NationStates Jolt Archive

Columbus couldn't have foreseen that this would happen.

Bush could.

Sure he could have. Giving more power to the big countries leads to them using that power. It's only a logical extension to foresee death as a result.

2/3s of muslims want a caliphate. Do you deny that? Turkey would probably not be included in it anyway seeing as it is going in the opposite direction with the EU and whatnot. But the problem with Turkey is that they will most likely be pushed away from the EU and will definitely be pushed away from the U.S. This may leave them with only one option, join the caliphate. I never declared that all muslims want a caliphate. You're attacking a strawman once again.

You say 2/3rds of Muslims want a caliphate, and never made a distinction between sects. You're lumping them all in together until you realize Turkey and Kurds kind of spoil your Al'Qaeda as Cobra fantasies then you start waffling and moving the goalpost.

2/3s of muslims want a caliphate. Do you deny that?

Until you provide the EVIDENCE, we will.

1- Assume 2975, again. Any difference?

2- His ideology is based on the worst ideological threat the world has ever created, second only to Nazism: Manifest Destiny.

3- Meh.

1) I was merely suggesting that the credibility of the poll that you are citing is more than questionable.

2) Yes, and it includes liberating people and spreading democracy. It just makes the mistake of thinking that the military can do that for a nation that doesn't want it.

3):) Our debate has been whittled down to mere sounds.

Sure he could have. Giving more power to the big countries leads to them using that power. It's only a logical extension to foresee death as a result.

Which is why no countries should have more power than the other ones. Including, yes, America.

Which is why no countries should have more power than the other ones. Including, yes, America.

Then you are looking at anarchy as there is no central authority to provide order. Unless you have an effective version of the UN. But then the majority has more power.

1) I was merely suggesting that the credibility of the poll that you are citing is more than questionable.

2) Yes, and it includes liberating people and spreading democracy. It just makes the mistake of thinking that the military can do that for a nation that doesn't want it.

1- As I said, assume the number you want. One is enough.

2- It includes assumptions of inherent superiority JUST LIKE the ones that moved, yes, the Nazis. It involves the misguided belief that America, or any country, for that matter, should somehow be the world's "leader". It's fallacy, dangerous, horrible, misguided and murderous fallacy.

You say 2/3rds of Muslims want a caliphate, and never made a distinction between sects. You're lumping them all in together until you realize Turkey and Kurds kind of spoil your Al'Qaeda as Cobra fantasies then you start waffling and moving the goalpost.

If I were to take solely Sunnis I assume that that number would be much higher. You are hurting your own argument.

It includes assumptions of inherent superiority JUST LIKE the ones that moved, yes, the Nazis. It involves the misguided belief that America, or any country, for that matter, should somehow be the world's "leader". It's fallacy, dangerous, horrible, misguided and murderous fallacy.

Yes it is. Dangerous, horrible, misguided and a murderous fallacy. However Bush believed that he was liberating people b/c people who follow this ideology think that they are liberating people.

Then you are looking at anarchy as there is no central authority to provide order. Unless you have an effective version of the UN. But then the majority has more power.

Then the majority gets more power. The world is NOT yours to lead!

Insurgents and terrorists who were in no position to kill hundreds of thousands of people until Your Beloved Dear Leader Bush George-Dubya ordered the invasion of Iraq to overthrow the despotic but stable and secular regime of Saddam Hussein, demolish the country's infrastructures and disperse countless Iraqis who could have been used to rebuild the country but instead found themselves turning to the said insurgency.

Bush didn't pull the trigger, but he sure damn signed the papers authorizing the trigger pulls.

And Columbus got the ball rolling. Damn Columbus.

Then the majority gets more power. The world is NOT yours to lead!

No argument from here.

Yes it is. Dangerous, horrible, misguided and a murderous fallacy. However Bush believed that he was liberating people b/c people who follow this ideology think that they are liberating people.

Did it ever occur to you that Bin Laden thinks he's doing you all a "spiritual favor"? That he's granting them Heaven? Replace "heaven" with "freedom" and Bush and Bin Laden look increasingly more alike.

Did it ever occur to you that Bin Laden thinks he's doing you all a "spiritual favor"? That he's granting them Heaven? Replace "heaven" with "freedom" and Bush and Bin Laden look increasingly more alike.

No, he actually thinks that he's sending us all to hell. I like what you're trying to do though.

No, he actually thinks that he's sending us all to hell. I like what you're trying to do though.

What's there to like?

Bush and Bin Laden are both:

Crazy, check.

Misguided, check.

Willing to involve innocents in their grudges, to the thousands, check.

Claiming to be defending against an "aggressor", check.

True Believers in their cause/crusade, check.

Using the basest instincts of man to further their agendas, check.

