Muslim extremism. Do they know something we don't?

Innocents, yes, but if they supply support to Islamic terrorists, then they are no longer innocents. The safety of children and non combatants resides on the people who put them in danger.

An example, a village in upper Taliban land, where not one of the members, all believers in the Islamic religion, do not supply or support the Taliban terrorists in any way or form. The chances of them being killed by the American army are nil. There is no reason for the USA to kill them.

If the Taliban Terrorists come begging for support, then the village has two choices, give support and take the death from the USA drones, or report these Terrorists to the US Army so that they can help get rid of them.

What this leads to is who is in fact right, and clearly the US/Western way has more to offer mankind that the myth that Islam burdens it's believers with.

Yes, when an armed group of men comes to your for "aid", you can refuse and they will leave you alone to go about your business.

Anyone not involved as a military combatant is an innocent. Just because a family member is, doesn't make you one. By your logic if one of your cousins killed my family member, I could go and kill you and that would be justice.

Thats screwed up.

Second, the US way of life was about freedom of the individual, not interfering, self-defense (Not attack), live your life the way you choose as long as you don't interfere with others.

That has become so warped that now you are pushing Western Values on the Middle East, because some Muslims want to push Islamic values on the Western.

You are such a hypocrite its scary.

By your definition anyone who carries arms against the U.S. is a terrorist. So if a U.S. wanted to break into my home illegally, and I wanted to defend my home I would be a terrorist?

Besides children are being killed. You cannot argue little girls running around with teddy bears are enemy combatants because they are Muslim.

So then by your reasoning, someone should step in and kill all Americans because innocents are being killed by them. Then that country will of course have killed innocents, and someone has to kill them.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the last country standing would be the one who doesn't go around trying to effect some kind of warped justice.

Thus I say again, non-intervention wins.
 
Thus I say again, non-intervention wins.

No I think it allows the evils to continue, unchecked. Which is what Islam needs to keep going. Keep their believers dumb, because it allows them to control them easier. An educated populace is a dangerous populace, dangerous to those who would control a people.

If you want freedom, then you have to show that you deserve it, you must work for it. Freedom is expensive, but worthwhile.
 
So you can only be free if you oppress others?

All I am asking is to apply your logic to America.
 
There is no more Nazi Germany, we got rid of it. No More Cold War MAD option, we realise that is not a workable solution. And yes, brat kid is equal to extremist muslims. How many Israel suicide bombers are there, it's a staple of the muslim diet. Convert, Tax or Kill. Jews do not hold that system, no other people hold that system, only the muslims. Jew whacko's get restrained by Jews,

I have yet to hear of a muslim believer who says the prophet was wrong in saying that the faithful must Convert, Tax or Kill unbelievers.

And to counter ahead of time, you are the Koran reader, you look it up.
Excellent post
 
So we are obligated to step in when we see evil being done?

Who interprets what is evil? Couldn't some people see your intervention as an evil act of aggression in itself and step in themselves, further escalating conflict?

Scared of an escalation? Best to bend over and let them them chop that head off without a life lost...oops, you know what I mean? Criminals/Rapists/murderers expect you not to escalate the violence. Turns out they are more scared of it...


Its not the Jews... its the Zionist jews, not the Orthodox jews, the Zionist jews...

And why is that?
If its only a few million Muslims being opressed the others should just shut up right?
Like the Jewish people Muslims also have a brotherhood that expands international lines, even if we do fight with each other theres the common enemy that we as Muslims will all stand up against.
And for that this war will never end.

Yep, since I won't let someone chop off my head unless I convert. Eternity sounds fair...

So you have no problem if I decide to do my part against Muslim and no employ or deal with any Muslim run organisation. If I decide to send funds to support people who do physical harm to Muslims and their supporters. Because that is what you are supporting and I can not see why I should not be allowed similar rights. In fact I don't need to ask your towel-headed opinion on this, I can just go ahead and do it, just like you have.

;)

Well they don't want to restrict their own members, so yes, it's up to us to do it.

If you have a restaurant, and a family comes in with a brat, who starts to break cups and plates, you will chuck the whole family out, not just the brat. Similar to muslims, if they don't control their own, they all must off.

;)

So by that very analogy there should be no Germany. The USA should be invaded because of the Atomic Bomb aswell.

Please controlling a kid in a restaurant is miles apart from controlling human beings in a wide area. Even Israel have their wackos.

It's that itty bitty little titty ache of a threat against the life of anyone not willing to convert. Kinda makes people want to kill the converter...Ya know what I mean?

