Arab-Muslim terrorist bomb Israelis and Egyptians

[Shortfuse]

I know we butt heads and we're going to do it some more, but......

Originally posted by Rudey
Why is it that people think all Muslims are being blamed for something???

I have even posted articles written by Muslims coming out of Arab lands discussing how they are ashamed and have to realize that all these gruesome acts are coming from their own people.

-Rudey

I'm not accusing you of anything per se Rudey. If it came off like that then that's my bad. Most of the stuff you post, you usually post something that counters it. I was talking about the overall perception that Muslims are the only people doing these things. SOme of them men are actually in other religions for not all Arabs are muslims. You don't need to be Muslim to hate the US and what it stands for. Just my take.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by James
I am not a "Rah Rah" Isarael supporter. I just think we should honor our treaty obligations.

However, I think they have more than enough reason to use Bush's doctrine of preemption. They should invade Palestine slowly and very bloodily . . . the more they kill the better for them.

Seriously, the so-called international community has to get off their backs and let them clean house.

The more Palestinians they kill the better? Are you seriously that ignorant!????? A comment like that sounds just like something Hamas or their supporters would say about the Israelis....

Wow from the ignorance of Optimist Prime to yours... nice to see this thread bringing out the closet nut-cases...

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
The more Palestinians they kill the better? Are you seriously that ignorant!????? A comment like that sounds just like something Hamas or their supporters would say about the Israelis....

Wow from the ignorance of Optimist Prime to yours... nice to see this thread bringing out the closet nut-cases...

The two statements can not be compared.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
The two statements can not be compared.

-Rudey

Well I think you can compare the two statements… in much the same way you can compare a rotten apple and a rotten orange; both taste horrible, but as for which tastes most foul it is up to personal taste. However the fact remains that they are both rotten… just at the two statements were both ignorant.

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
How about blaming the group of murderous dogs who are killing women nad children instead of the religion?

Thank you!
When are we going to stop attaching a religion to people who can only "claim" to be acting under that religion - especially when their actions are contradictory to the basic doctrines of that religion. People, please think before you type.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
Thank you!
When are we going to stop attaching a religion to people who can only "claim" to be acting under that religion - especially when their actions are contradictory to the basic doctrines of that religion. People, please think before you type.

1) They are very much a part of that religion and adhere to it more so than you do to yours, I'd be willing to bet.

2) Nobody attacked any religion.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Well I think you can compare the two statements… in much the same way you can compare a rotten apple and a rotten orange; both taste horrible, but as for which tastes most foul it is up to personal taste. However the fact remains that they are both rotten… just at the two statements were both ignorant.

No, there is no fact that remains other than they are not similar whatsoever.

-Rudey

[James]

RACooper,

Ahhh . .. see . . . now that was a mistake. I have rather carefully refrained from commenting on your IQ How can you criticise Rudey when you are just as likely to make an objective issue personal?

And I actually am serious. Lets look at it totally from the view point of Israel and the security of their nation. Lets also take a historical military context , which you should know better than I.

They have militarily won the battle. There are no more set piece engagements. There are no more direct confrontations of regular army. They are facing a situation where the enemy have melted into the subject population to the point of being indivisible from them.

The population gives them a base to hide in and supplies them with both an inexhaustible supply of personel as well as weapons and consumables.

Two historical examples.

IF you will recall the Napoleanic Wars, one of the major problems that Napolean had was that he fought war in the European way where he defeated the enemies armies but left those countries with the capacity and man-power to field other armies within a very short time period.

This would oblige him to have to fight them again and again essentially paying for the same ground multiple times until he and France were so worn down they collapsed. (I am simplifying, obviously).

In other words Napolean and France eventually lost.

If you recollect Caesar's Gallic Commentaries you will recall that Gaul united and fought Caesar even after being first defeated and in the face of amazing clemency from Caesar. Can't blame them, they perceived him as a foreign invader.

Caesar eventually turned to harsh measures. Tribes that attacked him were reduced to nothing. Most of the men of military age were killed, the lands themselves were burned.

At the final decisive battle of Uxellodunum Caesar spared the surrendering soliders' lives but as an example cut off both hands of somewhere near four thousand of them and distributed those handlless people all over Gaul as a reminder.

IT effectively ended the Gallic Wars and Gaul was so pacified that it didn't even need a garrison.

Israel has tried harsh security measures, it has tried clemency and it has failed to maintain secuirty for its people.

What would you do RAcooper if you were the leader of Israel and your people were dying?

Its an academic discussion for us, but its a matter of life and death for them.

Originally posted by RACooper
The more Palestinians they kill the better? Are you seriously that ignorant!????? A comment like that sounds just like something Hamas or their supporters would say about the Israelis....

Wow from the ignorance of Optimist Prime to yours... nice to see this thread bringing out the closet nut-cases...

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Rudey
No, there is no fact that remains other than they are not similar whatsoever.

-Rudey

Soooo... James' advocation of a slow and bloody invasion of the Palestinian territories that kills as many as possible isn't ignorant? Well what else would you call it? Stupid? Dumb? Idiotic? Counter-productive? Hateful? Moronic? Morally flawed? lacking any decernable intelligence?

[preciousjeni]

Originally posted by Rudey
1) They are very much a part of that religion and adhere to it more so than you do to yours, I'd be willing to bet.

2) Nobody attacked any religion.

-Rudey

1) It is certainly true that, in the West, we tend to detach ourselves from our religious beliefs; it's something that is unfortunate but part of our culture. HOWEVER, the terrorists aren't adhering to Islam, a religion of peace. That's the point.

