Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Saudi Arabia is a not only a terrorist supporter but one of the most digusting examples of oppression in the world today. You have the right to remain away from all women except your wife or receive a beheading. China sucks but I would rather live there than Saudia... I know some muslism and they love talking about how great Saudi Arabia is. I say we bomb them too. IRAN, Saudi, Syria... that is enough to start with. Then the muslims will learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been saying for years now (since 9/11) that we should issue ultimatums to the Jihadists: stop the attacks, or we'll drop a nuclear weapon on one of your cities. And after each attack, we annihilate one of their cities.

The result will be that either the Jihadists will come to their senses, or they will eventually die like the deadly cancer they are, our nukes being the 'chemotherapy'.

This is a serious situation and the survival of secular western civilization hangs in the balance. These are times requiring strong measures, not just a slap on the wrist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does anyone believe (or has anyone heard any evidence to the effect) that these bombings were in any way related to the announcement of the location of the 2012 Olympics?

Speculation:  Were these bad guys ready to go in Singapore, Moscow, New York (i.e., all other candidate cities) as well?

These attacks were not directly related to the Olympic announcement - they were too well coordinated, and must have been planned well in advance of that announcement. It is more likely that they were timed for the G8 than ready to go off in any Olympic city.

The aim of these bombings is unclear - casualties are relatively low when compared to US & Spain, the damage to transport infrastructure is also limited - most tubes are up and running (Except the circle line). The only thing they have definetely achieved is new coverage and they've hit us when we're on an Olympic high. In liu of these facts these may well be inexperiened terrorists - i.e. they haven't trained with the Muhajdeen, and what really irks me - homegrown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of a wake up call, I don't think this will have an immediate effect on policy, but it may well change MPs approach to things like the ID cards bill, and influence the Governments reactions in future international incidents. The prime effect will probably be on the population - stopthewar groups possibly losing any widespead public support.

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...] we should issue ultimatums to the Jihadists: stop the attacks, or we'll drop a nuclear weapon on one of your cities. And after each attack, we annihilate one of their cities.

What are examples of "Jihadist" cities, and how would you decide which one to destroy?

In other words, what I am concerned about here is having objective criteria to guide governmental actions. What should those criteria be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why use nukes when we can just MOAB the hell out of them? Seems to me that it would be in our interests to at least have the land inhabitable if, for no other reason, so we could put troops on the ground to secure it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote yesterday in post 20:

Short and sweet.  Since the West is so bad at teaching and implanting freedom abroad, we should just devastate their tyrannical leaders and their high infastructure. But NO follow-up occupation. If a new dictatorship rises to replace the old, we should attack again. And so on. Let anyone who serves in the police, military, party, and government know that they are subject to overwhelming attack at our will. Especially the evil leaders--who should be systematically targeted.
Rational One replied:

Exactly my thinking on the subject.  Maybe you're not so bad after all.  :thumbsup:

But I can't really have him thinking that! :P So here goes...

In many ways the West deserved 9/11 and the London bombings. We allowed various dictators to "nationalize" our oil starting with Britain surrendering it to Iran in 1951 and continuing through the 1960s or so. The fact that this idiocy was a kind of indescribable charity to "them" doesn't really matter. They masses and peasants never got much, you know.

Essentially we gave trillions of dollars to heartlessly evil dictators who then used the money to enslave "their" formerly free tribalist people. The slave-masters employed socialism, sharia, post-modernism, whatever to do this -- all backed by their ill-gotten gain. Then the West backed the slave-masters assiduosuly with moral sanction, diplomatic recognition, military assistance, open trade, etc. Basically we royally screwed over hundreds of millions of Moslem innocents! :nuke: Now we're paying the price for our terrible evil. :(

To be sure, the great unwashed Moslem masses are very incoherent in their hatred of the West, and their anger is quite insipid and unfocused. But they do have the right guys in their gun-sights. They truly hate our guts, and who can blame them? 9/11 and London is pretty much our just desserts.

Now...still got that positive opinion of me, Rational One? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be sure, the great unwashed Moslem masses are very incoherent in their hatred of the West, and their anger is quite insipid and unfocused. But they do have the right guys in their gun-sights. They truly hate our guts, and who can blame them?

