America: Show Radical Islam No Mercy

They don't want to learn, nor do they attempt to understand. As long as you do not take away their hamburgers and "Desperate Housewives," they are happy.

Sometimes jarring events need to occur to wake someone from their woefully ignorant slumber.

And to your comment about "peace." Peace is the goal, but this is war. Propping up and supporting dictatorships in Islamic countries is a form of oppression.

The Taliban did not implement true Shar'iah, so do not look to them for the example. True Shar'iah has existed in the past, where Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lived together in harmony throughout the middle east. Those times have come and gone, and the west is directly responsible for the current governments that are in place in many of the countries of that region. Iran is a "shining example" of the results you could look forward to seeing as a result of your policies. (the Shah) I'm Sunni, btw.

The House of Saud is first on the list.
Pakistan.
Jordan.
The secular army of Turkey.
The puppets in Iraq.
The puppets in Afghanistan.
The Zionists in Palestine.

The list could go on and on...

Peace is the goal, but not achievable in the current situation. After the situation becomes resolved, insha'Allah, then we will see peace.

Until then...

[edit on 5-1-2007 by AbuMusaab]

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
They don't want to learn, nor do they attempt to understand. As long as you do not take away their hamburgers and "Desperate Housewives," they are happy.

Sometimes jarring events need to occur to wake someone from their woefully ignorant slumber.

That doesn't answer the question. Just because they are ignorant, it does not make them culpable. And what of those who are not ignorant?

I think, personally, that it is the height of ignorance to believe that a "jarring event", which undoubtably will result in many deaths of innocents, will result in anything bar more death.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
And to your comment about "peace." Peace is the goal, but this is war. Propping up and supporting dictatorships in Islamic countries is a form of oppression.

I understand what you say about propping up Governments, but at the end of the day, it is the peoples responsibilty to overthrow them if they are that bad. Instead of attacking the West, why not focus the attention on those regimes themselves? We won't intervene to stop the overthrow's.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
The Taliban did not implement true Shar'iah, so do not look to them for the example. True Shar'iah has existed in the past, where Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lived together in harmony throughout the middle east. Those times have come and gone, and the west is directly responsible for the current governments that are in place in many of the countries of that region. Iran is a shining example of the results you could look forward to seeing as a result of your policies. (the Shah)

Care to give me an example of these "harmonious" times? Saladin is the only example I can think of that could come close and he was still an utter bastard.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
The House of Saud is first on the list.
Pakistan.
Jordan.
The secular army of Turkey.
The puppets in Iraq.
The puppets in Afghanistan.
The Zionists in Palestine.

The first three are a possibility. You stand no chance in Turkey, not one iota. The next two, well, time will tell but I suspect the poo will hit the fan. As for Israel, I too would like to see it gone, but not in favour of a Muslim state. There should be a secular state there were all are equal, not either way.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
Peace is the goal, but not achievable in the current situation. After the situation becomes resolved, insha'Allah, then we will see peace.

Until then...

[edit on 5-1-2007 by AbuMusaab]

Ha! The more anyone attacks the West and kill innocents, the less likely peace will ensue. Violence does not solve anything in the long run. If peace was the goal, why don't the likes of OBL and crew follow in the steps of Ghandi? There's a fella who new how to get things done...

Originally posted by stumasonI understand what you say about propping up Governments, but at the end of the day, it is the peoples responsibilty to overthrow them if they are that bad. Instead of attacking the West, why not focus the attention on those regimes themselves? We won't intervene to stop the overthrow's.

The first three are a possibility. You stand no chance in Turkey, not one iota. The next two, well, time will tell but I suspect the poo will hit the fan. As for Israel, I too would like to see it gone, but not in favour of a Muslim state. There should be a secular state there were all are equal, not either way.

You won't "stop the overthrows?" I do not believe that for a second. This is the reason that the west must be repulsed, and the American's people's stomach for war so weakened, that they will demand that no more foreign intervention take place. Once that occurs, alhamdulillah, the war in Iraq is helping to achieve those ends, then toppling those regimes will become only a little more realistic. But not just yet. There is so much work to be done. I am also Turkish, btw, so I see it incumbent on my people to remove the curse of Ataturk. But like you said, that is much much farther off.

Why was Saladin a "bastard," in your opinion?

Secularism is an evil that results in the decay you see in Western Europe, and the US. I'll pass.

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
I am not advocating the actual physical destruction of the USA, just the economical.

Is it your belief that only the government will be effected by this? Surely, it will destroy not only people's way of life, but their means for sufficiency. How many elderly, cripple, and needy people do you think rely on the government to care for them? Now imagine if the economy was destroyed, and then tell me what multitude this number will reach. You're advocating the formation of a nationwide pandemic of poverty. This is not something that Islam will ever advocate. If anything, we must strive to diminish poverty.

"You shall not attain righteousness until you spend out of what you love (in the way of Allah). Allah knows whatever you spend." (Quran 3:92)

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
I am not advocating the actual physical destruction of the USA, just the economical.

Is it your belief that only the government will be effected by this? Surely, it will destroy not only people's way of life, but their means for sufficiency. How many elderly, cripple, and needy people do you think rely on the government to care for them? Now imagine if the economy was destroyed, and then tell me what multitude this number will reach. You're advocating the formation of a nationwide pandemic of poverty. This is not something that Islam will ever advocate. If anything, we must strive to diminish poverty.

"You shall not attain righteousness until you spend out of what you love (in the way of Allah). Allah knows whatever you spend." (Quran 3:92)

Maybe if America spent it's money on taking care of the unfortunate, instead of creating unfortunate situations for other people.

Besides poverty in America has a different definition than in other countries. Poverty in America is not being able to eat meat everyday, and not having a television.

Well, i do not believe for one minute that either the US or the UK, or anyone for that matter, would dare to interven in the case of an overthrow in any gulf state.

For the simple reason we know what that will bring, ie; another Iraq. Do you honestly think the US would intervene if the Saudi people rose up against the Monarchy? I doubt it very much...

But, allowing the overthrows to take place would be much more peaceful and they would still have to sell the Oil to someone....

Originally posted by stumason
But, allowing the overthrows to take place would be much more peaceful and they would still have to sell the Oil to someone....

And isn't that what this is all about?

Originally posted by AbuMusaab
Maybe if America spent it's money on taking care of the unfortunate, instead of creating unfortunate situations for other people.

US sends money to many poor countries of the world. Look at the aide they're sending to Afghanistan, a country that's seen war for the past 400 years. Look at the aide sent to the tsunami victims in Asia, people who lost their homes during Katrina, and countries who wouldn't have any stability without US's donations. There are good people in the US, and there are bad people in the US. The same follows in every country of the world. Grouping everyone as one entity is a fallacy.

Besides poverty in America has a different definition than in other countries. Poverty in America is not being able to eat meat everyday, and not having a television.

You're somewhat correct, but not entirely. Our poverty standards are much higher than third world countries, but it does not mean people who "can't eat meat everyday" or those who "don't own a TV," are the only forms of poverty. People starve to death, live on the streets, and can't afford any medical help in the US, just like every other country.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so burn the middle east to the ground?


you know, we could just provide aid to the nations in trouble, using soft power

damn, why does everything have to be military?

soft power can be just as effective

if we rid the middle east of excessive poverty, it'll help
and probably be cheaper

UMmmm

What about the Middle East leaders BILLIONS OF FREAKIN DOLLARS??????

Ohh.. Lets give money to Iran! .. and Saudi Arabia.. and Sudan... because .. what? .. they don't have any???????

You do know that almost no Middle East country (oil producing) do not tax their citizens, and if they do it is fractions of what we pay. Why is that? .. because the federal government is so rich they pay for everything.

If you want to get into the economic structure of the ME that can be another thread of a ME history class at your local college because it would be off topic. Just know that it is not the worlds, not even Britian or America's fault that the ME cannot produce a high tech economy out of the deserts, nor is it our fault that the ME's oil supplies actually prevents democracy from working the way it should, prevents economic growth.

But YOU can go on living in the magical world of yours where you say "I like you, I don't mind your differences, and I want peace!" .. and the other guy says "Sure!" ... what a ... peachy.. reality. If only it worked like that.

I agree with the poster.

Someone chalenges you to a fight, hit em hard. real hard.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Someone chalenges you to a fight, hit em hard. real hard.

And do not be surprised when you get hit back. Hard. Real hard. Insha'Allah, of course.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
UMmmm

What about the Middle East leaders BILLIONS OF FREAKIN DOLLARS??????

i talk about ending poverty in the middle east and you bring up the upper elites

Ohh.. Lets give money to Iran! .. and Saudi Arabia.. and Sudan... because .. what? .. they don't have any???????

when did i talk about giving money to any of those countries?
i simply said END POVERTY
never said "give those countries money"

You do know that almost no Middle East country (oil producing) do not tax their citizens, and if they do it is fractions of what we pay. Why is that? .. because the federal government is so rich they pay for everything.

BUT the PEOPLE are poor

If you want to get into the economic structure of the ME that can be another thread of a ME history class at your local college because it would be off topic. Just know that it is not the worlds, not even Britian or America's fault that the ME cannot produce a high tech economy out of the deserts, nor is it our fault that the ME's oil supplies actually prevents democracy from working the way it should, prevents economic growth.

well, we did set up the oil supply structure in most or all of these countries....
you know, after we dissolved the ottoman empire in ww1

But YOU can go on living in the magical world of yours where you say "I like you, I don't mind your differences, and I want peace!" .. and the other guy says "Sure!" ... what a ... peachy.. reality. If only it worked like that.

um, so compromise is something found only in a magical fantasy world?

Someone chalenges you to a fight, hit em hard. real hard.

yeah
okay
let's have the champion prize fighter attack a loud chihuahua

honestly, the majority of the muslim world isn't challenging anyone to a fight
less than 1% is

Originally posted by stumason
Well, i do not believe for one minute that either the US or the UK, or anyone for that matter, would dare to interven in the case of an overthrow in any gulf state.

For the simple reason we know what that will bring, ie; another Iraq. Do you honestly think the US would intervene if the Saudi people rose up against the Monarchy? I doubt it very much...

But, allowing the overthrows to take place would be much more peaceful and they would still have to sell the Oil to someone....

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with you on the previous point. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are major oil suppliers and trading partners with the west in a variety of indutries. If there were to be a public overthrow of the royalty there and a muslim extremist government put in, I doubt that your comments would ring true for who would sit back and watch their oil supplies not only dwindle and vanish but sky-rocket in price?

Die-hard "Jihadist's" do not need or want oil revenue, and they know that they can live easier without the oil revenue than the west can and that it would hurt our civilisation immensly. If the US were not willing to get involved, I could almost guarantee that European Union would because they would starve without the flow of oil to supply theit economic industries.

It has been Western Societies ignorance and greedinous that has kept us on the oil-tap for so many decades. There is a very simple alternative to combat Middle-Eastern War and remove our forces from there -

STOP OUR RELIANCE ON MIDDLE EASTERN OIL AND FIND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES !!!!

By stopping our reliance on their oil, they will have no one to sell it to, no income coming in to the place, they will very quickly become a third world nation of starving and fighting diseased hordes whilst our alternative energy sourced civilisation continues to rapidly grow, Middle East ceases to become the same threat it was before because they would be struggling to survive let alone build armies and weapons. Agreed???

Well, it is hard to call. On the one hand you have the oil supplies, but how keen would the US/EU be on invading Saudi when it's full of Islamic fruticakes? I doubt even the Shrubster would be overly keen on spreading "freedom and democracy" then....

Although, it does have to be said that a large chunk of the EU's oil and gas come from Russia....

Madnessinmysoul:

i talk about ending poverty in the middle east and you bring up the upper elites

As I said you have to understand the economics of the region: Desert. Their economy is based on one product, and because it is based on one product the economy is stunted, and because they are in the middle of the desert there is little you can do with the land that they do have.

when did i talk about giving money to any of those countries?
i simply said END POVERTY
never said "give those countries money"

Right.... so we will hand out money to other nations citizens?....... riight...

BUT the PEOPLE are poor

there are also poor Americans, poor Canadians ... poverty does not cause terrorism?? Where in the world did you think that up?

well, we did set up the oil supply structure in most or all of these countries....
you know, after we dissolved the ottoman empire in ww1

No, actually we did not.

Norway discovered oil after it was industrialized and had an economy, as a result it kept its production yet still turned much more social then it was before oil. Why? Because it could affoard to.

If a country is formed with no industry and finds oil, lots of oil, there is no need for industry because oil pays for every thing until it runs out. Their oil system is fine, it however the leaders faults for not investing in the economy. That's our fault that they are to incompitant to run their own countries??? Riiight..

um, so compromise is something found only in a magical fantasy world?

Um, compromise? .. That would require 2 or more parties my friend. To say you want peace and your enemy does not, it would be unwise to lay down your gun.

yeah
okay
let's have the champion prize fighter attack a loud chihuahua

honestly, the majority of the muslim world isn't challenging anyone to a fight
less than 1% is

If you understood how a state acts, it does not act like a rational human being, it acts as a state for it's own survival. If a nation is challenged and attacked and if it does not respond in the strongest way possible it has already failed.

