The High Price of Telling the Truth About Islam
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Monday, February 6, 2017 02:51
VIEWED: 11703
PAGE 6 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Radical Muslims didn't kill 100,000+ civilians in a "shock and awe*" campaign in a totally baseless "war of choice". If you're interested in the truth... and I know you're not... and if you are simply balancing the scales of dead on one side versus dead on the other, we are by far the worst terrorists in the world, bar none.
Radical Buddhists didn't fly any jet planes into sky scrapers.
Radical Baptists didn't kill 350 school children in Beslan, Russia.
Radical Jews didn't go on a shooting spree in Mumbai
Radical Scientiologists didn't blow up tourists in Bali.
Radical Wiccans didn't murder Theo Van Gogh
Radical Methodist didn't blow up 1500 year old statues of Buddha.
Radical Hindus didn't murder Olympic athletes in the '72 Summer games.
I could go on all day, but I doubt the message could be made any more clear. There is one and only one religion which follows the word " radical " in each and every one of those examples.
*"Shock and awe" by any definition is an act of terror, since it uses terror (shock and awe, fear and dread) in the form of relentless killing of civilians to attain a political goal (installing a regime more to our liking).
-------------
I had a funny moment when I went back East to help out with my aging mom. My uncle- a retired police sergeant (BTW his son, my cousin, is a high mucky-muck in ICE, so that part of the family is definitely well-establish in Homeland Security) - gave me a hug and asked me how I was doing and how airport security was. So I said, well, OK, except they're using back-scatter radiation now, and it's not like I need the extra radiation. And he laughed and said "Airport security, it's out of control" and as part of the same hug and ironic laugh, added "Al Qaida, they're gonna win". I have to say, I was shocked. Because even he, a small-town cop in bumfuck NY, realizes that our reaction to Al Qaida ... the money we have spent in feckless wars and "Homeland Security" and the rights we have given up in order to be ass-probed and monitored like never before ... has done more damage than anything Al Qaida could have hoped to inflict by themselves.
--------------
Oh, BTW KIKI, congrats on getting rappy to (once again) make a total shit-stain of himself. My god, you'd think the guy would learn!
Rappy has never shown any ability to learn. Today is like every other in that regard.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:So ONLY killing people in the name of religion counts? Therefore we shouldn't be upset if Obama were to decide to... say... drone-attack the leaders of the Tea Party? And if a whole bunch of innocent civilians get killed in the process (aside from the targets, that is) that doesn't count either because it wasn't "intended"?
And the wars with Iraq had nothing to do with Christianity, so the 'shock and awe' nonsense is a complete non sequitur.
Wow, you are an idiot. You've just voided any complaint that you might make about Obama, including so-called "death panels", because if it's not intended or done in the name of religion, clearly it's of no consequence.
Collateral damage, he calls it. Rappy says it's fine to kill innocent folks if you were trying to get bad guys. No big deal at all.
So by that rationale, Wall Street is now classified as a target-rich environment, much the same way Fort Hood was deemed (and in fact WAS) a legitimate target by al-Qaeda. A few folks get caught in the crossfire, but you were targeting the bad ones, so it's all good. That is Rappy's official position on the matter, according to his own words.
Quote:
Do you really intend for us to take you seriously? Clearly not; your arguments don't even pass logic 101. At this point, I just poke at you for fun, 'cause you get all exercised the spittle starts flying. I wonder if you'll run way from THIS thread TOO!
Yes to poking the monkey, and of course he'll run away. It's the only thing he's known for around here!
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RAPPY, you're a smart guy. You can take any single fact and any kind of logic, and twist it into a pretzel to match your concerns. In this case, specifically about 'radical Islam'. I agree with you that radical Islam is "a" problem... maybe not the biggest one in my book, but certainly on my list.
But let's assume that you're correct: that radical Islam is a MAJOR problem.
Now, if you were intent on solving this problem, how do you suppose we should BEST go about it?
Well, we could certainly attempt to bomb, shoot, or missile all leaders and any followers who were close enough to be killed. But imagine it from the other side (if possible): Would you really abandon your Tea Party beliefs if Limbaugh were to be killed, especially if he was killed by Obama?
Or would your anger and resolution simply grow white-hot? After all, your true spiritual leader (Ayn Rand) is dead, and that hasn't stopped YOU from following her precepts, has it? And killing the tactical leaders of today would only make you burn hotter, would it not?
Your chosen strategy not only is doomed to fail, it is doomed to make things WORSE. So if your strategy is a for-sure failure, why not change it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Only a small percentage of Muslims are radical; of those, only a tinier percent would be willing to be ACTIVELY radical; of those, an even tinier percentage of those would have the ability or connections to DO anything about it. But that tiny percent is enough for Raptor to obsess about constantly.
When you think of all the things in this world which can kill you, I'm afraid Islamist terrorism is pretty low on MY list. Obviously it's at the top of Raptor's list, so let him enjoy his paranoia. No logic will change it anway, so why bother? It apparently gives him a purpose in life (along with regurgitating everything negative he can find about Dems, Obama, "lefties", and anyone/anything else that doesn't swallow the propaganda he does).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have to agree with Raptor that, currently, radical Islam seems to be responsable for more "terroristic" acts than other things. Not to say that its always been that way, just that it is that way right now. So I think its a problem. I don't know how to fix the problem though because you can't stop people from believing things. And you can't stop all splinter groups in other countries from doing things there. But I do think its something to pay attention to and not pretend it isn't happening. That being said there are lots of other things going wrong that we need to pay attention to as well, but I don't think we should ignore this one. since its kind of obvious, to me at least.
I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Be careful what you are agreeing with, Rione. Rap isn't talking about 'radical Islam' - note the title of the thread. he abhors Islam the religion, per se. He sees it as a violent, wicked religion, and believes EVERY Muslim has the heart of a violent terrorist. That's why I argue with him.
If you were to discuss the rise in fanaticism in the Muslim world, I'm likely to agree. I'm not sure that it is as big a concern for my life as many would make out, but that doesn't mean it doesn't concern me.
But do I stop mosques being built in my neighborhood? No more than I would protest the construction of a church or synagogue,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
Are you saying one should not compare tactics, even to point out differences? Did anyone here specifically say that one was exactly the same as the other?
I know you like to believe whatever you're told by the right-wing media, but "pin point accuracy" does not exist. That "pin point accuracy" has resulted in the deaths of well over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.
If you think that there's only one side that's piling up civilian casualties far outstripping the military aims of the war, you're right. The U.S. is definitely doing that.
"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero
"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That number might be well under what the firebombing of places like Dresden and Tokyo wrought, but it's also far higher than the civilian death toll "radical Muslims" have racked up in the U.S.
And there you have it, comparing apples to oranges.
We weren't TRYING to kill civilians, the Muslim terrorists were.
We didn't declare war on the 'non believers' of Christ. Religion had zero to do w/ our attacking of Iraq.
Where do you think said Jihadists would set off a dirty bomb, given a choice, between a naval yard, where any random US warship may be docked, or in Times Square ?
Game, set, match.
" We're all just folk. " - Mal
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's stunning at how mind numbingly clueless some folks are when it comes to military tactics. Yes, there absolutely is an element of 'terror' when attacking a sovereign nation like the US did w/ Iraq. That's because it's called WAR. And as long as man has waged war, the element of fear is going to go hand in hand w/ any military action. No shit, morons.
But you simplistic , naive mental midgets want to equate the pin point accuracy used in Shock and Awe in Iraq with the fire bombing that the Allies employed in Germany and Japan.
If any of you pin heads ever KNEW about history, you'd be embarrassed at what you've posted so far. But, alas, your Dunning Kruger dunce caps are fitted nice and tightly on your noggins. Bravo.
I do know about history, and the only posts that embarrass me are yours so far. You are the one who is comparing modern shock and awe tactics with blitzkreig tactics used both both sides in WW2. I posted a wikipedia article that compared the effect of the shock of such tactics as being akin to Hiroshima et al, and guess who made that analogy, not me, dummy, but the authors who invented the doctine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe
One side's military tactic is another ones terrorist act. If you have the military technology and might, you employ similar tactics as the US does in armed conflict, if you do not, you might use guerrilla or terror tactics. That also happened in WW2 and we call them resistence fighters.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME