NationStates Jolt Archive

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

What would your car run on?
And would you be able to push that through against the huge lobby?


Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Worked really well with all those allegedly communist revolts in South America, didn't it?


Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

"Hopefully" being the key word here. Highly improbable, though...

What would your car run on?
And would you be able to push that through against the huge lobby?



Worked really well with all those allegedly communist revolts in South America, didn't it?



"Hopefully" being the key word here. Highly improbable, though...
1) Thermaldepolymerization plants produce fuel from garbage or sewage. That's what your car would run on. Mandating efficient hybrid cars would help too.

2) It wasn't really tried in the past. If it's tried in Venezuela in the present and future I'm sure it will work because Chavez is setting his nation up for even more extreme poverty than ever before with his policies.

3) Even if it never results in secular democracy it would at least allow us to be free from the troubles of the middle east. They couldn't really blame us for their failures if we completely disengage from them.

Hah! It was tried in the past all over the South American countries. That strategy doesn't work as well as you'd think. As long as the military is behind somebody a bunch of untrained commoners don't stand a chance.

Hah! It was tried in the past all over the South American countries. That strategy doesn't work as well as you'd think. As long as the military is behind somebody a bunch of untrained commoners don't stand a chance.
I thought the US always intervened when a South or Central American country was going communist.

Arab soldiers are little more than untrained commoners themselves.

3) Even if it never results in secular democracy it would at least allow us to be free from the troubles of the middle east. They couldn't really blame us for their failures if we completely disengage from them.
I can't blame my parents and my teachers for my own failures in life but I do! I have nothing relevent to add..

3) Even if it never results in secular democracy it would at least allow us to be free from the troubles of the middle east. They couldn't really blame us for their failures if we completely disengage from them.

That's the thing with a global society. They could still blame you for not being willing to help them and for leaving them to starve while you live in luxury. And considering human nature, they would.

Also, experience tells us that no matter how poor a country is, the leaders will still have enough money for guns (and possibly for American flags to burn in the streets now and then), so you wouldn't be any safer, really. Poverty and desperation breed fanatism, so no matter what kind of revolution might get underway eventually, chances are the resulting government or leadership will be even worse than the previous one.

I thought the US always intervened when a South or Central American country was going communist.


Just what I'm talking about. US finances revolution or supports rebels -> country is worse of afterwards and suffers from a dictator who is backed by the largest economy in the world rather than a guy who can be overthrown in the blink of an eye because he has no such backing....

Why hasn't anyone considered this strategy against Islamist terror?

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Not the change from a claimed strategy against 'Islamist terror' to one which is just against the 'Islamists'. So you are claiming that all followers of Islam should be removed from political power, yes?

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.


So in order to combat terrorism, you fund terrorism, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole funding foreign guerilla groups malarky is what gave birth to the current wave of terrorism in the first place, wasn't it?

3) Even if it never results in secular democracy it would at least allow us to be free from the troubles of the middle east. They couldn't really blame us for their failures if we completely disengage from them.

Supporting 'any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training' counts as disengaging from them in your book? Fuck me, what does engaging with them mean in that case?

Not the change from a claimed strategy against 'Islamist terror' to one which is just against the 'Islamists'. So you are claiming that all followers of Islam should be removed from political power, yes?




So in order to combat terrorism, you fund terrorism, yes? Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole funding foreign guerilla groups malarky is what gave birth to the current wave of terrorism in the first place, wasn't it?
By islamists I meant the islamic extremists like Al Quaeda and the Taliban. Not the average muslim. Most muslims, like most people of other religions, aren't as problematic as the extremists.

Revolution by an oppressed people against their oppressive government doesn't count as terrorism in my book. As long as legitimate targets are attacked, like military, police and government personell, it's ok.

Hah! It was tried in the past all over the South American countries. That strategy doesn't work as well as you'd think. As long as the military is behind somebody a bunch of untrained commoners don't stand a chance.
Yep, good thing the colonists lost to the King of England...waitaminnit, that DIDN'T happen! Oh, yeah! Chechnya, Yucatan, Afghanistan in the 80s, hmm, LOTS of examples of untrained commoners kicking military butts.
End terrorism - kill terrorists, and those who support them.

Supporting 'any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training' counts as disengaging from them in your book? Fuck me, what does engaging with them mean in that case?
We disengage long enough for the enemy to get what they want and find out that they don't know what to do with it. Then we get involved again when the common people are convinced that they never should have supported religious extremists in the first place.

Nothing fails like success. The islamist extremists would find that in gaining control of the Arab world they also gain the responsibility to keep the people happy and healthy. I'm betting that they will fail miserably at those tasks and lose popular support.

By islamists I meant the islamic extremists like Al Quaeda and the Taliban.

Then say it next time.

Revolution by an oppressed people against their oppressive government doesn't count as terrorism in my book. As long as legitimate targets are attacked, like military, police and government personell, it's ok.

And what if those soldiers are conscripts, or those police or government workers had the choice between taking those positions or starving on the street?

What level of oppression justifies armed revolution?

And seeing as how you didn't answer it first time round:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole funding foreign guerilla groups malarky is what gave birth to the current wave of terrorism in the first place, wasn't it?

Nothing fails like success. The islamist extremists would find that in gaining control of the Arab world they also gain the responsibility to keep the people happy and healthy. I'm betting that they will fail miserably at those tasks and lose popular support.

