Impending danger

[TMA_1]

Much of what I am going to say is speculation, but heck I want to see if any else out there is feeling what I am saying.

When Spain dropped out of the war, it was all a domino effect from there. Now terrorists have attacked other european nations, and the terrorists have threatened that there will be more if certain nations that supported america dont pull out of the war completely. The support of the war in iraq is small to say the least, and with continual attacks it seems that it is just a matter of time before other nations fold from this experiment in making Iraq a stable democratic nation. It was ill-planned and plagued with many controversies from the get go, and now with the continuing deaths in iraq and the terrorist attacks it is not doing any better.

There havent been any large attacks in america yet, but it is only a matter of time. From how I see things, I dont think america will be attacked until certain things happen. Either terrorists will wait for an attack until european support is completely nullified, or terrorists will halt an american attack until the next administration. I favor this idea because I was thinking about it. The terrorist groups out there really are afraid of the current administration. For all of its horrible choices and oversights, not to mention bad leadership, the terrorists really are afraid from how I can see it. These terrorist groups are not dumb though, and see the growing anger towards american aggression. I think the terrorists will wait until a new administration comes into office for their attack. At this point there will be fresh ideas and goals in the office, and one more large attack to america could spell the final death for the war in iraq if an attack would happen after this current administration.

I was flipping through channels and I saw Neil Cavuto on tv... cant stand that idiot. This professor was talking about this idea that I have been thinking of for awhile, except he was just purely talking about it from the europeans perspective and not the idea about an attack after a full european drop out or a new administration. He said though taht america right now isnt the prime target and I totally agreewith that. Neil scoffed him though! and then he had this stereotypical uber-conservative on the show saying "We could be attacked at any moment!!!". I swear I think Fox News is in the pocket of this administration in spreading fears to the masses that really arent substantiated. It just drives me crazy.

anyways what do you guys think?

[Andrew]

USA has lost its' freedoms. Isn't that what the terrorists want?

Iraq is quite a stupid thing. Sure the USA can not pull out now, that would be stupid. They've already spent a trillion dollars, I would think they would want to make sure that the oil is kept secure.

They say Canada is next on the list to be attacked, but I don't see what good a terrorist attack would do for them. Quite frankly if we were attacked, I'd be more inclined to exterminate terrorists.

Deaths in Afghanistan: ~300

Deaths in Iraq: ~1800

Someone do the math. :)

[Caid Ivik]

I think you cannot talk about "terrorists" as some specific group. But if we are to define this as "war" and also define an "enemy", then definition (and strategy following) cannot be based on terms of classic warfare. Usually conflicts are caused by natural will to spread (sometimes perversely called "will to survive") or as a test between two competents, exactly like the pagan divine court. Postmodern warfare is based on propagation of ideas. Our Enemy fights to propagate himself, terror brought trough media is a perfect weapon, affecting perception of his targets. In classic warfare (used by whom we may call Allies), its damage is civilians' fear before terror, like in WW2. But here are no civilians, we all participate by percepting the extreme calling of Enemy. When a guy blows a train and then makes a web, he is telling us something. Material avatar of the war is only making us aware of his ideas. Motive of the Enemy is fade (setting of sharia, independence or whatever), I would say only on ideal level, but it is enough to invent a call. Allies must find in base of their culture also such motive (ie democracy, prosperity etc), and not create a new motive (ie security), which would not fit it. Then they would be doing the same as Enemy, thus becoming a third faction against those, who understand democracy.

Bush started to counter this by propagating his own idea of "fightning the enemy", by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. He has my support as I take him as an Ally, but I still think he misses this point. Propagation of "anti-Enemy" is a weak weapon.

Europe is not leaving the war, as I said all who are affected by media are participating on it. It only seems to be changing strategy. However, leaving material (military) alliance with USA in Iraq is a call of support for the Enemy, let they want it or not.

[ps501]

An attack in American is all but certain.

[TMA_1]

I have heard a few people use the term "Hate-speak", no joke. Kinda similar to "newspeak"? lol  I Mean that is a stretch, but still sheesh.

We as americans have a right to speak hatred to other groups. We are free to be ignorant and stupid, just as we are free to deeply delve into evil ideas intelligently. I think that the taking away of freedoms could eventually distort western culture. It wont be quick mind you, but if this kind of politically correct crap continues it will mold itself into our way of life completely.

[nemafakei]

"(Anything with a mathmatical probability greater than zero will eventually occur)"

True for constant probabilities, but if the probability decreases over time, then it may not, in fact, occur.

e.g. if a probability is 1/4 on the fisrst attempt, 1/(2^(n+1)) on the nth, then as n tends to infinity, the total probability tends to 1/2.

To clarify, the laws which may be proposed might, for example, be an extension of current law. At the moment, it's illegal to "Incite racial hatred". What it means in court is that if you tell someone you hate norwegians and you think they're scum, that's fine. You can advertise your feelings (although if you're too abusive you might possibly be prosecuted with vulgarity laws). But you can't tell people to attack others on racial grounds. Now, what was being debated about six months ago was trying to extend that to religious hatred as well. Defining a religion has become a bit of a problem, and a stcking point.

[ordos45]

Not a trillion dollars...just 1/3 of it roughly...

[Edric O]

USA has lost its' freedoms. Isn't that what the terrorists want?

No, it ISN'T. This war (if you can call it that) isn't about America or Europe, it's about the Middle East. What terrorists want is the following:

1. The withdrawal of all American and European troops, but also civilians, companies, etc. from the Middle East.

2. The overthrow of all secular governments in the Middle East.

3. The replacement of those governments with Islamic theocracies.

#1 may be reasonable. #2 could be justifiable. #3, on the other hand, is unacceptable. In any case, you need to let go of the misguided notion that terrorists have some sort of personal grudge against westerners. They don't. Westerners are just standing in their way.

[Khan]

Well since the underground bombings here there have been many Muslims stating that they want to see Sharia(sp?) Law introduced in Britain.

[Edric O]

Which one? You might not know this, but there is no single "Sharia Law". There are many different (and mutually exclusive) Sharia Law codes - ranging from the most draconian (e.g. stoning people for adultery) to the most permissive (e.g. allowing "temporary marriage" and divorce).

[nemafakei]

"terrorists have some sort of personal grudge against westerners. They don't. Westerners are just standing in their way."

Careful, Edric. What's closer to the truth is that the heads of the organisers are the ones who want the theocracies and the power. Many of their recruits, however, do begin to hate (which may well be encouraged by the organisers), holding a grudge for the West's economic behaviour, seeing its laws as too liberal, and its military operations as a war on Islam.

[exatreide]

The middle east already has a theocracy, why can't all the islamic fundamentalists just pick up their things and move there?

[Edric O]

"terrorists have some sort of personal grudge against westerners. They don't. Westerners are just standing in their way."

Careful, Edric. What's closer to the truth is that the heads of the organisers are the ones who want the theocracies and the power. Many of their recruits, however, do begin to hate (which may well be encouraged by the organisers), holding a grudge for the West's economic behaviour, seeing its laws as too liberal, and its military operations as a war on Islam.

That is correct. But when people talk about "what the terrorists want", I assume they mean the leaders and coordinators, not the rank-and-file suicide bombers.

[Edric O]

The middle east already has a theocracy, why can't all the islamic fundamentalists just pick up their things and move there?

Because they're on a holy mission to cleanse the Middle East of "infidels", "apostates", "traitors", and anyone who does not share their vision of Islam. They want to "liberate" all Muslims from "ungodly" secular governments.

[Khan]

Which one? You might not know this, but there is no single "Sharia Law". There are many different (and mutually exclusive) Sharia Law codes - ranging from the most draconian (e.g. stoning people for adultery) to the most permissive (e.g. allowing "temporary marriage" and divorce).

Oh I didn't know that but I was just trying to make the point that some Muslims wants the whole world to be under muslim control.

[exatreide]

Because they're on a holy mission to cleanse the Middle East of "infidels", "apostates", "traitors", and anyone who does not share their vision of Islam. They want to "liberate" all Muslims from "ungodly" secular governments.

Eh, In my opinion, Muslims are going through their "lets use our religion as a excuse to launch military campains around the world." Like...a certain other religous group around the 12 and 13th century..

Christanity was founded some 2000 years ago, used it roughly 12 hundred years after founding as a excuse for war..

Muslims had theirs founded some 7 hundred years after christanity..

700 A:D

+

1200

=

1900 A:D, give or take a hundred or so years for my math's sake and there you go...

[Caid Ivik]

No ex, as crusades were not a task of whole christianity, same cannot we say about islam. It has nothing with development of religion, altough some people trying to simplify the problem are persuading us so.

[TMA_1]

I am not trying to sound bigoted, but many fundimentalist muslims wish to claim the whole of the world to God. Many muslim fundimentalists though are not going to openly say this all the time though. Instead they are going for a long term plan and goal. Of course not all muslims agree with this, and even Mohammed made prohabitions against attacking certain nations (like Ethiopia for example. After the King of Ethiopia helped Mohammed move some of his people to safety, he made a decree that no muslim could ever make any hostile moves towards the Ethiopian peoples. The King of Ethiopia at the time was a christian by the way, and felt that Muslims were kindred spirits of sorts.)

Not only this but I have read some translations of the Koran from the original Arabic. There is one verse specifically that seems to say (if I am incorrect in my interpritation please tell me)if a christian, jew or zeroastrian follows their scriptures with virtue and love that they have no need to fear hell. Not only this but in the Koran it even says that all people of the book are fellow brothers, just that christians, jews, zeroastrians, and followers of Mani dont have the full revealed scriptures. Heck peoples of the book could live free with muslims in muslim controlled territories. The Tax for christians and jews was added later.

Why cant we christians, jews, and muslims stop this fighting and band together to fight against the evils of this world in a peaceful way? Imagine billions united together.

[Dante]

I find that image much more appealing (and easier to believe) under a great big unifying force of newfound atheism.

[Caid Ivik]

That's like fightning cancer by suicide  ::)

[TMA_1]

I see that same image of a unified secular culture mixed with the glorious images from 1984, Dante. ;)

and its not like everybody would have to agree with the same doctrine, I dont believe Muslims have a divine call from God, in fact I dont believe the Koran was inspired by God. But we have something in common, more so than athiest secularists and peoples of differing faiths.

[Egeides]

Athiest secularists vs Islam?

Well from what I see it depends. On the doctrine some secularists might have the search for truth as an utmost principle, something which is not far from Christian ideals. It is about facing reality, whattever it might be (including "oups, I am not my own god as I would have initially preferred, and it is not anthropocentrist"). But this is not the case with every single atheist/secularist and a need to separate such a diverse group  coherently would be needed ("I don't care-ist" parts as others).

To put this back with the subject: It depends what you look as "in common": with/ vs without God vision, or otherwise such as freedom or other principles. As some kind of rally cry it might perhaps fit, but on the longer haul and on the fundamentals it might not at all since the word "God" was for some seemingly replaced by "Law" or "Essence" (ready to transfer back to a falsely new theology, perhaps). So I don't think rally cries keeping secularism astray are pertinent here. Except of course if it would ultimately unfold as an efficient rally cry of newfounded theocratic tendencies, Christian and Muslim ::)

[Anathema]

The middle east already has a theocracy, why can't all the islamic fundamentalists just pick up their things and move there?

Because the only muslim theocracy there is is Iran, wich is of the shiite branch of islam. Al-quada and affiliated groups are sunnis, and view shiites as heretics and little better then unbelievers.

Personally it's not terrorists in Afghanistan or Iraq that bother me most of all- I'm more worried about muslim extremists down here. Anyone who heard the story of Van Gogh being shot dead knows what I'm talking about. Muslims that live in our very own countries and bite the hand that feeds them- societies that take them in and offer them work, education and healthcare. Those ingrates are IMO even worse then the 9/11 attackers- at least those were all foreigners to the US and never owed them anything.

[Caid Ivik]

Hm, those terrorists, who were attacking targets in western world, are usually not sunnis, nor born muslims. Not even any Filistine or Arab. Few guys want to express their new thoughts and know not how to behave.

[TMA_1]

the palistinians are not philistines... not sure if that is what you are saying, but if it is I just wanted to correct it. I cant stand the damn palistinians saying that they are philistines, they have absolutely no relation to them! damn the philistines either mixed with other peoples or died out. They are a dead branch of the ancient greek invasions.