Islam needs a Reformation. It needs someone with the courage of Martin Luther.

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Lemon law
And as some what of a poll---how many Islamic NAMES---out of 1.4 billion---can anyone recite---10?---20?----50?

I could probably rattle off quite a few - hundreds perhaps... but, considering the fact that most Americans can hardly pronounce any of them, your entire "thought experiment" is flawed.

Once again, comparing modern Christianity to modern Islam is utterly ridiculous - in terms of the number of violent fanatics, and the number of attacks, currently threatening the Western world.

Can you tell me what the goal of "shock and awe" was?

I believe that it was show of force designed to simultaneously shatter the defensive infrastructure and scare the Iraqi troops into surrendering more quickly... why?

One form of terrorism, no?

umm, no. not even close - at least, not by any definition I accept or recognize.

Well, I'd certainly love to hear the definition you accept and recognize.

Overwhelming shows of force to cause an enemy military to surrender are completely different than intentionally killing innocent civilians to cause terror for the purpose of political or ideological change.

Were the bombings of Dresden and Berlin in WWII "terrorist acts"? Absolutely not.

Do you consider the flying of a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11 terrorism?

Do you consider the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing terrorism?

Do you consider the killing of US military in Iraq terrorism?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

No, that is the means in which they use to achieve their primary goals. It was not always true though. It became their means after failing in attacking governments.

umm, terrorists hardly ever attack "governments." They attack innocent civilian targets in hopes that the families and neighbors of said civilians pressure their governments to effect change.

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of warfare and terrorism.

And you are ignorant of the ideas and actions that led to the eventual creation of Al Qaeda. Maybe you should read up on Sayid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

And yes, they do often attack government and military installations. They are killing our soldiers in Iraq as we speak. And the plane that crashed into the Pentagon could very well have been used to crash into a more populated area, killing more people.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Do you consider the flying of a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11 terrorism?

Absolutely.

Do you consider the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing terrorism?

no.

Do you consider the killing of US military in Iraq terrorism?

no - except in those cases wherein US servicepersons were not the actual target (US military in a crowded market when the market is attacked, etc).

next...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre
Do you consider the flying of a plane into the Pentagon on 9/11 terrorism?

Absolutely.

Ok, let's stop here. Why do you consider this an act of terrorism? If what you said earlier, "In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal," is true then why would they fly a plane into the Pentagon, when they could have flown it into another building in NYC or DC that would have killed many, many, more people instead. The Pentagon is a military target. Don't you think we bombed the hell out of whatever was the Iraqi equivalent of the Pentagon? If so, was that terrorism?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

No, that is the means in which they use to achieve their primary goals. It was not always true though. It became their means after failing in attacking governments.

umm, terrorists hardly ever attack "governments." They attack innocent civilian targets in hopes that the families and neighbors of said civilians pressure their governments to effect change.

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of warfare and terrorism.

And you are ignorant of the ideas and actions that led to the eventual creation of Al Qaeda. Maybe you should read up on Sayid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I could probably write a book on the subject - several books even! I'm not sure about your angle here, but I do know that you had better know your sh*t if you try to debate with me on any aspect of AQ, or the history of Islamic fundamentalism.

And yes, they do often attack government and military installations. They are killing our soldiers in Iraq as we speak.

for every single attack against the US military in Iraq, they (AQI and sectarian militias) conduct between 100 and 200 attacks against innocent civilians - if not more!

And the plane that crashed into the Pentagon could very well have been used to crash into a more populated area, killing more people.

That attack was both. Or have you forgotten the 59 innocent civilians who were on the plane at the time?

(I misspoke in my first response when you initially asked about the Pentagon. I somehow missed the fact that you were asking about the Pentagon specifically).

next...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Don't you think we bombed the hell out of whatever was the Iraqi equivalent of the Pentagon? If so, was that terrorism?

Only if we dropped a busload of Iraqi citizens on it... But, as far as I know, we used regular bombs - really big ones!

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!

No, that is the means in which they use to achieve their primary goals. It was not always true though. It became their means after failing in attacking governments.

umm, terrorists hardly ever attack "governments." They attack innocent civilian targets in hopes that the families and neighbors of said civilians pressure their governments to effect change.

You have a very fundamental misunderstanding of warfare and terrorism.

And you are ignorant of the ideas and actions that led to the eventual creation of Al Qaeda. Maybe you should read up on Sayid Qutb and Ayman al-Zawahiri.