The Taliban seemed to be pretty good at holding on to their position until massive foreign intervention shunted them out of power. Why should other similar religious extremist governments be less successful?

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

aside from "step one" this was essentialy the pre-wwii british empire policy which created 'the problem' in the first place.

and the problem isn't islam or the arab world, rather it is the murderous rapacity of the 'western/northern' world's corporatocracy.

if we wanted to end the problem we wouldn't be continuing to create it.

nothing is dearer to the heart of hearts of a so called conservative, what's calling itself conservatism these days, then to nurture a dear enimy and keep it alive to frighten and convince its own constituency to keep it in power because it 'needs' their 'protection'.

there is no war AGAINST 'terrorism'. there is a 'war' (on the part of corporocratic vested interests), tacticly to control the planet's remaining stratigic oil resurves as a stepping stone to international and ultimately planetary dictatorship. there is a war these selfs same interests are making on the pretense of an utterly false pseudo morality, against the united nations, the world court, and the very concept of international law, so that one or a handful of the worlds most powerful countries can hold hostage all people and all resources on the entire planet.

we could, if that were really the goal, with wind, solar, hydro and the occasional nuke, geothermal, biomass et. c., not to mention reduced demand, all but elimanate any dependence on ANY fossel fuel and possibly on the use of combustion in any form to generate energy and power transportation.

=^^=
.../\...

What would your car run on?
And would you be able to push that through against the huge lobby?
Well, if people weren't so stubborn, we could get hydrogen-based cars off the ground, as well as electric ones. And to off-set it, allow them to be run off propane and ethenol gas.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Because there are lots and lots of people (read: men) with lots and lots of money who don't want that to happen. In western democracies things without the support of the buissiness world are known as "politically impossible"


Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

They would have already if they had that capability

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Well thats just mean

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.
Like they did to get the soviets out of the region? That strategy, as it turns out, doesn't work so well.

Also this is a long-term straregy, the likes of which today's short-sighted politicians try to avoid.

aside from "step one" this was essentialy the pre-wwii british empire policy which created 'the problem' in the first place.

and the problem isn't islam or the arab world, rather it is the murderous ....

=^^=
.../\...
What he said also

Why don't we just coat bullets in pork grease and bury terrorists in pig skins?
Would this not void thier chances of getting 70 virgins?

The Taliban seemed to be pretty good at holding on to their position until massive foreign intervention shunted them out of power. Why should other similar religious extremist governments be less successful?
Originally Posted by BWO
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this whole funding foreign guerilla groups malarky is what gave birth to the current wave of terrorism in the first place, wasn't it?

1) No, the taliban were in the position that I want to put the arab extremists into. They were fighting a war against other Afghanis, the Northern Alliance. Funding, training and equipping the NA could have toppled the Taliban without any major foreign presence.

2) No, the wave of terrorism actually has it's roots in ideologies proposed by such people as Hassan Al Banna decades ago.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.
what part of this is supposed to stop terrorism??

what about the radical islamists in countries with no oil?

while we need to be moving swiftly towards independance from petroleum, why would doing so ever stop people from blowing things up for political gain??

Well, if people weren't so stubborn, we could get hydrogen-based cars off the ground, as well as electric ones.

Flying cars? Kewl.

2) No, the wave of terrorism actually has it's roots in ideologies proposed by such people as Hassan Al Banna decades ago.

Care to provide a single quote where he advocates violence as a way of achieving his aims?

EDIT: Never mind, I was confusing the name with someone else there.

what part of this is supposed to stop terrorism??

what about the radical islamists in countries with no oil?

while we need to be moving swiftly towards independance from petroleum, why would doing so ever stop people from blowing things up for political gain??
It targets Islamist terrorism because one of the major goals of Al Quaeda affiliated groups is to hurt the west enough so it stops supporting the tyranical regimes in the Arab world. Without that support they think that Islamic extremists could topple those leaders and establish governments based on their own repressive and cruel brand of Islam.

This gives them exactly what they want, which is more than I think they can handle. They then are doomed to spend most of their time and effort trying to feed their people while rejecting the west and it's economic and cultural models. This will result in failure and the loss of popular support.

Care to provide a single quote where he advocates violence as a way of achieving his aims?
One of the ways al-Banna himself contributed to the Brothers' reputation for violence was by teaching a more activist version of jihad, giving primacy to the minor jihad (fighting) over the major jihad (the inner spiritual struggle against evil). He collapsed the Quranic definitions of fighting (qital) and the inner spiritual struggle against evil (jihad) into a single call to engage in holy war against not only infidels but also People of the Book (Christians and Jews). In his tract, "On Jihad" (in Five Tracts of Hasan al-Banna, trans. by Charles Wendell (Berkeley, 1978), pp. 142, 150, 154, al-Banna wrote:

In this Tradition, there is a clear indication of the obligation to fight the People of the Book, and of the fact that God doubles the reward of those who fight them. Jihad is not against polytheists alone, but against all who do not embrace Islam...Today the Muslims, as you know, are compelled to humble themselves before non-Muslims, and are ruled by unbelievers. Their lands have been trampled over, and their honor besmirched. Their adversaries are in charge of their affairs, and the rites of their religion have fallen into abeyance within their own domains, to say nothing of their impotence to broadcast the summons [to embrace Islam]. Hence it has become an individual obligation, which there is no evading, on every Muslim to prepare his equipment, to make up his mind to engage in jihad, and to get ready for it until the opportunity is ripe and God decrees a matter which is sure to be accomplished...Know then that death is inevitable, and that it can only happen once. If you suffer it in the way of God, it will be your profit in this world, and your reward in the next.


http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/hasan_al.htm

http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/hasan_al.htm

Yeah, apologies, I caught the fact that I was confusing his name with someone else before you posted... see my edit above.

