France attack...

[thethe]

Like I said several pages ago, you want a never-ending war that kills millions in order to save hundreds

No concept of how serious this issue is. I hope in the future people such as yourself are the vast minority and I hope it doesn't take too many more atrocities to change their minds.

 

[sturg33]

A few as you put it is a gross understatement of the size of the enemy.

Also if we sat idly by while a group of our population was performing atrocitis around the world then we would deserve evwry bit of reprisal.

I'm still curious, if Russia invaded and bombed our country, do you guys think we would have a problem with that?

 

[thethe]

I'm still curious, if Russia invaded and bombed our country, do you guys think we would have a problem with that?

Your constant insistence of likening this to a battle between countries is completely off. This is a battle between ideologies. One that wants to be free and inclusive and one that wants to ensalve to the world under their view of how people should live. Feel free to choose whichever side you want.

Of course we wouldn't like it but we would have deserved it because of our inaction.

 

[sturg33]

No concept of how serious this issue is. I hope in the future people such as yourself are the vast minority and I hope it doesn't take too many more atrocities to change their minds.

You are a broken record.

Would you just admit that you want a never-ending war? That is what you're advocating for. You don't seem to understand that. It's fine that you want that - just own up to it.

Would you admit that the cost of doing what you are advocating is astronomical? How much money do you want to spend on this effort? How many military men do you want to lose for it? How many civil liberties do you want stripped away for it? How much expansion of the police state do you want? How many innocent civilians do you want murdered who get in our way? How long do you want to put up with these costs?

Those are all legit questions that I'd like for you to answer individually - and specifically. Don't give me the the "This is a huge threat that if we don't take care of we will all die" fear mongering. Don't give me general answers of "collaborating with the rest of the world to stop it." Answer those questions specifically.

 

[sturg33]

Your constant insistence of likening this to a battle between countries is completely off. This is a battle between ideologies. One that wants to be free and inclusive and one that wants to ensalve to the world under their view of how people should live. Feel free to choose whichever side you want.

Of course we wouldn't like it but we would have deserved it because of our inaction.

I see - so it's not "absurd" for people to hate countries that bomb them.

Just checking

 

[thethe]

You are a broken record.

Would you just admit that you want a never-ending war? That is what you're advocating for. You don't seem to understand that. It's fine that you want that - just own up to it.

Would you admit that the cost of doing what you are advocating is astronomical? How much money do you want to spend on this effort? How many military men do you want to lose for it? How many civil liberties do you want stripped away for it? How much expansion of the police state do you want? How many innocent civilians do you want murdered who get in our way? How long do you want to put up with these costs?

Those are all legit questions that I'd like for you to answer individually - and specifically. Don't give me the the "This is a huge threat that if we don't take care of we will all die" fear mongering. Don't give me general answers of "collaborating with the rest of the world to stop it." Answer those questions specifically.

Those are the answers and you just refuse to accept it. You are too blind to see the threat that is out there because of your prior beliefs. The proof is smack right in front of you and I'm sorry that you refuse to accept it.

 

[sturg33]

Those are the answers and you just refuse to accept it. You are too blind to see the threat that is out there because of your prior beliefs. The proof is smack right in front of you and I'm sorry that you refuse to accept it.

Please address these questions:

1. Would you admit that the cost of doing what you are advocating is astronomical?

2. How much money do you want to spend on this effort?

3. How many military men do you want to lose for it?

4. How many civil liberties do you want stripped away for it?

5. How much expansion of the police state do you want?

6. How many innocent civilians do you want murdered who get in our way?

7. How do you define success? How do you stop an ideology?

8. If you don't want a never-ending war, when can we claime "mission accomplished?"

9. How long do you want to put up with these costs?

 

[Dalyn]

Respect must be earned IMO. Now Dalyn you know I think you're a good guy and I'm pretty sure you've read me criticizing pretty much anyone or every one if I think (in MY infinite wisdom) that they deserve it. You know I've criticized self righteous so called Christians when I think they're full of it, but to play devil's advocate (sorry, couldn't resist) here, for Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, or any other group every person or group falls short sometimes. Christians may miss the mark more often than any of us would like to admit, but Christians also collectively do good things they don't get credit for, like the free hospitals for sick kids. I don't think I've ever seen an Islamic Cancer Treatment Center, a Hindu Cancer Treatment Center, or to be totally fair an Atheist Cancer Treatment Center, though I believe if you had your way there would be one of those. It's easy, and necessary IMO to cherry pick when any group when they do or say something obviously wrong, Lord knows I can't seem to resist, but I think all of us, myself at the top of the list, should probably try to be better on the other side of this coin.

