http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/world/middleeast/23lebanoncnd.html?hp&ex=1158984000&en=fea12c38b110044b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Nasrallah bragging about how many rockets he has at a Jihadist rally.

Here were, according to the NYTs, a few hundred thousand Jihadists all in the same place at the same time.

Seems to me, it would have been a good plan to take them all at once.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/22/lebanon.rally/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

Don't worry. With today's news, it has been confirmed that for all our security measures we are less safe than before 2001 (anyone else hear Old Ben saying "I told you so?"). It is also confirmed that its all our fault.

Yeah, just heard a bit about that this morning.

You know, when you go whack a hornets nest with a stick, they don't like that.

Source or Link Bap?

Here you go, this should provide plenty of point/counterpoint.
http://news.google.com/?ncl=http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1748328.htm&hl=en

You guys were all saying that we can't whack the hornets because we can't find them.

Here we have 100,000(whatever) of them all in one place, all out in the open, and yet something prevented us from killing all of them.

I wonder what that something was. Or is.

And you have Nasrallah up there gloating and defying openly the UN actions which held Isreal to cease fire and pull back. I bet you he already sawed off with his scimitar the heads of those Isreal guys he kidnapped.

And you guys think that diplomacy works with these guys.

Here we have 100,000(whatever) of them all in one place, all out in the open, and yet something prevented us from killing all of them.The problem is that "they" could be anything from actual militants to harmless people with a bad taste in leaders.And you have Nasrallah up there gloating and defying openly the UN actions which held Isreal to cease fire and pull back.So the UN is useless; I think all parties involved (and even those that aren't) already knew that.

Well, most of us find that is a problem. Although there are some notable exceptions on this message forum, most of us find it morally unacceptable to kill people just because they're in close proximity geographically of other bad people.

The problem is that "they" could be anything from actual militants to harmless people with a bad taste in leaders.
I don't care if they are militants or not. If they are some grey haired old grandmas who just made cous cous for one(a Jihadist) that morning, and just stopped by to see what all the hubbub was all about, they are supporting these guys.

Every person waving one of those Hezbollah flags, should be flagged, noted and killed. Any time in the future would be fine for me. Though, like I have repeated, it would have been nice to get them all with one attack.

So the UN is useless; I think all parties involved (and even those that aren't) already knew that.
I know the UN is useless. This is just proof that it is, of course.

Well, not entirely useless, WHO is ok. It is all the stuff that the UN was actually set up for that is useless.

Well, most of us find that is a problem. Although there are some notable exceptions on this message forum, most of us find it morally unacceptable to kill people just because they're in close proximity geographically of other bad people.

Why?

If they were good people, they would stay away from Jihadist rallies, wouldn't they?

And even if there were, it would a be a very good lesson, don't you think.



We are at war with these guys, if I were at war with the US, I would be cautious. I would not be so brazen to be out in the open at a Jihadist Hoe Down. If I were Rashid Al'Kaboom, I would have to be an idiot and not think that my pep rally would NOT be a target. And if I were and I did get killed at a Jihadist Hoe Down, at least I would die knowing that I get my 72 virgins to dance with(good thing I took those dance lessons).

Every person waving one of those Hezbollah flags, should be flagged, noted and killed.We don't kill people for merely expressing their opinion; it's one of our core values.

If they were good people, they would stay away from Jihadist rallies, wouldn't they?


I actually wandered into a Jihadist rally in Copenhagen when I was living there, going to school. Well, to be correct, it was a Palestinian rally with people waving big flags / banners that said Jihad, burning effigies of Barak and Clinton, and causing a general uproar in a large plaza in the city. there were some Danish police in riot gear looking on, and several dozen concerned-looking Danish civilians. It was such an odd, freakish thing, that I stayed there for several minutes to sketch it, before deciding it was better to move on.

It would have sucked to be bombed, just for being in the vicinity.

That's getting very 1984. Put to death because of thought crimes.

Actually, they're reacting a lot like you are Fyyr.

Fyyr: All these people support the jihadists so they all should be put to death. Death to arabs!

Islamicists: Western people hate us and want to oppress us, invade our lands. Death to all Western peoples!

We don't kill people for merely expressing their opinion; it's one of our core values.

It is one of OURS, it is not one of theirs.



The Constitution is a contract with the American People, as in "WE THE PEOPLE."

THEY are not those people, they are Jihadists. They are not even Americans.

If their opinion is that they want to kill me; damn straight I authorize the American government to kill them pre-emptively. Sooner than later, I would hope.

If I can't kill, support the killing of, endorse the killing of, or authorized the killing of people who support killing me first, and would do it at the first given opportunity; then who can I want killed?

If someone wants to kill me, and will kill me if given the opportunity, then I am well within reason and rights to want him or her killed first. Jihadists fall into this category. If someone wants to kill be because of my religion or lack of religion, I can support the killing of them with a clear and morally superior conscience.

That's getting very 1984. Put to death because of thought crimes.
If the thought is to kill me at the next given chance. YOU BET.

Actually, they're reacting a lot like you are Fyyr.
Really, I don't support killing them because of their religion and culture. That is unless their wanting to kill me is part of their religion and culture.

Fyyr: All these people support the jihadists so they all should be put to death.
A Jihadist by definition has declared a HOLY WAR on Infidels. They have declared the war.

Death to arabs!
Now, you are just being racist.

Islamicists: Western people hate us and want to oppress us, invade our lands.
Really, defending yourself from active religious persecution and death is a bad thing? Jihadists have started this thing, and such we have no reason why NOT to wipe out every last Jihadist living. We see what happened when we left them all alone and did not bother them-They bombed us.

If these people(Jihadists) had German surnames would you defend them as ardently?

Death to all Western peoples!
In war, it matters who declares war first, or fires the first volley. Even if you disagree. The Jihadists have declared war, and have fired the first volley. Defending against Jihadists is only a matter of logical and rational self preservation. If they did not want a war, they shouldn't have started it, then.

It is one of OURS, it is not one of theirs.Our actions should be guided by <i>our</i> morality, not our enemy's. Otherwise, we're no better than they.The Constitution is a contract with the American People, as in "WE THE PEOPLE."No it's not. It's a unilateral statement of law. I never signed it; neither did you. The illegal immigrant who sneaked in yesterday never signed it, but it applies to him, too. Of course, the Constitution doesn't directly apply here, except to the extent that it reflects our notions of morality.If their opinion is that they want to kill me; damn straight I authorize the American government to kill them pre-emptively. Sooner than later, I would hope.So people should be killed just for <i>wanting</I> to kill you?If I can't kill, support the killing of, endorse the killing of, or authorized the killing of people who support killing me first, and would do it at the first given opportunity; then who can I want killed?Those who attempt or actually work towards killing you. That's probably a tiny minority of the crowd you want to carpet bomb.

Our actions should be guided by <i>our</i> morality, not our enemy's. Otherwise, we're no better than they.
War is amoral. There is no morality in war.

There are agreements between people as how to conduct war, of course. If our enemy does not have those agreements with us or agree with them, then we are not bound our agreements that we have made with other people.

War is killing people, and destroying property, and taking of land. There is NOTHING moral about war.

Besides, Cultural Relativity says that we are already no better than them. All cultures are equal right? No culture is better or worse than another, none are superior or inferior to another. So we lose NOTHING by treating them exactly how they treat. Cultural Relativity and Awareness might even mean that we SHOULD treat them as they like treating others.

No it's not. It's a unilateral statement of law. I never signed it; neither did you.
People in other countries do not have OUR Constitutional rights.

The illegal immigrant who sneaked in yesterday never signed it, but it applies to him, too.
In some things yes, in other things, nope. That that do apply, only apply because we let them apply.

Of course, the Constitution doesn't directly apply here, except to the extent that it reflects our notions of morality.
Does not apply at all. If they want to get on board, then we can extend the benefits of our morality. If they want to continue living in the Middle Ages, then they can.

So people should be killed just for <i>wanting</I> to kill you?
If I were walking down the streets of Baghdad(Beirut, Tehran, whatever) tomorrow, every person who would have me killed for being an Infidel, yes. I support them being killed, every one of them.

Those who attempt or actually work towards killing you. That's probably a tiny minority of the crowd you want to carpet bomb
You think it is small, and have no proof. I think it is large, and have no proof.

aybe CNN should support 'a man on the street' poll. Seems no one has a good number of how many are actually Jihadists. Why don't we have any numbers. I think 10%(of total Islamists) is a fair number myself. New York Times said there were hundred of thousands at that one rally, itself.

Send Wolf Blitzkowitz into various Islamic cities and conduct polls...
"Do you support the killing of Americans, Christians, Jews, and Atheists?"
"Would you kill an American, Christian, Jew, or Atheist to become a martyr?"
"Would you help someone kill an American, Christian, Jew, or Atheist?"
"Do you think that Isreal should be wiped from the map, and all Jews killed?"

Find out what the 'Arab on the street' has to say. I don't think it would be all that hard to get some fairly good numbers. N=1000 gives you +-3% accuracy. N=2000 is +-2%. Why don't we have any numbers?

Personally, if someone aids another to kill me, I would be justified in killing them too.

Rashid, Al'Jihadist, "Hey Abdul, I got some C4 and goin to lay some smack down in Lodi this week end."
Abdul, "Don't you go anywhere without breakfast, its' the most important meal of the day."
Rashid, "Ok, Abdul, thank you for breakfast, it will make my martyrdom so much better, Allah Is Great."
Abdul, "Allah is Great."

Targetting Abdul directly might be considered a mismanagement of resources, at most. If he gets killed when I have Rashid killed, that would be incidentally beneficial. He is a supply line, he is a supporter, he is a co-conspirator, he is an accomplice.

If our enemy does not have those agreements with us or agree with them, then we are not bound our agreements that we have made with other people.You're confusing morality with faithfulness. We don't torture people because we believe it's absolutely wrong, not because we agreed not to torture them.

War is as moral (or immoral) as you want it to be. Since there are few rules in war, how you wage war says a lot about your morality.If I were walking down the streets of Baghdad(Beirut, Tehran, whatever) tomorrow, every person who would have me killed for being an Infidel, yes. I support them being killed, every one of them.But you have no right to be in those places, and those countries can legally kill you for being there. The real issue is whether there's a substantial risk that they will kill you <i>here</i>, and statistically, it's extremely unlikely.Personally, if someone aids another to kill me, I would be justified in killing them too.You don't know who in that crowd aided whom, or to what extent.

You're confusing morality with faithfulness.
Well, I have no faith. I am a contractor at heart. You play nice with me, I play nice with you. Seems fair. Seems equal. I don't even need a god to tell me that it is a good notion. It just makes sense to me, I suppose that seems as irrational to people who feel or believe that gods exist.

We don't torture people because we believe it's absolutely wrong, not because we agreed not to torture them.
Nothing is absolutely wrong, it is only wrong because we don't want it to happen to us, so we make an agreement, "You don't torture, and then we won't torture". We say that it is wrong, and thus it IS wrong.

We believe.

Absolutes.

Wrong.

You almost sound like a theologian.

War is as moral (or immoral) as you want it to be.
Amoral, without morals. That is depending on the notion that killing people is amoral. Most people would agree that killing people is already not a moral thing(again based on agreement with others).

Don't kill me, and I won't kill you. Simple concept.
Fvck with me, and you get fvcked with 10 times harder. Simple concept.

Since there are few rules in war, how you wage war says a lot about your morality.
I think the contract way makes more sense. It is fair and equal, and all the rules are laid out ahead.

But you have no right to be in those places, and those countries can legally kill you for being there.
Ya, they will kill me. Because they are Jihadists and I am a white Western Atheist Infidel. They will kill me for their religion, their prophet, and their god.

I think that is irrational. And to think that I can not kill them because of their religion, their prophet, and their god inkind; because of some notion of religious TOLERANCE...That we must TOLERATE them...

Catholics make saints. Atheists do not. I don't need to turn the other cheek, and I don't need to be tolerant of religious Fascists. You don't either, but that is what I am trying to convince you.

You have no obligation to be tolerant of those who are intolerant of you. You don't.

The real issue is whether there's a substantial risk that they will kill you <i>here</i>, and statistically, it's extremely unlikely.
Even though Bap and Pan say that my risk is greater now than before. But in any regard, I think that geography should not be a valid reason to not kill Jihadists. We need to knock on every door, every Arab, every Islamist door, and find out if they are Jihadist.

You don't know who in that crowd aided whom, or to what extent.
I suppose there might have been 5 or a dozen innocents who might not have known that this was a Hezbollah Jihadist Anti-Jew rally. It would be like a rock concert. I suppose there are people who accidently show up at a Madonna show, and not know what was up(they might have been given tickets or something). I mean I accidently got talked into going to see The Secret Garden at The Music Circus, and did not realize it was a musical until after I got there. But I was kicking myself for not making the connection, but my GF/Fiancee at the time called it a 'play'. Kinda cheated getting me there, but I should have known better.

Well, I have no faith.I said <i>faithfulness</i>, not faith, <i>i.e.</i>, a sense of obligation to honor an agreement. That's different from morality, which is our internal sense of what is right and wrong independent of any outside obligation.

orality prevents us from stooping to the jihadists' level, not a sense of obligation. For example, I wouldn't torture someone just because I can.Ya, they will kill me. Because they are Jihadists and I am a white Western Atheist Infidel. They will kill me for their religion, their prophet, and their god.If you're walking on <i>their soil</i>, you're subject to <i>their</i> rules, not yours. What they would do to you, if you hypothetically were walking down their streets, is irrelevant.Even though Bap and Pan say that my risk is greater now than before.Even if your risk is 100x greater than it was five years ago, it's still practically zero.I suppose there might have been 5 or a dozen innocents who might not have known that this was a Hezbollah Jihadist Anti-Jew rally.And if they did know? Are we killing people for thoughtcrime now?

I said <i>faithfulness</i>, not faith, <i>i.e.</i>, a sense of obligation to honor an agreement.
I understand you now. Obligation to honor an agreement, that IS something I value very highly. But that is all contract.

That's different from morality, which is our internal sense of what is right and wrong independent of any outside obligation.
I don't really have one of those. Most of it was taught to me. Wait, I am saying that wrong... I have a compass, but what we call North or South is arbitrary, socially, philosophically, and morally speaking.

For example, I could have been born and raised by Jihadists, and thus where your arrow points to Good and not killing people, mine points to Good and killing Infidels. In our own minds we are both Good people. Cultural Relativity also states this as a truism.

So for all practical purposes, what you denote as morality is really arbitrary. So then, the only thing really left is contract; but this is of course only if you value and honor contracts. That is to say, don't mess with me, I won't mess with you. Mess with me, I mess 10 times harder.

orality prevents us from stooping to the jihadists' level, not a sense of obligation.
If I don't have a contract with you, a social contract, I am sorry I just don't have anything there. If I am held to a standard by another party to which they do not abide by, I rebel and revolt....as a Libertarian, that is pure tyranny and oppression to me.

y internal wiring is such that I will kill those who seek to enslave me. I see all around me people who don't have that type of wiring. I don't understand those people, any more than you understand me, I suppose. There are plenty of people who like being oppressed, forced, and coerced; or at least accept it.

For example, I wouldn't torture someone just because I can.
I suppose that makes you a better man than me. I can think of many scenarios where I would torture someone, personally.

If you're walking on <i>their soil</i>, you're subject to <i>their</i> rules, not yours. What they would do to you, if you hypothetically were walking down their streets, is irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant in regard to opportunity, which was my point. Geography was not my point. Their ability to get to me, to kill me, is predicated on geography mostly. And by your discussion, I am sure that you would agree that geography is pretty much the only limitation to their killing me.

Even if your risk is 100x greater than it was five years ago, it's still practically zero.
Ya. I am surprised actually that they have not figured out how porous the Mexican border is. If they learned Spanish and learned how to swim, I suppose we will see more of them locally.

And if they did know? Are we killing people for thoughtcrime now?
Not really, they are attending a Jihadist rally. Sorry to get all Godwin on ya, but if this were a bunch of Nazis at a Fascist rally, I would firebomb the sh1t out of them too. I would not really care if there were little brownshirt baby NAZIs in the crowd, or mom NAZIs, or grandpa NAZIs. They are just going to grow up to be big NAZIs in black uniforms.

If they are waving their little Swaztika flags in the air, they should get firebombed to ashes.

What would you do to a facist who posted on a messageboard?

Obviously we are both using different definitions of the word.

I am using the one from the dictionary.

Which one are you using, Anka?

Let's see. I googled and found this.


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to (sic) media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.



1 - You seem to care little for anything beside yourself and nothing for anything outside your country, which is a little different from patriotism.
2 - Yes.
3 - Yes.
4 - Yes.
5 - I'll say no, but some female posters can disagree is they want.
6 - No idea, so lets say no.
7 - Yes.
8 - No.
9 - Probably.
10 - Give you benefit of the doubt.
11- Yes.
12 - Yes.
13 - No idea, lets say no.
14 - No idea, lets say no.

If you're really scared by Jihadists then go out yourself and do something about it. That must be surely be the Libertarian solution. Asking your government to use overpowering military force to kill demonstrators at a rally to protect your nation certainly has facist tendencies.

Our actions should be guided by <i>our</i> morality, not our enemy's. Otherwise, we're no better than they.

Yes...and no. Too often now we seem to place ourselves in insurmountable restraints for reasons of morality that have no place in this conflict..that are imposed upon us by those sitting outside chattering in at us like the brilliant coaches sitting in the stands at the 35 yard line.

The underlying differences still make us better than our enemies. We stand for freedom, self-determination, the protection of our women and children and not the sacrifice thereof. We stand for truth, justice, and the American Way, and despite our flaws in all three areas, we are still in a different sphere than our current enemies.

We didn't start this. This was started in decades past with hijackings and kidnappings and suicide bombs on our barracks, embassies, and naval vessels..culminating with an assault on the most visible symbols of all that the US stands for. We are at war. We must fight. We must fight the sort of total war that we have fought in the past when we won. We need to cease hindering ourselves out of political correctness.

There was noone bemoaning the fates of the civilians of Tokyo or Dresden until some time after that war...and our tactics should not have been decried at all. War is cruel. War is an evil; however, sometimes it is necessary..and when you fight it...you must fight it to win and win decisively.

No it's not. It's a unilateral statement of law. I never signed it; neither did you. The illegal immigrant who sneaked in yesterday never signed
it, but it applies to him, too.

Not entirely true. Its law. It dictates the boundaries of power of the Government and dictates the basic administration of our land. It does not, entirely, apply to non-citizens, since that is the document which outlines the hows and wherefores of our right to vote, for instance, which non-citizens do not have.

Of course, the Constitution doesn't directly apply here, except to the extent that it reflects our notions of morality.So people should be killed just for <i>wanting</I> to kill you?Those who attempt or actually work towards killing you. That's probably a tiny minority of the crowd you want to carpet bomb.

Those people being discussed, the folks at a Hizbollah rally, are not innocents. They provide material, spiritual, political, logistical and emotional support to an organization of terror. An organization dedicated to the destruction of an ally nation, which has also espoused a genocidal solution to their Jewish problem, as it were.

Should the rally have been "carpet bombed"? No. Do I think Israel should have dropped a large bomb on Nasralleh at the rally, collateral damage be damned? Yessir.

My internal wiring is such that I will kill those who seek to enslave me. I see all around me people who don't have that type of wiring.I'm not one of those. But that crowd is just expressing their political opinion, not enslaving you.Their ability to get to me, to kill me, is predicated on geography mostly. And by your discussion, I am sure that you would agree that geography is pretty much the only limitation to their killing me.Geography, along with laws, culture, religion, poverty, political propaganda, and a host of other factors.

Put one of those ralliers in a cozy American suburb with a wife, kids, SUV, cable TV and internet, lots of junk food -- the modern American dream -- and <i>then</i> let's see if they try to kill you, or just to get on with their own life.
Not really, they are attending a Jihadist rally. Sorry to get all Godwin on ya, but if this were a bunch of Nazis at a Fascist rally, I would firebomb the sh1t out of them too.So you don't believe in freedom of expression. But we as a nation do.If I am held to a standard by another party to which they do not abide by, I rebel and revolt....as a Libertarian, that is pure tyranny and oppression to me.Should Bush have you killed then?

Too often now we seem to place ourselves in insurmountable restraints for reasons of morality that have no place in this conflict.Our restraints are political, not moral.Do I think Israel should have dropped a large bomb on Nasralleh at the rally, collateral damage be damned? Yessir.There's no need to drop a "large bomb" to assassinate one man. There's also a world of difference between a targeted assassination, which can sometimes be justified, and what Fyyr proposed.Those people being discussed, the folks at a Hizbollah rally, are not innocents. They provide material, spiritual, political, logistical and emotional support to an organization of terror.So you, too, don't believe in freedom of expression? You believe that people should be killed just for providing intangible support to a politician by showing up at a rally?An organization dedicated to the destruction of an ally nation, which has also espoused a genocidal solution to their Jewish problem, as it were.So you propose we go out and kill any neo-Nazis, too, no matter where they reside?

Although I disagree with bombing rallies,

So you, too, don't believe in freedom of expression? You believe that people should be killed just for providing intangible support to a politician by showing up at a rally?

Nehassalaraababa is not just a "politician" he is a leader of a Terrorist organization, and hence I have zero problems with him being taken out, and while I oppose indiscrimate killing of non violent followers, ultimately I am not morally troubled if his followers die either.

Now not everyone at a rally is his follower, so bombing that is wrong.

But if he was having a secret meeting at some persons house, with followers and the family who supporting him, I would not be morally troubled with the entire house being bombed. Now geopolitical issues may or may not make that a bad thing, but that is seperate from the morality of it.

Nehassalaraababa is not just a "politician" he is a leader of a Terrorist organization, and hence I have zero problems with him being taken out, and while I oppose indiscrimate killing of non violent followers, ultimately I am not morally troubled if his followers die either.That's a convenient moral loophole: I just have to label someone a "terrorist" and you agree to kill them (or, at least, you're apathetic as to their death). If our population has been so programmed, I think we'll soon be labeling all our enemies "terrorists". It will transform into a generic term that means "someone I don't like and shouldn't feel bad about killing."

That's a convenient moral loophole: I just have to label someone a "terrorist" and you agree to kill them (or, at least, you're apathetic as to their death). If our population has been so programmed, I think we'll soon be labeling all our enemies "terrorists". It will transform into a generic term that means "someone I don't like and shouldn't feel bad about killing."

Quite right. It's already happening.

I'm not one of those. But that crowd is just expressing their political opinion, not enslaving you.
That political opinion is supporting Jihadists, so yes, it is a political opinion.

The enslaving discussion was about something else. About contracts with people who are not party to them.

Geography, along with laws, culture, religion, poverty, political propaganda, and a host of other factors.
ostly religion, for Jihadists. That makes up and decides all of the other things you list.

Put one of those ralliers in a cozy American suburb with a wife, kids, SUV, cable TV and internet, lots of junk food -- the modern American dream -- and <i>then</i> let's see if they try to kill you, or just to get on with their own life.
Really, we had some Jihadists living here in Lodi, California. And they had access to all those things you list here.

So you don't believe in freedom of expression.
Believe?

Freedom of speech and the press is something we provide to ourselves(rights) through our laws and our culture. It is written into our founding law, The Constitution.

Their culture not only does not value these freedoms, it holds us in contempt for valueing it. And our rights do not extend to foreign peoples. They have their own.

I can extend to you your freedoms, and you to me. I don't have to, even in terms of a point of view or perspective, extend our rights to other(Jihadists, for example). It is the way it is, it is a double standard. But it is what it is. Jihadists, from whatever country they hail from, do NOT have our rights. They are our rights.

If they want to live like us, they are more than welcome to share them, of course. But that is what they are warring against.

You just have to work harder if you want to convince me that The Constitution of the United States covers everyone on the planet. To me that notion is just absurd.

But we as a nation do. Should Bush have you killed then?
I am not a Jihadist. He may want to kill me because I am a Libertarian Atheist, but that would be a different discussion.

Let's see. I googled and found this.

Your link is retarded.

Historical Fascism is a form of Socialism. All labor and production was nationalized.
NAZI Fascists were Socialist.

Your link makes it seem the opposite, that it is some form of Anti-Socialism.

This was the definition that I was using:
ain Entry: fas·cism
Pronunciation: 'fa-"shi-z&m also 'fa-"si-
Function: noun
Etymology: Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race[replace race with religion] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

It works if one replaces race for religion.

It will transform into a generic term that means "someone I don't like and shouldn't feel bad about killing."

What term do you presently use for this type of person?

It seems that there should be a one word expression for this phrase.

What word do you use?

Mostly religion, for Jihadists. That makes up and decides all of the other things you list.There are many muslims in the United States who don't want to kill you. The difference is, they're living in comfort and wealth in a free nation that embraces many cultures.You just have to work harder if you want to convince me that The Constitution of the United States covers everyone on the planet.Of course it doesn't. But many of the rights it lists are basic to all humans, and most developed countries grant similar freedoms.He may want to kill me because I am a Libertarian Atheist, but that would be a different discussion.No, it's the same discussion. You claim an absolute right to kill an entire crowd because they associate with a political party that wants to kill you. Why shouldn't Bush kill you, because you associate with a political party that wants to rebel and revolt against him (and the political sensibilities of most Americans)?

There are many muslims in the United States who don't want to kill you.
Ya, there are many.

The difference is, they're living in comfort and wealth in a free nation that embraces many cultures.
We had three Al Quaida members caught in my little middle class free embracing culture town. They were very afluent people(compared to a typical Jihadist in the Middle East). Certainly they had access to everything that I have access to.

Of course it doesn't. But many of the rights it lists are basic to all humans, and most developed countries grant similar freedoms.
I don't really want to get into a philosophical discussion of what rights are. It would be too time consuming, and I doubt anyone really has any interest in that topic.

You say rights are absolute.
I say they are not.
Let us just agree to disagree on this topic.

No, it's the same discussion. You claim an absolute right to kill an entire crowd because they associate with a political party that wants to kill you.
I don't claim an absolute right. A right can only be called a right when most people grant it. I AM trying to change people's opinion about that, of course.

If one actively demonstrates for my death(or your death for that matter), I am well within my right to support them being killed. Yes. But that is only because I value the 'right' of self defense, and interpolate it to a larger scale.

If you threaten me with death, I WILL kill you first. Whether that notion or value is popular or not, it will occur. I am supposing that most people value the idea of the Right to Self Defense, but that is only an assumption.

If they do, then it is only logical that it is fair to say that it is right to extend that right to geographical distances(across the Atlantic Ocean, for example), and to many people(for if many people want to kill one, then killing many in defense is also valued).

If my audience or readers do not already value self preservation and self defense then my argument will be dismissed. They may also dismiss the actual threat as well, which is all well and good, if not just myopic.

Why shouldn't Bush kill you, because you associate with a political party that wants to rebel and revolt against him (and the political sensibilities of most Americans)?
Libertarians were only rebels and revolutionaries one time in our history, The Revolutionary War. Jefferson was a Libertarian.

I agree that that way of thinking is no longer politically popular, most Americans do not value Liberty, as the Founders did. I agree.

Actually, I am not a member of the Libertarian party, for to become a member one must renounce the use of force to exact political change. And as you can see, I don't agree with that notion. Most Libertarians are isolationist passifists, I am not. It is a description, only, which I use as a shorthand notation to denote that I do value Liberty, in the extreme.

That's a convenient moral loophole: I just have to label someone a "terrorist" and you agree to kill them (or, at least, you're apathetic as to their death). If our population has been so programmed, I think we'll soon be labeling all our enemies "terrorists". It will transform into a generic term that means "someone I don't like and shouldn't feel bad about killing."

Wrong.

The label terrorist does not make me agree to kill them (or apathetic to their death) its the actions that makes the label, and the actions that make me support the death or at least apathetic to it.

You may argue that my definition of terrorist is heavily influenced by my government and culture, but then again I could argue that your definition, is shaped by your government and culture.

I support the death of people who openly admit they do want nations of which we are allies to exist, and either directly or indirectly work towards that goal.

PS Fyyr you should use libertarian as opposed to Libertarian to describe yourself (if you dont you might I'm too lazy to check)... although I doubt people would notice or appreciate the difference!

