Slashdot Mirror
Pakistan Used Google Earth For Military Targeting
NeoBeans writes "According to this article in the New York Times about the recent 'improvements' in military strikes by the Pakistani military it is revealed that they have dropped Google Earth as part of their target planning for a more precise technology. From the article, '... the air force has shifted from using Google Earth to more sophisticated images from spy planes and other surveillance aircraft, and has increased its use of laser-guided bombs. And no, you can't really find Osama Bin Laden using Google Maps either."
you obviously can't kill all the Muslims, or convert them to something else, or change the nature of a world religion. At least IMHO you can't have much hope for
Actually in over a dozen countries, muslims have demonstrated the falsity of your statements. In dozens of muslim countries believers of other faiths are extinct, and they have not become extinct peacefully, but through prolonged genocide and persecution comitted by muslims. Historically, the "state religions", which come in all shapes and sizes, prove you wrong in more than 90% of history. If you are prepared to commit prolonged genocide, you most certainly can kill all muslims/christians/hindus/... or convert them all. The entire middle east is an example of this, and the state of religious freedom in the "muslim holy places" exemplifies just how simple it is : simply kill anyone even suggesting a different thinking pattern, do this for long enough and you will succeed.
There is not a single country, either middle eastern, asian or african, where islam peacefully became a force of any meaningful size. Islam was spread by invasions, genocide and slave-trade.
Worse: the "international community" accepts their methods, as Sudan's massacres blatantly exemplify. Then again, the "united nations" (then league of nations), which seems like the definition of "international community" has never been on the side of justice. They even supported hitler (at least enough to threathen to attack anyone opposing him militarily, right INTO WWII). Sometimes it gets as bad as calling the only reason to resist muslim genocides "racism" (like Israel, Ethiopia, ...)
Of course, once that first falsehood is understood to be bullshit, the rest of your argument crumbles like a deck of cards. Even in other places the concept of "state religion" (the only non-"state" religion is Christianity, of course, but that was not universally so throughout history). Worse : lots of ideologies that are not generally called a "religion" do the same, communism being the most blatant example.
Terrorism, very similar to today's existed before the 2 Egyptian kingdoms merged. So blaming the US for it seems a bit ... idiotic. Muslims have used terror campaigns throughout their history, and the paedophile prophet himself did it, on "direct orders" from allah. Terror has always been bound to specific ideologies, and while islam is not entirely unique as a terror ideology, it is by far the one making the most use of it.
You say terror has always been bound to ideologies - that's true, but it's a statement of the obvious,
Hence, you can also say that looking for religion as the ultimate culprit is in practice a rather pointless exercise - because even if there is something that makes members of a particular religion fundametally more likely to blow themselves up (which you haven't exactly bothered to prove if you haven't come
Two diametrically opposed statements (since a religion clearly is an ideology). Since the second basically states the first is obviously wrong, why am I trying to reason with you ?
You state both A and (not A) as true statements (and add the word "obviously"). With blatant dishonesty like that, why bother actually using any argument ?
If by "falsity of his statements" you mean that yes, you can kill them all, then you're of course technically correct, because it's possible to kill everybody. This statement however is utterly useless, because if we start from the premise that we can kill everybody, our policy decisions aren't going to be good.
No I mean that killing every last adherent (e.g. every last muslim) in large geographical areas (including "everywhere") has been demonstrated to be possible by muslims, who have exterminated large ideologies, by comitting continued genocide on native peoples, in large geographical areas. I just visited an exhibition about the Tuareg, a now extinct north-African black culture that has been exterminated by islam-sanctioned slave trade (which is, by the way, still continuing, and yes, still islamically justified. After all "the prophet" raped kidnapped people, and sold them into slavery later on, on "direct orders from allah". You can't get more islamic than that).
But since actual truth is not of intrest to you (otherwise you wouldn't make self-contradictory statements) I have little hope of a decent response. You say about yourself that you're obviously wrong, so let's leave it at that.
It is obvious that you are defending preset conclusions, without caring about the consistency of your arguments. Clearly you have motives in this discussion other than increasing understanding or actually usefully reasoning about a big problem.
I am however interested in what your true reasons are for defending these assertions that you know to be false. Are you a racist ? Are you a marxist ?