Why radical Islam might defeat the West

[xblackdogx]

Please tell me that was sarcasm.

it wasn't,
i know, how sad

I heard a lot of respected German scientists high tailed it out of there when the war started, so they were definately in need. There were gay soldiers. They used them to screw with the heads of their prisoners. At least that's what I read in a book.

they were high tailed to the united states,
and so were the "cherry" marines...
word is, that we still have "special" marines in HIGH
places these days as well!

[Moose101]

Zimzum, what do you want from me? You of all people shouldn't get righteous on me. Americans killed way more people than Hitler. And those murders were about as dirty as murder can get.

[mrdevious]

Zimzum, what do you want from me? You of all people shouldn't get righteous on me. Americans killed way more people than Hitler. And those murders were about as dirty as murder can get.

True, but America had 230 years to commit their killings, Hitler only had 12. I'm sure if you gave him a little more time he'd more than do his part.

[daima]

sure they do


iq higher than not then lol


cool thanks for the heads up


down
frown
down
bong... bong?

how does that rhyme? stoners lol :thumbsup: :rasta:

never thought about it needing to rhyme. do you find it needs to rhyme? if so, why?
then, than? lmao geesh

dai*ma:stoned:
roses are red
violets are blue
most poems rhyme
but not all poems do

[Fengzi]

Bong's post makes a good point. Our hazy, conflicting, vague ideology about who the enemies are is going to make winning this war very difficult. I'm sure we disagree on the details, but the general idea is right.

For instance, you have one group of followers of extreme liberalism who believe that no war is EVER justified, for any reason, no matter how obvious the threat is. These people would complacently allow us to be conquered by hate-filled maniacs who twist religion for their own ends.

Then you have the the far-righters (not all of course, just like not all liberals) who have taken such a generalized, vague view of the enemy that they believe that because the enemy is middle-eastern, any war, anywhere in the middle east is therefor a war with terrorism by default.

Just because certain extremists declare that they are fighting in the name of all islam, doesn't mean all Islamics are on their side. Just like George Bush invading Iraq in the name of American freedom, doesn't mean every freedom-loving american is in support of the war. The real solution to winning this war is through winning the hearts and minds of the Islamic people, but guiding this war logically. We need to clearly identify who the enemy is, not distract ourselves with useless wars like Iraq, and zero in on the true enemies and propogandists embedded within the Muslim world. This is why I'm for the war in Afghanistan, and against the one in Iraq. Saddam may have been an evil son of a bitch, but he was still an enemy of most terrorist states and a counter-balance to our considerably more immediate enemies. Enemies can be as usefull as allies, depending on how you manipulate the situation.

I agree 100%. The war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Even countries which we would expect to be against us, China, Pakistan, etc. gave us the thumbs up. There we had a specific target, Al Qeada and the Taliban, well known radical groups who had done us a great wrong.

Going after Iraq, on the other hand, was probably the worst thing we could have done. It took the focus off of going after the bad guys, who just happned to be Muslim, and put it on going after Muslims. I am certain that G Dubya has done far more for Al Qeada recruitment than Osama Bin Laden could ever have dreamed of. If we are so concerned about the 1% of Mulims who are extremists, why do we do our best to raise that # to 2%?

[voltabud]

that afghani grass will lay you out

[HighTillIDie]

silly; crazy, fuckin, magic believing, religous people, tricks are for kids