Originally posted by joe beyserNot "terrorists", no. But extremists waging war in the name of a combined religious and political ideology? Yes.
I don't remember the Japanese as being terrorists while studying ww2. I don't count the fact that the imprisoned Japanese americans as proof. I consider all that they did as acts of war including the bomb balloons. Only recently have we been using the term terrorist as describing an enemy. Who were the terrorists during the american civil war?
At that time the Japanese worshiped their Emperor as a god, and so his war against us was a fanatical religious war for the Japanese, which is why they so readily gave their lives in pursuit of it. Not so different from a jihad, eh?
We defeated that ideology (and restored our own security) not just by defeating them militarily, but also, and crucially, by forcing the Shinto religion to be separated from the Japanese state.
If we want to defeat Islamic Totalitarianism we'll have to do the same thing to it, and the logical place to start would be Iran. There is no indication that we have the stones to do it, unfortunately.
Note that I am NOT advocating that we nuke Iran, but we should actively and overtly seek and/or support the overthrow of that regime.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYes actually, I can. I am not talking about defeating a government. I'm talking about defeating the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism. The chief sponsor of that radical and violent ideology around the world is Iran.
The Iranian government has very little support from the population at large, so you can't really compare the situation.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAchmadenijad got either something just above half or something just below half of the vote in the recent election. Unless you're saying that there was dramatic and wholesale election fraud, how can you say it has very little public support?
The Iranian government has very little support from the population at large, so you can't really compare the situation.
Originally posted by SleepyguyApart from supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, I don't think Iran has much to do with the islamic terrorism that is mildly affectng the west, nor is it worth the effort of removing that regime in order to counter terrorism - if only because it would surely fuel it in other places.
Yes actually, I can. I am not talking about defeating a government. I'm talking about defeating the ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism. The chief sponsor of that radical and violent ideology around the world is Iran.
Originally posted by sh76Well, there was election fraud and the opposition candidates are frowned upon as well, at least that's what the Iranians I talked to told me.
Achmadenijad got either something just above half or something just below half of the vote in the recent election. Unless you're saying that there was dramatic and wholesale election fraud, how can you say it has very little public support?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMildly affecting? LOL. Like we were mildly effected by the attack on Pearl Harbor, eh? How asinine.
Apart from supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, I don't think Iran has much to do with the islamic terrorism that is mildly affectng the west, nor is it worth the effort of removing that regime in order to counter terrorism - if only because it would surely fuel it in other places.
And again, I said to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian ideology we should start with Iran. Defeating the ideology will take more than just regime change in Iran, but that would be the logical place to start to work on discrediting it. We, and the rest of the free world, should make an example of Iran in a spectacular way that would leave no doubt that embracing the violent and backward ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism is a road to ruin.
Originally posted by SleepyguyWe're talking about something like 5000 people in the last 20 years. How is that not mild? The only thing that has not been mild is the hysterical response to terrorism. Investing the money that has been wasted on counterterrorism measures would easily have saved a hundred times more lives, if not more.
Mildly affecting? LOL. Like we were mildly effected by the attack on Pearl Harbor, eh? How asinine.
And again, I said to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian ideology we should start with Iran. Defeating the ideology will take more than just regime change in Iran, but that would be the logical place to start to work on discrediting it. We, ...[text shortened]... t that embracing the violent and backward ideology of Islamic Totalitarianism is a road to ruin.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraOh please. This is not a numbers game. It's about returning to a world where we are secure again. Where waiting three hours in a line and having to take off your shoes to board a plane would seem ridiculous again. Where we would no longer have to worry that nuclear or biologic arms might fall into the hands of some Islamic fundamentalist fanatic trying to take out a city. If it was worth taking on and discrediting radical Shintoism to restore our security (not to mention creating the conditions for a prosperous Japan), then it is also worth taking on and discrediting Islamic Totalitarianism to restore our security.
