The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Welp, they’re dead. Now we’ll never get a chance to waterboard them. Damn it.[/quote]

Well water board their dead corpses! I’m sick of it damn it! Send a porn star into their masques without a hijab. Give their hijab a handjob damn it!!! I’m tired of these vermin. They all need to leave. Every damn one of them. One way tickets to Iran.

They start this shit here it’s going to start becoming open season on folks with beards and dirty robes.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t waste good porn stars on those bastards. And why do we call them porn stars anyway? Is everybody who does porn, automatically a star?

482

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
The problem is we have two incompatible value systems. How can we peaceful co-exist? I don’t have a clue. I pray the President knows. [/quote]
LOL!!

483

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Why the obsession? Nobody is serious going to blow up their rock. It was merely an expression of frustration. AC was venting when he suggested that, it’s a well deserve expression of frustration with radical islam’s prominence and ‘moderate’ islam’s complete ineptitude and unwillingness to deal with the problem themselves.

The very idea of muslim’s actually dealing with their mess is as much of a pipe dream as blowing up the rock. AC, people in general are growing tired and weary of putting up with terrorism and the ideology that fuels it. Growing tired of liberal double talk of tolerance and fairness while the stack of dead bodies grows. Tired of being scared or the attempts to scare us.

It’s frustration, it’s not real. No need to focus on the effects of something that’s not going to happen. We, in the west, are way to nice to ever do something like blow up mecca. We may think about it, but we don’t do stuff like that. We don’t do it because we are better than them.

484

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Is there any crossover with terrorism when exercising hard power?
[/quote]

Only if a state intentionally targets noncombatants or threatens to do so. [/quote]

So Hiroshima was __________
[/quote]

Oh, I know. A city in Japan.

485

This question is for Bismark.

I think we both agree that in today’s climate, intelligence is critical. In fact, I would say it’s the most effective way of dealing with Radical Islam. A multifaceted approach with surveillance and human Intel. But here is the rub: our President isn’t too keen on pushing the envelope when it comes to brushing against privacy and civil liberties. Like NYPDs previous monitoring of mosques were a perfect example. Or profiling.

Do you see a conflict with the President’s stance on this? Starting with the fact that he does not address the problems within Islam. He does not suspend the refugee program, is negligent with the borders. I can understand his reluctance to engage in battle, but what tangeable things is he doing? We need intense interrogation. We need the press on our side (Abu Ghraib), places like Gitmo, Black sites off the radar, etc. But the President (due to his base) is 100% against this.

Do you see a conflict here?

486

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

  1. Provoke the United States and the West into invading a Muslim country by staging a massive attack or string of attacks on US soil that results in massive civilian casualties.
  2. Incite local resistance to occupying forces.
  3. Expand the conflict to neighboring countries, and engage the US and its allies in a long war of attrition.
  4. Convert al-Qaeda into an ideology and set of operating principles that can be loosely franchised in other countries without requiring direct command and control, and via these franchises incite attacks against the US and countries allied with the US until they withdraw from the conflict, as happened with the 2004 Madrid train bombings, but which did not have the same effect with the July 7, 2005 London bombings.
  5. The US economy will finally collapse by the year 2020 under the strain of multiple engagements in numerous places, making the worldwide economic system which is dependent on the U.S. also collapse leading to global political instability, which in turn leads to a global jihad led by al-Qaeda and a Wahhabi Caliphate will then be installed across the world following the collapse of the U.S. and the rest of the Western world countries.

So, yes, I’m explicitly stating that our values are greater/more moral/more universally right than theirs are. They* are barbarians and should be exterminated post haste.

*They = those responsible.[/quote]

As to the part I have deleted, granted, Al Quaeda had no problem with America doing a bit of country building.

But they knew how the Muslim world would react to America tried to do just that, so they wanted it to happen.

And it happened.

Twice.

I dont know how it is a good idea to do exactly what your enemy wants you to do?

Plus, you dont even believe in Allah, or in his prophet, you have no values.

Just wordly delusions.

487

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
Addendum:

Because Israel does actually not venture abroad in search of monsters to slay, they have so many monsters right next to them![/quote]

That may be part of it but you well know that ain’t the whole of it. Israel would ruthlessly retaliate. Mossad would make the desert washes run red.[/quote]

By taking out their heads and making it very clear that they better keep their mitts to themselves.

