PDA

View Full Version : I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist


Simplex3
07-03-2007, 06:15 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist
By HASSAN BUTT
Last updated at 07:38am on 2nd July 2007

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.

Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network - I met him on two occasions.

And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?

How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.

For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state - typically by starting debate with the question: "Are you British or Muslim?"

But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.

This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.

Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.

Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.

A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.

In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.

But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.

The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.

For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here.

But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.

However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.

Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.

I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2007, 10:18 PM
Until the "West" realizes the nature of this beast...an ideological and religious zealotry that defines and fuels the hatred and determination of these terrorists, in their quest to maim America, Israel, and "the West" for their support of the infidels....and their "oppression" of brothers in arms...we will continue to engage in self-flagellation and self-doubt in the "bumper sticker" that has become the WOT.

:shake:

Logical
07-03-2007, 10:23 PM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2007, 10:30 PM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.

Thank you, Mr. President.....Mr. George W. Bush.

:clap:


(a moment of lucidity, for Jim, even if it's unintentional, heh.... :clap: )

Mr. Kotter
07-03-2007, 10:55 PM
....How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

.... most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.

They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away..

...Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism...

Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.

If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims [and]....

... Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

Logical
07-03-2007, 10:56 PM
Thank you, Mr. President.....Mr. George W. Bush.

:clap:


(a moment of lucidity, for Jim, even if it's unintentional, heh.... :clap: )

Well thanks Rob, but my opinion has never changed. Matter of fact this is why I think it is so stupid to be acting as a police force in Iraq. We want to leave a couple of bases there that makes sense to me, but we need to quit being the police in that country.

BucEyedPea
07-03-2007, 11:14 PM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.
We'd have to nuke too many countries including India, Pakistan, some former Soviet Republics, Indonesia, the Malay Peninsula....it just wouldn't work. Geography does not matter with Islam.

But I sincerely, believe that removing all land troops from Muslim lands completely will go a long way in reducing terror. We can begin with Iraq. I know it sounds extreme, some say we can't or that it's impossible but attacks have subsided in the past when we did...such as when when RR took the Marines out of Beirut. US military could protect oil delivery lines from offshore instead.

Logical
07-03-2007, 11:31 PM
We'd have to nuke too many countries including India, Pakistan, some former Soviet Republics, Indonesia, the Malay Peninsula....it just wouldn't work. Geography does not matter with Islam.

But I sincerely, believe that removing all land troops from Muslim lands completely will go a long way in reducing terror. We can begin with Iraq. I know it sounds extreme, some say we can't or that it's impossible but attacks have subsided in the past when we did...such as when when RR took the Marines out of Beirut. US military could protect oil delivery lines from offshore instead.

You can dream but that is never going to happen either, and frankly even if we did still would not matter. Did you really read the thread post?

alanm
07-04-2007, 12:16 AM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.
Be defensive??? Bad..bad idea. You can't wait for these guys to pull off something horrific and then go after them. Hell, that tactic worked wonderfully with Bin Laden. You have to take those guys out whenever and where ever possible. You have to go after the money that's funding them and the hierarchy. You have to out fight them on their level. You have to be nastier and more ruthless than they are. That's the only way to beat them and put them on the defensive. And we have to let the military do their f*cking job.

Cochise
07-04-2007, 12:24 AM
Damnit Jim, it's a repost! :p

alanm
07-04-2007, 12:30 AM
You can dream but that is never going to happen either, and frankly even if we did still would not matter. Did you really read the thread post?
Yeah it doesn't matter whether we're in Iraq or not. The simple fact that we're infidels is more than enough reason to kill. That and the fact that appeasement just makes them laugh.

Logical
07-04-2007, 12:34 AM
Be defensive??? Bad..bad idea. You can't wait for these guys to pull off something horrific and then go after them. Hell, that tactic worked wonderfully with Bin Laden. You have to take those guys out whenever and where ever possible. You have to go after the money that's funding them and the hierarchy. You have to out fight them on their level. You have to be nastier and more ruthless than they are. That's the only way to beat them and put them on the defensive. And we have to let the military do their f*cking job.

