Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    Here's the thing: we go to war with Iran, we go to war with Russia. We mess with Pakistan too much, and our allies in India get pissed off. We invade Egypt and we bring on WWIII. We can't fight military battles in every place in the world in which radical Islam is running the show, we can't even completely root it out at home because of our own Constitution and protection of free speech.
    Once again, you're falling for the liberal trap, that if we cannot solve the entire problem at once, we should do nothing. Combine that with some serious strategic ignorance, and you sound like our State Department. Here's a few of the places where you are wrong:

    Iran declared war on us in 1979. They're already at war with us. Instead of trying to cajole them into abandoning nuclear weapons, we should be examining ways to undermine the regime and collapse it. Does that mean that we need troops on the ground? No. What we need is to support the Iranian resistance, the same people who have been taking to the streets and demanding reform. We need to equip the resistance with the full range of telecommunications equipment, so that they can communicate with each other and the outside world. We need to expose the horrors of the regime and isolate it, and we need to give sanctions teeth by making it clear that doing business with Iran means not doing business with us (yes, that's an act of war against Iran, but see above). Regime change in Iran means regime change in Syria and Lebanon, where the current regimes are kept in place with Iranian money, Syrian arms and Lebanese terror.

    Russia doesn't support Islamist terror. Look up Beslan, or the Moscow theater bombing. The one area that Putin is in lockstep agreement with us is the threat of jihad. We don't need to fight Russia, we need to get Russia to fight for itself.

    India detests Pakistan. If Pakistan went away tomorrow, the celebrations in Dehli would be huge. The answer to Pakistan is not to fear India, but to work with India, as well as to start getting serious about Pakistani support for terrorism. Immediately after the Bin Laden raid, when Pakistan began to make noises about their sovereignty and our encroachment, the correct response would have been outrage on our part. A competent president would have announced an immediate cutoff of all aid to Pakistan, pending review of the Pakistani's sincerity in dealing with terrorism, especially given that they harbored Bin Laden for the better part of a decade within spitting distance of their military academy. We should have used the opportunity to force more concessions from Pakistan, rather than suck up to them.

    We don't need to invade Egypt. Egypt is collapsing on its own without our help. Their economy is a shambles, and the only thing propping it up is our aid. If Morsi wants to tear up peace treaties, then we can tear up aid agreements. We also don't need to be giving them tanks and fighters. We give those to our allies, and if Morsi isn't going to be an ally, then he can fight with T-72s and MIGs, if he can find the hard currency to pay for them. We need to stop propping up countries that attack our interests.

    Domestically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the free exercise of religion includes the denial of the rights of others to practice their own faiths. In fact, it pretty much says the exact opposite. The various inroads by the Muslim Brotherhood are not protected practices of religion, but prohibited acts of incitement, terror and fraud. We don't have to expel peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, but we do have a right to expel imams who preach the overthrow of the United States government and the Constitution (sedition is not worship). We don't have to tear down mosques, but we don't have to provide them with sweetheart deals for real estate or otherwise subsidize them. We don't have to ban Islam, but we do have to make sure that Muslims understand that they are only one of many equal religious groups in America, and if they cannot accept that, then there is no place for them here. We can also start denying welfare benefits to able-bodied immigrants, especially illegals. If the Democrats want to make the case that illegals are here to work, then they should be working, not shirking.

    Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post
    It hasn't been effective because the government had been refusing to drop bombs in the middle of Baghdad and Pakistan, other-words turning them into parking lots.

    You want it to be effective? Blow the scum up. Knock Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan off the map. That will make the Jihadis drop their arms right away. You have to play with these uneducated inbreeds on their level. if blowing things up is all they know, then we proceed to do such.

    And we could take Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan out of commission, but like I said we won't. I think we all know why, though.
    We don't need to scorch the entire Muslim world if we defeat them intelligently. While most Muslims do subscribe to Sharia law, the majority doesn't necessarily want to open up the can of worms that comes with trying to impose it on the rest of the world, or at least, they wouldn't if the consequences were severe enough. The policies that I proposed above would have the effect of defeating the worst offenders and containing the ideology without having to engage in genocide. Eventually, Islam will either reform itself or collapse as the rest of the world advances past it and the petrodollars dry up.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,208
    I believe that as horrid as Sharia Law is, if these countries kept it among themselves, we wouldn't be trying to kill them. However, they chose to take it to the infidels by killing them with impunity.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member LukeEDay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Happy Valley
    Posts
    2,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    We don't need to scorch the entire Muslim world if we defeat them intelligently. While most Muslims do subscribe to Sharia law, the majority doesn't necessarily want to open up the can of worms that comes with trying to impose it on the rest of the world, or at least, they wouldn't if the consequences were severe enough. The policies that I proposed above would have the effect of defeating the worst offenders and containing the ideology without having to engage in genocide. Eventually, Islam will either reform itself or collapse as the rest of the world advances past it and the petrodollars dry up.

    The Islamic fanatics have been doing the same thing for the past 1600 years. There is nothing going to change them at this point. What they do is so engraved into their heritage, that they have to do what they have been doing. The best way to defeat them is to scrub them all out.


