NationStates Jolt Archive

This does not change the facts that I have never seen anyone disagree with MILITANT Islam being a threat only with your bigotry when you call all Islam a threat.

17 people disagree with militant Islam being a threat...

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

Really? One would think that 'threat' means that tehy have intent to destroy the West and a possibility of suceeding.

17 people disagree with militant Islam being a threat...

I believe most have said it is due to your extremely narrow and ill-defined definition of 'threat' that caused them to vote 'No'.

I believe most have said it is due to your extremely narrow and ill-defined definition of 'threat' that caused them to vote 'No'.
Like I said, DK--nobody was fooled. Your "poll" has the same legitimacy your arguments do--none.

I believe most have said it is due to your extremely narrow and ill-defined definition of 'threat' that caused them to vote 'No'.

Also I recall another poll where someone sliped and accidently voted no instead of yes so you have to assume a margine of error either way.

Also I recall another poll where someone sliped and accidently voted no instead of yes so you have to assume a margine of error either way.

Actually, I believe that was this one.

Actually, I believe that was this one.

No, it was about legalising pot.

Militant anything is a threat.

I don't think that's true in the context of this thread. Militant Islam (or whatever you call it - muslim extremists, islamofascist terrorists, etc etc), represents more than a direct 'threat' to the West, in the sense of killing people and destroying buildings.

Firstly, it frustrates Western attempts to project influence (social, political, military) abroad, notably in the Near and Middle East. Now, in of itself, that's not neccessarily a bad thing - you could be quite firmly against the West projecting itself abroad. The point is that western influence is often frustated by this.

Secondly, its ideology - not neccessarily invariably its means, but certainly its beliefs - are penetrating western societies, most particularly in muslim communities. At its most extreme, this has lead to homegrown terrorists, particularly in the UK, people born and brought up in Western countries committing acts of terrorism on behalf of 'militant islam' ideals. But at a more widespread level, you see muslims from western nations voicing support for the goals of militant islam. They decry the means, happily, but the point remains, the goals are lauded.

These factors - the obvious ones, I'm sure an analyst could tell you more using more involved reasoning - do make militant islam stand out as a threat to the West. You're perfectly entitled to _like_ the challange it brings to western global hegemony and western schools of thought, that's not the issue! But it's still a threat.

These factors - the obvious ones, I'm sure an analyst could tell you more using more involved reasoning - do make militant islam stand out as a threat to the West. You're perfectly entitled to _like_ the challange it brings to western global hegemony and western schools of thought, that's not the issue! But it's still a threat.

Y'know, I DID say that militant anything is a threat, I did not quantify what level each threat is. I do however think the threat of militiant Islam is highly exagerated in the American press.

Y'know, I DID say that militant anything is a threat, I did not quantify what level each threat is. I do however think the threat of militiant Islam is highly exagerated in the American press.
Yeah, it's become the journalistic equivalent of jumping out from behind a door and yelling "Boo!"

Im afraid of the threat of militant knitting.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.
Is militant Islam a threat to the West? The answer is obvious. Of course it is, but one needs to understand why such a threat exists today and why it is growing.

One could suggest quite easily that US foreign policy regarding the Middle East is also a threat to the West.

Identifying the problem and coming up with viable solutions is the best way to deal with this situation. Indiscriminately bombing and invading countries such as Iraq is not one of those viable solutions. It is easy to note that worldwide terrorism has increased since the US erred in invading Iraq.

The war of terror is increasing Muslim militancy, and it is easy to understand why. People such as yourself have suggested genocide as a solution or sterilization as a solution. People such as yourself are part of the problem.

So, this poll of yours is a sham, and as such, I will not validate it by voting. You want to identify a problem, and I imagine that you will use the results in a nefarious manner in future debates. You are not seeking viable solutions. We already know how you want to deal with this "problem".

...why bother polling? You've already got all the answers you want, DK.

Not in this thread.
You don't get to pick your own context by pretending that your past doesn't exist. We know where you stand, and it is on that basis that we reject your arguments.

...why bother polling? You've already got all the answers you want, DK.
Because people deny what they post later.

I think what you're upset about is the current vote count.

And yes, what is asked in this thread is a very specific, very narrow question.

You seem to think it's some sort of semantic trap, which it is not.
You continue to try to mislead the readers of the forum. I have already laid out the history of how this thread came to exist. I'll do it again for the latecomers.

In the thread about some Christian church firing a teacher for being female, you asserted that a large number of NSers think there is no threat from militant Islam at all.

I challenged you on that assertion.

You created this thread to prove your point.

Your point has been disproven by the current vote count. You were wrong. Done and done.

In addition to this little side argument, you also asserted in that other thread and again in this one, that Islam itself is the source of whatever it is that causes terrorism, i.e., that all of Islam is the problem.

The proof is in the threads. I invite readers to look for themselves. You cannot honestly claim you never said it. Likewise, you cannot honestly claim that you have not repeatedly over the last year at least condemned all Muslims as enemies and have advocated their complete extermination through genocide. Your pathetic attempts to claim that you are drawing a distinction between militants and all Muslims are wasted because no one who has been paying attention believes you.

I wouldnt put it past the Phelps crowd to use a nuke in Hollywood or San Francisco. Or for Pat Robertsons followers to happily try to set off a nuke in Venezuela.

That's pure paranoia.

That's pure conjecture.No more conjecture than it is to say that fewer than 3,000 people in the U.S. were killed by militant Christians because of Christianity.
Except that I started with the 5 year frame of reference. You're the one that wanted to expand it. The burden of proof is on you.

Would an abortion clinic bomber kill you, right now, as you sit at that computer, if he could?

No.

Would an islamic terrorist?

You better believe he would.
Possibly to the former, and not necessarily on the latter, depending on the circumstances. If the abortion clinic bomber knew that I was going to pay for my sister to have an abortion, for instance, then ze might. If the Islamic terrorist knew that there was nothing to gain by killing me, then ze might not.


I think your understanding might be disconnected from reality. Abortion Clinic bombers are out to damage buildings, not to kill people as a goal. When specific people are murdered, they're the practitioners. For you to suggest that by paying for an abortion you become a target is paranoid and without historical precedent. On the other hand, there IS a historical precedent to believe that an Islamic Militant would kill you outright. Don't you see? The ACT of killing you is his gain since he believes that by eliminating an infidel he earns rewards from his god.

Because people deny what they post later.
That supposition being the case - and, coupled with the knowledge that anything anyone says - however impulsively or cavalierly, in one of your threads, will be used against us at a later date, just what impetus is there for us to participate in your polls?

















None at all, from where I stand. Why should I help you to beat myself up?

Your point has been disproven by the current vote count. You were wrong. Done and done.


Can you count? Looks like the majority, by about three to one, believe militant Islam is a threat to the West.

Because people deny what they post later.
You would be the expert on that.

You would be the expert on that.
You can see my vote here.

Y'know, I DID say that militant anything is a threat, I did not quantify what level each threat is. I do however think the threat of militiant Islam is highly exagerated in the American press.

I know you said militant anying was a threat, that was what I took issue with - there's a qualitative difference between the threat militant islam poses and most other militant movements, was my point. Downplaying the threat of militant islam based on the assertion (axiom?) that 'militant _anything_' is a threat is pretty shortsighted, surely?

I don't know what the situation is, or what the coverage is like, in America, but in my part of 'the West', the UK, you do see the factors I mentioned above coming into play. Perhaps it's a straw in the wind for America, a suggestion on 'what to avoid'.

Some do, yes. And some anti-abortionists use children as human shields, recruit children to their militant cause, and put children directly in harm's way for the sake of their agenda. So?

That's utter B.S. You can't make up stories and use them in a debate as an argument. I acknowledge that brainwashing goes on, but where are you getting human shields?

Don't answer that. I know the answer. Imagination.


You also have to keep in mind that many religious people believe that the physical body is less important than the soul. For them, "saving children" may be as much about saving the souls of children as it is about saving physical living beings. Granted, this sounds like lunatic bullshit to me, but from their perspective they could very well be "saving" a child even if they kill its physical body.

I'm not saying I agree with these people, remember, I'm just saying that from each group's perspective they are "saving" their children.


That is a valid point, but keep in mind that we're talking from a western perspective, and thus we view the act of killing a child deliberately for ANY reason to be anathema.


Yes, yes. I've heard horrid stories from all over the world. Assholes the world 'round will use children for terrible purposes. Muslims didn't invent this kind of crap, and they're certainly not the only ones doing it today.

Is it disgusting? You fucking bet. But, sadly, it's not remotely unique to radical Islam.

Who else is doing it today?


I understand that you were refering to children. However, you also said that radical anti-abortionists believe they are saving children. Human embryos and fetuses are not infants, toddlers, or young children, any more than human adults are. If embryos and fetuses can be dubbed "children," why not adult human beings who (in reality) actually are somebody's children?
Look at it from the point of view of a pro-life militant, who DOES see an embryo or a fetus as a human child.


The Christians we are talking about are not protecting children. Their actions do not save any lives at all, and actually cost the lives of many human beings. They may BELIEVE they are saving children, but they are incorrect in their belief. Even if you accept their assumption that an embryo or fetus is a human child, their actions actually increase the number of abortions that occur and thereby increase the number of "children" who are killed.
I agree that they're not saving anybody, since any foiled abortion seekers will simply go elsewhere, but how do yuo gigure they're increasing the number of abortions?


Everybody is somebody's child. I don't see why it should be acceptable to blow up an 18 year old because you believe it will save a 3 year old, if the opposite is not true. The value of a human life does not decrease the moment the human hits the age of majority.
No it doesn't, but we as human beings do guard our children more carefully than we do our older fellows, and we do grieve more for the loss of a child. That's human nature.

<snip>
I think your understanding might be disconnected from reality. Abortion Clinic bombers are out to damage buildings, not to kill people as a goal. When specific people are murdered, they're the practitioners. For you to suggest that by paying for an abortion you become a target is paranoid and without historical precedent. On the other hand, there IS a historical precedent to believe that an Islamic Militant would kill you outright. Don't you see? The ACT of killing you is his gain since he believes that by eliminating an infidel he earns rewards from his god.
You're being disingenuous. Militant Christians who shoot abortion doctors claim they have a right to do so because those doctors are performing abortions. Are you saying that claim has merit? Obviously, it has no merit, yet the murderers claim it as part of their religious justification.

Islamic terrorists kill random civilians because they think it will instill such fear that the survivors will kowtow to them and stop living in a way that offends their religious sensibilities. That claim has no more merit than the doctor-killers' claims, yet they claim it as part of their religious justification.

Both parties are using murder of some to try to intimidate others. That is text book terrorism. The only difference I see is one of scale. And I see nothing in your statements that would assure me that someone who thinks murdering doctors is the best way to get abortion stopped will not come to believe that killing 1000 doctors with a bomb will be more effective than killing one with a bullet.

You can see my vote here.
Actually, I can't due to a browser problem. But I don't need to. I would be knocked on my ass if you voted no, so I assumed you voted yes.

Hardly the point, though, is it?

I don't really care if you take it seriously or not. My point is that religious lunatics are all alike. Most radicals of all stripes, including religious ones, are not crazy enough to commit suicide, nor to think that they are immune to radiation. But lunatics are lunatics, and if they are religious -- well, let's just say that my personal experience with religious lunatics is such that I do think crazy religious people would nuke a city to accomplish whatever they think god wants them to. God telling you to stop [insert heinous sin here] is a pretty strong motivator, especially for a crazy person.
Your argument is getting disconnected here.

Lunatics are lunatics. Agreed, but you said you'd not be surprised to find a pro-life militant detonating a nuclear weapon to eliminate an abortion clinic. That's ridiculous. Agree with them or not, pro-life militants do believe they're preserving lives by foiling abortions. How could that possibly fit with the death of tens of thousands from a nuclear blast? Even religious zealots are internally consistent.


You just insist on missing the point. Okay, let's flip DK's remark and put it to you this way: Would you be okay with a Mafia gang or Central American drug cartel getting a nuclear weapon?

No? Neither would I.

Would you be happy to see a nuclear weapon in the hands of a Mafia don or a drug cartel leader, just so long as he's not a radical Muslim?

No? Neither would I. In fact, I would dislike the idea of either a criminal gang or a terrorist gang having a nuke equally.

I understand your point, and it is taken, but what I'm saying is that those groups have not ALREADY threatened to use such a weapon against us, as some militant Islamics have.

Hardly the point, though, is it?
It is the point.

