The US Knew As Early As 1946 That Islam Was A Threat To World Stability [Archive]

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 08:55 AM

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3370

So why was the West so unprepared for the rise of Islamic fasco-terroism?

IMO, it's because of weak leaders like Jimmy Carter who had a chance to strike a major blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism as it was first establishing it's power base in Iran but instead he/they tucked tail and grabbed their ankles(the classic leftist/liberal defensive posture). Jimmy Carter is worse than Neville Chamberlain and hopefully he will be remembered in the same way by historians.

SoonerInKCMO

7/12/2006, 08:58 AM

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3370

So why was the West so unprepared for the rise of Islamic fasco-terroism?

IMO, it's because of weak leaders like Jimmy Carter who had a chance to strike a major blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism as it was first establishing it's power base in Iran...

Of course, it had nothing to do with the support of such regimes by the U.S. (before and after Carter's presidency) in an effort to control the spread of communism.

SoonerInKCMO

7/12/2006, 08:59 AM

Also, if the U.S. knew in 1946, why do you want to place the majority of the blame on the guy that came around 30 years later?

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 09:03 AM

Of course, it had nothing to do with the support of such regimes by the U.S. (before and after Carter's presidency) in an effort to control the spread of communism.

With the exception of supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan I can't think of any fundamentalist regimes the US has supported. The Shah of Iran wasn't a fundamentalist. Saddam Hussein, whose support by the US is way overblown by the left, wasn't a fundamentalist.

The West should have gone into high gear as early as 1972 in their war against the radical elements of Islam after the attack at the Munich Olympics. The fatal error is that the world's leadership assumed that these killers would confine their hatred only toward Israel. When in the history of the world has a political or religious group whose central theme is world domination ever confined their actions and hatred to one group?

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:06 AM

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3370

So why was the West so unprepared for the rise of Islamic fasco-terroism?

Stop looking at the past through today's eyes. We were fresh off of WW2, and the cold war was just beginning. Commies with nukes pointed at us was a much bigger threat during that time peirod than a bunch of rag heads running around the desert, and energy wasn't a problem then.

Now you have Islam+oil money+hatred for Christian and Jewish civilization = world war 3.

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 09:06 AM

Also, if the U.S. knew in 1946, why do you want to place the majority of the blame on the guy that came around 30 years later?

Because the Iran hostage crisis was a crossroads in this saga. It was a chance to react forcefully and emphatically and instead Carter reacted in the typical, liberal fashion of placating thugs and criminals...espeically those on the world stage.

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 09:08 AM

christianity has been been a danger for a lot longer than that. ;)

SoonerInKCMO

7/12/2006, 09:09 AM

The fatal error is that the world's leadership assumed that these killers would confine their hatred only toward Israel. When in the history of the world has a political or religious group whose central theme is world domination ever confined their actions and hatred to one group?

That statement is very true and I think the answer to the question is 'never'.

The support in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion is of course the most obvious example of our support of Islamic regimes, but there are others. I don't remember many details off the top of my head but I can look some of it up later.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:09 AM

The West should have gone into high gear as early as 1972 in their war against the radical elements of Islam after the attack at the Munich Olympics.

You can go back and say the same thing about every evil in the world fan. We should taken care of Hitler, Tojo, Wilhelm, Napoleon, etc earlier than we did.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:11 AM

christianity has been been a danger for a lot longer than that. ;)

Its sad, but most of the people with your ideology actually believe that.

SoonerProphet

7/12/2006, 09:11 AM

The PLO was a nationalist group, it would be hard to classify them as "Islamic extremists". In fact the Israeli's funded and supported the growth of Hamas as a hedge against the PLO. This has since blown up in their face.

None need look further than our support of the Whabbist driven Saudi's for a clear cut case of supporting political Islam.

Oh, and Pipes is a neo-con crank on the payroll of Likud.

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 09:13 AM

Its sad, but most of the people with your ideology actually believe that.

it is sad that your parents didn't do a better job.:)

JohnnyMack

7/12/2006, 09:14 AM

At that time they were no real threat to us, so as Tuba said we needed to focus our efforts on those that were a more direct threat. In fact we spent decades propping these "threats" up so long as they served our interests.

yermom

7/12/2006, 09:21 AM

seems we basically created a lot of the problems we have down there now

we were too worried about the Reds to do anything about these crackpots at the time though

EDIT: wow, i waited a long time to post without refreshing :eek:

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:22 AM

If you get a chance, read up on Samuel P. Huntington's "clash of civilations" theory.

Its quickly proving itself to be true. More so every damn day.

EDIT: Wiki had a entry on it from 1993...

"It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations

9/11 was the pearl harbor of this clash IMO.

mdklatt

7/12/2006, 09:22 AM

With the exception of supporting the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan I can't think of any fundamentalist regimes the US has supported.