Historical Fascism is a form of Socialism. All labor and production was nationalized.
NAZI Fascists were Socialist.

Your link makes it seem the opposite, that it is some form of Anti-Socialism.


Italian facism was initially an anti-communist movement. Nazi facism was national socialism. Maybe you're a capitalo-facist, if there is such a thing?

Facism was initially an anti-communist movement.

Two different forms of Socialism opposing one another.

Capitalists can oppose one another.
onarchists can oppose one another.

Why would you imply that Socialists can not oppose one another?
NAZIs are National Socialists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi

It is even where they get their name from.

PS Fyyr you should use libertarian as opposed to Libertarian to describe yourself (if you dont you might I'm too lazy to check)... although I doubt people would notice or appreciate the difference!
I agree.
I know the rules.
I break them intentionally.
In this case, to set certain words off from the rest, for my own purposes.

We had three Al Quaida members caught in my little middle class free embracing culture town. They were very afluent people(compared to a typical Jihadist in the Middle East). Certainly they had access to everything that I have access to.Ok, you've got a sample size of 3. I've got a sample size of a few million (muslims in the U.S., virtually all of whom aren't trying to kill you).

Also, we aren't talking about Al-Qaeda members, we're talking about people in a political rally. Big difference.If one actively demonstrates for my death(or your death for that matter), I am well within my right to support them being killed.As a nation, we've actively demonstrated for the death of many middle eastern muslims, and we've acted on it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do the other muslims in the middle east now have the (moral) right to kill us?

Your argument has three logical flaws:

1) You don't know who in that crowd wants to kill Americans.
2) Even as to those who want to kill Americans, you don't know which of them will actually attempt to kill Americans.
3) Even as to the sub-subgroup in #2, you don't know which of them will actually attempt to kill <i>you</i>.If you threaten me with death, I WILL kill you first.Even if my threat is obviously empty, in that I haven't the will and/or means to carry it out? What if I threaten you with death because I think you're going to kill me first, so it's self-defense (in my mind)?

The label terrorist does not make me agree to kill them (or apathetic to their death) its the actions that makes the label, and the actions that make me support the death or at least apathetic to it.Their actions were showing up at a political rally. That's supposed to be sufficient cause to kill them?

reread my original post, i said that I was against indiscrimate bombinb of rallies, but i did not have any problem with him or his followers being taken out.

I guess I didnt include "i am against indiscrimate bombings of rallies because not all who showed up are followers"

but people who provide direct aid, whether its money, shelter, or storage etc while in full knowledge of hezbollahs objective or what it will be used for?

them? Yea I have no moral problem with some bomb blowing them up. (Although I may be against it for geopolitical reasons but thats a very seperate issue from morality)

reread my original post, i said that I was against indiscrimate bombinb of rallies, but i did not have any problem with him or his followers being taken out.Followers don't necessarily provide real assistance. Unless by "followers" you mean people who actively aid or assist the militants.

followers being anyone who provides economic aid to Hezbollah, or acts as a conduit of which weapons are either passed through or stored, or actively joins Hezbollah and trains with them etc.

Ok, you've got a sample size of 3. I've got a sample size of a few million (muslims in the U.S., virtually all of whom aren't trying to kill you).
I don't have a problem spending money to find out the dividend of 'virtually all' are.

Also, we aren't talking about Al-Qaeda members, we're talking about people in a political rally. Big difference.
I know that it was a Hezbollah rally. All the people(who were waving flags) in the crowd were waving Hezbollah flags.

As a nation, we've actively demonstrated for the death of many middle eastern muslims, and we've acted on it in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do the other muslims in the middle east now have the (moral) right to kill us?
Cultural Relativism again.
Do you see thousands of Americans at rallies burning Muslims in effigy? Do you see our leaders calling for the deaths of Muslims for being Muslim?

Your argument has three logical flaws:

1) You don't know who in that crowd wants to kill Americans.
2) Even as to those who want to kill Americans, you don't know which of them will actually attempt to kill Americans.
3) Even as to the sub-subgroup in #2, you don't know which of them will actually attempt to kill <i>you</i>.
1. Hezbollah is a Jihadist organization. Anyone supporting Hezbollah is either a Jihadist, or as good as a Jihadist.
2. Supporters of Jihadists are just as bad as Jihadists. Whether that support is militarily(arms), money, supplies, teaching, breeding, or morale.
3. Jihadists have declared war on the US, and have attacked the US, and have stated that they will attack again. Just because they are not a soveriegnty, or a nation, does not mean that they are not part of a culture or group. And does not mean that we can not wage war on them in return. If the enemy is hard to find does not mean that there is no enemy, or that they are not the enemy.

Even if my threat is obviously empty, in that I haven't the will and/or means to carry it out?
Are you saying that Jihadists are not capable of carrying out their threats?

What if I threaten you with death because I think you're going to kill me first, so it's self-defense (in my mind)?
I suppose that makes sense.

Tudamorf, "I am going to kill you for being an Infidel".
Fyyr, "I will kill you, out of self defense, because you want to kill me, "
Tudamorf, "Fine then, I am going to kill you in self defense, because you are going to kill me."

Do you see thousands of Americans at rallies burning Muslims in effigy? Do you see our leaders calling for the deaths of Muslims for being Muslim?We don't call for their deaths, we actually kill them, to the tune of over 100,000 in the past few years. We herd others into secret prisons, where we've tortured and humiliated them. We even refused to let a muslim U.S. citizen come back to the United States. And we sell weapons to their #1 enemy.

The muslim version of Fyyr would look at this evidence and no doubt say, they've messed with us, now we're going to mess with them, 10 times over.Hezbollah is a Jihadist organization. Anyone supporting Hezbollah is either a Jihadist, or as good as a Jihadist.Ok. Who in that rally is supporting them?Are you saying that Jihadists are not capable of carrying out their threats?I'm saying the people in that rally aren't.

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/nazi_rally.jpg

Opps, wrong image.



This one here...


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42120000/jpg/_42120340_ap_crowds416.jpg

http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_1174_images/0922061121_M_hez2.jpg

1. Hezbollah is a Jihadist organization. Anyone supporting Hezbollah is either a Jihadist, or as good as a Jihadist.


Technically Jihad means 'struggle' and it is traditionally a description of resisting those who would endanger the (muslim) faith.
It has been co-opted to justify invasions of other countries and enforced conversion of faith.
It has been co-opted to include the entire world not of a few radical's particular interpretation of faith. (e.g. those sunnis and shiites currently shooting, torturing and bombing each other are doing so because they are waging their jihad against each other's interpretation of some events 800 or so years ago.)


2. Supporters of Jihadists are just as bad as Jihadists. Whether that support is militarily(arms), money, supplies, teaching, breeding, or morale.


That is a moral standpoint. One I might add that is used by many violent fundamentalist muslims to justify their killing of americans and jews indiscriminately. (The Qu'ran specifically forbids killing civilians and those not actively engaged on the field of battle. Of course those who want to justify to themselves to murder people have twisted this commandment by interpreting that anybody not of the (their) muslim faith who is not actively supporting their own sect is supporting their enemy (the rest of the world) and by extension a participant in their personal war. They also sometimes go around claiming that any country that is not exclusively muslim is therefor a battleground and those on it are legal targets).

The reason why I find such a blanket statement of 'support is the same as the action' is dangerous is that there is no clear limit where support ends and e.g. sympathy begins. In many cases in the crowd in Lebanon people knew very little about the politics of the most recent war. They know that the Israelis bombed their homes, their villages, destroyed their crops and cattle and orchards. They have no real knowledge about the provocations of Hezbollah, about the decades of violence and hatred that preceded it. What the do know is that Hezbollah is the organisation that drove away the militias occupying 'their' lands (and some of them were acting more like death squads on occasion than as police force). They also know that Hezbollah seems (emphasis mine, not theirs) to be the only ones caring to improve their lives by building infrastructure, providing education and by offering financial support. So when one group drops bombs on them and the other offers help, which are they going to support?
In othe words, how many americans 'hate' muslims and support their government though they know no muslims at all, simply because one group seems to want to kill them and the other protects them? The perception is completely wrong in either case, but in an us-versus-them mentality there is no room for subtlety.


3. Jihadists have declared war on the US, and have attacked the US, and have stated that they will attack again. Just because they are not a soveriegnty, or a nation, does not mean that they are not part of a culture or group. And does not mean that we can not wage war on them in return. If the enemy is hard to find does not mean that there is no enemy, or that they are not the enemy.


You act as if 'Jihadists' is an organisation. Or perhaps I am reading your statement wrong.

The problem is not that resisting and even fighting those terrorists and fundamentalists who wage war on the entire (western) world is not necessary, but that the tool chosen (the army) is wrong for the job.
Armies are good at killing large numbers of people at once, at destroying industrial capacity and generally flattening the ability of other countries to fight back.
However, a terrorist is not a country, it could hardly care less about industrial capacity and is not conveniently uniformed and packed up in crowds. Armies are not good at fighting that. Police on the other hand are trained to find the one criminal in a crowd who looks exactly like the thousands of innocents around him or her. Their tools and training are what is needed to get the job done, not a hundred thousand soldiers armed with tanks and big guns. The best those can do is making themselves a convenient target for every brainwashed deluded idiot with an axe to grind.


Are you saying that Jihadists are not capable of carrying out their threats?


They have not been very good at it so far. Yes I know there are thousands of victims world wide but in the light of the number of people killed in the ensuing wars that is an insignificant number.

