Hypothetical: Islamic Muslims

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

YOU ARE SOOOO RIGHT!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

i honestly think we need more details than that.

are we taking about over the top fundy muslims like AhmadineJihad or Khamenei, or just your average abdul-in-the-street muslim?

the regular plain ol dude wouldn't care. wouldn't want it any more than the average joe-in-the-street american.

the Islamic version of our own bill grey would launch the nukes at israel as soon as they figured out how to turn them on, and dance in the street while they blew millions to hell.

BUT, the point you made is correct. our military is being forced to fight a Politically Correct war, and it's costing us dearly in blood.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

H-m-m---If there are "Islamic Muslims," then there must be "non-Islamic Muslims." Kindly explain the latter, would you? I have not found any other source that can define the latter term, but since you are the coiner of "Islamic Muslims," perhaps you can explain what a "non-Islamic Muslim" would be.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

H-m-m---If there are "Islamic Muslims," then there must be "non-Islamic Muslims." Kindly explain the latter, would you? I have not found any other source that can define the latter term, but since you are the coiner of "Islamic Muslims," perhaps you can explain what a "non-Islamic Muslim" would be.

Explaining that to you would rather be like teaching a pig to dance...it can't be done and it annoys the pig.
If that is all you got out your initial reading you rather missed the point.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

H-m-m---If there are "Islamic Muslims," then there must be "non-Islamic Muslims." Kindly explain the latter, would you? I have not found any other source that can define the latter term, but since you are the coiner of "Islamic Muslims," perhaps you can explain what a "non-Islamic Muslim" would be.

Explaining that to you would rather be like teaching a pig to dance...it can't be done and it annoys the pig.
If that is all you got out your initial reading you rather missed the point.

No. Explaining it honestly, for you, would involve admitting that your usage was an incorrect one. Thus you have dodged explaining it by unloading a swinish insult.

I did not miss the point you raised and I agree that the Islamic world view of the murderous and deranged component of that faith system is something to be seriously concerned about. If only 5 percent of Muslims would die suicidally for their Koranic, jihadist beliefs, that computes to maybe 5 million such fanatics. That is why we need to do a much better job of securing our borders. If we had spent half of what we have wasted in Iraq in securing those borders, we would have achieved a far greater advantage in security than we have obtained by pursuing the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz warmongering misadventure in Iraq and we would not have suffered the loss of over 4000 American troops and the wounding and suffering and long-term disability of tens of thousands more!

I would suggest the correct terms are islamist or radical Muslims. Their are many Muslims that mean no harm and a few that are doing their best to drag their brethren kicking and screaming into the 19th century.

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist).

Hi Shel,

Actually, to the Muslims the religion of Islam defines the "Infidel" as EVERYONE who is not a Muslim. Just as we Christians are told by Jesus Christ in the Bible to Go and Witness to all the world; the Qur'an tells the Muslims to go and convert, under dire penalty, the whole world to Islam.

So, we have a faith or peace -- and we have a religion of "convert or else."

I think I will stay on the Jesus Team.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
I did not miss the point you raised and I agree that the Islamic world view of the murderous and deranged component of that faith system is something to be seriously concerned about. If only 5 percent of Muslims would die suicidally for their Koranic, jihadist beliefs, that computes to maybe 5 million such fanatics. That is why we need to do a much better job of securing our borders. If we had spent half of what we have wasted in Iraq in securing those borders, we would have achieved a far greater advantage in security than we have obtained by pursuing the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz warmongering misadventure in Iraq and we would not have suffered the loss of over 4000 American troops and the wounding and suffering and long-term disability of tens of thousands more!

Wouldn't that fall into PROFILING????

quote:

Originally posted by CageTheElephant:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:
I did not miss the point you raised and I agree that the Islamic world view of the murderous and deranged component of that faith system is something to be seriously concerned about. If only 5 percent of Muslims would die suicidally for their Koranic, jihadist beliefs, that computes to maybe 5 million such fanatics. That is why we need to do a much better job of securing our borders. If we had spent half of what we have wasted in Iraq in securing those borders, we would have achieved a far greater advantage in security than we have obtained by pursuing the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz warmongering misadventure in Iraq and we would not have suffered the loss of over 4000 American troops and the wounding and suffering and long-term disability of tens of thousands more!

Wouldn't that fall into PROFILING????

I don't believe so. Profiling is the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior. What I posted is a description with which many will agree, namely that a small proportion, but a large number, of Muslims have a murderous commitment against us "infidels." Profiling occurs when someone sees a person with "Muslim" or presumed "Muslim" characteristics or a person behaving in some manner that could be construed as Islamic, then proceeds to suspect or to target that person as belonging to the small subset of Muslims that are willing to die to kill you or me. There is a considerable distance between reasonably describing a set of facts and then unreasonably applying some part of those facts to some person or cohort of persons when it is not known if those facts actually fit that particular person or persons.

That said, I continue to wonder why little 80-year old ladies get pulled out of waiting lines at the airports and taken aside for intensive questioning and enhanced searching of their persons and effects. And that is not hypothetical; I have seen that more than once and others have described their personal observations of the same thing. I believe that the Transportation Security Agency sometimes stretches a lot to "demonstrate" that they are not profiling.

