Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never meant you in person but there are a lot of people out there with hardcore views, be it left or right. People who you cannot get a word in edgewise when discussing issues.

I'd say so. This seems pretty hardcore to me:

The policy is quite simple. Kidnap and kill our children again and we blow up your entire city. Even an idiot can understand that concept of consequence for one's actions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"They only understand the language of violence..." Is Rudyard Kipling running our foreign policy now?

Well then why don't you and your liberal buddies go and have a talk with Osama and anyone else currently using violence to get their way. Maybe you can prove me wrong and show me how diplomacy works with people adamant on killing..

I realize you're mostly talking to yourself here, but no one is advocating pacifism only, just that saying 'if you kill an American child we'll nuke your town' isn't going to make Osama slap his head and say 'oh! that's what I needed to behave.'

Quite the opposite...

[DeadPoolX 9]

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

It worked in Japan. Of course thousands of people died, but it did work.

Very different situation, a nuke at the end of a world war that had drained Japan versus a nuke to.... help liberate the Iraqis?

The reason for dropping a nuke is moot. The outcome would be the same.

No, Caladan is right.

Our goal in Iraq was to "liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein's totalitarian regime" and to "set up a democratic country." I don't see how launching nuclear weaponry at them would do any of that. True, we wouldn't have the hassle of being in Iraq anymore, but we would've just obliterated those we came to save in the first place.

Besides, the real war in Iraq isn't being fought with guns, missiles and bombs. The weapons of choice there is public relations, and unfortunately, we're losing that battle terribly. We're doing just fine elsewhere (when push comes to shove, the U.S. military can and does kill the terrorists), but just showing military might won't win over the "hearts and minds" of a foreign people.

This proved to be the case with the South Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The U.S. military did an outstanding job of fighting off the enemy and, from the sources I've picked up, didn't even lose one battle. However, because the U.S. lost the public relations war with both the South Vietnamese and most Americans back home, the entire conflict was deemed a complete failure.

The bottom line? You simply cannot win a war without the support of the people. You need your own people backing you and, if you're attempting to help another group, they have to be behind your efforts as well. Otherwise, your actions are doomed from the start.

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

Iraq would be better if we nuked Iran.

I don't really think that'd be the case. Sure, Iran probably wouldn't be much of a threat after having tons of nuclear ordinance dropped on it, but there's the aftermath to consider. What about radiation? A nuclear winter? All of that could adversely affect Iraq in many ways. It wouldn't do Iraq a whole lot of good to have Iran gone if radiation leaked over from Iran and poisoned Iraqis, now would it?

In addition, if the U.S. were to nuke Iran, there's little chance of it staying a secret for long, so there's a number of things that could occur...

• A mass exodus of Iranians into neighboring countries, including Iraq. This would make the nuclear bombardment virtually pointless, as it would only do structural damage, and you don't really need something as high-powered as a nuke for that. The people would be elsewhere.
• Since the people would be hiding out in other countries, there's a very high probability that many of them would want revenge on the United States for destroying their homes, killing off anyone they knew who didn't escape (and their countrymen in general), and above all, their life in general.
• Iran is working on getting nuclear weaponry, specifically inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and should they have any that are operative by the time the U.S. should ever put this plan into action, Iran would use whatever they have to strike out in whatever way they could -- if their ICBMs couldn't reach the U.S., then they'd most likely target Israel, since it'd be their last chance to do so, it's a close ally of the U.S., and they hate it anyway.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that there are strategically placed cells camped within the U.S., which he would order to attack in whatever ways possible should the U.S. launch a strike against Iran. No one knows if he is bluffing or not, but if he's not, then there could be numerous American civilian lives lost during a potentially useless assault on Iran.

So as you can see, nuking Iran probably isn't the best idea.

"They only understand the language of violence..." Is Rudyard Kipling running our foreign policy now?

Well then why don't you and your liberal buddies go and have a talk with Osama and anyone else currently using violence to get their way. Maybe you can prove me wrong and show me how diplomacy works with people adamant on killing..

I realize you're mostly talking to yourself here, but no one is advocating pacifism only, just that saying 'if you kill an American child we'll nuke your town' isn't going to make Osama slap his head and say 'oh! that's what I needed to behave.'

I don't think Osama bin Laden really gives a ###### about his "fellow Muslims" any more than he does about us "infidels." He's just using the whole "Islam vs Christianity & Judaism" issue to spark tensions and get blood boiling in his own people, so they'll rally behind him and "go off to kill the Westerners in the name of Allah."

If anything, I think he wants to hide behind Islam and get his people to form terrorist cells. This way, these new groups can wear away at the U.S. and distract us from whatever it is OBL is actually doing. After all, it's difficult to concentrate on finding someone as elusive as he is when you've got terrorist factions all around you, constantly firing and setting off car bombs everyday. So perhaps OBL is just biding his time. We know he's extremely patient (far more than than the average American) and is just waiting for the right time, when the U.S. feels weak, exhausted, and sick to death of all the fighting -- he strikes again! If you really stop and think about it, that make sense. It'd hurt us more that way.