I don't think that's true in the context of this thread. Militant Islam (or whatever you call it - muslim extremists, islamofascist terrorists, etc etc), represents more than a direct 'threat' to the West, in the sense of killing people and destroying buildings.

First of all, I think that's up for debate. I don't know if we actually have a tally of the exact American body count and property damage costs inflicted by radical Muslim terrorists as opposed to other kinds of terrorists. We also don't have a per-capita evaluation, either; for every hundred Muslims, how many pose a serious threat? How does this compare to the breakdown for other demographics?

But second of all, you're introducing yet another definition of "threat." Body counts and damage to buildings certainly reflect one type of threat, but there are many others.

For instance, what about rape? I'd say rape is pretty goddam serious, and a significant threat of rape is nothing to sneeze at. What threat do Muslims pose, in terms of rape, compared to other groups?

Or what about threats to personal freedoms or autonomy? Any slave can tell you that there are threats to one's life which do not involve the threat of physical death. Personally, I'd rather be blown up than live my life as someone else's property. I value the quality of my life, not merely the quantity of years I endure. Now, that's just me, but you can see where I'm going with this...you are choosing to use one very narrow definition of "threat," by choosing to limit it exclusively to loss of life and blowing up of buildings.

Can you count? Looks like the majority, by about three to one, believe militant Islam is a threat to the West.
Can you connect two dots?

DOT 1: You said the majority think militant Islam is NOT a threat.

DOT 2: Your own poll says the majority think militant Islam IS a threat.

1 + 2 = you were wrong.

You haven't explained why you seemed to be trying to challenge me about something with that "say it to a FDNY firefighter" remark.

At the time I thought you were making a different point. My bad.


Getting blown up is horrible. Getting murdered is horrible. I don't care about the motive of the one who does it to people. I would not prosecute them for their opinions. I would prosecute them for their actions, and considering those actions, I think that would be enough. 3000 died that day. Worrying about the excuses of the killers seems somehow meaningless to me. I'm with the judge who responded to Massaoui's rantings by telling him to sit in his cell for the rest of his life and shut up. (I think I've already forgotten how to spell that bastard's name. I'm glad of that. Who gives a shit what his name was?)

I'm not suggesting that the punishment should somehow be linked to motive. It's why I think the term "hate crime" is meaningless, since a murder is a murder. An assault is an assault.

Having said that... if you have a rash of such crimes committed by a specific group of people, then motive becomes important in an effort to circumvent future such crimes by anticipating the terrorists' thoughts.

You're being disingenuous. Militant Christians who shoot abortion doctors claim they have a right to do so because those doctors are performing abortions. Are you saying that claim has merit? Obviously, it has no merit, yet the murderers claim it as part of their religious justification.

Islamic terrorists kill random civilians because they think it will instill such fear that the survivors will kowtow to them and stop living in a way that offends their religious sensibilities. That claim has no more merit than the doctor-killers' claims, yet they claim it as part of their religious justification.

Both parties are using murder of some to try to intimidate others. That is text book terrorism. The only difference I see is one of scale. And I see nothing in your statements that would assure me that someone who thinks murdering doctors is the best way to get abortion stopped will not come to believe that killing 1000 doctors with a bomb will be more effective than killing one with a bullet.
What he said. :P

I think "terrorism" is often defined as only being the province of those people who one does not agree with. Anti-choice terrorists aren't called "terrorists" even when they use the same methods as Muslim terrorists, and for the same reasons. They wish to use violence to inflict terror. Bottom line. Yes, they believe they are justified. So do the Muslim terrorists.

Can you connect two dots?

DOT 1: You said the majority think militant Islam is NOT a threat.

DOT 2: Your own poll says the majority think militant Islam IS a threat.

1 + 2 = you were wrong.

Where did I say a majority think militant Islam is NOT a threat? Linky.

First of all, I think that's up for debate. I don't know if we actually have a tally of the exact American body count and property damage costs inflicted by radical Muslim terrorists as opposed to other kinds of terrorists. We also don't have a per-capita evaluation, either; for every hundred Muslims, how many pose a serious threat? How does this compare to the breakdown for other demographics?

But second of all, you're introducing yet another definition of "threat." Body counts and damage to buildings certainly reflect one type of threat, but there are many others.

For instance, what about rape? I'd say rape is pretty goddam serious, and a significant threat of rape is nothing to sneeze at. What threat do Muslims pose, in term of rape, compared to other groups?

Or what about threats to personal freedoms or autonomy? Any slave can tell you that there are threats to one's life which do not involve the threat of physical death. Personally, I'd rather be blown up than live my life as someone else's property. Now, that's just me, but you can see where I'm going with this...you are choosing to use one very narrow definition of "threat," by choosing to limit it exclusively to loss of life and blowing up of buildings.

I'm very sorry, I don't understand your post; can you clarify? :(

I'll do the same!

I was replying to the notion that the militant islamic threat was just 'one of many' ("militant anything is a threat"), saying that that was only partially true; that there was a qualitative difference between the threat posed to the West by militant islam compared to most other militant movements I could think of. I then started to detail them.

I was introducing (just in this little side-debate!) the idea that there are many types of 'threat', and that you can't just judge 'threat' in terms of body count and buildings damaged. I'm not trying to limit the idea of 'threat' in terms of direct damage in my little side-debate - I believe there's more than one type of threat posed by islamic militantcy, so was drawing it out.

Is that OK with you?

I'm very sorry, I don't understand your post; can you clarify? :(

I'll do the same!

I was replying to the notion that the militant islamic threat was just 'one of many' ("militant anything is a threat"), saying that that was only partially true; that there was a qualitative difference between the threat posed to the West by militant islam compared to most other militant movements I could think of. I then started to detail them.

I was introducing (just in this little side-debate!) the idea that there are many types of 'threat', and that you can't just judge 'threat' in terms of body count and buildings damaged. I'm not trying to limit the idea of 'threat' in terms of direct damage in my little side-debate - I believe there's more than one type of threat posed by islamic militantcy, so was drawing it out.

Is that OK with you?
Ahhhhhhh. Roger Wilco. We're on the same page. My bad!

You're being disingenuous. Militant Christians who shoot abortion doctors claim they have a right to do so because those doctors are performing abortions. Are you saying that claim has merit? Obviously, it has no merit, yet the murderers claim it as part of their religious justification.

Islamic terrorists kill random civilians because they think it will instill such fear that the survivors will kowtow to them and stop living in a way that offends their religious sensibilities. That claim has no more merit than the doctor-killers' claims, yet they claim it as part of their religious justification.

Both parties are using murder of some to try to intimidate others. That is text book terrorism. The only difference I see is one of scale. And I see nothing in your statements that would assure me that someone who thinks murdering doctors is the best way to get abortion stopped will not come to believe that killing 1000 doctors with a bomb will be more effective than killing one with a bullet.

Failing to agree with you is not being disingenuous. I'm beginning to find that I have to repeat myself, which suggest that my posts aren't being read as carefully as you would want me to read yours.

You are right in your characterization of terrorist goals. We agree there.

Where we disagree is in the mind of militant pro-lifers. Allow me to expand on that, since I believe I understand a little better, if I may.

A militant pro-lifer operates under the mistaken notion that on some level they are doing God's will and fighting as a soldier of some type (So far, much like a terrorist.) However, fear is not their objective. These people are past the point of political change. They don't believe that fear will accomplish their mission because they have already lost faith in the government and the laws to do the right thing. In a sense, they become vigilantes, operating under a set of laws that they believe supercede those of society.

When they use bombs to damage abortion clinics, they see it as a way to damage the "enemy's" ability to kill the innocent unborn. When they target a practitioner of abortions with a sniper rifle, they see it as a way to both punish a mass murderer as well as prevent him from killing any more.

Given that mentality, do you see where it would not be consistent for such a person to use a nuclear weapon to kill thousands of innocents in the process?

To me, this is onbvious. I find it bewildering that somehow people can elevate that to the same level as Osama Bin Laden.

Now, since I kn ow how things get distorted on here, I'm quite sure that unless i include some sort of disclaimer, somebody is going to insinuate that I support abortion clinic bombings or some such nonsense. So I state for the record that I do NOT support such actions, as they are hyppocritical at best. It is not for a militant pro-lifer or ANYONE to make summary decisions on who lives or who dies, and how they should be punished for their sins. Such judgements are reserved for God alone.

Ahhhhhhh. Roger Wilco. We're on the same page. My bad!

Phew! :p Cheers for tidying that up!

Your argument is getting disconnected here.

Lunatics are lunatics. Agreed, but you said you'd not be surprised to find a pro-life militant detonating a nuclear weapon to eliminate an abortion clinic. That's ridiculous. Agree with them or not, pro-life militants do believe they're preserving lives by foiling abortions. How could that possibly fit with the death of tens of thousands from a nuclear blast? Even religious zealots are internally consistent.
I did not say I would not be surprised to see it. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster who talked about not putting things past such people. What I was trying to say was that I see no difference between one religious nut and another, and I do not operate on the assumption that they would act differently just because of which religion they happen to be nutty about.

And I would say that you are falling into the mistake of assuming that, just because the Muslim lunatics are acting this way now, that means that no other lunatics want to act that way or will in the future. I have said in the past, and I'll say again, I see it thus: Muslim terrorists are in the forefront today because it's their turn to be the pain the world's ass. Others came before them and others will come after them. This is why I consider it a mistake to approach terrorism as an Islamic problem. It is not exclusive to them by any stretch, nor are the tactics and specific kinds of threats and actions. If Muslim terrorists try to get nukes now, you may be assured, Christian or nationalist or political or alien-obsessed terrorists will be trying to get them in coming years, when the Muslim issue has run its course and faded.

I understand your point, and it is taken, but what I'm saying is that those groups have not ALREADY threatened to use such a weapon against us, as some militant Islamics have.
And I say who is issuing the threat is irrelevant.

The danger is in having nuclear material floating about on the blackmarket or in the hands of rogue states like Iran. Cutting off sources of such materials to everyone is, in my opinion, far more important and far more likely to be effective than freaking out over Muslims per se. If we stop the current crop of Islamic terrorists from getting nukes but do nothing to stop nukes being available to terrorists in general, then what is to stop future terrorists from getting them, whether Muslim or not? Are we supposed to go through this crap every 5 years with a new cast of villains every time?

It is the point.
Wrong again. The point is that you are lying about your own stance on the issue.

And that you were wrong in your initial assertion re the opinions of NSers.

Wrong again. The point is that you are lying about your own stance on the issue.

And that you were wrong in your initial assertion re the opinions of NSers.

Here's the OP.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

Where, in that, am I saying a majority of NSers think it's not a threat?

Where?

Or do you need a class in remedial English?

When they use bombs to damage abortion clinics, they see it as a way to damage the "enemy's" ability to kill the innocent unborn. When they target a practitioner of abortions with a sniper rifle, they see it as a way to both punish a mass murderer as well as prevent him from killing any more.

Given that mentality, do you see where it would not be consistent for such a person to use a nuclear weapon to kill thousands of innocents in the process?

To me, this is onbvious. I find it bewildering that somehow people can elevate that to the same level as Osama Bin Laden.
Here's the thing, though. It's not a big step for a person to go from where you've described--aptly, I believe--to where they're rationalizing that any innocents caught in the path of such a powerful statement would be sent directly to heaven and would be better off anyway. Yes, that's the reasoning of a sick mind, but anyone who would get to the place you described would be sick in my view anyway, so it's not such a stretch.

I did not say I would not be surprised to see it. Maybe you are confusing me with another poster who talked about not putting things past such people. What I was trying to say was that I see no difference between one religious nut and another, and I do not operate on the assumption that they would act differently just because of which religion they happen to be nutty about.

And I would say that you are falling into the mistake of assuming that, just because the Muslim lunatics are acting this way now, that means that no other lunatics want to act that way or will in the future. I have said in the past, and I'll say again, I see it thus: Muslim terrorists are in the forefront today because it's their turn to be the pain the world's ass. Others came before them and others will come after them. This is why I consider it a mistake to approach terrorism as an Islamic problem. It is not exclusive to them by any stretch, nor are the tactics and specific kinds of threats and actions. If Muslim terrorists try to get nukes now, you may be assured, Christian or nationalist or political or alien-obsessed terrorists will be trying to get them in coming years, when the Muslim issue has run its course and faded.


And I say who is issuing the threat is irrelevant.