It targets Islamist terrorism because one of the major goals of Al Quaeda affiliated groups is to hurt the west enough so it stops supporting the tyranical regimes in the Arab world.

This gives them exactly what they want, which is more than I think they can handle.

So your strategy for fighting this particular brand of terrorism is to give them what they demand?

Flying cars? Kewl.
Hey! Not a bad idea! After all, the Arabs have flying carpets! :D

> Why hasn't anyone considered this strategy against Islamist terror?

What makes you think that the admin is interested in eliminating islamist terror in its entirety?

What makes you think that the admin is interested in eliminating islamist terror in its entirety?
Meh, I guess I'm just an optimist.

So your strategy for fighting this particular brand of terrorism is to give them what they demand?
Yep. Give them what they want and watch the consequences of their success weaken them and make them unpopular among the rabble that supported them.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.
I don't know so much about nuclear power, having grown up next to a plant that really seemed like more trouble than it was worth-but yeah, thermodepolymerization, biodiesel, vegetable oil vehicles. Think of this-if McDonalds coverted thier truck fleet to run on the vegetable oil they produce and use-think of the savings for the company and the net social benefit. And as a bonus, wouldn't it be great to watch hippies be conflicted, having to admire McDonalds for something? That's a win all the way around.

Great idea.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.
Everyone?

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.
With a Way-Back Machine?

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.
You know, part of the problem is that the poor or 'average' Arab or Middle Easterner views us, the US, as supporting already extent curropt and repressive rulers. Mostly to get cheap oil. Did you know that bin Laden has a target price for oil as one of his sticking points?

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.
As has been pointed out, this is the same kind of nonsense that got us in this trouble in the first place. We need to get off the dependence on oil for a number of reasons, all of them important and valid. Beyond that we do not need to be fiddling with the soviergnty of other nations. We toppled the one secular government in the area (albiet Persian, not Arab) but it's likely to emerge as an Islamic state. How's that fit your plan?

But your first idea was on track.

Meh, I guess I'm just an optimist.

I am a cynic. :)

I have come to a conclusion, based on stuff like the alleged delaying and bungling of Tora-Bora operations, the Kunduz airlift, the shielding of AQKhan by the US, the cozying up to the Pakistani military regime despite the knowledge that Pakistani intelligence higher ups were in the know about 9/11 and the fact that Pakistani intel chief of that time Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed being the paymaster for Mohd. Atta and the complete blackout of investigations and public debates on this line, the continued arming of a belligerent army of Pakistan which lends credence to the theory of "balance" of nations - using Pakistan to balance India and using India to balance China and so on..., the unnecessary invasion of Iraq to remove a regime that was secular and a bulwark against pan-islamist ambitions and so on...,

well the conclusion is that

USG has no interests in combating and eliminating pan-islamist extremism and terrorism in its entirety...only the part where the American homeland is involved.

But the USG is going to use this terrorism stick to drive their other agenda ...the PNAC

It targets Islamist terrorism because one of the major goals of Al Quaeda affiliated groups is to hurt the west enough so it stops supporting the tyranical regimes in the Arab world. Without that support they think that Islamic extremists could topple those leaders and establish governments based on their own repressive and cruel brand of Islam.

This gives them exactly what they want, which is more than I think they can handle. They then are doomed to spend most of their time and effort trying to feed their people while rejecting the west and it's economic and cultural models. This will result in failure and the loss of popular support.
and you believe that??

alqaeda will fight until they are the boss of the world. that is their final goal. they cant get it, but they will fight on. they arent noble men fighting to rid the holy land of infidels

alqaeda is not the end all and be all of terrorism. as long as there are people who get the short end of the stick there will be people willing to do violence to try to get the longer end.

what about the phillipines, indonesia, bangladesh, pakistan, afghanistan and yemen? they are all countries with islamist extremists but no oil.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.
That always happens.

Revolution by an oppressed people against their oppressive government doesn't count as terrorism in my book. As long as legitimate targets are attacked, like military, police and government personell, it's ok.

Well that's how the Taliban and the Ayatollah and Saddam got started. Saddam founded a secular government.

Well that's how the Taliban and the Ayatollah and Saddam got started. Saddam founded a secular government.
Saddam did start a secular government. That's just one of the reasons that I never supported invading Iraq.

Saddam did start a secular government. That's just one of the reasons that I never supported invading Iraq.

Sooo ... what happens if in the Iraqi free elections, the Iraqi people decide they want a Muslim theocracy? Would you support invasion then?

Sooo ... what happens if in the Iraqi free elections, the Iraqi people decide they want a Muslim theocracy? Would you support invasion then?
Nope. I would support having nothing to do with them until their Muslim theocracy ends up pissing the population off and a secular resistance movement develops. Then I would support arming and training the resistence.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

1 - It would cost too much in the short term.

