Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)
-   -   Unconditional surrender, The Isreal solution (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/296343-unconditional-surrender-isreal-solution.html)

cool_chick 08-02-2006 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tobster1911
And they are doing a great job of it. Very supportive and protective. Kinda like a mother hen........
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.

The radical Islam that's being promoted in the news has not been embraced in the middle east -- at least it hadn't until the Jihadists moved their targets outside the middle east and attacked the West. Now, a failed movement has gotten much stronger and gained international prominence -- still without widespread support in most Arab countries.

john70t 08-02-2006 10:28 AM

ME peace can probably only be acheived by the polaritys at this point unfortunately.

A) Israel can finish the wall on the 67 lines and build a single bridge across (easy to destroy), then push the Palestinians out and not use them for cheap labor.
--Of course this would mean Israel would have to abide by international mandate such as not sabotaging Palestinians buisnesses, giving fair passage, respecting air rights, no assasignations, etc... which the Likudists will never do. Their plan is to keep the conflict going and with every victory sqeeze a few hundred yards furthur until a nice smooth border is acheived.
--Unfortunately Palestinians breed like rats and haven't integrated well into the surrounding arab countries(i.e. Jordainian coup attempt).

B) Israel can start an all-out full scale war. No arab state have nukes yet so now is a good time. Level all the major cities of Syria and Iran like London, Tokyo, Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. Civilians? What's that? Back to the stone age.
--Only problem is that in 50 years the arabs will have nukes and a memory. and a close target. They also might have more Russian weapons than they've let on, and an all out war would damage the regional enviroment for quite while.

Yes, the problem is in Islams backwardness and blaming the rest of the world for their own lack of progress, but it's also in the westernized worlds lack of cultural respect and crass exploitation practices that they fight against.
Both sides are acting like whiny, *****y, bickery unsure frenchwomen and I personally have no sympathy for cheats and liers. If they were Japanese, there would be a compromise hammered and then everyone would live with it.
This does not involve the US.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick
Generally, they are. What you're seeing is extreme cases, and not the majority, where they are. That doen't sell.
Here we go again. "My friend is Muslim and he told me..........."

Someone page JoeA and tell him he needs to post some more of his real world experiences with the religion of "peace" again. ;)

speeder 08-02-2006 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Denis,

For chuckles, I was just trying to get Pat go on about how we should appease the ME by evacuating the whole ME, 100% so that they will quit "disliking" us. I for one do not think that the radical islamists would suddenly change their attitude or actions towards western society simply by pulling out.

This simplistic attitude of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is flawed. The radical islamists want us dead whether we leave them alone or not.

PS: I rarely watch Fox news :)

OK, fair enough. From what I can glean here, Pat wants the U.S. out of all foreign countries, (not just the ME), because he is an isolationist. He believes that doing so would instantly eliminate all causes for conflict w/ the U.S. I do not think that his solution is completely workable or realistic or even desirable, but there is a great solution somewhere between the current policies and his plan. I see nothing wrong w/ having allies in the world and being a superpower that protects these smaller allies, but there are sensible limits. Our policy of leaving troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, for instance, was not only unnecessary from a strategic standpoint but also a hugely arrogant and miscalculated move that inflamed radical muslims. There are over a billion muslims in the world, within any group this large there are going to be extremists and violent over-throw types, including Christianity. My Catholic distant relatives in Northern Ireland are known for their terrorism, as were the early Israelis. The only pertinent factor is how much traction these extremists get among the general population of their group, and that wholly depends on how extreme the perceived injustice is towards them combined w/ desperation about their prospects for fighting it using "conventional" means.

It is in our interest to try to reduce radicalism in the muslim world, and the people currently in charge seem to have the opposite agenda. Why? Beats the schit out of me. Maybe someone is profiting from the current wars. It's a mystery. Anyone who believes that we are in any kind of position to "beat some sense" into these billion+ people is just hugely ignorant, IMO. This is a time for big brains to step in, unfortunately Bush and the Israeli politicians both suffer from a form of machismo where they will do absolutely anything not to appear "weak". Reason and good strategy take a powder with this constraint.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john70t
ME peace can probably only be acheived by the polaritys at this point unfortunately.

A) Israel can finish the wall on the 67 lines and build a single bridge across (easy to destroy), then push the Palestinians out and not use them for cheap labor.
--Of course this would mean Israel would have to abide by international mandate such as not sabotaging Palestinians buisnesses, giving fair passage, respecting air rights, no assasignations, etc... which the Likudists will never do. Their plan is to keep the conflict going and with every victory sqeeze a few hundred yards furthur until a nice smooth border is acheived.
--Unfortunately Palestinians breed like rats and haven't integrated well into the surrounding arab countries(i.e. Jordainian coup attempt).