Regardless though, there are some 1.8 billion muslims in the world who are not interested in killing americans but who can increasingly easily be influenced by the few who do want to do that, into feeling threatened by the USA. That is the core of the 'the world is less safe from terrorism today than it was 5 years ago' statement.


Eri

Technically Jihad means 'struggle' and it is traditionally a description of resisting those who would endanger the (muslim) faith.
It has been co-opted to justify invasions of other countries and enforced conversion of faith.
ein Kampf technically means My Struggle.
/shrug.
In the end does it really matter to the 6 million Jews killed what it was called? It happened regardless of what it was called. And what you call it does not change what it was.

Same with Jihadism. You may call it whatever you like. It is what it is. You know what I mean when I use the word, you know who I mean when I use the word. And if you don't, I am patient enough to explain and describe who I mean when I use the word, and then if the mood strikes you, you may call them(or it) whatever you like. As long as we are discussing the same people, then we are cool.

You/we could make up a nonsense word and when we both use that word, we both understand what the other means, we are cool.

It has been co-opted to include the entire world not of a few radical's particular interpretation of faith. (e.g. those sunnis and shiites currently shooting, torturing and bombing each other are doing so because they are waging their jihad against each other's interpretation of some events 800 or so years ago.)
Theists are irrational. That is not news.

That is a moral standpoint. One I might add that is used by many violent fundamentalist muslims to justify their killing of americans and jews indiscriminately.
So?, they are the enemy.
You don't see them soul searching and trying to convince themselves about how tolerant and 'enlightened' they are(like Westerners do), do ya? Nope. They see that as a weakness in war. Because it is.

(The Qu'ran specifically forbids killing civilians and those not actively engaged on the field of battle. Of course those who want to justify to themselves to murder people have twisted this commandment by interpreting that anybody not of the (their) muslim faith who is not actively supporting their own sect is supporting their enemy (the rest of the world) and by extension a participant in their personal war. They also sometimes go around claiming that any country that is not exclusively muslim is therefor a battleground and those on it are legal targets).
Understanding their motives should be used only to help us defeat them. I don't need to actually empathize with them, or sympathize with them. I just want them to quit.

The reason why I find such a blanket statement of 'support is the same as the action' is dangerous is that there is no clear limit where support ends and e.g. sympathy begins.
Why is it dangerous? Wars beget casualties. They have since wars were invented.

In many cases in the crowd in Lebanon people knew very little about the politics of the most recent war.
So, many 'so called' innocent Germans died because of the actions of NAZIs. I don't cry for them, do you? On the contrary, I think that they should have stopped them. Rev. Niemoller stuff.

They know that the Israelis bombed their homes, their villages, destroyed their crops and cattle and orchards. They have no real knowledge about the provocations of Hezbollah, about the decades of violence and hatred that preceded it. What the do know is that Hezbollah is the organisation that drove away the militias occupying 'their' lands (and some of them were acting more like death squads on occasion than as police force). They also know that Hezbollah seems (emphasis mine, not theirs) to be the only ones caring to improve their lives by building infrastructure, providing education and by offering financial support. So when one group drops bombs on them and the other offers help, which are they going to support?
Where Next Columbus? (http://www.musicsonglyrics.com/C/crasslyrics/crasswherenextcolumbuslyrics.htm)
In the end, that is the side they have chosen.

In othe words, how many americans 'hate' muslims and support their government though they know no muslims at all, simply because one group seems to want to kill them and the other protects them? The perception is completely wrong in either case, but in an us-versus-them mentality there is no room for subtlety.
Why do you think we need to sympathize(or empathize) with our enemy? Because Roger Waters told you so?

You act as if 'Jihadists' is an organisation. Or perhaps I am reading your statement wrong.
What are Jihadists to you?


The problem is not that resisting and even fighting those terrorists and fundamentalists who wage war on the entire (western) world is not necessary, but that the tool chosen (the army) is wrong for the job.
I can agree with that to a certain degree. It depends on many factors though.

Armies are good at killing large numbers of people at once, at destroying industrial capacity and generally flattening the ability of other countries to fight back.
Yes, I agree. We have to establish a new military infrastructure designed to combat them, a special force with special tactics just for them. I agree.

However, a terrorist is not a country, it could hardly care less about industrial capacity and is not conveniently uniformed and packed up in crowds. Armies are not good at fighting that.
I agree, we need to design a sub set military force which is particularly outfitted, trained, and supported to address their particular tactics and organizational modes. It would be unconventional compared to our existing forces, and more in tune with the Special Forces outfits.

Police on the other hand are trained to find the one criminal in a crowd who looks exactly like the thousands of innocents around him or her. Their tools and training are what is needed to get the job done, not a hundred thousand soldiers armed with tanks and big guns. The best those can do is making themselves a convenient target for every brainwashed deluded idiot with an axe to grind.
Tudamorf has millions of Muslims in American who are good Muslims. Hire a ton of them to infiltrate and kill Jihadists. If they are good Americans they would do that without hesitation. I would recommend substantial monatary rewards, though.

They have not been very good at it so far. Yes I know there are thousands of victims world wide but in the light of the number of people killed in the ensuing wars that is an insignificant number.
I have stated many times on this board, and even in this thread....That when the factions are no longer divided, they will become a substantially larger threat. After reading the declassified opinions of that top secret leaked report, they tend to assess the situation the same.

Regardless though, there are some 1.8 billion muslims in the world who are not interested in killing americans but who can increasingly easily be influenced by the few who do want to do that, into feeling threatened by the USA. That is the core of the 'the world is less safe from terrorism today than it was 5 years ago' statement.
I don't want to kill good Muslims, only the bad ones. Killing the good ones intentionally, is impractical and silly. Developing a force which can tell the good guys from the bad guys is a great idea.

We don't call for their deaths, we actually kill them, to the tune of over 100,000 in the past few years.

Point of fact: Most of that number were muslims killing each other. Not us killing Muslims.

http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/images/nazi_rally.jpg
Opps, wrong image.So everyone who attended Hitler's rallies should have been killed too?This one here...
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42120000/jpg/_42120340_ap_crowds416.jpgI see some empty seats in the back. The crowd welcoming Bush back in 2005 was better:

<img src=http://usinfo.state.gov/photogallery/show.php?size=350x350&album_name=%2Finauguration2005%2FInauguration2005&obj_name=The-Capital.jpg>

No doubt, the muslim Fyyr would want all of them killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_1174_images/0922061121_M_hez2.jpgWhile we're playing the Google images game, here are photos of Americans rallying to have muslims killed:

http://www.fotosearch.com/comp/IDX/IDX065/636243.jpg
<img src=http://www.indexstock.com/store/GetChubby.asp/ImageNum=636244&VOLID=vxD12LKRJqctC&SecNum=cNdMsW%7DR%7CBYtlG8wsZUqdfP2A&gc=&aw=aw0&ss=1/IndexStock-C-636244.jpg>
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2003/03/23-pro-war-inside.jpg
http://www.shalomnewyork.com/gallery/data/media/44/prowar.jpg
http://www.planetd21.com/images/prowar-rally.jpg

So everyone who attended Hitler's rallies should have been killed too?I see some empty seats in the back. The crowd welcoming Bush back in 2005 was better:

Of course, I would have dropped the bombs on them myself...and half my family has German roots. Absolutely.


No doubt, the muslim Fyyr would want all of them killed.
I am not a Muslim.

While we're playing the Google images game, here are photos of Americans rallying to have muslims killed:
Really, they want to kill Muslims?
Or Jihadists?
And why does it make a difference to you?

Of course, I would have dropped the bombs on them myself...and half my family has German roots. Absolutely.I guess my question was rhetorical, as we've established that you lack a moral compass.I am not a Muslim.I mean a hypothetical muslim who thinks as you do. Simple role reversal.Really, they want to kill Muslims?
Or Jihadists?
And why does it make a difference to you?From the muslims' point of view, they want to kill muslims.

From the muslims' point of view, they want to kill muslims.

That doesn't make them right

I guess my question was rhetorical, as we've established that you lack a moral compass.
I would drop bombs on NAZIs and you call me immoral for it?

What is moral for you, supporting them?

I mean a hypothetical muslim who thinks as you do.
Oh, you mean that paradoxical Cultural Relativism argument.

I don't buy it. I did at one time before I figured out how illogical it is. It is easy to buy because it requires soft thinking(and feelings) to buy it.

Cultural Relativist thinking is definitionally a Moebius Loop, using it to show illogic in others is absurd.

Simple role reversal. From the muslims' point of view, they want to kill muslims.
After Muslims bombed America, you may see this. And you have a problem with suppor One of those appears to be a stock photo, and not real.

uslim Jihadist attack on the US was unprevoked and unprecipitated.

Your stock images are denoting of a prevoked and precipitated response.

So everyone who attended Hitler's rallies should have been killed too?

Yes.

I know I'd rather all of those dirty mother****ers had died horrible deaths.

**** each and every one of those bastards.

Oh, you mean that paradoxical Cultural Relativism argument.You need not buy into Cultural Relativism to understand my argument. I'm simply applying your logic, as is, to two different sets of facts. I'm expressing no opinion about your culture relative to the muslim's. I <i>am</i> trying to show you the inherent danger in your logic.

Yes.
I know I'd rather all of those dirty mother****ers had died horrible deaths.
**** each and every one of those bastards.Regardless of who they were, why they were there, and what actions they took? Sounds like petty revenge to me. Wouldn't you rather punish those who were responsible for Nazi atrocities?

You need not buy into Cultural Relativism to understand my argument.
It is the same.

