PDA

View Full Version : Ody's Rules For Defeating the Grand Jihad



Odysseus
04-06-2011, 04:11 PM
A few thoughts on how we ought to fight, and why.


Islam demands the total submission of all people, in all places in the world. It does not allow exceptions for cosmopolitan elites, secular leftists or liberals.
If you do not submit, those who follow the Qur'an believe that you should be killed or enslaved, and that your women and children are their chattel, that Allah has promised them this, and that anything that you do to defend yourself or your loved ones is a crime against Allah.
Negotiating with people who want you dead, enslaved or converted and believe that they are entitled to your women and children as their chattel is futile. They will only agree to a truce (Hudna) when they cannot take the offensive, and will break it as soon as it is in their interest to do so, just as Mohammed did.
You cannot fight against Jihadis without offending them. Anything that you do short of abject submission will offend them, so you may as well not bother worrying about it.
Trying to make people who want you dead, enslaved or converted feel better about you by adopting some of their agenda will only make them feel better about subjugating you, as they will see this as the first steps in your submission.
The choices in this war are between slavery, submission, Medievel squalor and death, or victory. Choose victory.
Victory in warfare is defined as destroying the enemy's will to fight. Offering Halal meals to jihadists, handling their holy books with latex gloves so as not to defile them with our disgusting infidel touch and covering up women so that they are not offended does not destroy the enemy's will to fight, but encourages him to continue fighting.
Therefore, if we want to win, we should stop pretending that our touch is a desecration, that our food is unclean and that the women of our society are obscene, and we should beat this into them whenever they demand that we act as if they are in charge.
Terrorists and other unlawful combatants are not entitled to trials if caught on the battlefield or in combat operations. The exception are spies and saboteurs caught in CONUS by civil authorities, but even there, the needs of warfighting come first. Detention of such persons is permitted by international law for the duration of hostilities. Trails can wait until the war is over, and if the war doesn't end, then it sucks to be them, doesn't it?

More will follow.

Rockntractor
04-06-2011, 04:35 PM
Bama won't let you!:rolleyes:

malloc
04-06-2011, 04:36 PM
That is a great sumation of what America ought to be doing to win this war and get it over with. Some people believe the only way we can end hostilities with radical Islam is to change their minds so they no longer see America as the Great Satan. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is complete submission and conversion to Islam, not just the religion, but the culture and the laws. That's not victory, and that is a not a peace accord, that is surrender.

Odysseus
04-06-2011, 04:54 PM
That is a great sumation of what America ought to be doing to win this war and get it over with. Some people believe the only way we can end hostilities with radical Islam is to change their minds so they no longer see America as the Great Satan. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is complete submission and conversion to Islam, not just the religion, but the culture and the laws. That's not victory, and that is a not a peace accord, that is surrender.

The proper term for changing minds is an attitude adjustment. Japan got its attitude adjusted when they realized that we didn't have to set foot on the home islands in order to win the war. Germany got its attitude adjusted when Hitler put a gun to his head and the rest of the Nazi party suddenly realized that Albert Speer's architecture had been reduced to rubble, along with several hundred years of history. France has had its attitude adjusted so many times that the only thing that they can deploy is attitude.

If we want to change the minds of the Islamic world, the solution is not to try to mollify them, it's to kick them so hard that they don't want to get back up while we're still in the neighborhood.

Kay
04-06-2011, 09:33 PM
I approve of this plan.
How soon can you get this enacted Major O. :cool:

Odysseus
04-07-2011, 10:01 AM
I approve of this plan.
How soon can you get this enacted Major O. :cool:

Well, I should pin on LTC in the next month, so figure a minimum of three years to COL, then at least another five to BG... How's twenty years sound? :D

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2011, 10:18 AM
Hey Ody so I asked 2 Muslims I know in person and it turns out they've never heard of you and they don't care what you think about them.

So all this stuff about your hangups when it comes to submission is really just your own hangups.


now if you want to invade a foreign muslim country or occupy it for a decade then you might have some Muslims who dislike you, but I'm willing to bet it has to do with something other than how they pray.

Odysseus
04-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Hey Ody so I asked 2 Muslims I know in person and it turns out they've never heard of you and they don't care what you think about them.

So all this stuff about your hangups when it comes to submission is really just your own hangups.


now if you want to invade a foreign muslim country or occupy it for a decade then you might have some Muslims who dislike you, but I'm willing to bet it has to do with something other than how they pray.

Wei, I understand why this thread upsets you. You're uncomfortable with the thought of America actually winning a war, even one against an enemy that will happily execute you for your lack of belief in Allah. However, there comes a time for Quislings such as yourself to decide whose side they are on. Will you convert to Islam, or resist? I don't expect you to make that choice until you absolutely have to, and to continue sniping at those of us who have chosen liberty, but at least try not to be such an obvious tool about it.

JB
04-07-2011, 11:48 AM
So all this stuff about your hangups when it comes to submission is really just your own hangups.We tried the "let's not retaliate" approach in the '90s and what did it get us?
now if you want to invade a foreign muslim country or occupy it for a decade then you might have some Muslims who dislike youOhhhhh, is that why they dislike us, muzzie expert? So why did they dislike us prior to that?

What foreign muzzie country did we invade and occupy for a decade prior to 9/11/2001?

Odysseus
04-07-2011, 12:11 PM
We tried the "let's not retaliate" approach in the '90s and what did it get us?Ohhhhh, is that why they dislike us, muzzie expert? So why did they dislike us prior to that?

What foreign muzzie country did we invade and occupy for a decade prior to 9/11/2001?

They're still pissed about the Barbary Pirates, who were pissed at us about... well, nevemind, but we must have done something. :rolleyes:

Wei is a Quisling. Vidkun Quisling was a Norwegian politician who was also a dedicated fascist. He sold out Norway to the Nazis and ran the puppet government for them. His name has come to define those who would betray their nation for political power.

lacarnut
04-07-2011, 12:12 PM
Hey Ody so I asked 2 Muslims I know in person and it turns out they've never heard of you and they don't care what you think about them.

So all this stuff about your hangups when it comes to submission is really just your own hangups.


now if you want to invade a foreign muslim country or occupy it for a decade then you might have some Muslims who dislike you, but I'm willing to bet it has to do with something other than how they pray.

Your head will look good on a stick. Fool.

Arroyo_Doble
04-07-2011, 12:35 PM
What foreign muzzie country did we invade and occupy for a decade prior to 9/11/2001?

I think it was our presense on the Arabian Peninsula in general that tweaked their melons.

JB
04-07-2011, 12:54 PM
I think it was our presense on the Arabian Peninsula in general that tweaked their melons.Yeah, Yeah. Infidels in Saudia Arabia. I read bin nutbags letter.

But weewee is being an Islamist apologist trying to blame muzzie rage on the war in Iraq. I just want him to tell me what country we invaded (we didn't invade SA) and occupied for 10 years prior to 9/11.

Odysseus
04-07-2011, 01:49 PM
I think it was our presense on the Arabian Peninsula in general that tweaked their melons.

Yes, but do you know why they were tweaked?

The Qur'an quotes Mohammed as demanding the ethnic cleansing of the Arabian peninsula. No Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc., within Arabia. It's just more of the same ancient bigotry of Islam, but with one modern twist. It seems that Bin Laden and company think that, after their experiences in Afghanistan, they were unbeatable, and that the Saudis should have turned over the defense of Mecca to them instead of infidels. Of course, without our aid, the Afghan Mujahedeen would have been exterminated (they were on the ropes when the stingers arrived), and al Qaeda, which was never more than a logistics base, had nothing to do with the ultimate defeat of the Soviets.

Again, these are the delusions of Islamists. Left to their own devices, they would be no big deal, and I'd be perfectly happy to leave them in the squalor that they impose on themselves, but unfortunately, the influx of hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenues has given them the means to reembark on realizing Mohammed's dream of a global Islamic empire.

Bailey
04-07-2011, 01:53 PM
Yes, but do you know why they were tweaked?