2) When you attach the particular religion to the act, you are attacking the religion. (Not "you" personally, Rudey - I mean "you" generally.)

[Rudey]

Originally posted by RACooper
Soooo... James' advocation of a slow and bloody invasion of the Palestinian territories that kills as many as possible isn't ignorant? Well what else would you call it? Stupid? Dumb? Idiotic? Counter-productive? Hateful? Moronic? Morally flawed? lacking any decernable intelligence?

I wouldn't say he made that advocation. So really stick to discussing Canada's politics and submarine issues.

-Rudey

[Rudey]

Originally posted by preciousjeni
1) It is certainly true that, in the West, we tend to detach ourselves from our religious beliefs; it's something that is unfortunate but part of our culture. HOWEVER, the terrorists aren't adhering to Islam, a religion of peace. That's the point.

2) When you attach the particular religion to the act, you are attacking the religion. (Not "you" personally, Rudey - I mean "you" generally.)

1) Wrong.

2) Wrong.

And if you care, you can read the article above.

-Rudey

[RACooper]

Originally posted by James
RACooper,

Ahhh . .. see . . . now that was a mistake. I have rather carefully refrained from commenting on your IQ How can you criticise Rudey when you are just as likely to make an objective issue personal?

And I actually am serious. Lets look at it totally from the view point of Israel and the security of their nation. Lets also take a historical military context , which you should know better than I.

They have militarily won the battle. There are no more set piece engagements. There are no more direct confrontations of regular army. They are facing a situation where the enemy have melted into the subject population to the point of being indivisible from them.

The population gives them a base to hide in and supplies them with both an inexhaustible supply of personel as well as weapons and consumables.

Two historical examples.

IF you will recall the Napoleanic Wars, one of the major problems that Napolean had was that he fought war in the European way where he defeated the enemies armies but left those countries with the capacity and man-power to field other armies within a very short time period.

This would oblige him to have to fight them again and again essentially paying for the same ground multiple times until he and France were so worn down they collapsed. (I am simplifying, obviously).

In other words Napolean and France eventually lost.

If you recollect Caesar's Gallic Commentaries you will recall that Gaul united and fought Caesar even after being first defeated and in the face of amazing clemency from Caesar. Can't blame them, they perceived him as a foreign invader.

Caesar eventually turned to harsh measures. Tribes that attacked him were reduced to nothing. Most of the men of military age were killed, the lands themselves were burned.

At the final decisive battle of Uxellodunum Caesar spared the surrendering soliders' lives but as an example cut off both hands of somewhere near four thousand of them and distributed those handlless people all over Gaul as a reminder.

IT effectively ended the Gallic Wars and Gaul was so pacified that it didn't even need a garrison.

Israel has tried harsh security measures, it has tried clemency and it has failed to maintain secuirty for its people.

What would you do RAcooper if you were the leader of Israel and your people were dying?

Its an academic discussion for us, but its a matter of life and death for them.

Well lets see... first off Napleon didn't lose because he left the civilian population alive.. in fact when they (the French) adopted harsh tactics to deal with the "geurillas" (it's were the word comes from) they actually exacerbated the problem and ignited more breakouts of insurgency and weakened their diplomatic position with "defeated" nations. No the real cause of Napleon's defeat stemmed from his extending his reach to far while ignoring the mounting pressure from Allies that knew that they had to pick away at Napoleonic France instead of confronting it head on until they were ready... economics and diplomacy, coupled with the depletion of French manpower, defeated Napoleon (simplifying as well).

As for Caesar... Romans always used the idea of the heavy stick to pacify regions; sometimes successfully, other times laying the ground work for centuries anti-Roman insurgancy. Rome was actually most successful with the stick-and-carrot aproach not the heavy stick. See in Gual the Romans turned the militaryistic elements of Gallic culture to their benefit... after defeating the Guals the Romans actuall co-opted them into Roman society through the military - if you look back to that period the size of the Roman Army actually doubled with an influx of Guals willing to fight for personal glory as their ancestors did and ended being absorbed into Roman society on all levels within three generations... The Romans allowed the Guals to tie-in their future and society into Rome's, ultimately leading to the Pax Romana.

Now as for what I would do... hmm perhaps undermine the anti-Israeli movement by ensuring that the Palestinians identify with Isreal's future as their own... because as long as they see their only positive future involving the demise of Israel, neither side can win. So to begin with: conspicuiouly reward Palestinians that help or serve Israel; provide "humanitarian" services to the Palestinians of a higher quality than they can currently provide themselves; make sure that the law applies equally to both Israeli and Palestinian - no favouritism either officially or unofficially; and remove restrictions on "loyal" or "friendly" Palestinians in Israeli society (education, military, government). These examples are taken from what Romans did typically to try and pacify or induct a region into the Pax Romana... unfortunately then as now it requires considerable effort and patience - a quality that many politicans and media seem to lack.... but then again the Romans were never able to solve the problems in the region either...

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Shortfuse
Question.

Can we just slam the idiots who are killing innocent people.

How about blaming the group of murderous dogs who are killing women nad children instead of the religion?

People act like Muslims just go from country to country blowing stuff up and it's not like that.

From a fellow Muslim, we're all not muderous dogs. Must muslims tend to their own buisness and wouldn't hurt anybody.

I mean nobody see's the Klan and say Murderous Christians do they?

It would be comprable if a substantial number of Christians funded KKK activity, and called it a "charity." Also, as discpicable as the KKK is, they are not in the same league as Al Qaeda or the Islamic Brotherhod.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by moe.ron
It is the latest fade to group everybody into one category. Many see Islam as the new communist. The latest threat to the Western Civilizations.

Islam is part of Western Civilization.