NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

Fuck off with that bullshit, please.

U dont mean Islam, you mean fanatic terrorist groups


And stopping Muslim Immigration??????Thats just crazy

How do we stop Islamism? Have a good hard look at wha Musharraf is doing (or rather not doing) in Pakistan.

And quit discriminating against Muslims ourselves. We need Muslims from the West to create an Islamic alternative to what radical clerics and theologists are coming up with in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Build nuclear reactors so we don't have to take them seriously anymore. Then mock their backward ways until they snap out of it.

If my Islamism you mean extremist Muslims then by sucessfully prosecuting guys like this
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/02/07/hamza2.jpg

U dont mean Islam, you mean fanatic terrorist groups


And stopping Muslim Immigration??????Thats just crazy

That's exactly who I mean. The problem is, how do you tell one from the other? You can use informants, but eventually you'll have to spy, thus leading to a slippery slope of eradication of civil liberties. If we have no civil liberties, then we have nothing to fight for, if we do nothing, the terrorists have won.

Maybe stopping Muslim immigration isn't so crazy. You think of a better solution and I will wholeheartedly support it. Let me emphasize that I'm not a bigot, I'm a concerned citizen.

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.
Sorry LG, but I have to call you on the No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)

This is America. ALL people of peace are welcome. I have a good friend who' parents are Palestinian, and I don't think I'd stand for it if someone had told her she wasn't welcome.

You need to examine our history. Telling people to get out isn't in it*.














*except the British, but we let them back in eventually ;)

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.
Extremists, all religions confounded, are the problem.

There just as many radical elements to christian faiths, and they're just as retarded as the radical muslims.

My problem is when extremists of any given religion try to put their own beliefs into laws. It's what is being done in certain countries of the Middle East, but it's also happening to a lesser extent in the west. We have to be very careful about that.

*Bolol passes out on keyboard*

Fuck off with that bullshit, please.
I'm only stating my opinions, but nowhere in that post do I endorse hate, however, so you fuck off with your bullshit. please.

Why don't we just ban religion? Christians, muslims, jews, the whole lot. Why can't we atheists just be able to live in peace for a change?!? All you religious whacks are always fighting or comlaining about SOMETHING! And I'm sick of all the finger pointing cause every single religion is an equal part of the problem. Except for maybe Buddhism.

Sorry LG, but I have to call you on the No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)
It's only a fallousy if you can show that Muslims don't by definition disclude Radical cultists.

That's exactly who I mean. The problem is, how do you tell one from the other? You can use informants, but eventually you'll have to spy, thus leading to a slippery slope of eradication of civil liberties. If we have no civil liberties, then we have nothing to fight for, if we do nothing, the terrorists have won.

Maybe stopping Muslim immigration isn't so crazy. You think of a better solution and I will wholeheartedly support it. Let me emphasize that I'm not a bigot, I'm a concerned citizen.
if you've done nothign wrong, you should have nothing to fear, so you still have your civil liberties, except with cameras everywhere

plus, loads of muslims have eneterd the US since 9/11 and there hasent been one terrorist attack there, so i assume theyre doing something right. And all over the wester world, its usually not immigrants who commit terrorisim, but peopel who have been there for a long time

*Bolol passes out on keyboard*

No! Not BOLOL!

*starts CPR*

I don't think the US really needs to look at Muslim imigration. They tend to assimilate quite quickly over here. One minute a Muslim couple with a baby get off a plane, the next minute that baby is 14 and crying that she wants to go to the Brittney Spears concert with her friends. Not sure that it happens quite that way in Europe, though. Seems over there there's a lot of segregation along those lines. Neighborhoods that are 90% Muslim and such. While they exists here, they're very rare. Most Muslims just end up living next to regular other Americans of whatever race or religion and in a few years they're speaking the language eating Pizza Hut.

if you've done nothign wrong, you should have nothing to fear, so you still have your civil liberties, except with cameras everywhere

plus, loads of muslims have eneterd the US since 9/11 and there hasent been one terrorist attack there, so i assume theyre doing something right. And all over the wester world, its usually not immigrants who commit terrorisim, but peopel who have been there for a long timeThe law doesn't consider adultery a crime, but it's pretty good tool if you want to blackmail someone. The law doesn't consider homosexuality a crime, but it can be used to blackmail people as well.

I understand where you are coming from, but it's a bit extreme. I do believe that we should stop depending on Middle-Eastern oil, we have huge supplies all throughout the US, and our Canadian friends up north have a huge deposit in Alberta. Either way, we need to ween off oil in general.

Stopping Muslim immigration, though, is ridiculous. Even if our government was fanatic enough to do so, there are Muslims that already live in the states. Plus, with the Islamic extremist terrorist sites all throughout the web, you just can't stop people from believing in it. What do you want to do with them, throw them in concentration camps?

The Islamic extremists aren't even attacking us in the US anymore, not nearly as much anyways. They're setting bombs off over in the Middle East, in Iraq, where we kidnapped their leader, are occupying their country under American Martial Law, and are setting up a puppet government. Quit frankly, I don't blame them for being pissed

Why don't we just ban religion? Christians, muslims, jews, the whole lot. Why can't we atheists just be able to live in peace for a change?!? All you religious whacks are always fighting or comlaining about SOMETHING! And I'm sick of all the finger pointing cause every single religion is an equal part of the problem. Except for maybe Buddhism.

I honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm...

[QUOTE=Man in Black]This is America. ALL people of peace are welcome. I have a good friend who' parents are Palestinian, and I don't think I'd stand for it if someone had told her she wasn't welcome.

You need to examine our history. Telling people to get out isn't in it*.

I have a Palestinian friend too, and he's a great guy. He's more than welcome in my house, as far as I'm concerned. It's some of his fellow countrymen that have twisted ideas in their head that aren't welcome. Speaking of history, Italian immigration was restricted in the 20s. Now Italian-Americans contributed much to our culture and economy, but in those days crime and disease was rampant in the cities partly due to many people, and immigration had to be restricted.

I understand where you are coming from, but it's a bit extreme. I do believe that we should stop depending on Middle-Eastern oil, we have huge supplies all throughout the US, and our Canadian friends up north have a huge deposit in Alberta. Either way, we need to ween off oil in general.

Stopping Muslim immigration, though, is ridiculous. Even if our government was fanatic enough to do so, there are Muslims that already live in the states. Plus, with the Islamic extremist terrorist sites all throughout the web, you just can't stop people from believing in it. What do you want to do with them, throw them in concentration camps?

The Islamic extremists aren't even attacking us in the US anymore, not nearly as much anyways. They're setting bombs off over in the Middle East, in Iraq, where we kidnapped their leader, are occupying their country under American Martial Law, and are setting up a puppet government. Quit frankly, I don't blame them for being pissed

The Muslims that are already here are great, no problem with most of them. However, there is a very real possibility that we will get a wackjob who will come here to do us harm. I don't want to stop people believing it, I want to stop the people who believe from doing us harm.

I have a Palestinian friend too, and he's a great guy. He's more than welcome in my house, as far as I'm concerned. It's some of his fellow countrymen that have twisted ideas in their head that aren't welcome. Speaking of history, Italian immigration was restricted in the 20s. Now Italian-Americans contributed much to our culture and economy, but in those days crime and disease was rampant in the cities partly due to many people, and immigration had to be restricted.Some of your fellow countrymen seem to think they can go around and bully the rest of the world into submission and by use of force. So seeing as YOU are not yet a citizen of the EU then please don't ever come over here.

I definitely hope all americans aren't as ignorant and plainly stupid as you seem to be (directed to starter of thread). I sincerely hope people do realise the stupidity and intolerance in posts like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Islamism means extremeist Islam...douchbags. Stop jumping all over someone where it was actaully *your* lack of knowldege that was the problem.

AS for how, I say
http://www.fordhamprep.com/socstud/US%20AIR%20FORCE/b52.jpg
http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-160/images/Tu-160_28.jpg
and a little
http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/amx13_155/amx13_155_032.jpg

on Islamist riots (like the cartoon ones) and the ones they have in chechenya, until there are no Islamists left.

How about starting in your own countries? Dealing with religious miltants that want to enshrine their superstitious mumbo-jumbo into laws and invade other countries because "God told them to", which W actually said. We're so close to having the Taliban in North America but they call themselves Republicans. Narrow-minded theocracy is on every night, it's called the 700 Club.

*snip* The law doesn't consider homosexuality a crime, but it can be used to blackmail people as well.

Only for those who haven't come out of the closet.

It'd be quite funny to hear someone threathen me to tell my family and friends I'm gay if I don't pay him. I would love to see his face when everybody says "duh" when they hear/read whatever "secret" message he sends them.

Although, I admit in the USA a lot of people seem to keep their sexual orientation a deep, dark, dirty secret.

More on to the point, though, I agree that there can be no justification for spying. The "if you have nothing to hide" argument doesn't cut it. The right to privacy is in our Canadian constitution, and I'm surprised our southern neighbours don't care if their phones get wired for no reason, and their houses undergo unwarranted searches and surveillance.

Racial profiling is never an excuse to intrude into someone's private life. That's the whole freaking point of having warrants for searches or tapping a phone line: to prevent abusive behaviour from police and secret services.

This maybe a little late but I'm truly surprised no one has caught this yet.

'Islamism'? honestly.

I honestly cannot tell if this is sarcasm...
I sure hope it is, or else we'll have to go with the concentration camp idea and throw half the world into them. Seriously, when people say that atheists should rule, that would be like saying people from Guam should rule the U.S. They're still a minority and will probably be so for at least the forseeable future(i.e. next 50-100 years at least).

Oh, and fight Islamism? First of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't a word, and second of all, why should we? Like others have said, it's the extremists we're worried about.
Should we really restrict all Muslims from entering the country? Instead, why don't we ban all the French, they just come here to insult us right? Or maybe we should not allow Jews into the country, they poison us with their evil banking practices. Power to white Christians!:rolleyes:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

That's an excellent idea economically speaking, but in regard to terrorism there's still a problem with that; at present, the Middle East doesn't have the economic base to sustain itself without oil. One of the biggest causes of terrorism is poverty and unemployment; by removing the oil economy without creating a sustainable replacement, we are going to worsen economic desparation, greatly increase the income gap, and remove any hope of alleviating the causes of terrorism. Even nations that consume little petroleum from the Middle East are still vulnerable to terrorism, so this would not help unless we simultaneously transfer the regional economy to nonpetroleum industries.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

It wouldn't matter; the terrorists don't come over as immigrants most of the time. More often than not, it is on student visas or simply passports. It would be literally impossible to stop terror by stopping immigration in this day of near instantaneous communications; it is also possible that terror would simply shift to using less "Muslim-looking" Europeans or Asians to carry out terror.

It's only a fallousy if you can show that Muslims don't by definition disclude Radical cultists.
The Iranian government is Muslim by definition. So was the Taliban. Fallacy sustained.

How about starting in your own countries? Dealing with religious miltants that want to enshrine their superstitious mumbo-jumbo into laws and invade other countries because "God told them to", which W actually said. We're so close to having the Taliban in North America but they call themselves Republicans. Narrow-minded theocracy is on every night, it's called the 700 Club.
I adressed this concern in an earlier post, but no one did seem to worry much about it. I for one will be keeping a close watch on some of the more radical elements of our new Canadian conservative government.

That's an excellent idea economically speaking, but in regard to terrorism there's still a problem with that; at present, the Middle East doesn't have the economic base to sustain itself without oil. One of the biggest causes of terrorism is poverty and unemployment; by removing the oil economy without creating a sustainable replacement, we are going to worsen economic desparation, greatly increase the income gap, and remove any hope of alleviating the causes of terrorism. Even nations that consume little petroleum from the Middle East are still vulnerable to terrorism, so this would not help unless we simultaneously transfer the regional economy to nonpetroleum industries.



It wouldn't matter; the terrorists don't come over as immigrants most of the time. More often than not, it is on student visas or simply passports. It would be literally impossible to stop terror by stopping immigration in this day of near instantaneous communications; it is also possible that terror would simply shift to using less "Muslim-looking" Europeans or Asians to carry out terror.

However, we wouldn't have to worry about offending Muslim countries if we didn't need their oil. Like Iran, we could send missiles at them without any negative effects on our economy from the lack of oil. I'm suggesting to end the visa passports too, that was kinda implied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Islamism means extremeist Islam...douchbags. Stop jumping all over someone where it was actaully *your* lack of knowldege that was the problem.

AS for how, I say
http://www.fordhamprep.com/socstud/US%20AIR%20FORCE/b52.jpg
http://www.suchoj.com/andere/Tu-160/images/Tu-160_28.jpg
and a little
http://www.chars-francais.net/images/archives/amx13_155/amx13_155_032.jpg

on Islamist riots (like the cartoon ones) and the ones they have in chechenya, until there are no Islamists left.There may be Islamists in Chechnya, but do you have ANY idea what the Russian army has done in Chechnya?