Sorry, no offense intended, just an observation.

These things are true and also can be said of many individuals and groups. Even Muslim ones. Whether or not some good comes out of religion on a group level or individual level is not ultimately the point. Overall, it is a destructive force that poisons everything. How it IS relative and CURRENTLY a point is that it moves certain symptoms up and down the immediate threat scale. The illness is still the problem, but when a symptom poses an immediate threat to the life of the patient, you deal with it and then go back to working on the illness.

 

[Dalyn]

I don't think I've ever seen an Islamic Cancer Treatment Center, a Hindu Cancer Treatment Center, or to be totally fair an Atheist Cancer Treatment Center, though I believe if you had your way there would be one of those.

In fairness, some of the top researches close to cures or more effective treatments are atheists. But like most everything else in their life, they don't make a point of using atheism as a reason for doing what they do. They aren't trying to put it front and center for recruitment.

 

[thethe]

Please address these questions:

1. Would you admit that the cost of doing what you are advocating is astronomical?

2. How much money do you want to spend on this effort?

3. How many military men do you want to lose for it?

4. How many civil liberties do you want stripped away for it?

5. How much expansion of the police state do you want?

6. How many innocent civilians do you want murdered who get in our way?

7. How do you define success? How do you stop an ideology?

8. If you don't want a never-ending war, when can we claime "mission accomplished?"

9. How long do you want to put up with these costs?

1. Yes the costs will be astronomical
2. I have no way of quantifying a number only knowing it will be high
3. I don't "want" to lose any armed forces members. However, i do acknowledge that there will be those that die in the fight for the worlds freedom
4. I think the current levels are acceptable but I would also include much more steriotyping in their selections. I'm sorry American Muslims but our enemy is clear.
5. I don't see any expansion as necessary. It will all stem from identification by the West.
6. I would need to see why someone was "innocent" before saying they are innocent but anyone who has ties to these people do not deserve anyones sympathy
7. Education and equal opportunities by setting up democracies all over the middle east
8. Impossible to say
9. As long as it takes

 

[sturg33]

1. Yes the costs will be astronomical
2. I have no way of quantifying a number only knowing it will be high
3. I don't "want" to lose any armed forces members. However, i do acknowledge that there will be those that die in the fight for the worlds freedom
4. I think the current levels are acceptable but I would also include much more steriotyping in their selections. I'm sorry American Muslims but our enemy is clear.
5. I don't see any expansion as necessary. It will all stem from identification by the West.
6. I would need to see why someone was "innocent" before saying they are innocent but anyone who has ties to these people do not deserve anyones sympathy
7. Education and equal opportunities by setting up democracies all over the middle east
8. Impossible to say
9. As long as it takes

Thanks for answering - although not very specific. It sounds like you'd lead us straight to bankruptcy though

 

[Dalyn]

But it really isn't a religion, isn't it more a perverted religious sub-group, for lack of a more accurate term?

Christianity is arguably a perverted religious sub-group of Judaism. Islam is arguably a perverted religious sub-group of Christianity and Judaism. Doesn't make either of them NOT a religion.

 

[thethe]

Thanks for answering - although not very specific. It sounds like you'd lead us straight to bankruptcy though

You are asking me questions that are impossible to answer and you are smart enough to know that. It doesn't matter how much this costs us. The cost of not doing this is immeasurably higher.

 

[sturg33]

You are asking me questions that are impossible to answer and you are smart enough to know that. It doesn't matter how much this costs us. The cost of not doing this is immeasurably higher.

Well - I would say the cost of taking the US into bankruptcy is a much bigger threat to our sovereignty than radical islam

 

[Krgrecw]

Thanks for answering - although not very specific. It sounds like you'd lead us straight to bankruptcy though

Sturg what would you do to fight terrorism?

 

[thethe]

Well - I would say the cost of taking the US into bankruptcy is a much bigger threat to our sovereignty than radical islam

Again, this is not a US issue. This is a GLOBAL issue.

 

[sturg33]

Again, this is not a US issue. This is a GLOBAL issue.

