Tancredo: Take out their holy sites

[Analgesic]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you've missed the stories of kids, yes KIDS, being recruited as suicide bombers.

If you are aware of this practice and still hold to your ideology, then all I can say is that you are emulating an ostrich!

I never said that there weren't people who wanted to recruit kids as suicide bombers. I questioned Lady Eagle's incredibly absolute statement that they would be successful in doing so throughout the West.

Cases about children being drugged by jihadists, raped, sold into slavery, and trained to use AK-47s and hack innocent people into pieces are well documented in African nations. The parents of those children who might have objected were slaughtered by the roving islamic bands, their houses and villages burned, the women gang raped and then hacked to pieces, so they weren't around to protest their children being kidnapped by the islamic roving bands. All anyone needs to do to get a reality check is do some research on the realities of islam and what is really going on in other countries outside the comforts of the USA and take a gander of islamic history, too, instead of buying into political correctness.

Indeed such cases are well documented as happening. What you have failed to prove is:
1) That Islam was the sole cause of those horrific acts.
2) That Muslims *MUST INEVITABLY* commit them.

Unless you can prove those two points, any talk of what Muslims "WILL" do is entirely baseless. And how did you come to have this absolute knowledge? I read a lot of links that give opinions without proving that those opinions absolutely will come to pass, as you've asserted (the fact that some Muslims have committed terrible acts is not at issue).

Could be, the current policy has been the policy all along and it has never worked. Common sense would then of course dictate that we use a more extreme form of the same failed policy. 'Logically' that should solve the problem the continued use of the failed policy has caused. Sure sounds reasonable don't it?

Clearly the only reason anything has ever failed is because it hasn't been done with enough shock and awe yet.

 

[hillclimber1]

I never said that there weren't people who wanted to recruit kids as suicide bombers. I questioned Lady Eagle's incredibly absolute statement that they would be successful in doing so throughout the West.



Indeed such cases are well documented as happening. What you have failed to prove is:
1) That Islam was the sole cause of those horrific acts.
2) That Muslims *MUST INEVITABLY* commit them.

Even if only very small percentage of Muslims are this radical, it would amount to many hundreds of thousands in America that would do this very thing. It is required.

Unless you can prove those two points, any talk of what Muslims "WILL" do is entirely baseless. And how did you come to have this absolute knowledge? I read a lot of links that give opinions without proving that those opinions absolutely will come to pass, as you've asserted (the fact that some Muslims have committed terrible acts is not at issue).

These people are bound to commit these acts, according to their religion.
The fact that most will not commit these atrocities, is more an issue of their lack of faith (sick) than that they are basically good. Their religion requires jihad.

Clearly the only reason anything has ever failed is because it hasn't been done with enough shock and awe yet.

silly.

hill=bold
You can practice naivete all you want, but these are a desperately wicked people in the most evil religion ever.

 

[poncho]

Clearly the only reason anything has ever failed is because it hasn't been done with enough shock and awe yet.

Apparently not.

I often wonder, if Islam and muslims are such a deadly threat to western society as our "leaders" claim...why do they keep letting them flood into our countries? The only reason I can think of is that crime and the threat of terrorism pays the state and it's "puplic/private partners" handsome rewards for all their services and gadgets (to 'fight' crime and terrorism), not to mention the liberal injection of tons and tons (see lost $$ billions $$ in Iraq 360+ tons of cash as one example) of taxpayer money into their enterprises.

Conclusion...

Crime and the threat of terrorism = big benefits for the state and the growing militarized police/security state. Why would the state want to eliminate that which is so effective at buttering it's bread? Increasing or allowing crime and the threat of terrorism to increase would also increase the power and money the state and it's public/private partners can coerce out of it's citizens. Would it not?

You can practice naivete all you want, but these are a desperately wicked people in the most evil religion ever.

That was said of the jews too at one time in history. What's your 'final solution' to the Islam problem then? That's what I'm waiting to hear.

 

[hillclimber1]

Apparently not.

I often wonder, if Islam and muslims are such a deadly threat to western society as our "leaders" claim...why do they keep letting them flood into our countries? The only reason I can think of is that crime and the threat of terrorism pays the state and it's "puplic/private partners" handsome rewards for all their services and gadgets (to 'fight' crime and terrorism), not to mention the liberal injection of tons and tons (see lost $$ billions $$ in Iraq 360+ tons of cash as one example) of taxpayer money into their enterprises.

Conclusion...

Crime and the threat of terrorism = big benefits for the state and the growing militarized police/security state. Why would the state want to eliminate that which is so effective at buttering it's bread? Increasing or allowing crime and the threat of terrorism to increase would also increase the power and money the state and it's public/private partners can coerce out of it's citizens. Would it not?

About 16% of our oil imports come from that region, and if nothing else, we should be/are trying to stabilize there.


