[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
One of the suicide bombers tried to make it into the stadium. I believe French president Hollande was there.
Yep he left immediately and then they continued to play the whole game for another 70 mins!!!(blasts were basically in the first quarter)
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
One of the terrorist was a ârefugeeâ a few weeks ago.
No suprises there, hopefully the one positive from this will be a huge Europe-wide backlash aginst the current immigration shitstorm
This is my wifeâs proposal. If she were president, this is what she would doâŠ
Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple âGood evening America. Youâre welcome. Good night.â
[quote]pushharder wrote:
ISIS will end up sealing their fate by âshotgunningâ their efforts like they have. They are making too many enemies and especially erred by goading the Russians.[/quote]
The thing is, militarily ISIS is not difficult to deal with. If we wanted to we could have gotten rid of them already. They are not a sophisticated fighting force. The complications are the politics.
This is why I believe obama has been dragging is feet in dealing with them, if not totally side stepping them as he did in the beginning. There are so many groups, tribes, religious sects, etc. in that area vying for control that once you evacuate ISIS, you basically have a demilitarized zone or an occupied territory. Something obama wants to avoid like the plague. Which is why I believe he has dealt with them so softly.
My opinion is that the complicated politics in a region is not reason enough to leave a terrorist organization who is brutalizing people on a daily basis in place. You remove the threat and figure out the politics afterwards.
Obamaâs goals in Syria in a nutshell are:
For the extremely dense, this is hyperbole. I know now I have to spell things out when I am trying to express a sentiment using sophomoric humor. The point is, he wants things to be ok in Syria with out having to really put any skin in the game. And he put as little skin in the game as he could. That was until Russia started embarrassing âcoalitionâ efforts by pushing as many bombs in a day as we would push in a month. Now he got more aggressive. Obviously it was too little too late.
I cannot count how many people warned the world is a more dangerous place, and terrorist attacks were imminent, due to the soft policies of this administration. Sadly, they were right. This attack was predicted. Predicted by people, who a lot of folks have tried to dismiss as hacks and morons.
When the smartest people in the room are always wrong, itâs right to question their intelligence.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]idaho wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]idaho wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Typical PWI responses, just some facts
What a dumb fucking thing to type.[/quote]
What did you expect from a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Pittttbulll?
[/quote]
I always thought he was fine, but that post was about as classless as it gets.[/quote]
I just woke up to this news here in Afghanistan. My sincere condolences to the victims and their families. I have served alongside the French military and they are professional and courageous. May they hunt down and kill the cancerous filth that carried out this âholy warâ massacre. Fucking cowards, may they roast in hell for eternity.
As for the comment above about the deaths meaning nothing on a world scale, You could say the same thing about the Twin Towers, nearly 3000 died, but, on a world scale that means nothing. However, I lost two brothers in that attack and I have never forgot, never, ever, will forgive. Someone lost a lover, child, wife, or husband during that attack, so it will always mean something to them. Fucking extremist filth.
[/quote]
Agreed, fuck extremists.[/quote]
The thing is theyâre not extremists.[/quote]
I think blowing yourself up makes you an extremist.[/quote]
I agree. What about all the millions who believe in strict sharia law?[/quote]
How does your statement relate to religious terrorism and responses to it?
Islamic jurisprudence (and Islam in general) is hardly monolithic. First of all, Muslims differ widely as to whether sharia should be open to multiple understandings. Second, support for making sharia the official law of the land varies significantly across regions. Third, of Muslims who support making sharia the law of the land, most do not believe that it should be applied to non-Muslims. Lastly, most supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, far fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.[/quote]
Do you base that statement on personal experience? Because I have been in the Middle East and SW Asia for the past 10 years and your statements are not what I have observed and experienced. Are you talking about the corrupt ruling class?or just the general population? Anyway, getting off topic, perhaps we will save it for another day. I donât want anything to derail the slaughter of the French citizens.
[/quote]
Social science research. Polls indicate that the countries that you have operational experience in are among the least enlightened and tolerant of adherents of Islam. The point was not to defend Islam as much as it was to put a pin in Edgeâs parochial and histrionic view of the religion. [/quote]
Personal experience trumps books, charts, and research any day of the week.
