Wtf

Quote:

---

"Take not life, which Allah
Hath made sacred, except
By way of justice and law:
Thus doth He command you,
That ye may learn wisdom"

---

thanks nihil, for a complete transcription of the text. If the text above is what we are discussing, i cant see a problem on it. "way of justice and law"... isnt what civilazed world do? Like when US kill people on the green mile? Doenst look like a "freedom to Kill". Its more like a "restriction". So Myth busted

Quote:

---

Now, I cannot see any relationship between what is written there and the goings on of recent years. Nor does it seem to be a particularly good way to run a Jihad, more like Awad to me?

I don't think that either of those apply to 9/11, Bali, the Russian school, or all the other events. These are the acts of cynical political manipulators who would dearly love to see a West vs Islamic confrontation.

---

thanks nihil. You have got the point again. Just because there is musslim crazy people (terrorists) that should be killed at once (as Putin did), we cant generalize and think that every musslim is a terrorist in potential too.

About the 3rd war, isla x west, i cant foresee this except if "west" continue to pressure musslim people and conduce them to a jihad against us. Remember, some Wars just start like that. You push, push, bush, push ,slave, invade, colonize, and suddenly buuum! War starts.

dont push too hard, because they can push you back.

All Empires has fallen because the "barbarians" :D

I dunno.... I think that even the most optimistic of radical Islam can't see a way to generate a military force with sufficient cohesion to invade Luxemburg let alone Europe as a whole. I trained with several "persons of arabic descent" shall we say..... on several occasions.... To be quite frank, they couldn't manage any kind of war to save their souls. They may be able to defend quite well as their country is overrun and in the ensuing period but as to launching an actual attack/invasion.... don't make me laugh any harder, please, I just put these depends on an hour ago..... The Iran/Iraq war was what 10 years of them pissing at each other across a line in the sand that barely if ever changed. The Arab/Isreali conflicts last mere days and if the arabs are on the offensive we get the shortest possible wars. As front line combat soldiers they are severely lacking.

So it's not an all out attack that we have to worry about... It's the continued cowardly attacks which, to be frank again, are easy to deal with...... Isolationism.... Throw them all out, period, simply because they can't be trusted not to sneak attack you, draw the line that they cannot cross and every time they appear to be building a military capability greater than required for their own defence bomb it into oblivion..... Since they have no offensive ability even when armed by the west we don't have that much to worry about...... We have the power and the fighting men.... We just need the will to survive.... Without which we are doomed....

And before you say "Oil, Oil, Oil... we have to trade with them for oil".... Fine.... They bring it to the border and we'll pick it up..... Without the revenue from the oil they will starve to death before we run out of the supplies we control.

Quote:

---

You push, push, bush, push

---

Hey now, watch it with the liberal subliminal messages! ;)

Quote:

---

And before you say "Oil, Oil, Oil... we have to trade with them for oil".... Fine.... They bring it to the border and we'll pick it up..... Without the revenue from the oil they will starve to death before we run out of the supplies we control. [/B]

---

If USA doesnt need the oil that much, why invade Iraq in the first place? to Shutdown Saddan, that was there BECAUSE the USA? (yeap, USA bring this guy up to fight agains Iran, remember?
Or better, why USA, UK and other rush to protect Kuwait agains Iraq invasion? because was a UN decision?
but why not rush to defend poor countries on affrica against each other? ahn, because they are POOR and has no value to USA.
Unfortunately, USA is SO dependant of international oil. Yes, USA has a huge deposit of oil on his land, but USA cant stay THAT much without international oil.
Other point is USA army is dependant of oil, but those "arabs" that you want to keep in a ghetto can fight on foot, on camels, without water, starving and whatever.
Of course a mariner or any soldier of USA can take 20,40 arabs. But they are MILLIONS.

If it was that easy, USA would invaded Iran 10 years ago. But it cant. Why? Because its easy to say, hard to do. Except if USA send 1,000 nukes there and kill everybody... but it will destroy oil fields too :D

Just to remember, USA was kicked out of Vietnam just thinking that its easy to win with a huge army (yeah, yeah, other countries helped vietnam, but.. stilll)

Hittler had the same thought .... and see what happened.
as Annibal
Napoleon
Bush oops...

(subliminal rocks :P )

Islam extremist don't have to invade anyone, they break apart the cohesion of your society.

Quote:

---

because they are POOR and has no value to USA.

---

Talk to the UN about that..... They aren't interested either..... Probably has something to do with the fact that many of the UN leaders are from those countries and it's in their interests to keep the people poor......

You see how you whine about the USA not going to one place and then you whine about them going somewhere else...... That's exactly why there appears to be no consistency in the US foreign policy except for protecting it's assets..... Note also that none of those people from starving nations are arming terrorists, training them or developing/using WMD's..... But I'm sure that's just irrelevant......

Quote:

---

they break apart the cohesion of your society

---

No-one can do that unless the society itself has no cohesion and no desire to have it remain cohesive..... You _let_ them do it.... Your problem...

Quote:

---

You see how you whine about the USA not going to one place and then you whine about them going somewhere else

---

im not whinning... in fact i rather prefer that USA does nothing and stay behind its frontier lines.... ;)
Im just showing you USA can be see as "Good" or "Evil", depending on the arguments that you/me use....
And showing you that besides USA IS the greatest, major biggest powerfull in the world, USA can still be beaten by small countries, with starving, bare foot people.
And as the supreme nation in the world, it would be advisable stopping acting as an "Empire" and starts to act as "Brotherhood nation". When USA invade a country, even on a good cause, some countries start to think "Oh, boy, in the past is for terrorism, now is for oil, and next it will be for what? food? water? space?. Its better start to make huge weapons and do a preventive attack to USA. Meanwhile, i will start to kill its citizens". Ring a bell to you? its exactly what is going on now.

Just recaping about bare foot people:

USA x Korea - USA lost
USA x Vietnam - USA lost
USSR x Afeganistam - USSR lost
Iraq (suported by USA) x Iran - no winner, but a lot of ppl died.
Germany x USSR (WW II) - Germany Lost
USSR x China - almost started; i bet that USSR had lost, even nuking China to the Death
UK x Argentine - UK won (easy), but most countries celebrated when Argentina sink that UK ship.
Israel x A lot of arabs countriess - bets were agains Israel, but Israel won (easily)

Of Course USA/USSR won a lot of too. Just trying to demonstrate that you cant allways win, even with a great army a lot of money.

BTW you are correct about UN (they don care), but i was rather using the "follow/dont follow" UN directions idea.

You can win, if the society within supports the action. Case and point, USA vs Korea, USA vs Vietnam. Hard to win a war without support of the people behind the machine.

Tedob1: takeing what extreamest do and claiming it stood for all members of a religion is a very dangerous stance. By that logic I could say that christians beleive that its ok to kill atholics because they are evil and worship the devil, Jack Chick said so.

USA x Korea - USA lost<-----------------USA didn't lose, they just didn't win//stalemate (actually UN war)
USA x Vietnam - USA lost<-------------A war can't be run from 12,000 miles away, by politicians
USSR x Afeganistam - USSR lost
Iraq (suported by USA) x Iran - no winner, but a lot of ppl died.
Germany x USSR (WW II) - Germany Lost<------------there were slightly more than just the USSR in this.
USSR x China - almost started; i bet that USSR had lost, even nuking China to the Death
UK x Argentine - UK won (easy), but most countries celebrated when Argentina sink that UK ship.
Israel x A lot of arabs countriess - bets were agains Israel, but Israel won (easily)

Your views of history are very simplistic, and doesn't really do juctice to the arguement you were trying to make. There are many factors that make up a war. Popular support, economic factors, distance of supply lines, and adverse weather all play a factor in every war.

Afaganistan verses the USSR is a prime example. The Afgans were fighting from a home field advantage, and didn't have to support their troops. The USSR had a horrendous supply line problem and the whole war was not cost efficive for them......the costs were not worth the rewards.