That was said of the jews too at one time in history. What's your 'final solution' to the Islam problem then? That's what I'm waiting to hear.

I don't have a "final" solution. But I would entertain a vast rethink on the rules of engagement, to skirt the notion these radicals have that we will never fight hard enough to overcome them. They know we will avoid civilian causalities, as best we can, and they've adjusted their tactics accordingly.

 

[poncho]

I don't have a "final" solution. But I would entertain a vast rethink on the rules of engagement, to skirt the notion these radicals have that we will never fight hard enough to overcome them. They know we will avoid civilian causalities, as best we can, and they've adjusted their tactics accordingly.

One way to solve that problem is to remake the United States into a dictatorship. That way the "leader" can go over the heads of the governmet and people to do what needs to be done. No matter how long or loud the people dissent.

Are you willing to remake the USA like that in order to win the "war on terrorism"?

About 16% of our oil imports come from that region, and if nothing else, we should be/are trying to stabilize there.

Well, that's the favored cover story anyways. Age old empire building/maintenance wisdom tells us that keeping the barbarians fighting amongst themselves will keep them from uniting and turning all their strength against the occupiers (us, in this case). Stabilization often works against the occupiers. Ask Julius Ceasar (The war in Gaul) and Alexander about it they'll tell ya the same. You think our global warplanners, intell agencies and CFR policy makers haven't studied Julius Ceasar and Alexander's campaigns and "strategia della tensione"?

But, you didn't answer my questions. Let me rephrase... Does the global increase in crime and (the threat of) terrorism benefit the state and it's "public/private partners" by increasing the flow of power, money and control to it/them over it's citizen/consumers?

 

[LadyEagle]

Indeed such cases are well documented as happening. What you have failed to prove is:
1) That Islam was the sole cause of those horrific acts.

What part of islamic roving bands do you not understand?

2) That Muslims *MUST INEVITABLY* commit them.

I didn't make that statement. What I did say was when the big jihad comes down, the so-called moderate muslims will join with the jihadists or they (moderate muslims) will be beheaded and/or killed.

Unless you can prove those two points, any talk of what Muslims "WILL" do is entirely baseless.

I gave you plenty of links to look at, take the time and search for the truth.

And how did you come to have this absolute knowledge?

It is based on the history of islam and how it has spread by the sword in country after country, throughout the Middle East and Africa, how it is spreading by the sword today in other African countries, the Philippines, India, Kashmir, Indonesia, and other nations, and from the fact that it is an evil ideology from the pit of hell, with the primary goal of ruling the planet by sharia law. This is the Third Jihad. Two other Great Jihads have failed to dominate the world. This is the Third Jihad (or Third Caliphate). Once you know the face of the enemy and have studied the past behavior of that enemy, what the enemy will do in the future is easily predictable. An evil ideology does not change from being evil but will adapt and do whatever is necessary to achieve it's evil goals, with the end result being the same.

There are not yet enough muslims in most Western nations for a great muslim jihad to take place and rule those nations with sharia law. But muslims in the West are growing in numbers and becoming more and more demanding that their host countries adopt to their religion/idedology. It is even happening here in the United States (foot washing basins in airports, schools, etc., special prayer rooms in public places, etc.)

Once sufficient numbers of muslims have "immigrated" to a host country, then the jihad by the sword begins. Those are facts of history: It has happened in nation after nation throughout history and will happen in the West. It is inevitable, unless we wise up and stop it, as Tom Tancredo has suggested in the OP.

 

[KenH]

The American people could replace the 16% of the oil that we import from the Persian Gulf area by drilling in Alaska, drilling off the east coast, drilling off the west coast, switching to more fuel efficient vehicles, and not living 50 miles away from our place of work.

 

[Analgesic]

Even if only very small percentage of Muslims are this radical, it would amount to many hundreds of thousands in America that would do this very thing. It is required.

These people are bound to commit these acts, according to their religion.
The fact that most will not commit these atrocities, is more an issue of their lack of faith (sick) than that they are basically good. Their religion requires jihad.

You can practice naivete all you want, but these are a desperately wicked people in the most evil religion ever.

I never said that there weren't radical Muslims in America who feel bound by their faith to do terrible acts of violence - I disputed Lady Eagle's absolute and universal language. Further, simply because there are Muslims who want to commit such acts doesn't mean that they want to commit such acts because they're Muslims. Correlation doesn't prove causation.

And Christians are bound to crusades, according to their religion. The fact that most will not commit these atrocities is more an issue of their lack of faith than that they are basically good. Their religion requires crusades. Oh...except for the fact that it actually doesn't. Religious texts can be interpreted in very different ways, and just because you happen to take a fundamentalist view of the Bible in no way means that Muslims cannot interpret the Koran with a more nuanced hermeneutic.