I'm simply applying your logic, as is, to two different sets of facts.
The fact is that Jihadists have declared war with Americans. Jihadists have attacked Americans.

We were just minding our own business, whistling a merry ignorant tune, with a piece of grass sticking out of our teeth. Wham, Wham, Wham, Wham.

Everything changed. No logic. It is what it is.


I'm expressing no opinion about your culture relative to the muslim's. I <i>am</i> trying to show you the inherent danger in your logic.
y logic is that if we do not defend ourselves, and fight them to make them quit, they will do it again. History has shown in Isreal that Jihadists teach their children their hate generation after generation after generation. They are tenacious and don't give up easy, or not at all for that matter.

I don't see any danger with killing all Jihadists. Sure that will make more Jihadists, that is obvious. We just need to be prepared to kill all the new ones too. Until they give up.

Nothing else works against them. Especially tolerance and appeasement, that has made them worse, in all fairness. Leaving them alone did not work.

The only viable option, the only logical option then is to confront them and make them quit. Even if it takes 30 or 300 years. Even if it means killing every last Jihadist on the planet. There is no reason why the Jihadist culture needs to survive. This is why your argument is couched and founded on Cultural Relativism. A Cultural Relativist would find that notion offensive.

The Jihadist culture needs to be eliminated from the human experience.

My logic is that if we do not defend ourselves, and fight them to make them quit, they will do it again.I agree completely. But by "them" I refer to the actual militants, not random civilians merely because they're bigots.

orality aside, unjustifiably carpet bombing a crowd of 100,000 will only fan the flames and strengthen the arab leaders' rhetoric that we're waging war on islam. That is, unless you plan to annihilate 1.3 billion muslims.

I agree completely. But by "them" I refer to the actual militants, not random civilians merely because they're bigots.

orality aside, unjustifiably carpet bombing a crowd of 100,000 will only fan the flames and strengthen the arab leaders' rhetoric that we're waging war on islam. That is, unless you plan to annihilate 1.3 billion muslims.

If all of them are Jihadists, or become Jihadists. And assuming that every Muslim is destined or pre-ordained or pre-disposed to become a Jihadist(which I generally disagree with, but for the sake of argument I will allow you).

I just assume that there would come a point between where we are now, and that 1.3 billion figure that they would come to the conclusion to quit being Jihadists.

We know from history that German NAZIs when they were killed in sufficient numbers, eventually gave up. They were rational, in the end. During WW2 we bombed cities to help make them quit, we killed 50,000 Germans in Dresden in one bombing run alone.

It is hard to say about Jihadists, they are irrational. If there were 1.3 billion German NAZIs in the world, I would kill every last one of them. I don't see why Jihadists would be different.

The fact is that Jihadists have declared war with Americans. Jihadists have attacked Americans.

We were just minding our own business, whistling a merry ignorant tune, with a piece of grass sticking out of our teeth. Wham, Wham, Wham, Wham.

Everything changed. No logic. It is what it is.


If you are referring to the suicide attacks in 2001 then, no, what changed was your perception. Militant fundamentalist muslim terrorist had been attacking and murdering americans for a few decades already before then. When the palestinians were hijacking planes they singled out especially Israeli and American passengers. I guess you have forgotten the bombing of the american plane that crashed into Lockerbie, the attack on the american army base in Lebannon and the attempt to sink the USS Cole?

What the 2001 attack drove home to the average American is not that there are a bunch of fanatics who violently oppose them (though it accomplished that too for those too myopic to be aware of international news) but the fact that there is no magical, divine or technological barrier that somehow keeps the USA safe from harm. The average american was suddenly forced to accept that he or she is not safe from the rest of the world.


You keep refering to these terrorist organisations as 'Jihadists'. By that you are conveniently labeling them by a single stereotype. The truth is however there is no such organisation, no such drive called Jihadism amongst muslims. If you insist on generalising your enemy and attribute them with a single, incorrect, motivation, then you will not only fight the wrong enemy, you will fight him incorrectly too. I have no doubt there is a Sun-Tzu saying about that somewhere. Do you even know what the goal of Bin-Laden's Al Queda is? Why barely literate Pakistani are jumping for the chance to cross the border with their kalashnikovs to fight the 'foreigners' there?


Eri

If you are referring to the suicide attacks in 2001 then, no, what changed was your perception. Militant fundamentalist muslim terrorist had been attacking and murdering americans for a few decades already before then. When the palestinians were hijacking planes they singled out especially Israeli and American passengers. I guess you have forgotten the bombing of the american plane that crashed into Lockerbie, the attack on the american army base in Lebannon and the attempt to sink the USS Cole?
No, not forgotten.
Neither is the Beirut Marine compound bombing.
Iran hostages.
Lebanon hostages.
Every Isreal pizza stand or cafe bombed. Every bus full of Jewish kids.
Every airliner hijacked in the 70s.
Every Jewish Olympian killed.

What the 2001 attack drove home to the average American is not that there are a bunch of fanatics who violently oppose them (though it accomplished that too for those too myopic to be aware of international news) but the fact that there is no magical, divine or technological barrier that somehow keeps the USA safe from harm. The average american was suddenly forced to accept that he or she is not safe from the rest of the world.
True, geography is no longer a barrier.


You keep refering to these terrorist organisations as 'Jihadists'. By that you are conveniently labeling them by a single stereotype.
What word do you use? I have already discussed this in this thread.
Actually I am not referring to any terrorist organization, but individuals who share a common world view. A culture of people with a commonality, which is obviously disparate in terms of nationality or geography, per se.

That does not change anything, of course. They are who they are regardless of what you call them. If YOU know who I mean when I use the word, then it is a useful word. We could make up a word, or use a word from a dead language such as Latin or Ancient Greek, or Sanscrit for that matter.

What they call themselves, or their individual groups or cells is irrelevant. They could call themselves Allah's 8 Flying Reindeer, and that would not make any difference to the discussion or who they are(or are not). They are who they are, regardless of appellation.

I use the word BECAUSE it is convenient. It describes exactly who I mean, and excludes all who I don't mean. I could use the word Islamofascist, but that would exclude people who I wish to include. I could use the word Muslim Extremist, but that excludes way too many people, and denotes that Jihadism is marginal, which I don't believe it to be. I could use the word Fundamentalist, but that is not accurate, because Islamic Orthodoxy does not necessary imply violence.

I could use the term Terrorist, but that includes way way too many people and way too many meanings to most people, George Washington was a terrorist to 16th Century Britains, and I don't wish to include him. It would include Tim McVeigh or The Unibomber as well, and as much as we should not produce folks like them, they really are not representative of any culture or group of people.

I could use the word Islamic Militant. But that term is not useful because militant means different things to different people, and it includes non violent people in the context of our history. Susan B. Anthony and Betty Friedan were Militant Feminists, but they never blew anyone up.

I like the word, Jihadist. It describes who I mean, for the most part. It excludes passive and happy good Muslims and Arabs. It includes everyone who is violently inclined or explicitly violent, AND Islamically motivated; it includes those who use Islam to motivate and support violence and hatred. It accounts for every representative nationality in every country on the planet, including those in the US. But like I said, if you have a better more accurate term, I would be glad to use that one instead.

The truth is however there is no such organisation, no such drive called Jihadism amongst muslims.
There may be no organisation called such, but does that matter. And does it matter what Muslims call the drive which we can call Jihadism? As long as we are talking about the same people, who share a commonality, then the term is useful.

If you insist on generalising your enemy and attribute them with a single, incorrect, motivation, then you will not only fight the wrong enemy, you will fight him incorrectly too.
Hopefully, I will employ educated and knowledgable people who can fight the right enemy. I don't personally have to know the difference on the street between Rashid Al'Kaboom and Mohammed Ebn'GoodMuslim.

I don't really care, as long as I hire competent people who can tell the difference.

Whether or not I personally know the difference makes no difference whatsoever on an individual day to day basis, unless a Jihadist is living next to me, of course(which is entirely possible). I got things to do.

I have no doubt there is a Sun-Tzu saying about that somewhere.
What, knowing your enemy? Or hiring excellent generals and supporting them? Or something more esoteric or symbolic like raining fire down on one's enemies cities?

Do you even know what the goal of Bin-Laden's Al Queda is?
You mean like this.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,,845725,00.html

Why barely literate Pakistani are jumping for the chance to cross the border with their kalashnikovs to fight the 'foreigners' there?
I know that there is a culture which teaches its children generation after generation to hate because of religion and culture, and want to kill those of religions(or no religion) and cultures which are not theirs.

"In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

"Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory" [Quran 22:39]

"Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan."[Quran 4:76] "
"
Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily."

Now, I can continue, but you(or any reader) can get the general point.

We are being attacked because we represent Satan, because we do not worship Allah.
We are being attacked because of the existence of Isreal, and our support of Isreal.

Neither of those things will ever change. We have, for all purposes and intents, no control over those things. So in essense, we are being attacked for just being. Our existence is reason enough for Jihadists to attack us and hate us. It is part of their religion, it is part of their culture, it is the way that they live their lives.

Unless you suggest that Isreal be dismantled, and that every American convert to Islam, we will ALWAYS be targetted by Jihadists. ALWAYS, for as long as there are Jihadists. For the conditions for them hating us, and wanting to kill us, and killing us will NEVER change.

So your entreaty for me, personally, to understand the plight of young poor uneducated Muslims who become Jihadists is a fools errand. I don't have to empathize or sympathize with their plight, because doing so will not change their fundamental motivation for hating me, and wanting me dead. And getting all soft and passive will only make it easier for them to attain that goal, not prevent it. As night follows day, it is obvious.