    A question: Where in the Quran does it say about suicide bombs and 72 virgins when martyring themselves? It doesn't. All it says about is beautiful maidens with pear shaped breasts. Nothing about being virgins, or having 72 of them. And even if there was, what makes them think the virgins would be of the opposite sex?

    Something else that makes Islamic fanatics stupid is that the Quran speaks against suicide! Anyone who does it goes to hell and burns in the pit of fire. So all these suicide bombers aren't martyring themselves and going to heaven to be with the 72 virgins, they are killing themselves and ending up in hell to burn for eternity.

    I love my God, my country, my flag, and my troops ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Once again, you're falling for the liberal trap, that if we cannot solve the entire problem at once, we should do nothing. Combine that with some serious strategic ignorance, and you sound like our State Department. Here's a few of the places where you are wrong:

    Iran declared war on us in 1979. They're already at war with us. Instead of trying to cajole them into abandoning nuclear weapons, we should be examining ways to undermine the regime and collapse it. Does that mean that we need troops on the ground? No. What we need is to support the Iranian resistance, the same people who have been taking to the streets and demanding reform. We need to equip the resistance with the full range of telecommunications equipment, so that they can communicate with each other and the outside world. We need to expose the horrors of the regime and isolate it, and we need to give sanctions teeth by making it clear that doing business with Iran means not doing business with us (yes, that's an act of war against Iran, but see above). Regime change in Iran means regime change in Syria and Lebanon, where the current regimes are kept in place with Iranian money, Syrian arms and Lebanese terror.

    Russia doesn't support Islamist terror. Look up Beslan, or the Moscow theater bombing. The one area that Putin is in lockstep agreement with us is the threat of jihad. We don't need to fight Russia, we need to get Russia to fight for itself.

    India detests Pakistan. If Pakistan went away tomorrow, the celebrations in Dehli would be huge. The answer to Pakistan is not to fear India, but to work with India, as well as to start getting serious about Pakistani support for terrorism. Immediately after the Bin Laden raid, when Pakistan began to make noises about their sovereignty and our encroachment, the correct response would have been outrage on our part. A competent president would have announced an immediate cutoff of all aid to Pakistan, pending review of the Pakistani's sincerity in dealing with terrorism, especially given that they harbored Bin Laden for the better part of a decade within spitting distance of their military academy. We should have used the opportunity to force more concessions from Pakistan, rather than suck up to them.

    We don't need to invade Egypt. Egypt is collapsing on its own without our help. Their economy is a shambles, and the only thing propping it up is our aid. If Morsi wants to tear up peace treaties, then we can tear up aid agreements. We also don't need to be giving them tanks and fighters. We give those to our allies, and if Morsi isn't going to be an ally, then he can fight with T-72s and MIGs, if he can find the hard currency to pay for them. We need to stop propping up countries that attack our interests.

    Domestically, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the free exercise of religion includes the denial of the rights of others to practice their own faiths. In fact, it pretty much says the exact opposite. The various inroads by the Muslim Brotherhood are not protected practices of religion, but prohibited acts of incitement, terror and fraud. We don't have to expel peaceful, law-abiding Muslims, but we do have a right to expel imams who preach the overthrow of the United States government and the Constitution (sedition is not worship). We don't have to tear down mosques, but we don't have to provide them with sweetheart deals for real estate or otherwise subsidize them. We don't have to ban Islam, but we do have to make sure that Muslims understand that they are only one of many equal religious groups in America, and if they cannot accept that, then there is no place for them here. We can also start denying welfare benefits to able-bodied immigrants, especially illegals. If the Democrats want to make the case that illegals are here to work, then they should be working, not shirking.



    We don't need to scorch the entire Muslim world if we defeat them intelligently. While most Muslims do subscribe to Sharia law, the majority doesn't necessarily want to open up the can of worms that comes with trying to impose it on the rest of the world, or at least, they wouldn't if the consequences were severe enough. The policies that I proposed above would have the effect of defeating the worst offenders and containing the ideology without having to engage in genocide. Eventually, Islam will either reform itself or collapse as the rest of the world advances past it and the petrodollars dry up.


    I didn't say that we should do nothing, I was objecting more to the thinking of making every nation that is controlled by radical Islamicists into a parking lot, because we won't win by killing millions of civilians.

    I agree with you about working to undermine the regime in Iran. I have known several people who came here from Iran after the revolution-Christians and Muslims. Pretty much all of them would like to see their native country under different leadership. Personally, I think empowering women is the key to de-radicalizing Islam, short of divine intervention.

    You would like my dentist-she's a Christian whose dad brought the family out of Iran in the 60s. She got her education in the Army ROTC. She has no use for Islam, on the whole, and neither did her father. He had only daughters and wanted better for them than was offered even in the time of the Shah, so he got his family out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by LukeEDay View Post
    The Islamic fanatics have been doing the same thing for the past 1600 years. There is nothing going to change them at this point. What they do is so engraved into their heritage, that they have to do what they have been doing. The best way to defeat them is to scrub them all out.