Not by trying to re-do whole countries.

I am not against violence per se, but one should know what kind of violence, directed in what direction and to what purpose.

This whoo-hoo, I have drones! bullshit, well, that just pisses people off. [/quote]

Looks like you just contradicted yourself there. The whole point of drones, more or less, is “taking out their heads and making it very clear that they better keep their mitts to themselves.”

Besides, terrorists and their supporters were getting pissed off and swinging the sword against the innocent well before the first drone ever materialized on the drawing board. Drones got nuthin to do with evil men concocting ideology, strategy, and tactics to implement…evil.[/quote]

No man is evil in his own mind, those self aware evildoers are a Disney fiction.

Admittedly the drone strikes are a way of teaching the hydra that it cannot grow back its heads fast enough, but as long as there are puppet regimes in both Iraq and Afghanistan they are eprobably only seen as a part of the greater whole.

They do not send the message “dont mess with Americans or the WILL kill you, yes, YOU, personally” but rather “drones are just another arrow in the quiver of the GREAT SATAN”.

490

The idea to nuke Mecca could be the War on Terror equivalent of the Cold War M.A.D. theory, that neither side would start a war because of the dreaded consequences. I think that’s what chicken is trying to imply. Since the terrorists “love death like we love life” and are downright suicidal, possibly threatening something that’s sacred to them would get them to think twice…am I right chicken?

491

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

No man is evil in his own mind…

[/quote]

I firmly disagree.

Evil men are evil and they know it. Religion or political ideology or whatever isn’t really what motivates them, it’s just the given excuse.
[/quote]

Well, mebbe, but, you see, they do evil “for the greater good”.

They do “what is necessary, what others do not dare to do”…

And sometimes I believe they are right too.

The Batmanish “some people just want to see the world burn” people do exist but I doubt that they get very far.

Its hard to be THAT crazy and get significant resources to support your plan.

495

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Biskui wrote:

I want to add something to this, even in still in shock after what happened here.

Most of the french djihadists who take action (incl those from today) are lost guys, with little or no social life, no jobs, no schools, and often a past of criminality. Most of them go to jail before the actions and they radicalize in jail, because french jails are fucked up and because terrorists recruit in jails.

It seems those guys are less interested by religion, faith and philosophy than by being part of something and having a shot at becoming heroes for somebody.

They have one shot at making the news. That’s what they want. They prefer to die making the news than live for nothing. And the best way is not criminality, drug dealing, bank robberies are out of fashion and does not grant nationwide eyes on… [/quote]

That’s the typical reason for any young man to join a gang.[/quote]

Or the military, for that matter…

496

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

No man is evil in his own mind…

[/quote]

I firmly disagree.

Evil men are evil and they know it. Religion or political ideology or whatever isn’t really what motivates them, it’s just the given excuse.
[/quote]

I firmly disagree with your disagreement.

Bad men will generally admit they are bad. Evil men will not.

Evil men scarcely will admit that their actions are wrong, let alone evil. Stalin, Mao and Hitler certainly didn’t believe themselves to be evil men, but rather the saviours of their respective empires, doing (in Hitler’s case), the will of God.

Osama bin Ladin did not believe himself to be an evil man. Quite the contrary. He thought himself the most righteous man, fighting the good fight against the greatest forces of evil on the planet. First the Evil Empire, and then the Great Satan.

Hell, I doubt that even Satan would admit his own evilness. “Just doin’ my job”, he’d say, “…like when I was doin’ Job! Get it? Haw haw haw!!!” and then he’d vanish in a puff of evil-smelling yellow smoke.

497

What you’re saying is James Hetfield, er Sean Harris, are bad, but not evil because they admit they are??

498

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What you’re saying is James Hetfield, er Sean Harris, are bad, but not evil because they admit they are??[/quote]

Hetfield isn’t evil, he just SOUNDS evil. :slight_smile:

500

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Instead of being baited by responding to every single poster in this thread who claims I “hate” christianity, I spent some time reading about islam.
[/quote]

Where did you read this? It’s total crap

I really would like a link, book, or something