I can. Why don't they have their slave-masters in their gun-sights? Why don't they have the Western enablers of the slave-masters in their gun-sights? The innocent people who died in New York and London did not enable the slave-masters. Western politicians did, in the ways you described--and the Muslim masses themselves did, by failing to resist their oppressors.

One man alone cannot create a dictatorship in a nation of freedom-loving men. Each nation gets the government it deserves. You may rightly blame American citizens for allowing bad politicians to lead America, but the blame for Middle Eastern dictators belongs first and foremost with the Middle Eastern people. The bad choices of American voters are three degrees removed from the sufferings of the Muslim masses.

9/11 and London is pretty much our just desserts.

To the extent that we are responsible for our leaders and our leaders are responsible for the appeasement that led to those events, yes. But not in any other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or should nuclear warfare be the last resort? Consider our current occupation of Iraq - the information that claimed Saddam was developing nuclear weapons was unsubstantiated. Although he was a ruthless dictator who killed thousands of people, he was in hindsight the wrong target. Now we're left with a messy occupying force and reconstruction. Especially during war you cannot be hasty and just "nuc'em to smithereens" in passion of the moment, so to speak.

Now let's think about what would happen if the government did as you suggested and annihilated one of the Arab cities. Try and recall the reaction the terrorists had when they thought we flushed a Koran down a toilet. Can you imagine what sort of a retaliation they would muster in the US? In the middle of New York City a dirty nuke could be detonated, suicide bombers would crop up just as it has in every other country, and every Arab would be called to jihad. Also, remember this isn't a war against the Islamics or Arabs per se, its against terrorist groups. As long as we don't have conclusive evidence that a certain country ie. Saudi Arabia, isn't the originator of specific attacks against us, then nuclear warfare is out of the question - there is no return from such a course. Not to mention that every surrounding Arab country would attack Israel again - they would be easier to strike against. This is not Hiroshima or Nagasaki - the enemy instead of being cowered into submission will strike harder!

You completely forget that these are *Muslims* we're dealing with. They have no regard for Muslim life or any life. If their cities are destroyed they just go to "Allah" while the real terrorists hide in caves where we can't reach them. Since there has been a call to arms I call for reason and foresight before such hasty actions has repercussions we cannot recover from.

Edited by Myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wrote yesterday in post 20:

Rational One replied:

But I can't really have him thinking that!    :(  So here goes...

In many ways the West deserved 9/11 and the London bombings. We allowed various dictators to "nationalize" our oil starting with Britain surrendering it to Iran in 1951 and continuing through the 1960s or so. The fact that this idiocy was a kind of indescribable charity to "them" doesn't really matter. They masses and peasants never got much, you know.

Essentially we gave trillions of dollars to heartlessly evil dictators who then used the money to enslave "their" formerly free tribalist people. The slave-masters employed socialism, sharia, post-modernism, whatever to do this -- all backed by their ill-gotten gain. Then the West backed the slave-masters assiduosuly with moral sanction, diplomatic recognition, military assistance, open trade, etc. Basically we royally screwed over hundreds of millions of Moslem innocents!  :thumbsup: Now we're paying the price for our terrible evil.  :lol:

To be sure, the great unwashed Moslem masses are very incoherent in their hatred of the West, and their anger is quite insipid and unfocused. But they do have the right guys in their gun-sights. They truly hate our guts, and who can blame them? 9/11 and London is pretty much our just desserts.

Now...still got that positive opinion of me, Rational One?  :nuke:

The statements made by bin Laden and others that plan and execute these attacks do not support this theory.

bin Laden et al do not complain that we supported dictators that violated their rights. They complain that we supported dictators that would not allow them to implement total, barbaric, 5th century Islamic theocracy, including sharia, religious police and courts, enslavement of females, etc.

They do not complain that we "royally screwed over hundreds of millions of Moslem innocents". They complain that we do not allow them to do the screwing.

The Shah of Iran, for example, was not damned by the Islamists for being a "slave-master". He was damned for being too liberal -- for allowing women to drive cars and appear in public, for example -- he was damned for daring to believe that any authority other than the Koran should be respected. When he was overthrown, no slaves were freed. Rather, millions of women and non-believers quickly became slaves.

Our support for Egypt, for another example, is damned by the Islamists not because Egypt is a totalitarian state, but because it is not an Islamic totalitarian state. The recent statement from those that killed the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq stated that his crime was daring to associate with a nation that was not based on Islamic law.

Likewise, our support for the Saudi government is damned not because the Islamists consider the Saudi's to be dictators, but because they went to war against a dictator and in the process allowed U.S. troops to be stationed there.

The current insurgency in Iraq is not aimed at preventing America from establishing a dictatorship -- it is aimed at preventing Iraq from becoming something other than an Islamic dictatorship.

It is America's support for the free nation of Israel -- not any dictator -- that is constantly cited as one of their main complaints.

The "masses" of Muslims may hate us for a variety of reasons. But the fundamental, militant Islamists -- the ones planning, organizing and executing these attacks -- hate us for one simple reason: we stand between them and their goal of establishing a global, Taliban-style Islamic theocracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it just me, or should nuclear warfare be the last resort? Consider our current occupation of Iraq - the information that claimed Saddam was developing nuclear weapons was unsubstantiated. Although he was a ruthless dictator who killed thousands of people, he was in hindsight the wrong target. Now we're left with a messy occupying force and reconstruction. Especially during war you cannot be hasty and just "nuc'em to smithereens" in passion of the moment, so to speak.

Now let's think about what would happen if the government did as you suggested and annihilated one of the Arab cities. Try and recall the reaction the terrorists had when they thought we flushed a Koran down a toilet. Can you imagine what sort of a retaliation they would muster in the US? In the middle of New York City a dirty nuke could be detonated, suicide bombers would crop up just as it has in every other country, and every Arab would be called to jihad.

Every Arab has already been called to jihad -- many times over. And after 9/11, is there any doubt in your mind that bin Laden would use a nuclear weapon in New York if he could?

Do you think the only reason they have not used such a weapon is that they are not mad enough at us?

All of this was said before we invaded Afghanistan -- in fact, I've heard it as an excuse for inaction for decades as one terrorist attack after another took the lives of Americans around the world. Don't strike back, you might make them mad! Just keep on dying.

Also, remember this isn't a war against the Islamics or Arabs per se, its against terrorist groups. As long as we don't have conclusive evidence that a certain country ie. Saudi Arabia, isn't the originator of specific attacks against us, then nuclear warfare is out of the question - there is no return from such a course. Not to mention that every surrounding Arab country would attack Israel again - they would be easier to strike against. This is not Hiroshima or Nagasaki - the enemy instead of being cowered into submission will strike harder!
Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japs used in excess of 10,000 kamikazi attacks on our Pacific fleet. 10,0000 suicide bombers in airplanes. So why do you think the Japanese were any less fanatical than the Muslims?

You completely forget that these are *Muslims* we're dealing with. They have no regard for Muslim life or any life. If their cities are destroyed they just go to "Allah" while the real terrorists hide in caves where we can't reach them. Since there have been a call to arms I call for reason and foresight before such hasty actions have repercussions we cannot recover from.
Someone supports the "real terrorists" you think are hiding in the caves. Someone gives them food, water, clothing, etc. Who do you think provides that support?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are examples of "Jihadist" cities, and how would you decide which one to destroy?

In other words, what I am concerned about here is having objective criteria to guide governmental actions. What should those criteria be?

I don't think there are any "Jihadist" cities, just organizations( private individuals, private organizations, and goverments) that support Jihadists. Our goal should be to destroy any organizations that support or sanctions these "Jihadist".

The goverments should be destroyed with massive uses of force and the private organizations should be dismantled, but that is not primarily a military operation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... what I am concerned about here is having objective criteria to guide governmental actions. What should those criteria be?

Burgess, I agree, and would broaden it further to say that a long-term approach to U.S. foreign policy would begin by laying down principles. Foreign policy has often been tackled pragmatically. We've had threads about middle-east policy and about China-policy. It might be interesting to start a separate discussion that attempts to lay down objective principles and rules that the U.S. should use in its foreign policy.