The Qur'an quotes Mohammed as demanding the ethnic cleansing of the Arabian peninsula. No Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc., within Arabia. It's just more of the same ancient bigotry of Islam, but with one modern twist. It seems that Bin Laden and company think that, after their experiences in Afghanistan, they were unbeatable, and that the Saudis should have turned over the defense of Mecca to them instead of infidels. Of course, without our aid, the Afghan Mujahedeen would have been exterminated (they were on the ropes when the stingers arrived), and al Qaeda, which was never more than a logistics base, had nothing to do with the ultimate defeat of the Soviets.

Again, these are the delusions of Islamists. Left to their own devices, they would be no big deal, and I'd be perfectly happy to leave them in the squalor that they impose on themselves, but unfortunately, the influx of hundreds of billions of dollars in oil revenues has given them the means to reembark on realizing Mohammed's dream of a global Islamic empire.

Looking back was it really worth saving the Mujahedeen? the soviets being evil and all were more rational then the muzzies.

Odysseus
04-07-2011, 02:09 PM
Looking back was it really worth saving the Mujahedeen? the soviets being evil and all were more rational then the muzzies.

More rational, but just as evil. The problem with defeating the Soviets (and I said this at the time) was that unlike a chess game, where the defeat of one player ends the game, we still had pieces on the board, and the loss of the opposite player simply meant that they were now freed from the constraints of that player's strategy. Every pawn, rook, knight and bishop was now free to pursue their own agendas, and the pieces on our side had to counter them and address their own interests. This is why we are seeing less cooperation in international alliances than ever before, and more friction among smaller nations that were previously not thought of, except in terms of their place in the strategic imperatives of the Cold War. Had Bush 41 recognized this new paradigm, he'd have acted to redefine our alliances in light of the new strategic imperatives, but he was still focused on the Soviets. Clinton couldn't focus on anything that wasn't in a thong, and Bush 43 was too busy being up to his ass in alligators to do a survey of the swamp. Obama doesn't understand the paradigm, either, but his administration is further hampered by an ideological inability to see our enemies as anything but victims of our imperialism, and our allies as anything but enablers of that imperialism.

Wei Wu Wei
04-07-2011, 06:19 PM
The main reasons for terrorism are economic and political. The religious stuff they coat over it is simply exploited to ignite fiery passions in young men who have no real options for bettering themselves. The reason religious fundamentalists in those countries gain political power is because the brutal dictators of those countries (with the help of the USA) systematically rid themselves of all Leftist political movements. Afghanistan was a far more progressive place 40 years ago, with women going to school, active universities, a hip culture and organic (non-soviet) communist groups forming. We helped them to get rid of all of that, and today it's looked at as the icon of regressiveness in the Arab world.


When you destroy all of that, all of the political tools needed to help communities, then these nations fall into dispair and poverty, being ruled by brutal dictators, and because there is no leftists in the area organizing the people, groups like the Taliban are able to offer land reform or other important measures. This is how the Taliban gains power, because the only political opposition to the status quo is headed by religious fundamentalists.

Fascism is evidence of a failed revolution, included this sort of religious "Islamofascism".

JB
04-07-2011, 08:19 PM
The main reasons for terrorism are economic and political...words, words, words <snip>For the love of...nevermind.

Please name two universities that existed in Afghanistan 40 years ago.

And post links for the rest of your claims because you are full of shit. You know it was the US and Russians that built Afghanistans highway system and airports, right?

Since you didn't address it in this post and appear to be ignoring it...Does this mean that you are backpedalling from your earlier statement that it's "invasion and occupation" that makes muzzies hate us?

Madisonian
04-07-2011, 08:26 PM
Because everyone knows that people in Viet Nam were better under Ho Chi Minh, Cambodia under Pol Pot, Cuba under Castro, Russia under Lenin and Stalin, China under Mao, all committed leftists, then their alternatives, right?

Articulate_Ape
04-07-2011, 08:50 PM
The main reasons for terrorism are economic and political. The religious stuff they coat over it is simply exploited to ignite fiery passions in young men who have no real options for bettering themselves.

Because of their allegiance to a 7th century religion that, unlike other religions that evolve in their dogmas in the face of modernity, remains a 7th century religion.