Lying to their respective people about having a reason to do what they do, check. (The Quran is against spreading Allah's word through the sword unless Bin Laden forced an interpretation, the intel pointed NO WMDs until Bush pushed his interpretation).

The list goes on.

Crazy, check.

Misguided, check.
I think that Bush is more misguided and Bin Laden is more crazy.
Willing to involve innocents in their grudges, to the thousands, check.

Claiming to be defending against an "aggressor", check.
I don't recall Bush saying that Iraq was an aggressor.
True Believers in their cause/crusade, check.
I don't know if that is an negative in all cases but for these two, yes.
Using the basest instincts of man to further their agendas, check.
Those instincts are what allow you to survive.
Lying to their respective people about having a reason to do what they do, check.
You could put every politician under this one also.

And Columbus got the ball rolling. Damn Columbus.

Again with the strawman traitor. Didn't you just insist you weren't setting one up a while bacK?

I think that Bush is more misguided and Bin Laden is more crazy.
Willing to involve innocents in their grudges, to the thousands, check.


1- I don't recall Bush saying that Iraq was an aggressor.

2- I don't know if that is an negative in all cases but for these two, yes.

3- Those instincts are what allow you to survive.

4- You could put every politician under this one also.

1- "Iraq has WMDs, Saddam will kill us all!!!"

2- That is a negative for them.

3- Maybe, but only when used correctly.

4- Still it's a resemblance between them.

Again with the strawman traitor. Didn't you just insist you weren't setting one up a while bacK?

You really don't understand the concept of a logically congruent example to show you the absurdity of your argument, do you?

1- "Iraq has WMDs, Saddam will kill us all!!!"
That doesn't mean that they were an aggressor. He didn't claim that they had made any aggressive moves.

2- That is a negative for them.
That is what I said.


4- Still it's a resemblance between them.

So they're both politicians and leaders of masses of people. What is your point?

Until you provide the EVIDENCE, we will.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=346

Equally large majorities agree with goals that involve expanding the role of Islam in their society. On average, about three out of four agree with seeking to “require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.” Two-thirds would even like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=346

Same source:

Most Support Enhancing Role of Islam in Their Society, (Note: Enhancing doesn't equal sharia)
But Also Favor Globalization and Democracy

This is a silly question.

Both of us want to fight over there. Us, because we are less attached to the matter as a whole. Them, because while a terrorist strike against America is ideal. It just isn't as practical.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/incl/printable_version.php?pnt=346

That's not 2/3 of all Muslims, that's 2/3 of all Egyptian, Moroccan, Pakistani, and Indonesian Muslims.
Try again.

EDIT: You also didn't seem to mention that they asked whether to merge all ISLAMIC countries and to enforce sharia in ISLAMIC countries.
I don't see it as a surprise when people want religious laws in a theocracy. It's pretty much asking whether laws should be enforced.
Or that they want to return to the best days of their religion, when there was a caliphate.
And about 80% or so said that attacks on civilians weren't justified, so I'd say we're fine over here.

That's not how one debates. You don't even back up your points. I don't think i owe you, uhm, SHIT, so save your bullshit for some other topic. I've been around a lot longer than you and it could be argued, using this thread inparticular for example, that i can handle debates just hunky-dory.
Get over yourself.

I didn't misuse any concepts and you're the one who is actually using the word bullshit as their entire argument.You don't even GET the concepts, and every step you take in your particular "version" of "argument" would be embarrassing to someone with more sense of presenece than you let on. It's not the first time you've been called on your diminuitive nature, and frankly, you merit at the least a bumpy ride.
For shame, one might think you could have at least learned some dignity in the corps. You might readily admit your stance as not representing them - and in hand, admit that your "authority" :rolleyes: is just as specious.

Step off, and step up the food chain.

...Fuck, I'm more Christian than most of the United States and I'm an athiest...

Sigged.

You claimed that we couldn't defeat "piss-poor country." I decided to dislodge that notion from you head.
.

Well, if they decide to reject US interference, you probably can't.



Pull off enough attacks and pretty soon, the left will be saying that it is all our fault and that we should change our gov't to suit them.


The left instituting sharia law to suit a small bunch of yahoos with aks....Yes, thats likely. We're heading deep into "worldnet daily" territory here.


We can justify the Iraq war through many avenues. The best of which is that they were in violation of the Gulf War treaty.

....Despite the fact that the UN itself says the US acted outside the charter.


Yes, and an established caliphate is in direct opposition to U.S. interests.

O. Thats different. Because we all know how much that matters. Funding every kind of maniac can be justified by "US interests".

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people..

At least 100,000, in Iraq.

Liberating people (no matter how misguided) is sick?..

