NationStates Jolt Archive

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.

"It is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims until they were driven from power at the turn of the 16th century.

So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.

Linky http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060727/D8J4AUMO0.html

So World War Three comes to fruition...

I'm safe. I'm above Spain. :)

But in all seriousness, I do agree that to try and make out as if Islamic terrorism 'isn't our problem' is foolish.

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.
Meh. There are religious organizations in my country which are dedicated (explicitly) to bringing about the end of the world. Our president meets personally with a man who publicly fantasizes about the complete destruction of the Earth. Unless they really ramp up their crazy, al-Qaida is never going to be able to compete.

Yes, they don't want to bother Europeans

And I thought we'd had terrorist attacks by them.

Really, don't you get tired of grasping at straw men in these article threads of yours? I mean, you're not even good at it.

Meh. There are religious organizations in my country which are dedicated (explicitly) to bringing about the end of the world. Our president meets personally with a man who publicly fantasizes about the complete destruction of the Earth. Unless they really ramp up their crazy, al-Qaida is never going to be able to compete.

Now I am really curious. Which country would that be?

Yes, they don't want to bother Europeans

And I thought we'd had terrorist attacks by them.

Really, don't you get tired of grasping at straw men in these article threads of yours? I mean, you're not even good at it.

If you believe that al-Qaida and the hatred of the West by certain Muslims and Arabs is a "strawman", you are seriously delusional.

If you believe that al-Qaida and the hatred of the West by certain Muslims and Arabs is a "strawman", you are seriously delusional.

No, what the real delusion is is that you seem to think there is anybody out there who thinks they don't mind Europe, especially after the attacks in Madrid and London. So, you attempt to attack your own delusion and pretend you're attacking someone else's. Textbook example of a straw man.

I think they consider a lot of Europe to be a "slam dunk".

Now I am really curious. Which country would that be?
The Federal Theocracy Of America, of course!

If you believe that al-Qaida and the hatred of the West by certain Muslims and Arabs is a "strawman", you are seriously delusional.

And why do you place so much impoortance on the delusional ramblings of one deranged man. AL-Zawahri does not speak for all muslims. There are certain Americans who would like to see the destruction of all gays, others who would like to see the world ruled by Protestantism. Now turn your vitriol on those as well, or are their delusions acceptable to you?

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.

So we do what, now? Run around screaming and waving our arms? :rolleyes:

If you believe that Europe is not aware of the threat, you are sadly mistaken. We've had a couple of terrorist attacks by Muslim fanatics in the past few years, and we are dealing with it. It's just that we regard terrorists for what they are : Criminals.
The police and secret services deal with criminals, you don't fight wars against them, that's a pointless waste of lives and resources.

Also, mind I mentioning, al-Zawahri is a dead man for a quite will now... unless al Quaeda has started practicing necromancy... ;)

No, what the real delusion is is that you seem to think there is anybody out there who thinks they don't mind Europe, especially after the attacks in Madrid and London. So, you attempt to attack your own delusion and pretend you're attacking someone else's. Textbook example of a straw man.

Really? And how many times have I heard on this forum that if only the US was to get out of the Middle East, and if only Israel was given back to the Palestinians, all of this would stop?

Really? And how many times have I heard on this forum that if only the US was to get out of the Middle East, and if only Israel was given back to the Palestinians, all of this would stop?

That would depend on the amount of attention you pay to trolls in general... :rolleyes:

Really? And how many times have I heard on this forum that if only the US was to get out of the Middle East, and if only Israel was given back to the Palestinians, all of this would stop?

I wonder if you could have come up with a more irrelevant attempt at a counter even if you had tried.

That would depend on the amount of attention you pay to trolls in general... :rolleyes:
I've heard the sentiment too many times in public while in Europe.

I've seen the sentiment in polls from Europe.

There are plenty of people in Europe who think that this is all the fault of the US and Israel, and if the US was to leave and Israel was to be wiped out, all of this would stop.

I've heard the sentiment too many times in public while in Europe.

I've seen the sentiment in polls from Europe.

There are plenty of people in Europe who think that this is all the fault of the US and Israel, and if the US was to leave and Israel was to be wiped out, all of this would stop.

And there are plenty of people in the USA who think Islam as a religion ought to be eradicated. I've seen more than a few threads on this on here. Doesn't make it any less moronic.
Why do you think USAmericans are the only ones who have a right to be uninformed and loud-mouthed about it?

There are plenty of people in Europe who think that this is all the fault of the US and Israel,

They do share culpability for this situation arising - there is no question about that - but so does Europe.

and if the US was to leave and Israel was to be wiped out, all of this would stop.

It would for them. Now, how that is relevant to your attempt to construct a straw man that somehow someone thinks they don't mind Europe, seeing as Europe is very much entangled in the Middle East and their affairs, remains elusive.

I'm safe. I'm above Spain. :)

.

me too. But won't they want the UK? Well England anyway?

It would for them. Now, how that is relevant to your attempt to construct a straw man that somehow someone thinks they don't mind Europe, seeing as Europe is very much entangled in the Middle East and their affairs, remains elusive.

Plenty of people think that somehow, Europe is not entangled, or can be unentangled simply by acceding to al-Qaeda's demands.

A classic example is Spain's removal of troops from Iraq, on demand after the train bombings.

That, in particular, is not a strawman. Neither are the Spanish governments glowing statements in support of Hezbollah.

Or do Swedes think that Spain is not part of Europe?