You can read all you want about the best way to do squats, your legs wonât grow unless you do them.
Real world experience stomps book learninâ into the ground. Seeing it first hand is way more important and valuable than charts, graphs and 8x10 glossy photos with circles and arrows.
[quote]nighthawkz wrote:
Gotta love how a bunch of fucking armchair experts seem to know the answer to something that is still very much an open investigation. Blame immigration, blame all muslims, blame the Jews⊠Oh wait, wrong decade. The sentiment is the same.
Concerning the dude who was a ârefugeeâ - he passed through Greece. Thatâs all we really know. Just keep in mind that the refugee road is a long and risky, therefore damn inefficient route to Europe; itâs much easier to fly them in via other countries using fake IDs (if necessary). ISIS has the resources to facilitate this, the run-of-the-mill refugee does not.[/quote]
You want this one USMC? Oh let me have itâŠ
LOOK, another stupid fucking postâŠ
[quote]loppar wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Concerning the dude who was a ârefugeeâ - he passed through Greece. Thatâs all we really know. Just keep in mind that the refugee road is a long and risky[/quote]
No itâs not. The common misconception is that the migrants are facing a long and perilous journey on foot - a bias confirmed by media reports showing mothers carrying crying infants.
Migrants somewhat miraculously appear on the Turkish Western coast (Turkeyâs involvement), from where theyâre shuttled to neighboring Greek islands by boat, some of them only a few miles away. From then on, itâs train-bus-train-bus all the way to Germany with minimal delays. No walking along muddy footpaths.
All countries on the so called Balkan route are anxious and want to keep migrantsâ staying on their territory as little as possible.
Here in Croatia migrants usually spend under 8 hours. They are taken by trains from the Serbian side, then stay in a transit camp for two hours, after which they are again put on a train for Slovenia. From there, the procedure is similar.[/quote]
That makes sense. That was similar to what I saw in Italy in 2000.
[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wifeâs proposal. If she were president, this is what she would doâŠ
Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple âGood evening America. Youâre welcome. Good night.â[/quote]
Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable.
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
First, even though the extremist content in Islam is seemingly excessively large, we still have to let cooler heads prevail and not condemn 1.2 billion (give or take) people as innately fucked in the head.
The second, is that given the extremely large contingent of extremists in Islam and the very pithy effort of the majority of muslims to counter, squash, or otherwise try to contain their extremist problem, they do all share varying degrees of blame. They need to clean their own house, and too few have tried. Itâs difficult to do anything about it, if they wonât take care of it themselves. All we can do is fight and kill terrorists, we cannot âfixâ their extremist problem. Only they can do that, and to that end, they have thus far failed.[/quote]
Not only have they failed, theyve given a shit effort, and the rest of the world is justified in being pissed. At some point they need to get on board and deal with this, or go down with the savages.
âThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.â â 1/4 of the world population can not be evil, but they sure as hell are apathetic.[/quote]
I agree. The people most responsible for controlling the extremist problem have done far too little for far too long. And thatâs not to take away from the very few who have put in a great deal of effort only to have their lives threatened and not protected by like minded individuals who are also cowards. The moderates are afraid and they wonât take a stand. Then they wonder why the world hates their guts? They shouldnât be surprised. If they stood together, they could make a change, but they are to scared or to lazy to make a stand. So they share culpability.
But we have to be reasonable and not fall in to the trap. Why? Because we have to be better than them.
When we are behind the trigger, our principles and our reason should make our shots true. If we sink to a âfuck them allâ mentality, we are no better. We are better, we are right, we stand for good and historically good always wins. It may take a while and be at great cost, but good always wins. Simply positioning ourselves on the side of good guarantees victory. Not an easy road, but victory.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wifeâs proposal. If she were president, this is what she would doâŠ
Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple âGood evening America. Youâre welcome. Good night.â[/quote]
Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable. [/quote]
âTenableâ? Perhaps you meant to choose a synonym for âreasonableâ, which âtenableâ is not? Achieving a 300 lbs deadlift is tenable. Nuking the entire middle east and Africa is irrational and unreasonable.