2 - Some are friendly (as long as they get paid).

3 - There arent enough Islamists because its all wildly exaggerated.

4 -Nothing new about that, really. Did it with Saddam for years. "As long as they know whos boss" seems to be the American attitude.

5 - Nothing new about that either.

6 - That would mean not sponsoring coups to get rid of them when they do that "independent thinking" thing. Two chances....

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.You're forgetting that the Islamists hate America. Once they've taken over the Arab world, they'd probably then focus their attention on destroying the US and use it as a rallying point to gain everyone's support. It'd end up being an Islamic extremist version of Nazi Germany.

because that would cost more than just going to war.

Perhaps it is because you would be condemning millions and millions of innocent people to live under oppressive dictatorships they don't want?

Not a good plan at all.

You're forgetting that the Islamists hate America.


All Muslims hate America?

Perhaps it is because you would be condemning millions and millions of innocent people to live under oppressive dictatorships they don't want?

Not a good plan at all.
Sometimes people need to be forced to face reality. The arab world seems to blame the west for all of it's problems and seems to see extreme forms of Islam as a solution to it's problems. Well, let them try their solutions. When they get tired of seeing their daughters stoned to death and their economies plunging to Somalia-like levels maybe they'll see that radical Islam isn't the answer.

The arab world seems to blame the west for all of it's problems and seems to see extreme forms of Islam as a solution to it's problems.
I would think that "the Arab World" is not a collective hivemind. Judging from the few Arabs I got to talk to, and the info I can get, the majority of Muslims in the middle east are not extremists.
It's when people are poor, when their governments don't help them out, when your local Mosque is the only place that cares that religion becomes a political movement. That was how the revolution in Iran started anyways, and where the Islamist movement in Pakistan gets a lot of its gusto.

Of course you will get rich individuals who just are crackpots - they would be the new heads of these radical governments you're proposing.

But ultimately, I'd argue that a better way to end the influence of Islamism is to present people with secular, or just non-radical, alternatives, working economies and a bit of a decent prospect for the life here and now, rather than in the after-life.

And for those who are already radical Islamists, I'd think that a bit of international cooperation in solving these criminal cases (which is essentially what they are), and the occasional use of special forces should do the trick. You'd just have to strike where it actually hurts - and Pakistan should be pretty high up the list.

Sometimes people need to be forced to face reality. .

O the irony......

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

ETA: DCD, nice to see ya back. Haven't seen ya around in a while.

My strategy in dealing with islamist terror is much simpler: Shoot terrorists, islamists, and never-do-well's in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, and for their last meal force feed them bacon. Do this to EVERY terrorist that gets picked up. Automatically execute them upon conviction.

ETA: DCD, nice to see ya back. Haven't seen ya around in a while.

My strategy in dealing with islamist terror is much simpler: Shoot terrorists, islamists, and never-do-well's in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, and for their last meal force feed them bacon. Do this to EVERY terrorist that gets picked up. Automatically execute them upon conviction.

It was bad enough when it was merely alleged that Muslims prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were deliberately having their beliefs profaned and blasphemed upon by the interrogators.

Now you're advocating making it standard United States military policy.

It won't cow them at all. If anything, it'll just convince the neutral Muslims that Islam really is being threatened like Bin Ladin's claimed for years. And then when those billions of Muslims join up the jihadist cause, then you've got yourselves a problem.

Oh and automatic execution upon conviction with no appeal? Wow, you really do believe in impartiality and the right to a fair trial don't you?

Bushevik.

My strategy in dealing with islamist terror is much simpler: Shoot terrorists, islamists, and never-do-well's in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, and for their last meal force feed them bacon.

What is it with this use of the word 'Islamist'? Are you suggesting we shoot all Muslims in the back of the head?

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.
You wanna know why? 'Cause baby needs another FIX, that's why.The good stuff, not that stepped-on crap. C'mon we all need just one more hit of oil right in the vein, man. Just one more hit. One more. Then we'll quit for good. Tomorrow.

And some of you will recall what Janis Joplin remarked about tomorrow...

You wanna know why? 'Cause baby needs another FIX, that's why.The good stuff, not that stepped-on crap. C'mon we all need just one more hit of oil right in the vein, man. Just one more hit. One more. Then we'll quit for good. Tomorrow.

Surely waging war on Canada and taking their stocks (seeing as how they are the major supplier of oil to the US) would make more sense.

Surely waging war on Canada and taking their stocks (seeing as how they are the major supplier of oil to the US) would make more sense.
I said not the stepped-on crap. You can't score for goofballs with that tarsands shit.

It was bad enough when it was merely alleged that Muslims prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo were deliberately having their beliefs profaned and blasphemed upon by the interrogators.

Are you talking about the alleged "Koran desecration"? It never happened. As far as having their beleifs blasphemed by interrogators, who cares? You guys sure don't care about tearing upon Christians. That's the pot calling the kettle black. In truth, I do not care what happens to those goat-humping middle eastern hadjis.

Now you're advocating making it standard United States military policy.

Yup.

It won't cow them at all. If anything, it'll just convince the neutral Muslims that Islam really is being threatened like Bin Ladin's claimed for years. And then when those billions of Muslims join up the jihadist cause, then you've got yourselves a problem.