And there's an irony in your adovocation of the killing of all extremists. Besides, extremists don't tend to courteous enough to wear armbands so we can distinguish them from moderate people.

Some of your fellow countrymen seem to think they can go around and bully the rest of the world into submission and by use of force. So seeing as YOU are not yet a citizen of the EU then please don't ever come over here.

This has nothing to do with international politics. It has to do with whether the people coming into your country are going to kill someone and/or infringe on your freedoms. Americans wouldn't do that to Europe, and neither would most Muslims, but there are some Muslims that would, and they have a tendency to organize and carry through with this.

Oh, and fight Islamism? First of all, I'm pretty sure that isn't a word, and second of all, why should we? Like others have said, it's the extremists we're worried about.


This maybe a little late but I'm truly surprised no one has caught this yet.

'Islamism'? honestly.


Look >>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

Islamism means extremeist Islam...douchbags. Stop jumping all over someone where it was actaully *your* lack of knowldege that was the problem.


Jeezus people...read the all the posts before you start pumping out bullshit like this...

And as far as this>>>The right to privacy is in our Canadian constitution, and I'm surprised our southern neighbours don't care if their phones get wired for no reason, and their houses undergo unwarranted searches and surveillance.

Not all of your neighbors to the south are as apathetic as you say...just the two mainstream political parties... Luckily, I'm a Libertarian.

There may be Islamists in Chechnya, but do you have ANY idea what the Russian army has done in Chechnya?

And there's an irony in your adovocation of the killing of all extremists. Besides, extremists don't tend to courteous enough to wear armbands so we can distinguish them from moderate people.

I'm not advocating killing anyone, not even the extremists. All I'm suggesting for them is deportation.

However, we wouldn't have to worry about offending Muslim countries if we didn't need their oil. Like Iran, we could send missiles at them without any negative effects on our economy from the lack of oil. I'm suggesting to end the visa passports too, that was kinda implied.

But still, terrorism would adapt. We wouldn't need to be in the Middle East, but the terrorism would still remain; that would be great for us, but it wouldn't stop Islamists from attacking us, since in reality they don't give a damn about our presence in the Middle East...to them, it's a worldwide campaign to spread their Islamic "caliphate" and railing against US aggression is nothing more than a propaganda tool.

It's not so much the visas themselves, but the amazing incompetence with which the INS runs the programs. The 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas and the INS literally didn't know...if they did, we would have been able to deport them.

However, we wouldn't have to worry about offending Muslim countries if we didn't need their oil. Like Iran, we could send missiles at them without any negative effects on our economy from the lack of oil. I'm suggesting to end the visa passports too, that was kinda implied.
Oh, and here I though basic human decency was what stopped you from BOMBING SEVERAL THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILLIANS TO DEATH. Turns out it was fear of negative economic effects and lack of oil.

Forgive this poor pinko-commie-hippie-pacifist for not realising sooner that the best way to solve our problems is through violence. Preferably the sort of violence that involves sitting at home safely and pushing a button sending flying bombs massacre people in a far away country.

Now excuse me while I go wash my sarcasm-stained keyboard.

"if you've done nothign wrong, you should have nothing to fear, so you still have your civil liberties, except with cameras everywhere"

That's the stupidest argument of all time. Especially coming from an administration that's setting all-times records for secrecy. W sealed presidential records the day he took office and has hidden almost everything he has done since then - the secret energy meetings of Dick Cheney, Valerie Plame's outing, secret wiretaps.

Maybe we all should have goverment cameras in our houses eh? After all, no secrets, right? No privacy, cause after all, no one gets arrested or spied on just because they're activists or doing something the current goverment doesn't like.

The law doesn't consider adultery a crime, but it's pretty good tool if you want to blackmail someone.
Adultry should be a crime

Oh, and here I though basic human decency was what stopped you from BOMBING SEVERAL THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILLIANS TO DEATH. Turns out it was fear of negative economic effects and lack of oil.

Forgive this poor pinko-commie-hippie-pacifist for not realising sooner that the best way to solve our problems is through violence. Preferably the sort of violence that involves sitting at home safely and pushing a button sending flying bombs massacre people in a far away country.

Now excuse me while I go wash my sarcasm-stained keyboard.

I think our own safety, which involves on Iran not having nukes, comes before Iran's safety.

Adultry should be a crime

HAHAHAAAHHAAA....no

But still, terrorism would adapt. We wouldn't need to be in the Middle East, but the terrorism would still remain; that would be great for us, but it wouldn't stop Islamists from attacking us, since in reality they don't give a damn about our presence in the Middle East...to them, it's a worldwide campaign to spread their Islamic "caliphate" and railing against US aggression is nothing more than a propaganda tool.

It's not so much the visas themselves, but the amazing incompetence with which the INS runs the programs. The 9/11 hijackers were here on expired visas and the INS literally didn't know...if they did, we would have been able to deport them.

But terrorism comes from within. If we stopped immigration, we woulnd't need the INS system in the first place. Problem solved.

The only thing I agree on is: We need to occupy the Middle East.


That's where most of the problems of the world is coming from, I have nothing against a lot of people over there(except those fanatics that claim that God tells them to invade other countries of God tells them to bomb the US) I used to say America is good the officials are corrupt(and I still think that) but recenlty I've become one of those Hardcore Patriots(thanks to Iraq)

but really, I think that we should stop interfering with outside politics(ours is screwed up enough) but why screw up others? Iraq screwed itself, Afghanistan Screwed itself and a few others have done that to themselves also, I say we let the Middle East sort out it's own problems(and then go in and restore order)



If it were my choice, We'd control Iraq until we decide to leave it(but there's been more problems over there in the past, what's to think that there won't be problems when leave?)


anyway, I'm done.



Forgive me if none of this makes sense, I'm just doing this because I highly despise those Terrorists and Fanatics.

That's the stupidest argument of all time. [........]
Maybe we all should have goverment cameras in our houses eh? After all, no secrets, right? No privacy, cause after all, no one gets arrested or spied on just because they're activists or doing something the current goverment doesn't like.

A soviet aproach to the situation, and there should be freedom of speech, plus if someone is plainning a desmostration, it would be good to see that they plan it safely, and i dont mean having cameras inside your house, just like, on every street corner

I sure hope it is, or else we'll have to go with the concentration camp idea and throw half the world into them. Seriously, when people say that atheists should rule, that would be like saying people from Guam should rule the U.S. They're still a minority and will probably be so for at least the forseeable future(i.e. next 50-100 years at least).

All I'm saying is that this world would be so much more peaceful (and probably about 500 years more advanced technologically) if there were no organized religions. Spirituality and belief in a deity aren't the problem, it's when all these people get together in groups and refuse to admit they just might be wrong sometimes.

Although, I admit in the USA a lot of people seem to keep their sexual orientation a deep, dark, dirty secret.
<snip>

I was more refering to the use of evidence of homosexual relations as blackmail in the political arena (and perhaps economical arena as well).

And as far as this>>>

Not all of your neighbors to the south are as apathetic as you say...just the two mainstream political parties... Luckily, I'm a Libertarian.
Glad to hear it.

Forgive me saying so, but all the news we hear from the south are news of dwindling civil liberties. We seldom hear about the monster manifestations and huge riots in the street demanding to protect said rights and liberties.

I encourage you and all like-minded US residents to be more vocal about it. I don't fancy the idea of having 5000 km of common border with a military theocracy.

A soviet aproach to the situation, and there should be freedom of speech, plus if someone is plainning a desmostration, it would be good to see that they plan it safely, and i dont mean having cameras inside your house, just like, on every street corner

Oh, just every street corner...that seems reasonable...NOT!!
When will people understand that power corrupts...You give government the power to watch us and they will abuse it, just like they abuse and destroy everything else they touch. We must have government, but we must watch it like a hawk, not the other way around.

Glad to hear it.

Forgive me saying so, but all the news we hear from the south are news of dwindling civil liberties. We seldom hear about the monster manifestations and huge riots in the street demanding to protect said rights and liberties.

I encourage you and all like-minded US residents to be more vocal about it. I don't fancy the idea of having 5000 km of common border with a military theocracy.

The corrupt government over here is completely controlled by the republicans and democrats. The mainstream media doesn't cover any Libertarian protests even though we are doing all we can.

Looking back through history; these are some crazy folks with a radical philosophy of the world.

Islam once was one of the worlds greatest civilzations. The cause of their decline was of the internal strife, they are never satisfied with someone else running the show. Now a large source of blam can be placed at the feet of the Cold War between the US and the USSR, but nevertheless you can go back further in history and still find evidence of internal waring factions for control or a bigger piece of the pie from their point of view of Islam.

This is a civilization that is hell bent in forcing the world to adhear to its religion and the rest of the world needs to wake up and take notice (which I believe that the world is taking notice little by little, even the panty waste liberals in Europe). It is time that the civilized world grow a set, and hold all of these kooks accountable. Example; France, Great Britain, Spain, the United States, China, Russia, Germany, Indonesia, India, Israel and anywhere else it rears its ugly head.

Think about it if this is such a peacefull religion, why doesn't the leaders of the Muslim community stand up and hold their citizens and society accountable, instead they just remain quite. Maybe this tactic is being used because they are on the side of these so called radicals, but it is my belief that they are all radicals and the time has not come for them to enter the fray.

If this Islam problem can not be corrected within the Muslim world, then it is my belief to join-in on the fight and make it a religious war. This is what they want, they have just been fooled into believing that Europe was on their side by it taking a passive stance (especially within the populace like that of France and Spain, look what it got them). And don't belive for one second that what happened in France was about poverty and civil rights, there just a part of the embedded problem that awaits Europe the continent over.

It is my opinion that education will not solve this problem either, it is the western educated Muslims that insight this violence via the ignorant majority in the Middle East. Look at the billions of dollars that pours into the region, what are they doing to better themselves in the world community. Because the world is watching.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!

This has nothing to do with international politics. It has to do with whether the people coming into your country are going to kill someone and/or infringe on your freedoms. Americans wouldn't do that to Europe, and neither would most Muslims, but there are some Muslims that would, and they have a tendency to organize and carry through with this.Some Americans would, or pay other people to. Where did the majority of the IRA's funding come from? My point stands.

Oh, just every street corner...that seems reasonable...NOT!!
When will people understand that power corrupts...You give government the power to watch us and they will abuse it, just like they abuse and destroy everything else they touch. We must have government, but we must watch it like a hawk, not the other way around.

Well, thats why we need responsible people in the goverment, they're out there, and if we cant find them, well centralize, make less people be more corrupt. Also people have to have faith in their goverment. Everything depends on the publics level of ignorance, if people can trick them into think cameras on every street corner are normal, then they wont give it a second thought. Excpet for wackos and whatnot

I think our own safety, which involves on Iran not having nukes, comes before Iran's safety.
And I assume Iran thinks, likewise, that their own energetic security comes before your own concerns about their eventual possession of nuclear weapons.

And I also pity you. This sort of egocentric, egoistical view is what causes most of the violence in humanity. You are so centered on your own damn little comfort that you don't even feel remorse at the idea of mercilessly burning several thousand innocents to death. You lack compassion, and that makes you, in my humble opinion, dangerous.

The minute you stop caring about your fellow human beings, you are going downward. Entering the spiral of violence.

There is no common measure between stopping terrorists from running planes in your skyscrapers and bombing whole countries out of spite. No wonder the Middle East regard your country with contempt and hatred if your views are even remotely representative.

Islamism? You're kidding, right? I didn't even look at your post because the fact that you mispronounced the Islamic religion. You mean (yes, "mean" not "meant") "How do we fight Islam?"

You propose that we rid of these vile cretons (I just read you wanted to stop them), while you can't even get their creed correct. That's why you want to stop them: You don't understand them. Why don't you understand? Because you can't even get their name right. Jesus Christ, man...:headbang:

Oh, just every street corner...that seems reasonable...NOT!!
When will people understand that power corrupts...You give government the power to watch us and they will abuse it, just like they abuse and destroy everything else they touch. We must have government, but we must watch it like a hawk, not the other way around.I agree... the British governments never been reasonable... c.c;
Most CCTV camera's per capita in the world! w00t :D

I was more refering to the use of evidence of homosexual relations as blackmail in the political arena (and perhaps economical arena as well).
Again, not a problem in an open-minded society.

In my province of Québec, the leader of one of the two major political parties is openly homosexual. You can't blackmail someone over something that is already known.

Oh, just every street corner...that seems reasonable...NOT!!
When will people understand that power corrupts...You give government the power to watch us and they will abuse it, just like they abuse and destroy everything else they touch. We must have government, but we must watch it like a hawk, not the other way around.

