NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm tired of hearing that on one hand, we're spending too much on the war on terror (or Iraq), and from the same people, that we're not spending enough on the war on terror (or Iraq). So, I'd like people to try and pick ONE stand, and stick to it. I don't want someone to say, for instance, that we should feel good about Islam and give them what they want, and then complain that New Jersey isn't getting enough money.

So, make a choice!

And lighten up, please.

I might add that I don't give an option for "Give the Arabs Palestine" because OBL rarely mentions it, and never mentioned it prior to the current Iraq War.

I don't think anything would really help.

can i want to spend more on the war on terror and less on the war in iraq?

can i want to find a way to get along with islamic terrorists or to in some way find a way to lessen the creation of new terrorists or to at least start treating islamic countries with some respect and at the same time not abandon new jersey? (what does money to new jersey have to do with islam anyway?)

exactly WHY do i have to make the choices you suggest? is it really impossible to find a way to do more things better than we do them now?

Well, if we stopped attacking countries and gave more aid to various deprived nations in the third world, there would be much less support for terrorism.

can i want to spend more on the war on terror and less on the war in iraq?

can i want to find a way to get along with islamic terrorists or to in some way find a way to lessen the creation of new terrorists or to at least start treating islamic countries with some respect and at the same time not abandon new jersey? (what does money to new jersey have to do with islam anyway?)

exactly WHY do i have to make the choices you suggest? is it really impossible to find a way to do more things better than we do them now?

A war on terror implies that you're pursuing, definitely attacking, and probably killing people. This may be clandestine assassination, not attacking a country. But it falls under the category of making war, so I find it still fits one of the categories above.

For instance, if you wanted to make war on Islamic terrorists, but not on Iraq, you would pick the more selective option (against certain sects of Islam).

Some people claim that we're not spending enough on the war on terror in New Jersey, and at the same time decrying the war on terror because it's bad for Islam.

I suppose I should have had a choice for "spend more money on metal detectors and hope for the best".

I'm not even saying that any choice is better - I just want to pin people down on what they believe. I also don't want choices to be contradictory - I don't want to hear someone saying that we should give Osama what he wants (which I've heard) and at the same time spend more on the war on terror.

Well, if we stopped attacking countries and gave more aid to various deprived nations in the third world, there would be much less support for terrorism.

The US is pretty big in the aid category, but it appears from Osama's own writings that he doesn't want US aid, and considers any aid from Western countries to be offensive and unnecessary.

So that's not what he wants. He and all of his followers want every nation that is not following their version of Islam (and that might include Keru, who still might be an infidel in their eyes) to be overthrown. They don't want us out of the Middle East, although that is an interim goal. They want us off the planet, thank you very much. Do not pass Go, do not collect 200 dollars.

Merely the existence of Western Civilization is a threat to radical Islam. Ideas. As they did with the Library of Alexandria, and the histories of every nation that has gone Islamic (read your Naipaul if you don't believe me), radical Islam obliterates past histories and past knowledge as a matter of policy. OBL has rationalized a Final Solution for Western Civilization.

Rather than shoot women in the head for listening to audio tapes, they would rather attack the source of those evil items.

Can´t anyone see that terrorism will never end with anykind of war or the like. Terrorism isn´t an enemy you can crush with bombs or weapons. Hate only creates more hate ect...
Americans really don´t seem to get what they are fighting against... Terrorists are moustly international criminals, religious fanatics...but even more so... poor desperate people only searching someone to blame for their misery. And gues does it help in the end if you guys bomb them even more...?
NO i say the only solution would be to bring stability and equality in the middle east and other parts of the world. Besides... America should clean it´s backyard fist. It´s got more dirt than any other country in the world...

Besides... America should clean it´s backyard fist. It´s got more dirt than any other country in the world...

Yeah, only because those retard Europeans dumped it their when we weren't looking.

Five out of seven options listed involve 'making war'. Are you a staff writer for FoxNews?

Five out of seven options listed involve 'making war'. Are you a staff writer for FoxNews?
Hardly. But, given an opponent (OBL) who wants to make war on us, we don't have much of a choice now, do we?

We could, of course, bring all the troops home from Iraq, disband our armed forces, appoint OBL as Caliph of America, and start slaughtering people here, commencing with Hollywood, that den of iniquity. We could start putting women in blue beekeeper outfits, killing homosexuals, burning all books except copies of the Koran (burn the translations, of course). We could nuke Israel, and take down the US portions of the Internet.

Can´t anyone see that terrorism will never end with anykind of war or the like. Terrorism isn´t an enemy you can crush with bombs or weapons. Hate only creates more hate ect...
Americans really don´t seem to get what they are fighting against... Terrorists are moustly international criminals, religious fanatics...but even more so... poor desperate people only searching someone to blame for their misery. And gues does it help in the end if you guys bomb them even more...?
NO i say the only solution would be to bring stability and equality in the middle east and other parts of the world. Besides... America should clean it´s backyard fist. It´s got more dirt than any other country in the world...

You've got a good point (it's basically what I usually try to say and never find the words for) but don't make the mistake of taking a "stupid yankees" kind of attitude to it. It doesn't help your argument and many people would probably dismiss what you say because of it.

Make war on a country that can be defintely tied to a specific act AND work together with the UN. There really should have been that option.

Can´t anyone see that terrorism will never end with anykind of war or the like. Terrorism isn´t an enemy you can crush with bombs or weapons. Hate only creates more hate ect...
Americans really don´t seem to get what they are fighting against... Terrorists are moustly international criminals, religious fanatics...but even more so... poor desperate people only searching someone to blame for their misery. And gues does it help in the end if you guys bomb them even more...?
NO i say the only solution would be to bring stability and equality in the middle east and other parts of the world. Besides... America should clean it´s backyard fist. It´s got more dirt than any other country in the world...

1) How do you bring "stability and equality" to a region of countries where most of them are run either by monarchy, dictatorship or fundamentalist goverments that oppress 50% of their populations (i.e. women).

2) Pretty pompus to say the the US is the one that needs to clean up... Read the world news lately? We aren't the ones involved in the biggest UN based scam ever. We aren't the ones who are having to re-run elections. The US is doing pretty well right now. Biggest scandal here lately is a cabinet nominee who's withdrawn over hiring an illegal nanny... Big, f'in deal!

We could, of course, bring all the troops home from Iraq, disband our armed forces, appoint OBL as Caliph of America, and start slaughtering people here, commencing with Hollywood, that den of iniquity. We could start putting women in blue beekeeper outfits, killing homosexuals, burning all books except copies of the Koran (burn the translations, of course). We could nuke Israel, and take down the US portions of the Internet.
Good point. Now lets see how many people here agree with that and take it seriously.