It is like you are blaming the woman for getting raped, because she has a vagina. She really should have understood the motivation for the rape, that she has a vagina, and that would have prevented her from being raped. That is absurd. Or worse still, She needs to understand the feelings of the rapist. She has to understand his upbringing, and why he wants to rape women. He has told you, in no uncertain terms, exactly why he rapes women, because they have vaginas. He is not lying to you.

The Jihadist is not lying to you when he tells you his motivation for wanting to kill you.

He hates you because you do not worship Allah. And because your nation supports Isreal.

Getting all philosophical or psychiatric with him(or me) is absurd, "Now, Now Mr. Jihadist, we both know you really don't mean that, we know that you are a Jihadist because your father was distant, and your mother was overbearing."

Regardless of who they were, why they were there, and what actions they took? Sounds like petty revenge to me. Wouldn't you rather punish those who were responsible for Nazi atrocities?

If they were at that rally, cheering on Hitler standing before huge banners which say "The Jews are Our Problem"; they were responsible.

They were the ones who allowed it to happen.

Every Generation has its whackjobs who promote sick and genocidal beliefs...when such people have power, though, it is the people who allow it to happen.

Be his name Hitler, or Nasrallah, or Ahmandinejad, or Gen. Omar Hasan Ahmad al-Bashir...

No...if I could magically go back in time and eradicate every last person standing at that Nazi rally shown in that picture...I would without a second thought.

I hold nothing against revenge. I hold nothing against killing millions of others to save Jews. We Jews have spent our existance accepting our violent fates quietly until we were finally herded like cattle upon cars and sent to death camps of mass production. Now...we'll kill before we let ourselves be killed, because we've learned not to rely upon others to stop atrocity before it is committed.

The European world sits and watches the Middle East...and would watch until the day they proposed a stern comendation before the UN for the mass genocide of Jews committed by the Arabs.

We will not allow that.

As cultures advance in knowledge and power, the conflict between reason and faith becomes apparently greater. Not only have people attained through technology the powers of old gods to cast thunderbolts or to heal or to destroy, but they have exercised those powers, and they know that divinity is not required. They can determine that sufficient power determines destiny.

The problem with technology is that it rewards the able while also empowering those who are less able. A man who cannot fathom a computer or an (internet) can destroy those who can, and who have been rewarded for their skills.

Yet, if each individual obtains and wields the power within his or her scope, few individuals will survive. By placing power in a greater being, a deity, in some force greater then the individual, or even into a belief that the community is greater then the individual, an individual is expressing a faith in the need for an entity greater than mere personal ambition or appetite. That faith . . . allows the individual to refrain from exercising power, yet it also places such an individual at the mercy of those without such faith.

While it can be and has been argued that all people are created equal, genetics and environmental analyses have verified that such equality ceases at birth, perhaps even earlier.

With unequal power and unequal ability the lot of humanity, religion has sought to establish a common ground by subsuming all to a mightier god, yet reason and technology have conspired to communicate that no such god exists—or that such a god does not interfere—and that some form of might makes right. And no god has, in recent historical times, destroyed the side with the bigger battalions and mightier technology.

So . . . how can a rational individual confront the problem of power? In the same way that all the faithful have throughout history—by sharing a set of ideals and a spirit of community more highly valued than the individual application of power.

One of the cries of the true believer is that there are moral absolutes that can only be set forth by a deity. Yet if life is sacred, as many deities have proclaimed, how can a deity command people to kill in his name, as most deities have done? Haw can we even exist, since we must consume, in the natural state, some other organism, and that means killing? Likewise, if life is not sacred, then the injunction to be fruitful and multiply is a military command, not a deistic one…

Wow...what a collection of athiestistic twaddle.

Life is not universally sacred. Nor has my God ever suggested such.

The commandment is Do not commit murder, not do not kill.

There are times when killing is justified (or even mandated in the orginal testiment).

Of course, what seperates us from the rest of the monotheistic world is that we've never tried to kill or forcibly convert those who believe differently than we do.

Faith and reason are only strained in the small minded. Technology and faith are not diametrically opposed. You can use both at the same time...and do so without lessening either one.

I don't take that as an attack on your faith or any others. I know most will because they usually get defensive first. More of an insight as to how technology impacts faith.

'Faith and reason are only strained in the small minded. Technology and faith are not diametrically opposed. You can use both at the same time...and do so without lessening either one.'

Some can and some can't. But you usually can't convince those that can't.... well... that they can't.


'Of course, what seperates us from the rest of the monotheistic world is that we've never tried to kill or forcibly convert those who believe differently than we do.
'

I see that as a good thing. But you still have to deal with those that feel diferently. And with technology, those that do intend you harm, now have greater powers available to them. Reguardless of faith, ableness or small mindedness.

If there were 1.3 billion German NAZIs in the world, I would kill every last one of them. I don't see why Jihadists would be different.Their main weapon is running into a room and blowing themselves up so they can go to their heaven, and you don't see why they are different from Nazis?

Practically speaking, you will never be able to separate the ones you call Jihadists from the non-Jihadist arabs. If you bomb public gatherings, they'll go private. If we've learned anything from Iraq, it's that the more you kill, the more of them will join the fight. You'll likely have to kill most of the middle east before their numbers are so diminished that they have no fighting power left. Are you prepared to commit genocide?

I disagree with the notion that genocide would be required.

In the end, however, I would rather commit genocide than be the subject thereof.

Such is the choice these terror regimes are increasingly posing for my people.

Are you prepared to commit genocide?
Jihadists are.

Jihadists are.But are <i>you</i>? And if so, you and they share the same mentality. Pointing a finger and saying "HE started it!" isn't a justification for irrational action, any more than it was in kindergarten.

But are <i>you</i>? And if so, you and they share the same mentality. Pointing a finger and saying "HE started it!" isn't a justification for irrational action, any more than it was in kindergarten.

When speaking of genocide, perhaps it is justification.

When given a choice of wiping out all of a people, in order to save the mass murder of your own people...its an easy decision for me.

If someone came to me tomorrow and said, "Aidon, choose between the instant destruction of 180ish million Muslim Arab in the Middle East or the destruction of the 6 million Jews in Israel", I wouldn't have to think twice.

I don't think we're at that stage...but there are those in the Muslim world who are pushing it closer and closer to that stage.

If someone came to me tomorrow and said, "Aidon, choose between the instant destruction of 180ish million Muslim Arab in the Middle East or the destruction of the 6 million Jews in Israel", I wouldn't have to think twice.You'd never be given such a choice in real life. There are always alternatives. Then again, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.

But are <i>you</i>? And if so, you and they share the same mentality. Pointing a finger and saying "HE started it!" isn't a justification for irrational action, any more than it was in kindergarten.
When one is faced with an enemy who wants to kill you for no other reason than your existence

wanting to end that culture and protect yourself from that enemy is hardly irrational.


Come on, Tuda...
All they have to do is stop being Jihadists, and we can be friends.
And sing Kumbayah together around a camp fire and eat smores.

You'd never be given such a choice in real life. There are always alternatives. Then again, if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.

No, we've seen the world's "alternatives" to genocide are.

They tend to including waiting until after the ethnic cleansing and gas chambers have fed the lust for blood.

We'll not wait for "alternatives" any more. We'll fight and kill and destroy anyone who tries to eradicate us now, tyvm.

Do you really think such a choice won't be available to someone in the future? Wait until the world lets Iran get nuclear weapons...then someone will be sitting there with the choice to eradicate the Arabs (and Persians) or let Israel get annihilated.

We'll not wait for "alternatives" any more. We'll fight and kill and destroy anyone who tries to eradicate us now, tyvm.Those people in the crowd aren't trying to eradicate you. They may <i>want</i> to, but they're not doing anything about it.

The "alternative" to genocide here is to destroy their military capability and any known militants. The remainder won't be much of a threat with sticks and stones.

What word do you use? I have already discussed this in this thread.

You are either deliberately skimming past the point I am making or it eludes you completely.

By labeling everybody a 'jihadist' you assign them with the singular label also a singular motivation. I am pointing out that that is a dangerous and possibly fatally shortsighted approach.
All people who hate the west are not muslims. All muslims who want to fight the west are not motivated by the same thing. Ignoring that you end up first of all losing your chance to break up what by your own labeling has become a single block of enemies into smaller, more manageable, groups. Second you end up using the wrong strategies to counter them. You can not do much about ideological zealots, but people who hate out of ignorance can be educated. Those who do so out of poverty can be enriched. Guns and bombs are sometimes the only resort we have, but they almost always create more problems than they solve, so you have to very careful when you use them.


I like the word, Jihadist. It describes who I mean, for the most part. It excludes passive and happy good Muslims and Arabs. It includes everyone who is violently inclined or explicitly violent, AND Islamically motivated; it includes those who use Islam to motivate and support violence and hatred. It accounts for every representative nationality in every country on the planet, including those in the US. But like I said, if you have a better more accurate term, I would be glad to use that one instead.


I am not arguing against the word itself, but the fact that you stereotype with it.


There may be no organisation called such, but does that matter. And does it matter what Muslims call the drive which we can call Jihadism?

That is what I have been trying to convince you of, yes.


I know that there is a culture which teaches its children generation after generation to hate because of religion and culture, and want to kill those of religions(or no religion) and cultures which are not theirs.


*shrugs* you can equally easily find hate quotes in the bible, should you want to. And quotes in the Qu'ran about respecting your neighbours.

