As far as I'm concerned if they can't live in peace with the rest of the world's inhabitants regardless of their religion then they don't deserve to be here.
As far as I'm concerned if they can't live in peace with the rest of the world's inhabitants regardless of their religion then they don't deserve to be here.
This and more. WWIII if necessary, and by that I mean a war so total that it changes the course of history like WWII did. I don't like Bush or his ilk or what they've done to this country and the world, but I think I could actually agree with at least one of his childish, ridiculous statements (You're either with us or agin' us) if the scenario in the OP happened.
I'm not saying I wouldn't slide your direction if the OP actually happened...but how could the above possibly be considered a "victory"? It would be a blatant admission that the primitive, subhuman scum who adhere to radical Islam have indeed won enough to fundamentally change our society.
So fvck that. I'd rather go down in flames than let these medieval, homophobic, misogynist, racist, filthy savages with their kindergarten fairytales and ridiculous ramshackle "countries" ruin the legacy handed down by Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, et al.
Some things are worth dying for.
Personally I don't believe that people who will randomly kill thousands of innocent people are Muslims at all. I think they are mad men with filled with hate for life that use religion as a tool. I don't think they believe in Allah at all.
Let me break down my post for you.
I called what you wrote stupid, childish, and evil because of the obvious reasons that any normal human being could see. If you noticed though, I also added in that your idea would be immensely harmful to US interests. You act like we have the ability to remove an entire group of people from the planet... well we don't. So, doing things like that to them would just ensure some godawful retaliation in some way or another that wouldn't do either one of us any good. Grow up man.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
To be honest I don't think Osama would even if he could.
9-11 has been a disaster to the radical Islamic movement and a disaster to Islam in general.
The radicals have lost their base in Afghanistan, lost an ally in Iraq and are on the run and fighting for their lives along the Pakistan boarder.
In addition at least 100,000 Muslims have died since 9-11, compared to 8000 Americans and a few hundred Europeans.
This is the reason why many of the former radical groups have started to back off on their calls to jihad and are starting to suggest that violence is not the way to go about it.
When you think about it from that point of view the last thing they should do is provoke us even more. A nuke on US soil would change our actions in the same way 9-11 did, but to an even greater extent.
No longer would we sit back and engage in a war of words with Iran over its nuke program, we would take it out with in a few days of the US blast.
North Korea, same thing. Do what we say or we are going to blow it sky high. And anyone who thinks China or Russia would get in the way is crazy. With a million dead Americans in a burned out city those two would be getting out of the way as fast as possible. Plus they would have to worry that they would be next. If you can get a bomb into NY you can easily drive one into Moscow or Beijing.
In addition, we would no longer sit back and wait to see if Pakistan takes real action along its boarder. We would go in full force and clean the area out regardless of what the Pakistani leaders said.
Now Israel is another mater. They would be FAR more likely to set one off there because Israelis ability to respond is much much smaller.
9-11 has been a disaster to the radical Islamic movement and a disaster to Islam in general.
The radicals have lost their base in Afghanistan, lost an ally in Iraq and are on the run and fighting for their lives along the Pakistan boarder.
In addition at least 100,000 Muslims have died since 9-11, compared to 8000 Americans and a few hundred Europeans.
This is the reason why many of the former radical groups have started to back off on their calls to jihad and are starting to suggest that violence is not the way to go about it.
When you think about it from that point of view the last thing they should do is provoke us even more. A nuke on US soil would change our actions in the same way 9-11 did, but to an even greater extent.
No longer would we sit back and engage in a war of words with Iran over its nuke program, we would take it out with in a few days of the US blast.
North Korea, same thing. Do what we say or we are going to blow it sky high. And anyone who thinks China or Russia would get in the way is crazy. With a million dead Americans in a burned out city those two would be getting out of the way as fast as possible. Plus they would have to worry that they would be next. If you can get a bomb into NY you can easily drive one into Moscow or Beijing.
In addition, we would no longer sit back and wait to see if Pakistan takes real action along its boarder. We would go in full force and clean the area out regardless of what the Pakistani leaders said.
Now Israel is another mater. They would be FAR more likely to set one off there because Israelis ability to respond is much much smaller.
Uhmm, I really don't think 9/11 was a disaster for radical Islam at all. By the estimate of our intelligence services, Al-Qaeda is stronger then it has ever been. If Osama has a nuke, he will use it. I would bet money on it.
No actual state would dare nuke us though. It's just not really a realistic option.
No actual state would dare nuke us though. It's just not really a realistic option.
It wouldn't be a victory, but it would make the best of a bad situation. The alternative would be to keep going and hope we don't get nuked again.
Let's not pretend Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln's crap didn't stink. This country is founded in part of slavery and genocide. If the US handled the genocide of 10m American indians, it should be able to handle the deportation/outlawing of islam.
Of course, before something like this happens we can try to stem the source of the muslim rage but once a muslim nuke goes off in NYC we would have to give up on that
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,251
- 8
- 0
Eskimo, do you remember the stories a few months about the radical madrases changing their mind on the call to violence?
The only reason they did that is because they saw the results of their violence.
Now you may be right about Osama, but it would be a huge mistake long term.