There are two kinds of defensive (reactive which is what you mistakenly assumed I meant) and progressive where we are using intelligence sources to interrupt and catch the perpetrators like happened recently in the New York airport case.

jAZ
07-04-2007, 12:34 AM
http://justicefornone.com/article.php?story=20050527204356114&query=holocaustHolocaust

Holocaust Survivor Leaving US
Monday, May 02 2005 @ 03:02 PM PDT
Contributed by: Joey Picador

One of our neighbors is moving. I've been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn't really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he's like 85 years old - I don't know exactly, but he's old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, "Back to Germany."

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

"No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.

Logical
07-04-2007, 12:41 AM
http://justicefornone.com/article.php?story=20050527204356114&query=holocaustHolocaust

Holocaust Survivor Leaving US
Monday, May 02 2005 @ 03:02 PM PDT
Contributed by: Joey Picador

One of our neighbors is moving. I've been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn't really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he's like 85 years old - I don't know exactly, but he's old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, "Back to Germany."

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

"No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.

I am kind of wondering if this will survive the Snopes test, but if so it is illuminating.:hmmm:

ClevelandBronco
07-04-2007, 03:07 AM
I am kind of wondering if this will survive the Snopes test, but if so it is illuminating.:hmmm:

Couldn't find anything to refute it on Snopes, but I did learn that Dr. Ruth Westheimer was trained as a sniper for the Israeli army.

If the anecdote is true, I think the gentleman is incorrect in his assessment. I'll be worried if the Bush Administration suspends the election in 2008.

Baby Lee
07-04-2007, 07:28 AM
I am kind of wondering if this will survive the Snopes test, but if so it is illuminating.:hmmm:
Kind of surreal reading that while listening to David Bowie singing on a Howard Stern replay from a decade ago. What was that song he was singing? 'I'm Afraid of Americans?' Wow.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:01 AM
But I sincerely, believe that removing all land troops from Muslim lands completely will go a long way in reducing terror. We can begin with Iraq.
LMAO

One of "them" just told you that is completely irrelevant, and with no factual base you still hold on to your "sincere beliefs".

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:08 AM
http://justicefornone.com/article.php?story=20050527204356114&query=holocaustHolocaust

Holocaust Survivor Leaving US
Monday, May 02 2005 @ 03:02 PM PDT
Contributed by: Joey Picador

One of our neighbors is moving. I've been in this neighborhood for about six years now, but didn't really know them very well at all - just waves and nods, mostly.

So I heard the moving van pull up this morning. When I got home this evening I happened to spy my neighbor (he's like 85 years old - I don't know exactly, but he's old, talks and moves very slowly) standing on the sidewalk next to the van. I walked over and shook his hand, and we started talking. I asked him where he was moving, and he said, "Back to Germany."

I had been stationed in Germany for two years while in the military, so I lit up, and commented about how beautiful the country was, and inquired if he was going back because he missed it.

"No," he answered me. "I'm going back because I've seen this before." He then commenced to explain that when he was a kid, he watched with his family in fear as Hitler's government committed atrocity after atrocity, and no one was willing to say anything. He said the news refused to question the government, and the ones who did were not in the newspaper business much longer. He said good neighbors, people he had known all his life, turned against his family and other Jews, grabbing on to the hate and superiority "as if they were starved for it" (his words).

He said he was too old to see it happen right in front of his eyes again, and too old to do anything about it, so he was taking his family back to Europe on Thursday where they would be safe from George W. Bush and his neocons. He seemed resolute, but troubled, nonetheless, as if being too young on one end and too old on the other to fight what he saw happening was wearing on him.

I gotta tell you - it was chilling. I let him talk, and the whole time, my gut was churning, like I had mutated butterflies in my stomach. When he was finished, he shook my hand, gripping it really hard, until his knuckles turned white and he was shaking. He looked me in the eyes, hard, and said, "I will pray for your family and your country." He let go of my hand and hobbled away.