The reason religious fundamentalists in those countries gain political power is because the brutal dictators of those countries (with the help of the USA) systematically rid themselves of all Leftist political movements. Afghanistan was a far more progressive place 40 years ago, with women going to school, active universities, a hip culture and organic (non-soviet) communist groups forming. We helped them to get rid of all of that, and today it's looked at as the icon of regressiveness in the Arab world.

You fucking dolt. Afghanistan was, and frankly is, what it always has been: a barren boil on the back of both the Earth and humanity. There are very few nations where every man, woman, and child could drop dead and no one would notice until the wind changed direction. Afghanistan is one of them.

If an asteroid were to hit this planet, and ground zero was Afghanistan, every living human would say, "What luck that we didn't lose anything that matters."



When you destroy all of that, all of the political tools needed to help communities, then these nations fall into dispair and poverty, being ruled by brutal dictators, and because there is no leftists in the area organizing the people, groups like the Taliban are able to offer land reform or other important measures. This is how the Taliban gains power, because the only political opposition to the status quo is headed by religious fundamentalists.

It's not hard to herd savages.


Fascism is evidence of a failed revolution, included this sort of religious "Islamofascism".

Actually, fascism is a revolution of small minds that prevail (albeit temporarily) over bigger minds because small minds think what they know and do is all that should be known and done.

Fascist are very much like liberals in that way, and vice versa.

malloc
04-07-2011, 08:55 PM
Since you didn't address it in this post and appear to be ignoring it...Does this mean that you are backpedalling from your earlier statement that it's "invasion and occupation" that makes muzzies hate us?

Backpedalling, forward pedalling, regurgitating talking points he heard from a guy who hear from the radio host who just as clueless as Wei; it makes no difference. He doesn't know a damn thing about the US's problems with the ME, but he knows in his hearts of hearts it's all America's fault, and Americans are bad, bad people. In the end, that's what every single one of his arguments he ever presents boils down to.

Odysseus
04-08-2011, 11:43 AM
The main reasons for terrorism are economic and political.
If you are motivated by economics and politics. Jihadis are motivated by faith.


The religious stuff they coat over it is simply exploited to ignite fiery passions in young men who have no real options for bettering themselves. The reason religious fundamentalists in those countries gain political power is because the brutal dictators of those countries (with the help of the USA) systematically rid themselves of all Leftist political movements.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. First, not everyone thinks the way that you do. This isn't like communism, where the leadership stopped believing long after the first generation of failures, but kept going because it was a path to power. The leaders of this movement are true believers, who genuinely seek to restore a mythical global caliphate. These guys really, truly believe the Qur'an. They aren't pretending to believe to sucker the faithful, they are the faithful. They believe that they have been commanded by Allah to force the entire world to submit to his will, and that we are infidels who deserve death or slavery. This is exactly the same motivation that drove the Islamic conquests of the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, Spain and Southeastern Europe. It is genuine imperialism on behalf of a religion.

Second, for someone who is quick to attack religion for the horrors of the past, you don't seem to understand that religious fervor can still create mass movements. Religion isn't just the opiate of the masses, it is also the stimulant. At its best, it's a mild painkiller and a jolt of caffeine, but at its worst, it's heroin and crack cocaine. The crackheads of Islam are frenzied, violent thugs who commit atrocities in the name of Allah. It isn't a game, a scam or a hustle, it's the real thing, and if you don't get that, then you need to get out of your bubble and look at them, up close and personal.


Afghanistan was a far more progressive place 40 years ago, with women going to school, active universities, a hip culture and organic (non-soviet) communist groups forming. We helped them to get rid of all of that, and today it's looked at as the icon of regressiveness in the Arab world.

We didn't help them get rid of all that, the Soviets destroyed the civil society and the mujahedeen filled the gap. Get your history right.



When you destroy all of that, all of the political tools needed to help communities, then these nations fall into dispair and poverty, being ruled by brutal dictators, and because there is no leftists in the area organizing the people, groups like the Taliban are able to offer land reform or other important measures. This is how the Taliban gains power, because the only political opposition to the status quo is headed by religious fundamentalists.