There is no more Nazi Germany, we got rid of it. No More Cold War MAD option, we realise that is not a workable solution. And yes, brat kid is equal to extremist muslims. How many Israel suicide bombers are there, it's a staple of the muslim diet. Convert, Tax or Kill. Jews do not hold that system, no other people hold that system, only the muslims. Jew whacko's get restrained by Jews,

I have yet to hear of a muslim believer who says the prophet was wrong in saying that the faithful must Convert, Tax or Kill unbelievers.

And to counter ahead of time, you are the Koran reader, you look it up.

;)
 
Scared of an escalation? Best to bend over and let them them chop that head off without a life lost...oops, you know what I mean? Criminals/Rapists/murderers expect you not to escalate the violence. Turns out they are more scared of it...

I was referring to killing innocent people. Many woman and children have died as a result from both sides. They cannot be blindly regarded as enemy combatants.

Can't a neutral Muslim interpret the killing of innocent Muslims as an act of aggression/war against Muslims and then seek retribution, just as the U.S. interpreted the killing of innocents in 9/11 as an act of war?

I have no problem bringing the perpetrators to justice. Just as I have no problem if a guy jumps onto your property and you shooting him. As far as I'm concerned, the guy trespassing thinks property rights (Which include ones body) don't apply to him, so when you shoot him, it is not an illegimate act of aggression as property rights don't apply to the intruder(And he decided this by trespassing). I don't think killing someone is necessary when someone trespasses, so the limit to how I am allowed to defend my property can be imposed. If injuring someone is necessary then thats legitimate. If killing someone is necessary than thats legitimate.

Although the law doesn't technically allow this.

I do have a problem killing innocents in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

If someone harms your family members, do you think you should be allowed to harm his family members/community/church group in order to exact some kind of "justice".
 
Last edited:
I was referring to killing innocent people. Many woman and children have died as a result from both sides. They cannot be blindly regarded as enemy combatants.
The major difference is that the Islamists target innocent people, whereas the NATO forces do their best to avoid civilian casualties.
Can't a neutral Muslim interpret the killing of innocent Muslims as an act of aggression/war against Muslims and then seek retribution, just as the U.S. interpreted the killing of innocents in 9/11 as an act of war?
They exists?
I have no problem bringing the perpetrators to justice. Just as I have no problem if a guy jumps onto your property and you shooting him. As far as I'm concerned, the guy trespassing thinks property rights (Which include ones body) don't apply to him, so when you shoot him, it is not an illegimate act of aggression as property rights don't apply to the intruder(And he decided this by trespassing). I don't think killing someone is necessary when someone trespasses, so the limit to how I am allowed to defend my property can be imposed. If injuring someone is necessary then thats legitimate. If killing someone is necessary than thats legitimate.

Although the law doesn't technically allow this.

I do have a problem killing innocents in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

If someone harms your family members, do you think you should be allowed to harm his family members/community/church group in order to exact some kind of "justice".

Now, if that trespasser got away after raping and killing your family, and his mates were protecting him in their hideout, then I'm sure you'll feel justified in taking the b@stard and his friends out destroying their hideout.


If countries (shirtholes) like Afghanistan, allow Islamic terrorists to setup bases within their borders, the NATO forces will go in there and "kick ass" (aka "make war") with the Islamic terrorists.
And as can be seen in Pakistain, where they just don't have the resources, or possibly the inclination, to get rid of the Islamic terrorists, the US will help them out with Drones.
 
The major difference is that the Islamists target innocent people, whereas the NATO forces do their best to avoid civilian casualties.

Now, if that trespasser got away after raping and killing your family, and his mates were protecting him in their hideout, then I'm sure you'll feel justified in taking the b@stard and his friends out destroying their hideout.

Ok, if someone has wronged me, I'll do my best not to kill innocents when shooting at him, but if a stray bullet does find the head of one of your family members, tough takkies.

As for "helping" the criminals. I would have to prove it. You cannot shoot/torture people who might be innocent, unless you are willing to go to jail if they are innocent. As you would've then committed a crime.

The U.S as well as others do in fact kill innocents, not intentionally but it happens.

As for neutral Muslims, there seem to be fewer and fewer of them. Can't really blame them all defending themselves when the world seems to regard every Muslim as a terrorist.
 
The U.S as well as others do in fact kill innocents, not intentionally but it happens.
Yes, it does happen, but as you agree, it is not intentional and innocent civilians are most certainly not the target.

So what would be your tactic when going after Islamic terrorist training camps, bearing in mind that they are well aware of the NATO forces mandate to avoid civilian casualties?
As for neutral Muslims, there seem to be fewer and fewer of them. Can't really blame them all defending themselves when the world seems to regard every Muslim as a terrorist.
This should not be totally unexpected - think about the most recent terrorist attacks that target innocent civilians, and see who committed them.
 