Prove that Islam is literally "the most evil religion ever" or try and refrain from saying such imprecise nonsense.

Apparently not.

I often wonder, if Islam and muslims are such a deadly threat to western society as our "leaders" claim...why do they keep letting them flood into our countries? The only reason I can think of is that crime and the threat of terrorism pays the state and it's "puplic/private partners" handsome rewards for all their services and gadgets (to 'fight' crime and terrorism), not to mention the liberal injection of tons and tons (see lost $$ billions $$ in Iraq 360+ tons of cash as one example) of taxpayer money into their enterprises.

Conclusion...

Crime and the threat of terrorism = big benefits for the state and the growing militarized police/security state. Why would the state want to eliminate that which is so effective at buttering it's bread? Increasing or allowing crime and the threat of terrorism to increase would also increase the power and money the state and it's public/private partners can coerce out of it's citizens. Would it not?

I'm not so sure about it being about big bucks and state power as much as it is about political power. The more Muslims are demonized as evil people who must be crushed at all costs the more it plays into the hands of the right-wingers who will propose dramatically harsh tactics as the necessary response and attempt to alienate those on the left that aren't prepared to make such extreme pronouncements.

 

[just-want-peace]

What I did say was when the big jihad comes down, the so-called moderate muslims will join with the jihadists or they (moderate muslims) will be beheaded and/or killed.

And when that time DOES come, (and it will if our moral/political course remains unaltered), then, THEN, it will be way too late to do diddly about the problem 'cept to fight back one-on-one (assuming the 2nd hasn't been declared unconstitutional by then), submit, or run.

If it comes to that, I plan to go down swingin'!

 

[DQuixote]

pinoybaptist laid it out pretty good .. we need to do a WW-II on them. We laid waste not only Germany and Japan, but lots of friendly nations as well, just in an effort to get at them. :type:

poncho, we're still laboring under the delusion that if we'll be nice to people they will like us. So we open our arms wide, and they put grenades in our shorts. The same dingbats that want to take our guns away are also embracing any god.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Islam is the most evil religon in the world. What is nonsense is to oplogize for Islam. But that is your right. Terrorists in so many cases blow people up because it is a more sure path to heaven than living by the scales which is most uncertain. And the weight of living by the scales is rather heavy. Both the Koran and the Hadith call for Jihad against unbelievers.

The primary fuel that ignites the conflict with Islam is Israel. And if Islam has its way they would detroy all jews and get them out of the middle east. If you do not like such posts block thos who you disagree with. But we have posted link after link to make our points. Research that.

 

[KenH]

The primary fuel that ignites the conflict with Islam is Israel.

LadyEagle has told us that these jihads go back hundreds of years - she says this is the third one. Israel did not exist prior to 1948. So what was the primary fuel that ignited the first two jihads?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

LadyEagle has told us that these jihads go back hundreds of years - she says this is the third one. Israel did not exist prior to 1948. So what was the primary fuel that ignited the first two jihads?

If you will open a reliable version of the Bible you will see Israel existed long before Islam. They came straight out of Egypt under the leadership of Moses. You could begin your search in the book of Exodus.

 

[KenH]

Islam began around 600 A.D. The old nation state of Israel ceased to exist in 70 A.D. and a new one was not established until 1948 A.D.

Therefore, from 600 A.D. until 1948 A.D. there was no nation state of Israel to be the primary fuel for a jihad.

 

[Analgesic]

oh oh oh.

pwned.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Islam began around 600 A.D. The old nation state of Israel ceased to exist in 70 A.D. and a new one was not established until 1948 A.D.

Therefore, from 600 A.D. until 1948 A.D. there was no nation state of Israel to be the primary fuel for a jihad.

I never used the words nation state. And by the way the "nation state" of Israel ceast to exist long before 70 AD. The Jews have all this time been in that land. Even under Babylonian captivity and under Assyrian captivity as well as Roman captivity.

 

[KenH]

Looks like the subject of the cause of at least the first two jihads will be another one on which we will disagree, 2 Timothy2:1-4. Surprise, surprise.

I think we two would find a way to disagree over whether the sun is hot or not. :laugh:

 

[Matt Black]

1. Locate all terrorist training camps and bomb them. I mean, bomb them, regardless of whether there are women and children in the camps.

And how is this morally different from terrorism?

When you're enemy successfully goads you to lower yourself to his level, then he has truly won...

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

And how is this morally different from terrorism?

When you're enemy successfully goads you to lower yourself to his level, then he has truly won...

How distorted have some become when blowing up the camps that are used to train muderers is.....morraly wrong?

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. For some reason we should continue to let them train to murder mass amounts of people. Defending ourselves puts us on the same level as them? That ludicrous and completely without any value.

 

[Matt Black]

So you would knowingly and deliberately kill innocent women and children? Explain how that makes you a better moral being than a terrorist.