B) Israel can start an all-out full scale war. No arab state have nukes yet so now is a good time. Level all the major cities of Syria and Iran like London, Tokyo, Berlin, Hamburg and Dresden. Civilians? What's that? Back to the stone age.
--Only problem is that in 50 years the arabs will have nukes and a memory. and a close target. They also might have more Russian weapons than they've let on, and an all out war would damage the regional enviroment for quite while.

Yes, the problem is in Islams backwardness and blaming the rest of the world for their own lack of progress, but it's also in the westernized worlds lack of cultural respect and crass exploitation practices that they fight against.
Both sides are acting like whiny, *****y, bickery unsure frenchwomen and I personally have no sympathy for cheats and liers. If they were Japanese, there would be a compromise hammered and then everyone would live with it.
This does not involve the US.

Boy howdy. I'm in about 90% agreement with the above.

That we should not be involved is something I agree with.

We are, however, involved. We give money to all the parties; we have trade with all of them. Unfortunately, we give many times more to Israel than all the others combined, and are openly giving the Israelis weapons they are using against the Lebanese in a program of collective punishment.

techweenie 08-02-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder

It is in our interest to try to reduce radicalism in the muslim world, and the people currently in charge seem to have the opposite agenda. Why? Beats the schit out of me. Maybe someone is profiting from the current wars. It's a mystery. Anyone who believes that we are in any kind of position to "beat some sense" into these billion+ people is just hugely ignorant, IMO. This is a time for big brains to step in, unfortunately Bush and the Israeli politicians both suffer from a form of machismo where they will do absolutely anything not to appear "weak". Reason and good strategy take a powder with this constraint.

There are those (uber cynics) who think we went into Iraq to protect the high price of oil. That Saddam had threatened to increase production rates to bring down the price per barrel and also (old rumor) to 'dump the dollar' and link his oil prices to the Euro. Dubya pulicly stated his goal of removing Saddam in 1999, after all.

But what does this have to do with radical Muslims? They provided the excuse. First, they provided the excuse for mobilizing the US armed forces against a group that may not have had even a dozen "members" on 9/11. Al Quaeda, remember, has not been tightly tied to the events of 9/11. Al Quaeda has never claimed responsibility for 9/11 although they have claimed responsibility for many other attacks before and after 9/11.

Most of radical Muslim activity takes place against other Muslims or other people within their home countries. There have been only a handful of attacks on foreign soil and, IIRC, all took place after the US made al Quaeda into a formidable foe in the eyes of the world. In a very real way, the US has been largely responsible for the growth of al Quaeda.

dheinz 08-02-2006 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
It comes down to this again.

Someone posted here a long time ago that a fundamental tenet of Islam (not "radical" Islam, whatever that is, just plain old Islam) is that ALL infidels (i.e. non-Islams) must either be:

1) Converted to Islam.

or

2) Killed.

There's no other choices. "Leave the infidels alone," for example, isn't one of the choices.

Now, when I read that, I thought, "Wow, that sounds pretty wack! I'm sure someone will post and conclusively demonstrate why that isn't correct."

But no one even challenged the statement.

So I thought, "OK, people must have missed that one," and asked specifically if the statement was true.

Again, no one disputed it.

I've asked it again several times, and no one has ever disputed the truth of the statement.

I'm no expert on Islam, like many here apparently are. So, one of you experts edumacate me. Is the statement true or untrue, and why?

I'm no expert, but this is something that I received via email....

Living in the Detroit area I can concur with this. We have more Muslims
in our neighborhood monthly and they are very active in the schools,
preaching all the time about their "rights" and how tolerant we should be of
their faith. However toleration is a one-way street with them. We are to
learn about Ramadan, etc., but they are not to learn about Easter or
Christmas. What is below is very true. "In God We Trust."

The Basics of Islam

This is a must read -- it's short but very informative!

The Muslim religion is the fastest growing religion per capita in the
United States, especially in the minority races!

Allah or Jesus? by Rick Mathes

Last month I attended my annual training session that's required for
maintaining my state prison security clearance.

During the training session there was a presentation by three speakers
representing the Roman Catholic, Protestant and Muslim faiths, who explained
each of their beliefs.

I was particularly interested in what the Islamic Imam had to say.

The Imam gave a great presentation of the basics of Islam, complete with a
video. After the presentations, time was provided for questions and answers.

When it was my turn, I directed my question to the Imam and asked:
"Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that most Imams and
clerics of Islam have declared a holy jihad [Holy war] against the infidels
of the world. And, that by killing an infidel, which is a command to all
Muslims, they are assured of a place in heaven. If that's the case,
can you give me the definition of an infidel?"

There was no disagreement with my statements and without hesitation, he
replied, "Nonbelievers!"

I responded, "So, let me make sure I have this straight. All followers of
Allah have been commanded to kill everyone who is not of your faith so they
can go to Heaven. Is that correct?"

The expression on his face changed from one of authority and command to
that of a little boy who had just gotten caught with his hand in the cookie
jar.

