8
   

WE SHOUD PUT THE MOSLEMS ON NOTICE. . . .

 
 
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 12:58 am

WE SHOUD PUT THE MOSLEMS ON NOTICE. . . . that we know where thay live.

The fact that the Moslems have not nuked an American city
is attributable 100% to ONE factor only, to wit: thay have not been ABLE to do it.

For sure, if Laden 's boys coud have nuked us,
thay 'd have laffed at stealing planes,
preferring to nuke us. Thay are not in their right minds.

Fear of getting killed does not deter suicide bomers.
The Moslems on 9/11, Laden 's guys, were suicide bomers.

One way to deter their airborne piracy of our planes
is to line the flight deck in pigskin; put it on the steering wheels.
Moslems don 't like pigskin; like vampires and sunlite or crosses.

More fundamentally, we can do THIS:
tell the Moslems that we know that their philosophy
is based on geografy (Mecca, Medina, etc.).
IF thay nuke us, then we WILL, retaliate in kind
upon those places that matter the most to them, which will
thereafter glow in the dark, during their pilgramages,
and at all other times. W shoud have done that.





David
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 04:37 am
We should just nuke the whole planet now and get it over with. Enough with the mysery already.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 04:41 am
@edgarblythe,
agreed

but

can we wait until the last two harry potter movies come out, i'm dying to see how they handle them

before i'm dying, that is Wink
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 05:28 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Well, I know where some Moslems live, and some Catholics and Protestants/Evangelicals.

But generally, the place where you live isn't noticed, neither on ID-cards nor at the local Residents Registration Offices.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 06:30 am
Them Moslem boys are really starting to piss me off. I think we should go over to their house and beat the snot outta their women, and bitch-slap them if they get in the way. That'll learn 'em.
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 06:32 am
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/images/maps/globalpop.gif
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 06:42 am
@George,
We're not talking about the Muslims here. Where do the Moslems live?
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 06:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You forgot the part about nekkid women.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:26 am
@engineer,
Quote:
We're not talking about the Muslims here. Where do the Moslems live?

Same place as the muslims, but forty years ago.
revel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:42 am
@engineer,
Quote:
According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means "one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means "one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.





source

Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 07:45 am
@George,
George wrote:

Quote:
We're not talking about the Muslims here. Where do the Moslems live?

Same place as the muslims, but forty years ago.


And before that the Mohammedans lived there. And the Mussulmans.
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 08:50 am
@revel,
Well, by all means, let's go get the "evil and unjust" ones and leave those who give themselves to God be.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:10 am
@OmSigDAVID,
You are an ignorant excuse for a human being.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:20 am
@OmSigDAVID,
What a piece of racist trash. This sort of thing makes me lose respect for you, David.

Cycloptichorn
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:40 am
@Cycloptichorn,
I don't agree that it is racist.
There are Muslims of all races.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:42 am
@George,
George wrote:

I don't agree that it is racist.
There are Muslims of all races.


Shrug. David did not bother with such distinctions.

You can use whatever word you want, it's bigoted behavior and speech.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:44 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The fact that the Moslems have not nuked an American city
is attributable 100% to ONE factor only, to wit: thay have not been ABLE to do it.


That and the part where the overwhelming majority of them have no interest in doing so.

Quote:
For sure, if Laden 's boys coud have nuked us,
thay 'd have laffed at stealing planes,
preferring to nuke us. Thay are not in their right minds.


And "thay" don't represent all Muslims. They aren't crazy though, they are enemies. They want to strike their enemies and don't make very good distinctions about exactly who they are, just like you.

Quote:
One way to deter their airborne piracy of our planes
is to line the flight deck in pigskin; put it on the steering wheels.
Moslems don 't like pigskin; like vampires and sunlite or crosses.


The fear of pigs is greatly exaggerated. The 9/11 bombers violated many of the supposed taboos in their religion, like drinking and frequenting strip clubs. Putting pigskin on the flight deck wasn't going to stop these guys, hell they'd just twist it into additional motivation as it would be a generalized insult to Muslims (as well as an insult to the intelligence of the American public).

Quote:
More fundamentally, we can do THIS:
tell the Moslems that we know that their philosophy
is based on geografy (Mecca, Medina, etc.).
IF thay nuke us, then we WILL, retaliate in kind
upon those places that matter the most to them, which will
thereafter glow in the dark, during their pilgramages,
and at all other times. W shoud have done that.


We actually have such a policy of overwhelming retribution for nuclear attacks. But we thankfully aren't dumb enough to take it that far and target that stupidly. Our stated policy is that if we are hit by nukes we will respond overwhelmingly toward the nations responsible for the proliferation that made it possible.

This makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking superficial knowledge of a religion and saying we'd nuke cities that would have nothing at all to do with the attacks.

David, your arguments here are in support of tactics that are just plain dumb, ignore that they are insulting to Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, they just don't make any strategic sense. They would be completely useless in preventing attacks and that they would insult Muslims en masse would just make it harder to find informants and other cooperation that actually does help fight terrorism.

Mecca is in a country that is fighting terror much more harshly than we are and whose leaders are allied to us very strongly (which is part of the reason Bin Laden's movement is attacking both us and them). Threatening them like that would damage their cooperation (and they cooperate quite extensively with us, we have based on their territory etc) with the US "war on terror".

In short, this is a bad idea for just about every reason, it's based on ignorant stereotypes of a religion, it is collective punishment and immoral, but more than anything else it's just stupid military strategy in the first place. Ignore all the morals and it still makes no sense.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:48 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can use whatever word you want, it's bigoted behavior and speech.


I agree that it's bigoted, against religion and perhaps even race, but that is just not stated and yes the words do have real meanings. If you instinctively reach for the race card, it makes it less meaningful. It does matter. Racism is alive and well and fighting it is harder when that card is incorrectly dealt.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:52 am
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can use whatever word you want, it's bigoted behavior and speech.


I agree that it's bigoted, against religion and perhaps even race, but that is just not stated and yes the words do have real meanings. If you instinctively reach for the race card, it makes it less meaningful. It does matter. Racism is alive and well and fighting it is harder when that card is incorrectly dealt.


That's fine with me; the word bigoted works as well for me as racist. I suspect that David is not concerned with the distinction in this case, however.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 11:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's fine with me; the word bigoted works as well for me as racist. I suspect that David is not concerned with the distinction in this case, however.


Cool. To me they can be pretty different, racism is much worse to me than religious bigotry and I not all bigotry is created equal (e.g. religion is a choice, race isn't).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » WE SHOUD PUT THE MOSLEMS ON NOTICE. . . .
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 06:55:38