That was never a real concern of the Bush admin, as witnessed to the lack of detailed planning for the aftermath of the invasion.

) His whole ideology is based on liberating people. Why wouldn't that be a reason??..

Yet hes restored arms links with Indonesia, never considered attacking Burma, allowed Uzbekistan into the "coalition for killing" and gave generously to a dictatorship in Pakistan, as well as being the first US president to publically endorse Israel keeping some settlements in the West Bank. This is what I call the "cuddly Iraqi" phenomena. They must have something particularily fascinating about them, that they above all others need "liberating".

I don't recall Bush saying that Iraq was an aggressor.
..

Somebody does recall that, however......
"Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom."
Source: President Bush Speaks to Atlantic Youth Council, CNN (11/20/2002).

And again.....
In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."
Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).




By linkage....
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Yet again....
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."
Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

Lookee here
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

http://www.bushoniraq.com/bush1.html

Hail the Caliphate!

defeat is not an option - it's a reality.

vengence only begets vengence. we're gonna stop people from killing people by killing people? hasn't happend yet. been tried for as long as there's been such a thing as nations and armys.

a day will come when people do stop killing people. but it isn't going to be brought about by scape goating and demonizing ANYONE.

we tend to move in the direction we focus on.
i'm not pretending that problems will go away by ignoring them,
but a military, advisarial approach, IS frequently a NON-solution.

and so called 'terrorism', is no exception.

when you cheapen life for people, you cannot logiclly expect them to hold a very high reguard for your own. this ought to be obvious.

and to those truly responsible, i believe it is. this whole 'terrorist' situation was manufactured as a replacement for 'the communist mennace'.

and the best way to fight it, it seems to me, would be to stop manufacturing it.

it isn't comming FROM 'over there', even if that is where it is being nurtured and bred. it is comming from the vested interests of pseudo-conservatism to keep itself in power.

that is why "enimy combatants" are held incommunicado, to keep people from learning and understanding the truth.

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

*...*

we tend to move in the direction we focus on.
i'm not pretending that problems will go away by ignoring them,
but a military, advisarial approach, IS frequently a NON-solution.

Yes. The military, adversarial approach is necessary when dealing with a nation expanding its borders by conquest (Eg Nazi Germany, Saddam invading Kuwait.)
It could be regarded as a "desperate measure," fixing a short-term crisis but perpetuating the conflict. Most nations are sore losers.

*...*

and to those truly responsible, i believe it is. this whole 'terrorist' situation was manufactured as a replacement for 'the communist mennace'.


Yes! There have always been terrorists. In almost every variety, they have suceeded in making their cause known, then pushed on to make it widely despised. Terrorists have never won, until they sit down at the bargaining table and renounce terrorism ... which would have come in time anyway.

And how else to justify the obscene US defence budget, without an enemy of some sort?


that is why "enimy combatants" are held incommunicado, to keep people from learning and understanding the truth.


I disagree. They are held incommunicado because otherwise they would have to be released. They cannot be found guilty under any law properly applied, so releasing them would be an admission that the war on terror is not catching many terrorists.
Fine distinction there: not what they would say, but the fact of their release, would undermine the phony "war on terror."

Credit to the agencies that have prevented terrorist attacks. The Europe-to-US plane hijackings being the only example I can think of right now.
And credit to the thousands of US-hating jihadists who don't just load themselves with explosives and go kill innocent Americans. It would honestly be easy, so credit to them for not doing it, and may their agendas be advanced according to their merits ... by peaceful means, by negotiation and persuasion.

EDIT: Yes, I wred the thread. ALL of it. I chose to reply to this.

*reply to USMCL2*

Get over yourself.
You don't even GET the concepts, and every step you take in your particular "version" of "argument" would be embarrassing to someone with more sense of presenece than you let on. It's not the first time you've been called on your diminuitive nature,

Too personal, really. USMCL2 has come right out into the open with a complex of opinions which (it seems to me) aren't too well thought out. On the other hand, he stood up temperamentally to being attacked from many different angles ... which will happen when you speak for the Iraq operation on NSG. There were a lot of niggardly posts he'd have been better off ignoring.

A great number of the posts in this thread were directed at USMCL2. Replying is hardly wrong, whatever your postcount?

The "shark pool" thing is so stupid ... why do we confound and confuse a decent poster for speaking against us? USMCL2's opinions are no more wrong than mine, no worse founded. Why don't we treasure him as our bit of diversity, our devil's advocate, instead of all piling on, trying to get the credit for being the guy who finally knocked him out?

