Interesting stuff. I was mostly asling questions so appreciate the links.
I usually post from a Mac too, although I don't use Safari. I find that I can put in HTML <p> tags as well as <br> and <UL>/<LI> and get it broken up a bit. I hope that helps you in future posts.
And mocking and threatening another countries government only helps those governments stay in power. See Cuba & north Korea.
The Cuban regime only survived by getting massive amounts of support from the Soviet Union and now petrodollars from Hugo Chavez. nb. I've been to Cuba. The people are great. They are like the Iranians and just want to be free to have a good job and make a living. Their government wants power, and works to retain power at the expense of the citizens. If Cuba was not propped up by the (brutal) ideologue Chavez then the Cuban regime would collapse (like the buildings in Havana where no-one owns the buildings so they are not maintained). Cuba would then join the other normal nations of the World and the lot of ordinary Cubans would improve, instead of living under the "equal poverty for all" of their socialist system.
North Korea would collapse if it was not propped up by China and the extortions it makes from the US and South Korea (extortions to not work on nuclear weapons; despite them testing an ICBM a few weeks ago and annother nuclear weapon test is imminent).
In the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran of the hundreds of thousands of protestors carried many signs "Obama! with us or against us?". Rather than promote democracy with statements Obama was silent for ten days. By then the revolution realised the US would not support their popular aspiration for freedom and the regime and evil Basiji slaughtered the protestors. It appears that Obama was fooled into believing that by verbally supporting the protestors that would have legitimized the government for oppressing them. But this was going to happen anyway, Obama was a fool for not immediately and forcefully standing up for the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian masses; to have a real democracy and the Rule of Law in Iran. A historic chance was missed; the Iranian people would have freed themselves with just a little tipping of the scales in their favor by the Free World, and we wouldn't be in the current mess with the Iranians about to get nuclear weapons and threaten all their neighbours with them (which will undoubtedly motivate the Saudis, Turks and Egyptians to also acquire nuclear arms).
So you statement is a bit of pussy garbage. The Iranian regime hates the Free World for theocratic reasons (as in, Islam under Sharia and secular democracy are *totally* incompatible). The US should have tipped the scales in the favor of its citizens (who *hate* their Government and see Islam for what it is - superstitious nonsense used to enslave and control its adherents). If the US had come out strongly in favor of democracy, liberty everyone would have understood and applauded. Instead Obama slunk around like he was fearful of offending the monstrous Iranian regime. It shows he is not fit to lead the Free World because he doesn't actually believe in individual liberties (it now appears he believes in class warfare and the collectivist state, which are Marxists ideas - no wonder, his membership cards of Marxists parties in the US have been found; he is free to join these parties, as is any American, but why hide the truth about his political affiliations, and his academic record, and his citizenship records. Why?).
Ah, a "Comrade". You post about the propaganda of America but it is clear you are at least as totally brainwashed by the relativism of the political Left. It is not "fair play" when Iranian (or Iranian funded) terrorists kill and threaten civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Sudan (the genocide in Dafur was armed by Iran), India, Georgia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught; so we know it was them). Why should America not defend itself against an evil regime that performed or funded the "attacking its embassy" (completely uncivilized; if there is one uncrossable line in the World this should have been it), "killed civilians on cruise liners", "bombed aircraft" and "slaughtered its own civilians".
Your post smacks of the brainwashing of the political Left. You equate the bad aspects and mistakes of the US/Free World with the bad aspects of Iran and claim they are equivalent and assert that killing civilians is "fair". This relativism means you cannot and do not discriminate between bad and worse. As a result, you are a shameful enabler of evil. Stop doing that.
I hope one day you live in a country where the political Left has full power. Then you will see that the State subordinates individual freedoms to achieve its utopia. To bad you won't live long enough under such a system to come back and admit you were wrong (revolutions always eat their children). Tovarishch!
The Shah was no angel. However his regime is so very much better than the current theocracy. It is a lie by omission to mention the evils of the Shah and not comment at all of the horrific regime now in power. They not only oppress the Iranian people, but threatens the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli people; and they create, train, fund, arm and export numerous terrorists that threatens all the people of the Free World. It was the Iranians who manufactured ammunition (hoping it wouldn't be traced) that enabled the genocide in Dafur; it is the Iranians who back killing in Lebanon; it is the Iranians who arm Hezbollah and Hamas to commit war crimes with tens of thousands of rockets; it is the Iranians who arm Assad Al Basad's oppression against his own citizens; it is the Iranians that brought shaped charge IEDs into Iraq to kill US troops; it is Iran that planned terrorist attacks in Bulgaria, Iraq, India, Georgia, Argentina, India, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught, so there is no doubt it was Iranian agents).
The Iranian *People* are good and would be friends of the US. It is their theocratic government oppresses the aspirations of the people and is the enemy of the US. The solution is to remove the Iranian Government and *enforce* democratic reforms (unlike Egypt and Iraq where you topple and then run away).
The boat scenario is considered as a possibly of an attack made by Iran on the US. If the Iranians detonated a nuke to produce an EMP pulse it would cripple the US (and millions would die due to various flow-on effects). Then we have the Shahab missiles that Iran has installed in Venezuela. Think Cuban Missile Crisis where the US can't do much about it. Finally we have the most plausible threat, Hezbollah using its Latin American and Mexican bases to smuggle biological weapons in to the US using the same routes that the narco gangs do. Ouch. These are all possible attacks the Iranians could make and are setting up options for.
There are about three dozen sites in the Iranian programme. Not all are as well defended as Fordow but their wide dispersal makes taking them all out very very difficult. With the proliferation of sites and burying some underground it is getting beyond the capability of the IDF (although they will try, because they understand the Iranian leadership better than nearly anyone else). Pretty soon only the US will have the capability to destroy the Iranian programme - but there is a total lack of political will to actually achieve this. The world is about to feel what it is like when madmen get nuclear weapons. It won't be the end of the world, but things will not be for the better. The Iranians can export terror everywhere (as they have to Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Georgia, Thailand, Argentina) and will be invulnerable to attack.
Oh, and for those US citizens who are "anti-war". The war is coming to you whether you want it or not. Do a quick Google and find about the dozens of Iranian Shahab missiles Iran is installing in a mountain fortress in Venezuela. Once they get nuclear tipped warheads you will be in the same boat as the Israelis and Europeans - every city under the threat of missile attack from Islamic supremacists. Wouldn't it be so much better to stop the Iranians before newer missiles arrive with nuclear warheads? even if it a limited war on Iranian soil? (which is better than trying to defeat missiles over US soil, yes?).
