Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

here's a quote from wikipedia, aka the number 6 reference system

Come on now Charles - everyone and their mother uses Wikipedia, there's nothing wrong with it - especially when the points made in the articles can be verified by hyperlinked references.

Still there's always Conservapedia - but I think that speaks for itself.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

Personally I do not agree with anyone living in a nation, feeding off it, prospering off it etc; Then only to turn around to dis it and hate everything about it. The founders intended on this country being a place for people who wanted a better life. A place where people where allowed to voice their opinion. Not a place where someone can live off yet absolutely hate it and dis it 24/7. As I said before. There is a fine line between opinion to pure ignorant hatred.

What I do agree with is that the US should keep to itself and not spend anymore time, money, resources or lives on other countries issues. Let the UN or some other country deal with places like Dafur; Which you know absolutely nothing will be done. Or while the UN debates it thousands of people continue to be butchered daily.

i dont think that anyone here is 'dissing' or 'hating' everything about the US 24/7...i cant say that for sure, but as for me, thats not the case

yes, my grandparents came to this country in search of a better life, and i am glad that they did so...however, if there is something (such as a war, perhaps) that i feel might contribute to the decline of this country, then i am going to speak out about it

i think it is very dangerous for people to blindly follow the leadership of ANYTHING...church, government, teachers, anything...i will never apologize for questioning authority and thinking for myself

there is also a fine line between opinion and ignorant, blind nationalism

[SteveLaura 0]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

Absolutely! I don't understand why the US allowed the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr & his uppity ilk to change the country. Hey, you boy! Move to Europe!

Of course, the suffragette movement was really the instigator. *shakes head, looks back to good ole days*

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

Absolutely! I don't understand why the US allowed the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr & his uppity ilk to change the country. Hey, you boy! Move to Europe!

Of course, the suffragette movement was really the instigator. *shakes head, looks back to good ole days*

Moreover, if you took out those political movements that are considered objectionable would the country that's left be something that someone would want to live in? I'm not so sure...

[Heracles 417]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

Absolutely! I don't understand why the US allowed the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr & his uppity ilk to change the country. Hey, you boy! Move to Europe!

Of course, the suffragette movement was really the instigator. *shakes head, looks back to good ole days*

Maybe you can show me where King constantly dissed the nation and showed pure hatred for it??????????

From what I understood he wanted to unit the nation to make it a better place. He never just bagged the ###### out of it yet continued to live here, like many now do. Hence, again, why I previously said there is a fine line between suggesting change for the better to downright criticizing a nation..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

Absolutely! I don't understand why the US allowed the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr & his uppity ilk to change the country. Hey, you boy! Move to Europe!

Of course, the suffragette movement was really the instigator. *shakes head, looks back to good ole days*

Maybe you can show me where King constantly dissed the nation and showed pure hatred for it??????????

From what I understood he wanted to unit the nation to make it a better place. He never just bagged the ###### out of it yet continued to live here, like many now do. Hence, again, why I previously said there is a fine line between suggesting change for the better to downright criticizing a nation..

When your arguments rely on spurious grand narratives (like “kids of today are so screwed up”, "things were so much better prior to 1960"), you can’t really be surprised when people question your assumptions...

[Caladan 19]

If you don't think that MLK Jr. criticized the country you haven't read his speeches. Mistaking criticism for hatred is a rookie mistake.

[Heracles 417]

Any way respected you know your stuff too. Im done with this topic. It was interesting. Peace.

It is just amazing how someone can show so much conviction against the US while completely turning a blind eye to the people actually doing the killings. The people actually blowing up cars near schools, in marketplaces and densely populated areas. While the US may have brought these guys out of the woodworks, they are not responsible for their actions. The US is trying to setup a democratic government there after toppling Saddam regime. The same regime that approximately 2,000,000 people died under..

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is just amazing how someone can show so much conviction against the US while completely turning a blind eye to the people actually doing the killings. The people actually blowing up cars near schools, in marketplaces and densely populated areas. While the US may have brought these guys out of the woodworks, they are not responsible for their actions. The US is trying to setup a democratic government there after toppling Saddam regime. The same regime that approximately 2,000,000 people died under..

