Yep. Thread is still full of fail. You either believe Islam is the greatest threat to the world or the US. Heck we might as well round it off with blaming it all on "statists!"
I get what you're saying, and don't approve the actions of entity A, and don't approve many of the actions of Bush or Obama. I just think they are different than stating that intentionally targeting civilians is a good thing and making that part of the standard operating procedure.
The same routes that exposed other atrocities. The u.s military has targeted n. Koreans in the 1950s, and Sandinistas or those sympathetic to them. But was it Truman or regans decision? No. It was really perverse generals and the CIA in Nicaragua. No, it does not excuse what happened. It was wrong. At the end of the day, You can always find moral justification for your cause - for any cause...as morality is relative. But don't expect to win people over when you equivalate obl to bush. It's such a ridiculous claim. And yes, the difference between collateral damage and targeting of citizens is completely different. What would obl do if he had the firepower of the u.s.? Think about that. His target would not just be the u.s. by the way, it would be many Muslims too. He takes pleasure from the deaths of others, and you compare him to Bush? Ridiculous.
They are different in that one specific instance, I agree. No one has stated that targeting civilians is a good thing, even Al Qaeda. They call their atrocities "duties". Entity A, the most high-tech government ever, has stated that war is a duty to those who believe in their authority (about 300 million + "with us or against us") and civilians are unfortunate casualties and went on to unfortunately kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, maybe millions. and Entity B, an extremely low tech, stateless but organized group of rebels, has stated that war is a duty to Muslims (the huge majority of whom reject OBL's authority to issue a fatwa) and it is their duty to kill civilians and went on to unfortunately kill thousands, maybe tens of thousands. If we are asking is there a difference, we can easily say yes there is. If this is the only question we ask to differentiate the behavior of terrorists and presidents, then without a doubt we are asking the wrong question, and we are not asking enough questions. More importantly, the # of casualties of each should be very very very very very very very very very VERY different, and it is everyone's right to question why these numbers indicate the opposite of what is being stated. Not enough humans in the Middle East to form that many human shields. Personally, I will always place priority on the entity which has killed or can kill more humans and which forms a greater danger to the 6 billion people of the world, rather than the subset of the world artificially known through the media as "the international community". Whether through education, awareness, interaction, or dialogue, IMO, it has to be American citizens who end the chain of imperialism going back as far as history remembers. This is a testament to coinciding American freedoms and American dominance which I believe enables Americans to achieve something that was not achievable in previous eras. But obviously, it is also a warning to be mindful of the consequences of your actions being in that position. Theoretically having the ability to stop/order the actions of your government without resorting to violence is probably extremely unique for the citizens of such a nation. - Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein
Perhaps people should just stop responding seriously to that terror apologist and Al Qaeda apologist ideologue. The appropriate governmental entities should possibly look into this?
Both entities call what they do duties. The difference is that entity A never says it's a duty to target and intentionally kill civilians. Entity B for some reason does believe that targeting and intentionally killing civilians is a duty. That doesn't excuse anything entity has done. But it is an important difference.
The answer is very simple when you look at his manic objectives. First, he would seize control of NATO, block everything from the UN he disagrees with, issue fatwas/decrees which sit above the law, as well as take control of the IMF and World Bank. He would rely on the threat of that power to install Al Qaeda puppet governments in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, and wherever else he considers "infiltrated Muslim land". He would definitely launch an all out offensive against Israel after making an offer of negotiation which is not worth the paper it's printed on. If the threat of a terrorist attack from the Tea Partiers organization came, he would certainly launch an invasion of the United States as well as Canada, which may have assisted and may have been in possession of weapons too dangerous for them to be trusted with. Plus, Americans may have fled to Canada, who knows. Given the current choices, I think he would pick either Rumsfeld or Cheney to run the US, as he is most familiar with these guys. He would station the majority of his troops around the the most valuable assets in the North American continent. He would not target civilians, because he would never have to directly do that. Not because he's not that kind of guy, because we know he would do it. But because he doesn't have to, except those cases of collateral damage which was unavoidable in his pursuit of purging the world of Extremist Americanists whose ideology breeds unnecessary violence. You catch my drift. He is a horrible person who was going to find a way to engage in terrorism as long as he believed what he believed. If you believe he led this "war" from a cave or a little room in Pakistan, then surely you don't believe he would just use this new-found power Hitler-style and chaotically murder non-Muslims. I do believe that he would seek world domination in the exact same manner as the victors of World War II have done since it ended (which I consider horrible). If he were a person of bad principles rather than bad politics, he would not have fought side by side and worked closely with the United States against soviet forces. If he did though, then you have to understand what that means. Considering OBL's definition of "Muslim", he would have to mass murder roughly 6 billion people. Think of all the non-Sunni sects which he considers Infidels, capital I. Then think of the branches of Sunnism which he considers to be Infidels. Is he going to do that? Realistically? Btw I have already said that the US government does not directly target civilians, whereas Al Qaeda does. No disagreement about that one highly-regarded fact.
You expect one hell of a lot from the United States and its people. Up until Pearl Harbor, the majority of Americans wanted no part in fighting Hitler's Germany, and were only vaguely aware of the embargo on Japan in 1940, and further in mid-1941, of oil, iron and steel critical for Japan's military. This was in reaction to Japan expansionism, particularly in China (and I'm sure the people of China have fond memories of those actions by the United States in support of their country, which led directly to a war between the US and Japan, and subsequently, with Germany and her allies). In other words, we don't have a history of being "The World's Policeman" until after WWII, and even then it was often with great reluctance. It is no coincidence that this country has gone to war several times after WWII without a Congressional Declaration of War, which is supposedly required. And the numbers of deaths you cite? I'm not sure where you are getting those numbers, or what period they are supposed to cover. Korea? Vietnam? Afghanistan? I'm assuming Iraq, Volumes One and Two, but I'm simply not sure. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was caused by a rogue President lying to the American people and the world about the reasons why. The Gulf War was in response to an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in an area of paramount importance to America's interests, and that of her allies. That response included a host of countries. We didn't act alone by a long shot. I'm not sure what it is you are asking for. We're a bit tired of war in this country. We've been in one war or another for at least a decade. While I like your sentiment about the United States being special enough to "save the world," don't you think that Americans, and the world, are ready for a break from all that? To be clear, I realize that you didn't mention war in what I quoted, but you did earlier in that post, and I am not ignoring it, obviously.
Noted. IMO it would be an extremely important difference in a different context or under a different set of circumstances, for example if there were few or no other differences between said entities.
That is not Islamic ideology. That is manipulative people twisting religion to fit their message. Use your brain.
I would but these days on Clutchfans D & D a poll about who is a greater threat to the world "Statists" would probably win.
I find this pretty funny considering about a year ago another poster had considered contacting German authorities over your posts.
That guy claimed he actually did. I wouldn't do that . In fact, my post was sort of a half-joking reference to that crazy guy. Good to see someone caught it. However, I did not say anything remotely equivalent to what Mathloom did: - Promoting reading the Al Qaeda charter "to understand their logic better" - Saying Bush and Obama are morally equivalent to Bin Laden and Hitler ...and other hateful anti-US rhetoric.
You are correct sir, it is asking a lot, it is asking more of Americans than has been asked of people in the exact same position before. It is not for you to police the world though. This is voluntary. I'm not sure why you're complaining about it. I totally disagree that it is reluctant as there are too many wars, too many expenses, too much profit and too much repressed resistance involved. Maybe there are a whole bunch of wars which were considered but not launched? It would be news to me if there was a significant number. You call Bush a rogue president. Why not make him accountable? See how the threats will reduce and the willingness to cooperate increase. See how it will put an end to the ability of terrorist organizations to recruit our young people. See how you will gain an ally in the Arab world, which has all the knowledge of how to death these threats, but none of the power. At least do something to make sure it never happens again. If you are tired of war, imagine how tired the voiceless Middle East is of war. I think you may think that my "America saving the world" means engaging in more actions or different actions? In fact, I am saying that America can gain a huge amount of support and security by simply withdrawing from a lot of the world. Start spending money on its own people, on public transportation, on decent healthcare. Start spending that money on dealing with the domestic American gangs which killed far more Americans as terrorists did last year. Start spending money on improving public education so that the majority of youth are not steered into corporate jobs or bust. Start negotiating with other veto powers to divulge UN veto powers, and assist in transforming it into a reliable beacon of independence. Legalize all those illegal migrant workers that are contributing far more than they are costing. It's a lot of money. Yes, that kind of money. But the problem everyone has foreseen is that the economy may be too hollowed out to survive without huge weapons revenues. This is a real problem which needs to be shielded against first. Oh, and for f' sake, spend some of that money on buying Donald Trump a more believable hair peace too. :grin:
When the religion is flawed and confusing to begin with, it is more easily manipulated. There is a reason most of the Old Testament is now ignored, when will some of the Quran fall into the same category? DD
