Failed Islamic States of Tomorrow

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

[/quote]

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

62

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Think my calling you a “racist” might have something to do with your comment about Bush “doing something right if he’s pissing off the race X” ? Or perhaps your comment, “If we are going to bring democracy to Country X, we’ll have to ethnically cleanse group Y”?

Yes, this speaks to your reading incomprehension. Did you manage to read the part where I added, “…which would run into just war problems?” That means, (if it’s possible to break it into small enough chunks for even you), that I DON’T advocate ethnic cleansing. I was merely describing what WOULD be necessary in order to achieve a certain goal. Since no one wants to wipe out millions of people, obviously the alternative that avoids ethnic cleansing is desirable since it agrees with just war theory. I thought liberals like you were better at nuance?
[/quote]

Somewhat ironically, as you tried to describe how you aren’t a racist, you spewed racism again. The idea that a group cannot do something based upon their race…that’s racism. Try to keep up. (I underlined it for you this time to try and help…let me know if you need me to completely connect the dots for you.)

Also note you didn’t even bother to try to argue against the other quotation I had.

[quote]You advocated killing millions of Pakistanis. Since we’re the ones with all the brainpower on our sides, perhaps places like Pakistan will go from “most populous” to “least populous” in a relatively short period of time.

Uh, yeah. That’s what happens when one side uses a nuke against a nuclear power - they get nuked themselves. My point, (again - to break it up into morsels bite-sized enough for even you), was that the Muslims will keep up their jihad until they really bite off more than they can chew. Ahmedinejad is a big proponent of “wiping Israel off the map,” Ahmedinejad wants to do so with the nuclear weapons he’s developing, Iran will face reciprocity if they do so. Does this connect the dots sufficiently for you, or do I need to break out a dry-erase board or some finger puppets? [/quote]

So “if we’re smart, we’ll drastically reduce their population” wasn’t advocating mass killings? I think you may wish to work on your writing capacity.

But at least you’re not really advocating mass murder…this makes you less an extremist than sifu.

[quote]I kept asking because you never bothered to answer a single question.

Yes, that’s what you do with a non-sequitur - you ignore it. You may have mistakenly concluded that I have never read “Invisible Man” because I didn’t respond to your incessant babble about “Invisible Man.” That is not my fault. [/quote]

You actually did answer that question, big guy. You said you read invisible man 10 years ago. So what was the purpose of that thread again? You posted an article that poorly compared two works, one of which you haven’t read for 10 years, and the entire thread had NO analysis of the two works…what was your purpose?

[quote]That thread was simply an appeal to bigotry.

Yes, everything is an appeal to bigotry to the brown-shirt spectrum of liberalism that you occupy. Anyone who disagrees is a bigot, and must therefore be jailed, right? You were calling for me to be jailed a post back, weren’t you? [/quote]

No, I was saying if you began to act on your craziness…try to keep up.

[quote]How cute. I bet with your intellect you’ve even figured
out I’m about your age and a grad student…or maybe not…

Yeah, uh, how is that relevant to your intelligence? [/quote]

Nah, it spoke to your lack of intellect, it said nothing about mine.

[quote] All it speaks to is declining admission standards. Some programs, (apparently), will admit people who can only fog a mirror. Did your admission’s package come with a free drool pan as well?

Yippeee! YOu’re a grad student. Why, you must have a stratospheric IQ as well! Why can’t you generate more than pathetic, non-witty one-liners full of manufactured moral outrage rather than arguments substantiated with facts? Has grad school kept you too busy?

It sounds to me, based on our interactions, that this graduate degree of yours will qualify you to become only a better Starbucks barrista (or a manager, if you’re lucky), which is where “intellectuals” such as yourself tend to gravitate while they pine away about how the “system” is broken, indicated by the fact that they’re Starbucks barristas. [/quote]

Nice rant! Is this where I brag about how good my school is? How many honors I’ve won? How many Fellowships and scholarships? Perhaps I should talk about how many jobs I’ve had? Or my current position? I’d start talking to you about phi beta kappa , but you’d probably think it’s a frat.

63

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Terrorists are likely to use a weapon of mass destruction somewhere in the world in the next five years, a blue-ribbon panel assembled by Congress has concluded.

They are more likely to use a biological weapon than a nuclear one – and the results could be devastating, the chairman of the commission told CNN.

“The consequences of a biological attack are almost beyond comprehension. It would be 9/11 times 10 or a hundred in terms of the number of people who would be killed,” former Sen. Bob Graham said.

That post was an appeal to bigotry. [/quote]

No it really isn’t mate. Nice try though.

64

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

[/quote]

This is absolute insanity. Are you honestly saying we “can’t be squeamish” about “killing (hundreds of) millions”???

65

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

[/quote]

Or send them packing in trains to specially designed camps. I know I’m low on soap.

66

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

Or send them packing in trains to specially designed camps. I know I’m low on soap.[/quote]

Or you can force march them across the Hindu Kush.

67

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

Or you can force march them across the Hindu Kush.

Or send them packing in trains to specially designed camps. I know I’m low on soap.

[/quote]

What? I was agreeing with HH. We should take Hitler’s lead like you suggested. Let’s exterminate them before they take root and corrupt the rest of society.

68

Swing and a miss. The Pashtuns have lived a certain way (tribalism, war, vendettas) for at least a thousand years and subscribe to a religion that propagates the same. There’s no racism in pointing out their history and characteristics. Your particular brand of liberalism does tend to balk at facts. It’s rare that you hear one thinking we’ll succeed in democratizing Afghanistan, especially when they’re so fond of pointing out the folly of trying to democratize Iraq. If that’s your position, I applaud your optimism - I simply don’t share it as it means dismantling thousand-year-old tribal structures propped up by 6th century religious convictions, 1st cousin endogamy, and drug money. Call me crazy.

Lol. So in other words, “I know you are but what am I?”

[quote]Nice rant! Is this where I brag about how good my school is? How many honors I’ve won? How many Fellowships and scholarships? Perhaps I should talk about how many jobs I’ve had? Or my current position? I’d start talking to you about phi beta kappa , but you’d probably think it’s a frat.
[/quote]

With all of these accomplishments, accolades (you might have to look up that word), and honors, you’d think you’d be able to a) comprehend another’s arguments and b) string together some of your own. All we ever see from you is “argument by outrage,” which is a (rather pathetic) form of ad hominem (google it). I’ve never met a liberal who wasn’t quick to mention their credentials when they lack in argumentative ability.

Feel free to continue following me from thread to thread with your vacuous mouth-breathing one liners. It helps keep things lively in here, and usually bumps my threads.

69

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

This is absolute insanity. Are you honestly saying we “can’t be squeamish” about “killing (hundreds of) millions”???[/quote]

If it is a matter of kill or be killed or slavery then what choice have the given us?

70

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

Or you can force march them across the Hindu Kush.

Or send them packing in trains to specially designed camps. I know I’m low on soap.

What? I was agreeing with HH. We should take Hitler’s lead like you suggested. Let’s exterminate them before they take root and corrupt the rest of society.[/quote]

How about we repatriate them to their country of ethnic origin?

I think your Hitler/deathcamp analogy breaks down when you consider the fact that Jews weren’t advocating the subjugation and death of non-Jews and weren’t daily killing non-Jews. I can’t find any record of Jews bombing trains and buses prior to WWII and the Holocaust. In fact, I can’t seem to find any record of it ever, save the Jewish invasion of the Levant some 3,000 years ago, which was limited in scope and duration. In fact, they were living then as they are now: as peacefully as possible with their neighbors.

Oh well. When the Pakistani Muslims step up their jihad against the Hindus, maybe you’ll become less careless with your analogies. 175 innocent deaths apparently weren’t enough (notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands of Hindus killed when Pakistan split off from India in the first place, nor the millions killed under Muslim rule of India). Spengler thinks most of the jihadists from that attack are still on the loose, so we’ll have to wait and see if he’s right:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JL16Ak02.html

71

[quote]Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

[/quote]

…so you haven’t been attacked by Jihadists then? Why don’t you join the military to fight the terrorists? Perhaps it’s easier for you to beat the shit out of a Paki with a bunch of your mates, eh? Is this what people mean [on this board] when they say: “standing for something you believe in”? As i said before, humanity has failed big time…

72

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Well Ephrem I do not like the idea of having to kill millions of people either. But there is a hardcore of militants that probably numbers into the millions.

They are ready to kill for what they believe in and some of them have. They are also ready to die for what they believe in. We can’t be squeamish about what needs to be done and we have to accept it.

