Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

So you propose we do nothing! While al-qaeda, iran and their russian backers slowly marshall their forces for new devastating attacks against the US, probably including WMD attacks. Instead we should launch full scale war in order to confront this threat to our existence before it is in a position to strike.

God help us. Just listen to yourself for a second: "We have enemies with WMDs! We must immediately launch a first strike!"

Douglas MacArthur would agree, I'm sure, but with all due respect, if anyone in our government since 1950 had subscribed to these views, we would all be dead.

Add Sun Tzu's The Art of War to your reading list. The greatest level of skill in war is to defeat your enemy without even fighting a battle. Skirmishes aside, we did that in the Cold War, which was a greater existential threat than these bozos. What humans have done, humans can aspire to.

As for "doing nothing", neither I nor anyone else on this board said that. You didn't ask what *I* thought we should do. Are you interested? Or would you rather wallow in indignation?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Hey, My views aren't something I just found... I've found sites such as belmont club, windsofchange and jihadwatch among others...

I've read them all, and still check them on an occassional basis. I fear you've fallen under bad influences, my friend.

I am well aware of the existence of an entire subculture that has convinced itself of the need for extreme measures. I posit that groupthink is not limited by the size of the group, nor is groupthink justified by the size of its group. For instance, take the 'consensus' that Kyoto is the proper response to global warming; I do believe the evidence for G.W. is correct, but Kyoto is the worst kind of nonsense. Yet there is a huge groupthink mind out there that simply accepts Kyoto as the next thing to Holy Writ.

I could point out that the Iranian President is not the head of the Iranian government, and that he is coming under increasing criticism from the ayatollahs for the extreme position of his foreign policy and the lunacy of his sect. I could point out that Russia hates al-Qaeda every much as we do, for al-Q supports the Chechen rebels that have launched terror attacks into Moscow itself. I could point out that Russia is merely selling parts to Iran, which is a long way from advocating first strike attacks, and that they stopped defending Iran in the Security Council.

But I'm beginning to doubt that you're going to listen to rational arguments. Please convince me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Damn those internets....and where's Justin '77 with his usual pithy remarks in these cases anyway?

Mad-busy. And it's "Inter Nets".
Try to keep the sarcastic capitalization straight...

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

So you propose we do nothing! While al-qaeda, iran and their russian backers slowly marshall their forces for new devastating attacks against the US, probably including WMD attacks.

-chortle-

I mean I can understand the whole Iran/al-Q'aeda mixup. After all, those sand ni--ers do all look the same, right? But how, exactly, did the Commie- um, I mean, "russians" <wink, nudge> get pulled into the whole thing? I'd ask for citations, but my head already hurts...

Is this what passes for following foreign affairs these days? How long was I out for?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

However, in our case the threat posed by the mideast is not just al-qaeda or even that of islamism. No, as once acquires more evidence it becomes increasingly clear that islam itself is the problem. For far to long our policy has been based on the notion of winning hearts and minds with the implied knowledge that if muslims understood our peaceful intent they would be peaceful toward us.

However this is no longer possible; 9/11 was essentially the muslims declaring that they have nothing but contempt for america, and especially the sight of americans peacefully trading with them. Therefore the provervial carrot not only would not bring peace but would incite greater hostility from (now emboldened) muslims.

The solution is instead of a carrot, wield and use the stick. This strategy is simple: First announce that we regard the islamic state as enemies and cite islamic terroristic activities as provacations we have endured for far too long. Our war strategy should be a three-phase plan. Phase one should begin with mass carpet bombing strikes on muslims targets. This should include nuclear strikes on major muslim cities and military-strategic targets, with "dresden" carpet bombs conventional strikes on smaller and medium sized muslim population centers. The final part of phase one involves a full scale invasion of north africa and the middle east, iran should also be invaded but not entirely occupied. The mideast, north africa, and the western and southwestern parts of iran should be occupied, once the conquest is complete the occupied zone should be divided into generalkommissariats.

The second phase should primarily be the implementation of the administrative mission of the generalcommisariats; the forcible elimination islam and all vestiges of islamic "culture" even if it means the complete destruction of the entire population of certain regions. It may seem odd that the plan includes not yet occupiying all of iran. The reason is simple, when the now weakened iran sends agents and militants into the US controlled zones we can announce a reprisal policy; for each soldier we lose 5000 muslims will be executed for each soldier wounded 2500 muslims will be executed. As you can see the likely iranian actions would give us the legitimate right to complete our war aims.