Yeah, he pissed me off too. But if you read the whole thread, I think he was goaded into that, taking advantage of his "never-back-down" habit which does not serve well in debate. I honestly believe he tried to stay on-topic, but tried to defend too many fronts.

and frankly, you merit at the least a bumpy ride.
For shame, one might think you could have at least learned some dignity in the corps. You might readily admit your stance as not representing them - *...*

Yes. With a name like USMC Leathernecks 2 I'd always assumed he was a marine or ex-marine. Mentioning it in this thread was a mistake, and questioning another posters "background" or "authority" to hold an opinion, almost self-destructive.
If we wanted to dress up in uniforms and salute each other by rank, we would huh? Here, opinions are judged by how they can be backed up by argument, by facts if necessary, and by sources if it comes to that.

Yeah, he pissed me off too. But if you read the whole thread, I think he was goaded into that, taking advantage of his "never-back-down" habit which does not serve well in debate. I honestly believe he tried to stay on-topic, but tried to defend too many fronts.

*Tries to mention a nazi germany reference to end the thread*

Too personal, really. USMCL2 has come right out into the open with a complex of opinions which (it seems to me) aren't too well thought out. On the other hand, he stood up temperamentally to being attacked from many different angles ... which will happen when you speak for the Iraq operation on NSG. There were a lot of niggardly posts he'd have been better off ignoring.

A great number of the posts in this thread were directed at USMCL2. Replying is hardly wrong, whatever your postcount?

The "shark pool" thing is so stupid ... why do we confound and confuse a decent poster for speaking against us? USMCL2's opinions are no more wrong than mine, no worse founded. Why don't we treasure him as our bit of diversity, our devil's advocate, instead of all piling on, trying to get the credit for being the guy who finally knocked him out?

Yeah, he pissed me off too. But if you read the whole thread, I think he was goaded into that, taking advantage of his "never-back-down" habit which does not serve well in debate. I honestly believe he tried to stay on-topic, but tried to defend too many fronts.



Yes. With a name like USMC Leathernecks 2 I'd always assumed he was a marine or ex-marine. Mentioning it in this thread was a mistake, and questioning another posters "background" or "authority" to hold an opinion, almost self-destructive.
If we wanted to dress up in uniforms and salute each other by rank, we would huh? Here, opinions are judged by how they can be backed up by argument, by facts if necessary, and by sources if it comes to that.

I have the greatest respect for USMCL2 and always enjoy debating with him. He is a diehard and that is to be respected in many instances. However, like the President he always supports a diehard can always be a hardhead. USMCL2 believes in the creed that we Marines live and die by. In order to be a great Marine you must follow on faith at times. This is the issue that I am having currently because I disagree with many of the decisions made by our current administration. USMCL2 is a good man with good intentions. He does however, tend to grasp at straws when beaten back. All of this makes him a great Marine, but doesn't lend o his credibility on NSG.

I have the greatest respect for USMCL2 and always enjoy debating with him. He is a diehard and that is to be respected in many instances. However, like the President he always supports a diehard can always be a hardhead. USMCL2 believes in the creed that we Marines live and die by. In order to be a great Marine you must follow on faith at times. This is the issue that I am having currently because I disagree with many of the decisions made by our current administration. USMCL2 is a good man with good intentions. He does however, tend to grasp at straws when beaten back. All of this makes him a great Marine, but doesn't lend o his credibility on NSG.

This should serve then to underscore the extent to which that Faith - just like adherence to authoritarian, hierarchical structures - will get you nowhere in life. Better to cultivate a healthy sense of Doubt and see where it leads you.

this policy of getting innocent bystanders killed in order to save us a bit of trouble is EVIL.

all it does is create more hatred for us in the world and more terrorists willing to die to kill a few americans.

it is a lasting evil that will do nothing but bring more trouble to us.

we should be ashamed of ourselves.

Diddums. If they weren't so stupid they'd wait for everyone to leave before going ahead with ambitions.

If they didn't start secular violence, nobody would still be there now would they.

Sure we should never have gone there - but they keep it going.

This should serve then to underscore the extent to which that Faith - just like adherence to authoritarian, hierarchical structures - will get you nowhere in life. Better to cultivate a healthy sense of Doubt and see where it leads you.

Exactly true. Best to have the populace curious about internal and external matters and a desire to know the truth.

We are not talking about how many people want violence, but how many want a caliphate. And the fact the % of people who don't want violence is so low (a majority but hardly comforting) is disconcerting.
8-15% think violence is justified? And you think that's a high number? Go on, ask the same questions in the US and see what number you get. This is a low number. Very low.

And what you posted is the feelings towards violence against civilians. Nothing about against military personnel.
Of course it was - if you can recall, you were talking about terrorists. As such, it's more interesting to know how many think violence against civilians can be justified.

