Do you believe the Islamist terrorists' goal is to conquer the world?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
If you support it then you are in fact supporting a neocon platform goal.

Other people hold the same opinions (and they are on both sides too). So it isn't only a neo-con platform goal.

I must be getting to my bf... I'll argue this out later.

[Berzerker]

If blowing up innocent civilians isn't terror, then I don't know what is.

Ahem...that includes just about every modern nation that has ever fought in a war.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Ahem...that includes just about every modern nation that has ever fought in a war.

I am talking about well... like taking an airplane into a building... like on 9/11, when a nation was at peace.

[Atahualpa]

I think their goal is to conquer their own boredom

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap


You haven't given any line that says "we will conquer the world".

So how do you interpret "Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world..." and "Establishing the rule of God on earth"?? Looks to me as I have twice posted that their goal is worldwide fundamentalist government. Selective reading on your part?

The differences between the war on terror and Vietnam are so incredibly vast that noone could even begin to list them in the space provided here.

Yes, you are right-one was a real war-the other is an annoying rhetorical flourish.

While I hate to do this, lets get a grip on perspective here folks- 25,000 people or LESS have been killed by Islamist terrorism outside of Algeria (a nice civil war situation of it's own) since 1990..which means islamist terrorism is down the line in terms of people being killed for political reasons. If people in the Rich states get all worked up abou it, its becuase it is the one form of political violence that hits them-much like how much more is made about a airplane accidents as opposed to the far greater amount of people that die from Car crashes.

Well I thought this one was obvious enough that it didn't really need any explanation...guess I was wrong.

The major differences in the wars:

1.) Vietnam was a territorial war with the specific goal of limited territory. Both sides would stop when the specific goal was reached. In fact, North Vietnam did.

2.) The theatre of war was limited to the area in question.

3.) A legitimate government was involved on both sides. International partners were backing both sides.

4.) Religious idealism played no part in the war.

WRT The war on terror:

1.) Shear number of deaths does not indicate the political and economic impact of the war.

2.) Religious idealogy (i.e. Islamic fundamentalism) is able to recruit across boarders with over 700 million muslims living in a large number of countries.

3.) A "no-negotiation" position wrt al-Qaeda. (Their position as well as ours)

4.) Total intolerence for differing beliefs by al-Qaeda to the point of zero respect for non-muslim life.


These are just a few of many many differences. But I believe that you already knew them. Most of your differences with people are well thought out...even though I disagree with you conclusions of the evidence. This one is not. al-Qaeda must be destroyed or brought to justice. If they adhere to their stated goals then they will not stop until eithier us or them are gone...I pick them.

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO

So how do you interpret "Current goal is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world..." and "Establishing the rule of God on earth"?? Looks to me as I have twice posted that their goal is worldwide fundamentalist government. Selective reading on your part?

So you mean Miss Universe actually represents THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!!

Lets see, "God ule on Earth", you mean like The City on the HIll? 'on Earth, as in this world, and "emcompassing the whole earth" are too vastly different things. As for "throughout the wolrd"-you know, I have seen no Wal-marts in Panama, and I doubt there are many in the Central African republic, yet somehow that company and many others have the gaul to call themselves "International", or "global"-how dare they call themselves global unless they are EVERYWHERE!!

Have I made my point yet about this, or do I need more obvious examples?

The major differences in the wars:

1.) Vietnam was a territorial war with the specific goal of limited territory. Both sides would stop when the specific goal was reached. In fact, North Vietnam did.

Except that it was sold as part of the grand global war on communism, at least in the states...

2.) The theatre of war was limited to the area in question.

And the theater here is not?-we can argue this one more.

1.) Shear number of deaths does not indicate the political and economic impact of the war.

Only in so far as anything that happens to the rich has greater economic impact than what happens to the poor, AND since the rich set the agenda of what is politically important, obviously this is true. I mean, who cares about 2 million dead in the Congo? Its a poor isolated region, so whatever I guess.

2.) Religious idealogy (i.e. Islamic fundamentalism) is able to recruit across boarders with over 700 million muslims living in a large number of countries.

1 billion.

4.) Total intolerence for differing beliefs by al-Qaeda to the point of zero respect for non-muslim life.

They have shown themselves contemptous of most Muslims as well.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO
The differences between the war on terror and Vietnam are so incredibly vast that noone could even begin to list them in the space provided here. They are also so incredibly vast that I find it nearly impossible to believe that you don't see enough of them to make that last post anything but a troll.

You are absolutely right. It simply is insane to declare war on an abstract concept.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

2.) Religious idealogy (i.e. Islamic fundamentalism) is able to recruit across boarders with over 700 million muslims living in a large number of countries.

1 billion.

300 million live in a small number of countries, thats where the discrepency lies.

[:) Smiley]

US ought to be attacking not the castle but the mind. We ought to airdrop TVs, movies, and other goodies and destroy their fundamentalism with consumer electronics.

[Ted Striker]

That's why we LAUNCH BRITNEY!


USA!

[Giancarlo]

Brittney Spears? What are you trying to do? Burn my eyes out and make me blind? I got an idea, drop that image on leaflets throughout the Sunni area of Iraq... that'll shut up those militants.

[Elok]

Eh, I'm late. Oh well.

It doesn't matter what their goal is. These people obviously lack the critical thinking abilities to carry out any plans they might have. I mean, who thinks, "Hmm, the most powerful country on Earth hates and distrusts my people-aha! I know how to fix it! I'll attack that country's civilians without warning and declare war on their way of life! That's sure to lead to better understanding and cooperation between our societies!" Amazing how they can implement sophisticated attacks on well-guarded targets, but don't have the sense to think about why they would want to in the first place.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Giancarlo


Talk with terrorists? No. The US doesn't do that.

Why not. Talking can be the only way to settle this. USA doesnot have the manpower to occup almost very nations on this planet or control different people of different cultures. In a lots of poor 3rd world nations around this world the 9-11 terrorist are consider hero by these poor people.

[Giancarlo]

So we should negoigate with terrorists? These people do NOT represent other cultures. They just want to incite terror in the hearts of millions. You can't even type english so why do I even bother talking with you? Just one more DL.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb


1 billion.

300 million live in a small number of countries, thats where the discrepency lies. [/QUOTE]

It is now est that there are 1.6 billion muslim worldwide 1.5 billion Christian worldwide 800 million Hindic world wide(but mostly in India).