You don't know the history of the Soviet invasion or the aftermath, you're just repeating talking point. The Taliban gained power because the Soviets slaughtered most of the urban intelligentsia (and the Talibs slaughtered the remainder when they took power). The ouster of the Soviets by the Mujahedeen left a power vacuum, which the Pakistani ISI exploited by providing the support to their co-religionists (and fellow Pashtos) to create the Taliban movement, which didn't start until after the Soviets had been driven out. Why did the Pakistanis empower fundamentalist lunatics? Because they wanted a devout Islamic state on their border as a counter to India. Why is there a conflict between India and Pakistan? Islam. The Islamic conquest of India resulted in horrific ethnic cleansing of Hindus, Buddhists and Sihks on a massive scale, with the systematic slaughter of most of the adult male population and enslavement of women and children, forced conversions and the destruction of almost all indigenous culture wherever Islam took over. When the British conquered India, they undid the Islamic imperialist structure that suppressed the Hindus and other Indian religions. This was the cause of the Sepoy Rebellion, which began with a rumor that the cartridges that the troops had to bite before loading were lubricated with pig fat, causing a revolt by Muslim troops. When India gained independence, the Muslims refused to live in a multi-ethnic state, and demanded partition. When the Hindus refused, they began a rebellion that killed over 2 million people. Pakistan translates, literally, to "land of the pure." It's a state that was founded on theocratic lines, with a thin veneer of democracy.


Fascism is evidence of a failed revolution, included this sort of religious "Islamofascism".
Since every communist revolution has failed, why isn't the whole world fascist? Fascism is just another form of socialism, except that it maintains titular private ownership of property, with state controls over use.

The history of Islam is a history of the kind of imperialism that you pretend the US indulges in, but far more brutal than any other expansive imperial state, with the possible exception of the Nazis and Soviets. Since the initial wave of conquests out of Arabia, the Islamic jihadis have destroyed the indigenous cultures and religions of the Middle East (Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Zoroastrian), North Africa (Christian, Animist, Pagan), India (Hindu, Buddhist, Sihk), Spain (Christian) and everywhere else that they have held power. The European slave trade would have been impossible without Islamic slavers, who did the initial capturing of African slaves. Today, the only slave-holding states in the world are Muslim states. They have put millions of people to the sword, forced conversions, enslaved hundreds of millions and destroyed the science, art, literature and history of every place that they have touched. Your refusal to see this because of your abject worship of a frustrated nineteenth century failure and his economic and social fantasies would be funny if it weren't for the horrific consequences of your blindness. You aren't simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, you're herding unicorns.

Wei Wu Wei
04-08-2011, 12:44 PM
If you are motivated by economics and politics. Jihadis are motivated by faith.

It's not about one single motivating factor. Just about every war or every conflict has been about resources, trading, or something to do with the economy.

Of course there are other things that get people to fight in a war, there's nationalism, there's family history, there's religious fundamentalism, there's socialization processes at home, there's a lot - but typically these are reasons for soldiers joining, not for leaders starting wars.

Jihadis may be motivated by their "faith", but the sort of faith that says your only hope in life is to blow yourself up can only grow in areas where they have no other options. Many terrorist recruits come from families selling their children because they cannot afford them or young men with absolutely no education or prospects for jobs. These people feel worthless, they see their nations and others like them being bombed and invaded constantly, they are under extreme economic, political, and military hardships and then someone tells them they can make money for their family and secure a noble place in their community (as a martyr) so they take it.

Do you believe that these people are just genetically predisposed to oppressive, violent ideologies? Obviously (to me at least), the culture and environment which allow radicalism to grow are the problem. Trying to fight the radicalism as an issue of faith is totally missing the point and is why it doesn't work.

Here's an article on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

Pakistan is concluding that the Taliban has been able to gain influence just inside their borders by exploiting the socioeconomic problems of that area. There was just a handful of landlords that totally dominated all the land in the area. They control the land, they had the power. The workers in this area had very little education. So the Taliban swoops in and offers to help them with their landlord problem, offering radical islamic solutions and addressing the very real problems these people were facing. So, they accepted the Taliban because they were the ones offering the most plausible solution to their real problems that everyone else was ignoring.