The overall principle of fully-supporting only Capitalist countries (i.e., those that fully ensure individual rights) is pretty clear. Equally clear is that one goes to war with a country that is a clear and imminent threat. However, between close-friendship and war, there are various degrees of friendliness and unfriendliness.

My first question would be: are there some fundamental principles that divide this middle ground into classes. To take one example, is there something a country does where we would not be at war with it, but we would classify it as "hostile"? Or, is there something a country does where we would not be the closest of friends, but would still be "basically friendly"?

I suppose the question is: can we draw such distinctions and then come up with types of actions that would be taken each type of relationship? (For instance, at some stage short of war, we might ban trade with a country.) Or, is such a scheme not possible. If not possible, do we fall back to a pragmatic approach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japs used in excess of 10,000 kamikazi attacks on our Pacific fleet.  10,0000 suicide bombers in airplanes.  So why do you think the Japanese were any less fanatical than the Muslims?

The Japanese weren't any less fanatical, the difference lies in the fact that Japan was a country and these new terrorists are spread throughout the entire world. Unfortunately the basis of terrorism is a religion/philosophy that isn't confined to borders. Suppose it was discovered that France, which has a very large Muslim population, might be aiding terrorists. Should we bomb France and hope that we eliminated all of the terrorists? The only way to truly eradicate terrorism is to eradicate Islam itself - and history lends itself to the fact that persecuted religions thrive under adversity. That is why Bush et. all, are very careful to keep the terrorists and the "peace loving" Islamists separate. Which is why he, or any other president will hesitate to use nukes, because it involves large-scale loss of life which may or may not help in the long run. If the United States simply declared war on Islam, all of the Muslims in the US who aren't terrorists might feel more kindly to and or join such groups, increasing the amount of domestic terrorism. But if the idealogy isn't eradicated the threat will remain ...ad infinitum. Because this isn't a clear cut war (invade, remove hostile gov., win war), outright nuclear warfare is a bad idea unless their is plausible evidence to support its use.

Edited by Myself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Japanese weren't any less fanatical, the difference lies in the fact that Japan was a country and these new terrorists are spread throughout the entire world. Unfortunately the basis of terrorism is a religion/philosophy that isn't confined to borders. Suppose it was discovered that France, which has a very large Muslim population, might be aiding terrorists. Should we bomb France and hope that we eliminated all of the terrorists?

First of all, you are correct that the geographically diffuse nature of terrorism makes it somewhat more difficult to tackle than a traditional war with a country which openly declares war on us. However, this is one of the principal reasons why we need to destroy any government which harbors and/or supports terrorism. It is only with the aid of governments that terrorists are capable of operating at all.

So to answer your question, if the French government where aiding terrorists, we would have every right to dismantle that government. Whether or not we ought to declare full scale war with nuclear weapons or simply assasinate certain government officials is a tactical question that would depend upon the circumstances.

The only way to truly eradicate terrorism is to eradicate Islam itself - and history lends itself to the fact that persecuted religions thrive under adversity. That is why Bush et. all, are very careful to keep the terrorists and the "peace loving" Islamists separate. Which is why he, or any other president will hesitate to use nukes, because it involves large-scale loss of life which may or may not help in the long run. If the United States simply declared war on Islam, all of the Muslims in the US who aren't terrorists might feel more kindly to and or join such groups, increasing the amount of domestic terrorism. But if the idealogy isn't eradicated the threat will remain ...ad infinitum. Because this isn't a clear cut war (invade, remove hostile gov., win war), outright nuclear warfare is a bad idea unless their is plausible evidence to support its use.

We don't need to eradicate Islam itself, just the governments which fund and aid Islamic terrorists. That means demolishing the governments of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. After those three have been eliminated, we can whittle off any other governments which aid terrorists.

Again, the use of nukes is a tactical question. The destruction we wrought in Japan during World War II was not principally from nuclear weapons; we destroyed more lives and cities through firebombing.

Of course, all of the above is wishful thinking, because Bush will never take the actions needed to stop the terrorists. Our best hope is that Israel will buck the trend as it did in 1981 when it bombed Iraq's attempted nuclear facility, and destroy any nuclear developments on the part of Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism Forever and AisA,

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. Despite the extreme provocation of my previous post--I actually seem to agree with virtually every word of your rejoiners. :)

I guess my point here is...I don't agree with those loose, glib, cavalier strategies and moral appraisals of Peikoff, Brook and Lewis. They seem to say "slaughter 'em all--let's massacre millions" in a way which lacks the context of very considerable American guilt as outlined above. Those non-entity, semi-innocent, Moslem masses really do seem to be pawns in this whole deadly, threatening situation. I'm not sure if they're mostly guilty or mostly innocent, but they seem to be almost entirerly subject to manipulatuion by the big powers and big ideas. To commit genocide against them--as Peikoff evidently endorses--when their leaders and ours are mostly at fault, seems strongly immoral.

Ultimately, I think those ultra-ignorant, massively stupid, seemingly hopeless, vulgar, crude "great unwashed" Moslem masses still sort of understand and are sort of correct to blame the Western powers. For all their scrambled-brain, intellectual hash, childish, uber-foolish rantings and "reasonings," I still think they correctly respond to the evil done to them, and they WOULD respond positively if only the US would target their dictatorial leaders, while apologizing somewhat for previous misconduct, and stating our new quasi-solidarity with these quasi-innocent Moslem pawns and ciphers--who nevertheless still have human potential.

At any rate, that's my opinion! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't it the Communists anyway who started the whole show? I can bet a 1000$, China is supporting the terrorists even now.

The same way that Israel is today in a worse position than it was when Arafat died, killing Bin Laden or destroying al Qaeda simply won't do because a few months later another one will take its place. If we want to defeat them, the only way is to destroy their masters i.e. the governments which support them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little puzzled by your posts in this thread, Ariana. You rightly point out that the West did nothing to stop the taking of their oil industry by Moslem dictatorships, and at the same time, you claim that therefore the West is guilty for the atrocities and brutality these dictatorships dished out to the Moslem population using oil revenue. All through this, you take up the opportunity to sling some very immaterial commentary towards the Moslem population in the Middle East (for example, a. presuming they are unwashed and b. presuming "unwashedness" has anything to do with a man's capacity to think).

However, the logic "the West allowed the Middle East to take the oil, the Middle East used oil revenues to commit brutalities, therefore the West shares guilt for the brutalities" doesn't fly at all. It's like saying the coward that runs out of his home that's full of cash when a trespasser walks in and steals it is guilty of any brutality the trespasser later commits with the cash he stole.

Additionally, perhaps you can cite, quote, or link to where Peikoff, Brook and Lewis express their "loose, glib, cavalier strategies and moral appraisals," since I'm unfamiliar with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have been saying for years now (since 9/11) that we should issue ultimatums to the Jihadists: stop the attacks, or we'll drop a nuclear weapon on one of your cities. And after each attack, we annihilate one of their cities.

The result will be that either the Jihadists will come to their senses, or they will eventually die like the deadly cancer they are, our nukes being the 'chemotherapy'.

This is a serious situation and the survival of secular western civilization hangs in the balance. These are times requiring strong measures, not just a slap on the wrist.

Please give an example of a Jihadist city? The London terrorists almost certainly originated from inside the UK, the Midlands they think. Do you suggest we bomb Birmingham?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgess, I agree, and would broaden it further to say that a long-term approach to U.S. foreign policy would begin by laying down principles. Foreign policy has often been tackled pragmatically.

Well, since Nixon went to China or Krushchev visited the states we have lived increasingly in an age of real politik where leaders with only their power in common have been able to sit on the same couch and drink from the same bottle, rendering the moral and political state of their respective nation states as mere scenery to the perks of statemanship. Foreign policy has long been essentially pragmatic, achieving convenient ends in such a way that one doesn't knock the status quo too much.

I guess my point here is...I don't agree with those loose, glib, cavalier strategies and moral appraisals of Peikoff, Brook and Lewis. They seem to say "slaughter 'em all--let's massacre millions" in a way which lacks the context of very considerable American guilt as outlined above...... I'm not sure if they're mostly guilty or mostly innocent, but they seem to be almost entirerly subject to manipulatuion by the big powers and big ideas. To commit genocide against them--as Peikoff evidently endorses--when their leaders and ours are mostly at fault, seems strongly immoral.