Yes, it does happen, but as you agree, it is not intentional and innocent civilians are most certainly not the target.

So what would be your tactic when going after Islamic terrorist training camps, bearing in mind that they are well aware of the NATO forces mandate to avoid civilian casualties?

This should not be totally unexpected - think about the most recent terrorist attacks that target innocent civilians, and see who committed them.

Dunno. But if shooting innocents is allowed, or should i say necessary, in order to kill terrorists, how many is too much?

Why not just nuke em all? Better result no?

How do you determine what is too much or too little? How can you determine whether the cost in lives outweigh the benefit? After all, how the hell can you measure how valuable a life is?
 
Dunno. But if shooting innocents is allowed, or should i say necessary, in order to kill terrorists, how many is too much?

Why not just nuke em all? Better result no?


How do you determine what is too much or too little? How can you determine whether the cost in lives outweigh the benefit? After all, how the hell can you measure how valuable a life is?
Clear sign that NATO is not out to destroy innocent civilians, which cant be said for the Islamists.

You don't seem to have an issue with the large number of innocent civilians killed in Muslim on Muslim violence - the number of deaths in the Sunni vs Shia violence is far higher than the unfortunate number of civilian deaths when NATO go after terrorists.
 
You don't seem to have an issue with the large number of innocent civilians killed in Muslim on Muslim violence

Strawman. I do have a problem with it. The extremist reasoning behind their attacks or attituteds just not justify their attacks at all, but if we can understand there reasoning, perhaps we can prevent further attacks in future.

Read article below please.

More cause and effect in our ever-expanding "war"
BY GLENN GREENWALD
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

If it is taboo to discuss how America's actions in the Middle East cause Terrorism -- and it generally is -- that taboo is far stronger still when it comes to specifically discussing how our blind, endless enabling of Israeli actions fuels Terrorism directed at the U.S. An article in yesterday's New York Times examined the life of Humam Khalil Abu Mulal al-Balawi, the Jordanian who blew himself up, along with 7 CIA agents, in Afghanistan this week. Why would Balawi -- a highly educated doctor, who was specifically recruited by Jordanian intelligence officials to infiltrate Al Qaeda on behalf of Western governments -- want to blow himself up and murder as many American intelligence agents as possible? The article provides this possible answer:

He described Mr. Balawi as a "very good brother" and a "brilliant doctor," saying that the family knew nothing of Mr. Balawi’s writings under a pseudonym on jihadi Web sites. He said, however, that his brother had been "changed" by last year’s three-week-long Israeli offensive in Gaza, which killed about 1,300 Palestinians.

An Associated Press discussion of the possible motives of accused Christmas Day airline attacker Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab contained this quite similar passage (h/t Casual Observer):

Students and administrators at the institute said Abdulmutallab was gregarious, had many Yemeni friends and was not overtly extremist. They noted, however, he was open about his sympathies toward the Palestinians and his anger over Israel's actions in Gaza.

When the Saudi and Yemeni branches of Al Qaeda announced earlier this year that they were unifying into "Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula," they prominently featured rhetoric railing against the Israeli attack on Gaza, and "presented their campaign as part of the struggle to liberate Palestine, since Israel and the Crusaders are one." So extreme is anger towards Israel over Gaza among Yemenis that even that country's President -- our supposed ally in the War on Terror -- called for the opening of camps to train fighters against Israel in Gaza. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Looming Tower, Lawrence Wright claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta signed his "martyr's will" from Al Qaeda on the day in 1996 when Israel attacked Lebanon, and he did so due to "outrage" over that attack. There's just no question that the U.S.'s loyal enabling of (and support for) Israel's various wars with its Muslims neighbors contributes to terrorist attacks directed at Americans.

As always whenever the words "Israel" and/or "Terrorism" are mentioned, there is a severe danger of over-simplification and distortion from all sides, rendering several caveats in order: where U.S. support for Israel is a cause of anti-American Islamic extremism, it is generally not the only or even primary cause, but one of several; there is ample American interference and violence in the Muslim world that is quite independent of Israel, and that was true long before 9/11 and especially after. Al Qaeda leaders who actually care little about the Palestinian cause have a history of exploiting that issue to generate public support. The fact that Terrorists object to Policy X does not prove that Policy X should be discontinued. And most of all: to discuss causes of Terrorism is not to imply justification; one can seek to understand what we do to fuel Terrorism without suggesting that the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians is in any way legitimate or justified.