I could probably write a book on the subject - several books even! I'm not sure about your angle here, but I do know that you had better know your sh*t if you try to debate with me on any aspect of AQ, or the history of Islamic fundamentalism.

Then you know that initially, they attacked the Egyptian government, failed, and then set their sites on civilians.[/quote]

And yes, they do often attack government and military installations. They are killing our soldiers in Iraq as we speak.for every single attack against the US military in Iraq, they (AQI and sectarian militias) conduct between 100 and 200 attacks against innocent civilians - if not more!

Ok, yes, but that is different than what you said earlier. You can see what you said above, but here it is again, "In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!." [/quote]

And the plane that crashed into the Pentagon could very well have been used to crash into a more populated area, killing more people.

That attack was both. Or have you forgotten the 59 innocent civilians who were on the plane at the time?

(I misspoke in my first response when you initially asked about the Pentagon. I somehow missed the fact that you were asking about the Pentagon specifically).

Gotcha, and that is why I specifically mentioned the Pentagon. No sane person would not consider the attack on the WTC buildings terrorism.

But my main point was in regards to what you said above. Their main goal is not to kill as many civilians as possible, that is one mean in which they use to achieve their main goals. Big difference. I would think they would prefer to only attack government and military targets, but they fail in doing this, although they do take the opportunity in doing so. The difference is, we don't fail at this. We have the resources to take out a government and military. And if we had a strong enough desire to do so, but lacked the capability, I assure you the intentional targeting of civilians would occur. As we did sporadically during our own Civil war, as well as in Vietnam, and most likely Afghanistan and Iraq. We just don't have to do it as often as they feel the need to do so.

I'm not justifying it, and I'm certainly not apologizing it. It's just reality, as terrible as it is.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Then you know that initially, they attacked the Egyptian government, failed, and then set their sites on civilians.

Exactly. They transitioned from critics and rebels, to terrorists - and the EIJ is a good example.

for every single attack against the US military in Iraq, they (AQI and sectarian militias) conduct between 100 and 200 attacks against innocent civilians - if not more!

Ok, yes, but that is different than what you said earlier. You can see what you said above, but here it is again, "In fact, causing "collateral damage to innocents" is their primary goal!."

[/quote]I should have said "tactic." targeting and killing innocent civilians is their primary tactic.

I'm not justifying it, and I'm certainly not apologizing it. It's just reality, as terrible as it is.

I only ask that you stop equating our methods and tactics with those of our enemies. Doing so undermines the entire argument.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I should have said "tactic." targeting and killing innocent civilians is their primary tactic.

Now we are getting somewhere.

My point is that this is their primary tactic, as a result of previous failed tactics. And, it would, and has, become our primary tactic as well when necessary. It is just not necessary nearly as often. Like I said, we have the capabilities that they don't have. And believe me, take those capabilities away, and we'd act as they do. Justification aside, don't tell me the bombs we dropped on Japan didn't intentionally target civilians. And as I pointed out earlier, we have intentionally targeted civilians on other occasions.

I only ask that you stop equating our methods and tactics with those of our enemies. Doing so undermines the entire argument.

And I only ask that you admit we would, and have, resulted to what you define as terrorism when our primary tactics fail.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre
And I only ask that you admit we would, and have, resulted to what you define as terrorism when our primary tactics fail.

Many of our strategies and tactics have failed in Iraq, as they did in Vietnam; but I do not see us resorting to civilian targets. In fact, we go out of our way, in every engagement, to avoid civilian casualties. I have seen US soldiers lose their lives as a result of being denied permission to fire on certain locations (mosques, apartment buildings, etc).

We go so far out of our way to avoid civilian casualties that it often diminishes our abilities to wage war on the battlefield. I'm referring to modern combat and the advent of precision weaponry, political correctness, and a CNN camera on every corner!

We've come a long way from WWII and our carpet-bombing glory days...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
We go so far out of our way to avoid civilian casualties that it often diminishes our abilities to wage war on the battlefield.

Balancing the scale, thats all. At least that is how those in charge see it. On one side, like you said, political correctness. Would Americans support the war in Iraq if winning called for massive Iraqi civilian casualties via our military? No. Would doing so aid in the achievement of our goals there, most likely. But Iraq isn't a danger to American lives, nor American soil. Fanatics see us as a danger to their lives, and to their soil. Are they right to do so? That's arguable, but irrelevent, because the reality is, they believe it to be, they believe they are right. They believe their system works, and their belief is strong. Just as you believe our systems of Democracy and Capitalism work, and I assume that you believe that strongly. They disregard the fact that their system is brutal, corruptable, and weak economically, just as we disregard the massive problems with our own system.

By the way, back to Egypt for a moment. Care to say why Qutb and Al-Zawahiri were trying to take out the Egyptian government?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I should have said "tactic." targeting and killing innocent civilians is their primary tactic.

Now we are getting somewhere.

My point is that this is their primary tactic, as a result of previous failed tactics. And, it would, and has, become our primary tactic as well when necessary. It is just not necessary nearly as often. Like I said, we have the capabilities that they don't have. And believe me, take those capabilities away, and we'd act as they do. Justification aside, don't tell me the bombs we dropped on Japan didn't intentionally target civilians. And as I pointed out earlier, we have intentionally targeted civilians on other occasions.

I only ask that you stop equating our methods and tactics with those of our enemies. Doing so undermines the entire argument.

And I only ask that you admit we would, and have, resulted to what you define as terrorism when our primary tactics fail.

Wake me when official military orders call for the intentional targeting of innoncent Iraqi citizens, until then, yawn.........

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse74
We go so far out of our way to avoid civilian casualties that it often diminishes our abilities to wage war on the battlefield.

Balancing the scale, thats all. At least that is how those in charge see it. On one side, like you said, political correctness. Would Americans support the war in Iraq if winning called for massive Iraqi civilian casualties via our military? No. Would doing so aid in the achievement of our goals there, most likely. But Iraq isn't a danger to American lives, nor American soil. Fanatics see us as a danger to their lives, and to their soil. Are they right to do so? That's arguable, but irrelevent, because the reality is, they believe it to be, they believe they are right. They believe their system works, and their belief is strong. Just as you believe our systems of Democracy and Capitalism work, and I assume that you believe that strongly. They disregard the fact that their system is brutal, corruptable, and weak economically, just as we disregard the massive problems with our own system.

true enough, fair enough, and well said.

By the way, back to Egypt for a moment. Care to say why Qutb and Al-Zawahiri were trying to take out the Egyptian government?

Why? many reasons. Not the least of which was their strange form of government that was both oppressive and liberal at the same time. Their willingness to pander to the US and their corrupt nature were a sign to Qutb and his buddies that Sharia laws should be the sole basis of governance. Egypt often used their government powers to oppress various people through Egypt, for whatever reason they wanted. Qutb was himself a victim of the oppression and persecution. Following his imprisonment, Qutb's bitterness was passed on to his students and they took up arms against the Egyptian government...(Muslim Brotherhood...EIJ, etc).

Hence some of the basic tenants of Islamic Fundamentalism that pervade most of the world's most dangerous and fanatical Islamic terrorist groups - near and far jihads, sharia law, etc.

Regardless of their corrupt nature, the Egyptian government has always been effective in squashing internal rebellion. That is the primary reason Zawahiri and others left Egypt to fight elsewhere... lucky for us, eh?

AQ still intends to depose the governments of every moderate Islamic nation. They refer to it as the "near Jihad," while their battle with the US and the West is the "far Jihad." They are fighting on both fronts... across the entire globe.

Did any of this answer your question? (I'm not real sure where you were going with it...)

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Did any of this answer your question? (I'm not real sure where you were going with it...)

Kinda, yeah.

But you left out parts. They saw the Egyptian government as corrupt, allowing us to "invade" economically and socially.

Imagine if our politicians and economic leaders allowed for foreign, un-American, ideas and laws to enter our way of life, in exchange for their own wealth and power. I don't think we would sit by and watch, well, at least not when those things start to directly effect us. This is not a very good rhetorical situation, but its the best I could do. And again, not saying their actions were right or wrong. Just cause and effect.

Governments are nothing more than powerful mobs, really. Little branches of Satan if you will, desiring the power of a God, power over people, and systems. "My way is the best way, and for everyone." We just give money (via taxes) and support to whichever one currently offers us the best protection. Protection being variously defined, and relative to one's own beliefs and desires of the manner in which they want to live.

 

[Abram730]

One can be created... It's the finding them in time that is the problem. I know this sounds odd but it is in fact true.