I have related this event to you in the hopes it will serve as a cautionary anecdote about the state of our Union, and to illustrate the path we Americans are being led down by a group of fanatics bent on global economic and military dominion. When a man who survived the fruits of fascism decides its time to leave THIS country because he's seeing the same patterns that led to the Holocaust and other Nazi horrors beginning to form here, it is time for us to recognize the underlying evil inherent in the actions of those who claim they work for all Americans, and for all mankind. And it is incumbent upon all Americans, Red and Blue, Republican and Democrat, to stop them.
I'm calling quasi-bulls**t. I'm quite sure the guy that wrote this was not the neighbor in this story and had no first hand knowledge of this event.

I don't doubt, however, that there are people dumb enough to behave like this.

Speaking of, where did all the democrats who vowed to leave the country if Bush won a second term wind up at? Anybody know?

As to the point of the moronic "article", I'll be first in line with a rifle if Bush doesn't leave office on the prescribed date. Until then please try and get over yourself.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2007, 08:14 AM
LMAO

One of "them" just told you that is completely irrelevant, and with no factual base you still hold on to your "sincere beliefs".
ROFL

I've provided numerous facts, that are exactly date coincident to terror coming to America and stated them over a period of time even if not here. Bush Sr made a fateful error after he drove SH from Kuwait, by establishing permenant military bases in SA. It is no coincidence that terror coming to America follows after. Even binLaden who states his motives in written messages and fatwahs says Islam is secondary. Even former CIA binLaden counter-terrorism unit agents assert this. Even Wolfowitz cheif architect of the Iraq invasion is saying the same now.

I chose the word "believe" because any solution is in the future and life never holds any guarantees. But one thing is certain: what we're doing now is not lessening it.

You need to turn in your libertarian card.
Limited govt works domestically and internationally.

Baby Lee
07-04-2007, 08:15 AM
I'm calling quasi-bulls**t. I'm quite sure the guy that wrote this was not the neighbor in this story and had no first hand knowledge of this event.
Truth is even more shocking. Turns out this was Taco John's neighbor and HE talked him into leaving.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:20 AM
You need to turn in your libertarian card.
Limited govt works domestically and internationally.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't still be over there either. I would have shown up, blown up any building that Saddam didn't let me inspect immediately, then gone home.

As for anecdotal dates, terrorists aren't nearly as concerned about specifics of date and place as we are. They just want a body count.

Is there possibly a segment of terrorists who's goal it is to get the US out of Iraq? Maybe. Who really knows? However, to believe that's the root cause off all terrorism is f**king stupid. Terrorism was going on for decades before we invaded Iraq.

My "solution" to terrorism has nothing to do with large scale military invasions of countries. Mine is centered around finding the terrorists in training using satellites, etc., then sending in the special forces to kill them all, then leaving. End of story.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:21 AM
Truth is even more shocking. Turns out this was Taco John's neighbor and HE talked him into leaving.
Taco should have gone with him.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2007, 08:23 AM
Truth is even more shocking.


It's also a matter of perception. If this is the truth then why are we losing the War on Terror? Clue: it's not the truth. It's operating on false causes. It is moral outrage and righteous, raw knee-jerk emotion. It takes two sides to cause a dispute. It will take two sides to settle it. It doesn't mean we're bad to examine flawed policy. These peope are not and never will be Ghandi. The one concession we CAN make is to get our military off their land...all of them.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:25 AM
The one concession we CAN make is to get our military off their land...all of them.
You do realize that in their mind Allah said "their land" is the entire f**king globe, right?

patteeu
07-04-2007, 08:33 AM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.

Excellent idea, General Custer.

Baby Lee
07-04-2007, 08:42 AM
It's also a matter of perception. If this is the truth then why are we losing the War on Terror? Clue: it's not the truth. It's operating on false causes. It is moral outrage and righteous, raw knee-jerk emotion. It takes two sides to cause a dispute. It will take two sides to settle it. It doesn't mean we're bad to examine flawed policy. These peope are not and never will be Ghandi. The one concession we CAN make is to get our military off their land...all of them.
ROFL - so now you'll argue with people who weren't even talking to you?

patteeu
07-04-2007, 08:45 AM
You don't have to kill all of them to stop the threat of the radical islamist ideology. You just need to kill enough of them and cause enough social pain to provide a negative example for the rest so that the appeal of the ideology is reduced. By contrast, if/when they see the US running away from islamists in Iraq, the appeal of the ideology will be enhanced.