The final phase of the plan would be the resumption of the conquest of iran and any major islamic regions not yet occupied as per phase one. In such regions the occupation policies mentioned earlier would be implemented and carried out.

I know that this policy in a moral light would be considered reprehenisble. However when confronted with genocidal enemies, I would rather have them suffer such a fate rather than us.

You moron, if you think AQ represents the emtire Islamic world you are seriosuly deluded. I rember reading that right after 9/11 there were huge demonstrations throughout the Islamic world showing support for the US and disdain for AQ (one of the largest was in IRAN of all places IIRC).

You seriously need mental help.

Originally Posted by Odin

You moron, if you think AQ represents the emtire Islamic world you are seriosuly deluded. I rember reading that right after 9/11 there were huge demonstrations throughout the Islamic world showing support for the US and disdain for AQ (one of the largest was in IRAN of all places IIRC).

You seriously need mental help.

Okay, let's not get personal, just because you think his views are off the wall.

I do hope that the moderates in the muslim world are successful in reigning in the salafists and hojatiehs extremists. However remember that in 1930's germany only a hardcore group were the true nazis, the majority of the german people still them not due to ideological kinship but because hitler promised them bread, jobs and a strong nation. Hitler still was able to mobilize the germans into a totalitarian state, which led to the most devastating war in history. Is it unreasonable to expect that left unchecked, islamists will grow stronger, and through a combination of terror, duplicity, propaganda, and promises of a new muslim golden age, that they would co-opt the moderates into becoming extremists like what happened in germany in the 1930's.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

... But I'm beginning to doubt that you're going to listen to rational arguments.

I believe that qualifies as a given, but continue-on.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

... Please convince me otherwise.

Ah, hope springs eternal. I, among many, took the same tack with HC ... for a long time. We were unsuccessful. Perhaps you can break the mold.

The Problem is unlike the soviets and the chinese who could be deterred. The islamists would not be deterred from attacking the west with WMD, by the threat of retaliation. Instead they would welcome retaliation because that would mean they now get to go to heaven. For example if the islamists had to choose between controlling a unified caliphate or killing americans and other westerners, they would choose to kill the westerners. Much like when hitler was confronted with the choice of continuing to kill jews or to divert resources to salvaging his empire, he chose to continue killing the jews.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I do hope that the moderates in the muslim world are successful in reigning in the salafists and hojatiehs extremists. However remember that in 1930's germany only a hardcore group were the true nazis, the majority of the german people still them not due to ideological kinship but because hitler promised them bread, jobs and a strong nation. Hitler still was able to mobilize the germans into a totalitarian state, which led to the most devastating war in history. Is it unreasonable to expect that left unchecked, islamists will grow stronger, and through a combination of terror, duplicity, propaganda, and promises of a new muslim golden age, that they would co-opt the moderates into becoming extremists like what happened in germany in the 1930's.

That's actually a good point and I don't doubt that somewhere, these moderates will be complacent in some form of genocide.

But how do we claim the moral high ground just by nuking everyone without any provocation? I can't justify that. Killing innocents should be avoided at nearly any cost. I have no doubt that when it comes down to it we will be throwing our nukes around, but to strike potential enemies instead of real ones? That's a few steps too far at this point.

While the muslims might be deterred by india or china threatening nukes, they would not be deterred by america because the islamics aquired the view that americans are decadent pacifists. They've become used to americans merely fighting insurgent combatants and therefore devising tactics such as hiding among civilians and mosques. The solution is to make ourselves feared by showing them the consequences. Destroy the mosques, slaughter the muslim folk who harbor killers and extremists. When our soldiers appear in a muslim town the ideal situation would be that the townspeople instead of rushing to show false affection, would desert or flee into the cellars at our the very sight of our troops with the knowledge that they would be shot down on sight by our soldiers like the vermin the muslims are.

If a total war should break out, our goal should not be the arrival at a line after which we declare a cease-fire. Nor should our goal merely be the destruction of the enemy regimes, instead it should be the annihilation of all homo sapiens within those regions. However I do allow one way out for the muslims: Mercy can be shown to them if the disavow the death cult of islam and pass laws making the worship of islam punishable by death. Then and only if such realization comes among the muslims should any muslim be spared.

The american people should shout with one voice: We will not permit barbarism to continue to exist among our midst. The we will vow with one voice that we will crush this evil. Our soldiers must be steeled with the knowledge that killing an islamic is no worse than killing a rat or a cockroach. Those camel herding barbarians who spawned this wave of tyranny and fear should never be allowed to threaten civilization ever again.

the [Hun] ... have nothing but contempt for america, and especially the sight of americans peacefully trading with them.

The [Hun] would ... welcome retaliation because that would mean they now get to go to heaven

if the [Hun] had to choose between controlling a unified caliphate or killing americans and other westerners, they would choose to kill the westerners

[the Hun] would not be deterred by america because the [Hun] aquired the view that americans are decadent pacifists

You sure do know the Hun well. I must assume from your postings that you must have been to Mecca during Hajj at least a half-dozen times, must have travelled extensively from the Horn through the Hindu Kush out to the Straights of Malacca, and must be fluent in at least the seven languages that among themselves make up the bulk of the muslim world.

Or, I wonder, are you just a guy who's not even seen all three bodies of water that bound his own country, and couldn't even name those seven languages?

I understand that in school you were taught that everyone has a right to his own opinion about everything; it's true, as far as that goes. But you've got to realize that an adult -- which is what you almost are, if we trust your handle to be birth year -- tends to restrict his discourses to those opinions of his on which he is at least somewhat informed. Otherwise you're at best just hooting and tossing feces.

I'll allow myself two more asides on the crap-smeared walls of your enclosure:

First, please reconcile the two sentences that you yourself placed adjacent to each other.

Our soldiers must be steeled with the knowledge that killing an islamic is no worse than killing a rat or a cockroach

and

We will not permit barbarism to continue to exist among our midst.

Please note that magic thinking wherein any actions that your tribe takes are inherently a-barbaric is not really permitted in civilized discourse.

And then, because even I can't resist:

The problem is that the lunatics have the greatest concentration in those positions that matter the most: the political and religious establishments. These elements openly clamor for world war...

You're totally right on here...

oh wait; you probably were only talking about the other guys, weren't you.

-sigh-
You, and people like you, are the future of America, and the product of her people's efforts.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Ah, hope springs eternal. I, among many, took the same tack with HC ... for a long time. We were unsuccessful. Perhaps you can break the mold.

After recent sessions with JustPassingThrough and Zilch, I hope no one minds if I sit the rest of this one out?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

... Ah, hope springs eternal. I, among many, took the same tack with HC ... for a long time. We were unsuccessful. Perhaps you can break the mold.

After recent sessions with JustPassingThrough and Zilch, I hope no one minds if I sit the rest of this one out?

Pass the popcorn.

I find it ironic that Mr.Hero is bashing Muslims as barbarians when when is calling for genocide...

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Okay, let's not get personal, just because you think his views are off the wall.

Well, what are we supposed to think of this guy? Either he really believes this stuff he's posting, or he doesn't.

If he doesn't believe it, and he's just posting over-the-top comments to get a reaction out of people, it's a waste of time and energy to attempt to have a serious conversation with him. The "Ignore" setting would probably be in order.

If he does believe it, he's revealing a huge lack of understanding of what the Muslim world is all about, coupled with an irrational hatred of what he doesn't comprehend. He shows little, if any, inclination to take the advice of others here and educate himself about the history of Islam. His proposals for genocide are heinous. Let's call it what it is and stop worrying about maybe hurting his feelings, because if he genuinely believes this stuff, we have a huge problem.

So as to give pause to the Jacksonian fevers on this topic and in an attempt to meet the hard and soft Hamiltonians and Wilsonians on a ground more agreeable I offer:



Iraq: Containment as “Plan B”

Originally Posted by Mr. Srdja Trifkovic

Mr. Bush’s similar failure to treat Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds not as allies or enemies, but as simple players, is baffling. The challenge is admittedly formidable, but Mr. Bush and his team still have an opportunity to limit the damage of their initial blunder by embracing and developing containment as Plan B. It is a matter of concern that so far they have been unable or unwilling to tackle the problem of Iraq by indulging in some old-fashioned divide et impera. That it may be eventually tackled by the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama is neither comforting, nor easily avoidable.

I would also renounce non-interventionism (often styled as isolationism by the Progressives) as a way of coming together if Mr. Trifkovic's application of the ideas of Mr. Geo. Kennan were to be applied to the containment of Eurasia, the Antipodes, the Lower Americas, and Africa. If those (and perhaps the Great White North as well) were all enveloped by Our Commercial Republic's numerous powers and allowed their internal struggles while keeping their ambitions from expanding outside the boundaries of Eurasia-the Antipodes-the Lower Americas-Africa-(GWN?) by a policy of containment I would join, in the spirit of moderation and compromise and working together for the common good that the Coming Crisis requires, the interventionist still reachable by reason in such an extensive program of containment.