The same government they propped up during the 70's and 80s'...? Surely not...

[Heracles 417]

If I personally disagreed with a country's policies and its government, which represents a nation, so much I would move elsewhere. We are not under communism. People are free to move to a nation where people have more like-minded views. Win Win for everyone. There are a lot of other nations out there with different views.

Absolutely! I don't understand why the US allowed the Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jnr & his uppity ilk to change the country. Hey, you boy! Move to Europe!

Of course, the suffragette movement was really the instigator. *shakes head, looks back to good ole days*

Maybe you can show me where King constantly dissed the nation and showed pure hatred for it??????????

From what I understood he wanted to unit the nation to make it a better place. He never just bagged the ###### out of it yet continued to live here, like many now do. Hence, again, why I previously said there is a fine line between suggesting change for the better to downright criticizing a nation..

When your arguments rely on spurious grand narratives (like “kids of today are so screwed upâ€, "things were so much better prior to 1960"), you can’t really be surprised when people question your assumptions...

Number 6 I don't have time to write things to a fifth grade level or explaining it in detail for some on VJ to understand. The first statement you pointed out applied here where I can see a huge difference in kids; in contrast to where I was raised. As well as other factors such as the difference between kids in LA to the east coast raised kids. Even then you have your Jersey kids to your Georgia kids, who are also quite different.

The second point is also my opinion. So if you don't agree with it tough ######..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

It is just amazing how someone can show so much conviction against the US while completely turning a blind eye to the people actually doing the killings. The people actually blowing up cars near schools, in marketplaces and densely populated areas. While the US may have brought these guys out of the woodworks, they are not responsible for their actions. The US is trying to setup a democratic government there after toppling Saddam regime. The same regime that approximately 2,000,000 people died under..

The same government they propped up during the 70's and 80s'...? Surely not...

I wonder why they propped them up in the 80's. Maybe, just maybe it was because they where fighting against a nation that had held US citizens hostage...

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is just amazing how someone can show so much conviction against the US while completely turning a blind eye to the people actually doing the killings. The people actually blowing up cars near schools, in marketplaces and densely populated areas. While the US may have brought these guys out of the woodworks, they are not responsible for their actions. The US is trying to setup a democratic government there after toppling Saddam regime. The same regime that approximately 2,000,000 people died under..

The same government they propped up during the 70's and 80s'...? Surely not...

I wonder why they propped them up in the 80's. Maybe, just maybe it was because they where fighting against a nation that had held US citizens hostage...

That would be the country whose democratically elected government the CIA deposed in 1953.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Number 6 I don't have time to write things to a fifth grade level or explaining it in detail for some on VJ to understand.

I read those sweeping statements and see a fifth grade rationale behind them... I wouldn't delude yourself that those generalities are 1) profound and 2) qualifiable.

[Heracles 417]

Holy #######!!

This thread really took off, didn't it? Wow...

Just because the other side isn't part of it, doesn't release us from our responsibilities under the Geneva convention.

But because we are a state, and part of international law, our actions within those laws can affect our relationships with other countries. We take out the nukes? there will be hell to pay. Not only that, you will basically destroy relationships with any Arab country, which will cut us off for significant supplies of oil. An action that would have costs beyond the battlefield.

Any significant action in violation of international law on our part will have repercussions all across the middle east, and likely the world.

This is why I feel that the United States -- and Western Society in general -- will lose the battle against Islamic terrorism. As despicable as it sounds, and as much as I dislike saying it, if we're not ready and willing to "go all the way" in this war, then we have no business waging it in the first place. We were prepared to do this in previous wars, so why not now? What happened? What's changed? Where has America gone wrong?

When fighting an enemy that is not a recognized nation with a standing army (with no uniforms and purposefully blends into the civilian populace), and therefore not part of the "international community" (answering to no one in it), and has never even come close to signing a document like the Geneva Convention, a country that fits all of the above cannot realistically expect to fight this enemy on a level playing ground. Not if they want to win.