If these people were better educated, they could look past religious fundamentalism and find new and better ways to critique domination by land-owners (marxism is one way).




Wrong, wrong and wrong. First, not everyone thinks the way that you do. This isn't like communism, where the leadership stopped believing long after the first generation of failures, but kept going because it was a path to power. The leaders of this movement are true believers, who genuinely seek to restore a mythical global caliphate. These guys really, truly believe the Qur'an. They aren't pretending to believe to sucker the faithful, they are the faithful.

How do you know? Because they are always quoting the Qur'an and making religious gestures? Does that make them the most faithful?

Westboro Baptist Church constantly quotes the bible and the members of that group probably spend a GREAT amount of time making gestures towards religion and using religious words to promote their message of hate. Are they the most faithful because they always carry Bibles and talk about God all the time?

AmPat
04-08-2011, 02:56 PM
I retire soon. I want to lead the VRWC air attack wing. I have no qualms in sending these vermin to meet their Moongod.

txradioguy
04-08-2011, 03:13 PM
It's not about one single motivating factor. Just about every war or every conflict has been about resources, trading, or something to do with the economy.



Two things Wee Wee.

1) I've been in Iraq and now Afghanistan...the single motivation for the insurgents in both countries is...religion. Not the economy or "the man" keeping them down. It's pure and simply about killing infidels.

2) You don't know jack shit about the Middle East and the motivating factors in these countries for what they do.

Odysseus
04-08-2011, 04:10 PM
It's not about one single motivating factor. Just about every war or every conflict has been about resources, trading, or something to do with the economy.
But it isn't the primary factor, as you claim. It's an inducement, since Mohammed imposed a spoils system that made jihad lucrative as well as religiously fulfilling, but the primary motivation is religious. Without Islam, there is no justification for pillaging, looting and enslaving. Loot and slaves are fringe benefits of jihad, but make no mistake about it, jihad is a holy war, not a conventional one.


Of course there are other things that get people to fight in a war, there's nationalism, there's family history, there's religious fundamentalism, there's socialization processes at home, there's a lot - but typically these are reasons for soldiers joining, not for leaders starting wars.
How would you know what motivates Soldiers to join up, or leaders to fight? I'm telling you that this is a religious war, and the people that we are fighting are zealots. You keep pretending that you know better, but you have zero experience with our enemies. Look back at the various religious wars, from the Protestant Reformation to the Crusades, and especially the Muslim conquests. In all of those cases, the leaders were just as fanatical as the rank and file, if not more so. You would be hard put to find a more devout Puritan than Oliver Cromwell, or a stauncher Muslim than Salah al-Din (Saladin). Just because you are a cynic, don't make the mistake of assuming that everyone else is.


Jihadis may be motivated by their "faith", but the sort of faith that says your only hope in life is to blow yourself up can only grow in areas where they have no other options. Many terrorist recruits come from families selling their children because they cannot afford them or young men with absolutely no education or prospects for jobs. These people feel worthless, they see their nations and others like them being bombed and invaded constantly, they are under extreme economic, political, and military hardships and then someone tells them they can make money for their family and secure a noble place in their community (as a martyr) so they take it.
Could you be any more clueless? Terrorism is a tactic, one of many, available to the jihadis. The "soft" jihad, which the Muslim Brotherhood is currently pursuing, entails weakening our institutions through lawfare, manipulation of media, propaganda and a whole host of other actions. From the Team B threat assessment, comes a summary of the process, as defined in the Explanatory Memorandum, a Muslim Brotherhood internal document:

The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S. and a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (MB, also known as the Ikhwan). The document makes plain that the Islamic Movement is a MB effort, led by the Ikhwan in America.4 The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to explain that the “Movement” is a “settlement process” to establish itself inside the United States and, once established, to undertake a “grand jihad” characterized as a “civilization jihadist” mission that is likewise led by the Muslim Brotherhood.5 Specifically, the document describes the “settlement process” as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated….”6 To put it simply, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, the civilization jihad is the “Settlement Process” and the “Settlement Process” is the mission of the “Islamic Movement.” And that mission entails “eliminating and destroying” our way of life.


Do you believe that these people are just genetically predisposed to oppressive, violent ideologies? Obviously (to me at least), the culture and environment which allow radicalism to grow are the problem. Trying to fight the radicalism as an issue of faith is totally missing the point and is why it doesn't work.
This is a straw man argument. I have always argued that it is culture that creates radicalism, not genetics. But you don't understand the culture, and insist on viewing it through a distorted prism of Marxist analysis, which was completely incapable of predicting any behaviors, even among people with whom Marx had some passing familiarity. Marx's theories are completely incabable of providing analysis of tribal cultures under Islam.


Here's an article on the topic:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

ROFLOL!!!


Pakistan is concluding that the Taliban has been able to gain influence just inside their borders by exploiting the socioeconomic problems of that area. There was just a handful of landlords that totally dominated all the land in the area. They control the land, they had the power. The workers in this area had very little education. So the Taliban swoops in and offers to help them with their landlord problem, offering radical islamic solutions and addressing the very real problems these people were facing. So, they accepted the Taliban because they were the ones offering the most plausible solution to their real problems that everyone else was ignoring.
Pakistan created the Taliban. Here's an article written by someone who does have a clue: http://middleeast.about.com/od/afghanistan/ss/me080914a_2.htm, and an except:

There was no such thing as a Taliban until the Afghanistan’s civil war in the wake of Soviet troops’ withdrawal in 1989, after a decade-long occupation. But by the time their last troops withdrew in February 1989, they’d left a nation in social and economic shards, 1.5 million dead, millions of refugees and orphans in Iran and Pakistan, and gaping political vacuum that warlords attempted to fill. Afghan mujahideen warlords replaced their war with the Soviets with a civil war.
Thousands of Afghan orphans grew up never knowing Afghanistan or their parents, especially their mothers. They were schooled in Pakistan’s madrassas, religious schools which, in this case, were encouraged and financed by Pakistani and Saudi authorities to develop militantly inclined Islamists. Pakistan nurtured that corps of militants as proxy fighters in Pakistan’s ongoing conflict with over Muslim-dominated (and disputed) Kashmir. But Pakistan consciously intended to use the madrassas’ militants as leverage in its attempt to control Afghanistan as well.
In other words, when the Pakistani government wrings its hands over that awful Taliban, they're scamming credulous dolts who don't know the history. Dolts like the author of that article.

If these people were better educated, they could look past religious fundamentalism and find new and better ways to critique domination by land-owners (marxism is one way).
In most Islamic countries, the educated elites are more virulently Islamist than the average person. Ayman al Zawahiri, the #2 man in al Qaeda, is an MD. Mohammed Atta had advanced degrees in architecture and urban planning. The underwear bomber was a graduate of an elite British university. The reason for this is that Islam provides an identity for them that meets the needs of alienated elites, just as Marxism provides it for you and your unemployable colleagues in academia.


How do you know? Because they are always quoting the Qur'an and making religious gestures? Does that make them the most faithful?
I know because I have studied the history of Islam, and because I have read their own documents. We have captured enough of their internal documents, the things that they write to each other when the rank and file (and us) aren't looking, to understand their mindset. They base their doctrinal templates on the Qur'an and the Hadiths, not on dialectics. The Settlement process that they talk about is based on Mohammed's takeover of Medina, the establishment of colonies by the "Rightly-Guided" Caliphs and the doctrinal interpretations of the Hadiths. They aren't armchair Marxists who quote revolutionary rhetoric from the safety of tenured faculty positions, they're the real deal.


Westboro Baptist Church constantly quotes the bible and the members of that group probably spend a GREAT amount of time making gestures towards religion and using religious words to promote their message of hate. Are they the most faithful because they always carry Bibles and talk about God all the time?

Comparing mass-murdering fanatics to sleazy publicity hounds is like comparing hand grenades to oranges. The degree of fanaticism in the jihad movement is like nothing you have ever seen before, and your ignorance of Islam and the Islamic world, which you've been known to admit in your more lucid periods, plus your Marxist fantasies, are leading you to all of the wrong conclusions.

