It's started...... NYPD attacked by jihadist...

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Zundfolge]

Looking at Islam historically it has been around for thousands of years, why are we all of the sudden the focus of attack for the last decade? Their beliefs prior to this time have remained the same, but the difference is they are able to organize and mobilize enough people to carry out attacks.

Islam has always been a belligerent ideology that didn't live peacefully with its neighbors. The main reason we're seeing them here now is that technology has allowed them to move here easier. 100 years ago they had to take a boat that took weeks to get here and once they got here there wasn't a PC culture that embraced them as they are, instead there was a melting pot that required them to assimilate.

As for the notion that anything we do against these people just encourages more recruiting and/or fans the flames, that is a tremendously arrogant position. To believe that these people have no motivations of their own and are only savages reacting to our hubris is just foolishness. It doesn't matter what we do they want us dead ... and they always have.

Islam is a supremacist ideology. The desire to kill all unbelievers and dominate the earth is hard wired into the ideology. It has always been that way and the reason we're seeing them go on the offensive now is that they are finally in a position to project their power (they did this before in the 1500s and 1600s and western civilization beat them back ... they've finally recovered enough to recommence their belligerence).

Oh and Islam hasn't been around for "thousands of years" ... its only about 1400 years old.

... and the "radical" label is the correct one. I think the mass media has taken to calling them "fundamentalist" as part of an effort to subtly tarnish fundamentalist Christians. It's the same tactic where the Left Wing media calls all tyrannies "right wing" despite their Socialist or Communist constructs.

So no, you didn't fix it for him, you made it wrong. These are radicals in every sense of the word. They want to overthrow existing governmental, social, and cultural institutions and replace them with their own. That's radical.

I agree that leftists calling them "fundamentalist" is indeed an effort to tarnish "fundamentalist" Christians (just as the term "Neo-Conervative" is meant to subtuly link conservatives and neo-nazis ... Progressives play games with language).

However calling violent Islamists "fundamentalist" instead of "radical" is actually a more accurate description.

A "radical" is one that takes an existing ideology and twists it into something else (often to justify violence). A "fundamentalist" is one that takes an existing ideology very seriously and literally. THIS is what violent Islamists are doing. Actually in the context of Islam, being peaceful and getting along with non Muslims when you're in a position of power is actually a "radical" idea.

[Aloha_Shooter]

This is no different that what the Obama administration is doing right now, overthrowing the constitution.

Yep. Anyone who has taken even a single class in political science and isn't a dedicated anti-Western/anti-American/Marxist would recognize that Obama is a radical and filled his administration with radicals.

Oh and Islam hasn't been around for "thousands of years" ... its only about 1400 years old.

Where I come from, 1.4 > 1 and therefore qualifies for the plural form. I agree the left wing apologists are distorting things to try to put Islam on par with (or superior to) Christianity but they are grammatically correct.

However calling violent Islamists "fundamentalist" instead of "radical" is actually a more accurate description.

A "radical" is one that takes an existing ideology and twists it into something else (often to justify violence). A "fundamentalist" is one that takes an existing ideology very seriously and literally. THIS is what violent Islamists are doing. Actually in the context of Islam, being peaceful and getting along with non Muslims when you're in a position of power is actually a "radical" idea.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. These guys fit all the traditional poli sci definitions of radicals. Fundamentalism doesn't imply violent action the way radicalism does despite the supremacist roots. I don't have an issue with the fundamentalist Muslims who believe in conversion by setting an example of leading a "pure" life. To some extent, I admire the ones who are unwilling to compromise with certain elements of the West's moral decay but I have a problem with the ones who are trying to actively change society and culture through imposition of THEIR beliefs above our laws, moreso the ones who try to do it through violent actions.

"Helicopters, big military will be useless on their own soil,” another post read. “They will not be able to defeat our people if we use guerilla warfare. Attack their weak flanks ... If you get wounded who cares. If you die who cares. Eventually they will surrender and then the war will be over."

Yeah, right, biyotch. Problem this dickhead doesn't understand is that attempting guerrilla warfare frees up those of us who are (no longer) in uniform to do the same. Sorry, no longer uniformed, no longer subject to the Law of Armed Conflict --- oh, and I'm better armed now than I ever was in uniform.

There are three things I like about Chicago: Chicago pizza, Chicago dogs, and the Chicago way:

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!