I'm pretty sure muslims are smart enough to see a connection-if you commit terror upon US citizens, you will lose your life. C'mon, they can't be THAT dumb.

Oh and automatic execution upon conviction with no appeal? Wow, you really do believe in impartiality and the right to a fair trial don't you?

Bushevik.

Appeals? Fine. They will have a fair trial alrigh, if they're found innocent? Letem' go. It's not like I'm saying grab a bunch of muslims and we'll cook up charges, I'm saying try captured terrorists.

What is it with this use of the word 'Islamist'? Are you suggesting we shoot all Muslims in the back of the head?

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey

Shall we start with the big one here: you are now claiming that anyone who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca is a terrorist? To say nothing of the fact that only a small fraction of Islamists advocate, never mind put it directly into practice, violence. Next time do some research before you start flinging around such bullshit.

EDIT: missed out the word 'violence'.

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey
Looks like to me like some acronymic adolescent is cruisin' for a bruisin'.

Appeals? Fine. They will have a fair trial alrigh, if they're found innocent? Letem' go. It's not like I'm saying grab a bunch of muslims and we'll cook up charges, I'm saying try captured terrorists.

Fair trials like the ones those in a certain American run Cuban prison and those in CIA black sites are getting hmmm? Don't kid yourself. The administration isn't interested in giving them trials, just assuming they're guilty and doing whatever they please.

You really strike me as an ignorant lout you know. One who certainly doesn't do anything for the stereotypical cowboy American image who would sooner use a firearm then excercise a single brain cell.

By islamists I meant the islamic extremists like Al Quaeda and the Taliban. Not the average muslim. Most muslims, like most people of other religions, aren't as problematic as the extremists.

Revolution by an oppressed people against their oppressive government doesn't count as terrorism in my book. As long as legitimate targets are attacked, like military, police and government personell, it's ok.
You meen like in Vietnam, listen up dude. Islamic terrorisam are a bunch of crazed pople that like to hit thei women and put tents on them, but guess who funded them. AMERICA DID, you founded them to fuck of communizam, buess what. The only time women were free in afghanistan was during the soviet intervention. Then they didn't have to have those veils or what ever its called. And now look at the placec, its a shithole thanks to AMERICA founding a bunch of crazy assholes, much like you founded death squads in chile, this means america does not only support terrorisam, it cretes it. But now you have a problem with them couse all of a sudden they got the idea to fly planes into WTC, well i guess you can't count on crazy people you created to be realeble allyes. Its like making a battlerobot to crush your neighbours house, and your neigbour he is a good guy. and your an ass. But then all of a sudden the robot attacks you, for some reason..

Peace out

And one more thing, if america is a democracy, hoe come most of the people in power are related? Sounds like nort KOrea of Saudi Arabia to me..
And we all know how pleasent those folks are

but there are some good sides to america ass well, if your of european decent at least:p

I don't know so much about nuclear power, having grown up next to a plant that really seemed like more trouble than it was worth-but yeah, thermodepolymerization, biodiesel, vegetable oil vehicles. Think of this-if McDonalds coverted thier truck fleet to run on the vegetable oil they produce and use-think of the savings for the company and the net social benefit. And as a bonus, wouldn't it be great to watch hippies be conflicted, having to admire McDonalds for something? That's a win all the way around.

Great idea.




Everyone?


With a Way-Back Machine?


You know, part of the problem is that the poor or 'average' Arab or Middle Easterner views us, the US, as supporting already extent curropt and repressive rulers. Mostly to get cheap oil. Did you know that bin Laden has a target price for oil as one of his sticking points?


As has been pointed out, this is the same kind of nonsense that got us in this trouble in the first place. We need to get off the dependence on oil for a number of reasons, all of them important and valid. Beyond that we do not need to be fiddling with the soviergnty of other nations. We toppled the one secular government in the area (albiet Persian, not Arab) but it's likely to emerge as an Islamic state. How's that fit your plan?

But your first idea was on track.


I think Persians would get extremly pissed if you called them arab, two thirds of them are as a metter of fact aryan, or white as it is also called[those of us that lack pigments and have to spend a shitload of money on sun block(including my self)];)

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

You remind me of the 1930s communists who initially welcomed the Nazi government, seeing it as the final throes of capitalism and the forerunner of revolution.

I do not believe that promoting violence, extremism and terror should be the foreign policy of the USA.

I think Persians would get extremly pissed if you called them arab, two thirds of them are as a metter of fact aryan, or white as it is also called[those of us that lack pigments and have to spend a shitload of money on sun block(including my self)];)
Well, yeah. It was a point I was trying to make a glancing blow at-the notion that it's all-Arab as the assumption in the OP.

I'm a little dissapointed-the only thing that got noticed in there was that I made a distinction between Persian and Arab.

I gave people a perfectly workable scenario to make hippies short circuit and nothin'. C'mon, I'd be one of the conflicted and even I think it's cool that it'd happen...

What is it with this use of the word 'Islamist'? Are you suggesting we shoot all Muslims in the back of the head?
As I understand it, Islamists are people who make Islam a political movement.
Therefore, there are Christianists (which you'll find in the US), Judaists (which you will find both in Israel and the US), Hinduists (I assume) and ... erm ... Buddhists.

