How To Solve The Problem Of Terrorist Islam?

Good Question.
However, you are making the underlying assumption that the U.S. is interested in Empire in the same fashion that Great Britain was at the time.
It's not.
The U.S. is less interested in Empire than the former Iraqi regime; the Saudis; the Syrian; or even the French.
We are interested in living in a stable world where laws are respected and a person does not have to fear being murdered by his next door neighbor for "no reason at all."

One point that we can agree on is that I / we / the United States is arrogant.
But, it is an arrogance born out of desparation.
As Michael Moore has said, we are actually a nation of empty-headed, happy go lucky, know nothings who walk around with sh*tt eating grins on our faces.
We would rather stay on our couches with the remote control, eating pizza.
Or, to put a slightly different spin on it - we are a happy people, generous and friendly and we don't like being upset.
And, if you force us to get up off the couch, don't be surprised if we kick your ass and don't finish until we feel we can sit down again without being disturbed.
9/11 disturbed us.
You can verify my analogy by understanding that we did not go out and conquer Libya and Iran after they murdered our citizens, stole our property and violated every decent law between nations that had ever been invented.
We just couldn't get up off the couch.
Now we are up and yes, pretty damned arrogant about it.

Personally, since starting this thread, I have learned more about Islamic Fascism and it is self evident to me that the U.S. must be arrogant and keep utterly crushing the Islamic Fascists while encouraging Muslims to take matters into their own hands to preserve their own souls.

Oddly enough, in terms of international law, the American rebels were wrong. Their cause was not particularly just. It was a childish squabble where the British refused to accomodate the bratty Americans.

But, Americans, unlike the IRA, did not go and murder Brits.
As a point of fact, the American colonists were somewhat meticulous about not hurting innocent Brits until after the war began.
There was no "British occupation" as such. It was a war, started when the British tried to capture rebel supplies.

There would be insurgency if America were occupied, but what is happening in Iraq is not insurgency. It is cold blooded slaughter of innocents and fellow Iraqis - mostly by foreign nationals.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

You can verify my analogy by understanding that we did not go out and conquer Libya and Iran after they murdered our citizens, stole our property and violated every decent law between nations that had ever been invented.
We just couldn't get up off the couch.

There must be at least 25 countries in the world right now where murders and international law violations are taking place. Are we going to bomb all of them?

If we are so concerned law between nations, why don't we do something about the 10+ African nations where much higher numbers of organized murders are taking place than in Iraq.

I have not seen proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Sauid Arabia was.
Iraq did not do 9/11. Almost every one of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia?

Could it be because they are funneling oil money to Bush interests?

Where do we draw the line?

Who is next?

Sudan? North Korea? Oops, I've heard of some terrorists wreaking havoc in India, we better drop some bombs there. Iran deserves to go down. Saudi Arabia hasn't paid for 9/11 yet. Jordan and Syria have been bugging us for a long time. Now half of Europe hates us. I could go on.

I don't know what is wrong with the rest of the world. They are all insane. Thank goodness USA is special.

Thank G-d the USA has the ultimate blessing of and connection to G-d.

Thank G-d we're not misguided like the rest of the world. Everyone is so screwed up, except us.

Thank G-d we're the only country in the world that has a direct connection to the one true god.

But wait, George Bush's own church has come out strong opposing the war in Iraq, saying it is "totally without merit and an injustice to humanity."

Hmmm...maybe the Bush Administration has an inside connection to the Word of G-d?

0 Replies

Top Ten Crude Oil Reserves.

1 Saudi Arabia
2 Iraq
3 Kuwait
4 United Arab Emirates
5 Iran
6 Venezuela
7 Russia
8 Mexico
9 Libya
10 US

Welcome to the site extra medium, but if you could "actually" check next time.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd,

You cite values and G-d often in your arguments.
I assume you are a Bush supporter?

Bush's own church has come out against the Iraq War.

Just wondering, who do you consider a higher authority on what is right? Christ's teachings or Bush?

Last I heard, there was still something in the good book about "Thou shalt not kill." & "Turn the other cheek."

Seriously, how do you deal with the apparent contradiction of Bush's church and Christ's teachings being firmly against the war?
(See below)

Thank G-d that G-d talks directly to the Bush Administration, but not to Bush's church, apparently.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm

""Iraq War 'Unjustifiable', says Bush's Church Head
by Ed Vulliamy in New York

President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on preparations for the war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.

Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough program of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.

Winkler is general secretary of the Board of Church and Society for the United Methodist church, which counts the President and the Vice-President, #### Cheney, among its members. The church represents eight to nine million regular churchgoers and is the third biggest in America.

The Methodist Church, he says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, not does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'.

Winkler said his church was 'keenly aware' that it counted the President and his deputy among its members, and that he was therefore 'frequently encouraged by others to be very careful about how I say things'."

0 Replies

Extra Medium wrote:

Quote:

There must be at least 25 countries in the world right now where murders and international law violations are taking place. Are we going to bomb all of them?
If we are so concerned law between nations, why don't we do something about the 10+ African nations where much higher numbers of organized murders are taking place than in Iraq.
I have not seen proof that Iraq was involved in 9/11. Sauid Arabia was.
Iraq did not do 9/11. Almost every one of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Why are we not attacking Saudi Arabia?
Could it be because they are funneling oil money to Bush interests?

There are no Bush oil interests.
President Bush is a "failed" oil businessman.
However, if the logic of the invasion of Iraq proclaims to you who believe that President Bush is corrupt and invaded Iraq for the purpose of enriching himself and his friends by controlling Iraqi oil, then I have a simple question for you:
Why didn't Mr. Bush and his friends either simply steal the Iraqi oil as did France, Germany, England, Russia, etc. under the UN "oil for food" (corrupt bribes) program where billions of dollars of contracts were assigned (read Investigate the United Nations Oil-for-Food Fraud)
Or, simply lift the trade embargo, make Saddam into a new groveling ally (Iran is still our enemy), get real sweet deals on oil; on rebuilding Iraq; please the Saudis who are supposed to be Bush's corrupt partners in this fantasy scenario; and thereby enrich and empower all of Bush's "oil buddies?"

When you all can answer the above questions in a logical and factual manner, please do so.
Until then, your Bush oil fantasy is merely some twisted mental maunderings that serve to show ignorance and hatred on the part of those that believe such things.

The countries, such as Sudan, where egregious murders and international law violations are taking place are not Iraq.
I believe that morally, the US should go into Sudan. I suspect that it would be a disaster politically. I do not know. The fact is, we are not there now. We are in Iraq.
With the destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq, the United States has removed two Fascist regimes that were directly hostile to the United States.
In doing so, Iran is now surrounded by nations that do not share its views of hegemony by terrorism; that do not share its views of Islam - Wilayat Al-Faqih, Rule by the Jurist, a new Shia cult invented by Khomeini in 1964 while he lived in Najaf, which is in Iraq; and who do not share Iran's views of the desirability of acquiring nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Syria (and its client state Lebanon) is now surrounded by nations that are inimicable to its interests.
Which is why Syria is sending its Sunni Muslims to murder Shia Muslims in Iraq and Iran is sending its Shia Muslims to murder Sunni Muslims in Iraq.
These are lovely people. Confused

In the meantime, Saudi Arabia now has to deal with the consequences of its own promotion of Islamic terror and fascism. Again, with Iraq on its border, it is also surrounded by nations (with the exception of Yemen) that find its Wahhabi national cult abbhorrent.
Remember that the Wahhabis murdered hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims in Northern Saudi Arabia and Southern Iraq in the last century. And that they destroyed the ruling family of Jordan, the Hashemites, control over Mecca and Medina.
Saudi Arabia has been put "on notice" by its neighbors through the actions of the United States.
Are these imperfect solutions? Of course. What is a better solution?

Quote:

Bush's own church has come out against the Iraq War.
Just wondering, who do you consider a higher authority on what is right? Christ's teachings or Bush?

I am not sure as I don't pay much attention to such things, but the last I heard, the Methodist Church did not claim a direct link to G-d (or Jesus?)
An argument that preacher Ed Vullamy has a direct link to G-d and therefore is more "right" than President Bush seems a specious argument.
The last I heard, Christianity was very big on personal religious interpretations of Jesus's teachings.
According to John Wesley, the original "Methodist,"

Quote:

A Methodist is one who has the love of God shed abroad in his heart. By the Holy Ghost given unto him, one who loves the Lord his God with all his heart, with all his soul, with all his mind, and with all his strength. God is the joy of his heart and the desire of his soul which is constantly crying out, 'Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And there is none upon earth that I desire besides Thee, my God and my all. Thou art the strength of my heart and my portion forever.'

Now for those of you who choose to believe the Bush is a corrupt moron / Machiavellian; idiot / master schemer; heartless evildoer / pious fool; or any of the other stupid contradicitons that are out there, then, obviously, he would be incapable of thinking the Methodist doctrine that Wesley taught.
I would humbly suggest that your own prejudices blind you to the truth of things.

Again, I am not an authority on Jesus, but he did say "I come not in peace, but with a sword; I have come to set the father in law against the son in law; and thine enemies may be in thine own household..."
Beats the hell out of me. Rolling Eyes

I do not base my philosophical support of this war on the teachings of Jesus. I base it on the simple fact that there are Islamic Fascist Death Cultists who wish to murder me; who wish to murder my family; who wish to murder my community; who wish to murder my nation; and who wish to murder all humanity that might stand against them.
They must be stopped.
Because I value my life; the life of my family; the lives of my community; the lives of my nation; and the lives of humanity far more than I value those that worship death and chaos and lawlessness.

0 Replies

Moishe3rd wrote:

I do not base my philosophical support of this war on the teachings of Jesus. I base it on the simple fact that there are Islamic Fascist Death Cultists who wish to murder me; who wish to murder my family; who wish to murder my community; who wish to murder my nation; and who wish to murder all humanity that might stand against them.

Okay, then what G-d are you talking about when you keep mentioning G-d in your posts?

In your original post, you suggested the answer to your own question is that we must get moderate Islam to get the radicals to reform. I suggest that part of the solution is to get moderate Americans to get the far right (warmongers) to reform.

You cling to your solution as the only viable solution. I see your solution as only part of a bigger multi-pronged approach. USA needs to reform.

I honestly don't know why you started this thread. It seems you already have all the answers in your head, and anyone who brings up a different slant on it is made out by you to be pretty much an idiot.

What is the point of that? Do you need to reassure yourself that America is the one country on earth blessed by G_d, and all the other countries are wrong?

0 Replies

Quote:

Okay, then what G-d are you talking about when you keep mentioning G-d in your posts?

I am a Torah observant Jew or, in the common parlance, an Orthodox Jew.

Quote:

In your original post, you suggested the answer to your own question is that we must get moderate Islam to get the radicals to reform. I suggest that part of the solution is to get moderate Americans to get the far right (warmongers) to reform.
You cling to your solution as the only viable solution. I see your solution as only part of a bigger multi-pronged approach. USA needs to reform.

Okay.
What is the suggestion; the plan?
How would you go about getting the U.S. to reform?
In what way?
In what areas?
How would you get the government or the people to carry out these reforms?

I honestly do believe that the only long term solution to the problem of lawless Islamic Fascism is to get Islam to reform.
I do not see any other way, at this time, to allow Islam to reform itself other than by crushing Islamic Fascist Death cults.

Quote:

I honestly don't know why you started this thread. It seems you already have all the answers in your head, and anyone who brings up a different slant on it is made out by you to be pretty much an idiot. What is the point of that? Do you need to reassure yourself that America is the one country on earth blessed by G_d, and all the other countries are wrong?

My original question still stands. I would rather not have the United States and its military attacking Afghanistan; Iraq; and G-d knows what Islamic despotism next....
I would rather have the Islamic Fascists desist in their lawless murders.
I would rather not worry about my family, my friends and relatives and whether they are going to be the target of a random act of mass murder.

And, I think that any country that strives for the Good and strives against Evil, no matter how imperfectly, is blessed by G-d.

0 Replies

Chances of us 'solving' the problem of terrorist Islam < your cat loving you.

0 Replies

In 90's under clinton for whatever reason, most of the average American were as michael Moore described, "a nation of empty-headed, happy go lucky, know nothings who walk around with sh*tt eating grins on our faces" however those that were in power were not. We have always interfered, most of the times with good intentions, with other countries. It is that interference that some people in other parts of the world began to resent. What seems to anger them the most is the ever there Israel/Palestine situation and the US position in it that does favor the israelis the most. That is simply a bare fact.

The Iraq war was not in any justified or even connected with our "war on terror" and it did have everything to do with oil. Just look at how connected all the oil people in saudi Arabia and the Bush administration is and there is simply no denying it. Most of those same people are mixed up in some kind of way with the "reconstruction" of Iraq.

Why mess with having to make sweet heart deals with Iraq and Saddam when you can be in a position where you are in control of the oil yourself?