How Do We "Win" a War on Terror? - Page 15 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

raymr · #**211** 08-23-2006, 08:42 PM

I was under this impression that ALL Muslims believe Islam will eventually preside over the world. Am I wrong?

450slcguy · #**212** 08-23-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I was under this impression that ALL Muslims believe Islam will eventually preside over the world. Am I wrong?

According to Iran's president, it's his destiny to bring on the apocalypse. You are correct. An Islamic world?

I'd choose the Apocalypse rather than live a life of religious slavery and social intolerance towards personal expression.

mikemover · #**213** 08-23-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

I was under this impression that ALL Muslims believe Islam will eventually preside over the world. Am I wrong?

I support anyone's right to believe whatever religious nonsense they want to believe....

It's the ones who are VIOLENTLY trying to make that fantasy a reality that I have a problem with.

Mike

raymr · #**214** 08-23-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

I support anyone's right to believe whatever religious nonsense they want to believe....

It's the ones who are VIOLENTLY trying to make that fantasy a reality that I have a problem with.

Mike

It also explains their non-reaction to the things that are going on. Passive acceptance. Maybe they think: If this is how its going to happen, so be it.

aklim · #**215** 08-23-2006, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

It's true that there will still be problems in the Middle East if we stop buying oil there. It's true that to some extent those problems will effect us. But it is not true that they would effect us to the degree they do today.

There are lots of problems in central Africa. Look at the Congo, for instance. How come we're not sending troops there? It's because our national interest is not at stake no matter how many Congolese die.

I'm not saying we shouldn't care, but our ability to influence what happens outside our borders is limited. We are therefore better off if it becomes less important for us to influence things outside our borders. If we didn't give a lick about the oil that is there, the politics of that area would be less important to us.

It does sound to me like 'the other side' you speak of is all Muslims. Frankly I would rather be dead than have to explain my support of genocide to my future grandchildren.

I do not, however, think that all, most, or even a high percentage of Muslims are truly bad people. It's a small minority that plot our destruction.

The challenge is to get rid of them and the environment that creates them, not to get rid of all people on that side of the planet.

I think it will be pretty much the same. If I pushed a button and China or India disappeared tomorrow, you think we are fine here with no repercussions? What about France? Germany or Great Britain? Think if those nations were erased tomorrow there is no repercussions? What about a US stock crash? Think there are no worldwide ripples? Think that if my house became a sewer with mosquitoes you won't get bit?

Exactly. There is no national interest. They are of no commercial interest to us or anyone we deal with so we don't go there.

But if it does become important to our partners, you think that won't affect us? Yes, not directly. You are right about that. However, sometimes, the indirect effect may be stronger than the direct effect.

All who are our enemies and support our enemies in one way or the other. If that is genocide, so be it. At least I can explain to my grandchildren instead of not having any to explain to since I am dead.

Well, if you are supporting a terrorist, you are a terrorist too. Just because you don't wear a bomb vest doesn't mean squat to me. You knowingly give a terrorist directions and he blows up a bus, you too are just as guilty as he is. You give him a cup of water, you are just as guilty as he is. So, is it genocide to want to wipe out the terrorist and his support system? If so, I am guilty of supporting genocide then.

What you have mentioned is not a challenge. It is an impossibility. A challenge is to get a school to pass a standardized test well. Removing an environment like that would require genocide of the entire human race.

mikemover · #**216** 08-23-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

It also explains their non-reaction to the things that are going on. Passive acceptance. Maybe they think: If this is how its going to happen, so be it.

Always a possibility.

I'd like to think that that is not the case, but.... The abundance of SILENCE from most of them is hard to ignore.

Mike

aklim · #**217** 08-23-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Well earlier I asked him if he was endorsing genocide, and his response was: "if that is what it takes to survive, so be it."

Loaded word or not, it has a certain meaning. I wouldn't have brought it out if I didn't think that's what he was talking about.

In any event I expect we'll hear from aklim soon enough.

IF the entire lot is out to kill us, and that is what it takes to survive, so be it. However, is that true that the whole lot is out to exterminate us? I personally doubt it. Is smallpox a threat to our survival? If so, lets wipe it out. Is the flu a threat to our survival? To a few, yes. To most, No. Why bother with such a campaign for the flu?

aklim · #**218** 08-23-2006, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikemover

What I DO have a gripe with concerning ALL Muslims is the noticeable lack of outrage from the "average" Muslims when these atrocities are committed by fanatics. These radicals are doing these terrible things "in the name if Islam", yet the criticism of those acts from the mainstream Muslims is scripted, muted, and half-hearted, at best. Where is the indignation? Where is the anger? Where are the "anti-extremist" protesters? Why are they not making their outrage known, PUBLICLY and LOUDLY, when terrorist commit horrible atrocities that tarnish the image and reputation of Muslims everywhere?....

Mike

See, it is a problem I have too. I see that they can get outraged at Salman Rushdie and lately the Dutch Cartoonist and have all kinds of protests. Probably will boycott Carlsberg beer for all I know. Taht tells me that over their religion, they can get into a hissy fit. OK. So, now we have somebody doing things in the name of their religion and why the silence? If I said that I am killing people in the name of Religion X and you are religion X, aren't you going to stand up and denounce me?

aklim · #**219** 08-23-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

It also explains their non-reaction to the things that are going on. Passive acceptance. Maybe they think: If this is how its going to happen, so be it.

But yet when the Dutch came out with that cartoon they scream and yell. Why the difference?

cmac2012 · #**220** 08-24-2006, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

Let's be clear then. The title of this thread was "how do we "win" a war on terror" not "what started the war on terror". Your suggestions that the US began this war on terror doesn't answer the question of the thread to begin with and is wrong on a more fundemental level.

The only positive I see in the situation is that the Iranians are only able to afford $12000 in reparations whereas the Iraqis under Saddam could afford $24000 with the aid of the UN food for oil money.

Deep breaths. I don't suggest that the U.S. began this war on terror -- or wait, isn't that what Bush calls it? So I guess we did begin that one -- anyway, I think I know what you're trying to say, that is, that I assert everything is our fault.

I am not saying that. Just that we are the ones best suited to improving our own behavior. I don't think we're going to win a war on terror. Loonies rarely calm down from an input of fresh violence.

One way NOT to win any sort of contest, or at least to come out smelling like roses with our safety enhanced would be to start a long and costly war with a middle eastern country, oh say, Iraq. Let's pour a few super-tankers of gas on the fire that is Iran and Syria, and see if that works out any better.

On the oil for food remark, Saddam was going to get some money for that oil, one way or t'other. There was all kinds of black market stuff going on besides that.

peragro · #**221** 08-24-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

On the oil for food remark, Saddam was going to get some money for that oil, one way or t'other. There was all kinds of black market stuff going on besides that.

Phew! Glad you said that. That makes it A-OK for our "allies" and the UN to be scheming with Saddam in order to make everyone rich - I mean, someone was gonna do it anyway, might as well have been them. Not to mention the conflict of interest involved with having the UN monitor one of thier own benefactors. I'm sure that everything would have been fine and dandy when we just let those sanctions lapse and then everyone could have gotten on with making money. I mean, Saddam DID promise that he wasn't going to hurt anyone else... Glad it was OK for those guys to do what they did and make some dough. Unless, of course, it was a US company that would be making the money. That would be bad and immoral and lead to the destruction of the world

.

cmac2012 · #**222** 08-24-2006, 02:44 AM

This is a good illustration of why we are so hated in the world. Oh those naughty countries, dealing with an a$$ like Saddam to get oil.

Dude-o-rama, take a look at the shennanigans we pulled with Iran to get oil, back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. We put a guy in power who was as bad as or worse than Saddam in how he treated his own people. But hey, he sold us oil and then spent those dollars, a lot of 'em, on military hardware at our store so he could keep the rabble rousers down.

Numerous other examples of us F***ing people over for fun and profit but you guys want to crucify Europe and others for doing about the same with Saddam.

Doesn't make any of that right, but drop the sanctimonious posture, will ya?

PS -- I don't think it was possible to run an oil for food deal -- billions changing hands -- and not have a lot of sleaze taking place. Yeah, that's what the UN was set up for, that's what they're good at: oil broking.

BTW -- there were American companies involved, or did you miss that?

TimFreeh · #**223** 08-24-2006, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Doesn't make any of that right, but drop the sanctimonious posture, will ya?

PS -- I don't think it was possible to run an oil for food deal -- billions changing hands -- and not have a lot of sleaze taking place. Yeah, that's what the UN was set up for, that's what they're good at: oil broking.

Please read your second sentence then go back and read your first sentence - then please consider taking your own advice.

Maroon 300D · #**224** 08-24-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I think it will be pretty much the same. If I pushed a button and China or India disappeared tomorrow, you think we are fine here with no repercussions? What about France? Germany or Great Britain? Think if those nations were erased tomorrow there is no repercussions? What about a US stock crash? Think there are no worldwide ripples? Think that if my house became a sewer with mosquitoes you won't get bit?

Exactly. There is no national interest. They are of no commercial interest to us or anyone we deal with so we don't go there.

But if it does become important to our partners, you think that won't affect us? Yes, not directly. You are right about that. However, sometimes, the indirect effect may be stronger than the direct effect.

All who are our enemies and support our enemies in one way or the other. If that is genocide, so be it. At least I can explain to my grandchildren instead of not having any to explain to since I am dead.

Well, if you are supporting a terrorist, you are a terrorist too. Just because you don't wear a bomb vest doesn't mean squat to me. You knowingly give a terrorist directions and he blows up a bus, you too are just as guilty as he is. You give him a cup of water, you are just as guilty as he is. So, is it genocide to want to wipe out the terrorist and his support system? If so, I am guilty of supporting genocide then.

What you have mentioned is not a challenge. It is an impossibility. A challenge is to get a school to pass a standardized test well. Removing an environment like that would require genocide of the entire human race.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the oil thing, I guess.

I don't think it is impossible for the current cultural climate that creates jihadist terrorists to change. There was a cultural climate that allowed Soviet communism to exist and that changed. This can change, too.

Maroon 300D · #**225** 08-24-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

IF the entire lot is out to kill us, and that is what it takes to survive, so be it. However, is that true that the whole lot is out to exterminate us? I personally doubt it. Is smallpox a threat to our survival? If so, lets wipe it out. Is the flu a threat to our survival? To a few, yes. To most, No. Why bother with such a campaign for the flu?

Ok, I understand what you are saying now. When it comes to 'kill or be killed,' we don't have a choice. Agreed. I think we also agree that it's a relatively small number of people behind the current 'terror' problem.