The danger is in having nuclear material floating about on the blackmarket or in the hands of rogue states like Iran. Cutting off sources of such materials to everyone is, in my opinion, far more important and far more likely to be effective than freaking out over Muslims per se. If we stop the current crop of Islamic terrorists from getting nukes but do nothing to stop nukes being available to terrorists in general, then what is to stop future terrorists from getting them, whether Muslim or not? Are we supposed to go through this crap every 5 years with a new cast of villains every time?

Alright I see what you're saying. And normally I'd agree with you, but the context of this threat is the here and now. In 20 years could there be a new pseudo-nazi group with a nuke threateneing some major city? Sure, there could be. Could a militant uber-left-wing group of anti-government anarchists someday use a nuke to try and destroy the Government? yeah.

But here, now, today, it's the Islamo-fascists. THAT is the question of this debate. Are they a threat, or aren't they?

Have you guys ever read the book "The Sum of All Fears?" seen the movie? For those who have, what was the biggest difference between the two?

The villains. In the original book, the villains were a group of Islamic militants who reverse-engineered an Israeli nuke that has been lost during the six days' war. In the movie, it was a gang of neo-nazis trying to trigger a war between the USA and the USSR.

I think that was a miserable error. The entertainment media should reflect the times. We go see the m ovies because they MEAN something to us today. Who cares about neo-nazis? They're not much threat these days, may or may not ever be. but Islamic terrorism.. that IS relevant and has been for some time.

Anyone notice how it used to be there were lots of movies that had Islaic militants as the villains, but after 9/11 that all dried up? Political Correctness took over, and I think that same phenomena is the reason so many people downplay the level of threat we're all still under from these psychos.

What I was trying to say was that I see no difference between one religious nut and another, and I do not operate on the assumption that they would act differently just because of which religion they happen to be nutty about.

You know, I'm not in the habit of sig-ing quotes from other posters, but if you keep this up I might have to make an exception. :)


Muslim terrorists are in the forefront today because it's their turn to be the pain the world's ass. Others came before them and others will come after them. This is why I consider it a mistake to approach terrorism as an Islamic problem. It is not exclusive to them by any stretch, nor are the tactics and specific kinds of threats and actions. If Muslim terrorists try to get nukes now, you may be assured, Christian or nationalist or political or alien-obsessed terrorists will be trying to get them in coming years, when the Muslim issue has run its course and faded.

I'm warning you, knock it off. You're making far too much sense. Remember, these are the internets, and we don't do common sense around here.


Are we supposed to go through this crap every 5 years with a new cast of villains every time?
Well...yeah. Perpetual war, and all that. It's good for the economy, or something, I think.

At the time I thought you were making a different point. My bad.



I'm not suggesting that the punishment should somehow be linked to motive. It's why I think the term "hate crime" is meaningless, since a murder is a murder. An assault is an assault.

Having said that... if you have a rash of such crimes committed by a specific group of people, then motive becomes important in an effort to circumvent future such crimes by anticipating the terrorists' thoughts.
You are not disagreeing with me here. I said it was of interest in two ways.

In a general way, it is important for me to know that such things are happening. In this sense, knowing and caring are not really the same thing.

In a more focused way, it is vitally important for law enforcement and government to know and understand the claimed motivations of terrorists so that they can use those claims against them and come up with preventative measures to counter them in public opinion.

But I'm neither a cop nor the president. I don't need to care that much about terrorists' motives. I need only to learn enough to decide whether I think they are justified in hating me. Since their hatred is based on who I am, not on anything I've done, I decide they are not justified. At that point I stop caring about anything they say.

Here's the thing, though. It's not a big step for a person to go from where you've described--aptly, I believe--to where they're rationalizing that any innocents caught in the path of such a powerful statement would be sent directly to heaven and would be better off anyway. Yes, that's the reasoning of a sick mind, but anyone who would get to the place you described would be sick in my view anyway, so it's not such a stretch.

True, a sick mind is a scary thing, and I'm not saying that such a scenario is beyond all possibility. What I'm talking about here though, is probability. Might there be some sick bastard out there who sees detonating a nuke as a viable way to fight abortion? Sure. There COULD be, but the odds of that eprson ever successfully doing so are pretty slim. On the other hand, are there millions of militants out there who would not hesitate to detonate such a weapon in the name of Islam? YES!

That is why I see them as a bigger threat.

And I say who is issuing the threat is irrelevant.


I don't understand the logic of that; the 'who' determines culture and context (and so what their past history of behaviours and worldview suggesting future behaviours is), what their goals are (and whether they can be negociated), what their tactics are likely to be (and ergo how they can be stopped/ameliorated), what level of support they'll have and where it'll come from.

And that's not even beginning to think about the fact that terrorist 'threats' aren't just about damage to buildings and lifes lost - see above for debate.

I understand your point, and it is taken, but what I'm saying is that those groups have not ALREADY threatened to use such a weapon against us, as some militant Islamics have.
Question: when did militant islamists threathened to use a nuclear bomb?

'Cause from where I'm sitting, all I see is scare tactics from the west and "imagine if..." scenarios. If terrorists wanted to, they could have bought nuclear bombs from Pakistan already, no?

If terrorists wanted to, they could have bought nuclear bombs from Pakistan already, no?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050214/

Question: when did militant islamists threathened to use a nuclear bomb?

'Cause from where I'm sitting, all I see is scare tactics from the west and "imagine if..." scenarios. If terrorists wanted to, they could have bought nuclear bombs from Pakistan already, no?

Osama Bin Laden is known to be on the market for one of the missing former Soviet "suitcase nukes."

Take a moment to let that thought sink in.

The president of Iran has directly threatened to use them against Israel and the U.S., which is part of the reason peopel are so up in arms about Iran having them.

The president of Iran has directly threatened to use them against Israel and the U.S., which is part of the reason peopel are so up in arms about Iran having them.


When?!!!

They never did that...

Osama Bin Laden is known to be on the market for one of the missing former Soviet "suitcase nukes."

Take a moment to let that thought sink in.
I didn't know that. A link would be appreciated.


The president of Iran has directly threatened to use them against Israel and the U.S., which is part of the reason peopel are so up in arms about Iran having them.
Now a link would be required because I doubt he said such things. He has used rethorics like "jews should never had been given Israel" but he never said "We will nuke Israel".

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.

are there millions of militants out there who would not hesitate to detonate such a weapon in the name of Islam? YES!


Sorry but where do you come up with these numbers?

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.


Especially since that day I watched a plane stike the Pentagon.

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.
I live in Foggy Bottom. I work less than a mile from the Capital.

I live in Foggy Bottom. I work less than a mile from the Capital.
Then you ought to know as well as anyone.

Let's do lunch :D

Especially since that day I watched a plane stike the Pentagon.
You SAW it happen?

Now a link would be required because I doubt he said such things. He has used rethorics like "jews should never had been given Israel" but he never said "We will nuke Israel".

"Israel should be wiped off the map" - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4378948.stm - is the biggie, and the big question. The question is, are we to take that as a threat (nuclear option), or as something else?

It's talking about something to take place in the future, and use of the word 'should' (if it's an accurate translation) implies a sense of rightness, that it's a justifyable action.

The question is, did he mean by force, or by negotiation?

You SAW it happen?
Yes. I am always in the habit of getting to work a bit late.

I worked at the time at the Qwest building in Ballston. Since I didn't want to pay for parking in the Qwest building, and wasn't being given a parking slot, I parked on top of the Ballston Common Mall Parking Garage. Open air parking, but cheap, and within a few blocks of the Qwest building.

You can see the Pentagon from there if you look east. I had just gotten out of my car, and had just closed the door when I saw it go in.

Then you ought to know as well as anyone.
I'd like to think so.

Yet, amazingly, I have reached different conclusions than you and DK. Despite living in DC. Despite having lost a friend in the WTC. Despite being somebody who flies at least half a dozen times every year. Despite being part of the single most hated demographic target for radical Muslims (godless liberal female American with bare ankles).

Golly. Imagine that.

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.


Ok understand your uncomfortable position.

Still, it is not a rational fear, for the threat level for these huge attacks is rather small. It is like living near a nuclear power plant and fearing meltdown... You should fear the things with a higher chance of occuring like car accidents...

I have lived in Cairo for half a year when there were bombings there, still i deemed the risk quite small.

Then again, my words mean little, for I understand that fear is often irrational

Ok understand your uncomfortable position.

Still, it is not a rational fear, for the threat level for these huge attacks is rather small. It is like living near a nuclear power plant and fearing meltdown... You should fear the things with a higher chance of occuring like car accidents...

I have lived in Cairo for half a year when there were bombings there, still i deemed the risk quite small.

Then again, my words mean little, for I understand that fear is often irrational
Hm. So in not so many words, you feel we're irrational.

You know, I said it before and I'll say it again. Statistically, I'm far more likely to die in a car accident than from being hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean I hang out in open fields during thunderstorms.

I'd like to think so.

Yet, amazingly, I have reached different conclusions than you and DK. Despite living in DC. Despite having lost a friend in the WTC. Despite being somebody who flies at least half a dozen times every year. Despite being part of the single most hated demographic target for radical Muslims (godless liberal female American with bare ankles).

Golly. Imagine that.

Maybe that's because unlike you, I've been shot at by radical Muslims on more than one occasion. It changes your mind about such things.

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.
So you're telling me you live in the middle of the rumour mill and you wonder why I want link to your assertions? There are only one kind of people more disconnected to what is happening that DC politicians: it's Hollywood stars. Living in DC will make you hear all kinds of things we are not privy to. Such as these so-called threaths that Iran would have made against the US and Israel.

I'm sorry but rumour gets dispersed where you live so you'll have to back up your claims.

You SAW it happen?
A woman in my lab moved to the US from China on September 8th, 2001. She was on her way to work when the Pentagon was hit.

Welcome to America. :(

She stayed here, though. I can't say I would have done the same in her place! Yipe.

So you're telling me you live in the middle of the rumour mill and you wonder why I want link to your assertions? There are only one kind of people more disconnected to what is happening that DC politicians: it's Hollywood stars. Living in DC will make you hear all kinds of things we are not privy to. Such as these so-called threaths that Iran would have made against the US and Israel.

I'm sorry but rumour gets dispersed where you live so you'll have to back up your claims.

You make the assumption that my source of information is the people around me, or that somehow my info is filtered through local media.

Allow me to enlighten you. It's not. I don't trust politicians and I don't trust the media. My information comes from national and international sources, and I NEVER trust the newspapers from any large city.

A woman in my lab moved to the US from China on September 8th, 2001. She was on her way to work when the Pentagon was hit.

Welcome to America. :(

She stayed here, though. I can't say I would have done the same in her place! Yipe.

I've worked in the Pentagon since then, on a couple different contracts. I've heard a lot of first-hand stories. Really brings it home.

Maybe that's because unlike you, I've been shot at by radical Muslims on more than one occasion. It changes your mind about such things.
I'm sure that personal experiences do skew our feelings on the subject. I've been physically harassed by anti-abortion radicals, so I probably am more sensitive to the threat they pose than other people are.

My point was simply that it's stupid to pretend like everybody who lives in DC (or NY) shares the same level of concern over radical Islam, and it's silly to pretend like people who disagree with you must be people who are living out in bumble-fuck nowhere.

Hm. So in not so many words, you feel we're irrational.

You know, I said it before and I'll say it again. Statistically, I'm far more likely to die in a car accident than from being hit by lightning, but that doesn't mean I hang out in open fields during thunderstorms.

That's right you should apply some preventive policies...

But that does not mean you go in a bomb shelter during thunderstorms do you?

You may also wear a seatbelt, but it does not refrain you from using cars, does it?

I simply mean that you should take the threat in its perspective.
I do not mean you are irrational, but fears often are...

You make the assumption that my source of information is the people around me, or that somehow my info is filtered through local media.

Allow me to enlighten you. It's not. I don't trust politicians and I don't trust the media. My information comes from national and international sources, and I NEVER trust the newspapers from any large city.

Now they're going to say to you what they say to me - that I have no access to any first hand sources - it's not possible that I communicate with soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan daily, or have Egyptian friends on IM right now who are in Cairo, or travel internationally on a regular basis...

I'm sure that personal experiences do skew our feelings on the subject. I've been physically harassed by anti-abortion radicals, so I probably am more sensitive to the threat they pose than other people are.

I'm sure you're sensitive, and probably would be more so if they had shot at you.

I propose that Deep Kimchi, Bottle, anyone else local and I gather for a nice lunch on some Friday just to see if we're all really as mean and evil as we appear to be in the message boards:)

That's right you should apply some preventive policies...