The Iranians have that covered. They are working as hard as they can on WMDs. They have around three dozen sites working on these programs. These sites are not required for civilian nuclear power programmes. It is not hard to guess what the only other use these sites can be for. All the Iranians have to do is introduce enough ambiguity for there to be time to finish their weapons programme. Once they do this then they are free to threaten their neighbours at will. Who is going to do anything about it? the US? no way. The Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will then feel compelled to counter with their own nuclear programmes. Sound like an ideal world to you? If the Obama Administration lets the insane Iranian regime get nukes then history will not be kind in its judgement. It is far far better (and cheaper!) to stop the Iranians now, before they get nukes.
If history has taught us anything it is when you enemies make a threat, you better believe them. The *President* of Iran daily ends his speeches with "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to the West!". These guys are not joking as much as they are made out to be buffoons. Their stated goal is to impose Shia Islamic hegemony over the entire globe. They are working toward that end, slowly and steadily (if you care to look). Unlike the rational Russians the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) will not keep the Iranians in check - they several organizations (eg. the Quds force/Pasdaran) that seek martyrdom.
History has also taught that the Monroe Doctrine of US isolationism doesn't work. Three World Wars proved that (counting the Cold War as WW III). Now the US is engaged in WW IV whether it likes it or not. Like the Cold War this one doesn't involve much shooting. It is more ideological. The enemy, if you haven't noticed, is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that already controls the UN and is passing lots of resolutions (eg. UN HRC 16/18) that are slowly and surely changing the narrative. They are aiming for the Long War, and don't mind achieving victory in decades or even centuries. Sharia is already being used in US courts and it is a python that is slowly being applied under the guise of 'political correctness'. Your media and Government is already Sharia compliant with regard to Free Speech [you cannot criticize Islam, even if truthful, without being labelled a bigot - one day it will probably be made a 'hate crime' to speak truth]. UN HRC 16/18 is intended to justify the restriction of Free Speech to US/global citizens. And the US citizens are brainwashed by their left-leaning media (military bad and dishonorable murderers; dark skin people are always victims of evil corporations or the US government or white exploiters) that they lap it up. When the fight is being brought to you then war is necessary. The US is not currently winning the war against Islamic supremism - this is fortunate because it fits the the objectives of "anti-war" crowd.
Incidentally, the "War on Terror" is the most expensive in absolute terms but because of the massive growth of the economy it is one of the cheapest wars in relative terms (as a percentage of GDP). The US can afford to fight the War against Islamic Supremacists indefinitely. What the US cannot afford is the entitlements the population has granted itself that far exceeds its tax revenue. This is not to say the military can or should have an unlimited budget - there is waste in the system that should be eliminated (interestingly, the military often does not want many things the Government imposes on them; equipment that happens to help the economy of States influential Congressmen and Senators come from). However blaming spending on self-defence while ignoring the elephant in the room of Big Government civil service spending and entitlements is deluded - yet the mainstream media never dwells on this. You ought to be asking yourself why.
You do know that Iran borders Afghanistan, don't you? There is a nifty free tool called Google Maps that you can use to find out where everything is. You do know that the Iranian theocracy was established well before the Taliban don't you - and is arguably more evil because it is intelligent yet evil rather than the Taliban's backward and evil. They are both evil. Your post was one of the most ignorantly counter-factual I've seen in a long time.
one finds that even the 1.9C raise predicted by the study this story is
I don't disagree with this. What I'm saying is how do we know that human activity is the significant cause of this? If temperature's appear to be leveling off at 2000 levels but human activity has not then what is going on? That's the question to be answered, IMHO.
The link you gave [from 2010] as: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm also appears to look at short-term CO2 correlation (starts in 1900) rather than the much larger timescale given by the Antarctic ice cores as found by the 2012 Copenhagen study. Please take a look at the more recent study when you have the chance.
With regard to the Southern Hemisphere (where I live). I would expect the man-made CO2 concentration and man-made temperature rise to be lower. There is simply a lot more ocean, a lot fewer people/vehicles, and a lot less industry than the Northern Hemisphere, yes? I would expect the Southern Hemisphere to drag the global warming value down since it is not the origin of the man-made atmospheric CO2/greenhouse gasses. Yes? I'm speculating here, because I haven't seen the Southern data against Northern data (just the Antarctic ice core records where the temperature rise precedes that CO2 rise).
Once again, thanks for taking the time to make your points.
All else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the temperature. This has been demonstrated through multiple experiments, and is generally accepted by scientists.
That's true. But if we are not causing the initial temperature rise then CO2 will rise whether or not we do anything about it. Yes? What is the natural mechanism that stops this process running away? We've see that process operate every thousand years.
Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:
* is the World is warmer than it has been for the last two thousand years?
* is the warning of the last three hundreds years (which is undeniable) human induced?
* why are scientists who use the Scientific Method and go against the narrative being vilified? and
* global climate models
Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years): http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.
Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media
no, it is not.
What we have no is the result of religious zealotry taking hold in the mid east in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Nope. We had extended hudna while the Islamic world was weak and the West strong. The Muslim Brotherhood was found in 1928, the Caliphate (abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924) was established half a millenium before that. Before the Turks were various other Caliphs (Abbasids, Ummayyids) of Arab or Egyptian extraction. All with the same agenda.
What you are forgetting that in 'core religious doctrine' gets interpreted and enforces in a piecemeal fashion depending on what the readers wants to see.
You analysis fails because you are confusing scripture with core religious doctrine. Old Testament scripture is brutal but only a few Christian fundamentalists follow its teachings. After the Reformation the doctrines of Christianity have been moving away from that. The core doctrine of Christianity these days is not too dissimilar to the Golden Rule of the Greeks (expressed as "Do unto others...), plus Christianity adds in "Love thy enemies", "Turn the other cheek" and "Love they neighbour". These rules do not apply to Islam, either in its scriptures or in the core doctrine accepted by the mainstream today. Your trying to make the *political ideology* (with a little bit of supernatural sprinkled on top) of Islam equivalent to the other two Abrahamic religions (fallacies in my book) is just plain wrong. It shows you have never actually read the Qur'an or hadiths. You'd be horrified if you did. It is all "Old Testament" style stuff. In fact, a statistical analysis shows that the Qur'an and hadiths contain more hate speech than Mein Kampf. The only reason you are defending this is because you are actually ignorant of Islam. Please do your homework before you embarrass yourself again.