Anybody know if anybody in the Islamic world that has said the phrase "A New Way Forward"? If So then a solution to the Clash of civilizations is easy. I have been looking for that. I just heard it in the last debate spoken by Hillary Clinton. If in fact that message reached the middle east, south America... There is lots of hope for the future.

I speak most directly to palehorse74 and 1prophet. I have become aware of a larger truth to the way the world works. Those that talk about the need for Muslim moderates don't know that an opposite is needed. There is strength in an extreme. Weakness isn't the opposite of Muslim extremists. Moderates lack the passion needed.

 

[Lemon law]

Lets address some of the myths implicit in thinking. We, the USA wants to win. And we have all the aces in terms of the machines our taxpayers have bought the US military. And that is supposed to buy us the right to compel others who have not made similar investments in war machines to do it our way or else. And then we cry foul when others cheat. And instead of confronting us directly with their hopelessly outclassed military, the damn treacherous bastards don't stand up to be slaughtered like the courageous fools we want them to be.

And if nothing else its the guiding wisdom the George Washington used yo many years ago to defeat the British. And now the shoe is on the other foot. And as they do what it takes to win, or at least hold on hoping for a better day, we now say its unfair to organized clod and finks. In many ways terrorism is the politics of the powerless. And if we want to defeat terrorism, reduce the injustices that feed it.

 

[Abram730]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
but I do not see us resorting to civilian targets. In fact, we go out of our way, in every engagement, to avoid civilian casualties.

every single engagement?
What do you call using white phosphorous in urban areas?
"Wiskey Pete"

Video

So you can wake up now Alistar7.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Abram730

Originally posted by: palehorse74
but I do not see us resorting to civilian targets. In fact, we go out of our way, in every engagement, to avoid civilian casualties.

every single engagement?
What do you call using white phosphorous in urban areas?
"Wiskey Pete"

Video

So you can wake up now Alistar7.

You have no idea what hoops we have to jump through to get authorization for WP... even in the most remote and rural locales! Our rules of engagement generally outlaw the use of WP completely - with VERY few exceptions over the years.

Even then, the targets are not civilians.

I can't count the number of times I've been shot at and then been forced to sit back, quietly, waiting for authorization to return fire because of the location (ie. a mosque) or the possible presence of civilians.

Like i said, the military goes out of its way in each and every engagement to reduce or eliminate the chance of civilian casualties. Our enemies do not.

And perhaps the biggest difference between us and the enemy is the remorse we feel whenever a civilian is killed in the crossfire. Our enemies dismiss their deaths without as much as a second thought. For us, it's devastating! For them, it's good PR!

But what do I know, right? I'm just a dumb former grunt...

 

[Abram730]

I wasn't putting blame on grunts. That incident seems to of come from the top. I can't say I know of the horrors of being a soldier in Iraq.....But I do know horror and have seen friends die and watched pieces of heads fly off from gun shots and seen the convulsions of that type of death too. I want to see US troops out of there because it's a mission for oil and I can imagine the hells of war. If a soldier can't come to terms and an understanding of what he has seen that it can be a nightmare that never hides. Even with understanding people are haunted with the memories that will not fade. I see the military over stretched and know that without a military many will not sleep in peace.

Are you aware that much of the car bombs come in from Saudi Arabia and that they have and most likely still are given sensitive mission critical information? There were no Iraqi terrorist attacks on Americans before we invaded. Or allies in this war are the sources of Al Qaeda.

I was one of the first that talked about the solution now being adopted in Sunni areas. It's important for them to do rebuilding as doing for others is the only thing that feeds the soul. People love those that they do for, not those that do for them. If they build some infrastructure like a water supply, then that is the only hope to show them feelings. With the guns must come responsibilities to the children. You do face humans that act like animals.... That is the result of dictatorship that crumbles to anarchy. We saw the same depravity in katrina and that was America. We saw doctors killing and only the most basic self preservation. We also are forgetting humanity as it comes from service to community and fellow man. America was once a county of militias. The biggest enemy you face is the idea of tribal blood feud. It is deaths from other tribes that they don't care about. They avenge death of their own. Many answers can be suggested, both old and new.

They are of the extreme, extreme right and the balance isn't found in a centrist. It is found in an opposite and can be created.

A left wing Muslim once said that Jesus died so that blood feuds could be ended. Perhapses something could be built as a symbol of that. It is forgiveness they need to learn as it is the birth place of "an eye for an eye".