"Why Do You Focus On The Fanatics?"

bhkad · 07-11-07, 07:11 PM

"Why Do You Focus On The Fanatics?"

I'm sometimes asked why I focus so much on the Jihadist fanatics and spend relatively less time talking about the peaceful Muslims. To me the answer would seem to be obvious. But apparently it isn't. So when I ran across this, I thought it would help answer that question.

Quote:

"Why Do You Focus On The Fanatics?"

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.

Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march.
It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide.
It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave.
It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill.
It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.
It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals.
The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" the "silent majority" is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population, it was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace-loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts...the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on!! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on.

Billo_Really · 07-11-07, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bhkad
"Why Do You Focus On The Fanatics?"

I'm sometimes asked why I focus so much on the Jihadist fanatics and spend relatively less time talking about the peaceful Muslims. To me the answer would seem to be obvious. But apparently it isn't. So when I ran across this, I thought it would help answer that question.

That's not what I ask! I wonder how come you blame everyone but yourself for the situation your in? You never seem to look at the role you play in enabling terrorism. Blaming extremists does have merit. But you fall far short of a rational analysis if you're not willing to look at all the factors that inter-relate to the point of generating that much hatred in someone. It takes a lot of hate to be willing to give up your own life just to "stick it" to someone else.

I find it very convenient for you to talk about the extremists in Islam but stay silent on our own US terrorist group, "The PNAC". The PNAC is our al Qaeda. I wish every f.u.c.k.i.n.g member of that organization was behind bars facing crimes against humanity charges. But they won't. You know why? The answer is in that article you posted...

Quote:

"Very few American's were true Neocons...but many enjoyed the return of American pride, and many more were too busy to care. [most]... thought the Neocons were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, [Bush, Cheney, WTO] owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. [we had lost our country to multi-national corporations not even based in the US]"

So what you're doing is distracting people from the real fight. Which is to be a more well-informed republic and vote these god-damn incumbants out of office. And keep voting them out until we get our representation back!

Gladiator · 07-12-07, 12:28 AM

PNAC = Project for the New American Century
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

.

DivineComedy · 07-12-07, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

That's not what I ask! I wonder how come you blame everyone but yourself for the situation your in? You never seem to look at the role you play in enabling terrorism.

Please, Very Liberal, help me out, I don’t always watch Meet the Press, or get to read Big fancy newspapers (my liberal fish wrapper is thinner on Sunday than most big city editorial sections), so if you have a direct quote from a PNAC that says anything like this:

“Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski) {bold emphasis mine}
Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com Terrorized by 'War on Terror' - washingtonpost.com

Or find me something like this:

“Howard Dean has said that Hamas’ soldiers—no one has ever called Hamas soldiers before. Howard Dean has said we don’t take sides in the Middle East. We took sides in 1948. Israel’s our ally. We always knew that. We can’t have a president who is conducting American foreign policy by press release clarification, and we’re certainly not going to beat George Bush that way.” (John Kerry Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 11, 2004)

My signature line is not there simply because I believe Great Walls fail to stop barbarians, or just to illustrate our divisions and how the “liberal” Islamic enemy will view them, it is there because of potential domestic terrorists, right wing or left wing. Like the right winger I was debating in a Waco topic prior to 9/11, where I was defending Janet Reno. He implied it was ok to go “Bang” if ALL Gore had won the election. In debate on that topic with a liberal non-violent woman, that considered the Bush election a coup d'état, that later supported Kucinich, I said this:

Quote:

Could the same be said about the far-left radicals “pushing propaganda in an alarming way?”
I believe there is an invisible scale, which for this discussion I am calling (VISA) that sane people weigh their future violent actions on, which has many variables, the number and degree of those variables and to which side they are stacked, in favor or against violence, is an individual matter that can‘t be predicted by society.
Variable Invisible Scale of Aggression:
Non Violence*********0*********Violence
The problem is that the placement of the zero or fulcrum can vary depending on numerous factors: some of which are religious beliefs, mental health, cowardice, other obligations, and gullibility.
Rhetoricians must either have their facts straight, or tone down their rhetoric, or try and set some variables on that scale (VISA) that will prevent unjustified violence; Janie do you agree or disagree with this statement?

(posted July 12, 2001 03:32 PM)

Janie agreed 100% with that.