[mcantar18c]

Yep. Anyone who has taken even a single class in political science and isn't a dedicated anti-Western/anti-American/Marxist would recognize that Obama is a radical and filled his administration with radicals.

Radical in relation to the traditional core values of America.

Where I come from, 1.4 > 1 and therefore qualifies for the plural form.

That's the kind of crap that the libs use. You know damn well that saying "thousands" generally implies many thousands... not just a hair over a thousand.

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. These guys fit all the traditional poli sci definitions of radicals. Fundamentalism doesn't imply violent action the way radicalism does despite the supremacist roots. I don't have an issue with the fundamentalist Muslims who believe in conversion by setting an example of leading a "pure" life. To some extent, I admire the ones who are unwilling to compromise with certain elements of the West's moral decay but I have a problem with the ones who are trying to actively change society and culture through imposition of THEIR beliefs above our laws, moreso the ones who try to do it through violent actions.

The Muslims who truly believe in spreading their religion peacefully, aren't truly Muslim.
Radical is taking bits and pieces of the religion and ignoring the others... like Timothy McVeigh.
Fundamental is taking the full text, all of the core values of your religion, and not varying from that.

Like I said before, the Muslims that don't want to blow you up... they just want other Muslims to blow you up.

Yeah, right, biyotch. Problem this dickhead doesn't understand is that attempting guerrilla warfare frees up those of us who are (no longer) in uniform to do the same. Sorry, no longer uniformed, no longer subject to the Law of Armed Conflict --- oh, and I'm better armed now than I ever was in uniform.

So you wouldn't take a stand against a conventional military invading force like, say, China? They have to be using guerrilla tactics for you to join in?

[Aloha_Shooter]

So you wouldn't take a stand against a conventional military invading force like, say, China? They have to be using guerrilla tactics for you to join in?

1. I highly suggest you go back and read the quote from the idiot Thompson. Understand the context of what I was responding to.

2. I have been taking a stand for decades and will continue to do so. Nowhere in my response to dickhead did I say I would stand down against a conventional invading force.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[Ronin13]

My point is that they are using people like YOU, that generalize all Muslims, as ammunition to recruit other people of similar beliefs that would otherwise have sat aside.

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it this way- but it's evident that you don't know enough about Islam, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up others' generalizations. It seems, as far as I've learned about the various religions of the world, that Islam is the only one that employs subterfuge and outright lying to fool the enemy (in Islam that is everyone else) into thinking you're their friend. There are countless times Mahammad has done this. He preaches in the Qu'ran that it's just fine to lie to the infidel until you are strong enough to defeat him. So really, anyone generalizing is actually taking this little fact into account and saying "well since it's their tactical doctrine can we really afford NOT to generalize, since at any time any one of these folks could turn around and start slaughtering us?"

[Aloha_Shooter]

I'm not attacking you, so please don't take it this way- but it's evident that you don't know enough about Islam, otherwise you wouldn't be bringing up others' generalizations. It seems, as far as I've learned about the various religions of the world, that Islam is the only one that employs subterfuge and outright lying to fool the enemy (in Islam that is everyone else) into thinking you're their friend. There are countless times Mahammad has done this. He preaches in the Qu'ran that it's just fine to lie to the infidel until you are strong enough to defeat him. So really, anyone generalizing is actually taking this little fact into account and saying "well since it's their tactical doctrine can we really afford NOT to generalize, since at any time any one of these folks could turn around and start slaughtering us?"

The thing is that I think Danimal and I and probably others know there are tons of Muslims who take their Islamic faith about as seriously as Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi take their Catholicism BUT the generalizations can push people like that into taking it more seriously because they are defensive about their culture.

Most people I know don't really do deep analysis of their religious and cultural beliefs or practices or how those are linked to their overall philosophies and actions; some do but most don't. They act and react to what's presented to them at the moment and that's about it -- if they did deep analysis, the actual written Constitution and Founding Fathers would be more popular and we wouldn't see half the crap and cultural decay that we've experienced over the last 30-40 years.

In the meantime, we have a bunch of people who have grown up in a particular culture and have gotten defensive about it over the last 10-15 years, a smaller group of really evil people who use that defensiveness and any examples they can bend in order to recruit more into their jihad, and a larger group of useful idiots who are so devoted to the liberal extremes including multi-culturalism that they'll sell the jihadists the steel to make the knives used for the beheadings (under cost and at taxpayer expense, of course).

[Danimal]

Deleted