Saudi Arabia

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:23 AM

seems we basically created a lot of the problems we have down there now

Please explain how WE had anything to do with it?

Last I checked, WE didn't write the Koran.

yermom

7/12/2006, 09:26 AM

we set up a lot of the governments, like Iraq and Isreal

we(with the Brits) set up countries over there so we could get the oil, it seems to have not worked out well at times

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 09:27 AM

we set up a lot of the governments, like Iraq and Isreal

we(with the Brits) set up countries over there so we could get the oil, it seems to have not worked out well at times

Hmm, might want to check your history on some of that. ;)

JohnnyMack

7/12/2006, 09:32 AM

IMO, it's because of weak leaders like Jimmy Carter who had a chance to strike a major blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism as it was first establishing it's power base in Iran but instead he/they tucked tail and grabbed their ankles

The West should have gone into high gear as early as 1972 in their war against the radical elements of Islam after the attack at the Munich Olympics.

Wait, is it Nixon's fault or is it Carter's fault? I'm confused.

SoonerInKCMO

7/12/2006, 09:43 AM

IMO, it's because of weak leaders like Jimmy Carter

You know, Bush the Elder was CIA director at that time. It must be his fault. ;)

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 09:43 AM

Wait, is it Nixon's fault or is it Carter's fault? I'm confused.

Both. Although the Iran hostage crisis was, IMO, the watershed event leading to the emergence of the current power grab by Islamic radicals in the Middle East and elsewhere.

And I do agree that the Cold War diverted the attention of the West from this problem and allowed the radical movement to gain footholds throughout the region.

yermom

7/12/2006, 09:50 AM

Hmm, might want to check your history on some of that. ;)

Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

The British government laid out the political and constitutional framework for Iraq's government. Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the aspirations of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north. Britain had to put down a major revolt against its policies between 1920 and 1922. During the revolt Britain used gas and air attacks on Iraqi villagers [1].

In the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq

this is what i was thinking of, i guess by "we" i meant our allies ;)

i was thinking some of the years were different though...

SCOUT

7/12/2006, 10:05 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Iraq

this is what i was thinking of, i guess by "we" i meant our allies ;)

i was thinking some of the years were different though...
I thought we did things unilaterally?

yermom

7/12/2006, 10:11 AM

it's not like we had nothing to do with the crap going on in that part of the world... i mean we were arming Saddam to fight the Iranians and arming the Afghanis to fight the Russians

SoonerInKCMO

7/12/2006, 10:23 AM

it's not like we had nothing to do with the crap going on in that part of the world... i mean we were arming Saddam to fight the Iranians and arming the Afghanis to fight the Russians

Not to mention arming and training the Iranian military immediately before the Islamic revolution.

Vaevictis

7/12/2006, 10:26 AM

Methinks that if we had followed TE Lawrence's advice and not buggered the Arabs after Damascus, we would be much better off today.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 10:33 AM

Methinks that if we had followed TE Lawrence's advice and not buggered the Arabs at Damascus, we would be much better off today.

I guess so, if you ignore the thousands of years of historical strife in the area, the global positioning during world war 2 and the cold war, the prophecy of the Bible that is coming more true every day and fact that the Arabs have a good chunk of the worlds energy supply, then you might be right.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 10:35 AM

Both. Although the Iran hostage crisis was, IMO, the watershed event leading to the emergence of the current power grab by Islamic radicals in the Middle East and elsewhere.

I think the establishment of Israel, the takeover of Jerusalem and the Koran itself has more to do with this than the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is nothing more than a result.

Vaevictis

7/12/2006, 10:37 AM

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 10:42 AM

Well, I mostly think that because in doing so, they would have focused their hatred on each other instead of the West. In imposing Western empire on them, we gave them a common enemy.

Nothing unites ancient enemies faster and more effectively than a common enemy.

(which is not to say that I think the same would happen if we abandon the region now -- that opportunity has come and gone.)

Well, if you think the Islamic world could/would somehow wall itself off from the rest of the world (at whatever point in history) and everything would be happy bunnies and kittens, your showing how simplistic your thinking really is. India is a great example of this.

I would suggest reading some of the Koran sometime. It instructs the people of Islam to do exactly what they are doing now, which is to kill the infidels (you and me) and establish the celaphate.

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 10:47 AM

I think the establishment of Israel, the takeover of Jerusalem and the Koran itself has more to do with this than the Iran Hostage Crisis, which is nothing more than a result.

Well, the ascent of Hitler to power was a result of socio-economic forces not under the control of the current leaders of the Allied countries but his abiltiy to grab power was enhanced greatly by the inaction of the Allies to act early. Yes, it's a tough decision to decide when to use force against an agressor in the early part of their evil-doing but I can't think of a time when history has reflected badly on leaders of democratic societies who did act early and forcefully against threats to their country.