I expect you to have the sense of humor of a wood chipper, by now. Because obviously she was serious. Hearing her say it made me laugh though, so I thought I would share it with others hopefully to lighten things up a little in the face of tragedy.
And if you were to argue with her, not only would you lose, you would end up apologizing for bringing it up, even if you didnât.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Given the national tragedy that France, our oldest ally, has suffered today, political quips are wholly tasteless. As president Obama stated, âThis is an attack not just on Paris, itâs an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.â Show a modicum of respect for those affected.[/quote]
I donât think political quips are necessarily tasteless in this case but I do appreciate your sentiment.
I do not appreciate the Obama quote. It was not an attack on humanity it was an attack by Muslims on the Western way of life. This is very important to understand and not doing so, understanding and acknowledging, it is impossible to properly deal with the problem.
It doesnât matter if it was ISIS or Al Qaeda or someone else, THEY WERE MUSLIMS. The Muslim religion is a religion of hate. This attack was small fries, just wait until they get nukes. They wonât hesitate to use them.
The current course the Muslim people are on and the current course the western world is on, as far as dealing with the Muslims, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we can say good bye to Israel, New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. This will happen in less than 100 years. Iâve probably got 30-40 years left. I hope I donât see this happen but Iâm not optimistic.
Our only hope is the Muslims keep up enough of these small fry attacks that the rest of the world wakes up to the severity of the threat and actually does something about it. Otherwise, like I said, itâs only a matter of time. Could be in just ten to fifteen years. Anyone who doesnât know this is just living in denial.
[/quote]
Setting aside the hysterics, what exactly are you proposing?[/quote]
The only thing I can think of that might work is a united world in a multi generational effort to force Muslims to remove the hate from the Koran and all their teachings until it has been forgotten. Thatâs never going to happen so weâre fucked.[/quote]
Have you actually read the Quran?
What happened to your plan of conducting a âpreemptiveâ nuclear campaign against a quarter of the worldâs population? Donât tell me youâre going soft on me. Donât give up on your genocidal ambitions Edgy. [/quote]
Who give a shit how many of them there are?
So itâs 75% vs. 25%.
These so called âterroristsâ, they are simply living the way Mohammad would have lived and they are fundementalists. The so-called religion-of-peace is violent, without compassion, and only respects one thing: brutal strength.
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Given the national tragedy that France, our oldest ally, has suffered today, political quips are wholly tasteless. As president Obama stated, âThis is an attack not just on Paris, itâs an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.â Show a modicum of respect for those affected.[/quote]
I donât think political quips are necessarily tasteless in this case but I do appreciate your sentiment.
I do not appreciate the Obama quote. It was not an attack on humanity it was an attack by Muslims on the Western way of life. This is very important to understand and not doing so, understanding and acknowledging, it is impossible to properly deal with the problem.
It doesnât matter if it was ISIS or Al Qaeda or someone else, THEY WERE MUSLIMS. The Muslim religion is a religion of hate. This attack was small fries, just wait until they get nukes. They wonât hesitate to use them.
The current course the Muslim people are on and the current course the western world is on, as far as dealing with the Muslims, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we can say good bye to Israel, New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. This will happen in less than 100 years. Iâve probably got 30-40 years left. I hope I donât see this happen but Iâm not optimistic.
Our only hope is the Muslims keep up enough of these small fry attacks that the rest of the world wakes up to the severity of the threat and actually does something about it. Otherwise, like I said, itâs only a matter of time. Could be in just ten to fifteen years. Anyone who doesnât know this is just living in denial.
[/quote]
Setting aside the hysterics, what exactly are you proposing?[/quote]
The only thing I can think of that might work is a united world in a multi generational effort to force Muslims to remove the hate from the Koran and all their teachings until it has been forgotten. Thatâs never going to happen so weâre fucked.[/quote]
Have you actually read the Quran?
What happened to your plan of conducting a âpreemptiveâ nuclear campaign against a quarter of the worldâs population? Donât tell me youâre going soft on me. Donât give up on your genocidal ambitions Edgy. [/quote]
Who give a shit how many of them there are?
So itâs 75% vs. 25%.
These so called âterroristsâ, they are simply living the way Mohammad would have lived and they are fundementalists. The so-called religion-of-peace is violent, without compassion, and only respects one thing: brutal strength.
[/quote]
Maybe, but we still have to be better than them. Even if you are right, we have to hold to a higher standard. Thatâs not to say making this so called caliphate a grease spot in Syria and Iraq isnât a fantastic idea. Thatâs saying, we have to give the majority the benefit of the doubt, even if a disproportionate amount of extremists and murderers come from their ranks. Because we are better, we have to be, even when weâre angry.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wifeâs proposal. If she were president, this is what she would doâŠ
Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple âGood evening America. Youâre welcome. Good night.â[/quote]
Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable. [/quote]
I know! Iâm still saddled with guilt over our actions in WW2! The horror!
I think America should be brought up on crimes through the World Court.
Why do people think you win wars with violence?? States craft through dialogue, discourse and coffee is far more effective (and healthy for the planet).
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Given the national tragedy that France, our oldest ally, has suffered today, political quips are wholly tasteless. As president Obama stated, âThis is an attack not just on Paris, itâs an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.â Show a modicum of respect for those affected.[/quote]
I donât think political quips are necessarily tasteless in this case but I do appreciate your sentiment.
I do not appreciate the Obama quote. It was not an attack on humanity it was an attack by Muslims on the Western way of life. This is very important to understand and not doing so, understanding and acknowledging, it is impossible to properly deal with the problem.
It doesnât matter if it was ISIS or Al Qaeda or someone else, THEY WERE MUSLIMS. The Muslim religion is a religion of hate. This attack was small fries, just wait until they get nukes. They wonât hesitate to use them.
The current course the Muslim people are on and the current course the western world is on, as far as dealing with the Muslims, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we can say good bye to Israel, New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. This will happen in less than 100 years. Iâve probably got 30-40 years left. I hope I donât see this happen but Iâm not optimistic.
Our only hope is the Muslims keep up enough of these small fry attacks that the rest of the world wakes up to the severity of the threat and actually does something about it. Otherwise, like I said, itâs only a matter of time. Could be in just ten to fifteen years. Anyone who doesnât know this is just living in denial.
[/quote]
Setting aside the hysterics, what exactly are you proposing?[/quote]
The only thing I can think of that might work is a united world in a multi generational effort to force Muslims to remove the hate from the Koran and all their teachings until it has been forgotten. Thatâs never going to happen so weâre fucked.[/quote]
Have you actually read the Quran?
What happened to your plan of conducting a âpreemptiveâ nuclear campaign against a quarter of the worldâs population? Donât tell me youâre going soft on me. Donât give up on your genocidal ambitions Edgy. [/quote]
Who give a shit how many of them there are?
So itâs 75% vs. 25%.
These so called âterroristsâ, they are simply living the way Mohammad would have lived and they are fundementalists. The so-called religion-of-peace is violent, without compassion, and only respects one thing: brutal strength.
[/quote]
Maybe, but we still have to be better than them. Even if you are right, we have to hold to a higher standard. Thatâs not to say making this so called caliphate a grease spot in Syria and Iraq isnât a fantastic idea. Thatâs saying, we have to give the majority the benefit of the doubt, even if a disproportionate amount of extremists and murderers come from their ranks. Because we are better, we have to be, even when weâre angry.[/quote]
Of course I agree, sarcasm aside. But the premise that since a large % of the world are Muslim, this should not keep the world of tippy-toeing around the fact that their religion cannot play nicely with others.
And this is not an âextremistâ vein of the religion, but rather an activist type. Big difference.
Just look at the polls of the % of âregularâ Muslims who support barbaric action.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
First, even though the extremist content in Islam is seemingly excessively large, we still have to let cooler heads prevail and not condemn 1.2 billion (give or take) people as innately fucked in the head.