Make war on a country that can be defintely tied to a specific act AND work together with the UN. There really should have been that option.

That's the same option as the UN option I listed above. By definition, if you're working through the UN, you're letting the UN make all decisions and hoping for the best.

Hardly. But, given an opponent (OBL) who wants to make war on us, we don't have much of a choice now, do we?

We could, of course, bring all the troops home from Iraq, disband our armed forces, appoint OBL as Caliph of America, and start slaughtering people here, commencing with Hollywood, that den of iniquity. We could start putting women in blue beekeeper outfits, killing homosexuals, burning all books except copies of the Koran (burn the translations, of course). We could nuke Israel, and take down the US portions of the Internet.
OBL isnt islam. he is a spoiled rich boy who thinks that he can buy his way to the top of the islamic heap by paying for splashy terrorist attacks (it has worked for him to some extent)

there are hundreds of millions of moslems who do not hate the west. by waging war on them as if they were in league with obl and his ilk we are creating more terrorists. we are handing the recruiters of terror the tool they need to get more people on their side. and we are breeding resentment of us in those who are otherwise pro/neutral to the west.

Wipe out any sect that believes the World would be a better place if more people 'accepted" Sharia. To the last critter.

Of course, it's genocide... but bugger if I care. Tit for tat.

The US is pretty big in the aid category, but it appears from Osama's own writings that he doesn't want US aid, and considers any aid from Western countries to be offensive and unnecessary.


Sorry, I phrased myself wrong. I didn't mean the amount of aid, more where it goes. Amenities such as hospitals are all very well in an affluent First World country but in a Third World country the aid is better spent on things like clean water or teaching literacy. The fact is that most organisations tend to go for high profile aid like building hospitals which need constant funding for staff, drugs, equipment, etc.

OBL isnt islam. he is a spoiled rich boy who thinks that he can buy his way to the top of the islamic heap by paying for splashy terrorist attacks (it has worked for him to some extent)

there are hundreds of millions of moslems who do not hate the west. by waging war on them as if they were in league with obl and his ilk we are creating more terrorists. we are handing the recruiters of terror the tool they need to get more people on their side. and we are breeding resentment of us in those who are otherwise pro/neutral to the west.

I'm letting people pick whether or not they believe he represents himself, a small section of Islam, or all of Islam.

IMPO, I believe that Wahhabism and OBL are intimately related, although he is not their official spokesman. So for some, burning out that specific sect would probably go a long way towards reducing the threat.

Not saying that's the right way to go, but some people believe it.

Hardly. But, given an opponent (OBL) who wants to make war on us, we don't have much of a choice now, do we?

We could, of course, bring all the troops home from Iraq, disband our armed forces, appoint OBL as Caliph of America, and start slaughtering people here, commencing with Hollywood, that den of iniquity. We could start putting women in blue beekeeper outfits, killing homosexuals, burning all books except copies of the Koran (burn the translations, of course). We could nuke Israel, and take down the US portions of the Internet.

Yes, I noticed option seven. I hadn't realized OBL wished to make America an Islamic state. My bad.

Opting to make war on Islam because of the acts of a small fundamentalist group, albeit one with fab-o connections and apparent terrific luck is no different than Islamic nations opting to make war on Christianity because of the acts of a small Christian fundamentalist group (insert name here).

There's more than enough violence that's already been perpetrated in the name of God. More than enough for all of time, and with no one's side in the right. Break the cycle. Break your Marleyesque chains, then go free your fellows, on all sides of this yawning chasm of hatred that has been created.

Want to know the 'right' thing to do in dealing with Islamic terrorism? Stop. Listen. Talk. Repeat.

How about, "Undermining the Islamists' support by giving a helping hand to those who need it"?

Because, let's face it, it's people in dire poverty/oppression who would most likely support such extremists.

Want to know the 'right' thing to do in dealing with Islamic terrorism? Stop. Listen. Talk. Repeat.

I would agree with the "not make war on all Islam" bit, and probably with limiting our actual attacks on other countries (I'm more in favor of clandestine action against individuals no matter where they are - even if it's messy, it's not bombing a whole country into a fried pancake).

OBL is already past the point of talking. If the Caliphate were destroyed (presumably with him as Caliph), and all governments that were in his eyes "non-Islamic" were overthrown, and those people under the dominion of the Caliphate, he would be happy.

Until then, any talking on his part is a delaying tactic until he can accomplish his goal.

Sorry, I phrased myself wrong. I didn't mean the amount of aid, more where it goes. Amenities such as hospitals are all very well in an affluent First World country but in a Third World country the aid is better spent on things like clean water or teaching literacy. The fact is that most organisations tend to go for high profile aid like building hospitals which need constant funding for staff, drugs, equipment, etc.
...and utterly unsustainable. The best types of aid, like you say, are hygiene related and skills training. Only putting skills into a community, to be passed down through generations, can be considered truly sustainable. The other (hygiene) just stops people from being too ill to learn the skills in the first place.

Who were the two idiots who voted "Delcarer war on Islam everywhere"? Whoever did, you might want to understand two things - A: Muslims are not all terrorists, what made you get that idea? B: You do realise not all terrorists are Islamic too, right? Same with stuff such as jihad. In Sudan, there's a holy war on at the moment, but instead of Islamic people as those leading the holy war there, it's Christians - probably the same religion of those who cast those votes. Why don't we just declare war on Christians as well then?

Bush was naieve in his War on Terror plan. Terrorism is not a physical thing. You cannot declare war on it. It's a bit like declaring war on drawing, or fishing. People can still carry on doing things, and terrorism falls into that category. The scare tactic doesn't work on everyone, otherwise the French Resistance would never have existed. The War on Terror is futile.

How about, "Undermining the Islamists' support by giving a helping hand to those who need it"?

Because, let's face it, it's people in dire poverty/oppression who would most likely support such extremists.
The 9/11 suicide hijackers weren't poor. Neither was OBL. Islamic terrorism isn't caused by poverty, but by religious ideology. The way to win the war on terror is to ruthlessly pursue and kill all who espouse the Islamofascist ideology and provide protection and economic support to the moderate muslims worldwide.

How about, "Undermining the Islamists' support by giving a helping hand to those who need it"?

Because, let's face it, it's people in dire poverty/oppression who would most likely support such extremists.

ba lo ney If this were true... the hardcore of the islamist insurrection would be found in Bangladesh, and not in Saudi-land.

History describes only one solution to insurrection: to give the insurrectionists ( against Western hegemony ) a simple binary choice;

a] either complete submission
or b] total wipe-out.

