RedKnight wrote:
So, peace isn't possible, until every single Palestinian militant is dead, eh? Spoken like a true militant. I'm certain that these warped fools you are condemning, quite correctly albeit, say precisely the same thing about their goals. Their safety and sovereignty cannot be guaranteed, they will tell you, until every Jewish invader is dead. Great. Back to square one.
The Palestinian terrorists want to kill all the Jews. The Israelis want to (or
should want to - their own self-preservation instincts don't seem to be very strong) kill all the terrorists. Oh, yes, that's
so equivalent.
Quote:
As for property destruction equalling murder, don't play silly buggers with me. I can only assume you are being intentionally childish and legalistic about my terminology.
If not, let me walk you through; when I talk about housing estates, I tend to make the silly assumption that houses are built for people to live in. It's not nice to demolish houses - but it's particularly nasty to attack them when there are people inside. So, no, I don't equate wrecked buildings with broken bodies on the sliding scale of my morality.
Bulldozers are not lightning-fast, nor are they silent. There's plenty of time to escape the condemned house. Can you point out an example of someone being killed because they didn't have time to flee?
Quote:
I cannot believe that you think the solution to Tit-for Tat strikes is to make Israel's next Tit bigger than the Palestinian terror groups' last Tat.
The solution is to
break the cycle. World War I was not won by grinding away at the enemy in the trenches - it was won after the trenches were overcome by tanks and the battle was taken to the enemy. Since the terrorists are fixated on killing Israelis, the cycle cannot be broken by attempts at peacefulness; that would only be inviting an attack. The cycle can only be broken by wiping out the terrorists.
Quote:
If a section of one population are fighting against you, and they are subsumed and hidden amongst all the other innocent members of that population, it is impossible to wipe them out at a stroke. You are quick to lecture me on the things which betray the ignorance or impracticality of my ideas, so let me clue you in - the USA has tried this, in Vietnam. What happened there? You're a keen researcher, look it up.
The U.S. utterly mishandled Vietnam. They tried to fight by grinding away at the enemy's forces in the field, on the enemy's own territory. Modern wars are
not won in that fashion; the war must be taken to the heart of the enemy...and in Vietnam, the U.S. failed to do that. If the U.S. forces had attacked the North Vietnamese centers of power, their cities and supply lines and all the things required to make war -- in other words, fought on
our terms rather than theirs -- Vietnam would have been won.
Quote:
(long portion on Northern Ireland snipped)
The progress which has been made is not down to an intensification of British Military action within the region. It's down to the very costly process of negotiation which has obtained, for this first time in this heretofore intractable situation, genuine compromises.
The same can happen in Palestine and Israel. The leaders on both sides just have to want it enough.
The IRA still exists. But other terrorist groups that were its contemporaries do not: the Baader-Meinhoff group from Germany, Italy's Red Brigades, the Weather Underground, and Japan's Red Army.
Why does the IRA still exist while these groups have been wiped out? Because the IRA has been negotiated with and these other groups have been
hunted. Killing and jailing terrorists destroys terror groups; the results from the destruction of these organizations is the proof. Dozens of Germans did not rise, inflamed, to take the place of fallen Baader-Meinhoff terrorists once the leaders of that group were taken, nor did the Italians or the Japanese. But since the IRA was not dealt with in a similar fashion, since it was treated as an adversary that could be negotiated with rather than an enemy that had to be destroyed, it has survived.
Quote:
Thank you ever so much for your educational submission on the nature of the Qu'ran. And thank you also for your jibe at my ignorance. I was raised to believe that a person should not attempt to flannel their way
through an argument when they did not have a strong grasp of the facts.
Some people consider it wise to acknowledge one's limitations - I am one of those.
That said, you haven't actually quoted the Qu'ran.
This thread contains some Koran quotes. I can get more if you so desire.
Quote:
You've quoted places in the middle east. Now, I could be faecetious, and ask if towns and cities can talk in your world; but we've already established that would be pedantic and childish. What I would like to know is this - which person issued these statements? Or failing that, which organisation?
The imam (preacher) of the listed mosque.
Quote:
It may seem like an irritating and pointless request, but it interests me because we have a fundamental issue on which we differ - you are willing to hold the bulk of Islam to account for the actions of a minority of Muslims, because they do not stop that minority from speaking or acting.
Not only do they not attempt to stop that minority, they do not even speak out to contradict that minority.
Quote:
Pardon me, but that thinking is laughable.
Why not blame the people of Zimbabwe for Robert Mugabe's actions? They haven't performed an armed overthrow of him, after all. Or blame all caucasians for the actions of the ku-klux-klan. I must be guilty, I haven't hunted them down and stopped them.
I haven't seen any Klan meetings recently. In fact, they've been just about wiped out. Hmm...I wonder who was responsible for that...
Quote:
The fact is, that it is no more the responsibility of the average Muslim to decry madmen and extremists than it is the responsibility of us all. We are all people - human beings. It is pointless to create a distinction between ourselves and anyone else, when trying to apportion blame for the actions of a completely different person entirely.
It
is the responsibility of us all -- including the Muslims. I am vigilant; are they? Are you?
Quote:
Oh, and before I forget, congratulations on conceding that some Muslims do take the time and trouble to speak out against extremists. However, I do not accept that these are only six in number. Perhaps its' time you accepted that, on some issues, you are speaking from a position of ignorance...
The Muslims who come to see Islam as what it truly is often
stop being Muslims. See the author Ibn Warraq, an apostate; his most recent "book" (in fact largely a collection of the essays of others) is entitled "Leaving Islam." The title is rather self-explanatory. So, if I included former Muslims, the number would be significantly higher. See the website
Faith Freedom International.Let it be known, I have no stake in any religion. I'm an athiest, and thus have a stake in living as long and full a life as possible; Islam is the religion that poses the greatest threat to my doing so. That doesn't mean that Islam is
the greatest threat; I have a much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than in a terrorist attack. But I will not ignore the problem of Islamic terrorism any more than I would drive without a seatbelt.
Quote:
or, alternatively, you could listen to the recordings of every BBC Radio 4 programme on the subject of Islamic extremism/terrorism for about the last 5 years. As a daily listener to the Today programme, let me tell you that there are a vast number of Muslim clerics and community leaders who, quite publicly, condemn the deplorable actions of the few extremists tainting the name of their faith.
Including those in their very midst? Have you heard, by any chance, of the group "Al-Muhajiroun?" They are a group of Muslims in Britain; the name translates to "The Immigrants."
In their own words, they are a fifth column in the fight for the world-spanning Islamic stateQuote:
Al-Muhajiroun believes that the needs of the Muslims in the West are:
1. The preservation of their Islamic identity i.e. their belief and their Islamic personality
2. The protection of their lives and interests i.e. in terms of security, education and economics etc.
3. The preparation of the people to embrace Islam or to accept the Islamic way of life
4. The preparation of themselves to be the front line of the coming Khilafah i.e. to become strong and united in order to become the fifth column which is able to put pressure on the enemies of Islam and to be able to support the Muslim Ummah world-wide.
Al-Muhajiroun is also the creator of this charming image, found in the "AL JIHAD" section of their website:
Another name to remember with regard to British Muslims is is that of the Finsbury Park mosque, used for terrorism recruitment by James Ujaama and (accusedly) the imam Abu Hamza.
Al-Muhajiroun is set on turning Britain into a shari'ah-based theocracy. British mosques are used as terror-recruitment centers. Does that information get distributed on the BBC?
And yet another concept that one must keep in mind when dealing the Muslims is that of
taqiyya (spelling highly variable). This is the act of Muslims lying to non-Muslims in order to achieve a goal, and is permissible as the following
hadith shows:
Quote:
Sahih Bukhari 5:369
Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf [a poet] who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it."
The group CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) practices
taqiyya extensively, spreading their lies about their peaceful intentions and crying "Discrimination!" when people catch them in the act. I say lies because this is their actual intention:
Quote:
CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad, July 1998
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth."
Quote:
It is not the lack of vigilance on behalf of the USA that led to September 11. It's the hatred they have engendered abroad for their cavalier, "I'm-all-right-jack," foreign policy, and for their manipulations of the region during the cold war.
No one in their right mind denies the horror of September 11. What we disagree on is the right way to move forward. And every bullet fired by a US soldier in the series of colonial punishment missions which Bush has mounted since that day, tips another person over the edge into blind hatred of the USA. Another suicide bomber, perhaps.
"Oh, overbearing Yanks, they had it coming to them."
Then explain Bali.Jihad, of which today's terrorism is a facet, is not merely targetted at Israel or the U.S. It is targetted against the entirety of Western civilization. Israel is the first target, because it's the closest and easiest to hit. America is the second, because it is the largest and most symbolic. But no nation that is part of the Dar-ul-Harb (House of War -- parts of the world not dominated by Islam) is safe. Not Australia. Not India. Not France. And not England, either.
Be careful. Study until you know the enemy. I truly don't want to see England suffer a 9/11-style or Bali-style attack because they refused to realize that the threat is just as real for them as it was for us.
Quote:
I hate to say it, especially to someone with your apparent worldview, but violence breeds violence.
Yep, those Japanese and Germans are sure violent right now, aren't they? Why, every day they're seething and trying to launch vengeance attacks on the U.S. and its World War 2 allies.
Quote:
And if Israel, as you suggest, kill every individual associated with these terror groups, then they will only have to let the dust settle before they can see a new rank rise before them - because to acheive this grisly victory, they will inevitably slaughter thousands of innocents.
See my part above about how killing terrorists destroys terror groups. You could also refer to my bit directly above -- innocents were slaughtered in vast numbers in World War 2, yet that situation stabilized...after
decisive victory.Quote:
I'm sorry to say that I believe your opinion is that one that will win out in Israel and the USA, and a mirrored version of it which will prevail among Islamic extremists. "The only solution is to kill them all - after that, we'll think about talking."
The only solution is to kill those who are willing to kill us. I truly hope that you are right, and my vision
does prevail in the U.S. and everywhere else in the Western world.
Quote:
Pretty soon, the only way to make sure there are no enemies lurking around the corner will be to Nuke everywhere that isn't the US of A.
Welcome to hell.
10 on the hyperbole, 3 on actual impact.