Yup. I’ve been saying this all along. In a fight to the death, niceties go right out the window.

When in doubt, bomb.

Or send them packing in trains to specially designed camps. I know I’m low on soap.[/quote]

Get a girlfriend.

73

Nice picking and choosing…too bad you don’t have the intellectual honesty to deal with many of my arguments…but given your choices, perhaps, at least, you’re beginning to have some introspection (although I doubt it)

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Somewhat ironically, as you tried to describe how you aren’t a racist, you spewed racism again. The idea that a group cannot do something based upon their race…that’s racism. Try to keep up. (I underlined it for you this time to try and help…let me know if you need me to completely connect the dots for you.)

Swing and a miss. The Pashtuns have lived a certain way (tribalism, war, vendettas) for at least a thousand years and subscribe to a religion that propagates the same. There’s no racism in pointing out their history and characteristics.

Your particular brand of liberalism does tend to balk at facts. It’s rare that you hear one thinking we’ll succeed in democratizing Afghanistan, especially when they’re so fond of pointing out the folly of trying to democratize Iraq.

If that’s your position, I applaud your optimism - I simply don’t share it as it means dismantling thousand-year-old tribal structures propped up by 6th century religious convictions, 1st cousin endogamy, and drug money. Call me crazy.
[/quote]

Are you honestly trying to argue yourself a bigot not a racist?

Interesting reading of history…how many countries were “developed” 1000 years ago? How many democracies were their 250 years ago? I’m sure you won’t understand my point here, but give it a shot.

Afghanistan is an unique case, but the idea that “group X cannot democratize” because of their race (oh, sorry, you’re claiming culture now, is it?) is pretty obvious racism. If you wanted to talk about what is necessary for development, that’s one thing… what you’re doing is not that.

And once again, you ignored the other quotation, “Bush is doing something right if he’s pissing off racial group X” …generally a “Sorry, I was being a racist prick” is appropriate in these situations. But I’m sure your hatred of “racial group X” in this scenario will prevent that.

LOL, you missed the point the first time, did you get it now? Should I explain further? Do you yet realize the original insult?

Want to keep attacking me personally mate, or have you given that up now? And here’s a hint, I haven’t mentioned my “credentials” yet. I honestly don’t think you possess the ability to understand them (although I’d guess you’ve googled one of them by now).

Feel free to keep up your quota of one to two race baiting threads per week. It’s normally cute, although this thread’s avocations for mass murder have gone a bit beyond humor.

Oh, but that’s not what you meant, right?

74

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Nice picking and choosing…too bad you don’t have the intellectual honesty to deal with many of my arguments…but given your choices, perhaps, at least, you’re beginning to have some introspection (although I doubt it)

PRCalDude wrote:
Somewhat ironically, as you tried to describe how you aren’t a racist, you spewed racism again. The idea that a group cannot do something based upon their race…that’s racism. Try to keep up. (I underlined it for you this time to try and help…let me know if you need me to completely connect the dots for you.)

Swing and a miss. The Pashtuns have lived a certain way (tribalism, war, vendettas) for at least a thousand years and subscribe to a religion that propagates the same. There’s no racism in pointing out their history and characteristics.

Your particular brand of liberalism does tend to balk at facts. It’s rare that you hear one thinking we’ll succeed in democratizing Afghanistan, especially when they’re so fond of pointing out the folly of trying to democratize Iraq.

If that’s your position, I applaud your optimism - I simply don’t share it as it means dismantling thousand-year-old tribal structures propped up by 6th century religious convictions, 1st cousin endogamy, and drug money. Call me crazy.

Are you honestly trying to argue yourself a bigot not a racist?

Interesting reading of history…how many countries were “developed” 1000 years ago? How many democracies were their 250 years ago? I’m sure you won’t understand my point here, but give it a shot.

Afghanistan is an unique case, but the idea that “group X cannot democratize” because of their race (oh, sorry, you’re claiming culture now, is it?) is pretty obvious racism. If you wanted to talk about what is necessary for development, that’s one thing… what you’re doing is not that.

And once again, you ignored the other quotation, “Bush is doing something right if he’s pissing off racial group X” …generally a “Sorry, I was being a racist prick” is appropriate in these situations. But I’m sure your hatred of “racial group X” in this scenario will prevent that.

Nah, it spoke to your lack of intellect, it said nothing about mine.

Lol. So in other words, “I know you are but what am I?”

LOL, you missed the point the first time, did you get it now? Should I explain further? Do you yet realize the original insult?

Nice rant! Is this where I brag about how good my school is? How many honors I’ve won? How many Fellowships and scholarships? Perhaps I should talk about how many jobs I’ve had? Or my current position? I’d start talking to you about phi beta kappa , but you’d probably think it’s a frat.

With all of these accomplishments, accolades (you might have to look up that word), and honors, you’d think you’d be able to a) comprehend another’s arguments and b) string together some of your own.

All we ever see from you is “argument by outrage,” which is a (rather pathetic) form of ad hominem (google it). I’ve never met a liberal who wasn’t quick to mention their credentials when they lack in argumentative ability.

Want to keep attacking me personally mate, or have you given that up now? And here’s a hint, I haven’t mentioned my “credentials” yet. I honestly don’t think you possess the ability to understand them (although I’d guess you’ve googled one of them by now).

Feel free to continue following me from thread to thread with your vacuous mouth-breathing one liners. It helps keep things lively in here, and usually bumps my threads.

Feel free to keep up your quota of one to two race baiting threads per week. It’s normally cute, although this thread’s avocations for mass murder have gone a bit beyond humor.

Oh, but that’s not what you meant, right? [/quote]

Could you shut up with the racist stuff? Seriously. Folks like you have overused that charge to the point that white folk like me just roll our eyes. He’s a racist for being able to observe the real world over there, and form judgements? I get the impression “racist” is a very familiar word, for you.

When racist Wright was in the news, Obama’s black liberation pastor, you couldn’t help but play defense. “Obama shouldn’t have left the church, his community!” Or, some such crap. Now you want to play racist patrol? A guy who isn’t suppossed to form judgements about people, anyways.

75

Which arguments - your constant “Racism!” babblings? That’s pretty much your only one, repeated ad nauseum ad infinitum.

Well, golf clap for at least trying to make an argument. Sadly, I didn’t list any genetic reasons why I thought democratization would fail, so your argument fails. Let me put it in bold letters for you so you don’t miss it: there are no genetic reasons why the Pashtuns will not democratize, only cultural ones (which, incidentally, I listed but you ignored).

Yes, uh, considering group X is behind the spread of militant Islam in this country, Europe, Central Asia, the Phillipines, etc, I don’t have a hard time making such statements. But “racial group X” is also a cultural group. The people claiming to be “Arabs” who attack the animists and Christians in southern Sudan look like sub-Saharan Africans upon closer inspection. Levantine “Arabs” are actually Arabized Levantines. But yes, I agree with Sun Tzu’s dictum: “If your enemy angers easily, provoke him.”

In summary your argument amounts to “racism!” which I’ve attempted to address. The real issue, at least to anyone with critical thinking skills, is not so much whether what I’ve said is “Racism!” but whether or not it’s true. Given the thorough PC lobotomy you’ve given yourself (do you keep the remains in a jar on your shelf?), I don’t expect that you’ll understand the distinction.

It may be that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Arabs in Iraq are really just proto-American hatchlings waiting to lead the Middle East and Central Asia, respectively, into a new age of tolerance and enlightenment. Something tells me that the cultures so rife with tribalism, internecine fighting, shari’ah and vendettas will not be producing the next Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Call me crazy. So far, they’ve managed only to give us martyrdom operations, jihad, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the near murder of Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity (you do remember that, don’t you?) Such cultural “expressions” don’t instill much optimism in me. They might in you.

76

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Could you shut up with the racist stuff? Seriously. Folks like you have overused that charge to the point that white folk like me just roll our eyes. He’s a racist for being able to observe the real world over there, and form judgements? I get the impression “racist” is a very familiar word, for you.

When racist Wright was in the news, Obama’s black liberation pastor, you couldn’t help but play defense. “Obama shouldn’t have left the church, his community!” Or, some such crap. Now you want to play racist patrol? A guy who isn’t suppossed to form judgements about people, anyways.[/quote]

If some poster had come onto a thread saying, “Obama is doing something right if he’s pissing off the Jews!” you would, rightly, attack him for his racist statement.

If he then said, “if we want peace in the middle east, we need to ethnically cleanse the jews…but that would lead to just war issues, so we can’t.” again, you would criticize him for it, and rightly so.