When you're out in public, people can SEE you! :D

Islamism? You're kidding, right? I didn't even look at your post because the fact that you mispronounced the Islamic religion. You mean (yes, "mean" not "meant") "How do we fight Islam?"

You propose that we rid of these vile cretons (I just read you wanted to stop them), while you can't even get their creed correct. That's why you want to stop them: You don't understand them. Why don't you understand? Because you can't even get their name right. Jesus Christ, man...

You are the one who is too stupid to even know how stupid you are. Read the post before you start spitting out bullshit!!! Jesus Christ, man...

Sorry LG, but I have to call you on the No True Scotsman Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy)

Yes, but the fallacy doesn't apply to condradictory terms. Such as: No TRUE womanwould ever have a period.

No TRUE Muslim would ever attack the innocent.

Again, not a problem in an open-minded society.

In my province of Québec, the leader of one of the two major political parties is openly homosexual. You can't blackmail someone over something that is already known.I know, and I agree. But some parts of western society aren't as open or accepting as I would like them to be. I'm sure there are quite a few people who will tell you that there's nothing wrong with adultery either.

I'm sorry if I sound like an extremist when I say this, but I think the ultimate FU to all those radical muslim terrorist groups out there would be to drop nukes around Mecca and Medina, completely cutting them off from all society.

With the types of nukes we're using today, it should give them around two to three hundred years to get their act together.

Another FU to them would be to take that holy relic of theirs in Mecca OUT of the city with a Chinook. Then we would take it, put it on an aircraft carrier, take it out to the Marianas Trench, and drop it right in.

I know that sounds over the top, but it seems those ideas would be the only way we could manage to get through their thick skulls.

Now, an alternative solution to that problem would be to have those Muslims who live in the U.S. seek these groups out and provide information on their movements to SEAL teams, who would then send information to a squadron of B2 bombers. The bombers would then be able to drop pretty much anything on them while the SEAL teams move in and extract the insiders while the chaos ensues.

But terrorism comes from within. If we stopped immigration, we woulnd't need the INS system in the first place. Problem solved.

Immigration is simply too vital to our economy to seal the borders. We would be facing a number of economic crises if we stopped it; the best thing to do is to actually get some accountability in the INS, or possibly split it up in to smaller, specialized agencies.

I know, and I agree. But some parts of western society aren't as open or accepting as I would like them to be. I'm sure there are quite a few people who will tell you that there's nothing wrong with adultery either.

True, society isn't very open about a lot of things. I think adultery is wrong but thats my personal opinion and laws should not be based on personal opinion. They should be based on their ability to protect people from the use of force by other people, despite what some politicians may say or believe, laws should not exist to protect people from themselves.

Immigration is simply too vital to our economy to seal the borders. We would be facing a number of economic crises if we stopped it; the best thing to do is to actually get some accountability in the INS, or possibly split it up in to smaller, specialized agencies.

The best thing to do would be to abolish the INS and allow enyone who wants to come into our country, come. What makes me or any other american better than anyone else just because they were born in another country?

The best thing to do would be to abolish the INS and allow enyone who wants to come into our country, come. What makes me or any other american better than anyone else just because they were born in another country?

That would be an excellent goal, to create a world in which people could move freely across borders without having to be confined by concepts such as immigration or nationalization; ultimately, the emergence of a world economy will bring this to fruition, but not yet. I would support it 100% once it becomes feasible.

True, society isn't very open about a lot of things. I think adultery is wrong but thats my personal opinion and laws should not be based on personal opinion. They should be based on their ability to protect people from the use of force by other people, despite what some politicians may say or believe, laws should not exist to protect people from themselves.
Hear, hear, The words of wisdom hath been spoken

Oh, here's an idea.

Why don't we, the civilized people of the world, just abandon Earth to those radical terrorists, take root on Mars, and give those radical terrorists a chance to blow each other to hell.

Oh, here's an idea.

Why don't we, the civilized people of the world, just abandon Earth to those radical terrorists, take root on Mars, and give those radical terrorists a chance to blow each other to hell.

Go for it buddy, have fun on Mars... As for me, I think I might stay here and try to fix Earth before we fuck up another planet.

Hear, hear, The words of wisdom hath been spoken

Agreed!

Go for it buddy, have fun on Mars... As for me, I think I might stay here and try to fix Earth before we fuck up another planet.

Good luck. You'll need it, what with religion getting in the way of EVERYTHING you try to do. You'll probably end up having to kill off every person who believes in some sort of a god before you can fix it, and by that time, you'll have killed a good ninety-something percent of the human population off.

Good luck. You'll need it, what with religion getting in the way of EVERYTHING you try to do. You'll probably end up having to kill off every person who believes in some sort of a god before you can fix it, and by that time, you'll have killed a good ninety-something percent of the human population off.
Well, at least I'll still be around.

So, according to some of the logic within this post thus-far, the only true Muslims are the ones that bomb stuff, so the only true Christians are the ones that blow up abortion clinics.

It's religion that is the problem, not just the radical Muslims.

This is a inheriently stupid thread in the first place

Good luck. You'll need it, what with religion getting in the way of EVERYTHING you try to do. You'll probably end up having to kill off every person who believes in some sort of a god before you can fix it, and by that time, you'll have killed a good ninety-something percent of the human population off.

Well at least people who are "civilized" like you will be happy wallowing in their own intolerence up on Mars.

Good luck. You'll need it, what with religion getting in the way of EVERYTHING you try to do. You'll probably end up having to kill off every person who believes in some sort of a god before you can fix it, and by that time, you'll have killed a good ninety-something percent of the human population off.

Religion is not really a problem in itself. Religion only becomes a problem when leaders use it to distract and divert the people from the problems in their own nation; it's far easier for the Iranian government to direct their people's anger away from the regime and at a nonexistent act of "aggression" or "blasphemy" than it is to deal with the problems the corrupt theocrats of the Middle East have created.

Amendment 1.
Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

You can't block Muslim immigration. Redneck. Or maybe you're 12, in which case I'll let it slide this once.

You ignorant piece of white trash. Go eat a knife.

So, according to some of the logic within this post thus-far, the only true Muslims are the ones that bomb stuff, so the only true Christians are the ones that blow up abortion clinics.

It's religion that is the problem, not just the radical Muslims.

This is a inheriently stupid thread in the first place

Religion is not the problem until it becomes a part of the government. People living under the belief in a higher power and under their own code of morality, assuming it is not a violent one, are not a threat to society. The problem is giving these people the power to impose their supposed morality on other people through government. The solution is the separation of church and state.

You ignorant piece of white trash. Go eat a knife.

Now, there's no need for flaming or threats. Even though I disagree with the OP's sentiments as much as anyone, that doesn't justify this.

Religion is not really a problem in itself. Religion only becomes a problem when leaders use it to distract and divert the people from the problems in their own nation; it's far easier for the Iranian government to direct their people's anger away from the regime and at a nonexistent act of "aggression" or "blasphemy" than it is to deal with the problems the corrupt theocrats of the Middle East have created.

Well, taking what you said to mind, the only way to even make the world work would be to either eliminate religion altogether, or wipe the human race off the face of the galaxy.

Well, taking what you said to mind, the only way to even make the world work would be to either eliminate religion altogether, or wipe the human race off the face of the galaxy.

You didnt take what he said to mind at all...:headbang:

You didnt take what he said to mind at all...:headbang:

You're right...I misread that...:D

Well, taking what you said to mind, the only way to even make the world work would be to either eliminate religion altogether, or wipe the human race off the face of the galaxy.

Or, we could attack the causes of religious hatred and intolerance; namely, poverty, repression, and ignorance intentionally sustained by the regimes of the Middle East and Africa. Ultimately, regime change throughout the Middle East may be necessary to finally defeat terror in that region. However, Africa and SE Asia still remain.

Actually, now that I think about it, independence from oil might help here; we remove our dependence on oil, and then provide the nations of the Middle East with money if and only if they democratize and guarantee rights. The more progress they make, the more money and business investment they get. At present, it's our dependence on oil that keeps those regimes in power.

Or, we could attack the causes of religious hatred and intolerance; namely, poverty, repression, and ignorance intentionally sustained by the regimes of the Middle East and Africa. Ultimately, regime change throughout the Middle East may be necessary to finally defeat terror in that region. However, Africa and SE Asia still remain.

Actually, now that I think about it, independence from oil might help here; we remove our dependence on oil, and then provide the nations of the Middle East with money if and only if they democratize and guarantee rights. The more progress they make, the more money and business investment they get. At present, it's our dependence on oil that keeps those regimes in power.

I wish the independence from oil part would work, but those damned cliche Southerners in the U.S. couldn't comprehend what 'alternate fuel' means. (hint: current president and his father)

How about we fight all forms of radical groups rather than just the few the Muslims have.

Now, there's no need for flaming or threats. Even though I disagree with the OP's sentiments as much as anyone, that doesn't justify this.

I normally would respect someone's statement, but when it's "How do we battle Islaminism" and the guy who created it has a name of "Dubya1000", it kind of gets me going on a negative outlook on the thread.

Or, we could attack the causes of religious hatred and intolerance; namely, poverty, repression, and ignorance intentionally sustained by the regimes of the Middle East and Africa. Ultimately, regime change throughout the Middle East may be necessary to finally defeat terror in that region. However, Africa and SE Asia still remain.

Actually, now that I think about it, independence from oil might help here; we remove our dependence on oil, and then provide the nations of the Middle East with money if and only if they democratize and guarantee rights. The more progress they make, the more money and business investment they get. At present, it's our dependence on oil that keeps those regimes in power.

True, but if our government forces people to stop using cheap oil and instead begin using a more expensive alternative, then what kind of example are we setting for those countries. We must teach by example, if we don't have freedom from oppression here in America then how can we expect other countries to. The utter hypocracy.... grrr :(

I normally would respect someone's statement, but when it's "How do we battle Islaminism" and the guy who created it has a name of Dubya100, it kind of gets me going on a negative outlook on the thread.

It's mostly for your benefit; the mods have cracked down on flaming pretty hard and I don't want you forumbanned or even warned for one post.

I think the statement's been pretty much dissected, so don't worry about Dubya's arguments.

True, but if our government forces people to stop using cheap oil and instead begin using a more expensive alternative, then what kind of example are we setting for those countries. We must teach by example, if we don't have freedom from oppression here in America then how can we expect other countries too. The utter hypocracy.... grrr :(

The market should ultimately determine the fuel used. A government forced switchover to alternative fuels is not going to work; ultimately, the price of oil on the free market has to rise to a point where people take the initiative to reduce consumption and to a point where alternate fuels become economically sustainable without subsidy.

Now, if there were a fuel crisis, this would be different. However, the supply of oil is not seriously threatened at this point, so there is little need for government coercion to consume nonoil fuels.

The market should ultimately determine the fuel used. A government forced switchover to alternative fuels is not going to work; ultimately, the price of oil on the free market has to rise to a point where people take the initiative to reduce consumption and to a point where alternate fuels become economically sustainable without subsidy.

Now, if there were a fuel crisis, this would be different. However, the supply of oil is not seriously threatened at this point, so there is little need for government coercion to consume nonoil fuels.

Exactly, but there is plenty of oil in the government protected environmental areas that could and would be used if it were not made illegal by the government. As usual, the government creates more problems than it solves...sigh

Religion is not really a problem in itself. Religion only becomes a problem when leaders use it to distract and divert the people from the problems in their own nation; it's far easier for the Iranian government to direct their people's anger away from the regime and at a nonexistent act of "aggression" or "blasphemy" than it is to deal with the problems the corrupt theocrats of the Middle East have created.

Religion has always been the problem. When a person or culture makes something up to explain something they dont understand, it prevents them from really understanding it, whether its a primitive culture sacrificing animals or a modern one calling their creation myth a scientific theory.

Religion can be used by corrupt governments because it prevents understanding - an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

A belief in an artificial reality will lead people to behave in a manner which fits that reality, this is why muslims seem so crazy, because the reality they live in doesnt exist for most rational people.

The problem runs deep, however. the islamic culture cannot be changed, infact immigration is probably part of the solution rather than the problem. If we can begin to integrate muslims in europe and america, and make them understand our culture, perhaps that understanding will spread to the rest of the islamic world. we should just stop the immigrants like abu hamza and all the other ones who are openly hostile to the west.

Or I suppose someone could do something like the mohammad cartoons. Looking at the outrage they provoked, if someone did something that was actually offensive as opposed to mildly amusing then the radical muslims would be up in arms in the streets burning flags and whatnot, and we could just bomb the shit out of them while they are in large groups. a little napalm goes a long way. kill the radicals and the moderates can make the middle east civilised again.

Fuck off with that bullshit, please.agreed

I saw this thread late in its creation enough for a lot of arguments have been created but honestly, Dubya. When you call it IslamISM, it pretty much means that you don't have much of a foothold on the issue. I may be (don't go soft on me for this) thirteen, but even I know it's not called IslamISM.