I did. However, we aren't talking about how many are for or against civilian killings.
Yes, we were, originally. You were speaking of terrorists wanting to fight for a global islamic caliphate. I said there were few. You presented the percentage of muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Marocco who wanted to unite islamic countries in a caliphate, and I showed you the low number of those same muslims believing violence against civilians were justified. See the connection? You're the one changing the subject slowly...

That is what I had in mind from the start. Wherever there are muslims, they will want sharia. Because of that we are in danger of falling to sharia law in the distant future.
That's a load of drivel. The poll shows the result from four countries, not the entire muslim world. And we are in no danger whatsoever to falling under Sharia law as we are in no danger whatsoever in becoming a muslim country.

Even if the islamic countries united under an islamic caliphate, they wouldn't export sharia to the west just like that either - no less than what we experience today with Saudi Arabia having Sharia law.

Also, as someone said, look at Turkey.

We didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Neither did any terrorist group.

No, these Muslims from your own poll said they want their Islamic countries to unite. They also said in your poll that they wish for others to be able to freely practice their own religion. They ALSO said in your poll that they think Democracy is the best system of governance. What are you so afraid of? You think they are going to outbreed the Christians and gain a majority vote in the US? Again I must ask about your fears of nonexistant boogeymen and how these fears came about.
Indeed.

And so what if they want a caliphate in Islamic countries ONLY. What do you care?
I care because it hurts U.S. interests.
That's the only important thing, is it? US interests? If you think so, you will have to accept further terrorist attacks in the future, belligerence and even violent opposition to the US hegemony you wish to establish.

Besides, how does it hurt US interests? You claim the people don't want to trade with the US, but why not?


Saudi Arabia's gov't is not hostile towards us. You underestimate the movement towards a caliphate. If every country in the middle east were a democracy, it already would have been established.
You seriously overestimate it. And you're wrong. The nationalist feelings among many would keep it from happening, as would the powerstruggle that would ensue, just as in the past.


67% say democracy is a good form of govt. Not the best. And 75% say that sharia should be applied to every Islamic country. I'm sensing that they are being bombarded with conflicting propaganda.
Support for democracy was highest in Egypt, where an overwhelming 82 percent saw it as good and a 52 percent majority called it “very good.”
Not to mention that the difference between the countries are huge, including the support for Sharia:
In Pakistan, 52% agree strongly, while in Indonesia only 17% agree strongly.
And it is my job to worry about threats. Sorry if it bothers you.
Stop being paranoid and start being realistic, is my advice.
I don't like the idea of living under Sharia law. The majority in every muslim country want sharia law. It's a logical extension that we would then have sharia law. I'm not against muslims, just living under Sharia law.
Your logic isn't logical.

And prove that the majority in every country... Ah, forget it, you've already shown that you can't explain Turkey even.
They have a different culture though. It's more relaxed not to mention Sufiism. I don't think that they'll be getting along well with the other members of the caliphate.
But Sunni, Shi'a, and all the other sects and subsets of belief would get along just peachy! And the Egyptian culture and the Indonesian is so alike, I thought I was in Jakarta when I tripped on a Pyramid :rolleyes:
If I were to take solely Sunnis I assume that that number would be much higher. You are hurting your own argument.
Actually, he isn't. You're still just assuming.

Back something up, and you might argue that he was hurting his argument. Until then, you're a long way behind.

For those of you who think it's better to fight them over there rather than over here I have a question. What makes you think it's either over there or over here? What's to stop an Iraqi al qaeda from boarding a flight from the middle east to the USA?

It just seems to me that when you start unnecessary wars and end up fighting them "over there" that some otherwise ordinary Iraqis may end up being recruited to bring the fight over here.
Just imagine how much of that $300 Billion could have been used for Homeland Security, with the added benefit of 3,500 less US troops killed and 100's of thousands of Iraqis spared the suffering of the US invasion. :eek:

Tell the moslem countries to keep their oil. Our cultures are oil and water, won't mix. If we're attacked again we take out a large population center. If we're attacked again we take out two large population centers. The third time we do genocide.
They leave us alone, we leave them alone.
In the meantime, since we're not gonna do that, coat all bullets we use with pig's blood.

Just imagine how much of that $300 Billion could have been used for Homeland Security, with the added benefit of 3,500 less US troops killed and 100's of thousands of Iraqis spared the suffering of the US invasion. :eek:

Isn't that closer to $400+ billion? *Looks at approved spending bill*

Isn't that closer to $400+ billion? *Looks at approved spending bill*
More than likely closer to $400 Billion.

$400 Billion = $1333 for EVERY man, woman, and child in the US.

Thank you. Now we can all move on.

I did however point out an ad hominem fallacy, which was *my* point. You didn't answer that except to deny it, and then to say it's OK cuz other people are doing it, then denying it some more, then trying to say everything was an ad hominem fallacy....