Here's an analysis of the legal basis for jihad under Sharia. Watch the video before you comment (otherwise you are wasting both our time): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 [nb: skip the first 52 seconds, there is a blank intro for this left]
I understand you want to promote tolerance and understanding. That's cool. But please, before you shoot off your mouth at least try and investigate the facts. I'm trying to get *moral people* to understand what is going on *based on the facts*, not on the popular (and utterly mistaken) narrative. You are repeating the false narrative (I understand your argument, and have more facts, which is why I know it is wrong).
Nice rant, but sadly history completely contradicts it.
Actually history supports my position. What you have done is take the pre-Ghazali "Golden Age" of ijtihad and asserted it applies today. It does not, that Golden Age was shut down the Caliphs 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the clerics (eg. when you look at the doctrines closely you see they are contradictory to their claims, inconsistent within its parts and actually provide justification for evil). Therefore you have presented selected historical facts but completely ignore later history where ijtihad is severely restricted and is apostasy to question Islam (as in, Islam must be obeyed without question is a *core doctrine*, fortunately often ignored but progressively is being clamped down on). So you are incorrect - at best out of ignorance, at worst from being disingenuous.
It is only recent radicalization that has caused the problems.
That is a popular narrative but it is false. Sharia is core Islamic doctrine. All four Sunni and the Shia schools of jurisprudence agree on this. Blaming it on 'extremists' is a false narrative that deflects the real issue. That Sharia is a totalitarian, theocratic, supremicist political ideology. Now what you call 'extremists' are simply more devout adherents to the *core doctrine*. What you call 'moderates' are less devout adherents to the *core doctrine* (which technically makes these moderates 'apostates' and in line to be subjugated or killed like the rest of us, hence the 20000 fatal jihadi attacks since 9/11, most of them Muslim-on-Muslim).
Most of the sites that you reference put forth a point of view that is just as intolerant, radical and ultimately destructive as that of the radical Islamists.
These sites are intolerant of Sharia attempts to subvert Enlightenment Liberties and ideals. You are all for this subversion, yes? that's why you try silence opposition to Sharia/Islam. I am totally against the 'stealth jihad' of creeping Sharia - which perhaps you are not aware of because you unthinkingly swallow CAIR propaganda that Islam today is like it was 1000 years ago (it's not!). You don't like those sites because they are *factual* and these facts are incompatible with your worldview (that is, your worldview is counter-factual and does not correspond to reality). Look at the facts, look at the evidence these sites provide. If you follow the Scientific Method you will have to drop your current deluded worldview and adopt the worldview presented by those sites. Islam (specifically Sharia) is the problem. The Golden Age of Islam disappeared 700 years ago and the current and goal of Islam (as stated by the 57 country Organization of Islamic Conference, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Hamas) all agree that it is time to shut down the Golden Age of Enlightenment Civilization and impose Sharia instead. Look at the facts, this is exactly what is happening in the World. You preach tolerance (which is an excellent thing) but being tolerant of the intolerant (eg Sharia) is simplistic foolishness often seen among the detached ideologues of the political Left (look at how it worked out for Neville Chamberlain; you are following his exact line of reasoning; do you want to follow his path?).
The idea that the US should adopt a set of laws that specifically prohibits Sharia Law is ludicrous.
You obviously haven't been following case law in the US at all. An increasing number of cases have been decided taking Sharia into account - and Sharia always wins over previous Constitutional ideals. Futhermore the US First Amendment guarantees Free Speech yet the media are Sharia-compliant and never criticize Islam, and never ever mention that Sharia doctrine is the motivation of over 90% of terrorist attacks worldwide; the Obama Administration has instructed the Pentagon and FBI with a censor list where *t
The hardcore Muslims are trying to deflect your attention. The real racism is contained in the Qur'an against the Jews. Mohammed really, really hated Jews because they rejected him (no wonder, he was an evil warlord that at 54 years of age married six year old Aisha over the objections of her father). This hatred is no because of the creation of Israel (in 1948), but has existed for 1400 years since the founding of Islam. No matter what the Israelis do or do not do, or whether you are and Israeli Jew or and American Jew or a British Jew or a Canadian Jew then you the Muslims want to kill you because the Qur'an commands genocide against the Jews will precede the Muslim Day of Judgement (any Muslim that kills a Jew will be blessed by Allah - how evil is that).
The deflection is that Muslims are the victims of racism (when their doctrine is explicitly racist against Jews; and violent and discriminatory against all non-Muslims). Muslims also claim they are the victims of 'crusader' aggression, but when you look around the Muslims are the aggressors to non-Muslims and other Muslim sects/more secular Muslims (eg. in Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, etc).
It is very very important to understand that the manufactured rage against Lego has *nothing* to do with the cultural symbols. It is all about power and subjugation. The Muslims (especially the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood) want to condition the Free West into 'dhimmitude' where we are sufficiently subjugated and obey their wishes. The politically correct crowd and media are duped into reinforcing this message. The correct message Lego and others should be to say, "In the West we practice Free Speech". If Lego do not give in we can expect violence - the police can handle this. If Lego give in then the Muslims will continue to be emboldened and will press for more and more, to make us feel like dhimmis . This is called, 'cultural jihad' and most Free People don't understand how insidious and clever the Muslim Brotherhood is with this, far far smarter than 'libtard' politicians like Clinton (who promoted destruction of Free Speech when she co-sponsored UN HRC Resolution 16/18; against the First Amendment of the US Constitution).
Google is your friend if you want to find out about the 'cultural jihad'. It is far far more dangerous to the long term health of the Free World than regular violent jihad (which only stiffens our will to resist and overcome the evil ideology of Islam). Here are some starting links: http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/ http://www.jihadwatch.org/ http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Even if you don't oppose the ideology of Islam (which means you haven't researched it yet) you must still understand that Muslim demands for special treatment (eg. the right to determine what Lego is or is not Sharia compliant in their view) will never stop until they have subjugated the Free World. Giving in only postpones the day of reckoning when they seize control (and if you care to look, they are quite open about this). If they ever did get control they believe the World would be at peace. This is completely deluded, the Muslim regions of the world are continually in violent turmoil, because the Muslim-on-Muslim violence then gets unleashed and it is non-stop: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The only solution is to stop Islam before we get to that point. We have to say "We believe in Free Speech" and really mean it. We also have to enact laws that explicitly prohibit Sharia being introduced as state/nantion law, "No Sharia in the West!" (which parts of the US is doing, although the Obama Administration is trying to stop the state governments in this - Obama has a Leftist agenda where he wants to deconstruct America as
You are not proposing a realistic solution because you resist recognizing the problem. The solution is to outlaw Sharia in all Free Nations (and the United Nations, although that is impossible as long as the OIC controls the UN). Once that is done the actions of jihadis are unlawful; since currenly they see their actions are not only lawful under Sharia, but olbligatory; from the Sharia point of view we are the terrorists for resisting the jihadis, "black is white, white is black": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 Ban Sharia and their claims to morality and lawfulness vanish - and their support dries up in the West. They will still get support from the Saudis (who are funding the current aggression) but the petrodollars will dry up in 15 years. We only have to survive as Free Men for the next two decades and then things will get better (that is, not require massive bloodshed).
Ban Sharia and have the courage to stand up for liberty - that is what really matters. Drone strikes help, but it is safeguiding the Free World that has to be done first. Until one recognizes that *Sharia is the problem* you will never win. It is interesting that many US States have draft statutes to ban Sharia but the Federal Government is trying to prevent them from being enacted. Madness. Just like the Arizona State Government enacting its own immigration law (a duplicate of the unenforced Federal Law) but Arizona being slapped down by the overweening Feds, the ban on Sharia also shows how the Feds are anti-Constutional by ursuping (defeating) State power.
The other solution is that the Free World needs better leadership (people with the balls to publicly and unapolagetically stand up for freedom - unlike the appeasement weasels we have now). The Prime Minister of Australia is one such person, as is Geert Wilders (who is unafraid to speak plainly about the existential and immanent threat to Englightenment Civilization). Unfortunately the Obama Administration is even more clueless than the Bush Administration with regard to this. eg. Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton promising to prosecute US citizens exercising their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil when she aided and abetted UN HRC Resolution 16/18; that was a shameful and willfully stupid act. Then there was Clinton and Obama's utter incompetence with regard to the Benghazi situtation (explainable though if they wanted to cover up their arming of Al Aqeda associates); then they blamed it on a stupid (but factually correct) video and critized Free Speech. Obama has also neutered the Fifth Amendment with NDAA and is now working on destorying the Second Amendment [I don't agree with guns everywhere, but what he is doing is both anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic with his massive and dictatorial Executive Orders]). How much more has to happen before the US citizens realize that the government is taking away their rights, crippling those who stand up to condemn the stripping of those rights, and aiding enemies of the citizens (engineering the coup to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power - and the MB are no different to Al Qaeda in their intended end-goal, subjugation of the entire planet to Islam).
That is why I didn't agree with your statements. The problem is a combination of Sharia (which is a core doctrine of Islam) and incompetent leadership in the West (driven by Left-wing ideology that has common cause with Islam, and makes them refuse to see the facts that are obvious to non-ideologues).
If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology.
False. As Sam Harris said in the link I gave (which it appears you did not watch), the problem with Islamic Fundamentalists is the Fundamental of Islam. As an example, you cannot justify killing in Jainism because it condemns killing with no exceptions. Islam is the problem, and encouragement of killing, racism and genocide is *mainstream* if you actually listen to what they say. Christianity is also a problem, but only the insane now use Christianity as justification for killing.
So no, I don't agree with you. You are wrong because you think it is only Islamicist extremists who think this way. As said, go and check the surveys of Muslim opinion. The *majority* agree with jihad even if they only practice it by providing money, the majority believe in Sharia and its imposition globally on non-Muslims too. Your argument is common, but false. The reason you believe it is only 'extremists' is because you follow the media narrative (who have their own reasons for misleading you with this false distinction). The statistics say otherwise if you care to do the research.
Stop slandering me as a bigot, frat boy or videogame freak. The fact you make those arguments shows you can't address my points. My point was that the Free World is hated not for what we do, but for who we are, our beliefs and the fact some of us will stand up for them. Got that, or should I repeat it again so you don't need to make baseless accusations (incidentally, I'm not from the US, so your assumptions are doubly ridiculous). I have provided innumerable citations in my posts to back up my position. Perhaps you would learn something if you actually checked those references out. I'll repeat one for you so you can have more than zero clues: http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Please follow my suggestion. Go and watch Stephen Coughlin's analysis on YouTube. Then come back and insult me - at least then you might be able to grasp what I'm telling you (which is *fact*). If you watch those intelligence briefings and still think I'm full of shit I'll be very happy to be corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting stuff. I was mostly asling questions so appreciate the links.
I usually post from a Mac too, although I don't use Safari. I find that I can put in HTML <p> tags as well as <br> and <UL>/<LI> and get it broken up a bit. I hope that helps you in future posts.
And mocking and threatening another countries government only helps those governments stay in power. See Cuba & north Korea.
The Cuban regime only survived by getting massive amounts of support from the Soviet Union and now petrodollars from Hugo Chavez. nb. I've been to Cuba. The people are great. They are like the Iranians and just want to be free to have a good job and make a living. Their government wants power, and works to retain power at the expense of the citizens. If Cuba was not propped up by the (brutal) ideologue Chavez then the Cuban regime would collapse (like the buildings in Havana where no-one owns the buildings so they are not maintained). Cuba would then join the other normal nations of the World and the lot of ordinary Cubans would improve, instead of living under the "equal poverty for all" of their socialist system.
North Korea would collapse if it was not propped up by China and the extortions it makes from the US and South Korea (extortions to not work on nuclear weapons; despite them testing an ICBM a few weeks ago and annother nuclear weapon test is imminent).
In the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran of the hundreds of thousands of protestors carried many signs "Obama! with us or against us?". Rather than promote democracy with statements Obama was silent for ten days. By then the revolution realised the US would not support their popular aspiration for freedom and the regime and evil Basiji slaughtered the protestors. It appears that Obama was fooled into believing that by verbally supporting the protestors that would have legitimized the government for oppressing them. But this was going to happen anyway, Obama was a fool for not immediately and forcefully standing up for the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian masses; to have a real democracy and the Rule of Law in Iran. A historic chance was missed; the Iranian people would have freed themselves with just a little tipping of the scales in their favor by the Free World, and we wouldn't be in the current mess with the Iranians about to get nuclear weapons and threaten all their neighbours with them (which will undoubtedly motivate the Saudis, Turks and Egyptians to also acquire nuclear arms).
So you statement is a bit of pussy garbage. The Iranian regime hates the Free World for theocratic reasons (as in, Islam under Sharia and secular democracy are *totally* incompatible). The US should have tipped the scales in the favor of its citizens (who *hate* their Government and see Islam for what it is - superstitious nonsense used to enslave and control its adherents). If the US had come out strongly in favor of democracy, liberty everyone would have understood and applauded. Instead Obama slunk around like he was fearful of offending the monstrous Iranian regime. It shows he is not fit to lead the Free World because he doesn't actually believe in individual liberties (it now appears he believes in class warfare and the collectivist state, which are Marxists ideas - no wonder, his membership cards of Marxists parties in the US have been found; he is free to join these parties, as is any American, but why hide the truth about his political affiliations, and his academic record, and his citizenship records. Why?).
Ah, a "Comrade". You post about the propaganda of America but it is clear you are at least as totally brainwashed by the relativism of the political Left. It is not "fair play" when Iranian (or Iranian funded) terrorists kill and threaten civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Sudan (the genocide in Dafur was armed by Iran), India, Georgia, Bulgaria, Argentina, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught; so we know it was them). Why should America not defend itself against an evil regime that performed or funded the "attacking its embassy" (completely uncivilized; if there is one uncrossable line in the World this should have been it), "killed civilians on cruise liners", "bombed aircraft" and "slaughtered its own civilians".
Your post smacks of the brainwashing of the political Left. You equate the bad aspects and mistakes of the US/Free World with the bad aspects of Iran and claim they are equivalent and assert that killing civilians is "fair". This relativism means you cannot and do not discriminate between bad and worse. As a result, you are a shameful enabler of evil. Stop doing that.
I hope one day you live in a country where the political Left has full power. Then you will see that the State subordinates individual freedoms to achieve its utopia. To bad you won't live long enough under such a system to come back and admit you were wrong (revolutions always eat their children). Tovarishch!
The Shah was no angel. However his regime is so very much better than the current theocracy. It is a lie by omission to mention the evils of the Shah and not comment at all of the horrific regime now in power. They not only oppress the Iranian people, but threatens the Lebanese, Syrian and Israeli people; and they create, train, fund, arm and export numerous terrorists that threatens all the people of the Free World. It was the Iranians who manufactured ammunition (hoping it wouldn't be traced) that enabled the genocide in Dafur; it is the Iranians who back killing in Lebanon; it is the Iranians who arm Hezbollah and Hamas to commit war crimes with tens of thousands of rockets; it is the Iranians who arm Assad Al Basad's oppression against his own citizens; it is the Iranians that brought shaped charge IEDs into Iraq to kill US troops; it is Iran that planned terrorist attacks in Bulgaria, Iraq, India, Georgia, Argentina, India, Thailand (where the Iranians were caught, so there is no doubt it was Iranian agents).
The Iranian *People* are good and would be friends of the US. It is their theocratic government oppresses the aspirations of the people and is the enemy of the US. The solution is to remove the Iranian Government and *enforce* democratic reforms (unlike Egypt and Iraq where you topple and then run away).
The boat scenario is considered as a possibly of an attack made by Iran on the US. If the Iranians detonated a nuke to produce an EMP pulse it would cripple the US (and millions would die due to various flow-on effects). Then we have the Shahab missiles that Iran has installed in Venezuela. Think Cuban Missile Crisis where the US can't do much about it. Finally we have the most plausible threat, Hezbollah using its Latin American and Mexican bases to smuggle biological weapons in to the US using the same routes that the narco gangs do. Ouch. These are all possible attacks the Iranians could make and are setting up options for.
There are about three dozen sites in the Iranian programme. Not all are as well defended as Fordow but their wide dispersal makes taking them all out very very difficult. With the proliferation of sites and burying some underground it is getting beyond the capability of the IDF (although they will try, because they understand the Iranian leadership better than nearly anyone else). Pretty soon only the US will have the capability to destroy the Iranian programme - but there is a total lack of political will to actually achieve this. The world is about to feel what it is like when madmen get nuclear weapons. It won't be the end of the world, but things will not be for the better. The Iranians can export terror everywhere (as they have to Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Georgia, Thailand, Argentina) and will be invulnerable to attack.
Oh, and for those US citizens who are "anti-war". The war is coming to you whether you want it or not. Do a quick Google and find about the dozens of Iranian Shahab missiles Iran is installing in a mountain fortress in Venezuela. Once they get nuclear tipped warheads you will be in the same boat as the Israelis and Europeans - every city under the threat of missile attack from Islamic supremacists. Wouldn't it be so much better to stop the Iranians before newer missiles arrive with nuclear warheads? even if it a limited war on Iranian soil? (which is better than trying to defeat missiles over US soil, yes?).
The Iranians have that covered. They are working as hard as they can on WMDs. They have around three dozen sites working on these programs. These sites are not required for civilian nuclear power programmes. It is not hard to guess what the only other use these sites can be for. All the Iranians have to do is introduce enough ambiguity for there to be time to finish their weapons programme. Once they do this then they are free to threaten their neighbours at will. Who is going to do anything about it? the US? no way. The Saudis, Egyptians and Turks will then feel compelled to counter with their own nuclear programmes. Sound like an ideal world to you? If the Obama Administration lets the insane Iranian regime get nukes then history will not be kind in its judgement. It is far far better (and cheaper!) to stop the Iranians now, before they get nukes.
If history has taught us anything it is when you enemies make a threat, you better believe them. The *President* of Iran daily ends his speeches with "Death to Israel! Death to America! Death to the West!". These guys are not joking as much as they are made out to be buffoons. Their stated goal is to impose Shia Islamic hegemony over the entire globe. They are working toward that end, slowly and steadily (if you care to look). Unlike the rational Russians the threat of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) will not keep the Iranians in check - they several organizations (eg. the Quds force/Pasdaran) that seek martyrdom.