Despite all that, it's impossible to grow accustomed to the extreme fantasy atmosphere and self-absorbed blindness that pervades American discussions over Terrorism, especially in the wake of a new scare. The Right, seeking as always to exploit Terrorism fears, falsely accuses Obama of not displaying "war" language and a "war" mentality, in response to which he and his aides step forward to affirm -- yet again -- that WE ARE AT WAR!, and to point to all of the times Obama decreed this to be so and all of the war actions he has ordered. So we've spent the last decade screaming to the world that WE ARE AT WAR!, that we're a War Nation, that we're led by a War President. That we are "at war" -- not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but generally against Islamic extremists -- is an absolute bipartisan orthodoxy that must be affirmed by all Serious people. And we are currently waging some form of actual war in no fewer than five predominantly Muslim countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen and Somalia); are threatening Iran with "crippling" sanctions and -- from our more deranged quarters -- war; and continuing our unbroken devotion to Israel's causes.

Yet even in the face of all of that, it is bewilderment and confusion that reign when our media stars and political figures talk about attempts to attack Americans. Why would they possibly want to do this? They must be crazy, or drunk with religious fervor, or consumed by blinding, inhumane hatred. Much of that is probably true for individuals willing to blow themselves up in order to slaughter as many innocent civilians as possible. But it's equally irrational to think that you're going to spend a full decade bellowing WE ARE AT WAR! to the world, send bombs and troops and all forms of death to multiple Muslim countries (both directly and through Israel), and not have that directed back at us. That's what happens when a country is "at war" -- it doesn't just get to blow up things and people in other countries, but its own things and people sometimes get blown up as well. That's how "war" works.

It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?

The principal problem is that by pretending that we do nothing to fuel Islamic radicalism, we stay unaware -- blissfully ignorant -- of the staggering costs of our actions. I defy anyone to find a political figure in either major party's leadership who has, in the context of discussing U.S. policy towards Israel, ever even mentioned the fact that undying, endless American support for Israel -- making all of their conflicts our own -- increases the risk of terrorist violence aimed at the U.S. But it so plainly does. The fact that Israel is now explicitly vowing that its "next wars" against its Muslim neighbors will be "much harsher" than even the grotesque atrocities in Gaza and Lebanon means these costs are almost certain to increase even further.

Again, these facts do not, standing alone, prove that we ought to change these policies. The mere fact that Islamic radicals object to what we do does not prove we should stop, as there may be net benefits to those actions or they may be morally justifiable. But at the very least, rational discussions require that these costs and benefits be weighed, and that can only happen if we acknowledge the costs. But when it comes to our own actions in the Muslim world, and especially our undying devotion to supporting everything Israel does, acknowledging the costs (to say nothing of the morality) is exactly what we steadfastly refuse to do.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/07/terrorism/index.html
 
Strawman.
Again, waiving all fingers in the air for you, Richard , to take your pick.
I do have a problem with it. The extremist reasoning behind their attacks or attituteds just not justify their attacks at all, but if we can understand there reasoning, perhaps we can prevent further attacks in future.
WTF, I don't give a shirt what their reasoning may be for killing each other (Sunni vs Shia violence), but if those b@stards, or should that be buggers, kill innocent civilians (infidels) in terrorist attacks, then they should expect to get their @asses whipped by the infidels.

And no you wont understand the "reasoning" because it's sanctioned by the vile ideology they follow, or maybe I'm mistaken, YOU will most likely understand the "reasoning/ideology".
 
Last edited:
Again, waiving all fingers in the air for you, Richard , to take your pick.

WTF, I don't give a shirt what their reasoning may be for killing each other (Sunni vs Shia violence), but if those b@stards, or is those buggers, kill innocent civilians (infidels) in terrorist attacks, then they should expect to get their @asses whipped by the infidels.

And no you wont understand the "reasoning" because it's sanctioned by the vile ideology they follow, or maybe I'm mistaken, YOU will most likely understand the "reasoning/ideology".

Yeah, don't bother to understand them at all. When they attack you can say "OMG Those bastards, how could they! Why did they do this?" and then just blindly go and kill them.

And when they kill more of you, you'll kill more of them. Then they gonna kill more of you, and you go and kill more of them and so on and so forth.

Who cares about solving the problem? We're all just stardust anyways.

I take it you didn't read the article, as everything said went above your head.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, don't bother to understand them at all. When they attack you can say "OMG Those bastards, how could they! Why did they do this?" and then just blindly go and kill them.

And when they kill more of you, you'll kill more of them. Then they gonna kill more of you, and you go and kill more of them and so on and so forth.

Who cares about solving the problem? We're all just stardust anyways.

I take it you didn't read the article, as everything said went above your head.

It seems like a helluva lot goes right over your head, or is it a sure sign of indoctrination ?

"Don't bother to understand them" - They have made it clear time after time, that they are hell-bent on killing infidels for their "cause" or their god, and many of their imams/clerics preach hatred and jihad against the west (all infidels).
 
Last edited:
I was referring to killing innocent people. Many woman and children have died as a result from both sides. They cannot be blindly regarded as enemy combatants.

Can't a neutral Muslim interpret the killing of innocent Muslims as an act of aggression/war against Muslims and then seek retribution, just as the U.S. interpreted the killing of innocents in 9/11 as an act of war?

I have no problem bringing the perpetrators to justice. Just as I have no problem if a guy jumps onto your property and you shooting him. As far as I'm concerned, the guy trespassing thinks property rights (Which include ones body) don't apply to him, so when you shoot him, it is not an illegimate act of aggression as property rights don't apply to the intruder(And he decided this by trespassing). I don't think killing someone is necessary when someone trespasses, so the limit to how I am allowed to defend my property can be imposed. If injuring someone is necessary then thats legitimate. If killing someone is necessary than thats legitimate.

Although the law doesn't technically allow this.

I do have a problem killing innocents in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.

If someone harms your family members, do you think you should be allowed to harm his family members/community/church group in order to exact some kind of "justice".

In SA, it's no longer a crime to trespass...Thank the ANC.

I was informed of this, when a SAPS rapid response unit responded the third time, in one night to characters sneaking around the main house, on land I owned.

All the more fun, since heavy fog would hang over the land most nights. Visibility at 10-20 meters.

The officer said that if I'm attacked and I do shoot anyone, whilst investigating the land, to drag the body into the house, since shooting someone attacking me in the garden would be illegal, because of the stupid law allowing people to trespass. This is from the SAPS. Guys armed with R5s and bullet proof vests, black and white, who spend the nights racing after and intercepting the worst of criminals.

The criminals know this. They want you to hesitate, even for a split second, because you are more concerned with the laws protecting criminals. They have more rights than ordinary citizens.

They run the government.

So, in answer to your question...if the family members/community/church group were complicit in any way whatsoever, as is most common with terrorists, then yes.

They have no respect for you.

I have posted some of the things said by Muslim leaders, about blacks, also the way that blacks have historically been and still are, treated by Muslims.

Yet, they wish to assimilate that faith and it's ways....

Is it because of love? Tolerance? Wanting to understand the other's view?

Do not for a moment forget, that every single Muslim, believes that everyone else should convert, to what they believe, even if it means by threat of death by beheading, at a convenient time in the present or future history of the world...

We need to respect each other...even if it means the US destabilising certain regions. "Divide and conquer", has always had it's place in human history.

The Israeli/Gaza war, I watched on Al Jazeera, the only news channel I bother watching. I watch all day and night. Even they had to admit the Israeli's acted only after having waited and waited, whilst thousands of rockets have been fired into Israel. The Israeli's will bend, not break.

Once the war started, the missile firing increased, from in front of hospitals, schools, universities, family homes, apartment blocks...all occupied by "decent" people, willing to let the terrorists use them as human shields.
 
!00's

I
Two powers working hand in hand yet totally apposed. Does anybody not see a pattern here or am I totally alone?
We are already at WW3 we just don't know it yet or are living with our heads in the sand.

NO -- Mr Hatman you are not alone :)

I am in complete agreement with you in this post of yours. ( Isnt that weird )

Pretty much what I have been saying all along.

The one feeds off the other and they both need each other to survive.

I often wonder why they think they need to continue the charade --the Zombie Robot Consumers are so ignorant and zoned out it is hardly needed.


MW
 
Many of you will either side with western democracy or Islamic policy, but at the end of the day, we are caught in the middle of two super powers wanting to take over the world because thats what this boils down too. We are already at WW3 we just don't know it yet or are living with our heads in the sand.

LMAO, tinfoil hat :erm:

What Islamic super power is forcing Islamic policy? lol I've lived in a Muslim/Christian community all my life and the only thing Islamic I've had to endure was halaal meat (shock, horror) :eek: :rolleyes:

There is a battle between superpowers but it's not Islam and the West, the most influential of the Arab nations have American backed "dictatorships" Islam is too diverse there are Millions who are not strictly Shia or Sunni but still call themselves Muslim such as the Druze, Alevi, Suffis. There is no one interpretation of Islam.

The real superpowers are Russia, US and now China, Russia and the US have used Afghanistan for a proxy war before by abusing and using Islamic schools to recruit fighters and I'm pretty sure it's still being done.
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X