Islamist network exist or it's scarecrow for sheep? From what I see, such a monster is rather mythical than real. Its alleged "achievements", since 2001, are rather laughable. (Yeah, I know, it's because of all those men and women in uniform who protect us Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) It's ironic, after Oklahoma bombing, there was no claims about existence of all-permeating redneck (don't get me wrong, I like rednecks) terrorist network in the USA. 911, obviously, could not be done by a relatively small isolated Muslim group (with friendly help, advice, looking the other way of men in uniforms and coats?). Obviously, it's unimaginable how something like 911 could be done by nothing else as worldwide muslim terror network of unimaginable vastness and penetration. I wonder why such assumptions were accepted on faith without much (if any) critical thinking.
There was the bombing of the Cole and the two bombings in Africa, the spanish train bombings and the ones in England. They aren't supervillans, but I think it would be a mistake to underestimate them.
Well, I don't want to sound cruel and unsensitive to the victims, but with that kind of terror, no matter how overpublicized it's, no sane (in the sense practical) terrorist can hope to achieve anything, even universal fear, not speaking of something more tangible. Besides, the fact of London, etc. bombings don't prove existence of worldwide terror network. It could be local job, it could be foreign power inspired/helped... Less than one bombing per year, that's doesn't suite gigantic, all-permeating network. Gee, those imaginary Muslim consprirators could not even shake (not speaking of overthrowing) a single corrupted (and sold out to Western powers) Muslim government (it would be much easier than attacking a Western country). More exactly, they even didn't try. Something is fishy there. Terrorist organization which totally commited to self-preservation and disguise, such a notion is balancing on the edge of absurdity.
I forgot the bombings in Indonesia and Bali. Some would say that the Spanish train bombings affected the subsequent election. The common thread between all of them is that they were claimed by Islamic terrorists. They got us to invade Iraq, which provided a training ground for terrorists, a recruiting tool, and a group of American targets in a convenient location. If you combine their attacks with other stresses on the US, such as energy, natural disasters, and economic effects, they could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. If, by drawing out the incompetence of the Bush administration they cause the election of democratic leaders who curtail support for Saudi Arabia and other corrupt regimes, they might call that success.
Well, that's the Russian way -"here goes, hit-or-miss". What kind of decease are we talking about? All Religions or particular kind of religion? I'm for 100% irradication of all religions (but 95% of folks out there would disagree with me on that). However, if you mean eradication of Muslim religion only (It would be OK with me too, as a first step to liberation of mankind), may I ask why? Just because they are backward enough not to build a smart bomb/plane/tank and engage in so called civilized violence and slaughter to achieve their petty goals?
Did they call themselves terrorists? I doubt it. They prefer to be named "warriors of Allah", or freedom fighters (as beaten as it sounds), or some other sh*t. Well, Christian Fundamentalists are likely to drown/kill their own children (to test their faith in Jesus). Thus, being a Christian fundamentalist is synonymous with baby killer? Right?
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, dixonmassey. I'm not saying every muslim fundi is a terrorist. But if there is a common thread among all these attacks, I think that's enough to take it seriously. The less centralized the movement, the more dangerous in my opinion.
yeah. (hmmm....what if I put there citizen of Pakistan or something like that, I wonder how ur above response would change... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...experimenting on live folks is sure fun)
I would not risk to say the above in Alabama (not suicidal yet) not speaking of Pakistan. However, intollerance is not why Westerners dislike Muslims. They just think that killing with bombs and stuff (as long as you do mean to kill only bad guysPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) is way more cool than slitting somebody's throat. That's arguable preconception. Death is death. Industrial death could be way more painful than that caused by barbarian ways. Taking, superficial stuff aside, both sides kill to achieve their goals, both sides think that their cause is the right one. I don't want to yell Allah multiple times every day, so I prefer Muslims to keep their peculiar (to say the least) ways to themselves in their homecountries. However, I would want West stop pushing those people around, as it does now. Don't preach them freaking "democracy" (whatever that means), leave them alone to rot or prosper.
Yes, there was. Waco, TX, and the Murrah Federal Building Bombing (OKC) resulted in a crackdown and watchful eye on militias and resulted in the disbanding of quite a few. The government fears militias as they're the only ones able to rise-up against them if the time ever comes for that need. Liberals will just congratulate the government for growing bigger and if something happens to them they don't like, they'll just throw flowers and peace symbols at the bad, bad, government. - N
I don't know, but I haven't seen any liberals happy about bigger government lately - seems like they're all the ones who are upset with growing government power and the conservatives are having a wonderful field day as they abandon their supposed party pillars of fiscal responsibility and limited government. Time to get away from the political landscape of the 1930s and take a good hard look at the political realities that have acctualy been facing the country for the better part of a century.