This is the dilemma the United States faces today. As one of the most recognizable (if not the most recognizable) country on the planet and as the world's only surviving "superpower" from the Cold War era, it's expected to behave in a certain manner during war. This includes fighting terrorists who break every rule in the book. The problem with that idea is that the terrorist factions know this, and because they know this, they use it to their advantage and attempt to kill off (or otherwise severely injure) American soldiers anyway they can, knowing that there's only so much the soldiers can do since they're restricted by a code only they have to adhere to while in battle.

A similar scenario developed way back in the late 18th century. Thirteen rebellious colonies decided (for various reasons, such as the "tea tax" and "stamp tax" or the outright refusal for fair representation in Parliament) they wanted to teach the British Empire a lesson, with some even calling for a complete split from the mother country. Obviously, Great Britain didn't find this too amusing (especially when the colonists began using force), so the British Army and Navy were called in to derail the rebellion before it went too far.

At this time in history, the British had the world's most powerful and most efficient military; Britain's army and navy was truly the "best of the best." So why did it fail? Well, partially because the British didn't take the colonists seriously ("They're only farmers and merchants, for God's sake, man! What can they do against professional soldiers?") until it was too late to recoup their loses, but mostly it was because the British military had a strict by-the-book doctrine for warfare which they were trained for and were going to use, because "that's how proper a military fought."

Of course, the British military was far better trained than the colonial militias and so it would've been suicide for the colonists to meet the British out on the field, face-to-face, marching towards each other with rifles leveled and firing in turns. The American Revolution would've been over pretty damn quickly if that had happened. So what the colonists did was take a different tactic -- guerrilla warfare. Many of the colonists in the militias had fought for the British during the French and Indian War and had experience dealing with Native Americans on their own as well, so they knew something of this run-and-gun form of fighting, which was great to use on an enemy when you're outnumbered and your technology doesn't compare.

In the end, the colonists won and eventually set up the nation of the United States of America. We all know this. But I feel the primary reason the British military lost to the colonial militias was because they refused to toss the rulebook away and fight the enemy on their own terms. The British couldn't (or wouldn't) understand that their enemy was simply not going to fight them according to "the way wars were supposed to be fought" at the time, and therefore, the British needed to adapt in order to emerge victorious. Instead, they relied on their smug feelings of superiority, their higher level of training, and overall greater technology.

They still lost.

Does any of that sound the least bit familiar to anyone here? At all? If not, think for a little bit. It might come to you.

People don't seem to get stuff like this. They have no issue with the other side using any means necessary to win but have a huge problem with the army doing the same.

[Fandango 1,439]

Re: the Iraq war, I see a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking here.

The bottom line is AT THE TIME, there was all sorts of evidence about Iraq being a threat. For years! in fact check some out here:

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm <----check many of those dates when the statements were made.

Or check this out.

Either Bush is a gormless idiot or an evil mastermind capable of time travel, but he can't be both.

I am thankful that the US acted on these threats at the time. The threat was too great to ignore. In 98 it was the 'GREATEST SECURITY THREAT' to the US. Why the GREATEST SECURITY THREAT was ignored for so long is astounding. There was a lot more to protecting our country than just changing policy on Iraq to 'regime change' in 98. Yep, REGIME CHANGE. And that doesn't happen with a 'hey btw, would you mind stepping down' memo....

Iraq didn't need to be tied to 9/11....SH ignoring the terms of Desert Storm ceasefire were enough of a reason to invade. I do think Bush made an error with attempting to tie it into 9/11...but 9/11 was the catalyst to say 'hey, we're not gonna sit around like a lame duck and wait to be attacked again.' And we can all rewrite history all we want, but that really doesn't change the facts....and should anyone care to sift through the HEAPS of public information concerning Iraq and the lead up to this war - all throughout the 90s even - well, then your eyes will truly be open. Instead of blindly following the pied piper who's sellin a load of bull$hit.

Edited September 13, 2007 by LisaD