As I understand it, Islamists are people who make Islam a political movement.
Therefore, there are Christianists (which you'll find in the US), Judaists (which you will find both in Israel and the US), Hinduists (I assume) and ... erm ... Buddhists.

But BARF-COM shows how racist he is by adding unnecessary racial slurs which are specifically aimed at Middle Eastern Muslims in general.

But BARF-COM shows how racist he is by adding unnecessary racial slurs which are specifically aimed at Middle Eastern Muslims in general.
You didn't expect any better from him, did you?

You didn't expect any better from him, did you?

Nope, that was just in case you were trying to play devil's advocate and explain his position.

Shall we start with the big one here: you are now claiming that anyone who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca is a terrorist? To say nothing of the fact that only a small fraction of Islamists advocate, never mind put it directly into practice, violence. Next time do some research before you start flinging around such bullshit.

EDIT: missed out the word 'violence'.

If it's only a small fraction of muslims committing acts of violence against the US, then shoot them, shovel them, and shutup! I've never said execute all of muslimdom, just the ones that insist on bombing open markets and western cities.

it worries me that everyone is focused on a "hands-on" approach




The US needs to look inward. We need to retract all of our troops and "support". We have created a giant mess and can only make it worse. America has problems at home that need our attention and tax dollars.

our "foreign policy" seems to be funding violence everywhere. Why you ask?

its nice to see that we all listened to Eisenhower about that military-industral complex bringing us into unfair wars:rolleyes:


The US does not need to be anywhere but the US. People are complaining about the civil rights of oppressed people, but no one realizes that a government can not rule without the consent of its people. If they want "freedom" or "democracy" enough, they can fight for it themselves.

this may seem harsh, but their turmoil will calm down when they are ready fo it to calm down. it may take hundreds of years but it will happen. We can not force people to just abandon their own heritage and ideals to our whim.


I am amazed that everyone is worried about what the US is going to do in the Middle East. What we should be worried about is our own damn freedom and economy. The US was an experiment in self-government that has begun to crash. We need to focus on strengthing ourselves internally instead of "policing the world".

im tired and my post is most likely repetitive, but i believe i made my point:(

If it's only a small fraction of muslims committing acts of violence against the US, then shoot them, shovel them, and shutup! I've never said execute all of muslimdom, just the ones that insist on bombing open markets and western cities.
And what about fair trials?

im tired and my post is most likely repetitive, but i believe i made my point:(
You have, and not too long ago I would have agreed with you.

But things like the Iranian Bomb, the crisis in Darfur and so on have strengthened my belief that someone somewhere needs to provide the muscle to back up the words.

I would love the UN to take care of these things, but there is no change in sight. The UN remains a paper tiger.

So what remains is that an international alliance will have to do what the UN cannot, and avert and solve crises when they come up. The US's role is not to play world police, it's not to act unilaterally - but it's role is to play a part with its Allies in making the world a better, and less dangerous place.

The thing that has begun to hurt me the most about all the crap that's happened since September 2001 is that the US has continuously destroyed the prospect of this coming to pass. Instead, it has reverted into the mold of the old Imperial Powers, and there is nothing good that can come from that.

And what about fair trials?

Let them have fair trials. I've said that.

Let them have fair trials. I've said that.
So you did.

Problem is of course how you define "terrorist" in a fair court, and how you could argue that the death penalty would be appropriate.

One forgets the dominance Capitalism holds over us. We would belly-up our gas companies. It will make many people "sad pandas".

In other words, the reason no one has tried it is that it wouldn't work to an effective extent. And do you think we would do something that could hurt our economy in the short-term despite the possible projected long-term advantages?

I have said this before and I will say this again.

Behind every terrorist attack by an islamist cannon fodder is a cynical mastermind who in turn is sheltered by a regime which in turn is not taken to task by the USG which for various reasons supports the very same regimes to purposes that can only be explained in the context of PNAC, containment policies etc.

The pan-islamist movement that is behind more than 90% of islam-inspired terror is due to the funding from KSA and the sheltering by the Pakistani regime.

And KSA and Pakistan are the allies on the war on terror.:confused:

Now you know why I say that the USG has no interests in countering and eliminating pan-islamist terror in its entirety.

If it's only a small fraction of muslims committing acts of violence against the US, then shoot them, shovel them, and shutup! I've never said execute all of muslimdom, just the ones that insist on bombing open markets and western cities.


Uh-huh, sure:

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey

My strategy in dealing with islamist terror is much simpler: Shoot terrorists, islamists, and never-do-well's in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, and for their last meal force feed them bacon.

So all Hadjis should be shot in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, after having been force fed bacon? That's what you just said. Simple logical substitution. You do know what the word 'Hadji' means don't you? You're not just spouting off slurs and ill-understood concepts, are you?

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.



Substitute Islamist with Communist and that how we got the Taliban and Bin Laden

...or, we couldbring ethics back to politics, stop propping up apostate Muslim regimes (Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia), and deal with the rest of the world like actual human beings. That might work too.

Bumparama in the hope of getting clarification from ARF-COM and IBTL about killing everyone who goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Bumparama in the hope of getting clarification from ARF-COM and IBTL about killing everyone who goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

It seems unlikely.

On a lighter (or possibly sad) note; I've never been called a "hadji" before. I can add that to the list.

Small problem with the bacon bullet idea. That is a direct attack on Islam, not on terrorists.

I am not a violent man, but I will fight and die in the cause of Allah against you, my government, and even my own neighbors if the US decides to deliberately and officially attack Islam. There is no question where my loyalties begin and end. They are with Allah first and foremost.

Ya'll are having a hard enough time with just the small faction of extremists. Do you want to add the rest of us into the mix as well? If so, be a man and fire the first bacon soaked bullet into one of my brothers on Hajj.

...killing everyone who goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Seems like they're doing that all by themselves. Again. :(

Every bloody year. Why can't they get it properly organised, for crying out loud?
These people are there for a religious ceremony - not to be buried under rubble or trampled to death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4586678.stm

It seems unlikely.

On a lighter (or possibly sad) note; I've never been called a "hadji" before. I can add that to the list.

Elucidate...

Seems like they're doing that all by themselves. Again. :(

Every bloody year. Why can't they get it properly organised, for crying out loud?
These people are there for a religious ceremony - not to be buried under rubble or trampled to death.

Buildings collapse all over the world: it is hardly a phenomenon limited to the pilgrimage.

Elucidate...

Ah, I was assuming it was a racial slur, and I happen to come from a long line of Arab farmers.

Buildings collapse all over the world: it is hardly a phenomenon limited to the pilgrimage.
Of course, but I just want to see one year at Mecca where people go in, have fun and get out, and no one dies in the process.

Is the pilgrimage over yet? Because if it isn't, I'd almost bet that there'll be another stampede.

Ah, I was assuming it was a racial slur, and I happen to come from a long line to Arab farmers.

Is there a trick to that? I plant at the right time, even score the seeds properly and water 3 times a day for the first 6 weeks, but I can never seem to get Arabs to grow.

My Arab farming skills just suck, I suppose. Maybe it's the soil ph. Got any tips?

Is there a trick to that? I plant at the right time, even score the seeds properly and water 3 times a day for the first 6 weeks, but I can never seem to get Arabs to grow.

My Arab farming skills just suck, I suppose. Maybe it's the soil ph. Got any tips?

Yah, you need to rub your manbreasts over the ground first while singing "It's Raining Men".

and you believe that??

alqaeda will fight until they are the boss of the world. that is their final goal. they cant get it, but they will fight on. they arent noble men fighting to rid the holy land of infidels

alqaeda is not the end all and be all of terrorism. as long as there are people who get the short end of the stick there will be people willing to do violence to try to get the longer end.

what about the phillipines, indonesia, bangladesh, pakistan, afghanistan and yemen? they are all countries with islamist extremists but no oil.

Indonesia has oil. And in the Philippines, Muslims are a very tiny, unliked, inconsequential minority.

Ah, I was assuming it was a racial slur, and I happen to come from a long line of Arab farmers.

Not as such (unless it is being employed by our good friend ARF): it means someone who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Of course, but I just want to see one year at Mecca where people go in, have fun and get out, and no one dies in the process.

About 2,000 in the last 16 years. Not good, but that is out of how many millions who have made the pilgrimage in that time?

About 2,000 in the last 16 years. Not good, but that is out of how many millions who have made the pilgrimage in that time?
2000 is 2000 too many. And in the past two years, there's been an incident both times.
There's going to be more people coming in every year, and the organisers need to be able to get them through alive. So far, they just haven't done a good enough job IMHO.

2000 is 2000 too many. And in the past two years, there's been an incident both times.
There's going to be more people coming in every year, and the organisers need to be able to get them through alive. So far, they just haven't done a good enough job IMHO.

Agreed. I'm hardly going to start demanding more stampedes now, am I?

I don't think that would work. Instead, we need to expand our trade and economic involvement in the Middle East beyond oil wealth to things that require a well educated workforce like finance or information technology.

These fields require a considerably larger degree of free expression than the petroleum industry does, and a well-educated workforce would be able to reverse some of the damage caused by Saudi madrassas. At the same time, we have to pressure these countries to democratize and reform. Building an economically viable Middle East that can thrive without oil is the key to stopping terror.

Agreed. I'm hardly going to start demanding more stampedes now, am I?
Well, seeing how your name isn't ARF, probably not.

Why isn't he responding...? :mad:

Indonesia has oil. And in the Philippines, Muslims are a very tiny, unliked, inconsequential minority.
oh well then its a great plan and bound to be a splendid success.

Indonesia has oil. And in the Philippines, Muslims are a very tiny, unliked, inconsequential minority.

Invade the Philippines and start messing around with the Muslims there and you have four million pissed off Muslims in the country. However, if you invade Canada and start messing with their Muslims, you only have about one and a half million pissed off Muslims in the country to deal with. To say nothing of the fact that your Northern brethren produce three hundred times as much oil as the Philippines. Invading Canada is definitely a better option.

Invade the Philippines and start messing around with the Muslims there and you have four million pissed off Muslims in the country. However, if you invade Canada and start messing with their Muslims, you only have about one and a half million pissed off Muslims in the country to deal with. To say nothing of the fact that your Northern brethren produce three hundred times as much oil as the Philippines. Invading Canada is definitely a better option.
no no no no

canada is too cold.

no invading canada

Anyone who thinks that a muslim is a terrorist automatically is mistaken. Because if I take that logic and apply it to other things the result is... not good.

