Iran...are we going to attack them

[Mr_Snstr]

I wonder if we could go a whole generation without shooting or bombing people in the middle east. This is quickly becoming a national past-time of ours; like baseball. If they organize a massive army and try to invade us; then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But considering how well our army(arguably one of the best trained, funded, and technologically advanced) do against their guys with AKs, RPGs, and homemade bombs on their turf; I don't think it's something that warrants allot of worrying about.

Real invasions have rarely worked in the real world and history; mostly the possibility of them work as a tool to fear monger a population into using offense as defense.

---

To believe that conquest and domination is built into the scriptures of Islam, and they should all be treated and feared as such, one would have to ignore the existence of every Muslim they've known that wasn't actively conquering or dominating them. I could go further on this point; but get real.

Also Isreal is not the perfect innocent butterfly they'd like us all to believe.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Mr_Snstr

[+and-then]

You sir are a loon. Christians wish for the "end times" as well. Hating someone is not a reason to bomb them. Being Islamic is not a reason to bomb them. The rest of your rant is pure BS.

The US is not at war with Iran. Try to keep up.

Ad Hominem attacks don't bolster your opinions. It might be that I am a loon but nothing I've said here should infer it. I stand by what I've said.

And BTW Christian eschatology does NOT include a doctrine of facilitating the return of Christ.

[+and-then]

I wonder if we could go a whole generation without shooting or bombing people in the middle east. This is quickly becoming a national past-time of ours; like baseball. If they organize a massive army and try to invade us; then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. But considering how well our army(arguably one of the best trained, funded, and technologically advanced) do against their guys with AKs, RPGs, and homemade bombs on their turf; I don't think it's something that warrants allot of worrying about.

Real invasions have rarely worked in the real world and history; mostly the possibility of them work as a tool to fear monger a population into using offense as defense.

---

To believe that conquest and domination is built into the scriptures of Islam, and they should all be treated and feared as such, one would have to ignore the existence of every Muslim they've known that wasn't actively conquering or dominating them. I could go further on this point; but get real.

Also Isreal is not the perfect innocent butterfly they'd like us all to believe.

The fact that Islam is a religious/political movement that is bent on conquest is not conjecture on my part. Even a brief study of the Qu'ran and Hadiths proves this point. In truth the so called radicals are the only TRUE adherents to the faith. The rest are no different than Christians in name only who don't try to keep the words of Jesus. I'm no islamophobe I'm a realist. Asymetrical warfare has erased the need for massed invasion forces. 19 guys did more damage in a few minutes than has been done to American soil since the civil war. I never assumed that all muslims were plotting to kill me but WHERE are the "moderates"? They have not taken a stand against the terror and until they do I feel they are complicit in it.

Israel is just another secular western government. Just as stupid and possibly corrupt around the edges but one thing that makes them different is the reality that millions of Arabs would gladly destroy the nation if they could.

[lightly]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b2a_1231990986

93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates, Says Gallup Survey

A huge survey of the world's Muslims challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/jan/13/00029/

Ninety-nine percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are moderate and see jihad as a self-cleansing process to get back on the path of spiritual excellence. Presidents Mubarak, Musharraf, Ben Ali (Tunisia), Kings Abdullah II of Jordan, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed VI of Morocco, and other moderate Muslim leaders, all have told this reporter in the past two years that Islamist extremists are no more than 1 percent of their population.

[+and-then]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b2a_1231990986

93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates, Says Gallup Survey

A huge survey of the world's Muslims challenges Western notions that equate Islam with radicalism and violence.

The survey, conducted by the Gallup polling agency over six years and three continents, seeks to dispel the belief held by some in the West that Islam itself is the driving force of radicalism.

It shows that the overwhelming majority of Muslims condemned the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and other subsequent terrorist attacks, the authors of the study said in Washington.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Muslims in 40 countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Middle East were interviewed for the survey, which is part of Gallup's World Poll that aims to interview 95 percent of the world's population.

∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏∏

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/article/2003/jan/13/00029/

Ninety-nine percent of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are moderate and see jihad as a self-cleansing process to get back on the path of spiritual excellence. Presidents Mubarak, Musharraf, Ben Ali (Tunisia), Kings Abdullah II of Jordan, Fahd of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed VI of Morocco, and other moderate Muslim leaders, all have told this reporter in the past two years that Islamist extremists are no more than 1 percent of their population.

And I say again: Where are the moderates who are protesting and condemning the terror thugs? I'll use the analogy of Christians and the KLAN... The KKK is soundly and strenuously shouted down by Christians. Americans in general find the organization abhorrent and say so regularly. Lawsuits have been pursued to penalize their hate and they have been marginalized quite effectively.

The first 3 references you used have been deposed and Saudi Arabia, the home of Wahabbism,really?

If you really want to understand the threat you might google the word "taqiya" as relates to Islamists and their doctrine of Jihad.

[lightly]

thanks and then, i learned a new word for a specific kind of lying. wooptydoo. The deposed "references " were not mine.. they were in an article in the "American Conservative. I give up... rant away.

[+and-then]

thanks and then, i learned a new word for a specific kind of lying. wooptydoo. The deposed "references " were not mine.. they were in an article in the "American Conservative. I give up... rant away.

I don't care where they are quoted from.

The point they were trying to make is that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful ergo we need not worry about the rest.

And rant I shall to keep the message alive that these people live by an ideology that seeks to bring everyone else into SUBMISSION. Living like a slave might be your cup of tea but I'll pass...

[lightly]

I don't care where they are quoted from.

The point they were trying to make is that the vast majority of muslims are peaceful ergo we need not worry about the rest.

And rant I shall to keep the message alive that these people live by an ideology that seeks to bring everyone else into SUBMISSION. Living like a slave might be your cup of tea but I'll pass...

Actually, Wrong. If you read the article, the point they were trying to make is that we DO need to worry about the rest.

In reality, the vast majority of "these people" do not seek to bring everyone else into submission.

* So, how would an extreme minority accomplish the "SUBMISSION" of "everyone else" ?

Do the vast majority of Christians adhere to all that is advised in the Old Testament? ... similar thing.

You sound like you want war... you sound like you believe every Muslim is your enemy and a threat to the rest of humanity? What do you think should be done?

*

Edited January 13, 2012 by lightly

[Goodnite]

I don't think war is inevitable. I pray cooler heads prevail.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Goodnite

[Corp]

Aren't there more Muslims in Asia than in the Middle East? The country with the highest Muslim population by far is Indonesia and they don't seem to have a beef with the US. Second with the highest population is India who is very friendly with the US. So by and large Muslims as a group don't have an issue with the US.

[Michelle]

I thought with Obama at the helm we didn't have to worry about the US attacking anyone anymore.

[ninjadude]

Ad Hominem attacks don't bolster your opinions. It might be that I am a loon but nothing I've said here should infer it. I stand by what I've said.

Fair enough. But to me and many others, Islamaphobia is looney. And what you've posted amounts to Islamaphobia. Hence...

[ninjadude]

The fact that Islam is a religious/political movement that is bent on conquest is not conjecture on my part. Even a brief study of the Qu'ran and Hadiths proves this point.

No, it only proves it's in a book. Wild crap exists in the bible as well. Not really a proof of anything in the real world.

[ninjadude]

I thought with Obama at the helm we didn't have to worry about the US attacking anyone anymore.

why would you think that? did he say anything remotely like that? No. You're falling for incorrect conservative assumptions about Democrats.

[Michelle]

why would you think that? did he say anything remotely like that? No. You're falling for incorrect conservative assumptions about Democrats.

Why would conservatives tout that as a plus for Obama while so many people were fed up with the Republican warmongering Bush during the election? He always gave the impression that he was anti-war.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Michelle

[ninjadude]

Why would conservatives tout that as a plus for Obama while so many people were fed up with the Republican warmongering Bush during the election? He always gave the impression that he was anti-war.

No the message was to remove ourselves from Iraq (the wrong war) and prosecute the war in Afghanistan (the right war) and get it over with. And get BinLaden. I don't recall any anti-war impressions. I hoped for some. But I don't think he actually made those promises. Many people are "surprised" that he's done exactly what was claimed.

Personally, I wish he would get out of Afghanistan, trim the non-military Blackwater troops in Irag, close some bases in the world, trim the entire military budget and close Guantanamo. A lot of that is what causes people to like Ron Paul. It's not a really a Republican position though. But realistically Obama has to deal with Congress, the Pentagon, military lobbyists. the rest of the world, and his own ideologies.

It will be interesting to see what new claims and promises come up after the Republicans decide on a nominee. And his response to questions about previous claims and promises. I look forward to those debates.

[Michelle]

I would've given him points for getting our troops out of Iraq, on the deadline Bush had set with the Iraqi government, and closing Gitmo. It's funny...you don't hear about closing Gitmo over and over and over again in the news anymore. There is no doubt the press has been very lenient with him. I guess it wasn't as easy as he thought it was going to be.

It will be interesting to see what new claims and promises come up after the Republicans decide on a nominee. And his response to questions about previous claims and promises. I look forward to those debates.

As do I.

[+and-then]

No, it only proves it's in a book. Wild crap exists in the bible as well. Not really a proof of anything in the real world.

Do you really believe that these "books" aren't having a serious impact on the thinking and actions of the muslims who want to kill us? It's not a casual thing for any human being to WANT to die so they can kill others. Granted-suicide bombing is not specifically in the Qu'ran but glorification of martyrdom certainly is found in it's pages.

If you're interested in learning more about how this situation has evolved over the past decade I can suggest Tony Blankley's THE WEST'S LAST CHANCE. He was a conservative author (died 1/7/12)but his treatment of the issues is balanced and scholarly.

[Yamato]

No the message was to remove ourselves from Iraq (the wrong war) and prosecute the war in Afghanistan (the right war) and get it over with. And get BinLaden. I don't recall any anti-war impressions. I hoped for some. But I don't think he actually made those promises. Many people are "surprised" that he's done exactly what was claimed.

Personally, I wish he would get out of Afghanistan, trim the non-military Blackwater troops in Irag, close some bases in the world, trim the entire military budget and close Guantanamo. A lot of that is what causes people to like Ron Paul. It's not a really a Republican position though. But realistically Obama has to deal with Congress, the Pentagon, military lobbyists. the rest of the world, and his own ideologies.

It will be interesting to see what new claims and promises come up after the Republicans decide on a nominee. And his response to questions about previous claims and promises. I look forward to those debates.

The right war? Why is nation building Afghanistan and securing Afghans any more important than doing the same in Iraq? If Afghanistan was the right war because "the Taliban attacked us" and Saddam Hussein didn't, then you wouldn't want to pull out of Afghanistan.

We have an embassy in Baghdad larger than the Vatican. Why are tens of thousands of government employees acceptable now when Bush's tens of thousands weren't? As long as we're not patrolling the streets (with non-mercenaries anyway), it's okay? Trim the "Blackwater troops"? "Trim"? Bush Lite is better than No Bush?

Was Bush wrong for killing Iraqis just with the military? Obama isn't wrong for using Bush's mercenaries to kill Iraqis? Why is having less mercenaries there a good idea? Killing Afghans with the military is okay though? There was 10 times more Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI! ) than there is now in Afghanistan, so nope, that's not it either. What standard are we playing with here when we determine what "right" from "wrong" is? It looks like the same old crapshoot to me. It looks like another politician playing with his lobbyists, the Pentagon, the Congress, the rest of the world, and his own ideologies to me, ie. the problem. Just remind the Republicans it was okay when Bush did it, and then hedge Bush's poisons with compromise? THAT is why people love Ron Paul.

[ninjadude]

. It's funny...you don't hear about closing Gitmo over and over and over again in the news anymore.

There have been protests. But I think the reason is that the Congress (sorry - but Republicans) will not allow the "detainees" to be moved to the mainland for prosecution.

[ninjadude]

Do you really believe that these "books" aren't having a serious impact on the thinking and actions of the muslims who want to kill us?

YES they ARE. It's just that there are very few of those muslims.

[ninjadude]

The right war? Why is nation building Afghanistan and securing Afghans any more important than doing the same in Iraq? If Afghanistan was the right war because "the Taliban attacked us" and Saddam Hussein didn't, then you wouldn't want to pull out of Afghanistan.

We got Bin Laden. AQ is greatly reduced and elsewhere. AQ is not a nation. We've been there 10 years. Enough is enough.