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 10:47 AM

I guess so, if you ignore the thousands of years of historical strife in the area, the global positioning during world war 2 and the cold war, the prophecy of the Bible that is coming more true every day and fact that the Arabs have a good chunk of the worlds energy supply, then you might be right.

really??? really?? you put that in your well reasoned retort??

yermom

7/12/2006, 10:50 AM

really??? really?? you put that in your well reasoned retort??

the Bible, some gay references, i'm waiting for the "Support Our Troops" trifecta

Okla-homey

7/12/2006, 10:51 AM

I think it goes back a bit earlier. Google up "Charles Martel."

mdklatt

7/12/2006, 10:52 AM

the Bible, some gay references, i'm waiting for the "Support Our Troops" trifecta

Wasn't Hitler a closet butt pirate?

(Just speeding things along.)

BajaOklahoma

7/12/2006, 10:52 AM

I think JP Getty is responsible.
He overpaid for the oilfield - all that money.
Money is the root of all evil.

Vaevictis

7/12/2006, 10:57 AM

Well, if you think the Islamic world could/wpuld somehow wall itself off from the rest of the world (at whatever point in history) and everything would be happy bunnies and kittens, your showing how simplistic your thinking really is.

No, that's not what I'm thinking. I'm thinking that there would probably be less antagonism directed towards the West, and that in any case they'd be more focused on internal power struggles than messing with us.

You act like Islam is this monolithic religion, acting in an organized fashion to world domination. It hasn't been like that since the Abbassid Caliphate almost 1000 years ago, the closest being the Ottoman Empire.

I don't think they get it all together without someone to hate. Hell, they haven't quite gotten it all together *with* someone to hate. Too much bad blood amongst the Persians, Turks, Arabs and others, and even the various tribes within the major groups.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 11:03 AM

really??? really?? you put that in your well reasoned retort??

Whats wrong with that? The Bible has already told us what is going to happen, and so far, it has.

See the establishment of Isreal as a state.

Tear Down This Wall

7/12/2006, 11:16 AM

Listen, it doesn't matter when we realized the muslims sucked, or who was the first to notice. Every president since the fall of the Shah who hasn't leveled Tehran and Damascus flat to the ground has made a mistake in dealing with those cockroaches of humanity.

And, I'll say something more. If I were president, I'd greet the bastards from the House of Saud with the full moon of my pasty white butt and the best post-Taco Bell lunch fart I could muster. Those f'n backstabbers know damn well where most of the terrorists are that we are trying to find, and they're holding back on us.

If ever there was a day I was president, less than 24 hours after inauguration, Tehran, Damascus, and Mecca would be nothing more than giant, smoldering holes in the ground.

As AC/DC once sang - Goodbye, goodbye, goodbye, and good riddance to bad luck!

Vaevictis

7/12/2006, 11:26 AM

And, I'll say something more. If I were president, I'd greet the bastards from the House of Saud with the full moon of my pasty white butt and the best post-Taco Bell lunch fart I could muster. Those f'n backstabbers know damn well where most of the terrorists are that we are trying to find, and they're holding back on us.

Hear, f'n hear!

If ever there was a day I was president, less than 24 hours after inauguration, Tehran, Damascus, and Mecca would be nothing more than giant, smoldering holes in the ground.

While I tend to agree with the sentiment, I think that Mecca and Medina would be better kept hostage. "You guys want to nuke us? Okay, first thing that happens is that we drop half our nuclear arsenal on Mecca. Then we pave over it with radioactive concrete. Then we lay down every long lasting chemical and biological agent we can muster. Try making the Hajj with THAT, ye bastards."

SoonerInFla

7/12/2006, 11:29 AM

The US Knew As Early As 1946 That Islam Was A Threat To World Stability
EXACTLY!
And our government has insisted that we be involved in their B.S. ever since. As long as we screw around with these nut jobs, Americans will continue to be blown up, get their heads chopped off and any other type of vial **** they can come up with. I'm sick of it. Either wipe em out or leave em the F alone. But for Gods sakes, quit screwing around with em. Unless of course you enjoy being blown up when you're not looking or getting your nuts cut off and shoved down your throat before they cut your head off.As long as our politicians insist on burying our noses in some camel riding &*@# suckers *** these things will continue to happen.
End Rant

SoonerProphet

7/12/2006, 11:31 AM

I'm a bit leary of Huntington's postulates in the "Clash of Civilizations", there are a substantial number of holes in his theory.

