.C., set off by a Radical Islamist, would Iran claim it? No, but what will we do at this point knowing that Iran is probably "losing" nuclear bombs? The word "slaughter" now becomes a necessity.

You are talking about a hypothetical which may or may not happen which if it did could be under 1000 different circumstances.

but what do we do now?

1) Continue to invade and occupy countries on false pretext in attempts to install secular governments, lie about our intent, and kill scores of muslims daily, which will continue to be perceived as a threat to the vast majority of Muslems that were not radicals but is pushing many towards the radical element?

2) Start the final solution now.

3) Try to isolate the radical element by thinking about things we can do as a nation that will not fuel and propogate the radical element but discourage the vast majority from siding with them?

 

[MSgt]

You're obviously not very familiar with one of the Army of God's favourite son, Eric Rudolph. Not only did he bomb an abortion clinic and a gay nightclub (what do you mean it didn't prey on people who weren't involved? I've been in a gay club, and I'm straight, doesn't mean I'm "involved". What if the family of a patient or staff member was waiting in the clinic and had been harmed?), but he was also the man behind the Centennial Olypmic Park bombing. He explained later that he wanted to punish the US for permitting "abortion on demand". Sounds pretty indescriminate, religiously-motivated and devoid from reality to me.

Furthermore, Paul Hill (another abortion clinic bomber) said just before his execution that he expected "a great reward in Heaven". Sounds familiar, don't you think?

You're just not getting it. I'll continue to try.......

We have to be able to identify the type of terrorists we face and know them as best we possibly can. Although tactics may be similar, strategies for dealing with "Practical" vs. "Apocalyptic" terrorists can differ widely. Practical terrorists may have legitimate grievances that deserve consideration, although their methods cannot be tolerated. Apocalyptic terrorists, no matter their rhetoric seek our destruction and must be killed to the last man. The apt metaphor is cancer - we cannot hope for success if we only cut out part of the tumor. For the Apocalyptic Terrorist, evading our efforts can easily be turned into a public triumph. Our bloodiest success will create far fewer terrorists and sympathizers than our failures.

Eric Rudolph seeked for a political blow against abortion and, therefore, he bombed an abortion clinic. Eric Rudolph seeked for a political blow against homosexuality and, therefore, he bombed a gay club. In his mind, he "knows" what God wants and he is on a crusade to warn America of it's destination by attacking what he perceives as denizens of sin. He does not bomb Wal-Mart, because he is angry about abortion and homosexuality. He has a path and it makes sense. However, the Centennial Olympic Park bombing was an "apocalyptic" act.


Ted kaczynski (The Unabomber) made a secular religion of his crusade against technological progress. He targeted specific individuals in his attempts to "alert" our society and did not use his abilities to attack undifferentiated citizens in a broad manner.) He had a path and it made sense. He too, did not seek a Wal-Mart full of people to strike a blow at progress.

Much like Rudolph, Paul Hill was a religious Radical who disagreed with "murdering God's children." Therefore, he targetted abortion clinics. Like all religious fanatics who believe they are acting as God's voice, Hill expected a reward in heaven. Religion does not make describe the definition, although most Apocalyptic terrorists in history hid behind a religion.

What makes them different from Bin Laden and his "martyrs" is the intent. Those other men wanted to warn society and make it better. Same with the IRA. Bin Laden merely wishes to destroy. His claims and demands are mere words. As he "warns" America, he slaughters fellow Muslims in Sudan, Somalia, and Iraq. As he makes his demands that we should "free" Saudi Arabia, he envisions a religiously dominated and oppresive society in his image. He clings to his brutal and perverted interpretations of the Qu'ran, he seeks the "end of days" that is predicted in the Book of Revelation. The world Trade center had nothing to do with military bases in Saudi Arabia. His methods and his ideals are what makes him and his, "apocalytpic." He is worse than the typical religious fanatic in that he is twisted in his religion. He seeks to destroy civilization, not improve it.

The answer to the question that defines what categorizes the terrorist is...."Does the terrorist have a vision to improve upon society for his people or does he simply wish to punish and destroy it?" Like I said, religious terrorists swim between the two definitions. The more fanatic, the more towards "Apocalytpic" he becomes.

There are countless studies written in books and in essays on the Internet. These studies have been conducted by analysts, educators, social experts, anti-terrorist experts, and phsycologists for the past twenty years. They all come to common conclusions. Not all terrorists are the same and therefore there are different solutions to the problem. Not all murderers are the same - their are murderers and their are serial killers. One can be reasoned with...one cannot.

I don't know how else to explain this. You're killing me...'vergiss.'

 

[MSgt]

1) It is not our oil. The fact that we cannot control our gluttonous apettite to fuel our SUVs does not give us some kind of right to dictate what governments they have to ensure they keep selling it.

Of course. This is not our oil. It is a business and we do business with those who oppress and abuse their people. This elite could easily turn into the kind of men that would bring peace to the Middle East and put a strangle hold Islamiuc terrorism over time. The reality is, that they do not wish to be these kinds of men and we still need oil.

2) There is no rational basis to think that whatever governments come in charge, even radical ones like took over in Iran in 1979, would stop pumping oil. One thing they all want and need is money.

Correct, however, the world cannot rely upon the swinging door that is the Middle East. Religious fanaticism builds armies that are loyal to their "preachers" and they have risen up against their governments. With tyrants like Saddam who has proven to invade any country he fixes his oil visioned eyes upon, "stability" trumps anything else. If left completely alone, the oil production in Iraq would be zero. They would feud until the last man is standing. In Saudi Arabia, religious fanatics are a dime a dozen and some become fixed on overthrowing their governments so bad, that they would drop airplanes on an American city.

The exportation of oil which feeds the need of every modern civilization on the planet relies on it's stability. The reality sucks, but it is the reality.