If, on that same thread, another poster was suggesting that we should kill “millions of jews” and we “need to keep our nerve and not be squeamish about not killing them” You would call that man a nazi, and rightly so.

But for some reason, on this thread, when all of this occurs regarding Muslims and Arabs, you ask me to stop attacking the racists.

Wow.

77

Who said ethnically cleanse?

78

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, Pahk-e-stahn’s situation won’t make Obama’s war any easier. Yeah, I know, it’s Pat Buchanan. Hey, sometimes he writes articles I like. Like this one.
http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/obamas_war1/

He does have a point. Unless we’re willing to ethnically cleanse the Pashtuns, there will never be a democracy in Afghanistan. It hasn’t been a place of enlightenment since pre-Islamic days.

The best thing to do is to sweep the Taliban out of the area they’re in and leave. Repeat as necessary. [/quote]

Is this what you mean? That’s not a suggestion to ethnically cleanse, if this is what you’re talking about.

79

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Who said ethnically cleanse?[/quote]

It’s better to think of it in term of “afterlife express travel arrangements” for a lucky population.

80

Well PR, you managed an entire post without a ham-fisted attempt to attack my personal life…I think we’re making progress.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Afghanistan is an unique case, but the idea that “group X cannot democratize” because of their race (oh, sorry, you’re claiming culture now, is it?) is pretty obvious racism. If you wanted to talk about what is necessary for development, that’s one thing… what you’re doing is not that.

Well, golf clap for at least trying to make an argument. Sadly, I didn’t list any genetic reasons why I thought democratization would fail, so your argument fails. Let me put it in bold letters for you so you don’t miss it: there are no genetic reasons why the Pashtuns will not democratize, only cultural ones (which, incidentally, I listed but you ignored). [/quote]

So, if there are only cultural reasons why the Pashtuns cannot democratize, then why did you say we would need “ethnic cleansing”? Why couldn’t development occur? The culture change? Do you really think cultures are static?

Listen, if you weren’t trying to be a racist twat, just admit you wrote poorly and you didn’t really mean it. Is such a thing so hard?

[quote]
And once again, you ignored the other quotation, “Bush is doing something right if he’s pissing off racial group X”

Yes, uh, considering group X is behind the spread of militant Islam in this country, Europe, Central Asia, the Phillipines, etc, I don’t have a hard time making such statements. But “racial group X” is also a cultural group. The people claiming to be “Arabs” who attack the animists and Christians in southern Sudan look like sub-Saharan Africans upon closer inspection. Levantine “Arabs” are actually Arabized Levantines. But yes, I agree with Sun Tzu’s dictum: “If your enemy angers easily, provoke him.” [/quote]

And here’s the point where I think you are a raving, racist, lunatic. Arabs are “behind” the spread of militant islam?!? Is that sort of like Jews are “behind” the worlds banking industry?

[quote]
In summary your argument amounts to “racism!” which I’ve attempted to address. The real issue, at least to anyone with critical thinking skills, is not so much whether what I’ve said is “Racism!” but whether or not it’s true. Given the thorough PC lobotomy you’ve given yourself (do you keep the remains in a jar on your shelf?), I don’t expect that you’ll understand the distinction. [/quote]

Mate, the world faces some serious issues. Your inability to understand that there are differences and distinctions within Islam and the Islamic world are not helping whatsoever to mitigate those issues. Perhaps this was most apparent when you started ranting at lixy, saying “you’ll use a nuke.” Who in the hell do you think lixy is?

[quote]
It may be that the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Arabs in Iraq are really just proto-American hatchlings waiting to lead the Middle East and Central Asia, respectively, into a new age of tolerance and enlightenment. Something tells me that the cultures so rife with tribalism, internecine fighting, shari’ah and vendettas will not be producing the next Thomas Jefferson or George Washington. Call me crazy. So far, they’ve managed only to give us martyrdom operations, jihad, the Taliban, al Qaeda, and the near murder of Abdul Rahman for converting to Christianity (you do remember that, don’t you?) Such cultural “expressions” don’t instill much optimism in me. They might in you. [/quote]

Again you take the Islamic world and create some sort of monolithic conceptualization of “evil”; ignoring any positives and focusing on all negatives. And you wonder why you’re called a bigot? Do you really think this is some sort of argument? Do you want someone to “prove” that not all Arabs or Muslims are the same? Or that there are good Muslim people or good Arab people? Give me a break.