The second, is that given the extremely large contingent of extremists in Islam and the very pithy effort of the majority of muslims to counter, squash, or otherwise try to contain their extremist problem, they do all share varying degrees of blame. They need to clean their own house, and too few have tried. Itâs difficult to do anything about it, if they wonât take care of it themselves. All we can do is fight and kill terrorists, we cannot âfixâ their extremist problem. Only they can do that, and to that end, they have thus far failed.[/quote]
Not only have they failed, theyve given a shit effort, and the rest of the world is justified in being pissed. At some point they need to get on board and deal with this, or go down with the savages.
âThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.â â 1/4 of the world population can not be evil, but they sure as hell are apathetic.[/quote]
I agree. The people most responsible for controlling the extremist problem have done far too little for far too long. And thatâs not to take away from the very few who have put in a great deal of effort only to have their lives threatened and not protected by like minded individuals who are also cowards. The moderates are afraid and they wonât take a stand. Then they wonder why the world hates their guts? They shouldnât be surprised. If they stood together, they could make a change, but they are to scared or to lazy to make a stand. So they share culpability.
But we have to be reasonable and not fall in to the trap. Why? Because we have to be better than them.
When we are behind the trigger, our principles and our reason should make our shots true. If we sink to a âfuck them allâ mentality, we are no better. We are better, we are right, we stand for good and historically good always wins. It may take a while and be at great cost, but good always wins. Simply positioning ourselves on the side of good guarantees victory. Not an easy road, but victory. [/quote]
Hey Pat, long time no see!
You know why good always wins?
Because the one that wins is who determines what is good!
pa-dum-pa!
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
This is my wifeâs proposal. If she were president, this is what she would doâŠ
Afterwards, she would address the Nation with a simple âGood evening America. Youâre welcome. Good night.â[/quote]
Respond to mass murder with nuclear mass murder. Seems tenable. [/quote]
I know! Iâm still am saddled with guilt for our actions in WW2!
I think America should be brought up on crimes through the World Court.
Why do people think you win wars with violence?? States craft through dialogue, discourse and coffee is far more effective (and healthy for the planet).
[/quote]
Wars are won with decisive contained violence, not just the most violence. Our other options to end WW2 other than Fat Man and Little Boy was a full scale invasion of Japan. Conservative estimates had American casualty rates at 250,000. Thatâs just American casualties. That does not include Japanese casualties which could and would have been that or more.
As counter intuitive as it seems, the decision to drop the bomb on them was done in the interest in saving, American lives first; and lives in general latter. I recognize itâs small comfort to the some 180,000 victims of the blasts. But the casualty counts of all the alternatives were estimated to be much higher. Based on their experience in the war they were pretty good at guessing casualty counts and erred on the low end.
Japan was not going to stop for any reason.
Having conversations with Cushin and Cortes who live there have provided some insight into why that was true, they are a proud people. The invasion force that was proposed was to be in excess of 1 million soldiers with the expectation at at least a quarter of them would be killed in the invasion. Japan was prepared for it.
Itâs tough to say if there were actually better alternatives. Looking at it through the eyeâs of the 1945 war wary American military, I doubt they had better alternatives. But it was calculated, decisive and contained violence.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Aggv wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
First, even though the extremist content in Islam is seemingly excessively large, we still have to let cooler heads prevail and not condemn 1.2 billion (give or take) people as innately fucked in the head.
The second, is that given the extremely large contingent of extremists in Islam and the very pithy effort of the majority of muslims to counter, squash, or otherwise try to contain their extremist problem, they do all share varying degrees of blame. They need to clean their own house, and too few have tried. Itâs difficult to do anything about it, if they wonât take care of it themselves. All we can do is fight and kill terrorists, we cannot âfixâ their extremist problem. Only they can do that, and to that end, they have thus far failed.[/quote]
Not only have they failed, theyve given a shit effort, and the rest of the world is justified in being pissed. At some point they need to get on board and deal with this, or go down with the savages.
âThe only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.â â 1/4 of the world population can not be evil, but they sure as hell are apathetic.[/quote]
I agree. The people most responsible for controlling the extremist problem have done far too little for far too long. And thatâs not to take away from the very few who have put in a great deal of effort only to have their lives threatened and not protected by like minded individuals who are also cowards. The moderates are afraid and they wonât take a stand. Then they wonder why the world hates their guts? They shouldnât be surprised. If they stood together, they could make a change, but they are to scared or to lazy to make a stand. So they share culpability.
But we have to be reasonable and not fall in to the trap. Why? Because we have to be better than them.
When we are behind the trigger, our principles and our reason should make our shots true. If we sink to a âfuck them allâ mentality, we are no better. We are better, we are right, we stand for good and historically good always wins. It may take a while and be at great cost, but good always wins. Simply positioning ourselves on the side of good guarantees victory. Not an easy road, but victory. [/quote]
Hey Pat, long time no see!
You know why good always wins?
Because the one that wins is who determines what is good!
pa-dum-pa![/quote]
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]NorCal916 wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]on edge wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Given the national tragedy that France, our oldest ally, has suffered today, political quips are wholly tasteless. As president Obama stated, âThis is an attack not just on Paris, itâs an attack not just on the people of France, but this is an attack on all of humanity and the universal values that we share.â Show a modicum of respect for those affected.[/quote]
I donât think political quips are necessarily tasteless in this case but I do appreciate your sentiment.
I do not appreciate the Obama quote. It was not an attack on humanity it was an attack by Muslims on the Western way of life. This is very important to understand and not doing so, understanding and acknowledging, it is impossible to properly deal with the problem.
It doesnât matter if it was ISIS or Al Qaeda or someone else, THEY WERE MUSLIMS. The Muslim religion is a religion of hate. This attack was small fries, just wait until they get nukes. They wonât hesitate to use them.
The current course the Muslim people are on and the current course the western world is on, as far as dealing with the Muslims, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we can say good bye to Israel, New York City, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. This will happen in less than 100 years. Iâve probably got 30-40 years left. I hope I donât see this happen but Iâm not optimistic.
Our only hope is the Muslims keep up enough of these small fry attacks that the rest of the world wakes up to the severity of the threat and actually does something about it. Otherwise, like I said, itâs only a matter of time. Could be in just ten to fifteen years. Anyone who doesnât know this is just living in denial.
[/quote]
Setting aside the hysterics, what exactly are you proposing?[/quote]
The only thing I can think of that might work is a united world in a multi generational effort to force Muslims to remove the hate from the Koran and all their teachings until it has been forgotten. Thatâs never going to happen so weâre fucked.[/quote]
Have you actually read the Quran?
What happened to your plan of conducting a âpreemptiveâ nuclear campaign against a quarter of the worldâs population? Donât tell me youâre going soft on me. Donât give up on your genocidal ambitions Edgy. [/quote]
Who give a shit how many of them there are?
So itâs 75% vs. 25%.
These so called âterroristsâ, they are simply living the way Mohammad would have lived and they are fundementalists. The so-called religion-of-peace is violent, without compassion, and only respects one thing: brutal strength.
[/quote]
Maybe, but we still have to be better than them. Even if you are right, we have to hold to a higher standard. Thatâs not to say making this so called caliphate a grease spot in Syria and Iraq isnât a fantastic idea. Thatâs saying, we have to give the majority the benefit of the doubt, even if a disproportionate amount of extremists and murderers come from their ranks. Because we are better, we have to be, even when weâre angry.[/quote]
Of course I agree, sarcasm aside. But the premise that since a large % of the world are Muslim, this should not keep the world of tippy-toeing around the fact that their religion cannot play nicely with others.
And this is not an âextremistâ vein of the religion, but rather an activist type. Big difference.
Just look at the polls of the % of âregularâ Muslims who support barbaric action.
[/quote]
You make a good point. The days of politically correct conversation about their issues are over. Itâs time for frank talk and tough shit if it offends.
I also want to know the difference between the total number of muslims vs. the total number of muslims sans the ones who are only muslim because they would be killed if they were not. I.E., What is the population of muslims who freely choose to be muslim, not including those who are forced at the end of a gun.