I agree, its pretty small minded to think nuking Islamic or Arab cities is a way to solve a problem. Are all these people to blame? Iraq was a largerly secular nation fromt the 1970s on, albeit down to a despotic tyrant at the helm. Our problems with Iraq were on a nationalist level - now thanks to the highly uninformed war strategy we're back to the religious mire that is the many shades of Islam. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds etc. But in the greater middle east there are socialist Islamists, 'capitalist' Islamists (witness Dubai), extremist, moderates, luke warm agnostists who've grown up in the culture - Do all these people deserve to loose their lives in a nuclear firestorm? Does that help anyone? Hasn't Iraq only made those desperate & disillusioned Moslem youths give more ear time to those extremist loony elements in their culture? I know many Moslems in London and most of them are more interested in new films, their next holiday or new car, not some 15th century quest for Islamic global dominion! I hasten to point out a few of the London victims were young 20-something moslem girls with ambitious jobs in the city.

In other words we're looking at a spectrum, where those kind of blanket solutions are so indiscriminate there not even worth air time!

Edited by Charles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles,

If you think, the Muslims and the people of the Middle East are innocent, think again. Support for terrorism is widespread in the Middle East especially Palestine and among the Muslims. How many times has a Muslim organization strongly condemned each and every terrorist attack?

They will make demonstrations against the "US imperialism" but where are they when such things happen?

That said, killing millions won't solve the problem because more will pop up in their place, although if it was the best solution, we shouldn't hesitate to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Tommy, but thats like judging the US by its Government, Wackos & religious organizations. (I appreciate those are often synonymous :)!) There's more to people and culture than that, and as Ariana pointed out, its not all fanatical religious hatred amongst the population - alot of its colonial baggage (with a view to Europe) and past misguided interference of our governments in their areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a mistake to think that Islamic terrorism is caused by the "American guilt" that Ariana and others of you seem obsessed with. Consider the list of Islamic terrorism directed at non-American targets.

Islamists just killed the Egyptian ambassador to Iraq, and have kidnapped and decapitated dozens of non-American aid workers.

Islamists blew up the United Nations aid building in Iraq in 2004, killing 8, none of them Americans.

Islamists have killed 800 people in southern Thailand in the last year and a half, very few of them Americans or even "westerners". Most recently, they have taken to beheading them and leaving the bodies in the streets.

Islamists have blown up two resort hotels and killed dozens in Egypt in the last year -- not in Gaza, but in Cairo.

Islamists blew up two office buildings in Turkey last year killing dozens more.

Islamists in Beslan, Russia slaughtered 344, many of them school children, in 2004.

Islamists in Moscow took an entire theater hostage and murdered 121 in a shoot-out with the police in 2003.

Islamists murdered over 200 people, mostly Australians, in Bali, in Muslim-dominated Indonesia, October 2002.

Islamists suicide bomber killed 42 on a train in Southern Russia in 2003.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 41 on Moscow metro February 6, 2004.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 5 in front of a Moscow hotel in 2003.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 3 at a market in Cairo on April 7, 2005

Islamist suicide bomber killed 10 at a subway entrance in Moscow, August 31, 2004.

Islamists murderers killed 22 foreign oil workers (only 1 was American) at a housing compound in Saudi Arabia, May 29. 2004.

Islamist murderers killed 41 Shia Muslims in Pakistan, March 2, 2004.

Islamist suicide bombers killed 2, wounded 40 at an Istanbul restaurant on March 9, 2004.

Islamist suicide bombers killed 181 Muslims and wounded 500 at Shia Muslim holy sites in Iraq, March 2, 2004.

Islamist suicide bomber killed 20 in a mosque in Kandahar, June 1, 2005.

Islamist terrorists bombed a ferry in the Phillipines, killing 116 on February 2, 2004.

The motivation for these attacks is clearly not mere hatred of America. It is a determination to destroy anyone that interferes with the goal of a global Islamic theocracy. Any infidel is fair game, and an infidel is defined as anyone -- Muslims included -- who is not working toward that goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...