I agree it's the radical muslims, who distort their religion so they have an excuse to kill people, that we need to destroy and not stop Islam all together.

Exactly, but there is plenty of oil in the government protected environmental areas that could and would be used if it were not made illegal by the government. As usual, the government creates more problems than it solves...sigh

Of course, the merits of environmental preservation vs. economic security are another debate, but I agree with the sentiment. If there's oil to be had, and it can be extracted safely and with minimal environmental damage, then there's no reason why we shouldn't take advantage of it.

Religion has always been the problem. When a person or culture makes something up to explain something they dont understand, it prevents them from really understanding it, whether its a primitive culture sacrificing animals or a modern one calling their creation myth a scientific theory.

Religion can be used by corrupt governments because it prevents understanding - an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem.

A belief in an artificial reality will lead people to behave in a manner which fits that reality, this is why muslims seem so crazy, because the reality they live in doesnt exist for most rational people.

*snip*

I believe in God but that doesn't mean I think that evolution is wrong, in fact, I believe someone who can't accept that theory and restricts creation to a direct and literal meaning is only belittling God and doubting his power. If God can create the universe, then surely he can use evolution to indirectly create life.

"A little science takes humanity away from God, but a lot of science takes them back to him." -Albert Einstein

I saw this thread late in its creation enough for a lot of arguments have been created but honestly, Dubya. When you call it IslamISM, it pretty much means that you don't have much of a foothold on the issue. I may be (don't go soft on me for this) thirteen, but even I know it's not called IslamISM.

There is a major difference between the two. Islam is a religion, while Islamism is a political ideology drawn from Islam; it is highly theocratic and thus believes in the role of Islam as arbiter of both social as well as religious policy. Convienently enough, its goals can also include the repression or outright extermination of other religions.

Of course, the merits of environmental preservation vs. economic security are another debate, but I agree with the sentiment. If there's oil to be had, and it can be extracted safely and with minimal environmental damage, then there's no reason why we shouldn't take advantage of it.

True, that.

Some Americans would, or pay other people to. Where did the majority of the IRA's funding come from? My point stands.

It came through secret channels of the US government without the Americans' citizens knowledge?

I believe in God but that doesn't mean I think that evolution is wrong, in fact, I believe someone who can't accept that theory and restricts creation to a direct and literal meaning is only belittling God and doubting his power. If God can create the universe, then surely he can use evolution to indirectly create life.

"A little science takes humanity away from God, but a lot of science takes them back to him." -Albert Einstein

I agree, I have nothing against creationism in principle. (well i do but im trying to respect other peoples beliefs today). ID pisses me off because it is opposed to science.

Like unicorns. believing in them is fine, but not if you believe in them instead of horses. what a terrible analogy.

oh yeah i forgot to mention the oil. and im stumped for a solution. apparently helium3 is abundant on the moon and can replace many fossil fuels but oil will still be needed for cars and plastics and whatnot.

It is unlucky that somehow the muslims got all the oil. how come most of it is in the middle east anyway? there must be a geologist or something here that knows!

And I assume Iran thinks, likewise, that their own energetic security comes before your own concerns about their eventual possession of nuclear weapons.

And I also pity you. This sort of egocentric, egoistical view is what causes most of the violence in humanity. You are so centered on your own damn little comfort that you don't even feel remorse at the idea of mercilessly burning several thousand innocents to death. You lack compassion, and that makes you, in my humble opinion, dangerous.

The minute you stop caring about your fellow human beings, you are going downward. Entering the spiral of violence.

There is no common measure between stopping terrorists from running planes in your skyscrapers and bombing whole countries out of spite. No wonder the Middle East regard your country with contempt and hatred if your views are even remotely representative.
First of all, I'm not advocating violence. This should solved by diplomacy. Violence is a last resort, and not a very good one, either. I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends, but when I see the protests on TV over a few stupid cartoons, how can I not become apprehensive?

Secondly, you say I'm egocentric, but put yourself in my position, as an American. Would you want Iran with their nukes to blackmail other countries and incite ethnic strife in Iraq against Americans, thereby killing Americans in the process. Any country whose president says that the holocaust is a "myth" should definetely not have nukes!

Why don't we just ban religion? Christians, muslims, jews, the whole lot. Why can't we atheists just be able to live in peace for a change?!? All you religious whacks are always fighting or comlaining about SOMETHING! And I'm sick of all the finger pointing cause every single religion is an equal part of the problem.

This is what the atheist Communists believed. They then proceeded to wipe out 100 million people across the globe in less than a century.
http://www.vip.lv/LPRA/100MilVictims.htm

It's mostly for your benefit; the mods have cracked down on flaming pretty hard and I don't want you forumbanned or even warned for one post.

I think the statement's been pretty much dissected, so don't worry about Dubya's arguments.

Heh, I appreciate your kindness. I recently flamed a different post so it's definatly time for me to stop! :eek:

First of all, I'm not advocating violence. This should solved by diplomacy. Violence is a last resort, and not a very good one, either. I don't hate Muslims. I have Muslim friends, but when I see the protests on TV over a few stupid cartoons, how can I not become apprehensive?

Secondly, you say I'm egocentric, but put yourself in my position, as an American. Would you want Iran with their nukes to blackmail other countries and incite ethnic strife in Iraq against Americans, thereby killing Americans in the process. Any country whose president says that the holocaust is a "myth" should definetely not have nukes!

Any government whose president can't even pronounce nuclear should not have nukes...but guess what... we do.

Any government whose president can't even pronounce nuclear should not have nukes...but guess what... we do.aahhhhh!!!

PWNED!

Any government whose president can't even pronounce nuclear should not have nukes...but guess what... we do.

I'll go with the illiterate country bumpkin over the bigot Jew-hater, thank you very much. :)

I'll go with the illiterate country bumpkin over the bigot Jew-hater, thank you very much. :)

I would too but that doesn't mean either one of the two should have nukes.

There is a major difference between the two. Islam is a religion, while Islamism is a... Islam_ism and Christian_ism are similar...

just adding an "ism" does not automatically make "Islam" something else.

Propaganda is not good for the brain.

Islamism and Christianism are similar...

just adding an "ism" does not automatically make "islam" something else.

Proaganda is not good for the brain.

I

Who said they support Christianism?

Islam_ism and Christian_ism are similar...
just adding an "ism" does not automatically make "Islam" something else.
Propaganda is not good for the brain.


Islam=/=Islamism, much like Christianity=/=Christianism. The -ism implies the use of the religion as a political doctrine, and is related to the root religion in many cases only superficially; many, or more accurately most Muslims and Christians reject the tenets of these ideologies.

I would too but that doesn't mean either one of the two should have nukes.

Agreed. However, now that the one who has nukes isn't planning on scrapping them anytime soon, it's better if the other one who doesn't have nukes doesn't get them at all.

Islam=/=Islamism, much like Christianity=/=Christianism. The -ism implies .....implies for you.. but it does not "implies" for me.


http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dictionary+Christianism&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dictionary+judaism&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christianism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/judaism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/islamism
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/Christianism.asp
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/islamism.asp
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/judaism.asp

Why don't we just ban religion? Christians, muslims, jews, the whole lot. Why can't we atheists just be able to live in peace for a change?!? All you religious whacks are always fighting or comlaining about SOMETHING! And I'm sick of all the finger pointing cause every single religion is an equal part of the problem. Except for maybe Buddhism.

Instead of banning religion why don't we build a better religion. Or, maybe that has already been done.

"Social inequality is the inevitable outcome of the natural inequality of man. Human beings are different in ability and should, therefore, be different in their social and economic standing. Extremes of wealth and poverty should, however, be abolished...

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 20)

implies for you.. but it does not "implies" for me.

Imagine what chaos there would be when everyone had their own definition of everything.

Agreed. However, now that the one who has nukes isn't planning on scrapping them anytime soon, it's better if the other one who doesn't have nukes doesn't get them at all.

True enough, but until the US does scrap their nukes, its hypocritical of them to try to get someone else to stop. As I said in a previous post, teach by example.

Instead of banning religion why don't we build a better religion. Or, maybe that has already been done.

"Social inequality is the inevitable outcome of the natural inequality of man. Human beings are different in ability and should, therefore, be different in their social and economic standing. Extremes of wealth and poverty should, however, be abolished...

(Shoghi Effendi, Directives from the Guardian, p. 20)

I'm with you, comrade. When do we begin the revolution? :cool:

implies for you.. but it does not "implies" for me.

Ultimately, however, the word is meant to convey a political ideology drawn from religious beliefs. If you have a better term, feel free to supply it.

Imagine what chaos there would be when everyone had their own definition of everything.

For once I started to agree with you....
and then you said this>>>
I'm with you, comrade. When do we begin the revolution?

I really hope you are kidding

True enough, but until the US does scrap their nukes, its hypocritical of them to try to get someone else to stop. As I said in a previous post, teach by example.

However, the US is a member of the IAEA, so however regrettable it is that we have them, the chance that we will actually use them is very small. I can't say the same for Iran.

For once I started to agree with you....
and then you said this>>>


I really hope you are kidding

Hold on to your pants, I was referring to another post.
And yes, it was but mere jest. :p

I'm with you, comrade. When do we begin the revolution? :cool:

No, no my friend the wealth is given up out of a love for your fellow human beings.

However, the US is a member of the IAEA, so however regrettable it is that we have them, the chance that we will actually use them is very small. I can't say the same for Iran.

International institutions such as the IAEA have virtually no power and the power that they do have is corrupted. This should have been obvious when the US invaded Iraq against the will of the UN.

Why don't we just ban religion? Christians, muslims, jews, the whole lot. Why can't we atheists just be able to live in peace for a change?!? All you religious whacks are always fighting or comlaining about SOMETHING! And I'm sick of all the finger pointing cause every single religion is an equal part of the problem. Except for maybe Buddhism.

Yeah, like Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Screw your head on straight, atheist. You're the most dangerous of all.

No, no my friend the wealth is given up out of a love for your fellow human beings.

But I want to have a revolution!!!:mad:

With fireworks!:mad:

But I want to have a revolution!!!:mad:

With fireworks!:mad:

Hmm, fireworks are good. A peaceful revolution is good too.

International institutions such as the IAEA have virtually no power and the power that they do have is corrupted. This should have been obvious when the US invaded Iraq against the will of the UN.

Say what you will about the American government, but at least it's stable, and accountable to the people(somewhat). This tends to decrease the chances of us launching nukes.

No, no my friend the wealth is given up out of a love for your fellow human beings.

True. Welfare is to charity as Rape:mp5: is to Sex.:fluffle:

Say what you will about the American government, but at least it's stable, and accountable to the people(somewhat). This tends to decrease the chances of us launching nukes.

Agreed.

and our Canadian friends up north have a huge deposit in Alberta. Either way, we need to ween off oil in general.



Um, I don't think many Canadians want to share oil with the states

They day will come when welfare as we know it will disappear.

O SON OF BEING!
If poverty overtake thee, be not sad; for in time the Lord of wealth shall visit thee. Fear not abasement, for glory shall one day rest on thee.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

81. O MY SERVANT!
The basest of men are they that yield no fruit on earth. Such men are verily counted as among the dead, nay better are the dead in the sight of God than those idle and worthless souls.

82. O MY SERVANT!
The best of men are they that earn a livelihood by their calling and spend upon themselves and upon their kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)

Um, I don't think many Canadians want to share oil with the states

I don't think, or at least I hope he wasn't talking about sharing, but about buying from them.

I have an idea.

Kill every Muslims Pig on Earth!!!!!!!!

The only way to fight an enemy who has no regard for life is to take theirs quickly.

I have an idea.

Kill every Muslims Pig on Earth!!!!!!!!

The only way to fight an enemy who has no regard for life is to take theirs quickly.

I am choosing to ignore this post because the only way to fight an opponent who has no regard for human reason is to ignore them.

Imagine what chaos there would be when everyone had their own definition of everything.that is why we have dictionaries

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christianism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/judaism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/islamism
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/Christianism.asp
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/islamism.asp
http://www.english-dictionary.us/meaning/judaism.asp
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dictionary+Christianism&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dictionary+judaism&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&x=wrt

Round up all of the worlds extemists - muslim, christian, jewish, secular and all the others - put them in a huge container, weld it shut, bury it a mile deep, and label it "don't open till doomsday"...

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

I figure we just need to leave them alone. The middle East has a long history of war, war, and more war. We can leave them alone and maybe they'll kill them selves off.

We really don't need their oil. we have the means of "growing" most of our fuel needs. We pay farmers not to grow crops and we could be growing crops and using the money we were paying them to invest in the making of "Bio Fuels" cheaper and more effeciently.

I got an email that "supposedly" had Robin Williams, plan.

Here it is:

Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the perfect
plan. What we need now is for our
UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to
argue with this logic!)


1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good ole boys", we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available
to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need
it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it..or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?

Round up all of the worlds extemists - muslim, christian, jewish, secular and all the others - put them in a huge container, weld it shut, bury it a mile deep, and label it "don't open till doomsday"...

Ha, this is already the situation.

The Earth is alone, there is no place to go, nor send anyone to.

The simple answer to solving any problem is understanding.

Radical Islam is Pop Culture, so was Christ, the Beatles, Hippies, Green Party, The KKK and so was Hitler.

You don't have much chance swaying a radical of any persuasion.

Until you understand them you have no real tools at all.

Radical Islam will not conquer the West because they have no understanding of us and the reverse is also true.

You can't unmake a Fanatic, you can only hope to understand them and change yourself to deal with it.

Both sides are terribly wrong and amazingly right in this battle.

Williams to come up with the perfect
plan. What we need now is for our
UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to
argue with this logic!)


1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past &present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good ole boys", we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available
to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given
to the army. The people who need
it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it..or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?
OK lets do it.. I want Robin for President.. and I want the 10 items voted into Laws for tomorrow..

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.


Oil, yeah, we need to be less dependant on it.

Stop muslim immigration? I thought you wanted to fight "Islamism", it looks like you instead want to fight Islam.

Our insecurities are not a problem worth that much loss of freedom.

You would condemn your Muslim friends to a life deprived of the fullness of the USA. Just because there COULD be sleeper cells we hear about in movies so often, and that COULD mean someday someone dies.

They day will come when welfare as we know it will disappear.

O SON OF BEING!
If poverty overtake thee, be not sad; for in time the Lord of wealth shall visit thee. Fear not abasement, for glory shall one day rest on thee.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

81. O MY SERVANT!
The basest of men are they that yield no fruit on earth. Such men are verily counted as among the dead, nay better are the dead in the sight of God than those idle and worthless souls.

82. O MY SERVANT!
The best of men are they that earn a livelihood by their calling and spend upon themselves and upon their kindred for the love of God, the Lord of all worlds.

(Baha'u'llah, The Persian Hidden Words)
Although I respect your beliefs (but don't agree with them), most people are unwilling to give up their wealth, writing off poor people as shiftless, lazy bums, when it is clear that most poor people don't have a good chance in the first place. religion won't change that. :(

I have an idea.

Kill every Muslims Pig on Earth!!!!!!!!

The only way to fight an enemy who has no regard for life is to take theirs quickly.

It is you who is the pig. In fact, you're less than a pig. Pigs provide nutrients and they are obedient, innocent creatures. Because of your bigotry, You are a hateful piece of shit who does nothing to make the world better. Although I want to end immigration from Islamic countries, I don't condone violence in any form, it shouldn't be the answer to anything, and it certainly isn't the answer to stopping terrorism.

I am choosing to ignore this post because the only way to fight an opponent who has no regard for human reason is to ignore them.

Yeah, that worked really well aginst Hitler.

Oil, yeah, we need to be less dependant on it.

Stop muslim immigration? I thought you wanted to fight "Islamism", it looks like you instead want to fight Islam.

Our insecurities are not a problem worth that much loss of freedom.

You would condemn your Muslim friends to a life deprived of the fullness of the USA. Just because there COULD be sleeper cells we hear about in movies so often, and that COULD mean someday someone dies.

First of all, I don't want to fight Islam. Peole are free to believe whatever they want as far as I'm concerned. Also, I don't want to deprive my friend of anything. I want to stop potential terrorists from coming in. Nowhere did I suggest that Muslims should be denied freedoms. Our insecurities contribute to our loss of freedom. Just because there COULD be sleeper cells and because someone COULD die? Where were you on 9/11? And I consider the mere POSSIBILITY of sleeper cells a serious enough threat to warrant making some tough decisions.

I have already posted this, but, once more unto the breach. Personally, I would adopt the most extreme, yet irrfutably effective, strategy available. All individuals of Arabic descent would be deported, all immigration from Arabic states, and, to negate any possible circumvention of this, all other states, would cease, and any terrorists would be shot on sight, with full arbitrary owers proffered to the police and military forces in this affair.

OK lets do it.. I want Robin for President.. and I want the 10 items voted into Laws for tomorrow..

The e-mail has nothing to do with him. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp)

I have already posted this, but, once more unto the breach. Personally, I would adopt the most extreme, yet irrfutably effective, strategy available. All individuals of Arabic descent would be deported, all immigration from Arabic states, and, to negate any possible circumvention of this, all other states, would cease, and any terrorists would be shot on sight, with full arbitrary owers proffered to the police and military forces in this affair.

I'm a little bit less radical than you, it seems. I just want to stop the immigration from Arabic states, but I don't want to deport the Arabs who are here right now, unless they are criminals or terrorists. I have no sympathy for terrorists either, but it can be very hard to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't, so I tend to view the "shoot on sight" policy ineffective at best, and genocide at worst.

How do we stop Islamism?

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

How do we stop Islamism?

Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Ok, do we focus on the Queer Eye or the Straight Guy?

Ok, do we focus on the Queer Eye or the Straight Guy?

Oh, I don't know. I just figure they'd be less angry with a clean shave and some new clothes.

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.
They are real Muslims, yet they espouse their own set of particular beliefs. I don't believe any Islamic leader has mentioned a schism between radical and moderate Muslims. The Qu'ran, like any religious text, can be interpreted in numerous ways. Thus saying they aren't real Muslims is a bit far off.

Oh, I don't know. I just figure they'd be less angry with a clean shave and some new clothes.

And some really good weed. :cool:

Actually, I think that not shaving is a requirement for some Muslims.

That's exactly who I mean. The problem is, how do you tell one from the other? You can use informants, but eventually you'll have to spy, thus leading to a slippery slope of eradication of civil liberties. If we have no civil liberties, then we have nothing to fight for, if we do nothing, the terrorists have won.

Maybe stopping Muslim immigration isn't so crazy. You think of a better solution and I will wholeheartedly support it. Let me emphasize that I'm not a bigot, I'm a concerned citizen.

Not as easy as you think. Islam's a religion. There are muslims who don't look like they are at all.

Sure, but most of them come from the Arab countries, and if we stop immigration from there, the problem will be solved, I think.

Islam is as Islam does.

Islam is as Islam does.

Hear! Hear!

The followers of Islam constitute the largest religion on this planet, out numbering Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists and all other miscellaneous religions. They can be found in virtually all countries on Earth.

Calling it a religion of violence, or equating it with anti-americanism is a display of ignorance on par with saying The Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christianity.

The followers of Islam constitute the largest religion on this planet, out numbering Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddists and all other miscellaneous religions. They can be found in virtually all countries on Earth.

Calling it a religion of violence, or equating it with anti-americanism is a display of ignorance on par with saying The Westboro Baptist Church is representative of all Christianity.

Christianity is larger, although Islam is definetely the fastest growing. The majority of Muslim are from the Middle East, as are the majority of the terrorists.

Why 75 virgins? You know it's a barter economy when you've got 75 virgins. One side says 100, the other side says 50, and they compromise on 75.

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.

on the contrary, there are serious problems with (at least in the middle east) the institutional structures Islam sets up.. for one.. EDUCATION!!!! kids spend all day memorizing the Q`uran, and know nothing else.. No wonder these kids have no futures (which make them more suseptiable to radicalism). If Islamic groups actually set up educational systems rather then one big religion class.. hope could actually be in the reach of many of these desperate people.

That's exactly who I mean. The problem is, how do you tell one from the other? You can use informants, but eventually you'll have to spy, thus leading to a slippery slope of eradication of civil liberties. If we have no civil liberties, then we have nothing to fight for, if we do nothing, the terrorists have won.

Maybe stopping Muslim immigration isn't so crazy. You think of a better solution and I will wholeheartedly support it. Let me emphasize that I'm not a bigot, I'm a concerned citizen.
At least you know it is a logical fallicy

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Christianity is larger, although Islam is definetely the fastest growing. The majority of Muslim are from the Middle East, as are the majority of the terrorists.No.

Sorry.

Wrong.

Thanks for playing, but we do have these lovely parting gifts for you.

Christians would like to believe they are the dominant religion on this planet, but in reality they come in second...

and a distant second at that.

You ignore about a billion Indonesians.

No.

Sorry.

Wrong.

Thanks for playing, but we do have these lovely parting gifts for you.

Christians would like to believe they are the dominant religion on this planet, but in reality they come in second...

and a distant second at that.

You ignore about a billion Indonesians.

actually.. your incorrect http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm
http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/religion.html (incase your a kid)
http://www.geohive.com/global/religion_top.php

As you said.. thanks for playing

Please do check your statistics before you ridicule others. Islam is in fact the distant second.. while they are the fastest growing as the other poster said.

I believe the term you're looking for here is "Islamic Extremism". "Islamism" is not a word, and every time you use it, God sends Christ to Hell for another three days.

I believe the term you're looking for here is "Islamic Extremism". "Islamism" is not a word, and every time you use it, God sends Christ to Hell for another three days.

And that would stop me from using it why?

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

It would be faster and more laudable if we adopted Islam as the state religion. :rolleyes:

And that would stop me from using it why?

Well, I would hope that fact that it isn't a word would deter you well enough. Maybe I should say that you're just wallowing in a Bushism?

The issue is not Islam and Christianity - it just so happens that everyone uses those two religions to cover up a lot of other socio-economic ties. The Arabs are all concerned about Western interests in their oil reserves, while the West is concerned about democracy and all these other free-world, free-market rhetorics. In some way, adding the Islam-Christianity ties complicates the matter, because it confuses the average person into believing that the Muslims are attacking my faith! (or likewise, the Christians are attacking my faith!) People get more aggressive when it comes to their personal beliefs, and it's been the wonderful use of rhetoric that has these Islamic extremists working and acting (and some might say the opposite is true for Christians, despite the fact that few - if any - of them have strapped bomb belts and ran out into a street or whatever). The problem lies in the fact that Arabs and the other locals of the Middle East and beyond believe that the West (America) is trying to steal away their lands and lives [might elicit some response] and most importantly their faith [arouses anyone]. We see the reaction as some Islamic anti-Christian rally - it's really countries butting heads, churning out some sour eggs in the process.

I would explain more, but I'd just like to see if anyone gets the jist of this. Otherwise, if I hit a block, it's not worth my time to be explaining it to this crowd.

Well, I would hope that fact that it isn't a word would deter you well enough. Maybe I should say that you're just wallowing in a Bushism?

According to the dictionary it is indeed a word. Islamism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=Islamism). Nor is it noted as a Bushism. (Which is not surprising, as Bushism is not a word).

actually.. your incorrect http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/islam.htm
http://www.worldalmanacforkids.com/explore/religion.html (incase your a kid)
http://www.geohive.com/global/religion_top.php

As you said.. thanks for playing

Please do check your statistics before you ridicule others. Islam is in fact the distant second.. while they are the fastest growing as the other poster said.Even your source acknowleges the fact that the numbers are disputed and makes no claim on being 'right'. It simply states it's reasoning for using the statistics it does. Check it. Many Muslims and others dispute these figures for a variety of reasons, one of the major being the under reported and uncensused population in developing Indonesian countries which are almost entirely Muslim.

According to the dictionary it is indeed a word. Islamism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=Islamism). Nor is it noted as a Bushism. (Which is not surprising, as Bushism is not a word).

The correct term for what you mean when you say "Islamism" is not "Islamism" but "Islam".

And Bushism is a word. It's been in use for over six years. Far longer than "Islamism".

Because as we all know, the Mousselmen are practictioners of Islamism! :rolleyes:

The correct term for what you mean when you say "Islamism" is not "Islamism" but "Islam".

And Bushism is a word. It's been in use for over six years. Far longer than "Islamism".

Because as we all know, the Mousselmen are practictioners of Islamism! :rolleyes:

Take it up with the dictionary people. You might ask them to include Bushism while you're at it.

I never actually used the expression until you pointed out it sent jesus to hell for three days. So if anything, it's your fault for clever marketing.

How do we fight Islamism?

We can't.

How do we fight Islamism?

We can't.

Thats the attitude! :rolleyes:

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.

Exactly, and there are crazy people willing to kill for their god in every religion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5464505634137914176&q=trading+spouses

Would you describe this woman as a typical christian. No, of course not. You can't judge an entire people by the actions of a few.

Thats the attitude! :rolleyes:

Well, from everything I've heard here and in the media, islam is unstoppable.

Exactly, and there are crazy people willing to kill for their god in every religion.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5464505634137914176&q=trading+spouses

Would you describe this woman as a typical christian. No, of course not. You can't judge an entire people by the actions of a few.

Fat, Southern, Christian... not typical of all Christians, but typical of Southern Baptists.