But that does not mean you go in a bomb shelter during thunderstorms do you?

You may also wear a seatbelt, but it does not refrain you from using cars, does it?

I simply mean that you should take the threat in its perspective.
I do not mean you are irrational, but fears often are...

If I were that paranoid I'd have stayed in Baltimore.

You make the assumption that my source of information is the people around me, or that somehow my info is filtered through local media.

Allow me to enlighten you. It's not. I don't trust politicians and I don't trust the media. My information comes from national and international sources, and I NEVER trust the newspapers from any large city.
That's good. Same here.

True, a sick mind is a scary thing, and I'm not saying that such a scenario is beyond all possibility. What I'm talking about here though, is probability. Might there be some sick bastard out there who sees detonating a nuke as a viable way to fight abortion? Sure. There COULD be, but the odds of that eprson ever successfully doing so are pretty slim. On the other hand, are there millions of militants out there who would not hesitate to detonate such a weapon in the name of Islam? YES!

That is why I see them as a bigger threat.
See, this is where you and I have to disagree. Millions? Please. Thousands at best, and out of a billion adherents, that's a tiny number. You're not Dick Cheney in disguise, are you? Because this sounds an awful lot like his "one percent assumption."

Is Militant Islam a threat to the West?

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West.

NO.. thet do not want to Destroy the west. :rolleyes:

See, this is where you and I have to disagree. Millions? Please. Thousands at best, and out of a billion adherents, that's a tiny number. You're not Dick Cheney in disguise, are you? Because this sounds an awful lot like his "one percent assumption."

Yeah if Dick Chaney said it, it MUST be false.

How many does it take? What if I am wrong and only 10,000 would do it without hesitation? What if only 1,000 would? What number makes you comfortable?

NO.. thet do not want to Destroy the west. :rolleyes:

Right. They want to convert it to their brand of fundamentalist Islam...

...which amounts to the same thing, IMHO.

See, this is where you and I have to disagree. Millions? Please. Thousands at best, and out of a billion adherents, that's a tiny number. You're not Dick Cheney in disguise, are you? Because this sounds an awful lot like his "one percent assumption."
http://www.gocomics.com/idiotbox/2006/08/09/
http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ibox/2006/ibox060809.gif

http://www.gocomics.com/idiotbox/2006/08/09/


Yeah that's nice, because NOBODY would blame Bush/Cheney if they did nothing and the terrorists struck again...

gawd.

Yeah if Dick Chaney said it, it MUST be false.

How many does it take? What if I am wrong and only 10,000 would do it without hesitation? What if only 1,000 would? What number makes you comfortable?
And here's the other problem--there's a huge fucking gulf between "would do it given the opportunity" and "will ever have the opportunity." Sure, the smaller the number, the more comfortable I am, but I'll tell you this much--we haven't done much to reduce their numbers lately, and that's what increases the odds of some sort of nuclear event happening, not the level of desire.

And here's the other problem--there's a huge fucking gulf between "would do it given the opportunity" and "will ever have the opportunity." Sure, the smaller the number, the more comfortable I am, but I'll tell you this much--we haven't done much to reduce their numbers lately, and that's what increases the odds of some sort of nuclear event happening, not the level of desire.

Oh I dunno... I think the Army has been reducing their numbers quite nicely :sniper:

Oh I dunno... I think the Army has been reducing their numbers quite nicely :sniper:Go ahead and believe that, if it helps you keep from wetting your underoos at night. I live in the real world, where Iraq has turned into a terrorist training ground and where Afhganistan is still a failed state.

Yeah if Dick Chaney said it, it MUST be false.

How many does it take? What if I am wrong and only 10,000 would do it without hesitation? What if only 1,000 would? What number makes you comfortable?

1,000/1,000,000,000 = .000001. .0001%.

There will always be a lunatic fringe in EVERY group. There's nothing we can do about it. .0001% of Christians want to bomb abortion clinics. .0001% of Muslims want to kill westerners. .0001% of environmentalists would kill people to prevent a tree from being cut down. You get the idea. The numbers are larger in reality, but the principle is the same.

See, this is where you and I have to disagree. Millions? Please. Thousands at best, and out of a billion adherents, that's a tiny number. You're not Dick Cheney in disguise, are you? Because this sounds an awful lot like his "one percent assumption."

Yep, 1.6 billion, apparently :) http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

Who would kill us? Is it fair to base this on the question "Is violence against civilian targets justified"?

If so, 6 islamic countries were polled, and 13% to 57% of muslim respondants said it was 'often' or 'sometimes' justified.

Pretend it's only 10%, and that's still about... 160,000,000.

Happily, the Pew Research Centre notes that this number would represent a drop in support for killing civilians and support for terrorists.

Linky - http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=26 Main tables start 1/4 of the way down :)

EDIT: Similarly, 24% - 56% thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.

Yep, 1.6 billion, apparently :) http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

Who would kill us? Is it fair to base this on the question "Is violence against civilian targets justified"?

If so, 6 islamic countries were polled, and 13% to 57% of muslim respondants said it was 'often' or 'sometimes' justified.

Pretend it's only 10%, and that's still about... 160,000,000.

Happily, the Pew Research Centre notes that this number would represent a 'drop' in support for killing civilians and support for terrorists.

Linky - http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=26 Main tables start 1/4 of the way down :)

Take a poll of all Americans, and see how many would say it's okay to kill Muslims because they're the enemy? Perhaps a comparable number? I don't know. But I tell you, all over the world people are essentially the same. Human nature never changes; it never has changed.

Yep, 1.6 billion, apparently :) http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

Who would kill us? Is it fair to base this on the question "Is violence against civilian targets justified"?

If so, 6 islamic countries were polled, and 13% to 57% of muslim respondants said it was 'often' or 'sometimes' justified.

Pretend it's only 10%, and that's still about... 160,000,000.

Happily, the Pew Research Centre notes that this number would represent a drop in support for killing civilians and support for terrorists.

Linky - http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=26 Main tables start 1/4 of the way down :)But of those numbers, how many actually take action? How many strap on a belt and go into a crowded market? How many head to Afghanistan or Iraq for training? It's real easy to answer a poll---not so easy to stick your foot in it yourself, and that's what we were talking about.

But of those numbers, how many actually take action? How many strap on a belt and go into a crowded market? How many head to Afghanistan or Iraq for training? It's real easy to answer a poll---not so easy to stick your foot in it yourself, and that's what we were talking about.

Hmm... I've had well over 60 shoot at me over time. And I didn't shoot first...

Yep, 1.6 billion, apparently :) http://www.islamicpopulation.com/

Who would kill us? Is it fair to base this on the question "Is violence against civilian targets justified"?

If so, 6 islamic countries were polled, and 13% to 57% of muslim respondants said it was 'often' or 'sometimes' justified.

Pretend it's only 10%, and that's still about... 160,000,000.

Happily, the Pew Research Centre notes that this number would represent a drop in support for killing civilians and support for terrorists.

Linky - http://pewresearch.org/obdeck/?ObDeckID=26 Main tables start 1/4 of the way down :)

EDIT: Similarly, 24% - 56% thought attacks on Westerners in Iraq were justified.
When you live near terrorists who hide in civilians clothes and with CIA operatives disguised in civilians clothes in a region where civilians are putting settlements where there shouldn't be you will get a 13% to 57% response of "targetting civilians is justified". The question is not conductive in itself to find out how many people are willing to become terrorists.

Otherwise, I can safely say that USA citizens are dumb because a large percentage thinks that Saddam had ties to 9/11.

Go ahead and believe that, if it helps you keep from wetting your underoos at night. I live in the real world, where Iraq has turned into a terrorist training ground and where Afhganistan is still a failed state.

getting personal now, are we? Must have hit a nerve.

Hmm... I've had well over 60 shoot at me over time. And I didn't shoot first...

What country or countries were you in when this happened and why? Were you there as a civilian or there for military purposes?

I bet it will become pretty obvious why they shot at you - you were a legitimate military target.

But of those numbers, how many actually take action? How many strap on a belt and go into a crowded market? How many head to Afghanistan or Iraq for training? It's real easy to answer a poll---not so easy to stick your foot in it yourself, and that's what we were talking about.

What are your chances of convincing the American public that we can all relax now, forget Homeland Security, and scale back the military, and say, "well that 9-11 Commission got our panties in a bunch over nothing"?

Zero.

What country or countries were you in when this happened and why? Were you there as a civilian or there for military purposes?

I bet it will become pretty obvious why they shot at you - you were a legitimate military target.
Several times as military.

While it may be legitimate, I took offense. It's a personal thing. Especially when they're yelling "God is great!'' while they do it.

What are your chances of convincing the American public that we can all relax now, forget Homeland Security, and scale back the military, and say, "well that 9-11 Commission got our panties in a bunch over nothing"?

Zero.

Has someone suggested as such?

Has someone suggested as such?
Might as well. If terrorism is such a minute, miniscule, and nearly non-existent threat, then it's certainly a waste of money and manpower to do anything about it.

QED.

Several times as military.

Well there you go... just as I thought... if you put yourself in a situation where you are going to get shot at, then you are most likely going to get shot at. Taking offense from it is quite silly.

Has someone suggested as such?

Yes, they have.

How many times have we been called afraid, motivated by irrational fear, told that we have more to fear from militant Christians than from terrorists, etc.

I mean, it seems like some people just MUST be right and MUST argue no matter what. The question of the thread was "Is militant Islam a threat to the West" and somehow people want to get into the business of comparing it to other threats. That wasn't the question. It was simple yes/no question.

To my shame, I got drawn into the irrelevancy of other threats, since that wasn't the point. Are there abortion clinic bombers? Yeah. Are there psychos outside the world of militant Islam? yeah. Is that relevant to the topic of the thread?

No.

But not only has that been the argument, people are actually taking personal shots at myself, Deep Kimchi, and others for DARING to suggest that the threat of Islamic militancy is a legitimate concern in day to day life. Everyone wants to argue about he relative level of the threat, but they do it to the point where it almost seems like some people are suggesting it's STUPID to acknowledge that threat.

I acknowledge that there are a large number of international terrorists, motivated by a militant Islamic ideal, who would, given the opportunity, attack this country. There are such people, in fact, planning it. That is a fact. You can spin it any way you want to, but that is a fact. It is not in dispute by any but the most disconnected people.

Several times as military.


My respect for you has gone up several notches, sir.

When you live near terrorists who hide in civilians clothes and with CIA operatives disguised in civilians clothes in a region where civilians are putting settlements where there shouldn't be you will get a 13% to 57% response of "targetting civilians is justified". The question is not conductive in itself to find out how many people are willing to become terrorists.

Well, I think that part of the point of the choice of the countries polled was to avoid as much as possible those problems, while still getting a regionally-representatitive sample from the 'islamic countries' population.

The poll dates from April to June 2005, and muslims from Turkey, Morrocco, Jordan, Lebanon, Indonesia, and Pakistan were asked.

To an extent, I'd argue that 'willingness to actually commit terrorism' is an unfair indicator. Just as the 'threat' of militant islam is not limited to people killed and buildings damaged (see pages 19-21, I think!), so support for terrorism is not limited to actually becoming a terrorist - funding, supporting by intelligence, allowing recruitment, and encouraging it also represent a risk factor.

But you're right, there's not a one to one relationship between this poll's numbers and the number of so-called 'dangerous' muslim individuals (ugly phrase, but I just mean 'those-who'd-commit-or-aid-an-act-of-terrorism'). But I think it's a lot more than the 'thousands' suggested above by The Nazz.

Take a poll of all Americans, and see how many would say it's okay to kill Muslims because they're the enemy? Perhaps a comparable number? I don't know. But I tell you, all over the world people are essentially the same. Human nature never changes; it never has changed.

You're right, we (or someone else!) should test this. Need a recent poll from somewhere asking Americans (or any/all Westerners) to what extent they feel the targeting of civilians is justified, for comparitive purposes. Anyone know where to start looking?

Yes, they have.

How many times have we been called afraid, motivated by irrational fear, told that we have more to fear from militant Christians than from terrorists, etc.

I mean, it seems like some people just MUST be right and MUST argue no matter what. The question of the thread was "Is militant Islam a threat to the West" and somehow people want to get into the business of comparing it to other threats. That wasn't the question. It was simple yes/no question.

To my shame, I got drawn into the irrelevancy of other threats, since that wasn't the point. Are there abortion clinic bombers? Yeah. Are there psychos outside the world of militant Islam? yeah. Is that relevant to the topic of the thread?

