How does the West win the 'War on ******'?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
juballs said:
I am glad my thoughts on this may intrique you...but I am going to not 'nuke' this thread like I usually do...I did start it and I genuinely want to read everyone's comments first. It IS a complicated issue.
However, I have asked some questions and I think that I am putting my two cents in with them. I'lll try subtley for a bit. That is how you spell it isn't it....it is not a word I am terribly familiar with...
lol im not a very good speller so i dont know...mcrocket said:I am glad my thoughts on this may intrique you...but I am going to not 'nuke' this thread like I usually do...I did start it and I genuinely want to read everyone's comments first. It IS a complicated issue.
However, I have asked some questions and I think that I am putting my two cents in with them. I'lll try subtley for a bit. That is how you spell it isn't it....it is not a word I am terribly familiar with...
i agree with peter, as he says that the war on ****** is actually helping the bush administration. this is true, so much funding, and through scare tactics he can get pretty much anything through congress.
his patriot act will enter the united states into a "police state" and democracy as we know it in the U.S will change.
for all those interested on the eventual police state will find a tonne of info at www.infowars.com , alex jones is a man with a lot of insh=ight to this topic.
he has posted alot about the occurances in the last two weeks and just reading them will make your skin to crawl, the global elite want you to be scared, these scare tactics will allow their take over to be much easier.
dont have to believe me, but just take the viewpoint i bring forward, may be true may not, but smoke and mirrors can make anyone believe anything, so maybe i am the one corrupted by them but maybe u are, maybe i speak the truth and maybe you do, only time will tell i guess
Well, one thing is for sure. The Bush administration has ALOT more power then it did on September 10, 2001. And tell me politicians don't want more power?
I have said it before and I will..... .
NEVER trust a politician until they prove themselves to you 100%...which is almost never. Always assume they have a hidden motive for their actions. Someone please tell me why that is not wise?
I have said it before and I will..... .
NEVER trust a politician until they prove themselves to you 100%...which is almost never. Always assume they have a hidden motive for their actions. Someone please tell me why that is not wise?
mcrocket said:However, I have asked some questions and I think that I am putting my two cents in with them. I'lll try subtley for a bit. That is how you spell it isn't it....it is not a word I am terribly familiar with...
Subtlety? Don't know, not my line of work either :1orglaugh
To answer your question (and to give you some more to feast on in your reply to this thread): I think the common ways of warfare don't have the desired effect in this case. We're not fighting political systems or other countries because of their leaders and even if we did, as the Iraq war started out, the whole story turns into something else.
Which is exactly the reason why I think we must explore new paths in strategical thinking, in tactics, in measures applied and so on. In order to do that, no idea whatsoever should be discarded without questioning it thoroughly. I am not in favor of ******* in the classical sense of the word, but I believe that the word is used in far too many aspects nowadays. Take the dog piling, the photo posing in that Iraq jail, the allegedly pissed on quran, the cage incarceration in Guantanamo. If you consider that "*******", then my answer is yes. Whatever it takes to break their will, to enrage them so they make a mistake is fine with me. I won't vote for any actual physical ******* though.
So how does the West win the war on ******? George's suggestion about the money is a logical step IMO. But another idea comes first: Stop thinking about loyalties, economical effects and so on for a while. It has been pointed out repeatedly that Saudi Arabia would actually be a place the US should watch way more closely. They don't because of the good connections between Ryadh and Washington and because of oil. Well, if you want to end this threat to all Western countries and societies, you'll need to put these thoughts aside. Once that step has been made, I am in favor of concentrated, targeted action. Something along the lines of what the Israelis do: When they find out the name of an assassin, they'll send a missile into that person's house, regardless of who's in there. That sends a message to the tune of "You don't fuck with us".
Whatever the way is to win this war, it's not going to be in talks and attempts at peacemaking. I have pointed out earlier that the people who conduct atrocities like in NYC, London, Madrid, Sharm-el-Shejk and so on don't care about politics at all. They probably don't even care about US politics in the Middle East. These people have been taught to **** us for the simple reason that we are no Muslims. All the other things come in handy, like the alleged "US ************, passive imperialism" (quote Epic). It's pretty much how Third Reich ideology worked: You start with a hatred for the Jewish religion and you'll find a truckload of reasons to support that hatred afterwards.