1% .. I would guess around 70%... the West is not to popular over there see. Well I guess you wouldn't see, as you think we can all be friends regardless of our differences.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
As I said you have to understand the economics of the region: Desert. Their economy is based on one product, and because it is based on one product the economy is stunted, and because they are in the middle of the desert there is little you can do with the land that they do have.

alright, it's a desert, so what?
the majority of industry doesn't involve having fertile land

Right.... so we will hand out money to other nations citizens?....... riight...

no
we'll help the development of industry in the region

there are also poor Americans, poor Canadians ... poverty does not cause terrorism?? Where in the world did you think that up?

um, a poor american and a poor pakistani can't be compared...
the issue is poverty breeds ignorance
the more ignorance in a region
the more likely people are going to look to extremist religion
and the more likely they look to extremist islam, the more likey they are to become terrorists
the overall economy of any of the middle east countries is the issue
not individual poverty
by the PEOPLE, i meant just that, the majority

That's our fault that they are to incompitant to run their own countries??? Riiight..

it's our fault because we disolved their nation and set up new ones that were designed to fuel our economies
hell, it's the allies fault that germany was ruined after WW1, the same went with the middle east
the difference is that after WW2 the situation in the middle east was heavily influenced by the super-powers through control of the governments
iran's shah is a good example

Um, compromise? .. That would require 2 or more parties my friend. To say you want peace and your enemy does not, it would be unwise to lay down your gun.

well, right now we have 2 sides that don't want peace
SOMEONE has to offer peace for a compromise to begin

If you understood how a state acts, it does not act like a rational human being, it acts as a state for it's own survival. If a nation is challenged and attacked and if it does not respond in the strongest way possible it has already failed.

what?
the united states hasn't been attacked by another state
it's been attacked by a group of extremists
the last nation to attack the USA was japan

1% .. I would guess around 70%... the West is not to popular over there see. Well I guess you wouldn't see, as you think we can all be friends regardless of our differences.

see, you cannot provide evidence to back up your claim
i can give simple logic

islam is huge
second biggest religion on the planet
nearly 2 billion adherents
and not all of them are in the middle east
hell, indonesia or india have the most muslims

and to say that 70% of the adherents of a religion are against a country...
that's just ignorant

you're the one claiming i'm blind here
you need to learn to attack the argument
not the arguer

[edit on 1/6/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Even if you weren't incredibly annoying just for posting all in italic print, I'm shocked at your apparent support of Saddam.

Yeah, he held the country down. A dictator's gotta do what a dictator's gotta do, you seem to think. Drop men feet-first into fish shredders for amusement. Torture the opposition in prisons that would be too graphic for a horror movie. Decapitate dinner guests, then make their families mop up the mess. Gang rape daughters in front of their families, or merely kidnap them and use them for entertainment, while the family suffers from not knowing where their daughter is. Cut the tongues out of those who have spoken out against the regime. Chain men to the wall and then slowly cut off their genitals as their wives and family are forced to watch. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

You're either incredibly ignorant or an incredible sicko. Wake up, already.

Looks like I won't be able to continue in the conversation, as the moderator Umbrax, in an act of incredible ignorance and censorship, has warned me for the post that I just quoted. Suddenly, it's against the rules to vehemently oppose sadistic dictators.

um, SC
i don't think you were warned for your entire post

just this:

You're either incredibly ignorant or an incredible sicko. Wake up, already.

that's a personal attack

stop developing a persecution complex
you're repeatedly delving into personal attacks
which is obviously a bad thing to do in a civilized discussion

Originally posted by southern_cross3
Looks like I won't be able to continue in the conversation, as the moderator Umbrax, in an act of incredible ignorance and censorship, has warned me for the post that I just quoted.

Umbrax is not at fault here. He did the right thing, and calling him ignorant is hardly true. To be an "ignorant" means that the person "does not know" about a certain subject or piece of knowledge. Umbrax is well versed in the terms of service, as are all moderators, so none of them are "ignorant," as you say. As the terms of service states, no member can make personal attacks at other members. If you reread your post, you will see that you did just that, and that the warning was justified. I do believe you owe an apology to Umbrax.

[edit on 7-1-2007 by DJMessiah]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

'modify' itself?
what's wrong with MAINSTREAM islam?sure, radicals need to change, but that's not so much an issue of islam as an issue of really ignorant people
are you saying the west needs to go to war with the religion of islam?

in what way?

ed, you're being awfully vague
care to elaborte?

(1) If the Moderates do not take car of it and keep the "silence" as it is now, there will be a holy war, the radicals keep begging for it, and the moderates show their true feelings by their silence. I believe that if they did want to speak out they cant due to the fear that they themsleves will be killed, nice huh?
(2) 20 years will be enough time, either the "End of Days" will come or a World War will.. Islam is only a piece of the puzzle.
(3)I can not help it, free-time is something I dont have much of anymore...

BTW, I purchased a Koran this week, I want to read it myself and see just where these nutty radicals get their ideas.

Originally posted by edsinger
I believe that if they did want to speak out they cant due to the fear that they themsleves will be killed, nice huh?

Incorrect. Many who are against extremism do speak out, even with their lives put on the line. The reason why you don't hear so many on the news speaking out is because the media chooses not to report on it. The media gets better ratings reporting only bad events, rather than good, so they choose to omit the good.