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.So let's stop the practice of toppling stabile regimes that have been keeping them from building a sufficient powerbase to actually conquer these countries.

Plenty of people think that somehow, Europe is not entangled, or can be unentangled simply by acceding to al-Qaeda's demands.

A classic example is Spain's removal of troops from Iraq, on demand after the train bombings.

That, in particular, is not a strawman. Neither are the Spanish governments glowing statements in support of Hezbollah.

Or do Swedes think that Spain is not part of Europe?

Part of, but not the whole of Europe.
Fact is that the Spanish government sent the troops to Iraq against furious protests of the population. The decision to send them in the first place cost Aznar his position, and the new government followed through with its promise to withdraw them.

So let's stop the practice of toppling stabile regimes that have been keeping them from building a sufficient powerbase to actually conquer these countries.

See? Yet another one who believes that if only the US stopped interfering, this would all go away.

Part of, but not the whole of Europe.
Fact is that the Spanish government sent the troops to Iraq against furious protests of the population. The decision to send them in the first place cost Aznar his position, and the new government followed through with its promise to withdraw them.

I believe that it cost his position ONLY after the bombings and demands by al-Qaida.

Pure appeasement.

I believe that it cost his position ONLY after the bombings and demands by al-Qaida.

Pure appeasement.

No mate, pure democracy. ;)

So we do what, now? Run around screaming and waving our arms? :rolleyes:

If you believe that Europe is not aware of the threat, you are sadly mistaken. We've had a couple of terrorist attacks by Muslim fanatics in the past few years, and we are dealing with it. It's just that we regard terrorists for what they are : Criminals.
The police and secret services deal with criminals, you don't fight wars against them, that's a pointless waste of lives and resources.


No- I believe going right to the sources and killing them as they spawn is more effective than allowing them to come and set up shop in your country. The constant offensive against them on their home soil is more effective.

Never negotiate or capitulate with them, and never stop seeking them, their associates and assets-Kill them, sieze and break thier shit and arrest and interrogate everyone they associate with. No matter where they are.

They are more than criminals.

I believe that it cost his position ONLY after the bombings and demands by al-Qaida.

Pure appeasement.

You mean you haven't heard about the massive demonstrations before that?

And, incidentally, the new Spanish government went ahead and increased the numbers of troops they have in Afghanistan after they pulled out of Iraq.

No mate, pure democracy. ;)
Yes, like Chamberlain.

I'm waiting for Quisling to arise. I'm sure it won't be long.

No- I believe going right to the sources and killing them as they spawn is more effective than allowing them to come and set up shop in your country. The constant offensive against them on their home soil is more effective.

Never negotiate or capitulate with them, and never stop seeking them, their associates and assets-Kill them, sieze and break thier shit and arrest and interrogate everyone they associate with. No matter where they are.

They are more than criminals.

You're giving them WAY more credit than they deserve. "Going in and killing them" turns them into martyrs, which in turn ensures that there will be more following in their footsteps. The constant offensive against them in their home land has only led to further attacks so far.

Off course you don't negotiate with them, they are criminals. Negotiation is for opposing parties in a war, not for the police arresting and trialing a criminal.

whats all the worry about?

It's just that we regard terrorists for what they are : Criminals.
The police and secret services deal with criminals, you don't fight wars against them, that's a pointless waste of lives and resources.

And that is your problem. You do things in half way measures. Do not misunderstand me, I think Iraq is a fucking mess and Afghanistan is turning into one.

How well equiped are Europe's police forces to deal with people that have a stranglehold on your culture. One dane draws a couple of cartoons lampooning Mohammed and what does Europe do? They do exactly what you were mocking: They run around with their hands in the air.

You all are scared of these people and are so rabidly fearful of pissing them off that you are suppressing your own citizen's rights to "protect" those citizens.

You deal with fanatics like you do rabid animals, you put them down, hard. I feel the same way about any radical sect.

I believe that it cost his position ONLY after the bombings and demands by al-Qaida.

Pure appeasement.
Well then your wrong.

What REALLY cost him his position was the fact Aznar LIED and said it was ETA that carried out the bombings.

That destroyed all credibility in the eyes of the Spanish voters and swept the opposition into power. They had a pledge before the election to bring home their troops from Iraq in accordance with the public wishes. Their elections vindicated their stance on Iraq.

Yes, like Chamberlain.

I'm waiting for Quisling to arise. I'm sure it won't be long.

You do remember the circumstances around the Madrid bombings don't you?

A week before a general election and then the guy who had a remove the troops from Iraq policy as part of his platform won. The Spanish people didn't want them there and said so in the only true voice they have, the ballot box. Don't get all touchy just because it left the 'coalition of the willing' fairly bereft of credible countries.

-snip-
Europe as a continent has been dealing with terrorism for nigh on a hundred years.

What the US's experience in it may I ask?

Sounds alot like Zionism.

And that is your problem. You do things in half way measures. Do not misunderstand me, I think Iraq is a fucking mess and Afghanistan is turning into one.

How well equiped are Europe's police forces to deal with people that have a stranglehold on your culture. One dane draws a couple of cartoons lampooning Mohammed and what does Europe do? They do exactly what you were mocking: They run around with their hands in the air.

You all are scared of these people and are so rabidly fearful of pissing them off that you are suppressing your own citizen's rights to "protect" those citizens.

You deal with fanatics like you do rabid animals, you put them down, hard. I feel the same way about any radical sect.

I didn't see anybody particularly upset about those cartoons here, but I can't speak about Denmark out of first hand experience.

Europe's police forces are remarkably weel equipped and experienced in dealing with many different forms of terrorism, it's not a new concept here you know?

And if you're talking about putting dow fanatics, you might want to start right at your front door with Fred Phelps among others...

Europe as a continent has been dealing with terrorism for nigh on a hundred years.

What the US's experience in it may I ask?

They started out as terrorists ;)

Europe as a continent has been dealing with terrorism for nigh on a hundred years.

What the US's experience in it may I ask?

Successfully, I might add. Take the IRA and the RAF as examples...

Successfully, I might add. Take the IRA and the RAF as examples...
I guess that's why it took almost a century to come to grips with the IRA...

The idea that you can tolerate that sort of activity for decades implies that your average citizen is utterly expendable in place of killing a terrorist.

Plenty of people think that somehow, Europe is not entangled,

Funny, I live in Europe and have yet to come across any such statement by anyone.

or can be unentangled simply by acceding to al-Qaeda's demands.

And I've yet to meet anyone that has wanted to concede to terrorist demands, either. You see - there is a difference between there being people like that and you thinking there are people like that and attacking their stance that seems to be your own invention. That's where the straw man is.

A classic example is Spain's removal of troops from Iraq, on demand after the train bombings.

Spain's removal of the troops had nothing to do with terrorist demands and everything to do with the Spaniards voting for a party to form a government that had long before expressed they would withdraw the troops, seeing as Spain's involvement was extremely unpopular among the Spaniards.

There is a second straw man - you imagining a reason for Spain's actions has no bearing on the actual real reasons for Spain's actions.

That, in particular, is not a strawman. Neither are the Spanish governments glowing statements in support of Hezbollah.

I've yet to see Spain support terrorists. Let me guess, criticising Israel for a disproportionate response that is in violation of international law is "supporting Hezbollah's acts of terrorism," right? See how this straw man thing works?

Or do Swedes think that Spain is not part of Europe?

Or do you think you are not so much lacking in opacity as to be virtually transparent?

I guess that's why it took almost a century to come to grips with the IRA...

The idea that you can tolerate that sort of activity for decades implies that your average citizen is utterly expendable in place of killing a terrorist.

It solved the problem. The fact that it took over 80 years is largely due to the fact that for the first couple of decades, Britain took exaclty the same stand on terrorism as the USA does now : Kill them all.

Didn't work. Once they actually sat down and worked on the underlying issue, the problem got solved.

I guess that's why it took almost a century to come to grips with the IRA...

The idea that you can tolerate that sort of activity for decades implies that your average citizen is utterly expendable in place of killing a terrorist.

The USA hasn't been succesful with his own policy, no?, or Israel, for that matter.

and yes, Aznar lost his position because he said, and insisted, that ETA was responsible for the Madrid bombing attacks.

It solved the problem. The fact that it took over 80 years is largely due to the fact that for the first couple of decades, Britain took exaclty the same stand on terrorism as the USA does now : Kill them all.

Didn't work. Once they actually sat down and worked on the underlying issue, the problem got solved.

I believe the reason the initial British methods failed were because they failed to follow through.

With any popular movement, you have to do more than convince its leaders that the fight is over (by shooting them, for example).

You have to smash all hope of success in the general population of those in rebellion.

I guess that's why it took almost a century to come to grips with the IRA...

The idea that you can tolerate that sort of activity for decades implies that your average citizen is utterly expendable in place of killing a terrorist.

Your ignorance of the entire reasoning for the existence of the IRB/Volunteers/IRA is astounding.

You're just making yourself look silly. Stop.

They started out as terrorists ;)
Last time I checked the American revolutionaries never attacked civilians.

As Lenin said: "The purpose of a terrorist is to terrorize."

That was not the goal of the American revolutionaries.

If you are not scared of these people then why did other papers refuse to take issue with the muslims for their attept to suppress free speech?

I may be wrong because its been a while, but I remember Italy having dealt pretty effectively with terrorists.
I dont think there was much talking,either.

I believe the reason the initial British methods failed were because they failed to follow through.

With any popular movement, you have to do more than convince its leaders that the fight is over (by shooting them, for example).

You have to smash all hope of success in the general population of those in rebellion.

Yeah they did that.

In 1916.

Did it again in 1920.

Didn't work out great for them. They lost.

I believe the reason the initial British methods failed were because they failed to follow through.

With any popular movement, you have to do more than convince its leaders that the fight is over (by shooting them, for example).

You have to smash all hope of success in the general population of those in rebellion.

Oh, yes. That always worked wonders, smashing the hopes of the population. :rolleyes:

Doesn't give rise to defiance, hatred, and more violence, ever. [/sarcasm]

I may be wrong because its been a while, but I remember Italy having dealt pretty effectively with terrorists.
I dont think there was much talking,either.

Italy had a terror group? I never heard of that... can I ask you for the details?

Yeah they did that.

In 1916.

Did it again in 1920.

Didn't work out great for them. They lost.

Not brutal enough in 1916, and then the British left en masse for WW I.

Gave everyone a breather. Came back and tried to settle the hash again.

Why did Germany and Japan come out so different after WW II? Because their nations were ravaged beyond belief and the populace convinced that they were defeated.

That's what it takes to "win" a war.

Yeah they did that.

In 1916.

Did it again in 1920.

Didn't work out great for them. They lost.
Britain was off fighting a major European war, for a start. More importantly, Ireland gained independence because of several British reformers, not because of violence.

