NationStates Jolt Archive

or, rather, the impossilbility of it. An amazing article by an Iranian journalist:

".you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html

or, rather, the impossilbility of it. An amazing article by an Iranian journalist:

".you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you."


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-1684970,00.html

Do you never, ever, ever get bored of the same thread under a different name time after time after time after time after time.

*looks at gun smilies, then decides against it*

Maybe we can't negotiate with them, but we can stop creating conditions that make it easier for their ideas to spread. i.e., stop unconditionally supporting Israel, pull out of the Middle East, etc.

Do you never, ever, ever get bored of the same thread under a different name time after time after time after time after time.

*looks at gun smilies, then decides against it*

Wait, his the guy doing repeat threads?

Wait, his the guy doing repeat threads?

It is.

Maybe we can't negotiate with them, but we can stop creating conditions that make it easier for their ideas to spread. i.e., stop unconditionally supporting Israel, pull out of the Middle East, etc.

You didn't read the link. That is exactly the point. There isn't some geo-political issue. There is a religion bent on world conquest.

or, rather, the impossilbility of it. An amazing article by an Iranian journalist:

What's even more amazing is getting into an "alliance" coughKSAcoughPak and pursuing separate peace with said radical islamists and expecting others not to do the same.

There isn't some geo-political issue. There is a religion bent on world conquest.

Ah jeez, not the global islam conspiracy theory again.

There is a religion bent on world conquest.

Ah, of course. That's why every single Islamic nation and every single Muslim in the world is taking up arms against the glorious west. It's not like the Middle East has been subjagated at all by western powers or anything. It's not like America ever initiated the overthow of a peaceful democrocy in Iran, supplied and trained extremely violent Mujahedeen fighters in Afghanistan, or help weaken the Qassim government in Iraq and install Saddam Saddam Hussein.

This whole Middle Eastern conflict isn't about Islam at all. It's about politics, oil, and crazy people taking words from a very old book way too seriously.

Ah jeez, not the global islam conspiracy theory again.

"All hail discordia"

Maybe we can't negotiate with them, but we can stop creating conditions that make it easier for their ideas to spread. i.e., stop unconditionally supporting Israel, pull out of the Middle East, etc.

right, and all hitler want was some area in france AND austria AND checoslovakia. europe give him that and declared "peace for enternity".
great day for negotition. probably save many lives ):

wake up people. you can't negotiate with anybody. you can see how it end with north korea and iran, for recent example.

I had no problem with negotiation with the palastinians and maybe the syrians (if they stop harbouring and supporting terrorists). I agree to give up territories for peace, if the other side will stop his terrorists.
but there is no place for negotiation with people which their goal is death for infidels. you can't make peace with someone who want to kill anyone which disagree with him.
stop thinking that if you abandon israel and maybe some more countries they will stop the terror. you search for reasons in places they aren't exist with logic the radical islam don't know.
I have no problem with arab, or muslims and they are surely good people in iran as well. only even them are against the fundementalist islam. the moderate muslim understand something you ignore. it impossible to improve human right, fight woman abuse and discrimnitation or make peace when the radical islam stand alive.
that is the reason, iran was the only muslim country which gave aid to the goverment of hamas, and the only ones which help hizbulla on the last summer. others may condemn israel too, but they know the radicals are their real problem.
all the muslim intelectual keep repeat it. especialy when they in western countries and they can speak free.
radical islam murdered more muslims than others, and more muslims than other killed. they take the islam as hostage and they used it against the moderate muslims.
fight, educate, do whatever you want, but stop the bullshit of "negotiations with radical islam".

You didn't read the link. That is exactly the point. There isn't some geo-political issue. There is a religion bent on world conquest.

And the chances of them succeeding rest somewhere between "not at all" and "not a fucking chance in hell." So what's the problem here? I mean, I want a flying pony, but it's not like my neighbors have to worry about horseshit on their roofs either.

Of course you can't negotiate with RADICAL Islam (hence the 'radical' part), we're trying to negotiate with MODERATE Islam and we're trying to make sure the MODERATES stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!