It is an expansion of what won the Cold War and what is recommended for the Irakis by the fellow at Chronicles. But, it is time to think big in foreign policy and is this not quite large an enterprise? Will the T4T's saner interventionists join me in this program? Will you abandon meddling even as I give up my non-interventionism? I have made my move to the center; will you meet me there?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Iraq: Containment as “Plan B”

I would also renounce non-interventionism (often styled as isolationism by the Progressives) as a way of coming together if Mr. Trifkovic's application of the ideas of Mr. Geo. Kennan were to be applied to the containment of Eurasia, the Antipodes, the Lower Americas, and Africa. If those (and perhaps the Great White North as well) were all enveloped by Our Commercial Republic's numerous powers and allowed their internal struggles while keeping their ambitions from expanding outside the boundaries of Eurasia-the Antipodes-the Lower Americas-Africa-(GWN?) by a policy of containment I would join, in the spirit of moderation and compromise and working together for the common good that the Coming Crisis requires, the interventionist still reachable by reason in such an extensive program of containment.

It is an expansion of what won the Cold War and what is recommended for the Irakis by the fellow at Chronicles. But, it is time to think big in foreign policy and is this not quite large an enterprise? Will the T4T's saner interventionists join me in this program? Will you abandon meddling even as I give up my non-interventionism? I have made my move to the center; will you meet me there?

I'm not at all sure of what your are trying to contain. The definition I found for 'Antipodes' suggests you want to contain Australia and New Zealand. Is New Zealand's lamb export threatening your profits from slaughtering Bovine Americans?

I quoted the original Washington Post article referred to by Chronicles, as well as an earlier one by US News and World Report that listed five basic options for Iraq: Withdrawal, Containment, Strongman, Partition, and Invasion of Iran. I see some combination of the above as likely with regard to Iraq. So long as Kurdistan doesn't become an active threat to Turkey and Iran, let it continue to be self governing and self securing. Maliki and the rest of Iraq's central government don't feel solid and in control. Whatever comes next is apt to be more authoritarian, whether the US tries to help choose the strongman or not. We aren't going to maintain the current troop levels forever. We can't. I also don't see us sitting back and doing nothing should a militant regime of any sort in Iraq become a threat to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the flow of oil from those and similar places.

But there are several forms of containment that have been suggested. One lines up 80,000 troops on Iraq's borders with Iran and Syria. It proposes we let the Civil War rage unchecked, allow genocide and ethnic cleansing, but keep Iran and Syria from stepping in. This might be called a forward containment. Then there is a more defensive containment, where the deployment would be in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Jordan, to prevent a militant Shiite regime which might plausibly develop from an Iran supported Iraq from making trouble in neighboring Sunni lands.

But containment has worked fine against tank divisions, is problematic against insurgency. Can one really block the flow of insurgents and small arms across the borders?

I will also disagree firmly with two of Chronicle's assumptions, that Plan B "should require the deployment of troops and treasure at or near their current level." We need a significant reduction in force deployed or a significant increase in the size of our armed forces. We are currently working at a burn out level.

There also was a significant change in tactics, from firefighting, from rushing troops to the current trouble spot, then retreating to bases, to a tactic of moving into neighborhoods and staying there. This is a significant shift from Rumsfeld's preference for high tech 3GW tactics to counterinsurgency. They moved from killing insurgents -- and most factions in Iraq have insurgent forces -- to defending neighborhoods -- and most factions in Iraq have neighborhoods they might wish to defend. This shift has come much too late, but one shouldn't pretend it isn't important or totally ignore early signs of limited success. I remain dubious about long term success, but Chronicle's assertion that there has been no change of tactics is simply false. They are either lying or aren't really following what is going on.

Shifting from Iraq specifically to the world in general, yes, there is a need for a big picture approach to what we should be attempting to do. There is definitely a place for containment in the mix. However, you seem to be speaking of the entire Third World. There isn't one policy that I would apply uniformly to North Korea, Darfur and New Zealand. We are going have to treat individual nations as individual nations, and respond to them according to their policies and actions.

So long as we have anywhere near the current level of forces committed to Iraq, we are not going to be doing much in the way of military intervention. We are going to be isolationist in the short term whether we want to be or not. Sure, I will do containment where necessary, but we haven't go the forces to spare to contain New Zealand.

In the meantime, if there is anything we can do to gently encourage peace, prosperity and human rights, I'm all for it, though not via preemptive unilateral invasion. I'll be watching for warlord government generating anarchy. I still find genocide, ethnic cleansing, massed rapes and political famines distasteful. I'd as soon discourage such things. Still, even there, while we are heavily committed in Iraq, we can't intervene to speak of elsewhere. If Chronicle's objective of maintaining troops at current levels near Iraq is taken seriously, we have to give up on Africa, South America, the Antipodes and elsewhere. This does not feel entirely satisfactory.

Anyway, sure, let's talk containment. What nations or what style of insurgency, philosophy or government do you believe needs to be contained? What criteria would you suggest we apply before doing what to contain whom?

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

If he does believe it, he's revealing a huge lack of understanding of what the Muslim world is all about, coupled with an irrational hatred of what he doesn't comprehend. He shows little, if any, inclination to take the advice of others here and educate himself about the history of Islam. His proposals for genocide are heinous. Let's call it what it is and stop worrying about maybe hurting his feelings, because if he genuinely believes this stuff, we have a huge problem.

I'm not worried about his feelings. Just his soul. He seems to be desperately trying to sell it for a mess of pottage.

My sole hope is that he's ignorant (which can be cured by education) rather than stupid. Ignorant people can make themselves stupid by refusing further education. As he stands, "Cynic Hero" has stared so hard into the face of the enemy that he resembles it. I assure you al-Qaeda makes identical arguments that...

Our soldiers must be steeled with the knowledge that killing [a Westerner] is no worse than killing a rat or a cockroach

and that

We will not permit barbarism [defined as acting Western, or even insufficiently devoted to the Cause] to continue to exist among our midst.

Thankfully, I think there are very few people who subscribe to his views. Enough nations have walked that path; I feel no need for us to follow them. There are better ways to win this war.

Note that Cynic doesn't propose any tools to help the moderates of Islam, only death as the punishment for insufficient effort. Helping the moderates was, buried somewhere in all the neocon BS, a goal of our military adventures. We need to reconnect with it, for it is assuredly a component of our eventual victory.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Ah, hope springs eternal.

I'd hate to be in a place where it didn't. I have to give him a chance to learn from his mistakes...

As for Mr. Saari's suggestion of containment, I'd be for it if I thought it capable of implementation. Alas, five thousand years of attempts have failed to close the passes of the Zagros, and I hold even less hope for sealing hundreds of miles of desert "frontier". A better hope would be to get the oil money flowing in an equitable manner, so as to assure the Sunnis of their continued economic safety, then attempting to separate the parties by reducing their incentives to continue feuding. That will, alas, be a work-in-progress requiring a substantial presence for many years... say at the 80k troop level.

A recent suggestion that I approve of is removing the current economic incentives for the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. When a Sunni family is given its "eviction notice" by a Shi'ite militia, they are ordered to leave all their furniture (including electronics) behind. The Shi'ite family that moves in thus bounces from the lower to the middle class (in terms of chattels) overnight. The simple expedient of removing such chattel wealth would make this process much less enticing.

Whatever we choose to do must be made commisserate with our ability to deploy. We cannot continue to call up Reserves and National Guard; we need them here. We cannot continue to deploy practically every spare unit we have, and we cannot continue to fail in nearly every department of logistics, supply, training, and medical care (which are all going downhill).

We need to rebuild our support infrastructure (a process finally initiated by the Walter Reed scandal), to train new units, and to rethink our strategy. We need to either expand our armed forces or reduce our commitments. In short, we need a breather. I do not think it out of the realm of possibility that the draft will restart before this is over... but the current president can't call it; he has negative moral authority at this point.

Originally Posted by Odin

I find it ironic that Mr.Hero is bashing Muslims as barbarians when when is calling for genocide...

I my opinion such a strategy would bring peace even if it only partially implemented. Remember the islamic mindset respects the idea of troops killing civilians, they do not think like the rest of us.. If one encountered a typical saudi cleric the clerics first reaction would be to advocate your death. However if one confronts him and lined up his children to the wall and killed them, the cleric would find you worthy of right of coexistence, for you would have demonstrated your determination to use any means to protect your existence. For example, if we had nuked afghanistan after 9/11 "wiped it off the map" then invaded iraq using carpet bombing of baghdad, basra and mosul with our ground forces using einsatzgruppen-style tactics against the population there: iran would not be belligerent right now, instead they would of halted their nuclear program, and even offer to reestablish diplomatic relations for fear that we would turn on them next.

Also on another note when muslims recount the history of the mongol invasions, despite the fact that the khans were responsible for the deaths of millions of muslims and the decimation of much of islamic culture. The historians there do have somewhat of a respect for the mongol hordes.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I my opinion such a strategy would bring peace even if it only partially implemented. Remember the islamic mindset respects the idea of troops killing civilians, they do not think like the rest of us.. If one encountered a typical saudi cleric the clerics first reaction would be to advocate your death. However if one confronts him and lined up his children to the wall and killed them, the cleric would find you worthy of right of coexistence, for you would have demonstrated your determination to use any means to protect your existence. For example, if we had nuked afghanistan after 9/11 "wiped it off the map" then invaded iraq using carpet bombing of baghdad, basra and mosul with our ground forces using einsatzgruppen-style tactics against the population there: iran would not be belligerent right now, instead they would of halted their nuclear program, and even offer to reestablish diplomatic relations for fear that we would turn on them next.

You can't be serious.

Where do you get your information about the "Islamic mindset?" Can you safely assume that the average Wahabist has the same mindset as the average Iranian, or the average Chechen, or the average Indonesian? Do you understand that there are many different cultures within the Islamic world? That there are fully-integrated Muslims in the United States who embrace capitalism, democracy, and religious pluralism? I see these people on almost a daily basis in my work. They are most certainly not as you describe them.

Please take some time to learn more about this world before you go off like this.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

I my opinion such a strategy would bring peace even if it only partially implemented.

Your opinion is ignorant and ludicrous. The traditional response to genocide is not a suit for peace but a blood feud. The Middle East is not unique in this; all hardscrabble tribal cultures conduct blood feuds. (Including the Scottish one I'm descended from.) All such a method as genocide achieves is a temporary peace of the gun. It's permanent only if you conduct it to the bitter end, and the last such was the eliminations of the Assassins by the Mongols. This strategy was attempted during the Crusades; it worked for a time, but in the end Saladin kicked their asses. Likewise, if cleansing were an appropriate means to diplomatic respect, Chechnya and Afghanistan would be paragons of peace by now.

Besides which, the West will never again jump into genocide in such a gleeful mode as you advocate. I can see a very few scenarios where we, with a heavy heart, decide to wipe out a fellow civilization. We will never, ever do so easily. And we will never do it to completion.

...with our ground forces using einsatzgruppen-style tactics against the population there...

I note for the record that you are now openly calling for not just genocide, but Nazi tactics. In other words, you have ideologically aligned yourself with one of America's greatest enemies.

Originally Posted by Bugs Bunny

Of course, you realise, this means WAR.

Ignorance is excusable but arrogant ignorance is not. You don't know what you're talking about. Go read some real history and make something more of yourself than a good little fascist drone that has taken up its programming well. Start learning for yourself instead of taking up lines that have been fed to you. Otherwise, go away, you silly neo-Nazi knigget, or I will taunt you again.

If anyone is aligned with nazis it is the muslims. You should familiarize yourself with israeli hosted sites as well as other informative sources that explore this relate to this very detail. These connections go back to ali husseini who helped hitler kill jews during WW2. Later the ideology of husseini was taken up by such leaders as Arafat, and now bin laden and ahmadinejad. The islamists are the pupils of hitler, they seek to bring a dark age similar to what had previously envisioned by hitler. Only extreme measures can bring and end to this scourge.

www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi.html

www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

http://www.jtf.org/america/america.m...ed.cartoon.htm

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Otherwise, go away, you silly neo-Nazi knigget, or I will taunt you again.

Meanie. You could also threaten to dip her pony tail in a bottle of ink.

Well, I've seen enough.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

If anyone is aligned with nazis it is the muslims. You should familiarize yourself with israeli hosted sites as well as other informative sources that explore this relate to this very detail. These connections go back to ali husseini who helped hitler kill jews during WW2. Later the ideology of husseini was taken up by such leaders as Arafat, and now bin laden and ahmadinejad. The islamists are the pupils of hitler, they seek to bring a dark age similar to what had previously envisioned by hitler. Only extreme measures can bring and end to this scourge.

www.themiddleeastnow.com/musnazi.html

www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

www.jtf.org/america/america.muslims.riot.over.mohammed.cartoon.htm

Whoa! Those are pretty extreme web sites. I butt heads with my family over Israel quite frequently (I am more pro-Israeli and more skeptical about the prospects for peace than them), but the cartoonlike portraits of other groups (including Blacks) portrayed on these sites is horrifying.

Anyway, during WW II, we did not eradicate the Germans and the Japanese, like you advocate doing to Muslims.