Arabman, would you committ an attack on USA soil?

[muslim-man]

What a silly question to ask!


If u are a good muslim as u claim, why pose such a question to a brother???

would u??

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Because he knows Ahab is not a brother, but an Islamic shithead.

[muslim-man]

I ain't addressing u mad-kufr.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Well, this is a public discussion board.....

[muslim-man]

stick to what you are asked

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Fock you. It's a public discussion board and I will post whatever the fock I like. I could not care less if you like it or not.

[muslim-man]

why are u angry kafir

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

Because I don't like people telling me what to do.

[muslim-man]

bulshid!

u been a foot soldier all your life

[Padishah]

Classic, Mad Mac, classic.

Here, you've got the perfect demonstration of exactly the condition I addressed in the last post. There is the inability, or the unwillingness to address fine distinctions. He focuses exclusively on my Entebbe 'conspiracy theory', and ignores the more pertinent example of the Lavon Affair; events which involved 'state actors' in planting bombs on sensitive US and British targets, with the intent to blow them up and frame the Egyptians. His reluctance is telling.

What is more telling is the blanket use of the term 'conspiracy theory' in reference to the events of Entebbe. In fact, its hardly a 'RIDICULOUS theory' in your words Mad Mac, but FACTS being aired in a respectable, mainstream British newspaper like the Guardian. Of course, they're just conspiracy crazed nuts who will believe anything that fits their terrorist-sympathising world view, right? David Colvin, former first secretary of the British embassy in Paris, is also a terrorist-sympathising conspiracy theorizing nut who believes everything that panders to this worldview. The lovely people over at the British National Archives, on which the Guardian article is based, are also terrorist-sympathising conspiracy theorizing nuts too!

The belief that Israeli involvement in the Entebbe case is particularly telling, especially in the pro-PLO political climate prevalent at the time, is not just confined to me, eh Mad Mac? 2 + 2 = 4.



"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." - Mad Mac.


Read the above words carefully, guage the full spectrum of their meaning. Then, apply this to the American Revolutionary War, and the SUBSEQUENT Declaration of Independence by the Thirteen Colonies to form a GOVERNMENT from which stems the legitimacy and legality of 'state violenc.

Patently, a American rebellion (or revolution) against the authority of the British Crown is illegitimate because of its illegality, and thus, the men and women that took up the mantle of revolution and gave birth to the American nation were illegal rebellious damnable non-state actors.


Fine distinctions. Fine distinctions indeed.

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

We were extremely lucky in our revolution and in our civil war outcomes. But it must be stressed that our revolutionary movement, very early on, did form a government. And it's associated Army and militias were miltiary formations under positive control and generally fought (the romantics not withstanding) following the conventions of the time. Had that early government not followed some very clear principals, or had it fractured, the 13 colonies could have ended up the 13 little warring states very easily.

As for our civil war, towards the end of that war, several of Robert E. Lee's senior officers advised that the Confederate Army break into small entities, and continue the struggle by launching small attacks against what we would now call "soft targets" until the North gave up. Lee's response showed why he was not only a highly intelligent officer, but a great man of his times: (I am paraphrasing here) I can not think of a greater curse for the people of the confederacy than to have armed Brigands roaming the countryside under no officers positive control, wreaking havoc as they deem fit.

Lee recognized that once these bands were cut loose, controlling them again would be impossible.

As for the Lavon Affair, it was NEVER demonstrated that the leadership in the Israeli government supported or even knew of it. Furthermore, even were that demonstrated, what it would mean is that the Israeli government committed an act of war against the US and Britain, but for big picture reasons those governments chose to ignore the act. This happens all the times. The Iranian seizure of the British Naval personel in the Shat Al Arab was an act of war, the Brits chose a non-violence response.

It is in our interest that the Arabs have a perpetual thorn in their side - because they are untrustworthy cocksockers - that gives a physical leverage in a place where it is useful.

The fact is, whether you like it or not, Israel is a state, and violence is the purview of the state. We are not going to cut Israel loose, no matter how much you think we should. The US is going to protect that State and the Arabs need to learn to deal with it.

[FAH1223]

[quote="muslim-man"]What a silly question to ask!


If u are a good muslim as u claim, why pose such a question to a brother???

would u?? [/quote]

he is my brother in islam and all

laakin, he sees people as guilty by collaboration

[*jr]

Re: Arabman, would you committ an attack on USA soil...

Mad Mac, Somalis have dealt with you the same way they are now dealing with Arabman. You ware always seen as an outsider; somewhat against Islam….so what made you dislike Arabman to the point that you side with those that hated you in the past and are now seeing Arabman as outsider?

[Steeler [Crawler2]]

The problem I have with Arabman is his absolutist vision which he wishes to impose on others. If he viewed his faith as a personal guide for how he should live his life and treat others, I would not have a problem with that. But Arabman believes that he has a moral obligation to impose his moral view on everyone else. He may not admit it in such terms, but when you remove the veneer that's what it comes down to. That is why, no matter how heinous the act committed by some sociopath claiming to be fighting a jihad, he supports it. In Arabmans world view, the forces of Islam are at war (not just ideological, but physical) with all other political forces in the world and ANY action taken by those Islamist forces is justifiable. That is an extremely dangerous ideology which could easily lead to all out nuclear holocaust.

[biko]

funny post. focked up Q...and even more puzzling answer...