Well in reference to Iraq I would say the US is that the point in which they will negotiate with anyone.

But I really hate this kind of rhetoric, 'these islamist fascist nazis have no reason', your underestimating your enemy to the point that your saying he is stupid, and cannot reason. Hezbollah, PLO and many many so called 'terrorists' groups have negotiated and made successful settlements in the past. These groups always point to certain events, such as the Palestinian occupation and the War in Iraq etc, as the reasoning for their attacks. For some fool to come along and say 'no they just want to kill us' is the kind of ignorance and influence foreign policy that got the twin towers bombed, among other events.

Well in reference to Iraq I would say the US is that the point in which they will negotiate with anyone.

But I really hate this kind of rhetoric, 'these islamist fascist nazis have no reason', your underestimating your enemy to the point that your saying he is stupid, and cannot reason. Hezbollah, PLO and many many so called 'terrorists' groups have negotiated and made successful settlements in the past. These groups always point to certain events, such as the Palestinian occupation and the War in Iraq etc, as the reasoning for their attacks. For some fool to come along and say 'no they just want to kill us' is the kind of ignorance and influence foreign policy that got the twin towers bombed, among other events.

How can you call the negotiation with Hezbollah and PLO successful. Were you hiding under a rock last summer?

".you are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or round-table discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you."

Wow - that description sounds exactly like certain Christians in debates on issues like gay marriage or evolution.
Scary :s

How can you call the negotiation with Hezbollah and PLO successful. Were you hiding under a rock last summer?

Irrelevant, can you tell me that every negotiation the US or western countries have been involved with has been successful with everyone smiling? Of course not. The point is, they are willing to negotiate, but of course success is not assured when you yourself have backed these people into a corner.

Fact remains, these people are not insane murderers whos every waking thought is to kill infidels, and the rhetoric which says they are is ill-founded and dangerous. Saying 'Our enemies do not think, they have no reason' is about as logical as 'We are right, you are wrong'.

Of course you can't negotiate with RADICAL Islam (hence the 'radical' part), we're trying to negotiate with MODERATE Islam and we're trying to make sure the MODERATES stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!

Moderate islam? Ja. A moderate Australian cleric recently came under fire for comparing Western women to "uncovered meat" and saying that gang rapists were getting far too harsh sentences.

Moderate islam? Ja. A moderate Australian cleric recently came under fire for comparing Western women to "uncovered meat" and saying that gang rapists were getting far too harsh sentences.

well he’s not going out doing anything illegal and maybe just maybe he has a point (well hes an old man so he’s bound to hate how women dress)

right, and all hitler want was some area in france AND austria AND checoslovakia. europe give him that and declared "peace for enternity".
great day for negotition. probably save many lives ):

actually all Hitler wanted was former German territories (only in Europe) and Russia funny thing is he was copying the American western expansion only in the opposite direction (unfortunately for him Britain was sworn to protect Poland)

And I have no idea what you where going on about with France which pretty much sums up your post

edit: oh and the negotiations gave us vital time to build up are armed forces again

well he’s not going out doing anything illegal and maybe just maybe he has a point (well hes an old man so he’s bound to hate how women dress)

No, no he doesn't. A woman should be allowed to wear what she wants without some muslim scum kidnapping and raping her.

No, no he doesn't. A woman should be allowed to wear what she wants without some muslim scum kidnapping and raping her.

weird I thought he was talking about what women wear these days is terrible (which pretty much everyone over the age of 30 will say) and this cleric goes round raping and killing?

Oh right how silly of me I forgot that all Muslims are demons bent on destroying America after all its not like they can be normal guys:rolleyes:

Of course you can't negotiate with RADICAL Islam (hence the 'radical' part), we're trying to negotiate with MODERATE Islam and we're trying to make sure the MODERATES stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!
QFT.

Irrelevant, can you tell me that every negotiation the US or western countries have been involved with has been successful with everyone smiling? Of course not. The point is, they are willing to negotiate, but of course success is not assured when you yourself have backed these people into a corner.

Fact remains, these people are not insane murderers whos every waking thought is to kill infidels, and the rhetoric which says they are is ill-founded and dangerous. Saying 'Our enemies do not think, they have no reason' is about as logical as 'We are right, you are wrong'.

Yea, you are forgetting that these are the same people that killed 3,000 of innocent people, as well as behead several more, dragged them through a street, burn them, hang them from bridges and had a party. These are the same people who after seeing that a Danish drew a cartoon of Muhammad rioted in the street of London calling for another 9/11, and another Holocaust.

Yea, these are sane people all right. :rolleyes:

Of course you can't negotiate with RADICAL Islam (hence the 'radical' part), we're trying to negotiate with MODERATE Islam and we're trying to make sure the MODERATES stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!!

What makes you think the Radicals won't turn on it's own?

What makes you think the Radicals won't turn on it's own?
Unless I'm missing something here... yes, that was the point. Perhaps "stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam" was a clue?

All right, perhaps I did misinterpret that. Are you implying the radicals will turn on their fellow radicals? If so, what relevance does this have to negotiating with radical Islam?

Unless I'm missing something here... yes, that was the point. Perhaps "stop the RADICALS from dominating Islam" was a clue?

All right, perhaps I did misinterpret that. Are you implying the radicals will turn on their fellow radicals? If so, what relevance does this have to negotiating with radical Islam?

No what I am saying is what makes you think the radicals won't just end up killing the moderates?

Yea, these are sane people all right. :rolleyes:

considering radical Islam isn't one unified group and that things like the beheadings actually do have some reason behind them (you don’t get up in the morning and go “oh I will decapitate someone this afternoon), you can say that though fairly crazy the have at least an ounce of sanity in them otherwise they wouldn’t get very far in life at all

considering radical Islam isn't one unified group and that things like the beheadings actually do have some reason behind them (you don’t get up in the morning and go “oh I will decapitate someone this afternoon), you can say that though fairly crazy the have at least an ounce of sanity in them otherwise they wouldn’t get very far in life at all

You don't have to be stupid to be insane.

You don't have to be stupid to be insane.

But you have to be sane to not believe if you jump off a bridge you will fly

Moderate islam? Ja. A moderate Australian cleric recently came under fire for comparing Western women to "uncovered meat" and saying that gang rapists were getting far too harsh sentences.
How is Sheik Hilali moderate?

well he’s not going out doing anything illegal and maybe just maybe he has a point (well hes an old man so he’s bound to hate how women dress)
I hate the way so many atheist liberals like you ridicule Christian social conservatives, but when a Muslim social conservative says the same things, you think "maybe he has a point".

weird I thought he was talking about what women wear these days is terrible (which pretty much everyone over the age of 30 will say)
No, they won't, and even less will say that rapists are being hard done by the law (which is obviously not true).

Oh right how silly of me I forgot that all Muslims are demons bent on destroying America after all its not like they can be normal guys:rolleyes:
Wow, that's like a triple-strength strawman.

Yea, these are sane people all right. :rolleyes:
Most of them aren't insane, they're just very brutal ideologues.

How is Sheik Hilali moderate?
He's moderate when he's representative of all Muslims in Australia, he's extremist when it needs to be shown that the government is soft on Muslims in Australia.

It's all a matter of what you're trying to argue. :D

You don't prevent bee stings by tossing rocks at a beehive.

Well in reference to Iraq I would say the US is that the point in which they will negotiate with anyone.

But I really hate this kind of rhetoric, 'these islamist fascist nazis have no reason', your underestimating your enemy to the point that your saying he is stupid, and cannot reason. Hezbollah, PLO and many many so called 'terrorists' groups have negotiated and made successful settlements in the past. These groups always point to certain events, such as the Palestinian occupation and the War in Iraq etc, as the reasoning for their attacks. For some fool to come along and say 'no they just want to kill us' is the kind of ignorance and influence foreign policy that got the twin towers bombed, among other events.

Read the article about by the Iranian journalist. Their is never a way to placate these islamic fundamenatlists. There was a plot 20 years ago to fly a hijacked plane into the Eiffel Tower? Why? Something about Algeria. The Cole bombijngs and attacks? Never really had a specific gripe there, something crazy like "infidels being in Saudi Arabia". It's always something. Any excuse will serve a tyrant.

AESOP:

WOLF, meeting with a Lamb astray from the fold, resolved not to
lay violent hands on him, but to find some plea to justify to the
Lamb the Wolf's right to eat him. He thus addressed him:
"Sirrah, last year you grossly insulted me." "Indeed," bleated
the Lamb in a mournful tone of voice, "I was not then born." Then
said the Wolf, "You feed in my pasture." "No, good sir," replied
the Lamb, "I have not yet tasted grass." Again said the Wolf,
"You drink of my well." "No," exclaimed the Lamb, "I never yet
drank water, for as yet my mother's milk is both food and drink
to me." Upon which the Wolf seized him and ate him up, saying,
"Well! It must have been your father. I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny.

You don't prevent bee stings by tossing rocks at a beehive.

And you don't live with a beehive right by your door. You wait until nightfall and blast it with beekiller. I do it about twice a year. Paper hornets.

Wow - that description sounds exactly like certain Christians in debates on issues like gay marriage or evolution.
Scary :s


Any Christian leader advocating murder would lose his flock in a moment.

And you don't live with a beehive right by your door. You wait until nightfall and blast it with beekiller. I do it about twice a year. Paper hornets.
Sounds like Heathengrad is advocating nuclear genocide.

Sounds like Heathengrad is advocating nuclear genocide.


What the fuck are you talking about?

I think you're mistaking conservatania's comment for mine.

Well in reference to Iraq I would say the US is that the point in which they will negotiate with anyone.

But I really hate this kind of rhetoric, 'these islamist fascist nazis have no reason', your underestimating your enemy to the point that your saying he is stupid, and cannot reason.

Of course you hate it. No one wants to fight an unreasonable enemy. Everyone wants to feel they can talk someone out of murder if their life was at risk. It is scary for many to know your enemy is a crazed religious fanatic not only willing but desirous of death.

I don't think anyone is accusing Bin Laden of being stupid. He is wily and evil and clever in his mass murdering plotting.

And, by the way, anyone out there, tell me what demands Bin Laden would need to stop his plotting? The Jews all gone from Israel? The Saudi government overthrown and Bin Laden or some radical fundamentalist in charge? Every place Muslims live made a radical fundamentalist theocracy? What else? Florida? Hawaii? Then he'll just fade away, throw away his god-like following and declare peace?

I'm not against taking out terrorists, but the problem is with the gungho methods that try to polarize shades of grey and end up creating more anti-american sentiment and terrorists than reducing them.

I'm not against taking out terrorists, but the problem is with the gungho methods that try to polarize shades of grey and end up creating more anti-american sentiment and terrorists than reducing them.

So what would you suggest?

Blah blah blah Islam is evil blah blah blah yet another islam bashing thread. Yawn.

One of the major problems with our view on Islam is how we approached 9/11. We did not attack Al Qaeda we attacked Afghanistan which at the time was supporting the Taliban. In a similar manner when we attacked Iraq we attacked all of Iraq and not the fundamentalists. I wish there had been more thought involved in the strategy. Maybe we should have attacked Al Qaeda and hunted them down until there were none left before attacking the whole nation. In a similar manner instead of attacking Iraq we might have thought a little more and addressed a way to reduce the power of Islamic fundamentalism. The strategy is to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

Not all muslims are fundamentalist. Some are open to reason, and these can be used as a lever to reduce the fundamentalist threat. You may not be able to negotiate with the fundamentalists, but you can certainly reduce the pool they can recruit from by creating conditions where it is harder to join terrorist organizations and there are more reasons not to join. The problem is the classic one, You don't use a tank to hunt a field mouse, you use a cat.