I also said this to a Libertarian:

“ I see it as plain as day, Flacal is walking down the street and happens to pass in front of an IRS office when, BANG! There goes Flacal’s head bouncing down the street, spinal column wrapped around a tree, and all because Flacal didn’t set proper guidelines for when violence is justified. Sorry, you were just collateral damage. Hopefully some drunken coroner won't stick your head on the body of some IRS agent.” (posted July 14, 2001 12:57 PM)

From a variation of that VISA analogy I have said many times, “ideas don’t need VISAS to cross borders.”

Since we all know that the laws of man are like a spiders web that catch the little bugs and let the big bugs go free, one of the ethical and moral variables we must have is a belief that terrorism is an enemy. You show me where a PNAC is lacking the moral variable, and they believe that terrorism is not an enemy but is “playing by the rules of warfare,” show were they preach it, give me a direct quote, and I will fear them and want them bent over for a search of their rectum for a salami bomb as much as any Al Quacka.

“How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen”
No Regrets: Carter, Brzezinski and the Muj

Something like that is not good enough by itself, that does not mean they supported terrorism, it only implies they supported terrorism. A Mujahideen (Jihadist) is not necessarily a terrorist like a black stone idolatrous Hamas that talks to rocks and trees is a terrorist whose official Organization has claimed responsibility for terrorist acts. {sentence contained extreme rhetoric, as I love to provoke black stone idolaters that may be listening} A thick skin is needed for extreme rhetoric, but such rhetoric is sometimes useful to flush out the Nazis (right or left).

“we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad”

Terrorism is an enemy to political and economic freedom here and abroad.

I started using the term “Al Quacka” in response to a professed “liberal” who said this about al Qaeda:

“If terrorists are so faceless as you say how is it we know and have known who they are? How is it they have told us and continue to tell us who they are - these people have faces and they are playing by the rules of warfare - attack, kill or terrorize the opposition.”

Give me a good quote from the “US terrorist group, ‘The PNAC,‘" that says anything like that.

Those on either side of the spectrum that believe that “terrorism is not an enemy” and terrorists are “playing by the rules of warfare” are a threat to the peace simply by what they preach, especially, when the right winger considers the election of Al Gore as sufficient reason for violence, and left winger believes the Bush election was a coup d'état.

I would like for us to find some common ground. So PLEASE, I am begging you, give me a good quote from the “US terrorist group, ‘The PNAC‘" that I can use against them.

Billo_Really · 07-12-07, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DivineComedy:
I would like for us to find some common ground. So PLEASE, I am begging you, give me a good quote from the “US terrorist group, ‘The PNAC‘" that I can use against them.

What is with this "quote fetish" you have? Why do you need a quote to turn on that light bulb and allow you to finally see how wrong it is to attack country's that did not attack you first. Is a quote going to get you to realize that a half-million people dead is not a good thing? Is a quote going to make you realize that you don't go to war over an issue this debatable? You go to war as a last resort. Because you have too. Because you have no other choice or recoarse to persue. Because you, yourself, are being attacked.

But that wasn't the reality of our situation. That wasn't the case. We CHOSE to go to war for the same reason a dog licks' its balls! Because we could. And no other group put forth this notion more than the PNAC.

Quote:

Statement of Principles

We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

And just what happens if other nations don't want to be led by America? I'll give you a hint, it's not what we co-authored 60 years ago with the Nuremberg Principles.

SgtRock · 07-13-07, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

What is with this "quote fetish" you have? Why do you need a quote to turn on that light bulb and allow you to finally see how wrong it is to attack country's that did not attack you first. Is a quote going to get you to realize that a half-million people dead is not a good thing? Is a quote going to make you realize that you don't go to war over an issue this debatable? You go to war as a last resort. Because you have too. Because you have no other choice or recoarse to persue. Because you, yourself, are being attacked.

But that wasn't the reality of our situation. That wasn't the case. We CHOSE to go to war for the same reason a dog licks' its balls! Because we could. And no other group put forth this notion more than the PNAC.
And just what happens if other nations don't want to be led by America? I'll give you a hint, it's not what we co-authored 60 years ago with the Nuremberg Principles.

Nurnberg not Nuremberg. Where in the OP was the Iraq war mentioned. I believe he was reffering to the war that was declared on the free world by Islamic extreamist.

You and people like you, the blame America crowd make me want to vomit. Everything is our fault. We made these fanatics hate us enough to want to blow themself up for Allah. We caused Hamas and Hizbollah to hate the jew. Its our fault the sunnis and shiites hate each other. And we are to blame for the Turks And the Kurds hating each other. These people have been hating for much longer than the United States has existed. American policy is not responsible for all the hate in the world. That is an excuse used by those that attemt to deflect blame from the extreamist.

Lets talk about your hate for neo-cons. Do you hate them enough to blow yourself up to take some of them out? Are you any different than the haters I listed above.

Iraq was a mistake, a huge mistake. However, we are not to blame for all the hatered in the world. Try some love B Lo. Hug a neo-con. ~Sgt Rock

Billo_Really · 07-13-07, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sgt. Rock;
Nurnberg not Nuremberg. Where in the OP was the Iraq war mentioned. I believe he was reffering to the war that was declared on the free world by Islamic extreamist.

You and people like you, the blame America crowd make me want to vomit. Everything is our fault. We made these fanatics hate us enough to want to blow themself up for Allah. We caused Hamas and Hizbollah to hate the jew. Its our fault the sunnis and shiites hate each other. And we are to blame for the Turks And the Kurds hating each other. These people have been hating for much longer than the United States has existed. American policy is not responsible for all the hate in the world. That is an excuse used by those that attemt to deflect blame from the extreamist.

Lets talk about your hate for neo-cons. Do you hate them enough to blow yourself up to take some of them out? Are you any different than the haters I listed above.

Iraq was a mistake, a huge mistake. However, we are not to blame for all the hatered in the world. Try some love B Lo. Hug a neo-con. ~Sgt Rock

Do you think it is possible for you to have a rational debate without all the emotional hyperbole? Go ahead and vomit. Like I give a s.h.i.t what you think. But I do know this, you responded to things I wasn't saying. You were arguing against points I wasn't making.

BTW, do you know how stupid your, "...hated us longer than we existed..." sounds? Why don't you check that kind of irrationality at the door before you log in. And while your at it, show me where I've "blamed America for everything". Of coarse, I'm going to blame us first. You clean your own house before you start criticizing others. Once that is done, we move on to the other factors in this "hate". Like the UBL's, al Qaeda's, etc. But first, you have to the responsible thing and look at how you caused the problem. You can't change anyone but yourself. So if you always look at everyone else, but yourself, are you really helping?

The neocon's have given me good reason to take issue with the destruction they have brought to this country. I didn't automatically hate them one day. I didn't know what a neocon was until a pattern started developing and I started debating these little bitchy White House cheerleaders. Their hate of everyone that isn't them is quite obvious. And no, I do not advocate breaking the law. So no, I would not be blowing myself up over them. The worst thing I wish for George Bush and Dick Cheney is un-employment.

Were not to blame for ALL the hatred, but you won't even look at the hatred we are responsible for. Do you consider yourself a responsible adult?

Oh, thanks for the Nuremburg correction.

rivrrat · 07-13-07, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

That's not what I ask! I wonder how come you blame everyone but yourself for the situation your in? You never seem to look at the role you play in enabling terrorism. Blaming extremists does have merit. But you fall far short of a rational analysis if you're not willing to look at all the factors that inter-relate to the point of generating that much hatred in someone. It takes a lot of hate to be willing to give up your own life just to "stick it" to someone else.

Actually, it takes very little hate at all. It just takes an unfailing belief that when you accomplish said goal (killing infidels and yourself in the process), you will receive the highest reward in the afterlife. That's all. It's not hate, it's pure and complete selfishness (along with delusion, of course).

DivineComedy · 07-13-07, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billo_Really

What is with this "quote fetish" you have?

I don’t even see the word “terrorism” or any implication that Terrorists are “playing by the rules of warfare” in your quotes of the PNAC, are you saying that supporting a leadership role for our Nation is proof of support for Terrorism?

Show me what I asked for:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-te...tml#post591237

Prove your unfounded allegations that “The PNAC is our al Qaeda”; Put up or shut up.

Billo_Really · 07-13-07, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DevineComedy:
I don’t even see the word “terrorism” or any implication that Terrorists are “playing by the rules of warfare” in your quotes of the PNAC, are you saying that supporting a leadership role for our Nation is proof of support for Terrorism?

Show me what I asked for:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/war-te...tml#post591237 ("Why Do You Focus On The Fanatics?")

Prove your unfounded allegations that “The PNAC is our al Qaeda”; Put up or shut up.

Because of their doctrine, we attacked a f.u.c.k.i.n.g country hadn't attacked us first, killed a half-million of their citizens and got the entire planet hating us for armed aggression after we gave our word we would not be doing what the Nazis did years ago. We have dropped more ordinance on Iraq than all the bombs in WWII in order to further American interests and you want to argue semantics!

Get real! That's terrorism in its purest form.