I believe the reason the initial British methods failed were because they failed to follow through.

With any popular movement, you have to do more than convince its leaders that the fight is over (by shooting them, for example).

You have to smash all hope of success in the general population of those in rebellion.

I keep asking right wingers this and haven't had an answer yet.

Can you give me an example where force has completely destroyed a terrorist force?

I keep asking right wingers this and haven't had an answer yet.

Can you give me an example where force has completely destroyed a terrorist force?

WW II. Postwar Germany.

There was a German resistance to Allied occupation for roughly four years after WW II. It didn't receive much popular support because Germany was so badly smashed that people were convinced that resistance was futile.

Additionally, the French shelling villages into rubble in reprisal for even the smallest attack seemed to smash popular support for resistance even more.

Last time I checked the American revolutionaries never attacked civilians.

As Lenin said: "The purpose of a terrorist is to terrorize."

That was not the goal of the American revolutionaries.

If you are not scared of these people then why did other papers refuse to take issue with the muslims for their attept to suppress free speech?

No, but they stored arms in churches and other civilian areas, actions which you are now saying make hezbollah beneath contempt.

Not brutal enough in 1916, and then the British left en masse for WW I.

Gave everyone a breather. Came back and tried to settle the hash again.

Why did Germany and Japan come out so different after WW II? Because their nations were ravaged beyond belief and the populace convinced that they were defeated.

That's what it takes to "win" a war.

Oh well thank you for implying Ireland deserved to be utterly brutalised to fit your theory. What a human being you are. If you are forgetting what actually happened in 1916 you'll realise they executed most of the leaders until they realised: "Oh shit, this is pissing off the population. This might make things worse". Guess what? It did.

Had nothing to do with not being brutal. I suggest you do a bit of reading on the "Black and Tans" for one short example.

More importantly, Ireland gained independence because of several British reformers, not because of violence.
Actually, I'd say it was neither. They made the country ungovernable.

Not brutal enough in 1916, and then the British left en masse for WW I.

Gave everyone a breather. Came back and tried to settle the hash again.

Why did Germany and Japan come out so different after WW II? Because their nations were ravaged beyond belief and the populace convinced that they were defeated.

That's what it takes to "win" a war.

So, in essence you're saying you're not really after the terrorists, you're going to utterly destroy random countries in the hope that the terror groups will eventually give up?

Britain was off fighting a major European war, for a start. More importantly, Ireland gained independence because of several British reformers, not because of violence.

Correct.
But the British didn't manage to convince them to stop the violence until they themselves severly reduced the amount of violence they employed.

Italy had a terror group? I never heard of that... can I ask you for the details?



I want to say it was the "Red Brigade" and want to believe they were pretty well decimated.

I could be completely wrong. It was a long time ago.

So, in essence you're saying you're not really after the terrorists, you're going to utterly destroy random countries in the hope that the terror groups will eventually give up?

Not "random" countries.

The reason we have an insurgency in Iraq today is because we were unwilling to do what the Mongols did in 1254.

They succeeded in destroying that Empire, with zero insurgency. Because they convinced those who survived that they were truly beaten.

Not "random" countries.

The reason we have an insurgency in Iraq today is because we were unwilling to do what the Mongols did in 1254.

They succeeded in destroying that Empire, with zero insurgency. Because they convinced those who survived that they were truly beaten.

Because barbarism and genocide is something we should strive towards and are "good things," and not something we like to think we know better than.

Apparently, there are still some who don't know better.

The reason we have an insurgency in Iraq today is because we were unwilling to do what the Mongols did in 1254.


Ye, but we have evolved since then.

Well some of us it appears...

Ye, but we have evolved since then. Well some of us it appears...

Yeah, using the Mongols (!!!) as someone to emulate. Makes me almost feel pity. Almost.

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.

Dude, did you say Spain is not Europe?

You beat it! At last, somebody else than Bush "knows" that Spain is in South America. My congrats. :rolleyes:

If I were like you I would call you Korea.

I want to say it was the "Red Brigade" and want to believe they were pretty well decimated.

I could be completely wrong. It was a long time ago.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigade) Red Brigade?

Most of them captured, trialed and imprissoned, it would seem. And some living in exile in France...

No, but they stored arms in churches and other civilian areas, actions which you are now saying make hezbollah beneath contempt.
I never said that. You shouldn't put words in my mouth. What makes Hezbollah beneith contempt is that they:
1.) Hate free speech
2.) Hate property rights
3.) Hate anyone who disagrees with their view of religion and morallity (if you can call the teachings of the Qu'ran "morallity)

Dude, did you say Spain is not Europe?

You beat it! At last, somebody else than Bush "knows" that Spain is in South America. My congrats. :rolleyes:

If I were like you I would call you Korea.

Maybe you need to learn how to read. I never said Spain is not Europe.

If you read the thread closely, you'll find out that I'm saying that Spain is PART OF EUROPE.

Because barbarism and genocide is something we should strive towards and are "good things," and not something we like to think we know better than.

Apparently, there are still some who don't know better.

Worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Extremely effective.

You're saying that wasn't truly effective?

I want to say it was the "Red Brigade" and want to believe they were pretty well decimated.

I could be completely wrong. It was a long time ago.

Forza Rossa, I do believe. I could be mistaken, but that's pretty much it

I never said that. You shouldn't put words in my mouth. What makes Hezbollah beneith contempt is that they:
1.) Hate free speech
2.) Hate property rights
3.) Hate anyone who disagrees with their view of religion and morallity (if you can call the teachings of the Qu'ran "morallity)

Do you agree that the IDF has the right to kill civilians because Hezbollah is using civilian facilities as bases of operation?

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Brigade) Red Brigade?

Most of them captured, trialed and imprissoned, it would seem. And some living in exile in France...


Yes- I think that is the one and only. They were dealt with fairly effectively.

Maybe they lost their cause, too? I dont know.

I cannot think of any religious or political group that has been completely destroyed as a result of persecution and repression.

I can think of a number of groups that have grown under the same conditions, for example Christianity in the Roman Empire.

Worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Extremely effective.

You're saying that wasn't truly effective?

Well Nazi Germany tried genocide. Seem to recall it didn't go too well for them.

Worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Extremely effective.

You're saying that wasn't truly effective?

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were nations, not terrorists organizations hidden behind a population. Or are you just saying the west should smash the arab countries?

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were nations, not terrorists organizations hidden behind a population. Or are you just saying the west should smash the arab countries?

Certain specific Arab countries.

I'll give you an example.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians receive their support primarily from Syria and Iran.

The Palestinians used to receive quite a bit of money and weaponry from Iraq - in fact, Saddam was the one paying the families of men who volunteered as suicide bombers.

If Syria and Iran were "beaten", there would be no Hezbollah and the Palestinians, if the Israelis truly went in and "beat" them, would give up.

Then we could talk about lasting peace.

Certain specific Arab countries.

I'll give you an example.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians receive their support primarily from Syria and Iran.

The Palestinians used to receive quite a bit of money and weaponry from Iraq - in fact, Saddam was the one paying the families of men who volunteered as suicide bombers.

If Syria and Iran were "beaten", there would be no Hezbollah and the Palestinians, if the Israelis truly went in and "beat" them, would give up.

Then we could talk about lasting peace.

But that kind of action wouldn't put Israel in the same moral grounds as the evil organizations they are fighting?

Yes- I think that is the one and only. They were dealt with fairly effectively.

Maybe they lost their cause, too? I dont know.

Well, they were prosecuted as criminals, trialed and locked up. Their last attack was in 1999, though, so it might be a bit early to declare total victory.

But that kind of action wouldn't put Israel in the same moral grounds as the evil organizations they are fighting?
Nope.

Did the US actions against Japan during WW II put the US on the same moral ground as the Japanese? Nope.

Certain specific Arab countries.

I'll give you an example.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians receive their support primarily from Syria and Iran.

The Palestinians used to receive quite a bit of money and weaponry from Iraq - in fact, Saddam was the one paying the families of men who volunteered as suicide bombers.

If Syria and Iran were "beaten", there would be no Hezbollah and the Palestinians, if the Israelis truly went in and "beat" them, would give up.

Then we could talk about lasting peace.

Great. So Israel would be the new Nazi's then? Genocide and all.

Nope.

Did the US actions against Japan during WW II put the US on the same moral ground as the Japanese? Nope.

Depend on who you ask, the Japanese weren't exactly know for their civilised treatment of POWs but then again, they didn't drop nukes on civilian populations.

Worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Extremely effective.

You're saying that wasn't truly effective?

You're saying you want to turn yourself into a Nazi?

Nope.

Did the US actions against Japan during WW II put the US on the same moral ground as the Japanese? Nope.

Theoretically speaking, international morals has changed since 1945.

And in a certain way, yes, it did. Although back then people wasn't worried that much about moral grounds.

Great. So Israel would be the new Nazi's then? Genocide and all.
No, the US should be the new Mongols.

Depend on who you ask, the Japanese weren't exactly know for their civilised treatment of POWs but then again, they didn't drop nukes on civilian populations.

No, but they sure would have if they had gotten the bomb before we did.

No, but they sure would have if they had gotten the bomb before we did.

But they didn't. Reality trumps fantasy when debating, you see how that works? ;)

No, the US should be the new Mongols.

And you really suppose we have to like you after you raze our homes, kill our men, enslave our children and rape us women?

But they didn't. Reality trumps fantasy when debating, you see how that works? ;)
I guess that explains why the Japanese received uranium from the Germans via submarine transport, and were anxious to develop their own atomic bomb.

I suppose you believe that the same nation that did Nanking would be making atomic bombs for their fireworks celebrations.

It's a global problem, and, as of yet, we have no solution. Omitting the effective but unteneble option of genocide of course....:D

And you really suppose we have to like you after you raze our homes, kill our men, enslave our children and rape us women?

No, but if we're severe enough, you'll believe you are truly beaten.

Especially if your cities are smoking ruins, most of the men dead, and the remaining people bereft of the last vestiges of civilization.

Certain specific Arab countries.

I'll give you an example.

Hezbollah and the Palestinians receive their support primarily from Syria and Iran.

The Palestinians used to receive quite a bit of money and weaponry from Iraq - in fact, Saddam was the one paying the families of men who volunteered as suicide bombers.

If Syria and Iran were "beaten", there would be no Hezbollah and the Palestinians, if the Israelis truly went in and "beat" them, would give up.

Then we could talk about lasting peace.

The difference is, when the USA was fighting Germany and Japan, it was fighting the governments and the populations of those countries. They didn't go anywhere. When the German infrastructure was destroyed, that was basically the end for Germany.