I think one of the lessons from Iraq, should we fail to turn it around and get a pro-western democracy established there, is that we were not brutal enough in our initial invasion to deter the insurgency before it had picked up steam. Precision weapons used primarily to limit collateral damage are counterproductive, IMO. Promising to rebuild infrastructure after we destroy it is another thing I question. Sadr should have been killed early on and Fallujah should be a pile of rubble in the middle of the desert.

Simplex3
07-04-2007, 08:51 AM
You don't have to kill all of them to stop the threat of the radical islamist ideology. You just need to kill enough of them and cause enough social pain to provide a negative example for the rest so that the appeal of the ideology is reduced. By contrast, if/when they see the US running away from islamists in Iraq, the appeal of the ideology will be enhanced.

I think one of the lessons from Iraq, should we fail to turn it around and get a pro-western democracy established there, is that we were not brutal enough in our initial invasion to deter the insurgency before it had picked up steam. Precision weapons used primarily to limit collateral damage are counterproductive, IMO. Promising to rebuild infrastructure after we destroy it is another thing I question. Sadr should have been killed early on and Fallujah should be a pile of rubble in the middle of the desert.
You're facing a rhetorical war with wordsmiths the likes of which Clinton would be impressed. You aren't talking about a population that is allowed to think or that even has an education that would prepare them to do so if they became so inclined. IMO you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Whatever you do the terrorist leaders will show that as a shining example of how much you suck and how you need to be killed.

ChiefaRoo
07-04-2007, 02:22 PM
In all honesty, even if this is their goal, so what, it changes nothing. We are not going to change their beliefs nor are we going to convert all of the Islamic radicals, hell we are not even going to eliminate all of them. Nukes won't help us in this one. We have to fight a defensive battle and do all we can to prevent the acts of terrorism and to kill the perpetrators of acts that are committed. This will be a never ending effort but it is just part of the world we are living in from this point forward.


You know what Logical. I agree with what you just wrote. I've been thinking the exact same thing for the past 4 plus years. What took you so long to figure it out? I know, PC practices, your own world view and the political agenda that fits it.

We're going to be fighting these nuts for decades until they go through their own "reformation" of what it means to be a good Muslim.

Now, we can all argue about Iraq et al but I think we are already fighting a defensive war in Iraq that keeps us from fighting car bombs and crazies leaking into US and Euro cities at alarming rates around the world.

Good to see a glimmer of hope your eyes are opening but I suspect your lack of personal courage (and others like your) will simply slink back into a "if we just left them alone, they'd leave us alone mindset".

StcChief
07-04-2007, 04:08 PM
Good bye.... go back to the fatherland we won't miss you.

Cochise
07-04-2007, 05:06 PM
You don't have to kill all of them to stop the threat of the radical islamist ideology. You just need to kill enough of them and cause enough social pain to provide a negative example for the rest so that the appeal of the ideology is reduced. By contrast, if/when they see the US running away from islamists in Iraq, the appeal of the ideology will be enhanced.

I think one of the lessons from Iraq, should we fail to turn it around and get a pro-western democracy established there, is that we were not brutal enough in our initial invasion to deter the insurgency before it had picked up steam. Precision weapons used primarily to limit collateral damage are counterproductive, IMO. Promising to rebuild infrastructure after we destroy it is another thing I question. Sadr should have been killed early on and Fallujah should be a pile of rubble in the middle of the desert.

In WW2, if we were getting shot at out of a building, we'd have leveled the building.

Now we have people walking through booby-trapped doors or acting like a swat team in case there might be civilians around.