History has also taught that the Monroe Doctrine of US isolationism doesn't work. Three World Wars proved that (counting the Cold War as WW III). Now the US is engaged in WW IV whether it likes it or not. Like the Cold War this one doesn't involve much shooting. It is more ideological. The enemy, if you haven't noticed, is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) that already controls the UN and is passing lots of resolutions (eg. UN HRC 16/18) that are slowly and surely changing the narrative. They are aiming for the Long War, and don't mind achieving victory in decades or even centuries. Sharia is already being used in US courts and it is a python that is slowly being applied under the guise of 'political correctness'. Your media and Government is already Sharia compliant with regard to Free Speech [you cannot criticize Islam, even if truthful, without being labelled a bigot - one day it will probably be made a 'hate crime' to speak truth]. UN HRC 16/18 is intended to justify the restriction of Free Speech to US/global citizens. And the US citizens are brainwashed by their left-leaning media (military bad and dishonorable murderers; dark skin people are always victims of evil corporations or the US government or white exploiters) that they lap it up. When the fight is being brought to you then war is necessary. The US is not currently winning the war against Islamic supremism - this is fortunate because it fits the the objectives of "anti-war" crowd.
Incidentally, the "War on Terror" is the most expensive in absolute terms but because of the massive growth of the economy it is one of the cheapest wars in relative terms (as a percentage of GDP). The US can afford to fight the War against Islamic Supremacists indefinitely. What the US cannot afford is the entitlements the population has granted itself that far exceeds its tax revenue. This is not to say the military can or should have an unlimited budget - there is waste in the system that should be eliminated (interestingly, the military often does not want many things the Government imposes on them; equipment that happens to help the economy of States influential Congressmen and Senators come from). However blaming spending on self-defence while ignoring the elephant in the room of Big Government civil service spending and entitlements is deluded - yet the mainstream media never dwells on this. You ought to be asking yourself why.
You do know that Iran borders Afghanistan, don't you? There is a nifty free tool called Google Maps that you can use to find out where everything is. You do know that the Iranian theocracy was established well before the Taliban don't you - and is arguably more evil because it is intelligent yet evil rather than the Taliban's backward and evil. They are both evil. Your post was one of the most ignorantly counter-factual I've seen in a long time.
Thanks for the link.
one finds that even the 1.9C raise predicted by the study this story is
I don't disagree with this. What I'm saying is how do we know that human activity is the significant cause of this? If temperature's appear to be leveling off at 2000 levels but human activity has not then what is going on? That's the question to be answered, IMHO.
Thanks for your points. As I said, I have an open mind on this and will investigate them.
Here's an interesting statistical discussion that appears to have trouble with the Tamino link you gave.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/comparing-proxy-reconstructions/
The link you gave [from 2010] as: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm also appears to look at short-term CO2 correlation (starts in 1900) rather than the much larger timescale given by the Antarctic ice cores as found by the 2012 Copenhagen study. Please take a look at the more recent study when you have the chance.
With regard to the Southern Hemisphere (where I live). I would expect the man-made CO2 concentration and man-made temperature rise to be lower. There is simply a lot more ocean, a lot fewer people/vehicles, and a lot less industry than the Northern Hemisphere, yes? I would expect the Southern Hemisphere to drag the global warming value down since it is not the origin of the man-made atmospheric CO2/greenhouse gasses. Yes? I'm speculating here, because I haven't seen the Southern data against Northern data (just the Antarctic ice core records where the temperature rise precedes that CO2 rise).
Once again, thanks for taking the time to make your points.
All else being equal, adding CO2 to the atmosphere WILL increase the temperature. This has been demonstrated through multiple experiments, and is generally accepted by scientists.
That's true. But if we are not causing the initial temperature rise then CO2 will rise whether or not we do anything about it. Yes? What is the natural mechanism that stops this process running away? We've see that process operate every thousand years.
The data shows that temperature rises *precede* CO2 rises. We would expect it the other way around if human-released CO2 was causing the rise, but the data shows the *opposite*. Citation:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Until recently I believed the human-induced global warning narrative. On closer inspection of the data there are several aspects that need to be examined:
Global temperature increase data: The data shows that global warming is correct at least since the 17th Century (when there was a 'mini-ice age', possibly due to volcanic activity). This is undeniable. However, if you go back to data from two thousand years ago it appears that the climate is actually cooler than it was two thousand years ago. Please look at the data (and note that the trend is a very slight cooling over 2000 years):
http://phys.org/news/2012-07-climate-northern-europe-reconstructed-years.html
Human induced warming: The narrative given to us is that human activity in the form of burning fossil fuels has caused the supposed warming. If this was the case then we would examine the data and expect to see a carbon dioxide rise (CO2) from humans burning fossil fuels and then the temperature would rise as a result. In fact we see the opposite, we see that the CO2 rise *follows* the temperature rise, not precedes it. This means there is something wrong with the narrative that human-induced CO2 emission is causing global warming because the data does not support this. Here's the data
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
Global warming models: Much of the global warming information is based on 'extrapolations' (projections) of short-term trends. Looking over the last hundred or two hundred years and projecting will result in temperature rise estimates that are alarming. Looking at the long-term data results in projections that are far less alarming (which this Slashdot thread is talking about; and I am also trying to inform you about). The other thing about models is that they are iterative and are subject to all sorts of instabilities. From what I know some of the models also were rather crude in the fact they didn't take into account many significant effects, like the eccentricity of our orbit etc, which results in periodic changes in solar radiation levels. Having a model is always better than no model - but that doesn't mean the model you have corresponds to reality, it only corresponds to our best guess. I know, as a astrophysicist turned IT guy used to make scientific models all the time - they are tricky beasts and most people (even those graduate students making them) don't always understand their limitations very well.
Vilification of scientists: scientists who where skeptical of the data are being vilified. Their careers are being destroyed and they are ridiculed for saying, "Hey, the data suggests something else than the human-induced global warming narrative" despite this being not only consistent with, but *required by* the Scientific Method. These scientists are labelled by the media as "climate change deniers" when in fact they agree with recent climate warming, disagree that human-released CO2 as the primary agent for the warming, and disagree that the climate has gotten warmer over the last two thousand years. All of these positions are supported by the data (as far as I can see). The media is especially bad at mocking the scientists who "don't follow the (Liberal) Party Line" despite the courage of those scientists to not cave in (which would be easier) and follow the scientific evidence as they see it. The US mainstream media
no, it is not. What we have no is the result of religious zealotry taking hold in the mid east in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Nope. We had extended hudna while the Islamic world was weak and the West strong. The Muslim Brotherhood was found in 1928, the Caliphate (abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924) was established half a millenium before that. Before the Turks were various other Caliphs (Abbasids, Ummayyids) of Arab or Egyptian extraction. All with the same agenda.
