Arabman, would you committ an attack on USA soil?

[FAH1223]

[quote="Madmadoobe"]Lol War fahi basra waa crazy jewish woman saxib forget about her.[/quote]

notice how she avoids the question?

[Rabshoole]

Think twice before answering that question. : )

[Hyperactive]

lol Fah that was good question, he asks worse than that, so it's his turn to answer.

[*Arabman]

[lol Fah that was good question, he asks worse than that, so it's his turn to answer.]

I have already answered it. Check my first comment in this topic, and check your glasses, you might need correction. This was my answer; it depends.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

There is never a legitimate excuse for non-state violence. And non-state violence committed by individuals who have no control from any representative body are the worst of the lot. It is EXACTLY this phenomenon that has ripped Somalia apart, and is scorching the Islamic world from the Phillipines to the Sahel. Muslims kill FAR more fellow Muslims than they do kufrs, and do FAR more damage to their own socieities and economies in the name of Islam than they do to non-Muslims. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it is very diffficult to put it back in.

[*Arabman]

[Muslims kill FAR more fellow Muslims than they do kufrs, and do FAR more damage to their own socieities and economies in the name of Islam than they do to non-Muslims.]

You're completely mistaken. Taking an example of the entire 20th century, just the combined War World I & II kufr-on-kufr killings dwarf the combined Muslim-on-Muslim killings. The damage caused in those 2 War Worlds also dwarf the combined damage caused by Muslims. Yours is fuzzy math.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Ahab
It isn't my fuzzy math, it's your fuzzy English. Re-read what I wrote. I am talking contemporary, not history, and I in now way implied non-Muslims are peaceful towards each other (although there is not a whole lot of kufr on kufr warfare going on at present - Muslims seems to be fighting everyone and everything around them).

[*Arabman]

Talking about contemporary, just in Africa, Christian-on-Christian killings in just Congo, Rwanda and Ethiopia/Eritrea dwarf the combined Muslim-on-Muslim killings in Africa. In general, most Muslim-on-Muslim killings is due to Western interference.

[Koronto91]

I never understood S/Netters obsession with Arabman!

Arabman,

Keep doing what you do best!

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Ahab
Some 4 million people have died in the Congo since 1998. In that time, how many people have died in East Africa??? The Darfur alone is ripping things up.

And there's another difference. Motivation. In modern times, Muslims are really the only population group that is killing for religious purposes. The rest of us gave it up a long time ago. Even the Northern Irish conflict was not about religion.

[FAH1223]

[quote="MAD MAC"]Ahab
Some 4 million people have died in the Congo since 1998. In that time, how many people have died in East Africa??? The Darfur alone is ripping things up.

And there's another difference. Motivation. In modern times, Muslims are really the only population group that is killing for religious purposes. The rest of us gave it up a long time ago. Even the Northern Irish conflict was not about religion.[/quote]

Most, if not, all of the conflicts in the Muslim World are political. Not religious.

I mean, sure we have "Islamists" who want Islamic law... but we also have the tribal and border conflicts, occupations...

Its the Third World...

[*Arabman]

[Some 4 million people have died in the Congo since 1998. In that time, how many people have died in East Africa???]

2003-: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (180,000)

1993-2005: Burundi's civil war (200,000)

1988-2004: Somalia's civil war (550,000)

1994: Rwanda's civil war (900,000)

1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)

1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)

1998-: Congo/Zaire's war - Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

So you are saying that all these groups that are using non-state violence in the name of Islam aer just really tribal and border conflicts????

[Padishah]

To begin with; I notice Mad Mac's continual use of the word 'non-state violence' in regards to terrorism. The distinct implication of this word choice is that non-state violence in the pursuit of politico-religious aims is illegimate. I note that Mad Mac does not accord any moral equivalence between the use of 'non-state violence' in the pursuit of politico-religious aims, and the use of state sanctioned violence in the pursuit of politico-hegemonic aims.

Such a definition would render acts of violence such as suicide bombings in the Holy Land, the attacks in Nairobi and so forth as particularly horrible and illegitimate, being symptomatic of the 'non-state' form of violence. However, events such as the Lavon Affair or the Entebbe* incident, organised and staged by such a 'state' actor like Mossad, are wholly legitimate, and moreover, necessary.

These distinctions without any differences are typical of the American mentality.

* Entebbe:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/ ... 84,00.html
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/index.php?articleid=11259

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"To begin with; I notice Mad Mac's continual use of the word 'non-state violence' in regards to terrorism. The distinct implication of this word choice is that non-state violence in the pursuit of politico-religious aims is illegimate. I note that Mad Mac does not accord any moral equivalence between the use of 'non-state violence' in the pursuit of politico-religious aims, and the use of state sanctioned violence in the pursuit of politico-hegemonic aims.

Such a definition would render acts of violence such as suicide bombings in the Holy Land, the attacks in Nairobi and so forth as particularly horrible and illegitimate, being symptomatic of the 'non-state' form of violence. However, events such as the Lavon Affair or the Entebbe* incident, organised and staged by such a 'state' actor like Mossad, are wholly legitimate, and moreover, necessary."

Legitimacy is born of legality. Non-state violence for political or moral or religious reasons is illegitimate because it is illegal. Furthermore, anyone studying non-state violence will soon discover that once unleashed, it is notoriously difficult to control even once the principal aim 0f the violence is gone. Witness Somalia. Siad Barre, long dead, Somalia, still all focked up.

So yes, suicide bombings in the "Holy Land" (though obviously there is nothing holy about it) are illegitimate. The attacks in Nairobi were illegitimate. Entebbe was most certainly NOT organized by the Mossad (what a RIDICULOUS theory - some people will believe any conspiracy that fits their world view). But the fact remains, under the Westphalian State system, political violence is the purview of the state and the state alone. Until that system is replaced by another universally accepted system, all non-state violence is illegitimate.

You stupid fockers have endorsed non-state violence on religious and political grounds and those chickens have now come home to roots in your own states. So now, for the foreseeable future, you are focked, because you will not be able to control your non-state actors in your own countries. Particularly Somalia. So all the arguments that were used to justify the establishment of the USC, SPM, SSDF, etc. have now detroyed your country. If you can't see that, then you are blind.