1-Republicans: All of them a frothing at the mouth christians who want to install a theocracy, rampant capitalism with no moral bounds and a police state.

2-Christian: All of them think science is the devils work and hte only thing that makes humans good is that we can worship god an all good things are a product of god.

And just to be balanced..

3-Democrat: Want's a style of government where there are no laws, has a sprawling bureaucracy and oral sex is the norm!

4-Aethiest: Cynical self centered bastards who have no social involvment and live only for themselves and leech of others.

Anyone else see the absurdity of this logic? That is take the extreme of something (terrorists with islamic leanings) and say that anyone involved with that institution/group/belif/ect (Moslems) are all extremists of thier institution/group/belif/ect. This just doesn't work.

I don't think that would work. Instead, we need to expand our trade and economic involvement in the Middle East beyond oil wealth to things that require a well educated workforce like finance or information technology.

These fields require a considerably larger degree of free expression than the petroleum industry does, and a well-educated workforce would be able to reverse some of the damage caused by Saudi madrassas. At the same time, we have to pressure these countries to democratize and reform. Building an economically viable Middle East that can thrive without oil is the key to stopping terror.
Pfff. Where's the reductions? Where's the justifying blowing someone up? Where's the general disregard for a people? Where's the displaced anger? None of this long term thinking, what do you think this is?

It'd be more complex, but it is just a post on a thread, hard to cover all the details.

Bumparama (again) in the hope of getting clarification from ARF-COM and IBTL about killing everyone who goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca.

Bumparama (again) in the hope of getting clarification from ARF-COM and IBTL about killing everyone who goes on a pilgrimage to Mecca.
Well, if you think that's a good idea I guess you could order the CDC to mass produce smallpox vaccine, then immunize everyone who's not Muslim, then release genetically modified smallpox on Mecca during the haj and wait for them to take the sickness home.

Well, if you think that's a good idea I guess you could order the CDC to mass produce smallpox vaccine, then immunize everyone who's not Muslim, then release genetically modified smallpox on Mecca during the haj and wait for them to take the sickness home.

Did you just advocate a genocide on a scale that would have made Rudolph Hoss die from overwork? We're talking on a scale of what? Close to more than a billion people?

Did you just advocate a genocide on a scale that would have made Rudolph Hoss die from overwork? We're talking on a scale of what? Close to more than a billion people?

No, he simply provided details of how it would work. He never said that it should or shouldn't be done.

Did you just advocate a genocide on a scale that would have made Rudolph Hoss die from overwork? We're talking on a scale of what? Close to more than a billion people?

What he doesn't take into account also is that virii have a nasty habit of mutating, adapting so they can latch onto many hosts as possible and survive and reproduce. What starts out as the Brownskin Virus will before long turn into the ultimate human pandemic.

Did you just advocate a genocide on a scale that would have made Rudolph Hoss die from overwork?

No, that was ARF-COM and IBTL further up the thread that advocate this kind of killing in these two posts:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10213084&postcount=49

My strategy in dealing with islamist terror is much simpler: Shoot terrorists, islamists, and never-do-well's in the back of the head with a bacon-coated bullet, and for their last meal force feed them bacon. Do this to EVERY terrorist that gets picked up. Automatically execute them upon conviction.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10213463&postcount=56

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey

(for them that don't know... hadji is the term used to describe either a Muslim who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca or a non-Muslim who has visited the place)

He has been strangely silent since then in this thread...

Sooo ... what happens if in the Iraqi free elections, the Iraqi people decide they want a Muslim theocracy? Would you support invasion then?

Self determinism is only valid if it is a democratic, US backed government.
Stupid, isn't it?

Bump again for our good friend ARF to explain this whole killing the pilgrims malarky.

...Brownskin Virus...

Hardly.

(for them that don't know... hadji is the term used to describe either a Muslim who has been on a pilgrimage to Mecca or a non-Muslim who has visited the place)

He has been strangely silent since then in this thread...

Well, it must be hard to talk when he's got a foot in his mouth :p

Hardly.

Thank you for snipping a select portion of the whole post. You did realize I was referring to the hypothetical, absurd and dangerous idea of engineering a Muslim-killing smallpox from a while back.

Islamist=Terrorist=Middle eastern camel jockey=Hadjis= raghead= sand monkey.arf ?

dog talk :D

arf ?

dog talk :D

Well, this is someone who'd kill a Sikh as a "Towel Head" given the means and opportunity.

Bump again for the same reasons as before.

Did you just advocate a genocide on a scale that would have made Rudolph Hoss die from overwork? We're talking on a scale of what? Close to more than a billion people?
Nah, I only said if that's the thing to do "if you think it's a good idea". I don't think it's a good idea.

Step 1. Bite the bullet and spend a shitload of money to build nuclear power plants and thermaldepolymerization plants so we can stop buying middle eastern oil.

Step 2. Completely halt any support or trade with any Arab government.

Step 3. Watch the Islamists take over the Arab world.

Step 4. Watch the average Arab suffer under their inept and repressive rule.

Step 5. Support any and every group that wants to revolt against the islamist governments with guns, money and training.

Step 6. Revolution succeeds and hopefully installs secular democracies.

Not bad, but when they failed, they'd turn to the old trick of blaming the West for their problems. It can't possibly be their fault... you see? Everything they suffer is our fault. lmao