If there is no threat of civilians being harmed there is not incentive for them to reject the insurgents. However, if they knew that harboring them was likely to get your building blown up they would not be so receptive.

I don't know why we thought you could fight a PG-13 war.

Logical
07-04-2007, 06:06 PM
You know what Logical. I agree with what you just wrote. I've been thinking the exact same thing for the past 4 plus years. What took you so long to figure it out? I know, PC practices, your own world view and the political agenda that fits it.

We're going to be fighting these nuts for decades until they go through their own "reformation" of what it means to be a good Muslim.

Now, we can all argue about Iraq et al but I think we are already fighting a defensive war in Iraq that keeps us from fighting car bombs and crazies leaking into US and Euro cities at alarming rates around the world.

Good to see a glimmer of hope your eyes are opening but I suspect your lack of personal courage (and others like your) will simply slink back into a "if we just left them alone, they'd leave us alone mindset".What is amusing is that you don't know me in the least.

Logical
07-04-2007, 06:15 PM
You don't have to kill all of them to stop the threat of the radical islamist ideology. You just need to kill enough of them and cause enough social pain to provide a negative example for the rest so that the appeal of the ideology is reduced. By contrast, if/when they see the US running away from islamists in Iraq, the appeal of the ideology will be enhanced.

I think one of the lessons from Iraq, should we fail to turn it around and get a pro-western democracy established there, is that we were not brutal enough in our initial invasion to deter the insurgency before it had picked up steam. Precision weapons used primarily to limit collateral damage are counterproductive, IMO. Promising to rebuild infrastructure after we destroy it is another thing I question. Sadr should have been killed early on and Fallujah should be a pile of rubble in the middle of the desert.
I cannot believe someone as intelligent as you really believe this, I think Ugly Duck is right and you are conducting some sort of experiment.:rolleyes:

ChiefaRoo
07-04-2007, 11:16 PM
What is amusing is that you don't know me in the least.

I know what you've said in these very boards Logical. You sir are a turd of the first order.

Lets not get distracted by the issue at hand. I challenge you libs who think it is our foreign policy that causes this to re-evaluate your views. Right here is a letter from a guy who claims to have been part of the cause at one time and he lays it all out for all of us. Wake up morons!

Logical
07-04-2007, 11:19 PM
I know what you've said in these very boards Logical. You sir are a turd of the first order.

You have been around only a little over a year, I have been on the BBs with these people like DEnise for 12 years. I have been conservative to most peoples liberal in ways you can never imagine. Don't let my disdain for George Bush and the Iraq occupation fool you.

ChiefaRoo
07-04-2007, 11:22 PM
You have been around only a little over a year, I have been on the BBs with these people like DEnise for 12 years. I have been conservative to most peoples liberal in ways you can never imagine. Don't let my disdain for George Bush and the Iraq occupation fool you.

How long you've been here matters not. You may not be a liberal idiot but you many times have no idea what your talking about regarding foreign policy and America's role in the world.

Logical
07-04-2007, 11:28 PM
How long you've been here matters not. You may not be a liberal idiot but you many times have no idea what your talking about regarding foreign policy and America's role in the world.Really, well feel free to try and debate me. Pick any subject I need some entertainment.

ChiefaRoo
07-04-2007, 11:35 PM
Really, well feel free to try and debate me. Pick any subject I need some entertainment.

I'll pick the subject now but lets do it later this week. I'm tired right now and I'm afraid you'd damage my immune system with your silly words.

Subject - Why do Islamo Muslims want to kill Westerners?

Logical
07-04-2007, 11:39 PM
I'll pick the subject now but lets do it later this week. I'm tired right now and I'm afraid you'd damage my immune system with your silly words.

Subject - Why do Islamo Muslims want to kill Westerners?
We cannot debate something that is simply a fact. The simple truth of why is in the thread post, I see no reason to disagree with it.

Now we might be able to debate that they all feel the same way, that is clearly not true.

ChiefaRoo
07-04-2007, 11:44 PM
We cannot debate something that is simply a fact. The simple truth of why is in the thread post, I see no reason to disagree with it.