Would you describe this woman as a typical christian. No, of course not. You can't judge an entire people by the actions of a few.

I would describe her as a typical devout monotheist. You can't blame them really, because they live every day in terror that their inevitable fate is to be weighed in the balance by some final judge, and the penalty for being found wanting is eternal hellfire. On the other hand, if they do pass, they get the fun of watching everyone else being cast into the pit - with all the implicit schadenfreude that entails.

It's not surprising they act all schizo really. I just wish they could be a little more open minded to the possibility that they don't have a monopoly of truth as far as the unknowable is concerned, and that, in any event, religious texts are subject to a multitude of interpretations. It might give them some comfort.

I would describe her as a typical devout monotheist. You can't blame them really, because they live every day in terror that their inevitable fate is to be weighed in the balance by some final judge, and the penalty for being found wanting is eternal hellfire. On the other hand, if they do pass, they get the fun of watching everyone else being cast into the pit - with all the implicit schadenfreude that entails.

It's not surprising they act all schizo really. I just wish they could be a little more open minded to the possibility that they don't have a monopoly of truth as far as the unknowable is concerned, and that, in any event, religious texts are subject to a multitude of interpretations. It might give them some comfort.

Of course. Monotheists are one of many groups that are so arrogant so as to believe that humans could possibly have a complete and full understanding of a being that doesn't adhere to any physical laws (that we know of).

Of course. Monotheists are one of many groups that are so arrogant so as to believe that humans could possibly have a complete and full understanding of a being that doesn't adhere to any physical laws (that we know of).

As far as I know, they are the only group. I can't think of any other.

As far as I know, they are the only group. I can't think of any other.

Hindus probably do: they're polytheistic. Not entirely sure about the rest one way or the other.

Well, from everything I've heard here and in the media, islam is unstoppable.

Sure it is. Just throw a punch of packets of paper at them with muhammed drawn all over them, and they will cower and weep and fall to their feet.

Hindus probably do: they're polytheistic. Not entirely sure about the rest one way or the other.

Possibly, but from what I know of polytheists it usually pretty easy for them to accept other polytheists. After all if you already have a bunch of gods, what's a few more? It can either be explained away as different aspects of the same deity, or just gods that weren't previously know.

And certianly, they lack a "my way or the highway" ethos, because within any pantheon, there are always so many different personalities among the various gods, thus there are no claims of ultimate truth.

That's not to say that polytheists don't do pretty stupid stuff in the name of religion also, but I can't imagine it as being as stressful for them when it comes to day to day living.

Well we just need to face the fact that there may always be Muslim Xtremists (http://www.explosm.net/comics/view.asp?id=269)


















Im sorry:(

Sure it is. Just throw a punch of packets of paper at them with muhammed drawn all over them, and they will cower and weep and fall to their feet.

Hahahaha i love it, how true....:p :p

I have a better idea. Why don't we just kill all Muslims we see? That'll solve everyone's problem! And don't get me started on those blacks and jews!


(Sarcasm, of course)

I have a better idea. Why don't we just kill all Muslims we see?..(Sarcasm, of course)

sarcasm or not there are plenty in europe who think along those lines (Serbian actions in Bosnia springs to mind)

Sure it is. Just throw a punch of packets of paper at them with muhammed drawn all over them, and they will cower and weep and fall to their feet.
nah, just hire pickpocketers and have them move through the crowds of Mulsim radicals planting small pics of Muhammed in their pockets and let them stone each other to death.

if you've done nothign wrong, you should have nothing to fear, so you still have your civil liberties, except with cameras everywhere

This argument has proved to be one of the strongest in the defense of all dictatorships and is completely wrong, 'cause, apart from bad intentions, mistakes occur.

Since I keep looking at this thread, and keep thinking I've posted in this thread, I have to get this off of my chest:

Islamism isn't a word.

Since I keep looking at this thread, and keep thinking I've posted in this thread, I have to get this off of my chest:

Islamism isn't a word.
neither was "Trekkie" but give it time... :rolleyes:

Since I keep looking at this thread, and keep thinking I've posted in this thread, I have to get this off of my chest:

Islamism isn't a word.
The BBC have used it!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4698528.stm

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

That's a good idea but not for political but enviromentally reasons

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

Good idea, and we should keep all at home, 'cause nobody would safe outside.

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

That's a good idea but not for political but enviromentally reasons

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

Good idea, and we should keep all at home, 'cause nobody would safe outside.
What about stop atacking muslim countries and helping their dictators?

neither was "Trekkie" but give it time... :rolleyes:
I've never noticed this before, but the :rolleyes: has a cute little smile on the left side of its face. I think it expresses somewhat disgusted feeling, while at the same time, slightly amused.

Is that the feeling that you were expierencing JuNii when you posted?

The BBC have used it!!
Actually, the BBC didn't, the person they intervied did.

I was interviewed for the radio once, and I totally slaughtered Swedish due to a number of reasons. They didn't bother correcting my grammar, nor should they, they're just reporting.

Islamism isn't a word.
Sure it is.

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
2. The religious faith, principles, or cause of Islam.

Generally, Islamism is the bad kind, the political radical movement that wants to impose very, very old-fashioned laws on everyone so they live moral lives.
It's Christian Fundamentalism, just in Islam and with a little more violence right now.

[QUOTE=Dubya 1000]This has nothing to do with international politics. It has to do with whether the people coming into your country are going to kill someone and/or infringe on your freedoms. QUOTE]

As you say it, it's the same as American does in many countries, as Irak. US army bombed, entered, killed (a lot) and infringed their freedom (thay had not to many, but there's no freedom without live.

Islamism isn't a word.
Sure it is.
Dang suffixes.

"Islamism" is not an articulate English word.

In my opinion.

"Islamism" is not an articulate English word.
Have a look though. Our right-wing Israeli friend (and his anti-Pakistani Indian mate :p ) has started a thread which actually outlines what Islamism really is about, and who the real protagonists are.

It's a lot of reading, but afterwards you may know more. If you don't fall asleep first.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314

I've never noticed this before, but the :rolleyes: has a cute little smile on the left side of its face. I think it expresses somewhat disgusted feeling, while at the same time, slightly amused.

Is that the feeling that you were expierencing JuNii when you posted?
I used it in this case as an OBVIOUSLY type thing. don't see any hint of disgust in the smilie tho.

:rolleyes: *Studies Smilie*

TOO SMALL... Need to enlarge.... BRB

It's a lot of reading, but afterwards you may know more. If you don't fall asleep first.
Since my bus doesn't run for another two hours, I've taken the liberty of reading that. I found what it needed here. Contrasting the usual use of the "-ism" suffix with that of "Islamism".
There are, of course, certain important differences, such as fascism being a secular modernist movement founded on pseudo-scientific ideas mixed with neo-Paganism and Islamism being a religious movement with neo-medieval tendencies. Fascism attempted to deal with modernity by adopting the advances of modernist thought and exploiting them for the benefits of ideology, while Islamism tends to be more on the rejectionist side, yearning for the past Golden Age rather than the all new future one.
Jaha, that's what I got hung up on.

I must say that these people know thier English too well. I can't barely keep my attention there, due to the mass of complex and compound sentences. They've got their facts straight, but they need to "dumb it down" a bit. There's a debate going in the English literature world right now about whether to punish readers or give them something easily consumed, like television. That thread, was punishment. It requires a lot of previous knowledge on the readers part (which I don't have), and not enough explanation that is easily understood.

A very noble effort nevertheless.

We shouldn't fight islamism, we should educate. Both us and them. I don't know muck about the american school system (I'm swedish) but There aren't many people in the western world (america and europe) who has a clear view of islam. On the other side, there are fewer people in the arabic land who has a clear view of Europe and America...

I don't know if it is a solution, but it is necessary to know all there is to know about a subject before you judge or debate a subject as grave as this.

// Johan Ylikiiskilä

Let me emphasize that I'm not a bigot, I'm a concerned citizen.

No you're just suggesting that as a nation we discriminate against a particular broad religious group because there exists a minority extremist element in it in the name of "security". Such ideas as yours [which exist way too much these days] are far more dangerous to what our country is built upon than 5,000,000 terrorist attacks upon our soil.

I'd rather spend every day in arms against Al Quaeda upon our own soil, than to, as you and many others wish, surrender what this country stands for in the name of "security".

No you're just suggesting that as a nation we discriminate against a particular broad religious group because there exists a minority extremist element in it in the name of "security". Such ideas as yours [which exist way too much these days] are far more dangerous to what our country is built upon than 5,000,000 terrorist attacks upon our soil.

I'd rather spend every day in arms against Al Quaeda upon our own soil, than to, as you and many others wish, surrender what this country stands for in the name of "security".
Have my babies

Cartoons and Suicide Bomber Barny

Kill them until they stop

I'm a little bit less radical than you, it seems. I just want to stop the immigration from Arabic states, but I don't want to deport the Arabs who are here right now, unless they are criminals or terrorists. I have no sympathy for terrorists either, but it can be very hard to tell who is a terrorist and who isn't, so I tend to view the "shoot on sight" policy ineffective at best, and genocide at worst.

However, I would contend that the severity of the threat posed by Islam justifies any repression and action, since it is evident that the conflict is one wherein western civilisation is threatened.

And I really do want to deport them so much.

Kill them until they stop

Well thats all very well, but you dont know someone is a suicide bomber until they blow themselves up, and then its too late to kill them until they stop.

Unless we kill them all in an organized way, using camps or something. Germany has a lot of disused camps for some reason. They would probably be just right for that sort of project.

No you're just suggesting that as a nation we discriminate against a particular broad religious group because there exists a minority extremist element in it in the name of "security". Such ideas as yours [which exist way too much these days] are far more dangerous to what our country is built upon than 5,000,000 terrorist attacks upon our soil.

I'd rather spend every day in arms against Al Quaeda upon our own soil, than to, as you and many others wish, surrender what this country stands for in the name of "security".

Fine, let's see what happens when one of your family members gets killed by a terrorist attack. Will you still have such disdain for "security"?

The fact of the matter is that there are people within Islam who want to destroy us, although they are a small minority. However, this minority has a tendency to organize and carry through with what they believe.

I'm not suggesting discrimination agaisnt Muslims when it comes to education, jobs, etc. Only when it comes to immigration. What's your solution? Unlimited presidential powers to weed out terrorists? Doing nothing while the terrorists kill us? Spending the next 50 years in a war against Al Qaeida? The first option will make us a dictatorship, the second option will lead to many innocent deaths. The third option is unnecessary if we do the smart, if ruthless thing. Like limiting Muslim immigration.

No you're just suggesting that as a nation we discriminate against a particular broad religious group because there exists a minority extremist element in it in the name of "security". Such ideas as yours [which exist way too much these days] are far more dangerous to what our country is built upon than 5,000,000 terrorist attacks upon our soil.

I'd rather spend every day in arms against Al Quaeda upon our own soil, than to, as you and many others wish, surrender what this country stands for in the name of "security".

In such a situation as the west is now compelled to endure, the ends do justify the means. Appeasement and affability always fail against fanatacism, total, complete and implacable ruthlessness and force rarely does.

Good idea, and we should keep all at home, 'cause nobody would safe outside.
What about stop atacking muslim countries and helping their dictators?

I agree that not attacking the Musim countries, and thus provoking them, would be a good idea. As for not helping their dictators, well, let's face it, we need their oil. And they give it to us. If we don't have oil, then our economy will collapse. That's why we need to ween off oil; it will give us a good incentive to not support the dictators.

I agree that not attacking the Musim countries, and thus provoking them, would be a good idea. As for not helping their dictators, well, let's face it, we need their oil. And they give it to us. If we don't have oil, then our economy will collapse. That's why we need to ween off oil; it will give us a good incentive to not support the dictators.

Or occupy the oil sites until terrorist attacks cease.

In such a situation as the west is now compelled to endure, the ends do justify the means. Appeasement and affability always fail against fanatacism, total, complete and implacable ruthlessness and force rarely does.

I agree, but in this case we don't need to use total and implacable ruthlessness. We can protect our lifestyle just if our leaders make the principled, if unpopular decisions. With total force, many people would get killed, both Muslims and non-Muslims, which is completely unnecessary.

Or occupy the oil sites until terrorist attacks cease.

But we will run out of oil, this doesn't do anything for us in the long run. The terrorist attacks happen because we occupy their countries, and they won't stop as long as we continue to do so.

I agree, but in this case we don't need to use total and implacable ruthlessness. We can protect our lifestyle just if our leaders make the principled, if unpopular decisions. With total force, many people would get killed, both Muslims and non-Muslims, which is completely unnecessary.

I would, however, say that total force would resolve the issue fully, and, I daresay the deportations wouldn't be met with great distaste.

