The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, very large sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against "all the enemies of Allah." They thus constitute an enemy without borders -- a nation of "holy" warriors one might call Jihadistan, in an effort to make this enemy more tangible.
Just who are these "enemies of Allah"?
In the wake of the most recent Jihadi attacks, the murder of more than 50 civilians in London, a Muslim "scholar," Hani Al-Siba'I, leader of the Al-Maqreze Centre for Historical Studies in London, made clear just who these Islamist Jihadis consider to be their enemies:
"The term 'civilians' does not exist in Islamic religious law," said Hani. "There is no such term as 'civilians' in the modern Western sense. People are either of Dar Al-Harb or not." Dar Al-Harb refers to the House of War -- anyone who is outside the House of Islam or the Muslim faith.
In other words, if you are not Muslim, you are an infidel, the enemy of Allah. Even if you are Muslim, but advocate political and economic liberty for your brethren, you are a target. (Consider the number of Muslim citizens in Iraq murdered daily by Jihadis.)
How many members of the Muslim faith subscribe to the notion that
non-adherents are infidels? Perhaps fewer than five percent of all
Muslims take such a hard line. But to put this in perspective, if just
one percent of Muslims worldwide inhabit the national brotherhood
of Jihadistan, then there are ten times more Jihadis than there are uniformed American combat personnel in our military service branches.
This, my pacifist, terrorist-appeasing friends, is war. Iraq is the current battleground. There will be other battlegrounds, you can count on it. The Islamofascists won't stop just because we "play nice" by pulling out of Iraq, or anywhere else.
We win or we perish. Choose.
Originally posted by gpb0216Kill or be killed!
This, my pacifist, terrorist-appeasing friends, is war. Iraq is the current battleground. There will be other battlegrounds, you can count on it. The Islamofascists won't stop just because we "play nice" by pulling out of Iraq, or anywhere else.
We win or we perish. Choose.
That's gusto!
Originally posted by sasquatch672With all due respect...
Read my last post in the Iraqi suicide bomber thread. It's not a zero-sum game and it's not us or them.
In my opinion it's our unwillingness to address the brutal reality that this is a zero-sum game (at least in the minds of the Islamofascists) that puts us at such a terrible disadvantage in this war.
They don't want us to appease them.
They don't want our diverse culture.
They don't want peaceful co-existence.
They want us, and what our civilization represents, dead and buried.
Again I say - Choose.
Originally posted by gpb0216And what have you chosen?
With all due respect...
In my opinion it's our unwillingness to address the brutal reality that this [b]is a zero-sum game (at least in the minds of the Islamofascists) that puts us at such a terrible disadvantage in this war.
They don't want us to appease them.
They don't want our diverse culture.
They don't want peaceful co-existence.
...[text shortened]... ey want us, and what our civilization represents, dead and buried.
Again I say - Choose.
[/b]
Originally posted by gpb0216Who are "they"? All Muslims?
With all due respect...
In my opinion it's our unwillingness to address the brutal reality that this [b]is a zero-sum game (at least in the minds of the Islamofascists) that puts us at such a terrible disadvantage in this war.
They don't want us to appease them.
They don't want our diverse culture.
They don't want peaceful co-existence.
...[text shortened]... ey want us, and what our civilization represents, dead and buried.
Again I say - Choose.
[/b]
That's quite a broad brush you're painting Muslims with there. Exactly how do you KNOW any of what you just stated? Do you speak with them regularly?
Suppose others had taken the same view to all Christians just because a handful decided to put on bed sheets and lynch blacks here in America?
Open your mind man, but stop reading whatever right wing rhetoric it is that you've allowed to get inside in your head and stay there. Or at least if you're gonna pursue that crap be open to other view points that contradict it.
Originally posted by no1marauderI had a great retort ready for whatever his answer may have been but it appears he's up and vanished. Hopefully to strap on a rifle and grab the first plane over to the battlegrounds but I won't hold my breath.
Apparently paranoid insanity.
EDIT: What can you expect from those crazy non-subscribers?
Originally posted by darvlayNah, he's probably more a fighting Islamofascists by quoting Ann Coulter at 'em type of guy. It seems by his math we either have to A) Hire a lot more soldiers or B) Exterminate a lot more Muslims as soon as possible. Of course, both might be necessary.
I had a great retort ready for whatever his answer may have been but it appears he's up and vanished. Hopefully to strap on a rifle and grab the first plane over to the battlegrounds but I won't hold my breath.
Hey, I got an idea: you could make one of them reality TV shows like American Idol but the winner of the million bucks would be the average, patriotic American Joe or Joanne who brought in the most Muslim heads to the studio during the sweeps period. That way we're combining the Holy War on Terror with good ole fashioned American greed + voyeurism. What could be more entertaining and at the same time indicative of the right wing's new American Values than that???
Originally posted by sasquatch672"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
There's no question that these terrorists are brutal and their killing is senseless and nihilistic. But I want you to consider what they cannot do:
They cannot annihiliate the planet with thousands of nuclear warheads. We also have good men and women working very hard to ensure that they don't get even one.
They cannot park an aircraft carrier ...[text shortened]... them to turn us into a police state. If that happens, we are dead and buried as a civilization.
James Madison
Since continual, never ending warfare is what you've proposed in the other thread (you want lots more wars for natural resources), if you get your way and Madison is right (and he almost always was) we'll eventually get your police state.
Originally posted by sasquatch672No problem, SugarPie; from page 10 of the Suicide Bomber thread:
YOU AGAIN?
This type of war does present challenges. It's more important than ever to protect free speech - even yours. I might scream at you that you're a pig, but I would defend you, physically if necessary, if someone tried to silence you. THAT'S what America's about.
Why would anyone [b]want war for natural resources? Can you paste the quote over that you twisted to arrive at that conclusion?[/b]
But wars are almost always fought for economic reasons, and Iraq has oil while Sudan doesn't. So Iraq is the lucky winner - they get the benefit of our military to overthrow a dictator and establish a representative government with a market economy. Is this really a war over oil? Probably. And what happens, pray tell, if our oil supply is interrupted? The entire world economy grinds to a halt.
Now let's see how many of you want to go and say "It's wrong to fight a war over natural resources." If you don't like this one, you better buckle up, because the 21st century is going to be chock full of conflicts just like this one.
Change yer "mind" since yesterday??
Originally posted by sasquatch672You ridiculed those who say "it's wrong to fight a war over natural resources" and said they should "buckle up" for the many to come. We both know what you're saying: those namby pambys who don't support mass murder for "natural resources" are un-American unlike your, brave pragmatic self. Your post is contradictory: nobody wants war you say but you find it preferable to POSSIBLE economic distress. That's quite simply insane - mass murder is not preferable to an economic slump - so you sound pretty "off yer rocker".
No moron - you said I wanted war over natural resources. Nobody, except some particularly gung-ho members of the special operations community I am acquainted with who are positively off their rockers - wants war.
Don't want it. Sometimes it's necessary. And preserving social order - as in not having riots, mass demonstrations, 100,000-worker layoffs, the total collapse of an economy - that's sometimes worth going to war for.