How familiar are you with Michael Scheuer? He is the former CIA chief that led the Usama Bin Landen unit. I've read a lot of his stuff over the years and my opinions as it relates to terrorism align more closely with his. He has said a lot of controversial things, many of which I don't agree with. But I think he is a lot more thoughtful regarding the Islamic threat than our media and government is. I believe our government (and other governments across the world), use the threat of terrorism as a means to expand its power.

Anyways, here's a brief wikipedia summary of Scheuer's view on the war on terror - which I agree with much of it:

Scheuer's views have emphasized the danger of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, as well as the ineffectiveness of U.S. policy against these imminent threats. The threat to the United States, Scheuer has consistently maintained, continues to grow, and the U.S. continually fails to grasp the nature of the struggle in which it is engaged:Islamist and anti-American sentiment continue to grow around the world, and the bin Laden movement is aimed, not at killing or conquering Americans or reforming their internal political systems, but rather bankrupting them in order to reduce their worldwide influence and thereby liberate Muslims from the yoke of American political, military, and financial influence. The failure of the U.S. to apprehend this threat is, in part, rooted in a misunderstanding and underestimation of Osama bin Laden himself. To Scheuer, Osama bin Laden's "beliefs, goals, and intentions" are

"carefully chosen, plainly spoken, and precise. He has set out the Muslim world's problems as he sees them; determined that they are caused by the United States; explained why they must be remedied; and outlined how he will try to do so. Seldom in America's history has an enemy laid out so clearly the basis for the war he is waging against it."

Scheuer's criticism of U.S. foreign policy includes a sweeping condemnation of the invasion of Iraq, which he has characterized as a "Christmas present" to Osama bin Laden's Islamist recruitment efforts, and a validation of bin Laden's claims that the U.S. is at war with Islam. From his personal involvement in background research in the run up to the war, Scheuer states that "there was no connection between [Al Qaeda] and Saddam."

U.S. rhetoric about bin Laden's allegedly "hating freedom" has also irked Scheuer, who suggests that those "willing to give their lives to destroy the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia... must want freedom in some kind of way." This erroneous rhetoric, according to Scheuer, is not only to be found in the media and among politicians, but even in the 9/11 Commission report, in which bin Laden and his followers are identified "as takfiris, who kill Muslims if they don‘t agree with them. They‘re not takfiris. They‘re just very devout, severe Salafists and Wahhabis."

The insistence on referring to al Qaeda and the Islamist movement around it as a terrorist group or terrorist movement has also been a mistake, according to Scheuer. The U.S. is faced with an insurgency, rather than mere terrorism.

Speaking on the BBC news on November 9, 2012, Scheuer criticised what he called the Obama administration's deceit about the threat from Islamic militants, and misleading the American people in his first administration by claiming that the word "jihad" had nothing to do with military affairs, and that it had to do with "self reform and community improvement", which Scheuer claims was a blatant lie.

Additionally, Scheuer wrote an entire book about our foreign called "Imperial Hubris", which criticized foreign policy mistakes while he was still supporting the OBL team (he got in trouble for this). Osama bin Laden acknowledged the book in a 2007 statement, suggesting that it revealed "the reasons for your losing the war against us."

 

[thethe]

I have never argued that our actions are igniting some flames but his view that this has something only to do with the US is not acknowledging the deeper issue. As Dalyn has pointed out this pre-dates the US.

This issue is also far bigger than Bin Laden and always has been. The idea that his death did anything to damage our enemy was ludacrisp.

What is your response to those that kill people for not being able to read from the Koran?

 

[sturg33]

I have never argued that our actions are igniting some flames but his view that this has something only to do with the US is not acknowledging the deeper issue. As Dalyn has pointed out this pre-dates the US.

This issue is also far bigger than Bin Laden and always has been. The idea that his death did anything to damage our enemy was ludacrisp.

What is your response to those that kill people for not being able to read from the Koran?

The point is, the man who was closest to the biggest focus on counter-terrorism in US history, has decided that we've got it all wrong, and goes to great lengths to explain why in multiple books. If you ever cared to hear a different point of view, you should check it out.

My response to that would be that the person is a terrible person, much like a police officer shooting someone for no reason.

 

[thethe]

My response to that would be that the person is a terrible person, much like a police officer shooting someone for no reason.

And if there are thousands (potentially tens of thousands) of those people scattered across the world. Then what?