So, trying to summarize my answer in response to the initial question: the old "army invades a country" scheme doesn't work any more. Show the people in these parts of the world how we deal with terrorists and apply every method imaginable in order to achieve this goal. Stand united, stand tight. Don't waver from the original idea, don't get distracted by side effects. Shooting down that guy in the London tube station the other day was a good step in that direction.
The war on terrorism reminds me of the roman empire having to deal with the barbarians. Rome eventually lost in part due internal corruption and a lack unification. If countries work together, stay focused without intimidation, we will win. However, it's a shame countries like Germany or France do not have soldiers deployed in highly dense terrorism grounds such as afghanistan. American and Britain cannot go at this alone. And we shouldn't have to.
Vegas Yankee said:
In addition to executing the Terrorist (as in London), round up his whole ****** and execute them. I know that sound barbaric, but the message is simple, Every time a Suicide bomber straps on a pack of Explosives, An Iraqi Terrorist kidnaps a Civilian or a soldier and publicly executes them, They risk the lives of their *******, Fathers, Brothers, sisters, wives & ******** etc.... If he hits you with a stone, hit him and his, with a fucking big rock!!!
That socalled ******* that took place and was photograph, is not *******... It is Psychological Warfare.
jizm, the Frogs IMO are a country that needs to be closely looked at.... I wouldn't be suprised to find that they are secretly supporting the Terrorists.
Last edited:
georges said:
If you called me a Kiwi, then you would be refering to me as a New Zealander.... you would be close but no dice. Aussie & kiwi's are similar but uniquely different....
You are right, Frog is Aussie slang for French. that is what we call them down here... if I was wanting to be derogatory, I would have said used the term "Backstabbing French Cunts".
Last edited:
i'm reading the posts and what i see is only one point of view.. seems like everybody wants to start a new "holy-war" or something.. yeah, i heard about the usa citizens' political thought is right-oriented these years, but i didn't expect that much..
"nuke'em! ****'em!".... hey.. is everybody redneck in here?? or should i take this as a sudden aggression because of the recent killings..
i live in a country full of ******.. much more than you could imagine.. i have a muslim ******, nearly everybody around me is muslim and in here radical muslims **** non-radical ones.. can't you see this is NOT a holy war.. the enemy is not iraq, nor afghanistan.. nukin my city is not a solution.. the only criminal out there are the leaders.. bush, blair, bin laden, saddam, these are the terrorists.. the person who made the bombings is blair, who ****** the innocent pakistani is bin laden himself.. can't you see that this is all about leaders playing with their own people..
i could talk about it more later maybe..
"nuke'em! ****'em!".... hey.. is everybody redneck in here?? or should i take this as a sudden aggression because of the recent killings..
i live in a country full of ******.. much more than you could imagine.. i have a muslim ******, nearly everybody around me is muslim and in here radical muslims **** non-radical ones.. can't you see this is NOT a holy war.. the enemy is not iraq, nor afghanistan.. nukin my city is not a solution.. the only criminal out there are the leaders.. bush, blair, bin laden, saddam, these are the terrorists.. the person who made the bombings is blair, who ****** the innocent pakistani is bin laden himself.. can't you see that this is all about leaders playing with their own people..
i could talk about it more later maybe..
hahaha backstabbing french cunts... oh my i smell an argument a brewingjdb67 said:If you called me a Kiwi, then you would be refering to me as a New Zealander.... you would be close but no dice. Aussie & kiwi's are similar but uniquely different....
You are right, Frog is Aussie slang for French. that is what we call them down here... if I was wanting to be derogatory, I would have said used the term "Backstabbing French Cunts".
jdb67 said:If you called me a Kiwi, then you would be refering to me as a New Zealander.... you would be close but no dice. Aussie & kiwi's are similar but uniquely different....
You are right, Frog is Aussie slang for French. that is what we call them down here... if I was wanting to be derogatory, I would have said used the term "Backstabbing French Cunts".
The Brits call us Frogs too an so do the Americans. Our slang for the Brits is Rostbeefs and for Australian it is the Kangaroos. But I am not here to give a nation a nickname because I think it is somewhat childish to insult a nation because of its leader or its origins or history. Yes chirac is **** that has been known for a long time since 1995 and even before he was ****. Yes some people like Chirac but it is not my case and the case of many other people. The ones you have to blame are the one who voted for chirac twice and support his stupid decisions and government till today. See my point?
The purpose of this thread is the question, "How does the West win the 'War on ******'?" To answer this question we must first examine the fundemental reasons we are in this situation in the first place.
1. Why do they **** us, and our society?
2. How is it that radical fundementalism has gained such a dramatic hold on the world-wide Muslim community?
3. What steps should we take to respond to terrorist attacks?
4. What steps should we take to prevent further terrorist attacks?
I shall attempt to give an opinion on each of these questions in due order.
1. The unpopularity and out-right hatred of Western society among Muslim cultures is a direct result of fear and the effects of Western interference and butchery in the Middle East going back roughly a thousand years.
The fear in Muslim cultures is the fear of the unknown and of the influence of an American consumer based economy in which the traditional Islamic values of humility, honor, and restraint are turned on their heads. Sadly this view of American society is distorted by the only view of America available to the world at large, our television broadcasts. Consider the following, if your view of a country was dominated by Baywatch, Paris Hilton, and CNN, could you see anything else but a sexually fixated, violent culture which glorifies wealth over all. I'm not trying to insinuate that these stereotypes present an accurate picture, but rather show that the sensationalism of the American television leaves a false impression. Indeed, the fact that most Americans want to live their lives rightly would be unbelievable to most Muslims.
We must also consider the considerable history between the Muslim community and the West. Although, I can only speak for the American educational system, I think that it is fair to say that the true events which inspired the Crusades and the ********* which occured during them, are woefuly neglected in Western education. When the First Crusade was launched in 1096, it was not some pristine, holy voyage. Rather, the crusaders did what all armies do, the ***** and pillaged, even fellow Christians. In the Muslim world, the history of the Crusades is taught, and the stories are not taught kindly, tales of cannablism, and streets running with the ***** of their ancestors are common. When the words, "crusades and crusaders," are used by Western politicians, these are the images which the Muslim world sees. Sadly, our policies and inept governance of Iraq seem to make their nightmares a reality.
The mistakes and outright crimes committed against the Middle East did not end with the Renaissance and the end of the Crusades. The current raison d'etre for American presence in Iraq is to "spread freedom." Mighty words, and for those without knowledge of history, it is impossible to imagine why people would fight against their own freedom, their own chance at democracy. I'm certain many of our British friends on the board can share their recollections of the 1917 colonization of Iraq, and its effects.
For America, our history in the middle east is one of supporting repressive regimes in order to secure our strategic need for oil. The regime of the Shah of Iran, the continuation of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, our support of the Houses of Jabir and Salim in Kuwait, even our support of Sadaam Hussein, all are examples of the double-talked perpetrated by the American government. Our obsession with stability and oil at the expense of our principles that is the true history lesson of Western society in the Middle East.
2. Although Islam is a religion of peace, the rise of Wahhabi and Shia fundementalism presents a dangerous problem for the West. Ideas, after all, are the most difficult thing control. For Shia fundementalism, its rise can be traced directly to policies of the former Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. His abolition of the multi-party system in Iran, and the rise of his secret police, the SAVAK, and his attempts to crush opposition, led directly to his fall and the rise of Shia fundementalism.
For Sunni Muslims, their fundementalism came with Wahaabism. The history of the House of Saud is intertangled immesurably with the history of Wahaabi. The oil wealth of Saudi Arabia has been used for years to spread Wahaabism across the Muslim world. In fact, it is wholly reasonable to say that the West has subsidized the spread of Wahaabi with our insatiable need for petroleum, funding the very madraasas we condemn for spreading **** and terrorist philosophies. Oil is central to all discussions of politics in the Middle East. Had the wealth been distributed in a system remotely fair, prehaps the sense of helplessness seen among young men and women in the Middle East would be absent. This is, however, not the case, and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman all are ruled by an extrodinarily wealthy few and populated by a sadly poor majority with little to no say in the futures of their countries. They blame the west for their unemployement, their hunger.
Questions 3 and 4 will be continued in the next posting.
1. Why do they **** us, and our society?
2. How is it that radical fundementalism has gained such a dramatic hold on the world-wide Muslim community?
3. What steps should we take to respond to terrorist attacks?
4. What steps should we take to prevent further terrorist attacks?
I shall attempt to give an opinion on each of these questions in due order.