OBL doesn't want Islam. He wants the world his way, end of story. He'll use whatever means necessary and justify those means by using whatever and whoever he has to in order to achieve them.

[Heracles 417]

I never meant you in person but there are a lot of people out there with hardcore views, be it left or right. People who you cannot get a word in edgewise when discussing issues.

I'd say so. This seems pretty hardcore to me:

The policy is quite simple. Kidnap and kill our children again and we blow up your entire city. Even an idiot can understand that concept of consequence for one's actions.

I stand by my suggestion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. We are dealing with people who work under the radar. Yet our armed forces are expected to use and abide by conventional rules and warfare strategies to beat them. Rules created for trench warfare should not apply when dealing with insurgents. It is time we change the rules of the game to suit ourselves. That is, in the same way the terrorists change the rules of the game to suit themselves. If you don't understand that. What can I say. Go blog about it..

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

Iraq would be better if we nuked Iran.

Iran's interference is a whole other issue I am sure many will conveniently avoid. Iran has a lot to gain from Iraq failing.

[Heracles 417]

I don't think Osama bin Laden really gives a ###### about his "fellow Muslims" any more than he does about us "infidels." He's just using the whole "Islam vs Christianity & Judaism" issue to spark tensions and get blood boiling in his own people, so they'll rally behind him and "go off to kill the Westerners in the name of Allah."

If anything, I think he wants to hide behind Islam and get his people to form terrorist cells. This way, these new groups can wear away at the U.S. and distract us from whatever it is OBL is actually doing. After all, it's difficult to concentrate on finding someone as elusive as he is when you've got terrorist factions all around you, constantly firing and setting off car bombs everyday. So perhaps OBL is just biding his time. We know he's extremely patient (far more than than the average American) and is just waiting for the right time, when the U.S. feels weak, exhausted, and sick to death of all the fighting -- he strikes again! If you really stop and think about it, that make sense. It'd hurt us more that way.

OBL doesn't want Islam. He wants the world his way, end of story. He'll use whatever means necessary and justify those means by using whatever and whoever he has to in order to achieve them.

Sept 11 showed us that his words and ambitions should not be taken lightly or for granted.

[mRx 16]

Do you think Iraq would be going better now if we'd nuked Baghdad?

Iraq would be better if we nuked Iran.

I don't really think that'd be the case. Sure, Iran probably wouldn't be much of a threat after having tons of nuclear ordinance dropped on it, but there's the aftermath to consider. What about radiation? A nuclear winter? All of that could adversely affect Iraq in many ways. It wouldn't do Iraq a whole lot of good to have Iran gone if radiation leaked over from Iran and poisoned Iraqis, now would it?

In addition, if the U.S. were to nuke Iran, there's little chance of it staying a secret for long, so there's a number of things that could occur...

• A mass exodus of Iranians into neighboring countries, including Iraq. This would make the nuclear bombardment virtually pointless, as it would only do structural damage, and you don't really need something as high-powered as a nuke for that. The people would be elsewhere.
• Since the people would be hiding out in other countries, there's a very high probability that many of them would want revenge on the United States for destroying their homes, killing off anyone they knew who didn't escape (and their countrymen in general), and above all, their life in general.
• Iran is working on getting nuclear weaponry, specifically inter-continental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and should they have any that are operative by the time the U.S. should ever put this plan into action, Iran would use whatever they have to strike out in whatever way they could -- if their ICBMs couldn't reach the U.S., then they'd most likely target Israel, since it'd be their last chance to do so, it's a close ally of the U.S., and they hate it anyway.
• Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that there are strategically placed cells camped within the U.S., which he would order to attack in whatever ways possible should the U.S. launch a strike against Iran. No one knows if he is bluffing or not, but if he's not, then there could be numerous American civilian lives lost during a potentially useless assault on Iran.

So as you can see, nuking Iran probably isn't the best idea.

The war on terror cannot be fought only from Iraq, neither can the mission to mold Iraq into a democracy, when foreign fighters cross into Iraq from Iran on a daily basis. Not only are Jihadis joining up to fight from Iran, but they also have brought new weaponry. Explosivley formed penetrators are the new rave when it comes to IEDs. EFPs are devastating, I have seen the destruction that they cause, and investigations believe that they are being imported directly from Iran. There are multiple supply lines of arms/personnel feeding into Iraq from neighboring countries. These facts cannot be discarded.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I stand by my suggestion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. We are dealing with people who work under the radar. Yet our armed forces are expected to use and abide by conventional rules and warfare strategies to beat them. Rules created for trench warfare should not apply when dealing with insurgents. It is time we change the rules of the game to suit ourselves. That is, in the same way the terrorists change the rules of the game to suit themselves. If you don't understand that. What can I say. Go blog about it..