What you are forgetting that in 'core religious doctrine' gets interpreted and enforces in a piecemeal fashion depending on what the readers wants to see.
You analysis fails because you are confusing scripture with core religious doctrine. Old Testament scripture is brutal but only a few Christian fundamentalists follow its teachings. After the Reformation the doctrines of Christianity have been moving away from that. The core doctrine of Christianity these days is not too dissimilar to the Golden Rule of the Greeks (expressed as "Do unto others ...), plus Christianity adds in "Love thy enemies", "Turn the other cheek" and "Love they neighbour". These rules do not apply to Islam, either in its scriptures or in the core doctrine accepted by the mainstream today. Your trying to make the *political ideology* (with a little bit of supernatural sprinkled on top) of Islam equivalent to the other two Abrahamic religions (fallacies in my book) is just plain wrong. It shows you have never actually read the Qur'an or hadiths. You'd be horrified if you did. It is all "Old Testament" style stuff. In fact, a statistical analysis shows that the Qur'an and hadiths contain more hate speech than Mein Kampf. The only reason you are defending this is because you are actually ignorant of Islam. Please do your homework before you embarrass yourself again.
Here's an analysis of the legal basis for jihad under Sharia. Watch the video before you comment (otherwise you are wasting both our time):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 [nb: skip the first 52 seconds, there is a blank intro for this left]
I understand you want to promote tolerance and understanding. That's cool. But please, before you shoot off your mouth at least try and investigate the facts. I'm trying to get *moral people* to understand what is going on *based on the facts*, not on the popular (and utterly mistaken) narrative. You are repeating the false narrative (I understand your argument, and have more facts, which is why I know it is wrong).
True. That's especially true with regard to sexual matters!
Nice rant, but sadly history completely contradicts it.
Actually history supports my position. What you have done is take the pre-Ghazali "Golden Age" of ijtihad and asserted it applies today. It does not, that Golden Age was shut down the Caliphs 700 years ago because the questions started to get too uncomfortable for the clerics (eg. when you look at the doctrines closely you see they are contradictory to their claims, inconsistent within its parts and actually provide justification for evil). Therefore you have presented selected historical facts but completely ignore later history where ijtihad is severely restricted and is apostasy to question Islam (as in, Islam must be obeyed without question is a *core doctrine*, fortunately often ignored but progressively is being clamped down on). So you are incorrect - at best out of ignorance, at worst from being disingenuous.
It is only recent radicalization that has caused the problems.
That is a popular narrative but it is false. Sharia is core Islamic doctrine. All four Sunni and the Shia schools of jurisprudence agree on this. Blaming it on 'extremists' is a false narrative that deflects the real issue. That Sharia is a totalitarian, theocratic, supremicist political ideology. Now what you call 'extremists' are simply more devout adherents to the *core doctrine*. What you call 'moderates' are less devout adherents to the *core doctrine* (which technically makes these moderates 'apostates' and in line to be subjugated or killed like the rest of us, hence the 20000 fatal jihadi attacks since 9/11, most of them Muslim-on-Muslim).
Most of the sites that you reference put forth a point of view that is just as intolerant, radical and ultimately destructive as that of the radical Islamists.
These sites are intolerant of Sharia attempts to subvert Enlightenment Liberties and ideals. You are all for this subversion, yes? that's why you try silence opposition to Sharia/Islam. I am totally against the 'stealth jihad' of creeping Sharia - which perhaps you are not aware of because you unthinkingly swallow CAIR propaganda that Islam today is like it was 1000 years ago (it's not!). You don't like those sites because they are *factual* and these facts are incompatible with your worldview (that is, your worldview is counter-factual and does not correspond to reality). Look at the facts, look at the evidence these sites provide. If you follow the Scientific Method you will have to drop your current deluded worldview and adopt the worldview presented by those sites. Islam (specifically Sharia) is the problem. The Golden Age of Islam disappeared 700 years ago and the current and goal of Islam (as stated by the 57 country Organization of Islamic Conference, the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hezbollah, Hamas) all agree that it is time to shut down the Golden Age of Enlightenment Civilization and impose Sharia instead. Look at the facts, this is exactly what is happening in the World. You preach tolerance (which is an excellent thing) but being tolerant of the intolerant (eg Sharia) is simplistic foolishness often seen among the detached ideologues of the political Left (look at how it worked out for Neville Chamberlain; you are following his exact line of reasoning; do you want to follow his path?).
The idea that the US should adopt a set of laws that specifically prohibits Sharia Law is ludicrous.
You obviously haven't been following case law in the US at all. An increasing number of cases have been decided taking Sharia into account - and Sharia always wins over previous Constitutional ideals. Futhermore the US First Amendment guarantees Free Speech yet the media are Sharia-compliant and never criticize Islam, and never ever mention that Sharia doctrine is the motivation of over 90% of terrorist attacks worldwide; the Obama Administration has instructed the Pentagon and FBI with a censor list where *t
The hardcore Muslims are trying to deflect your attention. The real racism is contained in the Qur'an against the Jews. Mohammed really, really hated Jews because they rejected him (no wonder, he was an evil warlord that at 54 years of age married six year old Aisha over the objections of her father). This hatred is no because of the creation of Israel (in 1948), but has existed for 1400 years since the founding of Islam. No matter what the Israelis do or do not do, or whether you are and Israeli Jew or and American Jew or a British Jew or a Canadian Jew then you the Muslims want to kill you because the Qur'an commands genocide against the Jews will precede the Muslim Day of Judgement (any Muslim that kills a Jew will be blessed by Allah - how evil is that).
The deflection is that Muslims are the victims of racism (when their doctrine is explicitly racist against Jews; and violent and discriminatory against all non-Muslims). Muslims also claim they are the victims of 'crusader' aggression, but when you look around the Muslims are the aggressors to non-Muslims and other Muslim sects/more secular Muslims (eg. in Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, etc).