No.

But not only has that been the argument, people are actually taking personal shots at myself, Deep Kimchi, and others for DARING to suggest that the threat of Islamic militancy is a legitimate concern in day to day life. Everyone wants to argue about he relative level of the threat, but they do it to the point where it almost seems like some people are suggesting it's STUPID to acknowledge that threat.

I acknowledge that there are a large number of international terrorists, motivated by a militant Islamic ideal, who would, given the opportunity, attack this country. There are such people, in fact, planning it. That is a fact. You can spin it any way you want to, but that is a fact. It is not in dispute by any but the most disconnected people.

As much as you seem to think so, you can't see the world in black and white. Of course Islamic militants are a threat to the West. They speak against westerners and they have attacked the United States, Britain and Spain. This is not in doubt. It's a threat that we have to meet, as we have met others in the past.

People are rather debating the necessity of actions the current administration has taken that seem unrelated to fighting terrorism. Warrantless wiretaps - the situation in Guantanamo - the war in Iraq - these are a few of the actions in dispute. Just because people disagree with the method of meeting the threat, it does not mean that they deny the threat.

Moreover, when DK and others start to write hypotheticals like "hey what if Muslims had to travel on segregated flights", people understandably grow suspicious about their motives. Surely you can understand this?

I think "terrorism" is often defined as only being the province of those people who one does not agree with. Anti-choice terrorists aren't called "terrorists" even when they use the same methods as Muslim terrorists, and for the same reasons. They wish to use violence to inflict terror. Bottom line. Yes, they believe they are justified. So do the Muslim terrorists.
Why do you assume that most people who think of militant Islamists as terrorists, are people who support anti-choice bombers?

Personally, I'd rather be blown up than live my life as someone else's property.
Same here. Both extreme Christians and extreme Muslims want to enslave us. Both have almost no chance of actually achieving it. However, the extreme Muslims regularly blow up people, but extreme Christians rarely do so.

That is text book terrorism. The only difference I see is one of scale.
That's the crucial difference. I fear Islamic terrorists more than Christian terrorists. Islamic terrorists have the ability and tendency to kill hundreads of people at a time in almost any part of the world. Christian terrorists tend to be localised and low-power.

It's illogical to be more concerned about Christian terrorists.

someone who thinks murdering doctors is the best way to get abortion stopped will not come to believe that killing 1000 doctors with a bomb
I agree, anti-choice terrorists would probably want to kill 1,000 abortion doctors with a bomb. But where are they going to get that many of them concentrated in one area?

Now a link would be required because I doubt he said such things. He has used rethorics like "jews should never had been given Israel" but he never said "We will nuke Israel".
Correct. The guy who runs Iran isn't that stupid and he wouldn't, and didn't, let Ahjeminad say something like that.

I live in Foggy Bottom. I work less than a mile from the Capital.
Is that an actual place name?

I thought you lived in Massachusetts?

Moreover, when DK and others start to write hypotheticals like "hey what if Muslims had to travel on segregated flights", people understandably grow suspicious about their motives. Surely you can understand this?
The point of open discussion is to consider all hypotheticals.

Or do you want to censor thought, O'Brien?

The point of open discussion is to consider all hypotheticals.

Or do you want to censor thought, O'Brien?

Your hypotheticals are very suggestive of your thoughts. Don't try to pull the old "oh you're restricting my free speech by disagreeing with me" trick on me. You're free to make your opinion known, just as I am free to say what I think your posts imply. And you're free to dispute me! The beauty of free speech.

Your hypotheticals are very suggestive of your thoughts. Don't try to pull the old "oh you're restricting my free speech by disagreeing with me" trick on me. You're free to make your opinion known, just as I am free to say what I think your posts imply. And you're free to dispute me! The beauty of free speech.

Well, don't go around saying I shouldn't discuss them, then.

Well, don't go around saying I shouldn't discuss them, then.

Did I EVER say "OMG KIMCHI YOU CAN'T POST!!!!!!111" No. Like I said, you're perfectly free to say what you like, and you're free to get pissed off when I disagree with you.

Why do you assume that most people who think of militant Islamists as terrorists, are people who support anti-choice bombers?

(rest snipped)

To be honest, she was discussing with someone who seemed to imply that *these folks* over here are terrorist while *those folks* over there weren't even when the similitude of their actions and justifications has been pointed out.

As much as you seem to think so, you can't see the world in black and white. Of course Islamic militants are a threat to the West. They speak against westerners and they have attacked the United States, Britain and Spain. This is not in doubt. It's a threat that we have to meet, as we have met others in the past.

People are rather debating the necessity of actions the current administration has taken that seem unrelated to fighting terrorism. Warrantless wiretaps - the situation in Guantanamo - the war in Iraq - these are a few of the actions in dispute. Just because people disagree with the method of meeting the threat, it does not mean that they deny the threat.

Moreover, when DK and others start to write hypotheticals like "hey what if Muslims had to travel on segregated flights", people understandably grow suspicious about their motives. Surely you can understand this?

As much as you seem to think so, talking down at people doesn't make them wrong, it just makes you look myopic.

I am quite well aware of the nature of the world, and it's lack of "black & whiteness." On the other hand, this thread was asking a black and white question. The beauty of a forum is that you can answer, then elaborate on your reply for the sake of discussion, since in reality there are few simple yes/no questions.

I can understand what DK is trying to do here. There are many people on the forums who will debate you until they're blue in the face, using tactics like logical fallacies and misinformation and will do ANYTHING to keep from admitting error. One tactic is to drag the debate into a circle and then try and make it look as if they've agreed with you all along, it was just YOUR error that caused misunderstanding.

That tactic gets used a LOT.

So I think that's what DK's intent is here... To pin down some of those people to prevent that tactic from being used. I find it perfectly understandable. It won't work, since usually those people know how to avoid a trap like that, but I don't blame him for trying.

I don't know about any of the other hypotheticals DK is using. I'm trying to limit my comments to this thread. If there's another thread with an inane topic heading, then I'll address that there. Surely you can understand this?

To be honest, she was discussing with someone who seemed to imply that *these folks* over here are terrorist while *those folks* over there weren't even when the similitude of their actions and justifications has been pointed out.

... and their differences ignored.

As much as you seem to think so, talking down at people doesn't make them wrong, it just makes you look myopic.

I am quite well aware of the nature of the world, and it's lack of "black & whiteness." On the other hand, this thread was asking a black and white question. The beauty of a forum is that you can answer, then elaborate on your reply for the sake of discussion, since in reality there are few simple yes/no questions.

I can understand what DK is trying to do here. There are many people on the forums who will debate you until they're blue in the face, using tactics like logical fallacies and misinformation and will do ANYTHING to keep from admitting error. One tactic is to drag the debate into a circle and then try and make it look as if they've agreed with you all along, it was just YOUR error that caused misunderstanding.

That tactic gets used a LOT.

So I think that's what DK's intent is here... To pin down some of those people to prevent that tactic from being used. I find it perfectly understandable. It won't work, since usually those people know how to avoid a trap like that, but I don't blame him for trying.

I don't know about any of the other hypotheticals DK is using. I'm trying to limit my comments to this thread. If there's another thread with an inane topic heading, then I'll address that there. Surely you can understand this?

I still think that a yes/no question is restrictive when it's applied to something as complicated as American foreign policy. But I'm sorry if you thought I was condescending, because I didn't intend it.

My respect for you has gone up several notches, sir.
Why do Americans worship soldiers? It's just another branch of the government.

People are rather debating the necessity of actions the current administration has taken that seem unrelated to fighting terrorism.
Actually in this thread people are debating the relative threat of Islamic terrorism to Christian terrorism.

I don't know how Christian terrorism got brought up, but "proving Christians are evil" always seems to get brought up.

... and their differences ignored.
... such as?

It seems the only difference is one of magnitude. One or a few casualties per hits instead of more.

Both groups are actings as terrorists. I fail to see why we should call some merely deluded when we call the others full-blown terrorists.

I still think that a yes/no question is restrictive when it's applied to something as complicated as American foreign policy. But I'm sorry if you thought I was condescending, because I didn't intend it.
No problem :)

It's restrictive if it's the only way to reply... But with forums you can elaborate. The only way to really make apoll any better is to take the same yes/no answers by degrees.

... such as?

It seems the only difference is one of magnitude. One or a few casualties per hits instead of more.

Both groups are actings as terrorists. I fail to see why we should call some merely deluded when we call the others full-blown terrorists.

Agreed; both are terrorists, it's their relative positions on the threat spectra that seperates them in terms of 'threat to the West'.

Why do Americans worship soldiers? It's just another branch of the government.


It's not worship, and it's not just another branch of Government.

Soldiers, in this country, are peopl ewho volunteered to join, and who put their lives at risk in order to serve their country. This country exists because of such sacrifices, and so they deserve respect.

To be honest, she was discussing with someone who seemed to imply that *these folks* over here are terrorist while *those folks* over there weren't even when the similitude of their actions and justifications has been pointed out.
Not really. Neither Muravyets nor New Brettonia ever implied that abortion bombers aren't terrorists, or wrong, or psychos, etc.

Not really. Neither Muravyets nor New Brettonia ever implied that abortion bombers aren't terrorists, or wrong, or psychos, etc.
Neither did I.

Actually in this thread people are debating the relative threat of Islamic terrorism to Christian terrorism.

I don't know how Christian terrorism got brought up, but "proving Christians are evil" always seems to get brought up.
Far from it. If you go back and read correctly, you'll see that Christians terrorists (you know, the part of Christians that we can agree that are evil) have been brought up to show a more likely threat than Islamic terrorism. Then it devolved into a discussion of semantics. Saying whether militant Christians are or not terrorists has been a rather recent event in this thread.

We are not all out to get the "ebil x-tians" since most of us are christians or live in a christian community.

It's not worship, and it's not just another branch of Government.
It sounds like worship when soldiers are considered worthy of greater respect than other people.

It's just another branch, paid by taxes and benefitting the majority.

Soldiers, in this country, are peopl ewho volunteered to join, and who put their lives at risk in order to serve their country. This country exists because of such sacrifices, and so they deserve respect.
All public service is voluntary. Not every soldier risks their life.

And you say that soldiers defend the existence of America... well that really depends on which war they fought in, doesn't it?

It's not worship, and it's not just another branch of Government.

Soldiers, in this country, are peopl ewho volunteered to join, and who put their lives at risk in order to serve their country. This country exists because of such sacrifices, and so they deserve respect.

Actually DK has told us that he joined the military so he could kill people legally.

... such as?

It seems the only difference is one of magnitude. One or a few casualties per hits instead of more.

Both groups are actings as terrorists. I fail to see why we should call some merely deluded when we call the others full-blown terrorists.

I can't make you see the difference if you simply refuse to. It's fashionable to villify Christians and deify Muslims in the PC culture of today.

How else can you have people trying to assert that somehow Pat Robertson is no better than Osama Bin Laden? Or James Dobson is another Adolph Hitler? That's just stupid. It's completely illogical.

For the record, I do not believe in the same brand of Christianity as either of those guys, but I see no value in demonizing them just for having beliefs that may not match my own, and for standing up and talking about them publicly.

Hm. Maybe THAT is why people demonize them. Because it's so inconvenient when people with morals refuse to sit quietly.

Not really. Neither Muravyets nor New Brettonia ever implied that abortion bombers aren't terrorists, or wrong, or psychos, etc.
true. Bottle brought the "they are terrorists" view. It has never been really denied.

So we can drop the persecution complex from both side and discuss the likelyhood of people running afoul of one group over the other. Where I'm living, I know I'd be more scared of christians extremists than muslims ones. They are more likely to be the threath.

Still, both groups combined are less likely to be a threath than, say, forest fires, criminal gangs, rapists or politicians.

Actually DK has told us that he joined the military so he could kill people legally.
You would prefer I was an amateur?

At least this is a legal and moral outlet in the eyes of society.

You would prefer I was an amateur?

At least this is a legal and moral outlet in the eyes of society.

I just don't find it worthy of praise. I think it's sick that you enjoy it.

I can't make you see the difference if you simply refuse to. It's fashionable to villify Christians and deify Muslims in the PC culture of today.

How else can you have people trying to assert that somehow Pat Robertson is no better than Osama Bin Laden? Or James Dobson is another Adolph Hitler? That's just stupid. It's completely illogical.


A lot of people over here do vilify Christians, but they also think that Muslims are stupid for their beliefs.

I don't think Pat Robertson is quite Hitler, but he is pretty outrageous. I don't consider him a Christian, as I'm sure you and many other people don't either.