Its not a question of understanding it - the suggestion that an entire city should be destroyed as a retaliative act for something like the Beslan shooting is unspeakably terrible. If you stand by that view - Kudos to you, but I think its time you put on some jackboots and a red armband.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Several people have now made the point that wars like this cannot be won, and a stable governmental structure cannot be built without the investment and cooperation of the local population. Essentially you have suggested that we should toss all that out of the window and not give a toss about civilian casualities, in fact - we should actively blast the hell out of an entire city regardless of how many men, women and children live there. And you're justifying all this on the basis that just because 'they' do it, it somehow justifies 'us' following suit. Simply put, its nuts.

You were born in the wrong era my friend - that idea would have gone down a treat in the dark ages. Rape and pillage? Boo Yah's yer man!

[Hematoma 0]

The war on terror cannot be fought only from Iraq, neither can the mission to mold Iraq into a democracy, when foreign fighters cross into Iraq from Iran on a daily basis. Not only are Jihadis joining up to fight from Iran, but they also have brought new weaponry. Explosivley formed penetrators are the new rave when it comes to IEDs. EFPs are devastating, I have seen the destruction that they cause, and investigations believe that they are being imported directly from Iran. There are multiple supply lines of arms/personnel feeding into Iraq from neighboring countries. These facts cannot be discarded.

This is a interesting comment. It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

Yeah.... Ahmadinejad would get up on a podium, point to the smoking crater and twisted bodies and say that everything he's been telling his people is right. And with the evidence of their eyes why would they have reason to disbelieve him?

[Heracles 417]

I stand by my suggestion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. We are dealing with people who work under the radar. Yet our armed forces are expected to use and abide by conventional rules and warfare strategies to beat them. Rules created for trench warfare should not apply when dealing with insurgents. It is time we change the rules of the game to suit ourselves. That is, in the same way the terrorists change the rules of the game to suit themselves. If you don't understand that. What can I say. Go blog about it..

Its not a question of understanding it - the suggestion that an entire city should be destroyed as a retaliative act for something like the Beslan shooting is unspeakably terrible. If you stand by that view - Kudos to you, but I think its time you put on some jackboots and a red armband.

That was an example of linking actions to consequences. I am definitely not going to wait for people like yourself to protect me or the most vulnerable, the children, in our countries.

PS You right though we should use other more civil means to punish anyone caught committing such atrocities. Such as forcing them to read liberal text books or blogs. They'll want to kill themselves after a few hours of that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I stand by my suggestion. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. We are dealing with people who work under the radar. Yet our armed forces are expected to use and abide by conventional rules and warfare strategies to beat them. Rules created for trench warfare should not apply when dealing with insurgents. It is time we change the rules of the game to suit ourselves. That is, in the same way the terrorists change the rules of the game to suit themselves. If you don't understand that. What can I say. Go blog about it..

Its not a question of understanding it - the suggestion that an entire city should be destroyed as a retaliative act for something like the Beslan shooting is unspeakably terrible. If you stand by that view - Kudos to you, but I think its time you put on some jackboots and a red armband.

That was an example of linking actions to consequences. I am definitely not going to wait for people like yourself to protect me or the most vulnerable, the children, in our countries.

PS You right though we should use other more civil means to punish anyone caught committing such atrocities. Such as forcing them to read liberal text books or blogs. They'll want to kill themselves after a few hours of that.

That's twice you brought it up - once as a general statement, and again in specific reference for what the Russians should have done to Chechnya. I think the US is fine the way it is (for all its flaws) and doesn't need to emulate the countries and regimes that it despises...

[Hematoma 0]

It would be rather interesting to see a couple special forces teams go into Iran and use these very same tactics on them. Every time a IED is set off in Iraq, one follows on the streets of Tehran. I wonder if they would get the hint.

Yeah.... Ahmadinejad would get up on a podium, point to the smoking crater and twisted bodies and say that everything he's been telling his people is right. And with the evidence of their eyes why would they have reason to disbelieve him?

Awwww but the opposite could also occur, the common folk just might blame him.

[Heracles 417]

Several people have now made the point that wars like this cannot be won, and a stable governmental structure cannot be built without the investment and cooperation of the local population. Essentially you have suggested that we should toss all that out of the window and not give a toss about civilian casualities, in fact - we should actively blast the hell out of an entire city regardless of how many men, women and children live there. And you're justifying all this on the basis that just because 'they' do it, it somehow justifies 'us' following suit. Simply put, its nuts.

You were born in the wrong era my friend - that idea would have gone down a treat in the dark ages. Rape and pillage? Boo Yah's yer man!

How can the local population cooperate when they are threatened daily. Or when they watch and read how the left is constantly talking about a withdrawal and basically abandoning them there. Gezz what a great motivation. More of that positive stuff so many on the left talk about..

PS The people who do not give a ###### about civilians are the insurgents and terrorists, not the western forces..