But we will run out of oil, this doesn't do anything for us in the long run. The terrorist attacks happen because we occupy their countries, and they won't stop as long as we continue to do so.

Granted, and I do think that companies involved in all vehicular affairs ought to be compelled, through government fines, to adapt vehicles to renewable energy sources, however, occupying the oil fields would force the Arabic hand.

In such a situation as the west is now compelled to endure, the ends do justify the means. Appeasement and affability always fail against fanatacism, total, complete and implacable ruthlessness and force rarely does.

"the west is compelled to endure"

What nonsense. You think terrorism threatens to destroy all Western civilization. Typical fearmongering used to justify your Us vs Them mentality. Has it occurred to you that YOU are the fanatic here?

If Western civilization is threatened, it's by people like you advocating the demise of liberty. Not from a few guys with bombs.

"the west is compelled to endure"

What nonsense. You think terrorism threatens to destroy all Western civilization. Typical fearmongering used to justify your Us vs Them mentality. Has it occurred to you that YOU are the fanatic here?

If Western civilization is threatened, it's by people like you advocating the demise of liberty. Not from a few guys with bombs.

Granted, I happen to be xenophobic, however, what do you consider to be the ultimate aim of the terrorists? Peace? No. Islamic hegemony? yes.

A response of total force and fullscale deportation would be the best method to overcome Islamic fundamentalism.

I agree, but no current government has the political will to carry out what you propose. It is possible that if and when al Qaida detonates the 20 or so suitcase nukes in the US and Europe, that new fascist regimes will take over and have none of the baggage of pre-nuke values like attacking entire populations.

Here are the options:
An immediate nuclear strike on areas with the highest concentrations of the enemy population.
A sustained campaign of suitcase nuclear detonations in areas wherever the surviving enemy population reconcentrates.
A sustained "natural disaster" assault on target countries using scalar tectonic weapons, atmospheric thermal microwaves or chem-trails.
If the regime believes that the Earth is overpopulated, it may decide to unleash one or several plagues to reduce it to a more sustainable level.

I agree, but no current government has the political will to carry out what you propose. It is possible that if and when al Qaida detonates the 20 or so suitcase nukes in the US and Europe, that new fascist regimes will take over and have none of the baggage of pre-nuke values like attacking entire populations.

Here are the options:
An immediate nuclear strike on areas with the highest concentrations of the enemy population.
A sustained campaign of suitcase nuclear detonations in areas wherever the surviving enemy population reconcentrates.
A sustained "natural disaster" assault on target countries using scalar tectonic weapons, atmospheric thermal microwaves or chem-trails.
If the regime believes that the Earth is overpopulated, it may decide to unleash one or several plagues to reduce it to a more sustainable level.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Look at you, coldly calculating the best way to kill millions of people. It sickens me. *retches on keyboard*

All I proposed was stopping Muslim immigration so the terrorists wouldn't come in with the 99% of other Muslims who want to lead a better life. I do not endorse your views under any circumstances.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Look at you, coldly calculating the best way to kill millions of people. It sickens me. *retches on keyboard*

All I proposed was stopping Muslim immigration so the terrorists wouldn't come in with the 99% of other Muslims who want to lead a better life. I do not endorse your views under any circumstances.

Actually, I dont find it nauseating, it is superb. A true machiavel and kindred spirit.

Fine, let's see what happens when one of your family members gets killed by a terrorist attack. Will you still have such disdain for "security"?

The fact of the matter is that there are people within Islam who want to destroy us, although they are a small minority. However, this minority has a tendency to organize and carry through with what they believe.

I'm not suggesting discrimination agaisnt Muslims when it comes to education, jobs, etc. Only when it comes to immigration. What's your solution? Unlimited presidential powers to weed out terrorists? Doing nothing while the terrorists kill us? Spending the next 50 years in a war against Al Qaeida? The first option will make us a dictatorship, the second option will lead to many innocent deaths. The third option is unnecessary if we do the smart, if ruthless thing. Like limiting Muslim immigration.

The first option is unamerican, the second option is a factual lie (we've never tried "doing nothing" [in the literal sense of the word regarding terrorism]; we've only either fought terrorism, or fueled it.... never simply let it die its normal death), and the third option is unamerican.

People like you are primarily responsible for terrorist attacks on this country. And people like you will continue the empowerment of the fundamentalist regimes that will attempt hostility toward us in the future; and the sad thing is, you're too blind to see what you've done in the past, and what you will do in the future to continue its empowerment.

I have nothing but contempt for your treason to the foundational principles of this country.

Granted, I happen to be xenophobic, however, what do you consider to be the ultimate aim of the terrorists? Peace? No. Islamic hegemony? yes.

A response of total force and fullscale deportation would be the best method to overcome Islamic fundamentalism.

Not only are you xenophobic, you're completely at odds with the founding principles of western civilization; under your own logic, it would be complete right for the west to DEPORT YOU.

Not only are you xenophobic, you're completely at odds with the founding principles of western civilization; under your own logic, it would be complete right for the west to DEPORT YOU.

No, it wouldn't, I am a native. Incidentally, what do you percive as the founding principles of western civilisation, a civilisation that developed over a period of 4000 years, and is littered with such pogroms borne out of necessity, such as Pericle's restriction of Athninan citizenship, Edward I's expulsion of the Jews, and others?

The first option is unamerican, the second option is a factual lie (we've never tried "doing nothing" [in the literal sense of the word regarding terrorism]; we've only either fought terrorism, or fueled it.... never simply let it die its normal death), and the third option is unamerican.

People like you are primarily responsible for terrorist attacks on this country. And people like you will continue the empowerment of the fundamentalist regimes that will attempt hostility toward us in the future; and the sad thing is, you're too blind to see what you've done in the past, and what you will do in the future to continue its empowerment.

I have nothing but contempt for your treason to the foundational principles of this country.

Sure, some of my ideas are insensitve, but I challenge you to provide a better solution. So far, people like you on this thread have done nothing but criticize me, but they haven't provided any alternatives to mine. I guarantee that I will listen to your ideas with an open mind if you suggest an alternative.

I disagree that I provoke terrorist attacks on this country. I've got no fight with Muslims, people can believe whatever they wish and that's fine by me. I also want my country to not be involved in the Middle East and I don't want to take sides with Israel or Palestine. The issue behind our involvement in the Middle East is oil, and we need to do something about that.

Convert to Islam. Then subvert it from within.

No, it wouldn't, I am a native. Incidentally, what do you percive as the founding principles of western civilisation, a civilisation that developed over a period of 4000 years, and is littered with such pogroms borne out of necessity, such as Pericle's restriction of Athninan citizenship, Edward I's expulsion of the Jews, and others?

What does being a native have to do with it?

Modern Western Civilization's founding is in the enlightment... Of which your ideas run in complete contrast to. I'm really not concerned with the pre-enlightment barbarism and fanaticism which you reffer to; back when western civilization was no different in operation and mentality than modern fundamentalistic islamism. That "civilization" died and was buried... It's funny, you're proposal to handle this terrorist situation is to yourself turn into what your enemy already is. To become, yourself, what you most claim to despise.

Most of the rest of the enlightened, know better than to surrender to their opposers ideology, effectively destroying that which they fight for, in the name of combating said opposing ideology... To combat fanaticism by yourself becoming a fanatic, in no way combats fanaticism, it spreads it. A simple observation, which any human could readily see, when they plainly look at the whole picture... Of course, your dream civilization is the Fanatical Islamic groups, which you so readily claim to want to war with.

Since these minority "Fanatics" are soo destrimental to our civilization as it stands, and we are to deport them, why not deport you, as you want to turn us into western equivalents of these minority fanatics? An alteration in such a scale effectively puts an end to modern western civilization (thus eraticating it), as we have self-eraticated in the past in the formation of our modern civilization.

What does being a native have to do with it?

Modern Western Civilization's founding is in the enlightment... Of which your ideas run in complete contrast to. I'm really not concerned with the pre-enlightment barbarism and fanaticism which you reffer to; back when western civilization was no different in operation and mentality than modern fundamentalistic islamism. That "civilization" died and was buried... It's funny, you're proposal to handle this terrorist situation is to yourself turn into what your enemy already is. To become, yourself, what you most claim to despise.

Most of the rest of the enlightened, know better than to surrender to their opposers ideology, effectively destroying that which they fight for, in the name of combating said opposing ideology... To combat fanaticism by yourself becoming a fanatic, in no way combats fanaticism, it spreads it. A simple observation, which any human could readily see, when they plainly look at the whole picture... Of course, your dream civilization is the Fanatical Islamic groups, which you so readily claim to want to war with.

Since these minority "Fanatics" are soo destrimental to our civilization as it stands, and we are to deport them, why not deport you, as you want to turn us into western equivalents of these minority fanatics? An alteration in such a scale effectively puts an end to modern western civilization (thus eraticating it), as we have self-eraticated in the past in the formation of our modern civilization.
You made some really good points, such as becoming fanatical about destroying our enemies will turn us into our fanatical enemies. I agree that killing should not be done. However, exactly what do you propose is to be done in order to end the threat of terrorism?

Sure, some of my ideas are insensitve, but I challenge you to provide a better solution. So far, people like you on this thread have done nothing but criticize me, but they haven't provided any alternatives to mine. I guarantee that I will listen to your ideas with an open mind if you suggest an alternative.

I disagree that I provoke terrorist attacks on this country. I've got no fight with Muslims, people can believe whatever they wish and that's fine by me. I also want my country to not be involved in the Middle East and I don't want to take sides with Israel or Palestine. The issue behind our involvement in the Middle East is oil, and we need to do something about that.

1. Stop supporting fundamentalist regimes (a habit we have had of the last several decades).
2. Stop involving ourselves (actively) in disputes between fundamentalists regimes (another habit we have had of the last several decades).

The enlightment has never been spread by closed-borders, anymore than by warfare... It progresses naturally on it's own, attempt to artificually "extend" its influence, always fail, and attempt to isolate it are even more dismal (since isolation causes its death)... The west is a post-enlightment civilization, prided upon the free exchange of ideologies, in an open market.... None of this provides the power which has been used by fanatics to thwart it, instead the concept of our interference in their affairs.... Which we have been very readily doing (and continue to readily do) for the last several decades. 9-11 had little to do with what we have done as a people here, and much to do with what we have done as a people elsewhere... (especially in spots much closer to home for our enemies). If you think the terrorist have gotten suppot and power merely espousing hostility to our ideology (as a civilization); you have not really been looking at the big picture...

Here's what I think should be done:

1) Stop dependence on foreing oil. The whole reason we're in this mess (speaking as an American) is because we need their oil. Without it, our economy is shite. Therefore, instead of spending billions of dollars on the military, we should divert some of that to research programs for alternate energy, and encourage it in the private sector.

2) Stop Muslim immigration. I know this isn't nice, but what are you gonna do? Europe has tried socialism, and that hasn't worked out too well. In the US, Muslims are assimiliated into society somewhat better, but we've still got our problems...like the possibility of Al Qaeda sleeper cells. I have 2 Arab friends, I enjoy their company and I think that most Muslims are normal, rational people, but there's definetely a significant and vocal minority that is, frankly, dangerous to classical Western values such as freedom of press, religion, etc. Extremist muslims aren't the only ones who would undermine these freedoms (I'm looking at you, Bush administration ) but removing them would go a long way in solving our insecurities.

Discrimination on the grounds of religion *isn't* what this country was founded on. Besides, our dependence on foreign oil is highly overdramatized by the American media. The only place where there's barely any left is here.

And the only reason why the extremist Muslims have started targeting Western culture is because of us going into Arabic nations for oil in the first place, and for dragging our values and ideals in with us. Muslims are not comfortable with these things, so can you blame them for being upset about a Pepsi billboard with a half-naked Britney Spears on it, 30 feet high for anyone to see?

The problem that needs to be addressed is not how to fight it, but how to understand it. And forum threads like this makes that problem all the more difficult to solve.

Cheers.

1. Stop supporting fundamentalist regimes (a habit we have had of the last several decades).
2. Stop involving ourselves (actively) in disputes between fundamentalists regimes (another habit we have had of the last several decades).

The enlightment has never been spread by closed-borders, anymore than by warfare... It progresses naturally on it's own, attempt to artificually "extend" its influence, always fail, and attempt to isolate it are even more dismal (since isolation causes its death)... The west is a post-enlightment civilization, prided upon the free exchange of ideologies, in an open market.... None of this provides the power which has been used by fanatics to thwart it, instead the concept of our interference in their affairs.... Which we have been very readily doing (and continue to readily do) for the last several decades. 9-11 had little to do with what we have done as a people here, and much to do with what we have done as a people elsewhere... (especially in spots much closer to home for our enemies). If you think the terrorist have gotten suppot and power merely espousing hostility to our ideology (as a civilization); you have not really been looking at the big picture...