1. The unpopularity and out-right hatred of Western society among Muslim cultures is a direct result of fear and the effects of Western interference and butchery in the Middle East going back roughly a thousand years.
The fear in Muslim cultures is the fear of the unknown and of the influence of an American consumer based economy in which the traditional Islamic values of humility, honor, and restraint are turned on their heads. Sadly this view of American society is distorted by the only view of America available to the world at large, our television broadcasts. Consider the following, if your view of a country was dominated by Baywatch, Paris Hilton, and CNN, could you see anything else but a sexually fixated, violent culture which glorifies wealth over all. I'm not trying to insinuate that these stereotypes present an accurate picture, but rather show that the sensationalism of the American television leaves a false impression. Indeed, the fact that most Americans want to live their lives rightly would be unbelievable to most Muslims.
We must also consider the considerable history between the Muslim community and the West. Although, I can only speak for the American educational system, I think that it is fair to say that the true events which inspired the Crusades and the ********* which occured during them, are woefuly neglected in Western education. When the First Crusade was launched in 1096, it was not some pristine, holy voyage. Rather, the crusaders did what all armies do, the ***** and pillaged, even fellow Christians. In the Muslim world, the history of the Crusades is taught, and the stories are not taught kindly, tales of cannablism, and streets running with the ***** of their ancestors are common. When the words, "crusades and crusaders," are used by Western politicians, these are the images which the Muslim world sees. Sadly, our policies and inept governance of Iraq seem to make their nightmares a reality.
The mistakes and outright crimes committed against the Middle East did not end with the Renaissance and the end of the Crusades. The current raison d'etre for American presence in Iraq is to "spread freedom." Mighty words, and for those without knowledge of history, it is impossible to imagine why people would fight against their own freedom, their own chance at democracy. I'm certain many of our British friends on the board can share their recollections of the 1917 colonization of Iraq, and its effects.
For America, our history in the middle east is one of supporting repressive regimes in order to secure our strategic need for oil. The regime of the Shah of Iran, the continuation of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia, our support of the Houses of Jabir and Salim in Kuwait, even our support of Sadaam Hussein, all are examples of the double-talked perpetrated by the American government. Our obsession with stability and oil at the expense of our principles that is the true history lesson of Western society in the Middle East.
2. Although Islam is a religion of peace, the rise of Wahhabi and Shia fundementalism presents a dangerous problem for the West. Ideas, after all, are the most difficult thing control. For Shia fundementalism, its rise can be traced directly to policies of the former Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi. His abolition of the multi-party system in Iran, and the rise of his secret police, the SAVAK, and his attempts to crush opposition, led directly to his fall and the rise of Shia fundementalism.
For Sunni Muslims, their fundementalism came with Wahaabism. The history of the House of Saud is intertangled immesurably with the history of Wahaabi. The oil wealth of Saudi Arabia has been used for years to spread Wahaabism across the Muslim world. In fact, it is wholly reasonable to say that the West has subsidized the spread of Wahaabi with our insatiable need for petroleum, funding the very madraasas we condemn for spreading **** and terrorist philosophies. Oil is central to all discussions of politics in the Middle East. Had the wealth been distributed in a system remotely fair, prehaps the sense of helplessness seen among young men and women in the Middle East would be absent. This is, however, not the case, and Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, and Oman all are ruled by an extrodinarily wealthy few and populated by a sadly poor majority with little to no say in the futures of their countries. They blame the west for their unemployement, their hunger.
Questions 3 and 4 will be continued in the next posting.
3. If the West is ****** to respond to ******** again, I would propose that we not engange ourselves in another war in which many innocent people are ******. I sugest that we not forget we are countries that are governed by laws. Dr. Howard Zinn, professor emeritus in history from Boston College here in the states, has a well known quote, "There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of ******* innocent people." I do not deny the fact that war is hell and mistakes are bound to happen when someone is under the extreme stress found in a war zone. However, each and every one of our mistakes since 9/11 have been broadcast around the world and sadly hurt our standing worldwide (note: I feel that the fact that for what ever atrocities have been committed, the Administration's refusal to accept responsibility has been more damaging). To me, the most important thing would be to minimize the number of unfortunate mistakes which occur during military action. Instead perhaps a police response, such as the British respons in the **** of their most recent trajedy, would offer the greatest benefits. Our military action in Iraq has been a rallying point for extremist worldwide, one is ****** to ask at what point to the benefits of our continued presence cease to out-weigh the costs in human lives.