As for Martel, I don't anyone could really claim that the first phase of Arab expansion during the 7th and 8th centuries could be describes as "Islamic" culture, hell, it had only been a religion for a hundred years. Secondly, the Omayyads would rather collect a head tax than seek conversion of infidels...it is how the wheel got greased. Those are just a few issues with the whole "Islam is evil" shibboleth.

soonerscuba

7/12/2006, 12:00 PM

So, is the Muslim that I live with a threat to me, should I take him out?

yermom

7/12/2006, 12:06 PM

better just be safe and take him out

mdklatt

7/12/2006, 12:20 PM

So, is the Muslim that I live with a threat to me, should I take him out?

You're with TDI2K's ex?

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!

7/12/2006, 12:35 PM

christianity has been been a danger for a lot longer than that. ;)OK, you're either joking, or your comment is posted a few centuries after the fact.(notwithstanding Catholic priests, and their penchant for gay pedophilia)

Vaevictis

7/12/2006, 12:37 PM

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

FaninAma

7/12/2006, 01:06 PM

I think JP Getty is responsible.
He overpaid for the oilfield - all that money.
Money is the root of all evil.

Valid point which then leads to the question of whether or not finding new energy sources outside of the Islamic sphere of influence would minimize the importance of the actions taken by the radical faction of that region.

Loss of economic power over the rest of the world would greatly solve the problem, IMO. Which means that the failure of US leaders to develop different and more stable sources of energy has been among the greates failures of US leadership.

Scott D

7/12/2006, 01:32 PM

so you mean this currying to lobbyists in lieu of working toward the benefit of mankind by politicians in the USA is a bad thing? ;)

Tear Down This Wall

7/12/2006, 01:45 PM

Hear, f'n hear!

While I tend to agree with the sentiment, I think that Mecca and Medina would be better kept hostage. "You guys want to nuke us? Okay, first thing that happens is that we drop half our nuclear arsenal on Mecca. Then we pave over it with radioactive concrete. Then we lay down every long lasting chemical and biological agent we can muster. Try making the Hajj with THAT, ye bastards."

Okay, I see your point here. I can see sparing Mecca and Medina for a little while. But, farting at the House of Sauds' sorry, lying reps - that stays in the plan to the end!

Scott D

7/12/2006, 01:47 PM

You know, I've always thought that Star Trek's 'Prime Directive' in regards to other populated planets, was a policy that we should have followed in regards to other nations. We and Europe are to blame for the current state of things by basically shoving that region of the world from the 1800s essentially to the 21st century in a very short time period.

soonerscuba

7/12/2006, 01:48 PM

JohnnyMack

7/12/2006, 01:55 PM

Valid point which then leads to the question of whether or not finding new energy sources outside of the Islamic sphere of influence would minimize the importance of the actions taken by the radical faction of that region.

Loss of economic power over the rest of the world would greatly solve the problem, IMO. Which means that the failure of US leaders to develop different and more stable sources of energy has been among the greates failures of US leadership.

It was easier at the time to just pacify those in power in the region and buy their sh*tpiles of oil than it was for us to relinquish our reliance on foreign sources of energy by creating refineries/drilling on our own land and/or developing new energy sources.

I'd be curious in a revisionist history kind of way to see what our situation would look like if we had drilled Alaska like it was Jenna Jameson.

Scott D

7/12/2006, 01:57 PM

we'd have hepatitis in the gas tanks? :D

Stoop Dawg

7/12/2006, 02:24 PM

I would suggest reading some of the Koran sometime. It instructs the people of Islam to do exactly what they are doing now, which is to kill the infidels (you and me) and establish the celaphate.

And the Christian God never told/helped anyone kill anyone else in the Bible. But I'm sure that's different, since you believe in the Bible and not the Koran.

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 02:44 PM

Stoop Dawg

7/12/2006, 02:46 PM

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

I'd be surprised if our Christian president hasn't killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, I'm just sayin'.

mdklatt

7/12/2006, 02:50 PM

I'd be surprised if our Christian president hasn't killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians.

I would. Christians and Muslims have been going at it for more than 600 years, right?

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 02:50 PM

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

Wow, you fell for that BS quote huh??

Thats pretty funny.

Stoop Dawg

7/12/2006, 02:51 PM

I meant since he took office. If you can't read minds better than that, then you have no business posting here.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 02:52 PM

I'd be surprised if our Christian president hasn't killed more Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians.

I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, I'm just sayin'.

I'm just saying your post is about as clueless as it gets.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 02:54 PM

I'm a bit leary of Huntington's postulates in the "Clash of Civilizations", there are a substantial number of holes in his theory.

Maybe.

It was written a few years after the end of the cold war, and he stands up much better than that "end of history" dumbass. ;)

Stoop Dawg

7/12/2006, 02:54 PM

I'm just saying your post is about as clueless as it gets.

