Why Giuliani is Unqualified to be Prez

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Indonesia was hit for Aussie vacation spots.

theyve hit downtown Jakarta as well. Theyve hit Indonesia repeatedly we just focused more on the Bali hit, cause it was bigger, and it killed white people.

They hit Indon cause its a secular muslim state, a democracy.

One might almost conclude that they hate freedom.

[lord of the mark]

and the hit on Bali was a twofer. Actually a threefer.

You kill infidel Aussies, and can pin it on the Iraq war.

You kill infidel Balinese Hindus, who have the nerve to live in a muslim state and not convert to Islam, as the rest of the Hindus in the archipelago did.

You undermine the economy of the secular Indon state.


Similarly they do the same attacking Jewish targets in Morocco and Tunisia. Going after them evil Zionists. Except the synagogue they attacked in Tunisia was not even being used anymore, it was for tourists and they were really striking the economy of secularist Tunisia. And in Morocco they killed places owned by the few Jews in the Arab world who hadnt moved to Israel. Also hurt the Moroccan economy.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Berzerker

We've been over there for decades ****ing with them, I'll accept that as their motive before I'll believe a group of Muslims woke up one day and decided to kill a bunch of people half way around the world because they are "free". Isn't that called Occam's Razor or something?

they didnt wake up one day, its an ideology thats been evolving for decades.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=LOTM]I really dont think OBL sees a great future for non-muslims sov, if he triumphs.[/q]

OTOH, the grunts probably join up for different reasons than OBL began his little club. Without the grunts they have little to nothing (as with any loony fringe out there). His recruitment is at a all time high not because more and more folk recieved Islamic eduction for the first time and are thinking Sharia is a great idea.

[PLATO]

It is not really freedom that they hate. It is the idea of a life free of Islamic oversite. Secular democracies threaten the very basis for islamic religious life.

The phase that islam is going through now is quite a bit like what Christianity went through a millenia ago...well, actually even much more recent than that.

The idea that all "infidels" must convert or die is not a new idea to religion. It is not caused by the US being involved in ME politics, that's for sure!!

It is simply a religion that is at a certain point in its maturity process. The problem is that the world now contains some pretty devastating weapons that were not around when other religions went through such times.

The idea that you could "negotiate" with religious zealots or that you could "leave them alone" or that you could have a "live and let live" philosophy is not only ludicrous, but denies historical example as well.

Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. The traditional Muslim caliphate is a first step. Read more than just a few selected pieces from these people that deal with limited areas. They seek to kill you or convert you...they are your enemy...Quit trying to rationalize the relationship with them through western secular rose colored glasses. They have quite plainly stated their goals and are quite diligently persuing them.

[Dinner]

Fuel taxes are regressive so CAFE standards and a gas guzzler tax on automobiles which get poor gas mileage seems the most fair way to go about cutting oil usage. That and replacing fuel oil fired power plants with something which doesn't require imported energy. Coal if you don't care about the environment or nuclear power if you do.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=LOTM]I really dont think OBL sees a great future for non-muslims sov, if he triumphs.[/q]

OTOH, the grunts probably join up for different reasons than OBL began his little club. Without the grunts they have little to nothing (as with any loony fringe out there). His recruitment is at a all time high not because more and more folk recieved Islamic eduction for the first time and are thinking Sharia is a great idea.

I beg to differ. Look to when the middle eastern countries began to receive large dollars in revenue for their oil holdings. Look to the investments that have been made into the establishment of madras. Look at the time frame...look at the growing number of young middle eastern men who are now flowing out of these schools of religious intolerence. Understand that these people have a plan and that they are following it closely.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO
The idea that you could "negotiate" with religious zealots or that you could "leave them alone" or that you could have a "live and let live" philosophy is not only ludicrous, but denies historical example as well.

Their goal is to establish a worldwide caliphate. The traditional Muslim caliphate is a first step. Read more than just a few selected pieces from these people that deal with limited areas. They seek to kill you or convert you...they are your enemy...Quit trying to rationalize the relationship with them through western secular rose colored glasses. They have quite plainly stated their goals and are quite diligently persuing them.

We all know they are the enemy. This is a discussing different startegies for dealing with the enemy. Stop trying to make it out to be something else. It doesn't help, and you look kind of ... out of the real discussion, lets just say.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Fuel taxes are regressive so CAFE standards and a gas guzzler tax on automobiles which get poor gas mileage seems the most fair way to go about cutting oil usage. That and replacing fuel oil fired power plants with something which doesn't require imported energy. Coal if you don't care about the environment or nuclear power if you do.

Nuclear power is the answer. Overly heavy gov't regulation is the problem.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Fuel taxes are regressive so CAFE standards and a gas guzzler tax on automobiles which get poor gas mileage seems the most fair way to go about cutting oil usage. That and replacing fuel oil fired power plants with something which doesn't require imported energy. Coal if you don't care about the environment or nuclear power if you do.

please see posts 115 and 131 of this thread, re regressivity.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Kidicious


We all know they are the enemy. This is a discussing different startegies for dealing with the enemy. Stop trying to make it out to be something else. It doesn't help, and you look kind of ... out of the real discussion, lets just say.

Well, I have been a couple of pages behind. Sorry about that.

But, nonetheless...You must understand that dealing with these people economically (which has been the major thrust of this thread wrt energy use and control) is only part of the answer.

The funds that they need will continue to flow to them just as oil will continue to flow...even if we are succesful at reducing the amount, we will not eliminate it for the foreseable future.

My point is that unless you try to interdict these zealots on their turf then you will be forced to do it on your turf.

[Arrian]

Why don't you post links to everything he has said and AQ's published agenda instead of a single fatwa?

The answer is obvious...it would totally destroy your position.

No. I go back to "the beginning" as it were, to examine the roots of it. As things have progressed, he's tacked on all sorts of ****, in many cases almost like an afterthought. I find the 1996 fatwa more instructive.

This is typical of the idiocy of the left. Show one little thing to try to discredit the truth.

One little thing, huh? His original fatwa is "one little thing" whereas other writings are important? Says you. Tell ya what, why don't you post the link to what you consider to be the all-important manifesto(s) like I did with the '96 fatwa? Then we can discuss it further. Or would that make your head hurt too much? Insults are easier on the brain.

Don't you understand that they are coming for you too?

I am perfectly aware that A-Q and other crazies want to kill Americans. I am also aware that I'm an American. Ergo, I get that "they're coming for me."

The basis for our disagreement, as I understand it, is WHY they are "coming for me." You asserted that they want to kill us because we have power and we're preventing them from making the whole world Islamic. I argued, in turn, that the primary grievances these crazies have with us are:

1. Military presence and activity in the Middle East and/or other areas they consider "Muslim." (that last bit, as LotM has pointed out, has some play in it)
2. Support for Isreal.
3. Support for "apostate" Arab governments, such as the House of Saud.

There are other reasons, of course, even including the much over-stated "they hate us for our freedom." They do hate Western liberal society (something they share with some of our own, thankfully non-violent, loonies).

I have not argued for retreat post-haste. I have argued for reducing the need for our involvement in that area of the world, long-term. The fact is that our military footprint in the ME does create anger & resentment, and nutters like OBL can use that to radicalize young Muslims. That, in and of itself, is not a reason to withdraw those troops, provided the troops serve policy objectives we consider important. And that circles back, mainly, to oil. Reducing our dependence on oil would reduce the strategic importance of the middle east, and therefore reduce the need for our soldiers to be there.

As for the "apostate" governments of the ME, frankly given that most of them are nasty little dictatorships/police states, I've no love for them. We support them because we don't want radical Islamist governments taking over and turning off the tap, and/or using their countries as terrorist training centers for missions against us. No easy answers there. My position on that would be to continue to support the various governments we are friendly with, but conditionally (push reforms, albeit slowly).

That would still leave a major grievance out there: Israel. Now again, OBL and radical Islamists are not to be appeased here (the only acceptable outcome, for them, is the destruction of Israel). However, there are millions of more normal people who would accept a 2 state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Resolving that dispute would remove yet another propoganda tool from A-Q's bag of tricks, or at least de-fang it considerably.

In closing, please remember that when I talk about addressing these issues I do not do so with the idea of appeasing terrorists, but rather depriving those bastards of their recruitment tools whenever possible. If a vital US interest supercedes that, so be it. We cannot set policy solely based on how it will be perceived by the "Arab street."

Now, I hope for something resembling a thoughtful response. If all I get is another "fantasyland, LOL!" post, I'm done with you.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Major crossposting - I guess I took my time on that last post.

My point is that unless you try to interdict these zealots on their turf then you will be forced to do it on your turf.

This is the key to the aggressive military intervention argument. Moths to the flame. The flame, in this instance, is the US military, deployed "on their turf."

I understand that argument. It makes a certain logical sense. The trouble is I think there is a legitimate question as to whether you're killing more terrorists than you're creating with such tactics.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea that all "infidels" must convert or die is not a new idea to religion. It is not caused by the US being involved in ME politics, that's for sure!!

So why exactly is this all happening now? There have always been loonies claiming "infidels", but now you have common man on the street joining up with them because of percieved political issues with the big bad bully on the street. And it isn't because of:

I beg to differ. Look to when the middle eastern countries began to receive large dollars in revenue for their oil holdings. Look to the investments that have been made into the establishment of madras. Look at the time frame...look at the growing number of young middle eastern men who are now flowing out of these schools of religious intolerence. Understand that these people have a plan and that they are following it closely.

Madrassas have been around for looooong time before the Arab countries had money. Religious schools have been part of the region for generations. And you have radical Pakistanis, where the amount of kids in the traditional madassa is less than 1%, but a far more radicalized country than even 30 years ago.

To say it is because of madrassas being built by ME countries getting oil money is being silly. Hell, most ME country leadership is far, far, far more moderate and secular than the Islamists. OBL's brand of Islam, Wahabbism is diametrically opposed to, say, Saddam's brand of secular Pan-Arabism.

The person on the street is not radicalized because they were taught to be in religious schools. Those religious schools have been around for generations.

[Patroklos]

We've been over there for decades ****ing with them, I'll accept that as their motive before I'll believe a group of Muslims woke up one day and decided to kill a bunch of people half way around the world because they are "free". Isn't that called Occam's Razor or something?

Of the muslim population of the world, how many are directly affected by Iraq/Afghanistan/Somalia? So in either case, these radical muslims are acting on a nontangible pride issue, either FP or culture. Both are just as likely.