Who were the two idiots who voted "Delcarer war on Islam everywhere"? Whoever did, you might want to understand two things - A: Muslims are not all terrorists, what made you get that idea? B: You do realise not all terrorists are Islamic too, right? Same with stuff such as jihad. In Sudan, there's a holy war on at the moment, but instead of Islamic people as those leading the holy war there, it's Christians - probably the same religion of those who cast those votes. Why don't we just declare war on Christians as well then?

Bush was naieve in his War on Terror plan. Terrorism is not a physical thing. You cannot declare war on it. It's a bit like declaring war on drawing, or fishing. People can still carry on doing things, and terrorism falls into that category. The scare tactic doesn't work on everyone, otherwise the French Resistance would never have existed. The War on Terror is futile.
Actually the holy war was between Muslims and Christians because the christians wanted a share of the oil revenues generated by wells in the south (christian territories). The muslims responded by slaughtering villages and enslaving the people. What were the christians to do? Let themselves be slaughtered and their women and children raped? Sudan's regime has supported the capture of christians from the south and their use as slaves.

Can anyone else see the slight bias in this thread.
The point is that if a nation that supports terrorism and those terrorists make an attack on another nation then that is a declaration of war. Simple as that, war against Islam is sheer idiocy.

Can anyone else see the slight bias in this thread.
The point is that if a nation that supports terrorism and those terrorists make an attack on another nation then that is a declaration of war. Simple as that, war against Islam is sheer idiocy.

As my momma always used to say, every thread has a bias. You can, of course, select the option that says to attack only a specific country, instead of all of Islam.

How about a "Don't attack anyone, it's all futile" option?

How about a "Don't attack anyone, it's all futile" option?

I think theres a certain desire from the author to see the downfall of Islam

I think theres a certain desire from the author to see the downfall of Islam
Wouldn't that be a step in the right direction? Then we can focus on bringing about the downfall of christianity, hinduism, shinto, buddhism, judaism, and every other pointless religious ideology that only serves to separate us from them.

I think theres a certain desire from the author to see the downfall of Islam


That's what every decent human being wants.
Lithmus test
Proof of point: Keruvalia.

Nuke Alabama ... that would do about as good as anything and it would be more fun.

Nuke Alabama ... that would do about as good as anything and it would be more fun.


See? He even admits it...

Nuke Mecca. Even more fun than nuking Alabama, plus it'll actually kill some of the enemy.

See? He even admits it...

Admits what? All I said was to nuke Alabama. Then went on to mention that the reason being that it would do about as good as anything else mentioned.

Trying to end Islamic terrorism is like trying to stop Jerry Falwell from believing homosexuals should all be shot. Nutjobs abound and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

OBL is a warmongering nut who craves power and attention. The more attention that is paid to him, the more he enjoys life. As he sits sipping coffee at that cafe in Pakistan, he's laughing his ass off at the soldiers scurrying around in caves trying to find him and enjoys the hell out of the attention.

May as well nuke Alabama for all the good anything else is gonna do.

Nuke Alabama ... that would do about as good as anything and it would be more fun.

There are thermonuclear warhead designs that allow salting of the fallout with high lethality, short duration radionuclides (28 days half life). This allows for the complete de-population of a large area without rendering the location uninhabitable for more than six months.

If you were to use these (and it would only take a few per country) from Morocco to Pakistan, and across Indonesia and Malaysia, and then implement a Final Solution in all nations afterwards to round up and exterminate any remaining Muslims, burn Islamic literature, destroy all mosques, and destroy all copies of the Koran, I'm sure it would be far, far more effective than nuking Alabama.

Not saying that it's the right thing to do, just saying it would be demonstrably more effective.

I know. We could start proving this by nuking Alabama, waiting six months to see the effect (or lack thereof), and then do my plan, and wait six months to see the effect (or lack thereof).

Nuke Mecca. Even more fun than nuking Alabama, plus it'll actually kill some of the enemy.

Shrug ... lots of Muslims in Alabama ... although, unless I'm mistaken, Alabama isn't a holy site ...

The same thing that should be done with *any* terrorists - go after the terrorists themselves, attack military targets of any country that militarily supports them, and make attempts to forge a better relationship with the countries that spawn such terrorists.

Not saying that it's the right thing to do, just saying it would be demonstrably more effective.


Yeah ... but more expensive.

Yeah ... but more expensive.
That's my only problem with it. You'll have to pardon me for looking at this from a mere survival perspective, and in the rather black and white terms that OBL has phrased the debate.

Hitler tried to make money off of his Final Solution, but that's crass. If you're killing people, there's no sense in making it crass.

night not want ot nuke alabama, besides fallout spreading everywhere theres also a weapons dump in anniston..

Shrug ... lots of Muslims in Alabama ... although, unless I'm mistaken, Alabama isn't a holy site ...
Only to Skynard fans.

night not want ot nuke alabama, besides fallout spreading everywhere theres also a weapons dump in anniston..

Airburst only, short term tailored fallout so you don't really hit adjacent states. It can be done. There are warheads designed to do this.

night not want ot nuke alabama, besides fallout spreading everywhere theres also a weapons dump in anniston..

Well .... hmmm ... how about Michigan ... or maybe Idaho?

Only to Skynard fans.

Well how many of those can there be? :p

First off we should find alternative energy sources. Pump more money into researching renewable sources. When we no longer have a need for foreign oil we should then completely withdraw from the middle east in ever way possible. Just completely cut ourselves off. If there are still any problems then we should bomb any countries that cause trouble.

Cutting off aid to Israel and declaring santions against them until they dismantle all of their settlements and pull out of the Golan heights would probably reduce the danger of Islamic terrorism to the United States by 90 percent.

Admits what? All I said was to nuke Alabama. Then went on to mention that the reason being that it would do about as good as anything else mentioned.

Trying to end Islamic terrorism is like trying to stop Jerry Falwell from believing homosexuals should all be shot. Nutjobs abound and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

OBL is a warmongering nut who craves power and attention. The more attention that is paid to him, the more he enjoys life. As he sits sipping coffee at that cafe in Pakistan, he's laughing his ass off at the soldiers scurrying around in caves trying to find him and enjoys the hell out of the attention.

May as well nuke Alabama for all the good anything else is gonna do.


Tsk tsk... why not just wipe out the identifiable nutjobs?
I.e. anyone with an excessive amount of facial hair and no foreskin.


Tit for tat.

Key recommendations paraphrased from Richard A. Clarke's new report:

1. Clarify the threat. People need to have a better understanding about exactly who poses the terror threat. It isn't Islam--it is specific jihadist terrorist groups.

2. Engage in the Battle of Ideas. This picks up on the 9/11 commission's recommendations. Put money toward diplomacy and Voice of America. Old blue jeans and rock approach.

3. Provide assistance to Islamic nations. Providing relief and resources to poorer nations which harbor jihadist groups will undermine those nation's willingness to support such groups.

4. Enact more specific outreach approaches in key countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt) where aid is not enough.

5. Defuse sources of Islamic hatred for the U.S. While there are insurmountable obstacles here (the U.S. cannot foster democracy without opposing caliphates or theocracies), the U.S. can augment divisive policies. For example, working to revivify the Israeli-Palestinian peace process or ensuring that power is passed smoothly back to the Iraqis would be good steps.

6. Improve intelligence organization.

7. Work harder to seize terrorist funds.

8. Improve military organization. Gear more towards small-unit special forces and maintain a greater "not official cover" presence in countries that harbor jihadist groups.

9. Improve DHS. Particularly in regards to securing ports, rail systems, and metropolitan areas (Like New Jersey, to cut across threads).

10. Improve nuclear non-proliferation efforts.

11. Reduce reliance on oil as a fuel source. Move towards hybrids, then biodiesel or ethanol.

Clarke doesn't seem to think this is a single-solution problem, so voting seems silly to me.

Tsk tsk... why not just wipe out the identifiable nutjobs?
I.e. anyone with an excessive amount of facial hair and no foreskin.


Tit for tat.

Excessive amount of facial hair and no foreskin? So we should kill Jewish Rabbis? Wow ... didn't realize they were part of the problem ...

Anyway, as for wiping out the identifiable nujobs, nobody seems to be trying very hard to do that ... so ... may as well nuke Alabama.

Or we could settle it the greek way, with thanks to the ever lovable CleoLinda Jones.

http://www.livejournal.com/community/m15m/1487.html

Some Battlefield

BUSH: Look, there's no reason for me to slaughter thousands of your men. You pick out your best soldier, and I pick out mine.

OBL: Deal. [turns to his army] Keruvalia!

MUSLIMS: KERU! KERU! KERU! KERU!

Keruvalia breaks through the crowd. His neck resembles an Easter ham and his spear is the size of a telephone pole.

Keruvalia: RAAAAAAAAA!

BUSH [turning to his army]: MY GUNS!

US ARMY: . . .

BUSH: . . .



Hut of Wanton Nudity, Some Village

BOY: OMG My Guns you're late you gotta get up My Guns OMG!

My Guns: Dude, I just nailed twins. Call me in the morning.

BOY: It IS morning.

My Guns: Oh... fuck.



Some Battlefield, Three Days Later

MUSLIM ARMY: ...KERU! KERU! KERU! KERU!

My Guns strolls in, exchanges snippiness with Bush, dodges Keruvalia's spear, gouges Keruvalia's neck out.

MUSLIM ARMY: . . .

MY GUNS: IS THERE NO ONE ELSE?

MUSLIM ARMY: *averts eyes, kicks dirt*

MY GUNS: NO ONE? PUSSIES!

OBL: Here’s a scepter to take to your king please don’t hurt me I want to live.

MY GUNS: Fuck him, he ain’t my king. I'm goin' back to the Doublemints. Later, assholes.

BUSH: I hate that guy... so very, very much.

I think we should make war on nations defintely supporting Islamic terrorism, but that we need to research more into non lethal weapons so rather than going round killing everyone, we capture, interogate, investigate and either relase or hold trial.

Cutting off aid to Israel and declaring santions against them until they dismantle all of their settlements and pull out of the Golan heights would probably reduce the danger of Islamic terrorism to the United States by 90 percent.
And result in the extermination of the Israeli Jewish population, which is of course, your ultimate goal, no?

OBL: Deal. [turns to his army] Keruvalia!



So now I'm a terrorist? I doubt OBL would like me very much. I'm a US Army Ranger, white, blue-eyed, live a Western lifestyle with my cable TV and high-speed internet, am married - but don't force my wife to be Muslim - and have kids - but will never force them to be Muslim - and am a liberal democrat.

No ... I'm pretty sure OBL would like very much to wipe me off the face of the earth just as much as he wants to wipe you off the face of the earth.

So now I'm a terrorist? I doubt OBL would like me very much. I'm a US Army Ranger, white, blue-eyed, live a Western lifestyle with my cable TV and high-speed internet, am married - but don't force my wife to be Muslim - and have kids - but will never force them to be Muslim - and am a liberal democrat.

No ... I'm pretty sure OBL would like very much to wipe me off the face of the earth just as much as he wants to wipe you off the face of the earth.
hell a liberal democrat? falwell probably wants to whipe you off the face of the earth as much as bin laden

hell a liberal democrat? falwell probably wants to whipe you off the face of the earth as much as bin laden

Well I did send a box full of dog turds to Falwell via UPS once ...

So now I'm a terrorist? I doubt OBL would like me very much. I'm a US Army Ranger, white, blue-eyed, live a Western lifestyle with my cable TV and high-speed internet, am married - but don't force my wife to be Muslim - and have kids - but will never force them to be Muslim - and am a liberal democrat.

No ... I'm pretty sure OBL would like very much to wipe me off the face of the earth just as much as he wants to wipe you off the face of the earth.


In that case, we can quibble it over once we are in Heaven, or Hell, as the case may be.

Meanwhile, my point is that making distinctions between Terrorist and non-terrorist muslims is rather pointless.

After all, as you yourself pointed out: all muslims are brothers and sisters.

That being so, one might as well go after the entire family, thus negating the risk that some descendant of one of 'em poses a problem in another century.

Well I did send a box full of dog turds to Falwell via UPS once ...

I read in Penthouse that he actually likes that.

I vote this to be one of the crappiest polls. War as the only option? Are you on Bush's advisory team?
War on Islam or Islamic countries will not end terrorism. Declaring terrorism a war was the most stupid ($&^%*&%$##@$#@) thing to do. It has elevated a bunch of thugs and criminals to a nationalist level they do not deserve. To blunt ongoing attacks it needs to be tackled by a MULTINATIONAL police force. Use the armies, use what it takes- but its a police action from all countries that will not tolerate it.
But, to truely halt terrorism, blood and destruction will NOT work. Education and empowerment will. Very hard, very expensive as it will take extremely tricky diplomacy to convice Islamic despotic states that it is in thier own best interest to promote a secular education (and absolutely should not contradict people's beliefs- with education, they will decide on thier own) and work for the young adult (bored young men with no opportunities are what OBL recruits VERY easily).
Of course, this same philosphy would be well applied in ALL countries, even in the USA.

After all, as you yourself pointed out: all muslims are brothers and sisters.


Yes... but, like any family, it doesn't mean we necessarily like or approve of the actions of every member. Besides ... OBL killed innocents and, thus, is not considered a Muslim - well ... not to Muslims anyway ... it's just more comfortable for people to think of him as a Muslim, much like it's very uncomfortable for people in the US to realize that Saddam's 2nd in command is a Christian.