Don't worry, man. God kills all non-Christians in the end and sends them to hell for all of eternity anyway. You've got nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 02:57 PM

well that is what Abbas said he said through the use of an interpreter who may or may not have been drunk or fluent in any language.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 03:06 PM

well that is what Abbas said he said through the use of an interpreter who may or may not have been drunk or fluent in any language.

Obviously an impeccable source you use for your facts.

Hatfield

7/12/2006, 03:08 PM

you are awesome tuba....no really you are.

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 03:08 PM

Don't worry, man. God kills all non-Christians in the end and sends them to hell for all of eternity anyway. You've got nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

Not sure what that post has to do with your previous clueless post, but please, feel free to keep digging. You might bump into all those brown people Bushilter and his murderous troops have killed for oil. :rolleyes:

OklahomaTuba

7/12/2006, 03:09 PM

you are awesome tuba....no really you are.

:D

Stoop Dawg

7/12/2006, 06:06 PM

Not sure what that post has to do with your previous clueless post, but please, feel free to keep digging. You might bump into all those brown people Bushilter and his murderous troops have killed for oil. :rolleyes:

For oil? Who said anything about oil? What was that you were saying about clueless? Evidently the lefties are right, you really are unable to follow a logical conversation. Nevermind.

Okla-homey

7/12/2006, 06:21 PM

Don't worry, man. God kills all non-Christians in the end and sends them to hell for all of eternity anyway. You've got nothing to worry about. :rolleyes:

That's what mama and meemaw raised me to believe anyway...and I hit my knees brother 'cause them ladies would not tell a lie.

Okla-homey

7/12/2006, 06:25 PM

Anyway, back on the subject. Its a clash of cultures. Plain and simple. Its people who believe in a theocratic government run by clerics and the law as printed in their scripture versus secular liberal democracy.

My money's on the democracies.

The only way the jihaadis win is if we let them. Call me a religious goober if you want, but the King of Kings is still paying attention and He is simply not going to let these heathens prevail.

soonerscuba

7/12/2006, 09:08 PM

Call me a religious goober if you want, but the King of Kings is still paying attention and He is simply not going to let these heathens prevail.

I'm pretty sure they are thinking the same thing, probably with more zeal judging how they like to asplode themselves for giggles and virgins.

They are not going to prevail because they are poor, backward, lack global support and command structure, and lastly pawns of a brand of religion that will hopefully lose favor in the near future. JC has about as much to do with it as the fire breathing dragon in my garage.

yermom

7/12/2006, 09:15 PM

OUinFLA

7/12/2006, 09:26 PM

GWB was born in 1946.................It's his fault.
:D

Octavian

7/12/2006, 11:34 PM

...it's because of weak leaders like Jimmy Carter who had a chance to strike a major blow against radical Islamic fundamentalism...

I havent read this whole thread so if this has already been said...SIA.

Over 240 American servicemen were killed in a Marine barracks suicide attack in Lebanon during in the fall of '83.

After denouncing it as "a despicable act," Reagan ordered a complete withdrawal in early '84.

I think he took a stately picture on a battleship after that w/ lots of flags surrounding him while placing his hand over his heart...so everyone seemed to forget.

Plenty of blame to spread around on this topic...

Octavian

7/13/2006, 12:16 AM

Its people who believe in a theocratic government run by clerics and the law as printed in their scripture versus secular liberal democracy.

So...you're tellin us Kansas and Massachusetts are headed for a showdown? ;)

My money's on the (secular liberal) democracies....Call me a religious goober if you want, but the King of Kings is still paying attention and He is simply not going to let these heathens prevail.

I dunno, Homey, you've kinda confused me here. This is one of the things (at least to me) that's so paradoxical about early 21st century Americans who lean toward the socio-cultural conservative wing.

They don't mind basing American law on their own religious convictions but seem to absolutely abhor foreign theocratic governments and the people who run em. That is...an individual who wants Creationism taught in American public schools but can't stand "crazy ragheads."

In any event, I disagree w/ Huntington. As Scuba has said, the side w/ the most money and bigger guns almost always wins (though a little help from a diety would be nice). ;)

OklahomaTuba

7/13/2006, 08:33 AM

I dunno, Homey, you've kinda confused me here. This is one of the things (at least to me) that's so paradoxical about early 21st century Americans who lean toward the socio-cultural conservative wing.

They don't mind basing American law on their own religious convictions but seem to absolutely abhor foreign theocratic governments and the people who run em. That is...an individual who wants Creationism taught in American public schools but can't stand "crazy ragheads."

Ahh of course, cause there's absolutely NO difference between creationists and wahhabists. Or the fact that creationist don't prescribe to a this little thing people call Jihad, or that Jesus instructs the evil Christians to kill all infidels like Mohammad does, right?

And never mind this country is 80% Christian, with a history and culture based on judeo-Christian traditions.

A perfect example of black and white thinking!

Octavian

7/13/2006, 09:49 AM

Ahh of course, cause there's absolutely NO difference between creationists and wahhabists. Or the fact that creationist don't prescribe to a this little thing people call Jihad, or that Jesus instructs the evil Christians to kill all infidels like Mohammad does, right?

And never mind this country is 80% Christian, with a history and culture based on judeo-Christian traditions.

A perfect example of black and white thinking!

Thanks, Alex.

I'll take "Miss the Point, Much?" for a thousand.

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 10:11 AM

Since Muslims are such a threat, really, should I take out my roommate? I'm specifically calling out all the Nuke'em crowd to answer me on this point (i.e. Fan, TDTW, favor). While we are at it, should me make it illegal to be Muslim in the U.S. as a way to reduce terrorism?

Yes. Take him out to the airport, buy him a ticket back to his crappy country of origin, and send him back.

Yes. I am absolutely a fan of cracking down on Muslims in America and around the globe until we can bomb their home countries into absolute desolation. Less than two miles from where I grew up in Richardson, Texas, five Muslims were caught using their "computer store" as a front to send money to Hamas. The case is below. They were convicted and sit in prison now.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/infocom/uselashi121702sind.pdf

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 10:32 AM

Yes. Take him out to the airport, buy him a ticket back to his crappy country of origin, and send him back.

Yes. I am absolutely a fan of cracking down on Muslims in America and around the globe until we can bomb their home countries into absolute desolation. Less than two miles from where I grew up in Richardson, Texas, five Muslims were caught using their "computer store" as a front to send money to Hamas. The case is below. They were convicted and sit in prison now.

http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/infocom/uselashi121702sind.pdf

http://www.siteinstitute.org/bin/articles.cgi?ID=news1902&Category=news&Subcategory=0

yermom

7/13/2006, 10:40 AM

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 10:51 AM

so i should make broad generalizations about groups of people based on specific cases involving them?

i saw a group of black guys carjack someone... lets send all black people back to Africa

Pat Robertson is an idiot, i think Christians shouldn't be on allowed on TV ever again

To sentence one - with Muslims, yes, until we destroy the physical (Tehran, Damascus) and financial (Saudi Arabia) centers of terrorism.

To sentence two - black people haven't declared war on America and backed up the declaration by bombing U.S. interests here (the two Trade Center bombings) and abroad (Khobar Towers, African embassies, and U.S.S. Cole). Therefore, your comparison here fails.

Finally, Pat Robertson is absolutely an idiot, and very few American would shed a tear if he were forced off the air. However, Robertson isn't sending out his followers to bomb their fellow Americans for not also watching him and adhering to his teachings as Osama Bin Laden does. Nor, is Robertson giving missles and firearms to groups to randomly attack groups of other Christians who don't watch his show. So, again, your comparison fails.

Some of you, sadly, do not have clue one about what the muslims want. Your weak comparison to blacks and televangelists in America is the ultimate proof that some here will always look at the evil in front of them and either deny its existence or simply try to excuse it away.

Terrorism is real. The aims of the muslim nutcases who declared war on America 10 years ago are real. I was asked my real opinion in a post by one of the denial/excuse posters, and he got a real response.

Tough times demand tough answers.

yermom

7/13/2006, 10:56 AM

maybe we could put them all in camps until this all blows over

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 10:58 AM

To sentence one - with Muslims, yes, until we destroy the physical (Tehran, Damascus) and financial (Saudi Arabia) centers of terrorism.

To sentence two - black people haven't declared war on America and backed up the declaration by bombing U.S. interests here (the two Trade Center bombings) and abroad (Khobar Towers, African embassies, and U.S.S. Cole). Therefore, your comparison here fails.

Finally, Pat Robertson is absolutely an idiot, and very few American would shed a tear if he were forced off the air. However, Robertson isn't sending out his followers to bomb their fellow Americans for not also watching him and adhering to his teachings as Osama Bin Laden does. Nor, is Robertson giving missles and firearms to groups to randomly attack groups of other Christians who don't watch his show. So, again, your comparison fails.

Some of you, sadly, do not have clue one about what the muslims want. Your weak comparison to black and televangelists in America is the ultimate proof that some here will always look at the evil in front of them and either deny its existence or simply try to excuse it away.

Terrorism is real. The aims of the muslim nutcases who declared war on America 10 years ago are real. I was asked my real opinion in a post by one of the denial/excuse posters, and he got a real response.

Tough times demand tough answers.