Now, you are trying to fight a terrorist group, not the population. If you utterly defeat the population of one country, the group will simply moe operations to another country.
And your country neither has the means to nor and interest in utterly and totally destroying the entire Middle East and large parts of Asia, just to bring a handfull of terrorist activists to justice.

It's not a viable strategy.

And you really suppose we have to like you after you raze our homes, kill our men, enslave our children and rape us women?
Silly.

It won't matter. We'll all be dead in that scenario.

I guess that explains why the Japanese received uranium from the Germans via submarine transport, and were anxious to develop their own atomic bomb.

I suppose you believe that the same nation that did Nanking would be making atomic bombs for their fireworks celebrations.

Did Japan have nukes? No

Did Japan use nukes? No

Therefore fantasy.

Did Japan have nukes? No

Did Japan use nukes? No

Therefore fantasy.

Did they have nuclear material? Yes.
Were they trying to build a bomb? Yes.
Therefore, not fantasy.

If they had succeeded in building one in time, they would have used it. They had a nuclear weapons program.

Did they have nuclear material? Yes.
Were they trying to build a bomb? Yes.
Link/Source?

(Not a blog preferably)

No, but if we're severe enough, you'll believe you are truly beaten.

Especially if your cities are smoking ruins, most of the men dead, and the remaining people bereft of the last vestiges of civilization.

Another difference here... Germans at least realised that they had been at fault for that war. They were presented with the artrocities committed in their name. That is the most important reason why they accepted defeat.
Shame about their own actions was the key factor in making sure that no Nazi terrorist movement could succeed in post war Germany.
It didn't work quite as well in Japan, for all I know, where people still glorify WW II and the Japanese troups that fought it.

You'll have a very hard time proving to the population of the Middle East that they are not in fact victims who need to take revenge on you, but that they were punished for their crimes.
Especially if you attack countries without links to terrorists....

Did they have nuclear material? Yes.
Were they trying to build a bomb? Yes.
Therefore, not fantasy.

If they had succeeded in building one in time, they would have used it. They had a nuclear weapons program.

Conjecture. Japan may or may not have decided to use the bomb, the US did. Alternate timelines are fun and everything but don't mean jack when you try to use them to prove a point, only what happened matters.

Well, they were prosecuted as criminals, trialed and locked up. Their last attack was in 1999, though, so it might be a bit early to declare total victory.


I'm not arguing with you, Cabra.

The ones that werent killed were prosecuted. Many were killed. Maybe not enough.

If they havent acted in 6 or 7 years and intelligence is still paying attention-and there is no activity in their name-then yes, thats victory.

I believe the reason the initial British methods failed were because they failed to follow through.

With any popular movement, you have to do more than convince its leaders that the fight is over (by shooting them, for example).

You have to smash all hope of success in the general population of those in rebellion.

Ah, which is what Israel tried to do. What we're seeing today, and every day since forever, is the result of Israel trying to "smash all hope of success" out of the palistinians...And then they act surprised at the logical result: Those with no hope have nothing to lose. Why do you think there are suicide attacks? Why do you think people chuck rocks at tanks? Why do they tell their children that martyrdom is desirable?
Those are the actions of people with nothing to lose.

Did Japan have nukes? No

Did Japan use nukes? No

Therefore fantasy.

The "fanasty" is implying that the Japanese were more civilized than us because they didn't use nukes.

The "fanasty" is implying that the Japanese were more civilized than us because they didn't use nukes.

No, the fantasy is implying that it didn't happen and unless you are Mystic Meg with psychic powers the like of which man has never seen, you have no way of knowing for sure what would have happened.

Link/Source?

(Not a blog preferably)

There was an entire one-hour special on the History Channel devoted to this.

Conjecture. Japan may or may not have decided to use the bomb, the US did. Alternate timelines are fun and everything but don't mean jack when you try to use them to prove a point, only what happened matters.

During WW2, warfare meant using whatever the h*ll you had. The Japanese used everything they had against us, including suicide bombers. If they had gotten nukes they would have used them. So would the Germans. For that matter, so would the Russians or the British. That was the nature of war back then.

I'm not arguing with you, Cabra.

The ones that werent killed were prosecuted. Many were killed. Maybe not enough.

If they havent acted in 6 or 7 years and intelligence is still paying attention-and there is no activity in their name-then yes, thats victory.

1 was killed, for all I could find out. The rest are in jail or living abroad.
Just stating the facts :)

And I do remember the RAF lying low for years until there were further attacks in Germany. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Fraction

The last couple of attack actually happened after the group had officially dissolved

I'm safe. I'm above Spain. :)

But in all seriousness, I do agree that to try and make out as if Islamic terrorism 'isn't our problem' is foolish.
The Franks saved your butt!

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.


But why Spain ? They played nice and ran away like good boys when Al Queda blew them up and told them to .

Didnt that win them at least a cookie ?

But why Spain ? They played nice and ran away like good boys when Al Queda blew them up and told them to .

Didnt that win them at least a cookie ?

Because half of Spain once belonged to the Islam.

I'm a spanish, and as far as I care, we could give the arabs Al-Andalus back, to see what they can do with those wretched useless flamenco dancers. :p

My bet is that they return it to spanish rule after two months.

Because half of Spain once belonged to the Islam.

I'm a spanish, and as far as I care, we could give the arabs Al-Andalus back, to see what they can do with those wretched useless flamenco dancers. :p

My bet is that they return it to spanish rule after two months.


Most people do not relise that when they translate from Arabic to English , the hyperboli is lost .