I agree that we definetely need to cut off the lifeline to fundamentalist regimes. However, those regimes give us oil, which, if we didn't have, we would be in almost the same position as they are...poor, and hopeless. We need to focus on weening off oil first I think. Also, you say that we "pride ourselves upon the free exchange of ideologies", but what happens when Muslim fundamentalists kill a movie maker because he criticizes how women are treated in Islamic societies, or when they issue death threats to moderate Muslims who wish to reform Islam so that it's more compatible with a secular liberal democracy. (which are in most of Europe, and America...and a few other places). You make grand, impressive statements to be sure, but when it comes to specifics like these, it's hard to know exactly what you would do.

Discrimination on the grounds of religion *isn't* what this country was founded on. Besides, our dependence on foreign oil is highly overdramatized by the American media. The only place where there's barely any left is here.

And the only reason why the extremist Muslims have started targeting Western culture is because of us going into Arabic nations for oil in the first place, and for dragging our values and ideals in with us. Muslims are not comfortable with these things, so can you blame them for being upset about a Pepsi billboard with a half-naked Britney Spears on it, 30 feet high for anyone to see?

The problem that needs to be addressed is not how to fight it, but how to understand it. And forum threads like this makes that problem all the more difficult to solve.

Cheers.

If lack of oil is so overdramatized, then why are Americans in the Middle East getting killed for it? Contrary to your belief of my thread not helping the situation, I think it actually helps because I am willing to listen to other suggestions, and nowhere do I condone hate or violence. This isn't a hate thread, and it actually encourages open debate.

If lack of oil is so overdramatized, then why are Americans in the Middle East getting killed for it? Contrary to your belief of my thread not helping the situation, I think it actually helps because I am willing to listen to other suggestions, and nowhere do I condone hate or violence. This isn't a hate thread, and it actually encourages open debate.
So the war in Iraq is all about oil? No, sorry, it's not. It was about removing a violent and hateful dictator from power. Now it's about trying to help a country rise from the aftermath of this and to begin again. While I don't agree with us automatically transplanting an American government in there or with us going there in the first place, since the reasons why have since been proved completely false, I do believe with all my heart that, for the time being, we are doing the right thing for the citizens of Iraq.

And the only reason why I criticize your thread is because of its tone in your first post: You make it sound like the only solution is to destroy our contacts in the Middle East by no longer buying their oil and by not allowing them to immigrate into the United States. As I said, this is not the way. Nor did I imply that you wished to resort to violence.

Convert to Islam. Then subvert it from within.
*chuckles*

However, I would contend that the severity of the threat posed by Islam justifies any repression and action, since it is evident that the conflict is one wherein western civilisation is threatened.

And I really do want to deport them so much.

What a brilliant idea, I'm with you all the way.

We can piss all of the moderate, western muslims off by kicking them out of their homes and then send them to the Middle East to be radicalised by the fundamentalists there! Genius! Then the entire Muslim population will be fundamentalist and there won't be a moderate branch offering an alternative to radicalism so pretty much every muslim will become a west-hating terrorist!

I bow before your superbly well thought-out ideas.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Look at you, coldly calculating the best way to kill millions of people. It sickens me. *retches on keyboard*

All I proposed was stopping Muslim immigration so the terrorists wouldn't come in with the 99% of other Muslims who want to lead a better life. I do not endorse your views under any circumstances.

I think after watching 100,000 of people crawl out of the radioactive rubble with their skin burned off (the lucky ones), that instinct that makes you retch will be subsumed with an anger that will justify anything.

Islamism is an idea and ideas do not stop at borders. Let's take your scenario of closing the borders to Muslims. The US already has around 5 million Muslims. The Global War on Terror is going to continue to radicalize the Muslim world regardless of what we do. If we stop GWOT or accept Osama's "truce," that will only embolden al Qaida and prove to the Muslim world that they are the vanguard of a global manifest destiny that will eventually absorb the planet's population into the Ummah or at least place us non-believers into a subservient state of dhimmitude. That is their goal. They've been waiting 1400 years for vengeance to vindicate the humiliation that they suffered during the Crusades, the fall of the Ottoman Empire and everything that's happened since the 1948 birth of Israel. They believe time is on their side.

Hypothetically, even if we round up every Muslim and place them into detention camps like the Japanese during WWII, the IDEA of jihad and Islamic revolution remains in books, the Internet and in America's prison population. What is to stop more Johnny "Taliban" Walkers? Or DC/Maryland sniper John A. Mohammeds? Jihadist violence will continue even after Iran wipes Israel off the map, even after the US occupies Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, even after India annihilates Pakistan. The irrational, psychotic need to force burkhas on women of other faiths, to threaten publishers of a cartoon as if they had authority over another country, to blow up schoolgirls waiting at a bus stop WILL STILL EXIST not matter what we do.

Islamism is a meme and its very nature makes it toxic when it comes into contact with other memes. With few exceptions, global Islam is unable to adapt to the modern world and the advent of cheap medicine and food production has enabled Muslims to reproduce at a rate that is turning parts of the world into a Malthusian nightmare that we are now seeing the beginning of. In Turkey, Malaysia and even Iran, where there is a cosmopolitan middle-class that is more practical, those societies will survive, but I'm afraid that places like Yemen, Sudan and Pakistan where they don't have a clue on how to make enough clean water for its population, the next al Qaida variants will emerge. Any attempt by a Muslim to follow the Westernization process like Kemel Ataturk will be labelled apostates and stoned or beheaded according to Sharia law. The Radicals will become the majority in the Muslim world if not already. And if the Islamic meme can't adapt to the environment, it will justify 9-11 style attacks or worse to shape the environment to sustain them, in other words, eliminate infidels by nuke or by coerced conversion.

When I spelled out the "options," maybe I forgot to emphasize that I wasn't HOPING that those options will be carried out, but that they were probably courses of action of a defeated Western civilization that retained scientific war-fighting ability. The collapse of the West will NOT mean victory of the Islamists. If the US government falls from 20 nukes going off, it will only be the beginning of a long campaign of slow tit-for-tat annihilation. The US Air Force's and Navy's nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of "neo-Crusaders" who will simply go to the highest population density of the enemy and reduce it to 0.0. They nuke our city, we nuke another one of theirs. The cycle of retaliation will not stop. After all, the Western peoples are gone, sterilized by the fallout, so what more is there to lose? Are we simply going to go quietly into the night and let the Muslims have this planet?

This is the end game that should really be communicated to whichever al Qaida sleeper cells in the US are doing maintenance on the suitcase nukes in the basements of their mosque safehouses. Global Islam will have to accept co-existence or risk a chain of events that will lead to nuclear winter and a lifeless Earth.

Also, you say that we "pride ourselves upon the free exchange of ideologies",

Traditionally we did...


but what happens when Muslim fundamentalists kill a movie maker because he criticizes how women are treated in Islamic societies,

Murder is a crime already... What needs to be done than any other?


or when they issue death threats to moderate Muslims who wish to reform Islam so that it's more compatible with a secular liberal democracy.

Same issue...


but when it comes to specifics like these, it's hard to know exactly what you would do.

I'd do what we already have the power to do within the realm of our own liberty, fight specific crime on a case by case basis, rather than resulting to degrading myself to the abject discrimination and bigotry that you have shown yourself to be...

why are Americans in the Middle East getting killed for it?

Their getting killed for no reason what-so-ever, but for the panderings of "W"

Two words: tactical nukes.

What does being a native have to do with it?

Modern Western Civilization's founding is in the enlightment... Of which your ideas run in complete contrast to. I'm really not concerned with the pre-enlightment barbarism and fanaticism which you reffer to; back when western civilization was no different in operation and mentality than modern fundamentalistic islamism. That "civilization" died and was buried... It's funny, you're proposal to handle this terrorist situation is to yourself turn into what your enemy already is. To become, yourself, what you most claim to despise.

Most of the rest of the enlightened, know better than to surrender to their opposers ideology, effectively destroying that which they fight for, in the name of combating said opposing ideology... To combat fanaticism by yourself becoming a fanatic, in no way combats fanaticism, it spreads it. A simple observation, which any human could readily see, when they plainly look at the whole picture... Of course, your dream civilization is the Fanatical Islamic groups, which you so readily claim to want to war with.

Since these minority "Fanatics" are soo destrimental to our civilization as it stands, and we are to deport them, why not deport you, as you want to turn us into western equivalents of these minority fanatics? An alteration in such a scale effectively puts an end to modern western civilization (thus eraticating it), as we have self-eraticated in the past in the formation of our modern civilization.

Not the historian are we? More of an ignorant idealist?:rolleyes:

Shockingly enough, you have just contrived to label the pre-eminent facilitator of western democracy, Athens, and its pre-eminent democrat, Pericles, as barbaric, depite their essentially facilitaing and laying the precedent for the "western culture" you contrive to percieve. Furthermore, the enlightment was not akin to a wash of white paint, a watershed upon history, it was a second renaissance of sorts, wherein no civilsation was died and buried. Or can the right honourable poster proffer me an example?

Granted, I happen to be xenophobic, however, what do you consider to be the ultimate aim of the terrorists? Peace? No. Islamic hegemony? yes.

A response of total force and fullscale deportation would be the best method to overcome Islamic fundamentalism.

Big deal. My ultimate aim might be "elimination of all stupid people." Does that mean that anyone with an IQ less than 100 the world over is "threatened" by me?

Fullscale deportation would only piss off non-terrorist muslims and give them every reason to hate the US. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

And because you're a xenophobe, you really can't be argued to have an objective opinion on this. You're just arguing based on your own paranoid fears.

What a brilliant idea, I'm with you all the way.

We can piss all of the moderate, western muslims off by kicking them out of their homes and then send them to the Middle East to be radicalised by the fundamentalists there! Genius! Then the entire Muslim population will be fundamentalist and there won't be a moderate branch offering an alternative to radicalism so pretty much every muslim will become a west-hating terrorist!

I bow before your superbly well thought-out ideas.

Hence a war, wherein the west has nucleur weapons, a bridgehead in the middle-east, and total militray superiority. Easy no?

Hence a war, wherein the west has nucleur weapons, a bridgehead in the middle-east, and total militray superiority. Easy no?Run out of beer? Why not kill some time with Genocide?

Run out of beer? Why not kill some time with Genocide?

A war is not genocide. Honestly, do you read?

A war is not genocide. Honestly, do you read?A war on an ethnic group, race or religious denomination, is genocide. Look it up.

A war on an ethnic group, race or religious denomination, is genocide. Look it up.

Wrong again. Systematically killing them would be genocide, merely declaring against them is not. Try learning the classics before challenging me.

Wrong again. Systematically killing them would be genocide, merely declaring against them is not.You were talking about nuclear war on a religious demonination. I don't see how anything could possibly be more genocidal than that?

Besides, going to war, regardless of methods, on a religious demonination, cannot reasonably be argued to be anything but planned extermination of said denomination. That is the very definition of genocide.

Pulled from dictionary.com: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."Try learning the classics before challenging me.What is that supposed to mean?

You were talking about nuclear war on a religious demonination. I don't see how anything could possibly be more genocidal than that?

Besides, going to war, regardless of methods, on a religious demonination, cannot reasonably be argued to be anything but planned extermination of said denomination. That is the very definition of genocide.

Pulled from dictionary.com: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."What is that supposed to mean?

I was not discussing, nor advocating nucleur war, the statement that the west possesses a nucleur capacity, whilst the Arabic world does not, is hardly tantamount to advocating mass nucleur strikes.

Moreover, said war is no different to any other conflict wherein one state is the antagonist, one the protaginist, therefore in the enlightened sentiments the Similized world all conflicts are genocide.

As for the reference to the classics, the etymology for "genocide" is concurrent to that of "homocide", "regicide", "fratricide" or "patricide", and denotes death.

Moreover, said war is no different to any other conflict wherein one state is the antagonist, one the protaginist, therefore in the enlightened sentiments the Similized world all conflicts are genocide.When war isn't genocide, it is because the purpose of the war isn't to kill people, but to force through some sort of agenda, unrelated to killing.

The sole purpose of the war you propose, however, appears to be to kill a religious denomination. That is what genocide is.As for the reference to the classics, the etymology for "genocide" is concurrent to that of "homocide", "regicide", "fratricide" or "patricide", and denotes death.I'm well aware of the etymology, but I think you're just being dodgy. You forgot "deicide" by the way.

Muslims aren't the problem. Radical Muslim cultists are the problem. These people aren't real muslims.
I agree with you. It isnt muslims that are the problem, its the radical ones. Which come from virtually every religion. :) And to the thread starter: Its not called Islamism, its called Islam, before you start saying how we need to get rid of them and that they are the problem, I want you to go watch a few educational shows from a Muslim point of view. That way you actually know what your talking about. Seriously, you could offend alot of people.