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

H-m-m---If there are "Islamic Muslims," then there must be "non-Islamic Muslims." Kindly explain the latter, would you? I have not found any other source that can define the latter term, but since you are the coiner of "Islamic Muslims," perhaps you can explain what a "non-Islamic Muslim" would be.

Explaining that to you would rather be like teaching a pig to dance...it can't be done and it annoys the pig.
If that is all you got out your initial reading you rather missed the point.

No. Explaining it honestly, for you, would involve admitting that your usage was an incorrect one. Thus you have dodged explaining it by unloading a swinish insult.

I did not miss the point you raised and I agree that the Islamic world view of the murderous and deranged component of that faith system is something to be seriously concerned about. If only 5 percent of Muslims would die suicidally for their Koranic, jihadist beliefs, that computes to maybe 5 million such fanatics. That is why we need to do a much better job of securing our borders. If we had spent half of what we have wasted in Iraq in securing those borders, we would have achieved a far greater advantage in security than we have obtained by pursuing the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz warmongering misadventure in Iraq and we would not have suffered the loss of over 4000 American troops and the wounding and suffering and long-term disability of tens of thousands more!

That's why we need to vote for a president that promises to bring the troops home. Oops, we did that one already. Where are the troops bitter?

quote:

Originally posted by ferrellj:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:

quote:

Originally posted by beternU:

quote:

Originally posted by SHELDIVR:
Hypothetical: Knowing what we now know about Islamic Muslims, including their religious obligation to destroy the infidel (that includes Jews, Christians, and atheist), what would happen, where would we be, if they had our nuclear weapons, technological and military advantage? Please keep in mind that these people willingly self-destruct and don't mind killing 12 of their own to get 5 of ours (happened just this past week). We are not going to survive by being nice to these people, it is imperitive that we control the playing field and maintain control through superior power in the world arena.

H-m-m---If there are "Islamic Muslims," then there must be "non-Islamic Muslims." Kindly explain the latter, would you? I have not found any other source that can define the latter term, but since you are the coiner of "Islamic Muslims," perhaps you can explain what a "non-Islamic Muslim" would be.

Explaining that to you would rather be like teaching a pig to dance...it can't be done and it annoys the pig.
If that is all you got out your initial reading you rather missed the point.

No. Explaining it honestly, for you, would involve admitting that your usage was an incorrect one. Thus you have dodged explaining it by unloading a swinish insult.

I did not miss the point you raised and I agree that the Islamic world view of the murderous and deranged component of that faith system is something to be seriously concerned about. If only 5 percent of Muslims would die suicidally for their Koranic, jihadist beliefs, that computes to maybe 5 million such fanatics. That is why we need to do a much better job of securing our borders. If we had spent half of what we have wasted in Iraq in securing those borders, we would have achieved a far greater advantage in security than we have obtained by pursuing the Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Wolfowitz warmongering misadventure in Iraq and we would not have suffered the loss of over 4000 American troops and the wounding and suffering and long-term disability of tens of thousands more!

That's why we need to vote for a president that promises to bring the troops home. Oops, we did that one already. Where are the troops bitter?

The President nowhere promised to bring the troops home immediately. He is working hard to untangle the ties that bound us to the unholy, ill-considered, enormously wasteful war in Iraq. He is also working hard to get us out of Afghanistan. We could have been out of there long aog if the Bushist, Rumfeldian, Cheneyian warmongers had not prematurely siphoned off most of our troops from there to fight their war of folly in Iraq!

I never said immediately, you did. Obama said within 16 months. He's been in office about 16 months. We will still have troops in Iraq when this year ends. We now have more troops in Afghanistan than when he went into office. The only promise he has kept is his promise to fundamentally transform America.

beternu, you misspelled what I assume to be ago not aog.

tsk tsk second sentence of your last post beter. Is that not using present and past tense in the same sentence?.....IS working.....ties that BOUND....

quote:

Originally posted by leo:
tsk tsk second sentence of your last post beter. Is that not using present and past tense in the same sentence?.....IS working.....ties that BOUND....

Your grammar-sharping license is herewith revoked.

Those ties were established in the past. The binding took place when the Bushist warmongers imprudently entered the war in Iraq and subsequently created its alliance with that nation's irremediably corrupt government. It is entirely proper to refer to those ties as having been "bound" while remaining within the present time context of my comment--i.e. what the President is now doing to remedy the stupidity of past actions by his funbling predecessor. I could have stated "those ties that bound us--and that still bind us..." but that was unnecessary, since anyone whose head is not in the sand (i.e. persons other than yourself and your ilk) understands that we are still in that Bushist-created entanglement.

Try this one: "I hunt for those who killed my dog." (hunt=present tense; killed=past tense)

A perfectly grammatical sentence, as was mine!

Stick with spelling errors, leo; they are simple enough even for you.

ooooooohhh. STOP IT, you are scaring me. What ilk is that? Go ahead catagorize me. Tell me what ilk I am.

ok you misspelled fumbling