<Obligitory Hitler comparison>

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:08 AM

maybe we could put them all in camps until this all blows over

Yes, we could. Or, simply give them the choice to leave. I'm happy with what we're currently doing - listening to their phone calls and tracking their financial dealings.

yermom

7/13/2006, 11:10 AM

yeah, i'm sure it's only theirs they are watching and listening to :rolleyes:

Vaevictis

7/13/2006, 11:10 AM

<Obligitory Hitler comparison>

Okay gents. Time to pack this thread in, and move along.

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:11 AM

<Obligitory Hitler comparison>

And, a poor one, since Hitler's aim was extinguishing a whole race of people, and the U.S. aim is simply to rid the world of the terrorist element of islam. But, because you don't see the terrorists as particularly evil or pretend that their rage is our fault, it is easy to understand why you would propose an incorrect comparison.

FaninAma

7/13/2006, 11:13 AM

yermom

7/13/2006, 11:16 AM

And, a poor one, since Hitler's aim was extinguishing a whole race of people, and the U.S. aim is simply to rid the world of the terrorist element of islam. But, because you don't see the terrorists as particularly evil or pretend that their rage is our fault, it is easy to understand why you would propose an incorrect comparison.

terrorists are evil (well, i have to say here that the actual bombers are probably misguided and weak, easily led fools, the REAL evil are the rich old men that send these young kids out in their name)

but Muslims are not all terrorists. there are white and black Muslims too, are you just going to round up the Arab looking Muslims and send them back? what if they are white kids from California?

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:21 AM

If they are white kids from California, they are citizens, simply arrest them if they have a terroristic bent. Oh, wait...we're already doing that.

Send the Muslims home, imprison the citizen idiots who want to war against their own coutry. Back in the day, they called that 'treason' and it was punishable by death. Then again, our forefathers didn't waste time navel-gazing and second-guessing themselves the way many 21st Century Americans do.

If this generation of Americans were alive in the 18th Century, this land would still be a British colony...or a crappy remant of one like India and a good part of Africa and other parts of the world.

FaninAma

7/13/2006, 11:22 AM

What if the Neocons real goal in Iraq was to turn this into a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiite muslims? After all, when two of your enemies are fighting each other instead of you doesn't that help you? I certainly know it would help my oil company mutual funds.

mdklatt

7/13/2006, 11:22 AM

but Muslims are not all terrorists. there are white and black Muslims too, are you just going to round up the Arab looking Muslims and send them back? what if they are white kids from California?

That's why the government has to spy on everybody. Duh! Even those of us who aren't terrorists are probably Googling for porn or talking bad about the president and thus deserve to be watched carefully. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of due process.

yermom

7/13/2006, 11:23 AM

I wouldn't say I was a pro-Nuk'em type...at least not until I can increase my investment in the plutonium manufacturing companies in this country. :)

The radical muslim factions around the world will not win any victories of significance. What they will do is screww up the economy and standard of living of the West like a bunch of cockroaches in a kitchen.

I think that their actions(the radical muslims, not the cockroaches) stems mainly from a hatred and jelousy of the power and accomplishments of the as much as it has to do with their warped religous ideology...so I guess I support the argument that this is a cultural conflict rather that a religious one.

i'm not convinced it's jealousy... i think it's the only way they can even hope to fight. i mean the US has enough money and military power to do whatever to a single country, if they were to have a straight up conflict.

the US does things that effect their economy, and their way of life. if the US had their way they would not be in power, they have to do something to keep their ****ed up way of life intact

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 11:24 AM

And, a poor one, since Hitler's aim was extinguishing a whole race of people, and the U.S. aim is simply to rid the world of the terrorist element of islam. But, because you don't see the terrorists as particularly evil or pretend that their rage is our fault, it is easy to understand why you would propose an incorrect comparison

Gee, where would I have gotten the notion you were for the eradication of the entire nation of Islam?

Hmmm.

Yes. I am absolutely a fan of cracking down on Muslims in America and around the globe until we can bomb their home countries into absolute desolation.

mdklatt

7/13/2006, 11:24 AM

What if the Neocons real goal in Iraq was to turn this into a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiite muslims?

http://www.zipcon.net/stdale/mission_accomplished.jpg

:D

swardboy

7/13/2006, 11:25 AM

I blame Winston Churchill...he's the one who created Iran, Iraq, and Syria after WWI. :eddie:

yermom

7/13/2006, 11:25 AM

etouffee

7/13/2006, 11:25 AM

Send the Muslims home,.http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/wtf.gif

Are you serious???

yermom

7/13/2006, 11:26 AM

That's why the government has to spy on everybody. Duh! Even those of us who aren't terrorists are probably Googling for porn or talking bad about the president and thus deserve to be watched carefully. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of due process.

don't forget trying to pay credit cards with multiple bank accounts, or posting on facebook ;)

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:28 AM

I blame Winston Churchill...he's the one who created Iran, Iraq, and Syria after WWI. :eddie:

That's the whole sad truth. It was European countries who cobbled these bands of muslims and nomads into countries, and when the whole thing fails, where are they? Sitting on the sideline trying to tell us how to do things there? Idiots. Europe is a cesspool of cowardice and thievery in its leadership.

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:29 AM

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/wtf.gif

Are you serious???

Yes.

etouffee

7/13/2006, 11:31 AM

Just... wow.

swardboy

7/13/2006, 11:38 AM

It constantly amazes me how well most immigrants assimilate into American society. They may keep their ethnic heritage, but they cotton real well to free enterprise and the concept of being free to advance themselves to any level they desire. And that includes first generation muslims from whatever country. It appears to me, and I certainly don't claim to be right, that in later generations the domestic problem has crept in....Americanization doesn't seem to take hold of the Islamic crowd as well as most immigrant groups.

FaninAma

7/13/2006, 11:40 AM

That's the whole sad truth. It was European countries who cobbled these bands of muslims and nomads into countries, and when the whole thing fails, where are they? Sitting on the sideline trying to tell us how to do things there? Idiots. Europe is a cesspool of cowardice and thievery in its leadership.

Things haven't changed much since the 1700's in that regard. Perhaps the Rothschilds are still pulling the strings.:D

Tear Down This Wall

7/13/2006, 11:42 AM

Things haven't changed much since the 1700's in that regard. Perhaps the Rothschilds are still pulling the strings.:D

Good point. Perhaps Churchill during WWII and Margaret Thatcher in the 80s were simply instances of silent farts of the history of European leadership akin to Texas' win the the 2005 Red River War.

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 11:42 AM

He doesn't care for a particular race of people. He doesn't care if they are bombed into absolute desolation. He wants them all rounded up. He's not Hitler, he's TDTW!!!!!

FaninAma

7/13/2006, 11:46 AM

He doesn't care for a particular race of people. He doesn't care if they are bombed into absolute desolation. He wants them all rounded up. He's not Hitler, he's TDTW!!!!!

Actually he's espousing the philosophy that helped the US win the Second World War against Germany and Japan. Once someone attacks you and threatens your way of life then all bets are off. You cannot fight a civilized war and hope to be successful.

The US did not fight a civilized war against the Germans or the Japanese. Funny how neither of those countries have caused us any problems recently. :cool:

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 12:03 PM

Actually he's espousing the philosophy that helped the US win the Second World War against Germany and Japan. Once someone attacks you and threatens your way of life then all bets are off. You cannot fight a civilized war and hope to be successful.

The US did not fight a civilized war against the Germans or the Japanese. Funny how neither of those countries have caused us any problems recently. :cool:

Doesn't mean that Dresden and Hiroshima was the right course of action.

Vaevictis

7/13/2006, 12:05 PM

Does anyone with even a modicum of sense think that Hiroshima was the wrong course of action?

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 12:12 PM

Does anyone with even a modicum of sense think that Hiroshima was the wrong course of action?

In war atrocities are committed by both sides involved. You get that. Right?

Vaevictis

7/13/2006, 12:14 PM

In war atrocities are committed by both sides involved. You get that. Right?

I'm saying Hiroshima was the correct course of action. You get that. Right?

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 12:15 PM

I'm saying Hiroshima was the correct course of action. You get that. Right?

We're all entitled to our own opinion.

mdklatt

7/13/2006, 12:18 PM

I'm saying Hiroshima was the correct course of action. You get that. Right?

Libfight!

Vaevictis

7/13/2006, 12:20 PM

Ah hah. I think I see what you're saying now.

*shrug* IMO, the atrocities that would have been involved in an actual invasion of the mainland would have been far worse than what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That was one of those rare cases where atomic warfare was the lesser of two evils.

Vaevictis

7/13/2006, 12:21 PM

For example, you realize that kids were getting issued spears in the run up to invasion and were expected to fight when we landed, right?

JohnnyMack

7/13/2006, 12:35 PM

GDC

7/13/2006, 12:38 PM

Now they're using dope to sway disaffected, unemployed young men, mostly minorities, into carrying out attacks here in the US.

Scott D

7/13/2006, 04:35 PM

Now they're using dope to sway disaffected, unemployed young men, mostly minorities, into carrying out attacks here in the US.

those Japanese guys are vera vera sneaki ;)

Tear Down This Wall

7/14/2006, 11:06 AM

Americanization doesn't seem to take hold of the Islamic crowd as well as most immigrant groups.

Or France, or Britian, or Spain, or any other coutries were muslims have immigrated to, then terrorized. Seems that no matter where they go, the muslim just can't fit in. They pay them not to work in France, and they still riot against the government.

Israel is about to give Tehran and Damascus the kick the junk they so richly desreve.