The United States needs to create a better intelligence and police organization to catch terrorists. Every time we give up freedoms in the name of security or religion, we symbolically lose to terrorists. Changing ourselves into fundamentalist christians will not defeat terrorism it will create crusades. Terrorism is a political agenda, and the goal is to defeat the political agenda as well as the military one.

We cannot become what the terrorists want us to become, it will fuel their recruitment and political goals. Political reaction without thinking is a primary tool of terrorism, every time we see someone blow up and turn into a frothing idiot we lose to terrorists. We need cold hard people, people who can think and remain cool under pressure.

One of the major problems with our view on Islam is how we approached 9/11. We did not attack Al Qaeda we attacked Afghanistan which at the time was supporting the Taliban. In a similar manner when we attacked Iraq we attacked all of Iraq and not the fundamentalists. I wish there had been more thought involved in the strategy. Maybe we should have attacked Al Qaeda and hunted them down until there were none left before attacking the whole nation. In a similar manner instead of attacking Iraq we might have thought a little more and addressed a way to reduce the power of Islamic fundamentalism. The strategy is to defeat Islamic fundamentalist terrorists.

Not all muslims are fundamentalist. Some are open to reason, and these can be used as a lever to reduce the fundamentalist threat. You may not be able to negotiate with the fundamentalists, but you can certainly reduce the pool they can recruit from by creating conditions where it is harder to join terrorist organizations and there are more reasons not to join. The problem is the classic one, You don't use a tank to hunt a field mouse, you use a cat.

The United States needs to create a better intelligence and police organization to catch terrorists. Every time we give up freedoms in the name of security or religion, we symbolically lose to terrorists. Changing ourselves into fundamentalist christians will not defeat terrorism it will create crusades. Terrorism is a political agenda, and the goal is to defeat the political agenda as well as the military one.

We cannot become what the terrorists want us to become, it will fuel their recruitment and political goals. Political reaction without thinking is a primary tool of terrorism, every time we see someone blow up and turn into a frothing idiot we lose to terrorists. We need cold hard people, people who can think and remain cool under pressure.

RECRUITMENT, this is a pet peeve of mine. It is IMMATERIAL. They aren't going to storm Little Round Top with swords and win on head count !! A few dozen people committed 9-11.

Do the math. There are 1.2 billion Muslims. What percentage are radical fundamentalists? Well, we have one data point from British Muslims, who one would think have been exposed to lwess radical philosophies livinhg in the a western culture. That survey said 40 percent of British Muslims think Bin Laden's war is "justified? Another measure...the Muslim Brotherhood, banned for preaching radical violence, won 20 percent of the parliamentary seast in Egypt.

So 40 percent, 20 percent..let's be conservative and say 5 percent of Muslims are radicals who could be moved to suicidal violence. That's 60 million people. Let's use the common mental health stat and say 10 percent of those people have some mental illness. That's 6 million. Fuck it, let's say 1 million are already willing to die to attack the west and kill civilians for heaven/virgins etc.

So 30 or so radical Muslims pulled off 9-11, does it matter whether 100 million or 500 million are angry now at our response?

How is Sheik Hilali moderate?

A few years back, Howard selected him on a council of "moderate" muslims leaders to help relations with islam.

We have to change the strategy.

We can't afford to lose another 'World Trade Center' because we support the American-style war on terror. In fact, the American invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan eventually increased the anti-Western sentiment among the Muslims. This is not good.

Dialogue is far more important, cheaper, safer, and less risky than using military power to stop the radicals.

Violence will always bring a new violence.

We have to change the strategy.

We can't afford to lose another 'World Trade Center' because we support the American-style war on terror. In fact, the American invasion into Iraq and Afghanistan eventually increased the anti-Western sentiment among the Muslims. This is not good.

Dialogue is far more important, cheaper, safer, and less risky than using military power to stop the radicals.

Violence will always bring a new violence.

Gee, we weren't doing an American-style war on terror before the "World Trade Center". In fact, we weren't doing any war on terror at the time.

They attacked us even when we weren't attacking them. Go figure.

Gee, we weren't doing an American-style war on terror before the "World Trade Center". In fact, we weren't doing any war on terror at the time.

They attacked us even when we weren't attacking them. Go figure.

That's bullshit. We may not have had a dry-drunk tough-talking idiot screeching about a "war on terra," but we certainly were actively working to take out al Qaeda cells and stop their operations, and were relatively successful at it. Until Jan. 20, 2001, that is. Then it all came screeching to a halt.

That's bullshit. We may not have had a dry-drunk tough-talking idiot screeching about a "war on terra," but we certainly were actively working to take out al Qaeda cells and stop their operations, and were relatively successful at it. Until Jan. 20, 2001, that is. Then it all came screeching to a halt.

Hmm. Well, they had a successful detonation under the WTC in 1993, and then nothing stopped the next cell from flying planes into the WTC.

I doubt we were thrashing al-Qaeda enough for them to notice. Sure, there may have been operations, but not any more effective than those taking place after 9-11.

Any captures of any al-Q members during that time? No. Any captures after 9-11? Yes, including some of the top level guys. Anyone capture Bin Laden before or after? No.

Hmm. Well, they had a successful detonation under the WTC in 1993, and then nothing stopped the next cell from flying planes into the WTC.

I doubt we were thrashing al-Qaeda enough for them to notice. Sure, there may have been operations, but not any more effective than those taking place after 9-11.

Any captures of any al-Q members during that time? No. Any captures after 9-11? Yes, including some of the top level guys. Anyone capture Bin Laden before or after? No.

In the years between 1993 and 2001? Are you serious? There are people in jail today for the 1993 WTC bombing. And there was the rolling up of the Millenium plot at LAX. The cruise missiles thrown into Afghanistan that just missed Bin laden. And that's just off the top of my head. I mean, I know the right-wing spin machine has been saying for five years that Clinton never did anything about terrorism, but you didn't actually believe that, did you?

In the years between 1993 and 2001? Are you serious? There are people in jail today for the 1993 WTC bombing. And there was the rolling up of the Millenium plot at LAX. The cruise missiles thrown into Afghanistan that just missed Bin laden. And that's just off the top of my head. I mean, I know the right-wing spin machine has been saying for five years that Clinton never did anything about terrorism, but you didn't actually believe that, did you?

The Millenium plot was a stroke of luck by a border agent who was suspicious - not the result of any great intel.

The people in jail for the WTC bombing were not at the level of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Not even close.

The cruise missiles into Afghanistan arrived hours after Bin Laden had left - after he had been warned by the Pakistanis. We had told Pakistan not to fret about the missiles flying over their heads - and ISI naturally turned around and told Bin Laden and his friends to leave their camp. That doesn't even come close.

I'm not saying they did nothing about terrorism. I'm saying that al-Qaeda decided to attack the US before Clinton was even President - that the war was declared without the US attacking al-Qaeda first.

I'm saying that al-Qaeda decided to attack the US before Clinton was even President - that the war was declared without the US attacking al-Qaeda first.
Okay, that's a lot clearer than what you originally posted.

Okay, that's a lot clearer than what you originally posted.

I think you're too used to having to defend Clinton against people who post about him. It colors your judgment of threads you read.

The Al Qaeda began to attack the United States since the US deployed their soldiers in Saudi Arabia in the beginning 1990s.

The Al Qaeda didn't like it. They believed that Saudi Arabia is the Holy Land, and all non-Muslims (including Christians, atheists, Confucianists, Buddhists, etc) should stay away from there.

The Al Qaeda began to attack the United States since the US deployed their soldiers in Saudi Arabia in the beginning 1990s.

The Al Qaeda didn't like it. They believed that Saudi Arabia is the Holy Land, and all non-Muslims (including Christians, atheists, Confucianists, Buddhists, etc) should stay away from there.

We didn't do that against Saudi Arabia's will.

So, if I put together a group of people that says that Chinese should stay away from Peru, that any Chinese who live there should leave, because I declare some mountain in Peru to be a holy place, that my claim is legitimate in every possible way, and the Chinese should get out?

If I'm not a resident or citizen of Peru?

Comical!