Most Arabic leaders tend to speak like they are trading at the bazzaar...this attempt by a terrorist leader to link his organization with the golden years of Islamic rule should be seen for what it is .

A new add campaign .

he barely rules the cave he lives in .

Because half of Spain once belonged to the Islam.

I'm a spanish, and as far as I care, we could give the arabs Al-Andalus back, to see what they can do with those wretched useless flamenco dancers. :p

My bet is that they return it to spanish rule after two months.

piss of i live in andalucia.

anyway Al Andalus refered to all parts of spain controlled by the muslims. Which means if they wanted spain
they want all of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif)

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.


Why 'dialogue' with Islam International is suspect in the first place.

Really? And how many times have I heard on this forum that if only the US was to get out of the Middle East, and if only Israel was given back to the Palestinians, all of this would stop?

Lots. My fear is is that they WILL get strong and take North Africa and Spain... and then continue, taking back Turkey, going through the Balkans, taking Eastern Europe, continuing from Spain to take the West and Central, then going to the North and South, and then to Central asia, and then to the Far East and Russia...

And then they move over onto the US...

But this is worst-case scenario (of course, the part about Canada is more likely than its predecessors... I'm not sure they could take it).

Please not that I mean no prejudice to anyone with this post. This is just my fear...

piss of i live in andalucia.

anyway Al Andalus refered to all parts of spain controlled by the muslims. Which means if they wanted spain
they want all of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif)

But they would settle with all of this...

http://manduca.entomology.wisc.edu/images/TEACHER/pagesizeglobemap.jpg

But they would settle with all of this...

http://manduca.entomology.wisc.edu/images/TEACHER/pagesizeglobemap.jpg
Not TASMANIA! :eek:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lots. My fear is is that they WILL get strong and take North Africa and Spain... and then continue, taking back Turkey, going through the Balkans, taking Eastern Europe, continuing from Spain to take the West and Central, then going to the North and South, and then to Central asia, and then to the Far East and Russia...

And then they move over onto the US...

But this is worst-case scenario (of course, the part about Canada is more likely than its predecessors... I'm not sure they could take it).

Please not that I mean no prejudice to anyone with this post. This is just my fear...

But but but, they already took north africa and turkey! And half of the balkans too! oh my! WESA DOOMEDDDDD!

So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.
This is supposed to surprise me? Don't you remember the 11/3/2004 bombings in Spain? Or the 7/7/05 bombings in London?

Islamists don't discriminate; to them we're all infidels.

Nonetheless this is not justification for every war the US dreams up.

Meh. There are religious organizations in my country which are dedicated (explicitly) to bringing about the end of the world. Our president meets personally with a man who publicly fantasizes about the complete destruction of the Earth.
Which they will never even try to achieve. They're not even armed.

Unless they really ramp up their crazy, al-Qaida is never going to be able to compete.
Al-Qaeda is already far above them in the crazy stakes. They are actually armed, dangerous and at war.

Now unless you're saying that thoughts about destruction are as bad as actually destroying things and killing people, you'll have to abandon this thing of comparing al-Qaeda to right-wing Christian groups.

And why do you place so much impoortance on the delusional ramblings of one deranged man. AL-Zawahri does not speak for all muslims.
DK isn't beating up on all Muslims. Only the followers of al-Qaeda.

A classic example is Spain's removal of troops from Iraq, on demand after the train bombings.
The majority of Spaniards never wanted their troops there in the first place. Nothing to do with al-Qaeda demands.

I believe that it cost his position ONLY after the bombings and demands by al-Qaida.
That's because the elections were held after the bombings. :rolleyes:

That, in particular, is not a strawman. Neither are the Spanish governments glowing statements in support of Hezbollah.
Source?

See? Yet another one who believes that if only the US stopped interfering, this would all go away.
Rather, interfering in the wrong places. The US got rid of a government that was efficiently quelling the potential of Islamism in Iraq. That was fucking stupid.

No- I believe going right to the sources and killing them as they spawn is more effective than allowing them to come and set up shop in your country. The constant offensive against them on their home soil is more effective.

Never negotiate or capitulate with them, and never stop seeking them, their associates and assets-Kill them, sieze and break thier shit and arrest and interrogate everyone they associate with. No matter where they are.

They are more than criminals.
Where has this policy of revenge ever worked before?

And if you're [Americans] talking about putting dow fanatics, you might want to start right at your front door with Fred Phelps among others...
Worry not, Cabra. The criminalisation of Fred Phelps is well underway.

The idea that you can tolerate that sort of activity for decades implies that your average citizen is utterly expendable in place of killing a terrorist.
The Northern Ireland conflict took some 30 years to resolve. In that time about 3,500 people were killed, by the IRA and loyalist groups like the UVF.

Since 2001 the US war on terror has incinerated at least 40,000 people and the terrorist problem is no closer to a solution.

And yet it's us that believe that the average citizen is utterly expendable...

Last time I checked the American revolutionaries never attacked civilians.
History is written by the victors. The American revolutionaries probably did attack civilians who opposed them. Every revolutionary movement does; Americans are no exception.

Why did Germany and Japan come out so different after WW II? Because their nations were ravaged beyond belief and the populace convinced that they were defeated.
That's true, but you can't compare a war against superpowers to a war against terrorists. The Irish struggle for independence is a more apt comparison.

The reason we have an insurgency in Iraq today is because we were unwilling to do what the Mongols did in 1254.
Killing the majority of the civilian population is mass murder. We can't do it.