Now we might be able to debate that they all feel the same way, that is clearly not true.

Ok we agree then. It's not our Governments fault it's the Muslim religions fault and the extremists who act on the teachings of wahabism.

Second Subject - Do you think the Dems are strong or weak on national defense? If strong name three actions the have proposed that demonstrate this strength.

Logical
07-05-2007, 12:01 AM
Ok we agree then. It's not our Governments fault it's the Muslim religions fault and the extremists who act on the teachings of wahabism.

Second Subject - Do you think the Dems are strong or weak on national defense? If strong name three actions the have proposed that demonstrate this strength.

Yes withdrawing from the ME will not solve the problem.

Some Democrats are strong and some are weak, too lump them all into one category is wrong and counterproductive.

Hillary will be strong because she feels the pressure of being a woman who cannot be perceived as weak (much like Maggie Thatcher)

Obama likely will be perceived as weak and treated as such much like Jimmy Carter was as President.

Democrats tend to pay for technical improvements in our capabilities while reducing forces. We made huge technical leaps under Clinton for instance while our forces were being drawn down.

Interesting factoid Dems typicallly have got us into wars and Republicans in general have been in offfice to oversee our withdrawals, Korea and Vietnam prime examples.

So which Dem do you want to discuss?

Logical
07-05-2007, 12:15 AM
Another example Joe Lieberman who is more conservative than Republican Ron Paul. He is strong on defense.

MadMax
07-05-2007, 01:09 AM
Another example Joe Lieberman who is more conservative than Republican Ron Paul. He is strong on defense.

Lieberman is a good man. :thumb:

MadMax
07-05-2007, 01:13 AM
I'll pick the subject now but lets do it later this week. I'm tired right now and I'm afraid you'd damage my immune system with your silly words.

Subject - Why do Islamo Muslims want to kill Westerners?


At the risk of being flamed I'll say because their " peacefull " religeon tells them too///:/

MadMax
07-05-2007, 01:23 AM
I cannot believe someone as intelligent as you really believe this, I think Ugly Duck is right and you are conducting some sort of experiment.:rolleyes:


They only understand Force, anything less and we are weak...It really is that simple.Do you think we can negotiate with these people??? I do believe Colin Powell had it right when he said "you break it you bought it " Overwhelming force was the only option, but now it's a political nightmare as is the whole war on terror. Our forces are held to such a high standard they are sitting ducks in way too many situations.The bottom line is that the enemy does not give one shit about our rule of human decency and engagement.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2007, 01:53 AM
Another example Joe Lieberman who is more conservative than Republican Ron Paul. He is strong on defense.

As MadMax notes, Lieberman is a good man. He's not more conservative than Ron Paul, though, Logical. He's just more of an active interventionist when it comes to the War on Terror. On most other matters he's still exactly what one should expect from a Connecticut Democrat.

Ron Paul is by far the most conservative figure in popular politics these days (according to my scale). I think he'd qualify as a radical conservative if such a label isn't a contradiction in and of itself.

What he's looking to conserve is an idea that was wounded by Jefferson and Jackson, pronounced dead by Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, and ultimately buried by Franklin Roosevelt, IMO. (Before FDR could bury it forever Wilson tried to examine the seemingly dead corpse. The idea was able to fire off one last round that mortally wounded Wilson.)

Some say that Eisenhower and Reagan tried to perform seances in an effort to resurrect the idea. In any case, Ron Paul is definitely the guy who's channeling the idea now.

I'm just not convinced that the idea works anymore. When the idea was created we were dealing with powerful opponents who had been influenced to some degree or another by the Enlightenment. We're not dealing with people like that these days.

It might be time for a new idea, no matter how good the old idea used to be.

Logical
07-05-2007, 02:14 AM
Ron Paul is a radical isolationist and he definitely follows many of the precepts of libertarianism which is different than my definition of a conservative.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2007, 02:16 AM
Ron Paul is a radical isolationist and he definitely follows many of the precepts of libertarianism which is different than my definition of a conservative.

Why the hell are you still awake?