He is not my brother.

Yes... but, like any family, it doesn't mean we necessarily like or approve of the actions of every member. Besides ... OBL killed innocents and, thus, is not considered a Muslim - well ... not to Muslims anyway ... it's just more comfortable for people to think of him as a Muslim, much like it's very uncomfortable for people in the US to realize that Saddam's 2nd in command is a Christian.

He is not my brother.


Actually, I am quite willing to believe YOU when you state that you do not consider OBL your brother.

But that does not alter the simple and basic fact that once a war between muslims and you-name-it breaks out, it simply makes sense for the you-name-its to settle the manner in a permanent fashion.

Do you really believe that there is a going back after Abu Ghraib? I don't.

Dunbarrow, let me get this straight: We screw the pooch when our occupying soldiers abuse prisoners and now the only logical next step is to go to war with Islam as a whole and treat all Muslims as enemies?

Give them all what they want, make everyone in the world become Islamic, put them all on welfare, and blow sunshine up their collective ass! :D

Dunbarrow, let me get this straight: We screw the pooch when our occupying soldiers abuse prisoners and now the only logical next step is to go to war with Islam as a whole and treat all Muslims as enemies?

Don't know what Dun wants, but the only concept that to me seems to make sense about the invasion of Iraq (no we won't find WMD, yes Saddam had some a long time ago, yes he wanted some more, no his sons spent too much money on hookers, cars, and drugs so nothing was left over) is the following:

1. You know that there are 100,000 Al-Qaeda trained guys all over the world.
2. You know that they have a decentralized command.
3. You have no F-ing idea where they all are.
4. You know that they rallied to the cause of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
5. You've already invaded Afghanistan, but you were fairly efficient, and there isn't enough of a local infrastructure to support much of a fight there (the place has been worked over for 40 years).
6. What you need is another state, preferably Arab, preferably with some Sunnis in it (because Wahhabism is closer to Sunni than anything else).
7. Make up a reason to invade Iraq, but do it in such a way as to promote an insurgency.
8. You know the Kurds will love you, and if you play the cards right, the Shiites at least won't bother you (*f**ked this one up a bit, but it seems stable now).
9. You get to nail Saddam for personal reasons now, but that's a sideshow.
10. Let the insurgency build, because you want foreign recruits to show up.
11. Then you kill them. Rinse, Repeat, Rinse.

They were attracted to Chechnya as well. If I thought anyone in the world was bright enough to pull something like that off, my hat's off. As it is, if we got this result, it's an accident.

First off we should find alternative energy sources. Pump more money into researching renewable sources. When we no longer have a need for foreign oil we should then completely withdraw from the middle east in ever way possible. Just completely cut ourselves off. If there are still any problems then we should bomb any countries that cause trouble.
New style nuke reactors are completely safe and if the damned govt. would allow breeders there are several that create little to no waste and can continue to reuse the byproducts they produce.

Actually, I voted option 2.

And I still think Saudi Land is THE place for that fight.
( apart from that, I approve of My Gun's solution).

Do you really believe that there is a going back after Abu Ghraib? I don't.

Consider two things:

1] Only the crazy jihadists blame all Americans for Abu Ghraib. The rest of us point the blame squarely where it lies: with the perpetrating soldiers.

2] There are 6+ million Muslims in the US who are good, law-abiding, patriotic citizens. Would you want to declare war on US citizens?

New style nuke reactors are completely safe and if the damned govt. would allow breeders there are several that create little to no waste and can continue to reuse the byproducts they produce.

Interestingly, Argonne National Laboratories built a breeder reactor and was testing it at the same time the Russians were doing the Chernobyl test.

The Russian reactor obviously had some design flaws, and caused a disaster.

The Argonne breeder was deliberately run without coolant, and without operator intervention. It worked perfectly without any accident during the tests.

When Clinton first took office, one of his first tasks was to shut down the Argonne breeder and forbid its further operation.

There are thermonuclear warhead designs that allow salting of the fallout with high lethality, short duration radionuclides (28 days half life). This allows for the complete de-population of a large area without rendering the location uninhabitable for more than six months.
Most of our fusion bombs at this point are this style, and if anything comes of the air force's anti-matter program fallout won't be a problem anymore.

Consider two things:

1] Only the crazy jihadists blame all Americans for Abu Ghraib. The rest of us point the blame squarely where it lies: with the perpetrating soldiers.

2] There are 6+ million Muslims in the US who are good, law-abiding, patriotic citizens. Would you want to declare war on US citizens?

1] I'm no Jihadi, and I blame the US Gov't.
2]*shrugs* I'm no American.

Actually, I voted option 2.

And I still think Saudi Land is THE place for that fight.
( apart from that, I approve of My Gun's solution).


Delicate. It's like going to war against Israel. Some gung-ho soldier accidentally blows up Jerusalem and, well, now you've pissed off all the Christians and Jews in the world. That's 2 billion people. Ouch.

Blowing up Mecca is a blow to the 1.1 billion Muslims who aren't crazy jihadists. Why piss off everyone just to get at a few.

1] I'm no Jihadi, and I blame the US Gov't.
2]*shrugs* I'm no American.

1] Ok, granted. However, do you blame the entirety of the US Gov't? I mean ... what does, say, the Mayor of Bumsville, MI have to do with Abu Ghraib?

2] Again, granted, but do you really want to wage war against simple civilians? I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims where you live who go about their day to day lives and never bring harm to anyone.

Most of our fusion bombs at this point are this style, and if anything comes of the air force's anti-matter program fallout won't be a problem anymore.

Tailored fallout, in this case, sodium-24, is a highly desired byproduct.

Tailored fallout, in this case, sodium-24, is a highly desired byproduct.
True, it does tend to make certain nothing survives, although the predicted gamma burst from an anti-matter explosion would pretty much take care of anything not behind 3 meters of lead.

Delicate. It's like going to war against Israel. Some gung-ho soldier accidentally blows up Jerusalem and, well, now you've pissed off all the Christians and Jews in the world. That's 2 billion people. Ouch.

Blowing up Mecca is a blow to the 1.1 billion Muslims who aren't crazy jihadists. Why piss off everyone just to get at a few.


How about just plain OWNING Mecca w/o blowing the place up, but making it very very plain that access to Mecca in any given year is entirely at US discretion? Explanation: in any years in which there is one single incident of a muslim making a funny face at a dutch film-maker, there ain't gonna be no hajji.

How about just plain OWNING Mecca w/o blowing the place up, but making it very very plain that access to Mecca in any given year is entirely at US discretion? Explanation: in any years in which there is one single incident of a muslim making a funny face at a dutch film-maker, there ain't gonna be no hajji.

Problem: OBL's initial and ONLY grievance against the US was our stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. And that was when the Saudi government invited us, and we were defending the Saudis.

You couldn't occupy Mecca without expecting a constant stream of people trying to take it back.

Maybe we should be fair. We should identify the major holy sites around the world, and drop the largest hydrogen bombs in the US arsenal as ground bursts on each one. My point would be that since no one can play nice, I'm taking away all your toys.

My Gun, the problem with that is that the foreign insurgents we're waxing in Iraq aren't the same guys who pull off 9/11-style attacks. Most models of the jihadist threat outline it as follows:

You've got 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
Of those, 200-500 million are Jihadist sympathizers.
Of those, 50,000-200,000 are members of Jihadist groups.
Of those, 400-2,000 are core members organized in independent cells.

Ordinarily, it is the isolated cells that pose the threat. But when thing like Abu Ghraib happen, the sympathizers and outer circle members start doing more than donating to their causes. They pick up a rifle and travel. These are the guys that are fighting in Iraq. Leadership was out of Fallujah long before we went in.

So this does not actively reduce the threat of terror because we aren't eliminating the cells that are doing things like taking pilot training or photographing chemical plants, instead we're killing guys that we've brought to the fight through our involvement.

I'm not saying there aren't guys who could use some killing. According to the figures I quote above (also from Clarke), there are potentially 2,000 of them. The goal is to kill them without an assload of civilian casualties and to do it without getting their 200,000 buddies to reach for their revolvers.

Problem: OBL's initial and ONLY grievance against the US was our stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. And that was when the Saudi government invited us, and we were defending the Saudis.

You couldn't occupy Mecca without expecting a constant stream of people trying to take it back.

Maybe we should be fair. We should identify the major holy sites around the world, and drop the largest hydrogen bombs in the US arsenal as ground bursts on each one. My point would be that since no one can play nice, I'm taking away all your toys.
That's what I've wanted to do to Jerusalem for a while. Clear everyone out and turn it into a glass sheet.

My Gun, the problem with that is that the foreign insurgents we're waxing in Iraq aren't the same guys who pull off 9/11-style attacks. Most models of the jihadist threat outline it as follows:

You've got 1.5 billion Muslims in the world.
Of those, 200-500 million are Jihadist sympathizers.
Of those, 50,000-200,000 are members of Jihadist groups.
Of those, 400-2,000 are core members organized in independent cells.

Ordinarily, it is the isolated cells that pose the threat. But when thing like Abu Ghraib happen, the sympathizers and outer circle members start doing more than donating to their causes. They pick up a rifle and travel. These are the guys that are fighting in Iraq. Leadership was out of Fallujah long before we went in.

So this does not actively reduce the threat of terror because we aren't eliminating the cells that are doing things like taking pilot training or photographing chemical plants, instead we're killing guys that we've brought to the fight through our involvement.

I'm not saying there aren't guys who could use some killing. According to the figures I quote above (also from Clarke), there are potentially 2,000 of them. The goal is to kill them without an assload of civilian casualties and to do it without getting their 200,000 buddies to reach for their revolvers.

Seen too many foreign fighters here. Of the ones that actually seem to know what they're doing, the vast majority.

1] Ok, granted. However, do you blame the entirety of the US Gov't? I mean ... what does, say, the Mayor of Bumsville, MI have to do with Abu Ghraib?

2] Again, granted, but do you really want to wage war against simple civilians? I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims where you live who go about their day to day lives and never bring harm to anyone.

1] I blame the Commander in Chief, aka Dubya. Not knowing the mayor of Bumsville... can't say I really care. 'Sides, as the Schlesinger Report pointed out, it was Dubya's scrawl on that infamous piece of paper.

2] I think 'simple civilian' is an oxymoron within the context of 4G warfare aka terrorism. Jihadis, to misquote Mao, are fish swimming inside a civilian sea.
One possible solution: boil the sea. That does kill the fish. Sure, it is genocide. But it is effective. Mind you, I think there are other, and more effective solutions.

Problem: OBL's initial and ONLY grievance against the US was our stationing of non-Muslim troops in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. And that was when the Saudi government invited us, and we were defending the Saudis.

You couldn't occupy Mecca without expecting a constant stream of people trying to take it back.



Repeat and rinse. ;)

And result in the extermination of the Israeli Jewish population, which is of course, your ultimate goal, no?

Hey F U!

Keep milking that call everyone Nazi who points out the obvious about Israel strategy and eventually people are going to get tired of it.

Well, it seems to me that we could go with my simpler solution, which is to slap everyone's hand and say, "Bad! Bad! Bad!"

Since there isn't going to be a solution to the Jerusalem ownership problem through peaceful means, I would lay waste to it with a ground burst nuclear weapon of as large a size as is practicable. As long as you're not playing nice, we'll take it away from all parties. Permanently.

And because we want to make an example, to ensure future good behavior, make an example of Medina in the same manner. And then give the warning that any further problem will result in the unannounced destruction of Mecca in the same manner.

We might even extend this to certain idiot nations like North Korea. Tell them to STFU or we'll waste them without warning.

Stop sending American troops overseas. Stop trying to intervene in Middle East politics. If they can't play nice, nuke them and be done with it. If they f**k with the US and can't play nice, nuke them.

Don't know what Dun wants, but the only concept that to me seems to make sense about the invasion of Iraq (no we won't find WMD, yes Saddam had some a long time ago, yes he wanted some more, no his sons spent too much money on hookers, cars, and drugs so nothing was left over) is the following:

1. You know that there are 100,000 Al-Qaeda trained guys all over the world.
2. You know that they have a decentralized command.
3. You have no F-ing idea where they all are.
4. You know that they rallied to the cause of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
5. You've already invaded Afghanistan, but you were fairly efficient, and there isn't enough of a local infrastructure to support much of a fight there (the place has been worked over for 40 years).
6. What you need is another state, preferably Arab, preferably with some Sunnis in it (because Wahhabism is closer to Sunni than anything else).
7. Make up a reason to invade Iraq, but do it in such a way as to promote an insurgency.
8. You know the Kurds will love you, and if you play the cards right, the Shiites at least won't bother you (*f**ked this one up a bit, but it seems stable now).
9. You get to nail Saddam for personal reasons now, but that's a sideshow.
10. Let the insurgency build, because you want foreign recruits to show up.
11. Then you kill them. Rinse, Repeat, Rinse.

They were attracted to Chechnya as well. If I thought anyone in the world was bright enough to pull something like that off, my hat's off. As it is, if we got this result, it's an accident.
What makes you think they'll stay in Iraq? If they have any brains at all they'll go to Mexico then cross the border periodically to hit us where we live. The Iraq occupation becomes a recruiting tool only.

Interestingly, Argonne National Laboratories built a breeder reactor and was testing it at the same time the Russians were doing the Chernobyl test.

The Russian reactor obviously had some design flaws, and caused a disaster.

The Argonne breeder was deliberately run without coolant, and without operator intervention. It worked perfectly without any accident during the tests.

When Clinton first took office, one of his first tasks was to shut down the Argonne breeder and forbid its further operation.
Probably due to the fact that breeder reactors produce plutonium, and he may have been trying to set a good "non proliferation" example.

What makes you think they'll stay in Iraq? If they have any brains at all they'll go to Mexico then cross the border periodically to hit us where we live. The Iraq occupation becomes a recruiting tool only.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, it's just the only explanation that makes sense.

In past conflicts, they got together and went to where the battle was (Chechnya, Afghanistan, Israel, Kosovo, etc.). So the "insurgent magnet" makes a bit of sense to me.

Although some may plan to come here, there don't seem to be too many. And in such small numbers, they will be difficult, if not impossible, to detect. But the vast majority are really busy in Iraq and Afghanistan right now.

My Gun, you're making me sorry I called you rational and sane in that IED thread.

Two things here.

One, you've got two types of threat here. You've got the tiny number of guys who will launch preemptive attacks into other nations (Osama and friends). Then you've got the guys who are more than ready to engage in a shooting war when their perceived enemy invades their nation or an ally (Iraqi insurgents). The first are the terrorists, the second are the resistance. The resistance fighters don't necessarily like the United States and they're shooting at Americans once we enter their country, but the insurgents are a separate problem from al Qaeda. Terrorists need to be dealt with preemptively, insurgents and resistance fighters need to be dealt with by not giving them a reason to start shooting, i.e., not invading their country. So yes, we are killing a lot of insurgents, but this has nothing to do with preventing terror. Further, if we'd invaded Iraq or Afghanistan in spring 2001, nothing would have changed. We would have killed a lot of insurgents while the al Qaeda cell was in the U.S., learning how to crash planes.

The other thing is that people are so friggin unwilling or unable to discuss Isreal policy, mostly because what Drunk Commies and Soviet Narco just demonstrated here. "We have no business in Isreal." "Shut up, skinhead." Fact of the matter is that Isreal is the keystone of most Middle Eastern political problems and as such it has to be addressed. Was it a colossal error in judgement to create a state on the most contentious piece of real estate on the planet? You betcha. But we had a hand in partitioning it. And so did the rest of the UN. And that makes us responsible. However, we should not interpret this responsibility as an obligation to provide aid or arms, but to resolve the issues rather than providing literal ammo for their continuation. And to resolve the issue, Isreal will almost certainly have to make concession because this is what diplomacy is about, bargaining out a deal that's acceptable to both sides.

Is saying that Isreal needs to be willing to give ground anti-Semitic?

My Gun, you're making me sorry I called you rational and sane in that IED thread.


No, I'm definitely in-sane. I'm just saying that's the only way I can figure out why we invaded Iraq - not that I would have done it that way, or even have done it at all.

I should have named myself Crazy Eddie, but I think it was taken.

Is saying that Isreal needs to be willing to give ground anti-Semitic?


Hmmm... I think that it is the perfect lithmus-test in the current situation.
Anyone who asserts that there should be a square micron of Israel under Islamic control... becomes an enemy of the West.

No, I'm definitely in-sane. I'm just saying that's the only way I can figure out why we invaded Iraq - not that I would have done it that way, or even have done it at all.

I should have named myself Crazy Eddie, but I think it was taken.
What ever happened to Crazy Eddie Antar? Did the government ever get him on tax evasion or did he run off to Israel?

Hmmm... I think that it is the perfect lithmus-test in the current situation.
Anyone who asserts that there should be a square micron of Israel under Islamic control... becomes an enemy of the West.

I think that since neither Islam or Judaism seem to be willing to give ground on "who owns Jerusalem", the US should set one final deadline (say, 30 days from now), and if they don't reach a very peaceful and accomodating arrangement by then, the US should blow the city off the face of the planet.

Problem solved. Stop fighting or we erase things. Take away your toys.

I'm suprised the rational option of simply routing out the causes which cause average muslims to terrorism (without necessarily giving them "what they want")

I'm suprised the rational option of simply routing out the causes which cause average muslims to terrorism (without necessarily giving them "what they want")

There are at least several hundred thousand who are not "average muslims" and they were not poor. Read OBLs letters, and you'll know that the reason the core Al Qaeda are engaged in terrorism is not because they are poor, and not because Israel exists.

It's because they see a future where only their vision of Islam exists. Everyone else will be dead. And they will rule the ruins in the new Caliphate.

Why don't we root out the root causes of that idea?

Well, it would give a whole new meaning to the term Bitter-ender.

Well, it would give a whole new meaning to the term Bitter-ender.

Honestly, I would rather that they were hands-uppers, but no one ever wants to do things the easy way.

There's a few options i see.

A. We pull out all of our interests from the middle east. All coporations of the west just close shop and leave - (of course the middle east would need to cough up a severance plan for the financial loss to its former clients). we take away aid, security, etc.
Pro: we'll save tons of money and troop overuse - not to mention all that military equipment, ammo and fuel. If what the people say they want is true, then they will be happy when we're gone.... right? (i'm not so sure)
Con: We lose the close proximity to the terrorists and thus loose some degree of ... awareness (not that we're all that aware now with all the suicide bombings and ambushes.) This approach would also prove fatal for we'd allow those same terrorists to amass and spread out over greater palins of area and embed their networks deeply and secretly.

B. We hold concensus Votes throughout all regions inquiring as to what the peoples' will is? And so regionally we'll be satisfying those inhabitants instead of inflaming them. A cooperative would be a lot easier under these terms.
All those regions not concensusly accepting western presence may chose to have us not participate in their regional economies, properties, industries, markets, humantarian aids, security & justice aids, disaster aids, etc. and that's fine we're happy to withdraw our business and invest elsewhere - if that's what's needed for peace - it seems easy.

Pro: If Honored, peace in the middle east btw westerners and easterners. Hopefully, resuting less hostilities in a widespread civil manner when they realize their honorable peoples have been really lisitened to and respected and understood. That means peace and security for a lot of others to when you take away a breeding ground.
Cons: COnsiderable loss financially for a lot of businesses. considerable loss of networking abilities, communications, and shipping routes as well. Proce of peace?

This is gonna cause some controversy, but I feel Muslims themselves must confront the source of Islamic terrorism; that jihadist portion of their religion which advocates violence.

If it means a major overhaul of the Islamic faith, people must realize that other faiths have had their major shifts too.