When did it go from "kill every terrorist" to "kill every civilian"?

Worked with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Extremely effective.

You can't use those as a comparison.

I never said that. You shouldn't put words in my mouth. What makes Hezbollah beneith contempt is that they:
1.) Hate free speech
2.) Hate property rights
3.) Hate anyone who disagrees with their view of religion and morallity (if you can call the teachings of the Qu'ran "morallity)
wtf are you smoking? What makes Hezbollah beneath contempt is that they:

1. Want to drive Israel into the sea.
2. Don't give a shit about the lives of Lebanese people and actively try to kill Israeli civilians.
3. Are warmongers.

Then we could talk about lasting peace.
Your idea of lasting peace is the same as that of the jihadists. Where all opponents are either killed or beaten into subservience.

Did the US actions against Japan during WW II put the US on the same moral ground as the Japanese? Nope.
That's because the US atrocities paled in comparison to Japan's atrocities. They didn't equal them.

Depend on who you ask, the Japanese weren't exactly know for their civilised treatment of POWs but then again, they didn't drop nukes on civilian populations.
The Japanese rape of Nanjing killed twice the amount of civilians as the US nuclear bombs did.

Additionally, the Japanese committed unprecedented human rights abuse in China and elsewhere. A preferred treatment of civilian families was to force them to rape each other and then bury each other.

No, the US should be the new Mongols.
Horses and crossbows for all!

Seriously, you think the US should abandon all pretence of "self-defence" and conquer a huge empire? Insane.

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.

I made a thread with the same message yesterday and I only got to page 3 how do you do it?

I made a thread with the same message yesterday and I only got to page 3 how do you do it?
Primarily because of these types of comments:

The reason we have an insurgency in Iraq today is because we were unwilling to do what the Mongols did in 1254

and
No, the US should be the new Mongols.

Sure to win you at least, oh, half a dozen pages.

No, but if we're severe enough, you'll believe you are truly beaten.

Especially if your cities are smoking ruins, most of the men dead, and the remaining people bereft of the last vestiges of civilization.
What then? "Game over" isn't going to flash on your computer screen.

The ones that werent killed were prosecuted. Many were killed. Maybe not enough.
If peace won, how can you say not enough were killed.

But the most important thing is that to quell the Red Brigade, not a single town had to be razed, and not a single massacre had to be committed.

Because half of Spain once belonged to the Islam.

I'm a spanish, and as far as I care, we could give the arabs Al-Andalus back, to see what they can do with those wretched useless flamenco dancers. :p

My bet is that they return it to spanish rule after two months.
No! Never give Andalucia back to the Caliphate! I haven't visited it yet.

The latest from al-Qaida calls for a jihad until they rule from Spain to Iraq.



So, even if Israel is destroyed and given to the Palestinians - even if the US gets out of the Middle East - even if the Europeans talk and talk and talk with them - they're going to fight and kill and plot until they have what they want - everything from Spain to Iraq.

In other news, the Pope may also be a Catholic...

Wow!
This thread has certainly been enlightening.

I really like those advocating the total annihilation of any civilisation that doesn't agree with the goals of their home nation.
:rolleyes:
That's a really, really good plan and will work really well over both the short and long term. It is also totally in line with the ideals of the West and, in fact, everything it claims to stand for, including actually having people to rip off so that flabby Western economies don't utterly collapse.
:rolleyes:
On another note, a lot of people, when they hear "Appeasement", think 'ah, Chamberlin'.
Now, aside from the fact that the War was the single most devestating action in human history (which you might say could make Chamberlin correct for trying to avoid it) when I hear 'appeasment' I think about JFK in 1962. If only he hadn't been such a dirty 'appeaser' he would have followed the advice of the really, really, clever right-wingers in the government and launched a full strike at Russia. Dirty appeasers.
:rolleyes:
IDIOTS! *sigh*

Geez...

Yeah, using the Mongols (!!!) as someone to emulate. Makes me almost feel pity. Almost.


In this particular conflict against this enemy , only strength will be respected.
unrelenting and overwhelming force . Any less is seen as OUR weakness and is used to rally the insurgents .

You must impose your will on the enemy . That is the essence of war .

Pussyfooting around will bring more civilian deaths over a longer time .
You must be relentless and unforgiving and use all, the force at your command or your percieved as week and open to attack. You may be hated but you will be FEARED and RESPECTED .

For cripes sake..will we ever learn ? Their is NO SUCH THING as a " civilised " war . The only rule in war is to WIN .

They attack you with a knife you pu;ll out a gun ..they fire a bullet you fire a tank main gun . Crush them without remorse and do not let up .

Thats what it takes to win against THIS enemy. This is the ONLY type of war they know and respect . They ARE hard ..we are soft and hamstrung and will be bled slowly because of it .

The second battle of falujha should be the example we use throughout the country..but for that we need more troops and better LEADERS in washington that understand WAR not pussyfoot politics .

Its time to put some heads on stakes .

piss of i live in andalucia.

anyway Al Andalus refered to all parts of spain controlled by the muslims. Which means if they wanted spain
they want all of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Age_of_Caliphs.gif)

Still the Basque Country free. :D I cannot see the problem :p

<snip>


Yep, stooping to the level of those you are trying to fight is sure to win you this war... :rolleyes:

snipped because it was a post with a war boner.

More ranting thoughtless nonsense. Hopefully the new x-box will allow you to vent those urges more constructively.