Where the Dead Rot in the Streets: Bush's Terror War in Soma

[Ican]

[quote="MAD MAC"]"I mean, why give a fock about political Islam ?"

You are really opening up a compley can of worms here, and one that when you piece the posts together has been covered.

Political Islam is internationalist in nature. Like communism was. It has GLOBAL, not local, objectives. IF there were more states like Iran out there, they would foster more and more non-state violent movements. The problem with political Islam is that it sees our way of life and governance as illegitimate and considers the destruction of that way of life as religious obligation. IF the Ummah ever truly embraced political Islam, it means a world war - a take no quarter world war. A war the likes of which the world has never seen before. It means one billion dead - minimum. That's the short answer to this complex issue.

[i]I doubt America cares about "political Islam", because they had no problem dealing with sadaam's destructive regime in the 90's. And what about Saudi Arabia? if ever there was a country under "political islam", it' Saudi arabia, yet somehow America has no problem making backhanded deals with the Saudi monarchs. So please don't take us for fools, America only cares about those countries that look after America's interests. They need "political islam" as an excuse to police the world as they please, just like they used communism.

And "political islaam" is not you're only enemy, you're countless acts of economic and political terrorism have given you an assorted number of enemies, not only in the middle east, but latin America and Africa. The Ironic thing is the only reason some of your enemies stay in power is because of their resistance to American imperialism, Ahmedinjad and co will stay in power as a direct result of American's actions around the world.[/i]

I believe the US is militarily unassailable. We can destroy any country or group in the world, and we are prepared to do it. Our oceans give us emormous security. Islam as a social compact is bankrupt. It will never get legs and stay on track. That is why I would prefer to ignore it and increase our isolation from its sources to keep its advocates out of the US. I think overall that would be a more efficient strategy. BUT, that is not the strategy we are currently pursuing, and I can see the other side of the coin.[/quote]

[i]You can, but in age of nuclear technology there are many countries that can do damage to you as well. Mutually Assured destruction is a bitch. and don't worry Islam is the fastest growing religion, it's gotta plenty legs freind.[/i]

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

"You can, but in age of nuclear technology there are many countries that can do damage to you as well. Mutually Assured destruction is a *****. and don't worry Islam is the fastest growing religion, it's gotta plenty legs freind."

It's the fastest growing religion because of birth rates, not because of conversions.

Right now, there is only one Muslim country with nuclear warheads - Pakistan. And they don't have many, they don't have high yields, and they lack intercontinental delivery systems. So in terms of the Islamic world, we pretty much have a manopoly. How long will that last? Another decade or so.

In your first paras, you try and give the impression that US interventions are not the result of the concern about political Islam, but rather imperial ambition. But in your second, you give the impression that you believe political Islam has a manifest destiny and the US should be concerned about it. Which is it?

[Ican]

[quote="MAD MAC"]"You can, but in age of nuclear technology there are many countries that can do damage to you as well. Mutually Assured destruction is a *****. and don't worry Islam is the fastest growing religion, it's gotta plenty legs freind."

It's the fastest growing religion because of birth rates, not because of conversions.

[i]Nonetheless it's still fastest growing religion, the greater the growth , the greater the influence and hence conversions.[/i]

Right now, there is only one Muslim country with nuclear warheads - Pakistan. And they don't have many, they don't have high yields, and they lack intercontinental delivery systems. So in terms of the Islamic world, we pretty much have a manopoly. How long will that last? Another decade or so.

[i]So you meant the Muslim world only. Ok. China has nuclear missles that can reach America, and china is still communist. Not to mention china is an economic ally of Iran, nullifying any American sanctions and overall influence. So while China
China and Russia continue to veto UN actions against Iran, Iran will secretly build it's weapons. And there goes your monopoly.[/i]

In your first paras, you try and give the impression that US interventions are not the result of the concern about political Islam, but rather imperial ambition. But in your second, you give the impression that you believe political Islam has a manifest destiny and the US should be concerned about it. Which is it?[/quote]

[i]No I didn't imply that "political Islam has manifest destiny", as I said before Islamic states are not your only enemy. Chavez, Kim jong Ill, Castro, are all your enemies and against your imperialist country with it's double standards. [/i]