We're talking about something like 5000 people in the last 20 years. How is that not mild? The only thing that has not been mild is the hysterical response to terrorism. Investing the money that has been wasted on counterterrorism measures would easily have saved a hundred times more lives, if not more.
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyWell, I'm not worrying. Maybe you should just not get carried away by the media hype.
Oh please. This is not a numbers game. It's about returning to a world where we are secure again. Where waiting three hours in a line and having to take off your shoes to board a plane would seem ridiculous again. Where we would no longer have to worry that nuclear or biologic arms might fall into the hands of some Islamic fundamentalist fanatic ...[text shortened]... en it is also worth taking on and discrediting Islamic Totalitarianism to restore our security.
If the odds that you get hit by a truck are 10000 times higher than you being the victim of a terrorist attack, what should you want to be more secure against? What good is being "secure" against a particular threat if there are cheaper, simpler and more effective ways to tackle more serious threats? Is it the mere irrationality of people who cannot assess risks properly reason enough to waste billions of dollars and thousands of human lives? Well, I don't agree. I think we should just tell these people to start thinking rationally.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, I'm not worrying. Maybe you should just not get carried away by the media hype.
It is amazing to me that anyone who witnessed 9/11 can have such an attitude. If you can't see that the ideology leading to that attack could also lead to future devastating nuclear or biologic attacks on Western countries, then I'm afraid your head is permanently in the sand. Islamic Totalitarianism is an existential threat to our whole way of life, and your steadfast refusal to see that just enables it.
Originally posted by SleepyguyWell, any kind of religious extremism is a threat to my way of life, so islamic terrorism is not special in that respect. In any case I have no reason to suspect islamic terrorists have access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets on a grand scale, do you?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
[b]Well, I'm not worrying. Maybe you should just not get carried away by the media hype.
It is amazing to me that anyone who witnessed 9/11 can have such an attitude. If you can't see that the ideology leading to that attack could also lead to future devastating nuclear or biologic attacks on Western countr ...[text shortened]... tial threat to our whole way of life, and your steadfast refusal to see that just enables it.[/b]
Of course it's tragic that 3000 people died. But not more tragic than 3000 people who died of cancer, cardiovascular disease, crime or traffic accidents, problems which are far more easily tackled with far greater efficiency.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, any kind of religious extremism is a threat to my way of life, so islamic terrorism is not special in that respect. In any case I have no reason to suspect islamic terrorists have access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets on a grand scale, do you?
Of course it's tragic that 3000 people died. But not more tragic than 3000 people who died of cancer, cardiovascular disease, crime or traffic accidents, problems which are far more easily tackled with far greater efficiency.
They didn't just die. They were murdered, all at once, for being Americans. Like I said, if you can't see the difference between that kind of threat and the normal day to day threats we all face from accident and disease, then I seriously can not understand you. You are just speaking gibberish to me now. This is pointless. Let's just drop it.
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey might not have access as of right now. But who can doubt that, left unchecked, they will eventually get access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets?
Well, any kind of religious extremism is a threat to my way of life, so islamic terrorism is not special in that respect. In any case I have no reason to suspect islamic terrorists have access to nuclear or biological weapons capable of reaching western targets on a grand scale, do you?
If Iran gets nuclear weapons and has a falling out with the West, why would they NOT sell nuclear weapons for billions of dollars to terrorist organizations who are intent on destroying London or Paris or Amsterdam or New York?
Do you think that infiltration is all that difficult? In spite of all measures to stop it, wide open coasts and borders make the US a virtual sieve. Europe even more so, perhaps. Stopping terrorists at the border is impossible... Or, at least, counting on stopping terrorists at the border is a bad idea.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorrathere are programs in place for all of these, and for afghanistan.
Of course it's tragic that 3000 people died. But not more tragic than 3000 people who died of cancer, cardiovascular disease, crime or traffic accidents, problems which are far more easily tackled with far greater efficiency.