It sounds like worship when soldiers are considered worthy of greater respect than other people.
They are, as is anyone who puts his or her life in danger for my sake.


It's just another branch, paid by taxes and benefitting the majority.
Benefitting the majority... What is that supposed to mean? When WWII was over were minorities still living under Nazi rule? Were they still under threat of invasion from Japan?

Or were they just as secure as the majority?


All public service is voluntary. Not every soldier risks their life.
But every soldier MIGHT in the course of his/her duty.


And you say that soldiers defend the existence of America... well that really depends on which war they fought in, doesn't it?
Does it matter? Soldiers don't make policy.

I just don't find it worthy of praise. I think it's sick that you enjoy it.
Sorry, it's not sick. It is a long tradition amongst humans who enjoy killing to join the military.

And if it serves some greater purpose, all the better.

I found myself more honest than some. Particular compared to soldiers in nuclear units, who went through exercises thinking that it would never happen.

And when I asked, "do you realize what you're training for?" they laughed, and said, "don't worry, we'll never do it for real".

Well, the exercises are set up so you don't know if it's real or not. You turn the keys and if the missile doesn't go downrange, you know it was an exercise.

A lot of people over here do vilify Christians, but they also think that Muslims are stupid for their beliefs.
Where is "over here?"


I don't think Pat Robertson is quite Hitler, but he is pretty outrageous. I don't consider him a Christian, as I'm sure you and many other people don't either.
I find it amazing that it's even a viable comparison.

I don't make it about to go around passing judgements on people's Christianity. He's a Christian. Just not the deniomination I am, so there are doctrinal issues we would disagree on. That's as far as I go.

You would prefer I was an amateur?

At least this is a legal and moral outlet in the eyes of society.

Try telling that to a Quaker. They will really go off on you. But they're the most pacifist people around, after all.

Where is "over here?"


I find it amazing that it's even a viable comparison.

I don't make it about to go around passing judgements on people's Christianity. He's a Christian. Just not the deniomination I am, so there are doctrinal issues we would disagree on. That's as far as I go.

Sorry for not pointing out - "over here" is the US.

I can't really consider Robertson a Christian, according to what I see as Christianity. Just as I can't see Ayman al-Zawahiri as a Muslim. But I seriously don't feel like starting another huge debate like that.

edit: I'm not comparing the two in action, but rather in how they don't practice what their scriptures command. Once again, I don't feel like having a huge theological discussion, so I'll leave it at that.

I can't make you see the difference if you simply refuse to. It's fashionable to villify Christians and deify Muslims in the PC culture of today.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't consider talking about a serious problem (clinics bombings) as vilifying christians, but if you see it that way, I can see how you responded defensively when they were brought up.

How else can you have people trying to assert that somehow Pat Robertson is no better than Osama Bin Laden? Or James Dobson is another Adolph Hitler? That's just stupid. It's completely illogical.
Well, see, Pat Robertson has argued for the killing of Chavez, a head of state. Bin Laden, well, we all know what he has called for. So linking them is not as big a stretch as you might think.

The other preachers, I just don't listen to them. But in order to stop their hatefull views from being espoused, we have to point out all the things they do wrong and show to the world that they are a fringe group and that christians are not like them, as a whole.

For the record, I do not believe in the same brand of Christianity as either of those guys, but I see no value in demonizing them just for having beliefs that may not match my own, and for standing up and talking about them publicly.

Hm. Maybe THAT is why people demonize them. Because it's so inconvenient when people with morals refuse to sit quietly.
For the record, I'm catholic. And if a catholic priest was talking like Phelps is talking, I'd be first in line to demonize him. I see them as scum that are using religion to sow hate and dissent in the world when the christian message is one of peace, love and charity.

Sorry for not pointing out - "over here" is the US.

I can't really consider Robertson a Christian, according to what I see as Christianity. Just as I can't see Ayman al-Zawahiri as a Muslim. But I seriously don't feel like starting another huge debate like that.
Fair enough

Sorry, it's not sick. It is a long tradition amongst humans who enjoy killing to join the military.

And if it serves some greater purpose, all the better.

I found myself more honest than some. Particular compared to soldiers in nuclear units, who went through exercises thinking that it would never happen.

And when I asked, "do you realize what you're training for?" they laughed, and said, "don't worry, we'll never do it for real".

Well, the exercises are set up so you don't know if it's real or not. You turn the keys and if the missile doesn't go downrange, you know it was an exercise.

Of course it's a matter of personal opinion. But being a religious person and enjoying killing others seems to be in conflict to me. But thats just me I guess. It is nice that youa re honest about it though.

But those who are training in the nuclear units who dont think that it will ever happen dont sound liek the type of people who enjoy killign if thats what you are implying. Sounds more like they are hoping not to kill someone from what you are saying.

Of course it's a matter of personal opinion. But being a religious person and enjoying killing others seems to be in conflict to me.
There is absolutely nothing about being a religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people. Just like there is nothing about being a non-religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't consider talking about a serious problem (clinics bombings) as vilifying christians, but if you see it that way, I can see how you responded defensively when they were brought up.
We will. Although as a point of clarification, my defensiveness is based on my disdain for political correctness, not a fellowship of Christianity. People that bomb abortion clinics are criminals, but it strikes me as utterly silly to compare that on *any* level to an event like 9/11.


Well, see, Pat Robertson has argued for the killing of Chavez, a head of state. Bin Laden, well, we all know what he has called for. So linking them is not as big a stretch as you might think.
I just can't see a reasonable comparison between someone expressing an opinion about how to deal with a dictator and someone who spends his life planing the death of innocents by the thousands, and has made it happen.


The other preachers, I just don't listen to them. But in order to stop their hatefull views from being espoused, we have to point out all the things they do wrong and show to the world that they are a fringe group and that christians are not like them, as a whole.
Fair enough, and I think overall people are fairly good about that.


For the record, I'm catholic. And if a catholic priest was talking like Phelps is talking, I'd be first in line to demonize him. I see them as scum that are using religion to sow hate and dissent in the world when the christian message is one of peace, love and charity.
Which is fine, but I'd still rather be locked in a room with the most militant Catholic Priest than with the most mild Islamic Terrorist.

There is absolutely nothing about being a religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people. Just like there is nothing about being a non-religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people.
apart from the conflicting view of the religion such as commandments or other tenets.

If you were truly religious, you'd still enjoy killing people, but feel guilty about it, I guess.

There is absolutely nothing about being a religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people. Just like there is nothing about being a non-religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people.


I was thinking along the lines of love thine enemy as thine friend and whatnot. You know... turn the other cheek. Though shalt not kill. Kill em all and let God sort em out... :p

If one seriously follows their religion I would guess that they would seriously believe in and abide by its doctrines.

I wouldnt expect a non-religious person to be anything because there is no set rules that a non-religious person is supposed to believe in as far as I know. I was never given a handbook on how to be non-religious.

apart from the conflicting view of the religion such as commandments or other tenets.

There may be PARTICULAR religions which prohibit killing, or which forbid believers to enjoy killing other people, but simply being "a religious person" doesn't carry that requirement. Many religions condone or even encourage the killing of certain people.


If you were truly religious, you'd still enjoy killing people, but feel guilty about it, I guess.
Depends on the religion. And the victim, in most cases.

I was thinking along the lines of love thine enemy as thine friend and whatnot. You know... turn the other cheek. Though shalt not kill. Kill em all and let God sort em out... :p

Those are tennets of particular religions. They are not necessarily concepts which are shared among all religions, or among all religious people.


If one seriously follows their religion I would guess that they would seriously believe in and abide by its doctrines.

Sure. And many religions condone or encourage killing other people under certain circumstances. Even the Bible contains plenty of examples of killings which God approved of. God specifically and directly orders His people to kill on several occasions.


I wouldnt expect a non-religious person to be anything because there is no set rules that a non-religious person is supposed to believe in as far as I know. I was never given a handbook on how to be non-religious.
There's no handbook on how to be religious, either. There are thousands (possibly millions) of different texts on how to be a good follower for one of a jillion different religious groups, but simply being "a religious person" doesn't carry any particular instructions in regards to the killing of others.

I think the West is a threat to Islam which is why militant Islam exists.

I think the West is a threat to Islam which is why militant Islam exists.
I don't think that's true, any more than I think Islam in general is a threat to the West.

Most of the West is composed of normal blokes and blokesses who just want to get home in time to catch the game on the telly. Most of the West is busy worrying about how the fuck to get their kid to stop dating that unkempt bugger he keeps bringing around the house. Most of the West is busy going to work, paying taxes, trying to get laid, dealing with the foibles of their offspring, dreaming of retirement, and generally not worrying much about Islam unless some crazy fuck yells "Allah Be Praised!" whilst blowing up a consulate or something.

And the sad thing? Most of the world's Muslims are up to the exact same shit, but we still can't seem to relate to one another.

Those are tennets of particular religions. They are not necessarily concepts which are shared among all religions, or among all religious people.


Sure. And many religions condone or encourage killing other people under certain circumstances. Even the Bible contains plenty of examples of killings which God approved of. God specifically and directly orders His people to kill on several occasions.


There's no handbook on how to be religious, either. There are thousands (possibly millions) of different texts on how to be a good follower for one of a jillion different religious groups, but simply being "a religious person" doesn't carry any particular instructions in regards to the killing of others.


You are right and I was not specific enough. But those are tennents of his particular religion.

What are your chances of convincing the American public that we can all relax now, forget Homeland Security, and scale back the military, and say, "well that 9-11 Commission got our panties in a bunch over nothing"?

Zero.And what in my post--or in any of my other posts, for that matter--would cause you to come to the ludicrous conclusion that I would suggest such a thing?

getting personal now, are we? Must have hit a nerve.When your answers reflect the reasoning of a two year old bedwetter, I treat you as one. It's nothing personal, I assure you. I treat all sorts of people around here like two year old bedwetters when they act like them, and like adults when they act like that as well.

You are right and I was not specific enough. But those are tennents of his particular religion.
That's up for debate, as I understand it. A great many Christians feel that their religion condones or encourages killing in certain situations.

That's up for debate, as I understand it. A great many Christians feel that their religion condones or encourages killing in certain situations.
As I understand it, for instance, the Catholic Church has rules set out to define a "just war," and during WWII, religious leaders on both sides of the conflict urged their followers to kill the enemy in Christ's name.

When your answers reflect the reasoning of a two year old bedwetter, I treat you as one. It's nothing personal, I assure you. I treat all sorts of people around here like two year old bedwetters when they act like them, and like adults when they act like that as well.

Um.. alrighty.

Mental note: Any disagreement with this individual reflects the general mentality of a 2-year old with a bedwetting problem.

So, to elevate myself to the status of an adult who sleeps dry, I am obliged to align my thinking with yours. Gotcha.

Come to think of it... I think I'd rather be 2 again... life was so much easier.

Um.. alrighty.

Mental note: Any disagreement with this individual reflects the general mentality of a 2-year old with a bedwetting problem.

So, to elevate myself to the status of an adult who sleeps dry, I am obliged to align my thinking with yours. Gotcha.

Come to think of it... I think I'd rather be 2 again... life was so much easier.
Let me spell it out for you--only a two-year old bedwetter would look at the situation in the Middle East and conclude that we re reducing the number of potential terrorists, and would make that point forcefully by using a rifle-pointing smiley. There are plenty of people around here with whom I disagree, often forcefully, who are not two year old bedwetters. It is not disagreement which condemns you to that status--it is your utter lack of sense and scope which does so.

And what in my post--or in any of my other posts, for that matter--would cause you to come to the ludicrous conclusion that I would suggest such a thing?
You're saying it's not a threat.

It follows, quite logically, that if there is no threat, there is no need for any expenditure of any money, time, personnel, or other resources on a non-existent problem.

That's what the logic of your position is. And you've said, quite clearly, that it's not a threat.

Let me spell it out for you--only a two-year old bedwetter would look at the situation in the Middle East and conclude that we re reducing the number of potential terrorists, and would make that point forcefully by using a rifle-pointing smiley. There are plenty of people around here with whom I disagree, often forcefully, who are not two year old bedwetters. It is not disagreement which condemns you to that status--it is your utter lack of sense and scope which does so.

If you say so.

I don't really think its a threat. Sure they can attack every once in awhile, but not enough to bring down the west. Plus the west response to such attacks i.e. Israel is often far disportional leading to the deaths of countless innocent people. The propangda and hype that surrounds "militant Islam" is nothing more than fear and war mongering, much like the Nazis did with the jews. So when Bush claims how "Islamofacists" must be stopped I always wonder who are the real facists in this little dispute.

You're saying it's not a threat.

It follows, quite logically, that if there is no threat, there is no need for any expenditure of any money, time, personnel, or other resources on a non-existent problem.

That's what the logic of your position is. And you've said, quite clearly, that it's not a threat.
Try again. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11581704&postcount=19) Just because I didn't vote in your bullshit poll doesn't mean I don't think it's a threat. I just don't happen to believe it's a threat worth pissing myself over, or one that requires the US toss several amendments overboard in order to combat.

Try again. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11581704&postcount=19) Just because I didn't vote in your bullshit poll doesn't mean I don't think it's a threat. I just don't happen to believe it's a threat worth pissing myself over, or one that requires the US toss several amendments overboard in order to combat.

Did I say any of the latter? It's either a threat, or it's not.

You can't have it both ways. So, I guess I'll put you down for a yes.

Did I say any of the latter? It's either a threat, or it's not.


Yeah yeah yeah. It's either a threat to the West, or it's a "non-existent problem."

And you're either with us, or against us.

Either Republican or Democrat.

Either White or Non-White.

Doesn't this shit get tiresome for you, DK?

Did I say any of the latter? It's either a threat, or it's not.

You can't have it both ways. So, I guess I'll put you down for a yes.
Sure, as long as by threat, you understand that I'm talking about "a threat to disrupt lives on rare occasions" and not "a threat to destroy the way of life to which we have become accustomed, overthrow our governments, and/or institute Sharia law throughout the region."

Sure, as long as by threat, you understand that I'm talking about "a threat to disrupt lives on rare occasions" and not "a threat to destroy the way of life to which we have become accustomed, overthrow our governments, and/or institute Sharia law throughout the region."

That's fine. So you're fine with us spending money on security?

That's fine. So you're fine with us spending money on security?
I always have been. Do you actually believe your own bullshit? That's scary.

I always have been. Do you actually believe your own bullshit? That's scary.
If you don't come out and say where you stand, I have to make assumptions based on your hints.

If you don't come out and say where you stand, I have to make assumptions based on your hints.
Now you're just fucking lying DK. I've never hinted at anything remotely resembling what you posted below, and you fucking well know it.

I don't really think its a threat. Sure they can attack every once in awhile, but not enough to bring down the west. Plus the west response to such attacks i.e. Israel is often far disportional leading to the deaths of countless innocent people. The propangda and hype that surrounds "militant Islam" is nothing more than fear and war mongering, much like the Nazis did with the jews. So when Bush claims how "Islamofacists" must be stopped I always wonder who are the real facists in this little dispute.
Right. There's no "militant Islam." It's all fear and warmongering. Another excuse to launch a Crusade is all that is. Man, I feel so enlightened now. No such thing as an "Islamofascist."

I guess we can go back to normal in the airports, since there's only an illusion of terrorism. I mean, sure, once in a while some guys from the Middle East (who just HAPPEN to be members of certain Muslim sects) might get out of control and do a little harm just to express themselves, but surely, that's no reason to get upset and respond. I mean, after all, other governments surely can't be held responsible for the actions of a few misunderstood individuals.

I mean, heck.. if it weren't for all this western imperialism, there never would have been a 9/11, right? Wow, I'm a fascist and all this time I thought I was just being sensible.

You've changed my life.

I mean, heck.. if it weren't for all this western imperialism, there never would have been a 9/11, right? Probably not...well, there would have been a date that is 9/11, but not the World Trade Center attacks that occurred on that date.

Right. There's no "militant Islam." It's all fear and warmongering. Another excuse to launch a Crusade is all that is. Man, I feel so enlightened now. No such thing as an "Islamofascist."

I guess we can go back to normal in the airports, since there's only an illusion of terrorism. I mean, sure, once in a while some guys from the Middle East (who just HAPPEN to be members of certain Muslim sects) might get out of control and do a little harm just to express themselves, but surely, that's no reason to get upset and respond. I mean, after all, other governments surely can't be held responsible for the actions of a few misunderstood individuals.

I mean, heck.. if it weren't for all this western imperialism, there never would have been a 9/11, right? Wow, I'm a fascist and all this time I thought I was just being sensible.

You've changed my life.

Just remember the sacred mantra - everything the West does, especially the US, is completely and utterly evil and devoid of anything good, and full of malice and badness, and everything that comes from anyone who violently opposes the West, especially opposing the US, is all good, and smiling, and benevolent, and they're only killing us for our own good.

Just remember the sacred mantra - everything the West does, especially the US, is completely and utterly evil and devoid of anything good, and full of malice and badness, and everything that comes from anyone who violently opposes the West, especially opposing the US, is all good, and smiling, and benevolent, and they're only killing us for our own good.
You've outdone yourself, DK. You've proven there's no actual limit to asininity.

You've outdone yourself, DK. You've proven there's no actual limit to asininity.
I learned everything I know about how to post on NS General from you, my master.

Even at our worst, we never aproach your level. Revel in it--you are the king.
I seriously doubt it.

I learned everything I know about how to post on NS General from you, my master.
Even at our worst, we never aproach your level. Revel in it--you are the king.

For the record, I do not believe in the same brand of Christianity as either of those guys......Because it's so inconvenient when people with morals refuse to sit quietly.
You really don't agree with them?

You think that they have morals?

You would prefer I was an amateur?

The implication is that you shouldn't enjoy killing at all. Jesus Christ our Lord wanted us to do our best to rise above primal instincts like lust for violence.

They are, as is anyone who puts his or her life in danger for my sake.
They're not necessarily doing it for your sake. Putting one's life in danger is not inherently respectable.

Benefitting the majority... What is that supposed to mean? When WWII was over were minorities still living under Nazi rule? Were they still under threat of invasion from Japan?

Or were they just as secure as the majority?
Nothing so outrageous. I mean like the police, health and education, to name some other programmes that benefit the majority.

But every soldier MIGHT in the course of his/her duty.
True, but you don't base respect on what "might" happen. They "might" spend most of their career playing video games.

Does it matter? Soldiers don't make policy.
Yes it matters. I respect WWII vets much more than Iraq War vets. I don't hate the latter, I just don't elevate them.

However, WWII vets were people who fought for the survival of democracy, tolerance and our countries.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't consider talking about a serious problem (clinics bombings) as vilifying christians, but if you see it that way, I can see how you responded defensively when they were brought up.
Maybe it's ignorance talking, but how many abortion bombers has North America had? Three? When was the last one? 1986?


Well, see, Pat Robertson has argued for the killing of Chavez, a head of state. Bin Laden, well, we all know what he has called for. So linking them is not as big a stretch as you might think.
Compare what Pat Robertson has done (i.e. nothing) to what Bin Laden has done (planned and executed the killing of over 3,000 people).

There is absolutely nothing about being a religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people. Just like there is nothing about being a non-religious person which would inherently conflict with enjoying killing other people.
Christianity specifically tells its followers not to kill people though. As do most post-Christian secular belief systems.

I just can't see a reasonable comparison between someone expressing an opinion about how to deal with a dictator
Chavez isn't a dictator. You may not like him, I don't like him much either but that doesn't mean he's a dictator.

I think the West is a threat to Islam which is why militant Islam exists.
If the West was a threat to Islam, surely Muslims would be getting rounded up and executed in the heart of Western territory.

Instead, they have more religious freedom than Muslims in Pakistan.

As I understand it, for instance, the Catholic Church has rules set out to define a "just war," and during WWII, religious leaders on both sides of the conflict urged their followers to kill the enemy in Christ's name.
Are you sure you don't mean WWI?

After WWI most Europeans never again bought into the "God is on our side" line.

Just because I didn't vote in your bullshit poll doesn't mean I don't think it's a threat.
Then vote yes, be voter #100! Just because DK wrote the poll doesn't mean we must boycott it.

You're saying it's not a threat.

A fuckload of people writing in this thread didn't vote!

I'll reply only to those adressed to me:

Maybe it's ignorance talking, but how many abortion bombers has North America had? Three? When was the last one? 1986?
Now look at how many islamic terrorist attacks the US has had since, say 1986. You'll see that the odds of being injured in a clinic bombing is about the same as being injured in an islamic attack. So, either both are serious threats or none are.


Compare what Pat Robertson has done (i.e. nothing) to what Bin Laden has done (planned and executed the killing of over 3,000 people).

Hey, the guy wanted a comparison. I gave him one. But since we're there, who's to say Mr. Robertson isn't actively funding a terrorist action as we speak to remove Chavez?

Mr. Robertson had no reason to advocate the killing of another person. Even less as he is supposed to preach for "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek". Mr. Robertson is a lost sheep and in dire need of a bitch slap from on high telling him to "repent, sinner". He's a hypocrite who would have been investigated had he been in many other countries besides the USA.

Christianity specifically tells its followers not to kill people though.

Some sects of Christianity tell their followers to never kill other people. Other sects tell their followers to kill certain people under certain situations. "Christianity" is not a uniform body of doctrine, nor does "Christianity" present any universally-accepted rule (among Christians) against the killing of any and all humans.


As do most post-Christian secular belief systems.

Pretty much every system, ever, has included restrictions on killing. This is simple pragmatism, since societies in which random killing is rampant are not going to retain much stability.

However, this is all totally irrelevant to what I was saying to begin with. Let me repeat it: there is NOTHING about being "a religious person" which automatically means one must not enjoy killing, any more than there is something about being "a non-religious person" which means one must not enjoy killing.

Remember, "religious person" =/= "Christian," and even if it did there would still be plenty of examples of how certain killings are perfectly in line with the teachings and philosophies of many Christian denominations.

[...] Then vote yes, be voter #100! Just because DK wrote the poll doesn't mean we must boycott it.

A fuckload of people writing in this thread didn't vote!
Being one of those not voting, yet still occasionally discussing, I want to make two points:

Never would I boycott something, merely because it was written by someone I do not agree with.

The question is shallow, especially concerning the broad definition of threat that is given; taking this definition into account, all but a few would vote yes. Moreover it lacks lack of a decent definition of militant Islam, which is not a homogenous group.

Right. There's no "militant Islam."
I never said there wasn't, I said it wasnt a threat to destroy your way of life.

It's all fear and warmongering. Another excuse to launch a Crusade is all that is.
basically, yeah

No such thing as an "Islamofascist."
no there really isnt. Its a made up word and a cheesy attempt to the link the "war on terror" to fighting the nazis in WW2
I guess we can go back to normal in the airports, since there's only an illusion of terrorism. I mean, sure, once in a while some guys from the Middle East (who just HAPPEN to be members of certain Muslim sects) might get out of control and do a little harm just to express themselves, but surely, that's no reason to get upset and respond.
The airport goes too far. Its stupid. They make everyone take their shoes off and now no liquids. I think people just think of these plots to have a laugh at what airport security's response will be. I never said you can't respond to attacks but keep in mind the response has killed far more innocent people than the attacks.


I mean, heck.. if it weren't for all this western imperialism, there never would have been a 9/11, right? Wow, I'm a fascist and all this time I thought I was just being sensible.
In Islam there is the greater Jihad, the Jihad against the self. That is the struggle to make your self better. Then there is lesser Jihad which states that if your people, town, Islam, etc. is attacked you have Gods permission to fight back and protect yourself. A minority in Islam feel the west attacked them, so right or wrong they attack back. So the argument could be made that if it were not for the spread of western culture and western imperialism, there would be no 9/11.

no there really isnt. Its a made up word and a cheesy attempt to the link the "war on terror" to fighting the nazis in WW2

Honestly, I thought that "Islamofacist" was a word that was created to make fun of the pro-War side! I didn't even know that there were people who seriously used the term.

Honestly, I thought that "Islamofacist" was a word that was created to make fun of the pro-War side! I didn't even know that there were people who seriously used the term.

That silly American guy used it recently in one of his speeches....

Just remember the sacred mantra - everything the West does, especially the US, is completely and utterly evil and devoid of anything good, and full of malice and badness, and everything that comes from anyone who violently opposes the West, especially opposing the US, is all good, and smiling, and benevolent, and they're only killing us for our own good.


Die infidel !

The only answer is a Nuclear world war show down.

Where did I say a majority think militant Islam is NOT a threat? Linky.
It was in that older thread about a church firing a woman for being female. You said it several times in that thread. I can't be bothered to go search for the damned thing now. If you insist on insisting that you never said it, I will search for it, but it will only reinforce my dislike of you.