Logical
07-05-2007, 02:17 AM
Why the hell are you still awake?It is not really late here and I have Thursday and Friday off.

ClevelandBronco
07-05-2007, 02:20 AM
Ron Paul is a radical isolationist and he definitely follows many of the precepts of libertarianism which is different than my definition of a conservative.

Check out Geo. Washington's inaugural address if you want to talk about radical isolationism. That part of the idea has been in place from the beginning.

Also, IMO, Logical, our Constitution is very much a libertarian document. (Note the small "l" in "libertarian." I'm not talking about the party, but the philosophy.)

EDIT: "orf" is probably not a word.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 07:49 AM
Ron Paul is a radical isolationist and he definitely follows many of the precepts of libertarianism which is different than my definition of a conservative.
He's more a "paleo-conservative" style libertarian....iow's he's not an anarchist like many of them who prefer something like the Articles of Confederation or no govt and no borders.

He fully supports our Constitution, as it was intended and written as well as our national sovereignty.

He is NOT "radical" isolationist; he only seems that way because we are so promiscously interventionistic today. Today's modern mind-set is still very big govt, even today's so-called moderates advocate and support some very big govt and even socialistic policies. You yourself, have the notion that we should knock down rogue states whether or not a threat. You also feel we have a right to knock them down and leave them to pick-up the pieces. So I can see why you'd consider him an "radical" isolationist. It's really a matter of perspective, that he is a "radical" isolationist. Don't forget our Founding Fathers were once considered radicals.

BucEyedPea
07-05-2007, 08:34 AM
Some say that Eisenhower and Reagan tried to perform seances in an effort to resurrect the idea. In any case, Ron Paul is definitely the guy who's channeling the idea now.
LMAO Cute NewAge rhetoric there CB!

I'm just not convinced that the idea works anymore. When the idea was created we were dealing with powerful opponents who had been influenced to some degree or another by the Enlightenment. We're not dealing with people like that these days.
Ye of little faith in liberty via limited govt. It only works if you apply it consistently. The only reason it appears to not work anymore is because big govt has seduced the people, corrupted it's responsibility level or changed it's pov regarding the world, imo. That includes the demagogues that are pretty much our rank and file leaders today as well as those who want to use govt for their own pet projects. To these types it doesn't work anymore. New ideas have a way of creating the changes in the people you say prevent the idea of liberty working. So yeah the people are different. But then again, new ideas (many of which are recycled under new labels) could change the people again as well.

Unfortunately, govt's nature is to grow and meddle....it's just that it should grow proportionately so the center would still hold. You know that center our Founders gave us but which is now well to the left today. The center that was a 50% balance of liberty and govt. Not anarchy, not monarchy and certainly not dictatorship.

It might be time for a new idea, no matter how good the old idea used to be.
Haven't you noticed how liberty has ebbed and flowed throughout history though? :hmmm:

ChiefaRoo
07-05-2007, 11:38 AM
Another example Joe Lieberman who is more conservative than Republican Ron Paul. He is strong on defense.

Ron Paul is a crank.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:41 AM
I don't know why we thought you could fight a PG-13 war.

Nice description. LOL

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:46 AM
They only understand Force, anything less and we are weak...It really is that simple.Do you think we can negotiate with these people??? I do believe Colin Powell had it right when he said "you break it you bought it " Overwhelming force was the only option, but now it's a political nightmare as is the whole war on terror. Our forces are held to such a high standard they are sitting ducks in way too many situations.The bottom line is that the enemy does not give one shit about our rule of human decency and engagement.

I don't agree with Colin Powell's catchphrase, generally speaking. I think it made sense to try to establish a friendly democracy in Iraq, but in the future in some circumstances, we need to be willing to punish countries that intentionally act against our interests without the promise that we will rebuild them better than before.

patteeu
07-05-2007, 11:49 AM
He is NOT "radical" isolationist;...

He's a neo-isolationist. :p

If it weren't for that, I agree with Cleveland that he's very conservative. In fact, I think he's the most conservative elected politician in Washington DC, by far.