You can ignore this, but you'll find you don't have credibility when you try to convince people that black is white.

More than likely closer to $400 Billion.

$400 Billion = $1333 for EVERY man, woman, and child in the US.

400 billion USD.... Imagine the amount of refugee detention camps you could build that that amount of cash!

$400+ billion... slightly under 2/3 of my country's GDP...

Tell the moslem countries to keep their oil. Our cultures are oil and water, won't mix. If we're attacked again we take out a large population center. If we're attacked again we take out two large population centers. The third time we do genocide.
They leave us alone, we leave them alone.
In the meantime, since we're not gonna do that, coat all bullets we use with pig's blood.

If some random guys kills innocent people, we will kill more innocent people! That'll show them!

Congrats, you win the Ignorant Post of the Month award. :rolleyes:

If some random guys kills innocent people, we will kill more innocent people! That'll show them!

Congrats, you win the Ignorant Post of the Month award. :rolleyes:

Isn't that adorable? Little Timmy's joined the Kimchi Scouts!

:mp5:

And of course, there's that brilliant idea of coating bullets in pig's blood, which fouls up barrels in real short order too.

Isn't that adorable? Little Timmy's joined the Kimchi Scouts!

They grow up so quickly... *sniffs*

And of course, there's that brilliant idea of coating bullets in pig's blood, which fouls up barrels in real short order too.

God help the people of southwestern Ohio.

I did however point out an ad hominem fallacy, which was *my* point. You didn't answer that except to deny it, and then to say it's OK cuz other people are doing it, then denying it some more, then trying to say everything was an ad hominem fallacy....

You can ignore this, but you'll find you don't have credibility when you try to convince people that black is white.

The argument in the very post that you cited was not dependent on any ad hominem.

8-15% think violence is justified? And you think that's a high number? Go on, ask the same questions in the US and see what number you get. This is a low number. Very low.
In a democracy, 8-15% is a low number. In a place where majority doesn't matter but those willing to do the most damage does, it is a high number.
Of course it was - if you can recall, you were talking about terrorists. As such, it's more interesting to know how many think violence against civilians can be justified.
By my definition, all terrorists would think it was justified.

Yes, we were, originally. You were speaking of terrorists wanting to fight for a global islamic caliphate. I said there were few. You presented the percentage of muslims in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan and Marocco who wanted to unite islamic countries in a caliphate, and I showed you the low number of those same muslims believing violence against civilians were justified. See the connection? You're the one changing the subject slowly...
It's a bit difficult to remember 50 different debates going on simultaneously.

Even if the islamic countries united under an islamic caliphate, they wouldn't export sharia to the west just like that either - no less than what we experience today with Saudi Arabia having Sharia law.[QUOTE]
Communists tried to export communism. fascists tried to export fascism. Democracies try to export democracy. Why wouldn't they be the same?
[QUOTE=Gravlen;12736389]Also, as someone said, look at Turkey.[QUOTE]
Turkey is hardly the norm.
[QUOTE=Gravlen;12736389]Neither did any terrorist group.[QUOTE]
Collectively, if you believe that 600,000 number, they did.

[QUOTE=Gravlen;12736389]how does it hurt US interests? You claim the people don't want to trade with the US, but why not?[QUOTE]
Because they hate us? And it's not just trade. How would another nuclear armed superpower in the place that most hates us and controls one of our most important resources be in our interests?


[QUOTE=Gravlen;12736389]You seriously overestimate it. And you're wrong. The nationalist feelings among many would keep it from happening, as would the powerstruggle that would ensue, just as in the past.[QUOTE]
If 66% want it then you are obviously wrong.


[QUOTE=Gravlen;12736389]And prove that the majority in every country... Ah, forget it, you've already shown that you can't explain Turkey even.
Kurds and their wish to join the EU. Happy?
But Sunni, Shi'a, and all the other sects and subsets of belief would get along just peachy! And the Egyptian culture and the Indonesian is so alike, I thought I was in Jakarta when I tripped on a Pyramid :rolleyes:
The caliphate is strictly Sunni. And your use of sarcasm indicates that you really don't understand my point.
Actually, he isn't. You're still just assuming.
Shiites are against the Caliphate. It is pretty much the definition of the difference of the sects. So if they were taken out it is common sense that the percent would be higher.

In a democracy, 8-15% is a low number. In a place where majority doesn't matter but those willing to do the most damage does, it is a high number.
No. Still a low number. It doesn't change arbitrarily. You could well argue that the same goes for a democracy.

By my definition, all terrorists would think it was justified.
Yet you mixed in a different argument. Of course all terrorists would think it justified - that's what makes them terrorists. But that does not mean that the goals of the terrorists are the same, as you claim.