I believe that those responsible for ********, should be caught and dealt with, I just don't believe that it has to be done at the expense of our principles.
I believe that those responsible for ********, should be caught and dealt with, I just don't believe that it has to be done at the expense of our principles.
4. To prevent future attacks, I recall the words of one of America's Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." It is the amazing freedom of self-determination which truly seperates the West from the rest of the world. In each of our countries we face a decision, how do we keep our citizenry safe? I would say that without doubt the most important change we can persue is a clear and consistant policy in the Middle East. Acknowledge the fact that the Israeli government is not faultless, and that they are equally responsible for the deaths of innocent palestinians, as the suicide bombers are for the deaths of innocent israelis. Challenge the House of Saud, and all other regimes to make further democratic changes. On the homefront, and abroad, an active intelligence community capable of working with law-enforcement not in competition is needed. We must retain the moral high-ground, our we are surely lost. We should be above *******. I recognize that these people we have captured are not "good-guys," but what do we gain by debasing our own values. A nation of laws does not hold criminals in communicato, rather we charge, convict and sentence.
Hedgehog, though you will understand I do not share most of your views, here's a :hatsoff: to you for expressing your thoughts in such a fine, educated manner. Very well said.
Now if I answered your posts as a whole I would surely need another full page of text so I'll leave it to others to respond to details. One thing though: I do not understand why the Westerners are always so eager to find out what they may have done wrong in the past. Whatever has been done, the atrocities committed in the last four, five years cannot be justified. The crusade theory you came up with has been mentioned in discussions a few times and I will not accept it, because we are talking about something a few hundred years back. If this is the reason for Muslims to mass ****** innocent civilians then I don't see why the Brits or the French wouldn't **** every German they ever come across.
One more thing about the Islam being a peaceful religion. I recently heard how many times the word "jihad" appears in the Quran and though I don't recall the exact number you cannot deny the fact that their holy book could be read (and is read by many) as a guidebook to warfare against "infidels".
Now if I answered your posts as a whole I would surely need another full page of text so I'll leave it to others to respond to details. One thing though: I do not understand why the Westerners are always so eager to find out what they may have done wrong in the past. Whatever has been done, the atrocities committed in the last four, five years cannot be justified. The crusade theory you came up with has been mentioned in discussions a few times and I will not accept it, because we are talking about something a few hundred years back. If this is the reason for Muslims to mass ****** innocent civilians then I don't see why the Brits or the French wouldn't **** every German they ever come across.
One more thing about the Islam being a peaceful religion. I recently heard how many times the word "jihad" appears in the Quran and though I don't recall the exact number you cannot deny the fact that their holy book could be read (and is read by many) as a guidebook to warfare against "infidels".
epic said:
1. The holy war has been started and it was not from the Western countries. As a matter of fact Western countries have always tried to accomodate the Muslims and their views and tried to bring them into the center of their societies. Have you ever been to Germany and have you seen how your fellow countrymen live there? How they enjoy every right and priviledge and freedom the Western countries stand for? And how they don't care about it? How they live in their "areas" which sometimes the Germans don't dare setting foot in, because the Arabs brought all their sets of rules with them and are free to live their life the way they know it from back home, including abusive behavior towards women, killings for the sake of "honor" and so on? They don't give a rat's ass about integration into these societies, although the West does all for them it does for their own citizens - and a little extra, so that the 9/11 ********* could find their place in Hamburg to plot their attacks. Now you differentiate between normal and radical muslims and I see a difference there alright. Still, if I as a Westerner would go to some place Arab and without any regard to the existing social rules tried to pursue my way of living as I know nit from back home, would I be welcome to do it? So what side always tried to prevent disharmonies between the religions/cultures? What side decided to **** members of the other without reason?
2. The majority of board members responding here have not been Americans.
3.
Excuse me? Is this your "non-radical" Muslim view? If it is, you have given me all the more reason to advocate a strict, powerful way of action as described above.