In times past the muslims have founded a remarkably enlightened and tolerant culture. They welcomed foreigners of all faiths into their cities, and allowed them to teach their children. There were civilised discussions about the differences and similarities of the religions.
Same book, different rulers.
What is in a holy book means little. It is what people are taught to get out of it. So perhaps, rather than carpet bombing a political rally, we could try to influence what people are taught? It probably is going to have more result and is sure to leave a lot less resentment than dropping clusterbombs does.

you remind me of something I heard in the SF series Babylon 5. (I paraphrase)

"You realise we must hate each other. It is a fundamental law of nature that for every action there must be an equal reaction. They hate us, we hate them, they hate us right back... Here we are, victims of mathematics"



Eri

You think I need to be politically correct with people who want to kill me?

I don't have that need, and find that thinking silly. I don't have that obligation.

Not morally.
Not ethically.
Not philosophically(even when that philosophy comes from a 2nd rate sci fi show).

I DON'T have to like them.
And if I can't hate people who want to kill me, who can I hate?

They hate me just for existing, you should put your energies in 'hate stopping' with them, not me. You should try and make them politically correct. Do it, I dare ya.

Again, I only hate them because they hate me and want to kill me. They hate me for existing, and will stop hating me when I am dead. When they stop hating me for existing, I will stop hating them. 2 Conditions now exist for Teh Hate to stop. My condition is rational. Theirs is not. So you tell me who is being rational and who is not. Who is morally inferior, and superior?

*shrugs* you can equally easily find hate quotes in the bible, should you want to. And quotes in the Qu'ran about respecting your neighbours.


?shrug

Why would I care to?

I am not a Christian. I am not even a Jew.

That is what I have been trying to convince you of, yes.
Why do you have convince me of that, everybody(including me) already knows that?

By labeling everybody a 'jihadist' you assign them with the singular label also a singular motivation.
I am not labeling everybody Jihadists. I am labeling Jihadists Jihadists.

I am pointing out that that is a dangerous and possibly fatally shortsighted approach.
Why is describing people dangerous and fatal? That is absurd.

All people who hate the west are not muslims.
I said that.

All muslims who want to fight the west are not motivated by the same thing.
I know that too. So what.
We even had one here in CA.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/29/BAGAEKRCO55.DTL

There are sure to be Muslims and Arabs who might hate me not BECAUSE of Islam, but for any other normal reasons to hate someone, eg he might think that I take baths too often. The guy in SF, he was just crazy.

Ignoring that you end up first of all losing your chance to break up what by your own labeling has become a single block of enemies into smaller, more manageable, groups.
This is why I would like to hire smart competent experts to do this for me. As in, having the government do it. I personally don't have to do it. But in order for me to convince the government to do it, we need to have a bunch of people who have the same opinion. The government does not do much when only one person wants something done.

Second you end up using the wrong strategies to counter them.
I know that appeasement, ignoring them, and pacifying them did not work. We know that diplomacy does not work. I want to try other strategies.

You can not do much about ideological zealots, but people who hate out of ignorance can be educated.
They are ignorant. Stop talking to me and go educate them.

Those who do so out of poverty can be enriched.
I don't have to enrich the guy who lives next door, why do I have to enrich some smelly Islamist on the other side of the globe. So that he won't kill me? Hand him money so he wont saw my head off with a scimitar? That is extortion and racketeering. Besides, I am poor myself.

Guns and bombs are sometimes the only resort we have,but they almost always create more problems than they solve, so you have to very careful when you use them.
Well, if used efficiently then all the Jihadists will be killed by the guns and bombs. Then we won't have much of a problem with them, will we. Or they can be nice good Muslims and just quit being Jihadists, then our problem will be solved even easier.

Eri,

What are these guys' motives?
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/23/europe/EU_GEN_Norway_Synagogue_Attack.php

What appellation would you assign to them?

Those people in the crowd aren't trying to eradicate you. They may <i>want</i> to, but they're not doing anything about it.

Bull****, Tudamorf. They are supporting those who are holding the guns and wearing the suicide belts. They are as culpable. They are the ones telling these lunatics that they are appreciated and supported.

The people at those crowds are the people that allow genocidal maniacs to run free and do as they will.

Every German at that rally in the picture ofNazi Germany was guilty of Genocide, and every person at that Hizbollah rally is guilty of striving for Israel's destruction and the genocidal slaughter of all of her Jews, as Hizbollah's stated goals are.

Bull****, Tudamorf. They are supporting those who are holding the guns and wearing the suicide belts.I don't see any guns or suicide belts in the crowd. If they were militants or suicide bombers, then I agree, you would have every right to take them out.They are as culpable. They are the ones telling these lunatics that they are appreciated and supported.Telling a politician -- even a bad one -- that he's appreciated is not a crime, and certainly not one that merits execution. In a free country, that is, which is what I thought we were supposed to represent.<strike>The people at those crowds</strike><b>Pro-arab countries and the U.N.</b> are the people that allow genocidal maniacs to run free and do as they will.^ Corrected for accuracy.

I don't see any guns or suicide belts in the crowd. If they were militants or suicide bombers, then I agree, you would have every right to take them out.

Guess what, suicide bombers don't wear signs. Neither do militants. When they force a decision of "our people or yours"...**** them.

**** anyone who tells Jews otherwise.

We've seen what happens when you rely on the good nature of our fellow man.

If you're at a rally revolving around the destruction of Israel and her Jews, you are the enemy.

Telling a politician -- even a bad one -- that he's appreciated is not a crime, and certainly not one that merits execution. In a free country, that is, which is what I thought we were supposed to represent.

Freedom comes with responsibilities. They are not a free nation...and I don't care about making them a free nation. I care about destroying anyone who advocates the further genocidal destruction of the Jewish people. If you support killing half of the Jewish population, again, I have zero qualms with your death. If you stand up and cheer that charismatic leader who is telling you how he intends to destroy Israel and slaughter her Jewish population...you are a viable target for destruction.

Its all nice and easy to advocate free speech and proportional response and limiting collateral damage when you're sitting in a nation of 300 million that noone can possibly destroy. These concepts are luxuries for the powerful.

When someone advocates the genocidal slaughter of your people for the second time in under a century...such niceties must fall by the way side, if need be.



^ Corrected for accuracy.[/QUOTE]

If you're at a rally revolving around the destruction of Israel and her Jews, you are the enemy.Ok. But should you be killed for it? See, if we apply the same logic to them, <i>they</i> would be perfectly justified in killing <i>you</i>.

Who says we have to apply it backwards like you say?

That is silly.

Ok. But should you be killed for it? See, if we apply the same logic to them, <i>they</i> would be perfectly justified in killing <i>you</i>.

Except we don't advocate the destruction of their nations and people.

That doesn't mean, however, we will meekly allow ourselves to be herded into the boxcars again.

Except we don't advocate the destruction of their nations and people.You just did. Even as to non-militants.

Aidon is "only" advocating the mass killings of people at the rallies, not the entire population of the state, nor the state itself!

I see his point even if I dont agree with his end result

Organizations like Hezbollah wouldnt exist without Popular Support (they may exist in a different form, with different abilities, but not the same as it is now) Civilians who support it, even its only through support at showing up at rallies, legimatize their cause in the Lebanon, are to some degree responsible for their actions.

I dont think the responsiblity should end in their death, but I do think that they are not wholey innocent in the whole debacle.

Those who support Jihadist organisations are equally culpable.

Equating Nasrallah with Pat Buchanan(a bad politician) is assinine.

Aidon is "only" advocating the mass killings of people at the ralliesNo, he is advocating killing anyone who <i>wants</i> to kill jews and/or attack Israel. I haven't seen a poll, but that's probably most if not all of the arab population. Aidon wants to commit peremtory genocide to prevent the risk that such people might act in the future.

No, he is advocating killing anyone who <i>wants</i> to kill jews and/or attack Israel. I haven't seen a poll, but that's probably most if not all of the arab population. Aidon wants to commit peremtory genocide to prevent the risk that such people might act in the future.

No, I don't.

I specifically said, I don't think we need to.

What I said is that if the choice had to be made of either all of the Arabs or all the Jews in Israel...I have no qualms about killing all of the Arabs.

The only way that choice ever comes to be is if the Arabs (and Iranians) continue the wide spread teaching and popularization of genocidal anti-semitic and anti-Israel propaganda...and then have the means of defeating Israel militarily.

Arabs have been advocating the genocide of Jews since before Israel. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem met with Hitler more than once, assuring him that when the Nazi's got to Israel, the Arab population would be more than willing to help them kill off all the Jews. Mind you, there has been a Jewish community in Jerusalem since the city was founded (by Jews) except when foreign conquerors expelled them (The Babylonians exiled them for less than a century, the Romans exiled them for two centuries, roughly, after the Jewish revolt in 135, then Theodosius II banned Jews from Jerusalem in the in the 5th century, then in the 12th century the Crusaders massaquered most of the Jews in Jerusalem and banned Jews from living there, again, until Saladin conquered, then the Jewish community, again, was rebuilt).

They continue to teach this virulent hatred of Jews to their school children. The Arab media is rife with anti-semitic imagry taken directly from Nazi propaganda.

No...in the end, I don't give a flying **** if everyone at that rally for Hizbollah, who espouses the genocidal massacre of the Jews in Israel (and the rest of the world) died in an attempt to kill Nassrallah.

If I could go back in time and kill every German standing at that Nazi rally shown above, I would...10 times over, 100 times over. I would slaughter each and every one of them personally, if I could.

If killing every person at that Hizbollah rally would save the lives of Jews in Israel...then let the Arabs do the dying. We Jews have died enough.