The only reason they did that is because they saw the results of their violence.
Now you may be right about Osama, but it would be a huge mistake long term.
Everything I have read has shown an increase in not only terrorists attacks worldwide, but numbers of terrorists. It would appear that our efforts post 9/11 have actually increased the number of our enemies.
I'm sure that some people have come to their senses and decided that randomly blowing up innocent people is an awful thing to do, but it would appear that our unprovoked invasion of Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc... etc. is too powerful a recruiting tool to overcome.
I'm so tired of hearing that revisionist crap. You judge historical figures by the world they lived in, not the one you live in. Everyone of their class and means owned slaves. Not everyone voluntarily freed those slaves upon their own death, or wrote the Declaration of Independence (the first draft of which called slavery an "abomination" that must be ended), or defeated the preeminent great power of the age before refusing the absolute power that most men, including me, would have taken in a heartbeat.
Don't believe the PC bullshit. Washington and Jefferson were better men than you, me, or any president this or any other country has had in our lifetimes. And I find it especially ironic that you would attack them for owning slaves or commiting genocide (which neither of them did) after what you posted, which basically amounts to abolishing freedom of religion, nuking historical cities, undoing the Constitution, and institutionalizing racism all over again.
I was in the building across the street on 9/11, so not sure if I'd survive the OP's scenario unless I was on vacation. That said, pretty much what dphantom said earlier. But honestly I don't know what we'd do if it turned out to be a Russian nuke though -- threaten them to find/capture/kill those who let the nuke out or...WW3 and nuclear holocaust? No way.
Slavery and genocide aren't revionism, they're historical fact. I don't believe the PC BS about the founding fathers, nor do I worship them like you seem to do. They were humans, and had the same virtues and faults that we do now.
Anyway, what would you do? Re-double airport security efforts?
You don't think the US government would take extreme measres if a nuke went off in NYC? Did you notice how the collapse of two buildings was used as an excuse for an invasian of Iraq?
First, multiply 9/11 by 100. Then, multiply the other side of the equation by 100 and you are going to get somethig a lot bigger than a war against a third world country. The options would be nuclear armegeddon or some constitutional changes. I think the constitutional changes are more likely.
Anyway, what would you do?
Exactly, they were men, not mythological figures that need to be completely discounted for being less than perfect. I'm not the one who sees them as such...thats all the new-age lesbian social history professors who try to project their own self-important utopian bullshit hundreds of years into the past, and write volumes of complete drivel about how Richard Lionheart was a homo just because he didn't love his arranged-marriage wife or father a child. I never felt the need to deify them in the first place, hence no need to change history to match my own granola bar version of reality. Don't worry, if you went to college within the last 10 years, I won't hold it against you that all you were taught is this trendy politically-motivated PC claptrap that suggests we use modern liberal standards to judge the first Homo Sapien in his natural habitat.
To answer your question, I certainly would become more extreme if the OP happened...but I would not be willing to live in Soviet Russia just because some illiterate, subhuman, madrassa-deeducated Islamist rapist and child-killer was threatening my life. I'd rather take my chances with a gun and some ideals than let those ignorant brainwashed savages scare me into becoming like them.
I did not intend my response to your post to be insulting in any way...but like I said, I think some things are worth dying for.
And I understand that things like genocide are not revisionism...but tell me, what were many of the strongest Native American tribes doing when the Europeans arrived in the New World? That's right, they were making imperial war on their neighbors and stealing their land by conquest, so don't tell me that had the Aztecs or Incas invented the galleon first that they would not have invaded Spain long before Cortes was born.
My favorite is the whole "Crusader" myth. The truth is that every single major numbered crusade was a direct response to Muslim aggression and centuries of piracy and invasion by the forces of Islam. The Europeans learned the "holy war" shtick from the Muslims, not the other way around. Just because they eventually beat them at their own game doesn't alter the fact that they started it. The difference is that we had a Reformation 400 years ago and started to grow out of it...so what's their excuse? And how is that Muslim culture in Cordoba was more advanced a millenium ago than it is now in much of the Middle East?
I'm sure there's a recent "history" book out that explains it was somehow England's fault.
My favorite is the whole "Crusader" myth. The truth is that every single major numbered crusade was a direct response to Muslim aggression and centuries of piracy and invasion by the forces of Islam. The Europeans learned the "holy war" shtick from the Muslims, not the other way around. Just because they eventually beat them at their own game doesn't alter the fact that they started it. The difference is that we had a Reformation 400 years ago and started to grow out of it...so what's their excuse? And how is that Muslim culture in Cordoba was more advanced a millenium ago than it is now in much of the Middle East?
I'm sure there's a recent "history" book out that explains it was somehow England's fault.
JohnOfSheffield
Lifer
- Jun 26, 2007
- 11,925
- 2
- 0
I wouldn't call the Taliban anything but child rapists and child killer or Talibans, their religion is of absolutely no importance to me and never will be to anyone but those who use it to group people who are child rapists and child killers and Talibans with peaceful men because they simply don't know better.
Are you on your way yet or are you just going to sit there doing nothing?
I'm in Afghanistan, waiting for my ride.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter