What course of action would you favor?

[Leslie]

Just can't admit you misspoke, huh?

The Moslems, like all the people of goodwill, are condemning this ruthless and inhumane murder of innocent people. Such actions are contradicting the principles of all world religions, including Islam.

read much?

Where did we say that only news sources were being discussed? And...the Taliban iirc were moderates back then.

Did you happen to read who the author of the "only a book" was there? NO, huh? s'ok, I'll do it fer ya. From the page I linked to...

Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the spiritual head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has strongly condemned the deplorable acts of terror in London

and his group,

Ahmadis represent the moderate thread of Islam in Pakistan. In the face of persecution in Pakistan, Ahmadis advocate universal human rights, tolerance, and deliberation. They have condemned militant Islam in vociferous terms

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/khan.shtml

 

[Gato_Solo]

Just can't admit you misspoke, huh?

Nope. Because I didn't. You misread, or misinterpreted, what I said.

Where did we say that only news sources were being discussed? And...the Taliban iirc were moderates back then.

We didn't. But, if you notice, only news sources were posted before.

Did you happen to read who the author of the "only a book" was there? NO, huh? s'ok, I'll do it fer ya. From the page I linked to...



and his group, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss16/khan.shtml

As a matter of fact, I did. Doesn't mean much. I live in the US and I'm not a Klan member.

One more very important thing you neglected to mention...from your own quotes, too...

Hadhrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the spiritual head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community has strongly condemned the deplorable acts of terror in London

Looks like another case of too little, too late.

 

[MrBishop]

The news pieces that you find on the internet that date back any significant amount of time aren't news per-se, but historical documents and the studies/commentary on them. The pieces that you find on the 1972 Munich Olympics are those that were chosen to be put online. If any condemnation happened from the Islamic world and nobody bothered posting it, you wouldn't be able to google it. Not everything is archived online. Chances are that 99% of the newspaper articles that are pre-internet (as we know it) aren't online and the number is closer to 100% for articles from middle-eastern news sources.

Basically, just cause you can't find them (pieces about the Muslim's reactions to the terrorism of the past) online doesn't mean that they never happened.
***

Now...if a dirty bomb went off in a major metropolitan in North America (or even in Europe) and it was traced back to a particular country or political group... despite anything that any OTCer might say...I can very well see that country being wiped from the map.

 

[MrBishop]

What would happen after the nuclear holocaust is another story entirely.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Even if it wasn't actually traced back to a particular country, someone would get bombed regardless.

For instance, post 9/11 Iraq has been invaded, despite the 9/11 terrorists being mostly Saudi and Saudi government officials being linked to the attack (and being recorded praising it).

 

[MrBishop]

It took a while before Afghanistan was invaded though... invading Iraq was more of a 'target of opportunity'... shift enough blame there and you can finish off that Bush sr. started.

Nukes though... it'll either be a very emotional and reactionary action or better damn well be thought out more than a simple invasion!

"Oops...we were sure that it was them." won't wash as an excuse to effectivly start WWIII.

 

[Gonz]

... shift enough blame there and you can finish off that Bush sr. started.

saddam the great & powerful did nothing wrong. no sir, not a thing.

 

[MrBishop]

Even if it wasn't actually traced back to a particular country, someone would get bombed regardless.

For instance, post 9/11 Iraq has been invaded, despite the 9/11 terrorists being mostly Saudi and Saudi government officials being linked to the attack (and being recorded praising it).

but but but...we can't invade Saudi Arabia...they're umh...our allies!

 

[Gonz]

but but but...we can't invade Saudi Arabia...they're umh...our allies!

With allies like that, who needs France?

 

[MrBishop]

With allies like that, who needs France?

So...when's the invasion begin? Before or after North Korea, Sudan, Syria, etc etc...all those places that 'did something wrong'.

 

[Gato_Solo]

So...when's the invasion begin? Before or after North Korea, Sudan, Syria, etc etc...all those places that 'did something wrong'.

We don't invade Saudi because of the religious connotations of invasion. That snide remark I made about nuking Mecca was just that. A snide remark. Threatening to do so would work much better...but only if we intended to take drastic action if it has to happen. That's what happened to Saddam. He had to make the world think he had his WMD's so that he'd be safe from attack from the rest of the Arab countries around him. Most people don't realize how much this works, and will tell me I'm wrong, but one has only to look towards Israel for the truth. As long as the Arab world believes Israel has nukes, they are safe from annihilation. Remove that belief, through solid proof of either the existence, or non-existence, of those nukes, and Israel will be in huge trouble. While it may seem insane to us, it is quite logical in that area of the world.

 

[MrBishop]

We don't invade Saudi because of the religious connotations of invasion. That snide remark I made about nuking Mecca was just that. A snide remark.

I didn't contradict it, nor am I commenting on it, Gato.

What I am saying is that nuking a place would require a much heavier burden of proof than the invasion of Iraq did.

Most people don't realize how much this works, and will tell me I'm wrong, but one has only to look towards Israel for the truth. As long as the Arab world believes Israel has nukes, they are safe from annihilation. Remove that belief, through solid proof of either the existence, or non-existence, of those nukes, and Israel will be in huge trouble. While it may seem insane to us, it is quite logical in that area of the world.

Very similar to the mutually assured destruction which kept the USSR and the USA from attacking each other...and the plethora of fake 'warning: guard dog' stickers sold yearly. You don't show your weaker side when you're surrounded by potential enemies.

 

[Gato_Solo]

The news pieces that you find on the internet that date back any significant amount of time aren't news per-se, but historical documents and the studies/commentary on them. The pieces that you find on the 1972 Munich Olympics are those that were chosen to be put online. If any condemnation happened from the Islamic world and nobody bothered posting it, you wouldn't be able to google it. Not everything is archived online. Chances are that 99% of the newspaper articles that are pre-internet (as we know it) aren't online and the number is closer to 100% for articles from middle-eastern news sources.

Basically, just cause you can't find them (pieces about the Muslim's reactions to the terrorism of the past) online doesn't mean that they never happened.
***

Just a comment...If there were any apologies in the past, they would've resurfaced by now for one very important reason...we have invaded, and overthrown, two governments in the Islamic world. They know we're serious, and they know what we'll do, so those parts of the 'historical documents' would've returned to page one in bold italics and huge font.

Now...if a dirty bomb went off in a major metropolitan in North America (or even in Europe) and it was traced back to a particular country or political group... despite anything that any OTCer might say...I can very well see that country being wiped from the map.

Not just by the nation that got bombed, either. I'm fairly sure that every nuclear country on the planet would be sufficiently outraged to band together for this one strike...

 

[Bobby Hogg]

No, I can't see that.

I don't see how a terrorist bomb attack could ever be a justification to annihilate any country and its people using nuclear weapons or otherwise. There would be no moral or legal justification for it.

That said, it's only speculation. I'm fairly confident in reality that it wouldn't happen.

Any use of nuclear weapons by the USA would probably only make it more likely for other nations to use the precedent as an excuse to use them too. India or Pakistan, for example, would maybe be more willing to use them on one another if a precedent had been set by the USA.

 

[The Other One]

Why don't you ask Islam what their justification is for wanting to annihilate all infidels?

 

[Gato_Solo]

No, I can't see that.

I don't see how a terrorist bomb attack could ever be a justification to annihilate any country and its people using nuclear weapons or otherwise. There would be no moral or legal justification for it.

That said, it's only speculation. I'm fairly confident in reality that it wouldn't happen.

I am quite sure it would. If only to serve as a lesson to those who would harbor, aid, or abet, those who would use such weapons indiscriminately.

Any use of nuclear weapons by the USA would probably only make it more likely for other nations to use the precedent as an excuse to use them too. India or Pakistan, for example, would maybe be more willing to use them on one another if a precedent had been set by the USA.

So far, nobody has been willing to use them since 1945...and we all know how much damage the atom bomb did.

 

[Bobby Hogg]

Why don't you ask Islam what their justification is for wanting to annihilate all infidels?

I'll go ask a Muslim when I'm in work tomorrow. How about that?

 

[Gato_Solo]

Guess nobody will be choking today, eh?

 

[Bobby Hogg]

I am quite sure it would. If only to serve as a lesson to those who would harbor, aid, or abet, those who would use such weapons indiscriminately.

Yes, I can see how killing all those millions of people and poisoning the land for decades afterwards would teach such a lesson.

Or maybe it would just piss everyone off even more. You still haven't performed the amazing feat of informing me how you scare people who blow themselves up to kill ordinary people by killing huge amounts of ordinary people.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Yes, I can see how killing all those millions of people and poisoning the land for decades afterwards would teach such a lesson.

Or maybe it would just piss everyone off even more. You still haven't performed the amazing feat of informing me how you scare people who blow themselves up to kill ordinary people by killing huge amounts of ordinary people.

Guess the idea of total warfare is above you. I'll explain. Since WWII, all wars have been extremely limited in scope, firepower, and objective. There is no clear winner or loser because war has become civilized. The reason why those people blow themselves up is twofold...

1. Their families get paid because they are now heroes.
2. They think they've got nothing more to lose.

The reason you don't understand is because the idea of taking more than they risk is beyond your experience. Most of those bombers would be hard-pressed to pick up even one gram of explosives if they knew that their actions would cause the end of their family, tribe, nation, etc. You seem to think that they are no more than rabid dogs. They aren't.