It was in that older thread about a church firing a woman for being female. You said it several times in that thread. I can't be bothered to go search for the damned thing now. If you insist on insisting that you never said it, I will search for it, but it will only reinforce my dislike of you.This one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496874

Failing to agree with you is not being disingenuous. I'm beginning to find that I have to repeat myself, which suggest that my posts aren't being read as carefully as you would want me to read yours.

You are right in your characterization of terrorist goals. We agree there.

Where we disagree is in the mind of militant pro-lifers. Allow me to expand on that, since I believe I understand a little better, if I may.

A militant pro-lifer operates under the mistaken notion that on some level they are doing God's will and fighting as a soldier of some type (So far, much like a terrorist.) However, fear is not their objective. These people are past the point of political change. They don't believe that fear will accomplish their mission because they have already lost faith in the government and the laws to do the right thing. In a sense, they become vigilantes, operating under a set of laws that they believe supercede those of society.

When they use bombs to damage abortion clinics, they see it as a way to damage the "enemy's" ability to kill the innocent unborn. When they target a practitioner of abortions with a sniper rifle, they see it as a way to both punish a mass murderer as well as prevent him from killing any more.

Given that mentality, do you see where it would not be consistent for such a person to use a nuclear weapon to kill thousands of innocents in the process?

To me, this is onbvious. I find it bewildering that somehow people can elevate that to the same level as Osama Bin Laden.

Now, since I kn ow how things get distorted on here, I'm quite sure that unless i include some sort of disclaimer, somebody is going to insinuate that I support abortion clinic bombings or some such nonsense. So I state for the record that I do NOT support such actions, as they are hyppocritical at best. It is not for a militant pro-lifer or ANYONE to make summary decisions on who lives or who dies, and how they should be punished for their sins. Such judgements are reserved for God alone.
I'm sorry, but all I see here is the application of a double standard. Nothing you say here about militant pro-lifers makes them look any different to me from any other kind of terrorist. You outline their thinking quite nicely, but it is still nothing more than a catalogue of worthless excuses they cite as justifications. And they sound exactly the same as the ones the Islamic terrorists claim. And just a worthless, too.

I call this a double standard because you have shown me the militant pro-lifers doing what I see as the exact same thing as the Islamic terrorists, yet you insist that when the militant pro-lifers (who are overwhelmingly Christian, by the way) do it, you seem to think it has some more positive, or at least less negative, value than when the Islamists do it. In keeping with your disclaimer, I am not suggesting that you yourself are trying to justify killing abortion doctors, but you are still insisting that some kind of qualitative difference exists. I see no such difference and I reject the suggestion.

This one?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=496874
Yes, thanks. :)

Yes, thanks. :)You're welcome.

Here's the OP.



Where, in that, am I saying a majority of NSers think it's not a threat?

Where?

Or do you need a class in remedial English?
Thanks to Jello Biafra, the link has been posted, above. The linked-to thread shows the origin of this thread. It shows how you made a completely bogus attempt to discredit the arguments of posters critical of US polices re terrorism by comparing them to the opinion of ONE POSTER -- you suggested it was OceanDrive. OceanDrive was not participating in that thread, and no one else had brought up, postively or negatively, the opinion you attributed to him. Yet you went on to insist, several times over, that his supposed claims that Islamic terrorism is a myth and that there is no threat is a widespread view among liberals on NS, and this thread was your attempt to prove this claim to me, who challenged you on it. Now, since this is the third time, I've had to remind you of the origin of your own thread, I hope you'll be able to get it now.

I voted yes and consider them a greater threat than any other group on Earth.
They are the only group to fly airplanes into a skyscraper and all signs indicate that there are still Muslims that would be willing to do so again.
Which is a more dire threat than anything or anyone else on Earth.

Alright I see what you're saying. And normally I'd agree with you, but the context of this threat is the here and now. In 20 years could there be a new pseudo-nazi group with a nuke threateneing some major city? Sure, there could be. Could a militant uber-left-wing group of anti-government anarchists someday use a nuke to try and destroy the Government? yeah.

But here, now, today, it's the Islamo-fascists. THAT is the question of this debate. Are they a threat, or aren't they?

Have you guys ever read the book "The Sum of All Fears?" seen the movie? For those who have, what was the biggest difference between the two?

The villains. In the original book, the villains were a group of Islamic militants who reverse-engineered an Israeli nuke that has been lost during the six days' war. In the movie, it was a gang of neo-nazis trying to trigger a war between the USA and the USSR.

I think that was a miserable error. The entertainment media should reflect the times. We go see the m ovies because they MEAN something to us today. Who cares about neo-nazis? They're not much threat these days, may or may not ever be. but Islamic terrorism.. that IS relevant and has been for some time.

Anyone notice how it used to be there were lots of movies that had Islaic militants as the villains, but after 9/11 that all dried up? Political Correctness took over, and I think that same phenomena is the reason so many people downplay the level of threat we're all still under from these psychos.
I do not think it is a good idea to direct public and international government policies according to what Hollywood thinks will sell tickets in any given year.

There is the part of the problem we pay attention to at any time, and then there is the whole problem, the part that can be called The Big Picture. Islamic terrorism is the flavor of the moment. Terrorism is The Big Picture. We should not be asking ourselves, "What are we going to do about these crazy, violent Muslims this year?" We should be asking ourselves, "What are we going to do about terrorism every day of every year?" The policies and tactics we develop should be geared towards terrorism, not Muslims. When the Muslims act up, the tactics can be tailored to them. Later, when the fundamentalist of some other religion act up, the same tactics can be tailored to them. In many cases, the tactics will not need tailoring but will work equally against all potential terrorists -- preventative measures such as border security methods, airline security methods, public surveillance procedures, etc.

If we spend all our time worrying about Muslims because they are today's source of a what is really a non-source-specific threat, then we will be forced to reinvent the wheel, procedure- and policy-wise, when a non-Islamic source of terrorism comes up.

It is time to recognize that the focus on the Islamic identity of today's terrorists automatically recharacterizes the issue as a cultural conflict, and that this is entirely beside the point of terrorism and what makes it a threat. We do not protect ourselves from terrorism by protecting ourselves from Muslims.

Yes, it's a threat to the west, but "The west" is going to fall very soon anyway, I only hope it can styay up long enough for me to get the money to flee to Japan.

I don't understand the logic of that; the 'who' determines culture and context (and so what their past history of behaviours and worldview suggesting future behaviours is), what their goals are (and whether they can be negociated), what their tactics are likely to be (and ergo how they can be stopped/ameliorated), what level of support they'll have and where it'll come from.

And that's not even beginning to think about the fact that terrorist 'threats' aren't just about damage to buildings and lifes lost - see above for debate.
Everything you list is consistent with what I listed as the reasons cops and politicians need to care about such things, i.e. the people who need to tailor generic anti-terrorism tactics to the given terrorists of the moment. So, for instance, it is important for the cops in Spain to know the cultural and ideological differences between Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and Basque separatist terrorists (yes, I know ETA disarmed; it's just an example) in order to infiltrate the different groups. But Spanish train riders do not need to care about this if they don't want to, because the Spanish train riders did not do anything to provoke a bomb attack and there is nothing the Spanish train riders can do, no cultural appeal they can make, to persuade the terrorists not to attack them. Ergo, the terrorists' motives, culture, etc, are irrelevant, and the identity of the killer setting off the bomb is also irrelevant to the general public.

Unless, of course, it is your goal to provoke inter-cultural conflict as a response to terrorism. You know, if you think it is a legitimate argument to say that all Muslims are terrorists and therefore all you need to know is that you're dealing with a Muslim to invoke an anti-terrorist response. I do not think that is a legitimate argument.

I don't know if you folks have noticed, but Deep Kimchi and I both live pretty close to Washington, DC.

Can you see where that would make the whole issue of Islamic terrorism a bigger deal to us than to someone in a place like West Undershirt, IN?

I work in Alexandria, just outside the southern part of DC. I live in Maryland just north of it (Not in Baltimore anymore, but I've been too lazy to update my profile). If you guys ever wake up one morning to learn that terrorists have set off a nuke in Washington, then know that New Bretonnia will not appear on the threads anymore.

Deep Kimchi is a little better off, but not by much. At least the gulf stream would blow the fallout away from him.

It MATTERS to some of us, folks.
I love the way you try to imply that anyone who disagrees with you about HOW to fight terrorism just doesn't care about terrorism -- we couldn't possibly understand because we were never touched by it.

Well, I'm from New York City. My best friends were lucky to avoid being caught in the NYC financial district at the very moment the planes hit, as they were driving through that part of town at the time, and one of those best friends' brothers was an NYPD cop who responded to the WTC scene on the day and lost a lot of good friends and colleagues when the buildings collapsed. Plus, I live in Boston, MA, from where the 9/11 killers took off. So how's that for being too close to history?

Screw that "you people don't care 'cause you don't know what it's like" bullshit. I do know what it's like, from both ends, and I still say Bush's policies are dead wrong.

Yes, it's a threat to the west, but "The west" is going to fall very soon anyway, I only hope it can styay up long enough for me to get the money to flee to Japan.
psst... Japan is to the WEST of the US. :p

one of the disadvantages of living on a GLOBE! Everything is on the west of you... even if it's on your immediate right... it would just take longer to get there. :D :D

Right. They want to convert it to their brand of fundamentalist Islam...

...which amounts to the same thing, IMHO.
I asked this of DK before, and he never answered me, so I'll ask it of you:

Do you think they CAN destroy the West? Do you think they CAN convert the West to their brand of fundamentalism?

At what point would you bow down before them? At what point would you acknowledge they they have the power to destroy your way of life and spiritual beliefs?

Hmm... I've had well over 60 shoot at me over time. And I didn't shoot first...
I know just how they felt...

60, huh? Well, I guess they aren't all that much of a threat, then, since they obviously can't shoot for shit, seeing as you're still here.

psst... Japan is to the WEST of the US. :p

one of the disadvantages of living on a GLOBE! Everything is on the west of you... even if it's on your immediate right... it would just take longer to get there. :D :D
Smart arse. ;) But Japan f-ing pwns.

<snip>
That's the crucial difference. I fear Islamic terrorists more than Christian terrorists. Islamic terrorists have the ability and tendency to kill hundreads of people at a time in almost any part of the world. Christian terrorists tend to be localised and low-power.

It's illogical to be more concerned about Christian terrorists.
First of all, I never said a person should be MORE concerned about Christian terrorists. I only said I saw no difference between Islamic terrorists and Christian ones. Second, I disagree with you: I think the logical thing is to be more concerned about terrorism than about Muslims.

I agree, anti-choice terrorists would probably want to kill 1,000 abortion doctors with a bomb. But where are they going to get that many of them concentrated in one area?
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.

Harvard Medical School on graduation day.

Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center and Research Laboratory, NYC

Pretty much any major urban medical complex, any major university's medical school, and any major medical conference.

Remember, few doctors specialize in abortions. Most who perform abortions also perform other ostetrical or gyneacological services.

I can't make you see the difference if you simply refuse to. It's fashionable to villify Christians and deify Muslims in the PC culture of today.

How else can you have people trying to assert that somehow Pat Robertson is no better than Osama Bin Laden? Or James Dobson is another Adolph Hitler? That's just stupid. It's completely illogical.

For the record, I do not believe in the same brand of Christianity as either of those guys, but I see no value in demonizing them just for having beliefs that may not match my own, and for standing up and talking about them publicly.

Hm. Maybe THAT is why people demonize them. Because it's so inconvenient when people with morals refuse to sit quietly.
This is exactly what I complained about when DK did it. You are complaining about an opinion that no one has expressed. Where has anyone in this conversation villified Christians or deified Muslims? Hm? Please argue with the people who are in the thread, and please do not try to blame us for things other people say.

Militant Islam will continue to be a threat to the West so long as the West pursues idiotic policies abroad.

Because so many people who deny it's a threat to the West later come back in other threads and deny they've ever said it, we're going to have to find out once and for all who believes it and who doesn't.

This is a public poll because of the constant denials.

Let's say the West is the EU and US.

"Threat" means that they have the intent to destroy the West, and are trying to act on it.

To ask the question is to answer it.

Yes. And not only to the West, but to all of civilization.

To ask the question is to answer it.

Yes. And not only to the West, but to all of civilization.

They would certainly destroy the civilizations of the Middle East were they to succeed by ushering in the Dark Ages. It's a bit more likely than them destroying the West, at least.