We have an embassy in Baghdad larger than the Vatican. Why are tens of thousands of government employees acceptable now when Bush's tens of thousands weren't? \

they're not. I didn't say they were.

Was Bush wrong for killing Iraqis just with the military? Obama isn't wrong for using Bush's mercenaries to kill Iraqis? Why is having less mercenaries there a good idea?

so many questions. Yes we had no business invading Iraq. Yes Obama should have removed our mercs. Because we have no business being there.

Killing Afghans with the military is okay though? There was 10 times more Al Qaeda in Iraq. And they did not exist in Iraq on 9/11 until Bush invaded later.

BS. Made up numbers and our troops were a magnet for them in iraq. There are Iraqi's in Iraq. Of different religious afiliations. That hate each other. Bush marched in to make up for Daddy not going there.

What standard are we playing with here when we determine what "right" from "wrong" is?

The Taliban trained and launched the terrorists that perped 9/11. Right means we go after them in Afghanistan. Wrong means there was no reason to invade Iraq. Simple.

[Yamato]

We got Bin Laden. AQ is greatly reduced and elsewhere. AQ is not a nation. We've been there 10 years. Enough is enough.

they're not. I didn't say they were.

so many questions. Yes we had no business invading Iraq. Yes Obama should have removed our mercs. Because we have no business being there.

BS. Made up numbers and our troops were a magnet for them in iraq. There are Iraqi's in Iraq. Of different religious afiliations. That hate each other. Bush marched in to make up for Daddy not going there.

The Taliban trained and launched the terrorists that perped 9/11. Right means we go after them in Afghanistan. Wrong means there was no reason to invade Iraq. Simple.

We got Bin Laden. AQ is greatly reduced and elsewhere. AQ is not a nation. We've been there 10 years. Enough is enough.

Greatly reduced where we're wasting our money, and greatly enhanced where we're not. So it's a BS policy. "AQ" is in 100 countries. You're a fan of Bush policy, add a surge against the Taliban that had nothing to do with getting bin Laden.

they're not. I didn't say they were.

So then Obama's policy is pathetic. I'm glad you just said they weren't.

so many questions. Yes we had no business invading Iraq. Yes Obama should have removed our mercs. Because we have no business being there.

So Obama's policy is BS. I agree.

BS. Made up numbers and our troops were a magnet for them in iraq. There are Iraqi's in Iraq. Of different religious afiliations. That hate each other. Bush marched in to make up for Daddy not going there.

BS? Says who? There were estimated to be 1000 AQ in Iraq when we were fighting the "wrong" war there and there are less than 100 AQ in Afghanistan when we're fighting the "right" war there, so I'm paying attention to the intelligence, I'm not believing in the tooth fairy or whatever blog you're reading from.

The Taliban trained and launched the terrorists that perped 9/11. Right means we go after them in Afghanistan. Wrong means there was no reason to invade Iraq. Simple.

The Taliban trained Al Qaeda? That's one I haven't heard. By the low standards your rhetoric commands, so did other countries. You want to keep Al Qaeda away from the pile of rocks with the monkey bars. I agreed with the initial invasion to get bin Laden but when that didn't work out we began nation building and killing insurgents who were defending their country from foreign invaders. We don't have the money to build other nations. If it's the right war for you, maybe you should pay my share because I don't have a red cent's interest in that money pit.

[ninjadude]

We don't have the money to build other nations. If it's the right war for you, maybe you should pay my share because I don't have a red cent's interest in that money pit.

You misunderstand me. I agree wholeheartedly. We don't have money for nation building.. THREE years later Afghanistan is no longer the right war or the right place if there is one. We should get out. I completely agree. I was referring to the rhetoric at the time - 2008.

[ninjadude]

BS? Says who? There were estimated to be 1000 AQ in Iraq when we were fighting the "wrong" war there

If you believe the following BS, AQI was "founded" in 2003/2004 long after we invaded Iraq. Had we not invaded, it would not exist.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) is a popular name for the Iraqi division of the international Salafi jihadi militant organization al-Qaeda. It is recognized as a part of the greater Iraqi insurgency.

The group was founded in 2003 and first led by the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004.

source