We should follow Thaksin Shinawatra's example.

We should follow Thaksin Shinawatra's example.
Who Dat?

Who Dat?

Prime Minister of Thailand.

Prime Minister of Thailand.
I do like his approach. Round them up in cargo containers and let them die. Very nice. P.S. I'm not being sarcastic.

This is gonna cause some controversy, but I feel Muslims themselves must confront the source of Islamic terrorism; that jihadist portion of their religion which advocates violence.

If it means a major overhaul of the Islamic faith, people must realize that other faiths have had their major shifts too.

How can they stop the jihadist portion of their religion?
Those people interpret the Koran in their own way...it may be ridiculous but there's no way to stop people interpreting it their own way...
One problem is the predominance of English in the world...if we had Arabic as the main world language, there would be fewer problems in translation of the Koran...

And what do you suggest for Iraq? A major overhaul of Islam isn't going to stop the people there hating the illegal occupation by America...George Bush has screwed over most goodwill Muslims had towards the West.

If you want to kill off the terrorists you have got to do it the more subtle way... Namely:

A:Covert Assasinations of various terrorist leaders
B:Isolation(economically, militarily and politicaly) of countries that support Terrorists(namely:North Korea(although I doubt they have the financial clout I suspect they are SELLING weapons), Libya, Iran, and Syria)
C:Freezing the assets of people who give donations to terrorists(There are people in the gulf states who do this... but the goverment does not condone it)

Sure it doesnt look as good to the public as going to war with another nation, and it takes alot longer. But it will reduce terrorism considerably(note I said reduce, not eliminate, there is no way to eliminate terrorism).

You see, the main purpose of the Islamic terrorist is to create a worldwide caliphate where women are lower than dogs in everyway possible, kids are flogged to death for pointless things, and all modern conviences are banned as they are "unIslamic" and so on and so on.

Right now in Iran, a mentally handicapped 14-year old girl is on death row because her mom sold her into prostitution for money and for being raped.....

President Bush is doing the right thing. He is accurately following the "honeypot strategy" of war. Sun Tzu mentions this strategy in the classic book "The Art of War" as "a way of taking the capital of your enemies former empire that they wish to restore, the enemy will have no choice but to respond." Baghdad was the capital of the first caliphate so it was logical to start from there.

Once again I shall remind people of the following sites.

www.jihadwatch.org

www.faithfreedom.org

and also of the ultimate way to punish Islamic terrorists.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/Pershing.htm

Take care now.

and also of the ultimate way to punish Islamic terrorists.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/Pershing.htm

Right on! :p

A decision has to be made that balances humaneness with rate of progress. It has to instill rapid change in the culture and a common understanding. The fact of the matter is, many things have been tried, peace talks, negations, embargoes, etc. Nothing has worked.

The true solution, the final one which will work and bring peace, and especially being a peace activist myself and having put a lot of thought into this, is to bomb them. The fact of the matter is, our hopes there are pinned up by unrealistic illusions. Among them are: (1.) only the interests and safety of militant Islamic Fundamentalists are a concern, and (2.) that we must acheive peace without altering their culture in any way.

For those of you who beleive that every Islamist (or many of them) are terrorists or likely terrorists, and that an attack against what is (by technicality) their land and people will incite new anger and hatred against the U.S. - I disagree.

There are people that think this, but I don't think that everyone in the Middle East is represented by Bin Laden or Al-Qeada. In fact I beleive many of them have disagreements with them. A common American problem is our trouble with seperating Islamic militants with Islamic fundamentalists, and it is a crucial thing we must learn to seperate before we take action. I don't think that they would react in outrage if we carried out rational operations against THEM. (I feel that the opposition and hatred caused in Iraq is because we did the wrong thing, we've attacked and harmed normal people, and that we honestly could have won support if we had given them more representation in the government instead of forcing our values on them)

Not giving a true response to an entity that is actively operating to decapitate, damage, and destroy us would be the equivalent of a WWII England passivley letting itself be bombed by Germany.

I myself hate that the bombs on Japan were used and what it did to them, but at the same time I am thankful for the peace it brought here. I think it would be understood that if we bombed a major city and wiped it out entirely, we would send a message to the Middle East, letting them understand that the constant violence and struggle produced within their culture has to stop. While simultaneously stopping violent terrorists from oppressing their countries, and admittedly taking civilians lives in the process, the end result would be one we are thankful for, and that, not death, is what I hope for. I think that the Mid East in their heart of hearts really wants peace, and that is what brings such intense passion to that land. I beleive that once they see that we too are interested in bringing them peace they would understand our actions and while perhaps not thank us, be thankfull for the situation they end up in.

It is a matter of weighing the good vs. the bad. Revamping unrealistic visions to realistic ones that will realize a structure for a real and possible peace that everyone can be proud of. It is undoubtable that for every day the Mid East trudges on in abscence of peace, many families suffer a severe cost today. It is just like us to not be able to see a cost like that ongoing and in front of our eyes because we are a culture that is desensitized to the worst of violence, passive to it so long as it is on a small scale. Our sense of respect for human kind starts kicking in only when we reach large scale things like bombs, while missing the damage to human life that goes on every day. It would be the same as adding a temporary amount of pollution to an area, to make the rest of the world much much cleaner. I honestly wish that, and hope that in our future we learn to truly value human life, and it is a lack of it that keeps us from actually daring to solve the problem.

www.jihadwatch.org

www.faithfreedom.org

and also of the ultimate way to punish Islamic terrorists.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Announcement/Pershing.htm

Take care now.

The problem with those places is they don't see any difference when it comes to a Muslim and an Islamic Jihadist. They see all Muslims as on an equal footing with OBL.

So, I can't accept their thoughts or opinions.

Something to realize (taken from Snopes): Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim; one need not be devout to be fanatical, and not all religious fanatics are devout. Religion can be just as much about politics and power as it is about faith, and counter-religious behavior is often justified or sanctioned in the service of a "greater cause." The terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 11 were reportedly seen partaking of alcohol and engaging the services of naked lap dancers, activities which should have been anathema to true Muslims. Perhaps they were Muslims in name only, maybe they weren't all that devout, or possibly they rationalized that Allah would overlook their transgressions with booze and women since they were about to die in the service of Islam. Whatever the case, concerns about the afterlife probably wouldn't have dissuaded the hijackers from their plans to crash Flight 11 into the World Trade Center had a few pigs turned up on board the plane. If Allah was a concern, well, the hijackers could choose to believe that Allah would understand and make allowances for true warriors of the faith — after all, the Koran teaches against suicide in the first place.

We need to leave Iraq. That will be a start. We have to pressure peace between Israel and the Palestinians to live together harmoniously. Other than that, leave the damn Muslims alone.