He sheepishly replied, "Yes."

I then stated, "Well, sir, I have a real problem trying to imagine Pope
John Paul commanding all Catholics to kill those of your faith or Dr.
Stanley ordering Protestants to do the same in order to go to Heaven!"

The Imam was speechless.

I continued, "I also have a problem with being your friend when you and
your brother clerics are telling your followers to kill me. Let me ask you
a question. Would you rather have your Allah who tells you to kill me in
order to go to Heaven or my Jesus who tells me to love you because I am
going to Heaven and He wants you to be with me?"

You could have heard a pin drop as the Imam hung his head.

Needless to say, the organizers and/or promoters of the "Diversification"
training seminar were not happy with Rick's way of dealing with the Islamic
Imam and exposing the truth about the Muslim's beliefs.

I think everyone in the U.S. should be required to read this, but with
the liberal justice system, liberal media, and the ACLU, there is no way
this will be widely publicized.

. This is a true story and
the author, Rick Mathes, is a well-known leader in prison ministry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

techweenie 08-02-2006 11:07 AM

Prison ministry leaders are always pretty reliable sources for comparative religion studies.

:rolleyes:

Also, the account has been discredited here:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.html

speeder 08-02-2006 11:30 AM

Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron. WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?

RoninLB 08-02-2006 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron.

WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?




Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.

speeder 08-02-2006 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Prison ministry leaders are always pretty reliable sources for comparative religion studies.

:rolleyes:

Also, the account has been discredited here:

http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/rickmathes.html

That's funny. I thought that "email" had about as much credibility as Baghdad Bob when I was reading it. People fall for this schit? Scary. :rolleyes:

speeder 08-02-2006 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.
If it does, I'll blame it on you.

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:36 AM

Yeah, that pic shows that the islamo terrorists are the barbarians. Stay on topic. The US and the Israelis are the bad guys. :rolleyes:

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by speeder
Wow, now all we need is for that extremely offensive image to be removed/re-posted and no more Ron. WTF are you thinking there, homey? Influencing hearts and minds, are we?
Careful Ron, if enough people complain about you like they did Mul, they might just be able to knock off another right leaning Pelican. ;)

techweenie 08-02-2006 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Yeah, that pic shows that the islamo terrorists are the barbarians. Stay on topic. The US and the Israelis are the bad guys. :rolleyes:
Makes as much sense as showing pictures of the detainees killed in US custody.

The few abusive soldiers (and contractors) at Abu Ghraib do not represent all "Christians" any more than the barbarians who chop off Westerners' heads represent "Muslims."

cool_chick 08-02-2006 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoninLB
Let me know what you start thinking when your neighborhood gets bombed.
If my "neighborhood" gets bombed, we'll know our money spent on defense was a big waste of buckage....

Tim Hancock 08-02-2006 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Makes as much sense as showing pictures of the detainees killed in US custody.

The few abusive soldiers (and contractors) at Abu Ghraib do not represent all "Christians" any more than the barbarians who chop off Westerners' heads represent "Muslims."

If you truly equate the Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with the kidnapping/beheadings, then I have no reason to waste any more of my time.

Carry on, oh great defenders of Islam. Time for me to hop in the 100+ degree car and drive home.

fastpat 08-02-2006 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Denis,

For chuckles, I was just trying to get Pat go on about how we should appease the ME by evacuating the whole ME,

Evacuating? That implies either ownership or some other "right to be there", when in fact there is no ownership or the right to be there on the part of the US government.

Additionaloly, there is no power granted the federal government by the US constitution to be there either.

Quote:

100% so that they will quit "disliking" us. I for one do not think that the radical islamists would suddenly change their attitude or actions towards western society simply by pulling out.
Nor do I think that muslims will immediately forget US government terror, terror that has been perpetrated upon them for decades. I can reliably, by self evident facts, tell you that remaining in the mideast and waging terror campaigns today and into the future will not make them "stop hating us" at all.

Quote:

This simplistic attitude of leave them alone and they will leave us alone is flawed. The radical islamists want us dead whether we leave them alone or not.

PS: I rarely watch Fox news :)
They want the people that have been terrorizing their lands for over 80 years to leave them alone. Some of them saw an opportunity to bring that terrorism home to the US government's backyard and took it. It appears it is you with the simplistic idea that waging a terror campaign in the mideast will work, you have 80 years of history that say you aren't just wrong; but idiotically, dangerously, and murderously wrong.

fastpat 08-02-2006 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
If you truly equate the Abu Ghraib prisoner treatment with the kidnapping/beheadings, then I have no reason to waste any more of my time.
I can and will equate the bombing campaign with beheadings. Bombs tear people to shreds, and in fact is much more "grusome" than a simple beheading.

The US government's bombing campaign in Iraq is 100's of times worse than all the beheadings of US government thugs and it's mercenary army combined.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.