Arroyo_Doble
04-08-2011, 04:23 PM
The Explanatory Memorandum was written in 1991 by Mohamed Akram, a senior Hamas leader in the U.S. and a member of the Board of Directors for the Muslim Brotherhood in North America (MB, also known as the Ikhwan). The document makes plain that the Islamic Movement is a MB effort, led by the Ikhwan in America.4 The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to explain that the “Movement” is a “settlement process” to establish itself inside the United States and, once established, to undertake a “grand jihad” characterized as a “civilization jihadist” mission that is likewise led by the Muslim Brotherhood.5 Specifically, the document describes the “settlement process” as a “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated….”6 To put it simply, according to the Muslim Brotherhood, the civilization jihad is the “Settlement Process” and the “Settlement Process” is the mission of the “Islamic Movement.” And that mission entails “eliminating and destroying” our way of life.

:


http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldp582CP351qddj4so1_500.jpg

JB
04-08-2011, 04:54 PM
::http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3899953986_382a73a5a0_z.jpg

Arroyo_Doble
04-08-2011, 05:05 PM
:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3899953986_382a73a5a0_z.jpg



Searching for Al Queda.

Odysseus
04-08-2011, 05:16 PM
:


http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ldp582CP351qddj4so1_500.jpg

Glad you find it funny. I'm sure that you would have found Churchill hilarious in 1938. Still, it's a funny gag, but I'm not the audience for it. Try telling it to the parents of Hena Akhter (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=38762). I'm sure that they'd appreciate a good laugh, under the circumstances.


:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3899953986_382a73a5a0_z.jpg

He's got his head up the wrong hole.

Arroyo_Doble
04-08-2011, 05:23 PM
If we are going to change the 1st Amendment so that we can outlaw one religion, I say we make it the Baptists. That way, when I visit my family in Arkansas I don't have to drive to Oklahoma if I want a fucking beer.

Constitutionally Speaking
04-08-2011, 06:30 PM
I think it was our presense on the Arabian Peninsula in general that tweaked their melons.


I know, WE are so FILTHY to them that our very presence offends them. Does that not raise a red flaq with you?

Odysseus
04-08-2011, 06:39 PM
If we are going to change the 1st Amendment so that we can outlaw one religion, I say we make it the Baptists. That way, when I visit my family in Arkansas I don't have to drive to Oklahoma if I want a fucking beer.

You really don't get my point, do you? Let's take two fanatics, one, a doctrinaire Marxist revolutionary, the other a jihadi. Both seek to overthrow the United States Government and Constitution via any means at their disposal. The actions are illegal in both cases, but because the jihadi is motivated by religious conviction, rather than just politics, you pretend that I'm trying to ban his religion. I'm not. I'm trying to prevent him from imposing his religion on the rest of us. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...recognizing an establishment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof", but what if the free exercise of a religion calls for human sacrifice? What if it calls for murder? What if it allows plundering of infidel property? What if it calls for totalitarian theocracy? What if it justifies rape? At that point, the practice of that religion intrudes on the rights of those who do not practice it. Their "free exercise" of religion is being constrained by the jihadis, not to mention their free exercise of the right to live, to be secure in their persons and homes, to privacy, to a host of other rights that you would, I assume, consider as important. And, I've seen how radical Islam spreads. During my leave from Iraq in 2004, my wife and I met up in Britain so that I could meet her parents in person. I saw more women in full niqabs and chadors in London than I did in Iraq or Kuwait. You think that this is one big joke, and I'm sure that the Romans thought that the idea of barbarians sacking Rome was funny as hell, too, right up until Alaric showed up with his Goths.

You think that this is funny, go read the article that I linked to about the 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl who was whipped to death for the "crime" of being raped. Read about the Seattle cartoonist who came up with an innocuous joke about drawing Mohammed, who is now in hiding because she isn't safe from jihadis in America. This is happening. And by the time you stop snickering at it, it may just be too late to reverse it.