It's a bit difficult to remember 50 different debates going on simultaneously.
True, but that really is your problem :)

Communists tried to export communism. fascists tried to export fascism. Democracies try to export democracy. Why wouldn't they be the same?
That depends on your interactions with them. Don't make it into a war, and the governments may leave each other alone.

Turkey is hardly the norm.
No, but it is an important exception.

Collectively, if you believe that 600,000 number, they did.
Really? Can you back that up?


Because they hate us? And it's not just trade. How would another nuclear armed superpower in the place that most hates us and controls one of our most important resources be in our interests?
Ask yourself: Why do they hate you? May it have something to do with the meddling, the supporting of opressive governments etc?

If there was one caliphate, you might be able to deal with them. They might be friendly. You don't know that they wouldn't. Just look at Saudi Arabia.

If you stop hurting them "to preserve your way of life", then they may stop hurting you back.

And as Pakistan already have nukes, I would be worried for the day when Musharraf is toppled, if I were you...

If 66% want it then you are obviously wrong.
Nope. They may say they want it - like they did before- Pan-Arabism is nothing new, and as the United Arab Republic died, so would most likely the United Islamic Republic.

Kurds and their wish to join the EU. Happy?
No. It doesn't explain how the remaining 80% doesn't want Sharia. You don't explain how they choose to disregard thir religion just for the economic gain joining the EU would bring them, while claiming the same thing wouldn't happen elsewhere. And your claim that the kurdish culture is so different doesn't go any way to adress the cultural differences between the egyptian muslims and the indonesian muslims.

The caliphate is strictly Sunni. And your use of sarcasm indicates that you really don't understand my point.
I do believe that I get it. But feel free to restate it anyway.

Shiites are against the Caliphate. It is pretty much the definition of the difference of the sects. So if they were taken out it is common sense that the percent would be higher.
They aren't exactly against it, they just disagree on the selections of leadership and... a lot more.

But hey, we're still waiting for the evidence and not just assumptions, eh?

If some random guys kills innocent people, we will kill more innocent people! That'll show them!



We probably agree on one point. That we shouldn't be in Iraq. Maybe not. To reiterate: Our cultures don't mix. The Moslems (for the most part) advocate the conversion or elimination of anyone who doesn't accept their religion. They've enslaved half their population, the female half. They torture people, etc.
We simply should have no interaction with them until they change their ways. If we could get the armies of both sides on a battlefield we could spare innocent people. Wars are no longer fought that way, maybe they've never been.
I have no desire to hurt innocent people but I think we have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to discourage these people from ever attacking western civilzation again.
We bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, etc understanding that innocents would die. The essential difference between that war and the wars we later fought is that we won that one.

And of course, there's that brilliant idea of coating bullets in pig's blood, which fouls up barrels in real short order too.


Good point. Maybe a little pig blood in the bullet?

Too personal, really. USMCL2 has come right out into the open with a complex of opinions which (it seems to me) aren't too well thought out. On the other hand, he stood up temperamentally to being attacked from many different angles ... which will happen when you speak for the Iraq operation on NSG. There were a lot of niggardly posts he'd have been better off ignoring.

A great number of the posts in this thread were directed at USMCL2. Replying is hardly wrong, whatever your postcount?

The "shark pool" thing is so stupid ... why do we confound and confuse a decent poster for speaking against us? USMCL2's opinions are no more wrong than mine, no worse founded. Why don't we treasure him as our bit of diversity, our devil's advocate, instead of all piling on, trying to get the credit for being the guy who finally knocked him out?

Yeah, he pissed me off too. But if you read the whole thread, I think he was goaded into that, taking advantage of his "never-back-down" habit which does not serve well in debate. I honestly believe he tried to stay on-topic, but tried to defend too many fronts.



Yes. With a name like USMC Leathernecks 2 I'd always assumed he was a marine or ex-marine. Mentioning it in this thread was a mistake, and questioning another posters "background" or "authority" to hold an opinion, almost self-destructive.
If we wanted to dress up in uniforms and salute each other by rank, we would huh? Here, opinions are judged by how they can be backed up by argument, by facts if necessary, and by sources if it comes to that.

Very respectable post. *bows*

I tend to jump people when they act like they're ineffable authorities to other people, while basically only giving personal opinions about things - USMCL has a pretty consistent history with that, and apparently i don't have much of a fuse when it comes to their style.
Admittedly, people like s/he do give people plenty to argue about, and the forums would be different without them.

We probably agree on one point. That we shouldn't be in Iraq. Maybe not. To reiterate: Our cultures don't mix. The Moslems (for the most part) advocate the conversion or elimination of anyone who doesn't accept their religion. They've enslaved half their population, the female half. They torture people, etc.
We simply should have no interaction with them until they change their ways. If we could get the armies of both sides on a battlefield we could spare innocent people. Wars are no longer fought that way, maybe they've never been.
I have no desire to hurt innocent people but I think we have to be willing to do whatever is necessary to discourage these people from ever attacking western civilzation again.
We bombed Dresden, Hiroshima, etc understanding that innocents would die. The essential difference between that war and the wars we later fought is that we won that one.

Yes Little Kimchi Scout, there's millions of American Muslims in the United States and there hasn't been any stories about oppression, torture and uprisings anywhere in the Big 50s now has there? If they were all the evil hivemind that you buy into as a Kimchiteer, you'd think there'd be national coverage on anything remotely resembling a violent outburst.

But wait, FOXNews is part of the Liberal Media right?

Good point. Maybe a little pig blood in the bullet?

Yes Little Kimchiteer, let's give Osama Bin Ladin another wet dream Christmas present right after the Iraq invasion by giving him the proof he needs to convince the billion or so moderate Muslims in the world that it's an actual war declared on Islam.

:rolleyes:

Yes Little Kimchiteer, let's give Osama Bin Ladin another wet dream Christmas present right after the Iraq invasion by giving him the proof he needs to convince the billion or so moderate Muslims in the world that it's an actual war declared on Islam.

:rolleyes:

Like certain public gaffes would testify, no doubt.

Good point. Maybe a little pig blood in the bullet?

Ooh, and maybe we could make our bombs in the shape of gold stars for when we bomb nations with Jewish populations (like Iraq)!

For added effect, we could drop leaflets of nazi death camps.

I mean hey, why kill someone when you can kill someone AND attack their religion? Why be half nazi, when you can be FULL-ON nazi!

I would prefer justice be done in Iraq, I would prefer a happy ending to the intervention of the "coalition of the willing," whatever their motivations were in entering it. But there simply is no tool I know of to bring that about.

Hypothetically, such a tool would be a world government with enough knowledge of, and reckoning with, every citizen to enforce the law in Iraq (and everywhere, of course) -- to slowly but surely contain the crime which occurs there by investigating, arresting and trying a sufficient proportion of the offenders to contain the bloodshed.
Obviously, such a world government would expell the "Coalition" promptly, removing the taint of invasion but taking on the law-enforcement role which the current Iraqi government probably cannot fulfil.

Pathetic aren't I? Treat terrorism as crime. Contain it more or less, by investigation, charge and trial in an open and globally-recognized way. While I'm being pathetically idealistic, let's just say: do the same for declared war between states. It's a crime, an organized and deliberate crime on a huge scale, and no matter how big your gang, you should all be brought to book!

(Australia is a coalition partner, with troops still serving in Iraq. I mention this to make clear my conflict of interest between my nationality and my personal opinion. Perhaps it shouldn't, but it hurts me to speak against my country and what she does.)

(Perhaps it shouldn't, but it hurts me to speak against my country and what she does.)

It shouldn't. It's your right and your duty to speak against that which you see as wrong with your country; How else will it improve?

It shouldn't. It's your right and your duty to speak against that which you see as wrong with your country; How else will it improve?

By me actually doing something instead of bitching. :(

Sadly, the time for action has rather passed. The essentially unilateral action of the US in invading Iraq might never have happened without the active support of the "coalition of the willing" ... in particular Britain.

Simple Australian self-interest would have gone like this: "We don't want to piss off our majority-muslim neighbour Indonesia by putting troops in the Holy Land of Islam. It's on the other side of the world anyway. We are self-sufficient in oil, so that's not the issue. And we sell Iraq a buttload of wheat, have done for decades, and don't see any reason to mess with that."

Instead we went with "The US is our most important ally, and we feel their pain about 9/11, so whatever they choose to do we will do too" which I think was a really dumb gut-thinking reaction, largely commissioned by John Howard, PM.

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW060407.jpg

Ooh, and maybe we could make our bombs in the shape of gold stars for when we bomb nations with Jewish populations (like Iraq)!

For added effect, we could drop leaflets of nazi death camps.

I mean hey, why kill someone when you can kill someone AND attack their religion? Why be half nazi, when you can be FULL-ON nazi!

You might even make a pyramid or two, eh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse

It shouldn't. It's your right and your duty to speak against that which you see as wrong with your country; How else will it improve?

Exactly. Not speaking out (due to nationalist beliefs in this case or something else, like apathy) usually leads to institutionalised corruption. Inefficient and leads to the populace not being cared for properly.

Then again I support mass surveilance (though the group with the highest % of time being recorded would be those in 'power' positions)...