It is very very important to understand that the manufactured rage against Lego has *nothing* to do with the cultural symbols. It is all about power and subjugation. The Muslims (especially the OIC and Muslim Brotherhood) want to condition the Free West into 'dhimmitude' where we are sufficiently subjugated and obey their wishes. The politically correct crowd and media are duped into reinforcing this message. The correct message Lego and others should be to say, "In the West we practice Free Speech". If Lego do not give in we can expect violence - the police can handle this. If Lego give in then the Muslims will continue to be emboldened and will press for more and more, to make us feel like dhimmis . This is called, 'cultural jihad' and most Free People don't understand how insidious and clever the Muslim Brotherhood is with this, far far smarter than 'libtard' politicians like Clinton (who promoted destruction of Free Speech when she co-sponsored UN HRC Resolution 16/18; against the First Amendment of the US Constitution).
Google is your friend if you want to find out about the 'cultural jihad'. It is far far more dangerous to the long term health of the Free World than regular violent jihad (which only stiffens our will to resist and overcome the evil ideology of Islam). Here are some starting links:
http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
http://www.jihadwatch.org/
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Even if you don't oppose the ideology of Islam (which means you haven't researched it yet) you must still understand that Muslim demands for special treatment (eg. the right to determine what Lego is or is not Sharia compliant in their view) will never stop until they have subjugated the Free World. Giving in only postpones the day of reckoning when they seize control (and if you care to look, they are quite open about this). If they ever did get control they believe the World would be at peace. This is completely deluded, the Muslim regions of the world are continually in violent turmoil, because the Muslim-on-Muslim violence then gets unleashed and it is non-stop:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
The only solution is to stop Islam before we get to that point. We have to say "We believe in Free Speech" and really mean it. We also have to enact laws that explicitly prohibit Sharia being introduced as state/nantion law, "No Sharia in the West!" (which parts of the US is doing, although the Obama Administration is trying to stop the state governments in this - Obama has a Leftist agenda where he wants to deconstruct America as
You are not proposing a realistic solution because you resist recognizing the problem. The solution is to outlaw Sharia in all Free Nations (and the United Nations, although that is impossible as long as the OIC controls the UN). Once that is done the actions of jihadis are unlawful; since currenly they see their actions are not only lawful under Sharia, but olbligatory; from the Sharia point of view we are the terrorists for resisting the jihadis, "black is white, white is black": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0 Ban Sharia and their claims to morality and lawfulness vanish - and their support dries up in the West. They will still get support from the Saudis (who are funding the current aggression) but the petrodollars will dry up in 15 years. We only have to survive as Free Men for the next two decades and then things will get better (that is, not require massive bloodshed).
Ban Sharia and have the courage to stand up for liberty - that is what really matters. Drone strikes help, but it is safeguiding the Free World that has to be done first. Until one recognizes that *Sharia is the problem* you will never win. It is interesting that many US States have draft statutes to ban Sharia but the Federal Government is trying to prevent them from being enacted. Madness. Just like the Arizona State Government enacting its own immigration law (a duplicate of the unenforced Federal Law) but Arizona being slapped down by the overweening Feds, the ban on Sharia also shows how the Feds are anti-Constutional by ursuping (defeating) State power.
The other solution is that the Free World needs better leadership (people with the balls to publicly and unapolagetically stand up for freedom - unlike the appeasement weasels we have now). The Prime Minister of Australia is one such person, as is Geert Wilders (who is unafraid to speak plainly about the existential and immanent threat to Englightenment Civilization). Unfortunately the Obama Administration is even more clueless than the Bush Administration with regard to this. eg. Secretary of State Hilliary Clinton promising to prosecute US citizens exercising their First Amendment Free Speech Rights on US soil when she aided and abetted UN HRC Resolution 16/18; that was a shameful and willfully stupid act. Then there was Clinton and Obama's utter incompetence with regard to the Benghazi situtation (explainable though if they wanted to cover up their arming of Al Aqeda associates); then they blamed it on a stupid (but factually correct) video and critized Free Speech. Obama has also neutered the Fifth Amendment with NDAA and is now working on destorying the Second Amendment [I don't agree with guns everywhere, but what he is doing is both anti-Constitutional and anti-democratic with his massive and dictatorial Executive Orders]). How much more has to happen before the US citizens realize that the government is taking away their rights, crippling those who stand up to condemn the stripping of those rights, and aiding enemies of the citizens (engineering the coup to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power - and the MB are no different to Al Qaeda in their intended end-goal, subjugation of the entire planet to Islam).
That is why I didn't agree with your statements. The problem is a combination of Sharia (which is a core doctrine of Islam) and incompetent leadership in the West (driven by Left-wing ideology that has common cause with Islam, and makes them refuse to see the facts that are obvious to non-ideologues).
If you wish you can justify absolutely anything with religion or ideology.
False. As Sam Harris said in the link I gave (which it appears you did not watch), the problem with Islamic Fundamentalists is the Fundamental of Islam. As an example, you cannot justify killing in Jainism because it condemns killing with no exceptions. Islam is the problem, and encouragement of killing, racism and genocide is *mainstream* if you actually listen to what they say. Christianity is also a problem, but only the insane now use Christianity as justification for killing.
So no, I don't agree with you. You are wrong because you think it is only Islamicist extremists who think this way. As said, go and check the surveys of Muslim opinion. The *majority* agree with jihad even if they only practice it by providing money, the majority believe in Sharia and its imposition globally on non-Muslims too. Your argument is common, but false. The reason you believe it is only 'extremists' is because you follow the media narrative (who have their own reasons for misleading you with this false distinction). The statistics say otherwise if you care to do the research.
At least they learned to spell "security". lol. Just ribbing ya.
Stop slandering me as a bigot, frat boy or videogame freak. The fact you make those arguments shows you can't address my points. My point was that the Free World is hated not for what we do, but for who we are, our beliefs and the fact some of us will stand up for them. Got that, or should I repeat it again so you don't need to make baseless accusations (incidentally, I'm not from the US, so your assumptions are doubly ridiculous). I have provided innumerable citations in my posts to back up my position. Perhaps you would learn something if you actually checked those references out. I'll repeat one for you so you can have more than zero clues: http://muslimbrotherhoodinamerica.com/
Please follow my suggestion. Go and watch Stephen Coughlin's analysis on YouTube. Then come back and insult me - at least then you might be able to grasp what I'm telling you (which is *fact*). If you watch those intelligence briefings and still think I'm full of shit I'll be very happy to be corrected.