    A question: Where in the Quran does it say about suicide bombs and 72 virgins when martyring themselves? It doesn't. All it says about is beautiful maidens with pear shaped breasts. Nothing about being virgins, or having 72 of them. And even if there was, what makes them think the virgins would be of the opposite sex?

    Something else that makes Islamic fanatics stupid is that the Quran speaks against suicide! Anyone who does it goes to hell and burns in the pit of fire. So all these suicide bombers aren't martyring themselves and going to heaven to be with the 72 virgins, they are killing themselves and ending up in hell to burn for eternity.
    The Qur'an doesn't mention 72 virgins, but it does refer to houris, and the Arabic translations get a bit odd. Suffice to say that the descriptions from the Qur'an and Hadiths are pretty bizarre, and reflect Mohammed's (and his biographers'), shall we say... unusual? predelictions (and, yes, the Qur'an does explicitly mention boys).

    The Qur'an's injunctions against suicide are pretty explicit, but the Qur'an also promises heaven to those who die in the service of Islam, so the imams have figured out that suicide bombing applies to the latter, rather than the former. Of course, I'd be a bit more careful with my immortal soul than most of these clowns, but there have been secular suicide bombers in history, as well (the anarchists of the 19th century were among the most fanatical). The critical piece is the mindset that sees life as corrupt and romanticizes death in service to a cause. It also helps that the majority of Muslims are not Arabs and don't speak (much less read) Arabic, so they don't know that the Qur'an forbids suicide.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I didn't say that we should do nothing, I was objecting more to the thinking of making every nation that is controlled by radical Islamicists into a parking lot, because we won't win by killing millions of civilians.
    We don't have to make every nation that is controlled by Islamists into a parking lot, but there are a few cities that would definitely be improved by increased allocations of parking space, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Frankly, we should not have bothered invading Afghanistan, but should have simply told them that they had 24 hours to present Bin Laden to the US embassy in chains, and if they failed to do so, then we would reduce their entire country to a glazed barbecue pit. You only invade a country if it has something of value, either that you want for yourself, or you don't want to destroy. If anyone has found anything that meets that definition in Afghanistan, it's news to me. Remember that after the third Punic War, Carthage had very little to say to Rome, and the rest of North Africa remained quite hospitable to Romans. The Pakistanis would have gotten the message, and denied Bin Laden safe haven if he'd gotten out of Afghanistan. The Saudis would not have dared harbor him, or any other terrorist.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    I agree with you about working to undermine the regime in Iran. I have known several people who came here from Iran after the revolution-Christians and Muslims. Pretty much all of them would like to see their native country under different leadership. Personally, I think empowering women is the key to de-radicalizing Islam, short of divine intervention.
    It can be, but you have to be careful. Remember that some of the worst enforcers of Sharia are Islamic women. The women are the ones who do the clitoral mutilations and subject their daughters to arranged marriages, and in many honor killings, it is the women who goad the men to the act. Islam forces women into a vicious competition within families, due to polygamy, and the machinations within a household can be as ruthless as anything that you could imagine from the men of a tribe. Empowering women without educating them will not accomplish anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    You would like my dentist-she's a Christian whose dad brought the family out of Iran in the 60s. She got her education in the Army ROTC. She has no use for Islam, on the whole, and neither did her father. He had only daughters and wanted better for them than was offered even in the time of the Shah, so he got his family out.
    Sounds like she came from a great family. Ask her about some of the things that we've said about Islam and see if she doesn't corroborate our intel.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,073
    Quote Originally Posted by noonwitch View Post
    ..but fighting a convential war against it has proved over the past decade or so to have limited effectiveness also.
    If that's even true, so what? Then find a different way to fight it.

    Put my tax dollars to eradication of this cancer than Obamaphones. Pull all FBI resources that are watching the mafia and go sit on muzzie doorsteps. Get us off foreign oil so we can once and for all cut our tie to that freaking shithole, dirtbag, extremist producing country known as Saudi Arabia. Other than its cheap oil, NOTHING good comes out of that country. Every time I turn around some Saudi dirtbag is killing someone somewhere. Needle dick jerkoffs. I'm sick of hearing about these shitbags. The mosque these two pukes attended was built with Saudi money. Don't allow Saudis, their friends, family, acquaintances, money, etc into this country and kick out any that are here. And if that strategy turns out to be ineffective then we'll try something else.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Power CUer noonwitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    12,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Odysseus View Post
    Sounds like she came from a great family. Ask her about some of the things that we've said about Islam and see if she doesn't corroborate our intel.

    She says there is no such thing as extremist Islam. She said it's all like that. Her sister objected-she is married to a man who is a Christian, but has Muslim relatives. The sister (who works in the office) said that she has been to visit her husband's people in Iran and that they are not very observant Muslims, to the point that they have a still (the sister said one of the best-kept secrets of Iran is that so many allegedly devout Muslims have stills).

    The dentist told her sister she and her husband were being naive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •