Majority of Muslims = Complete Idiots...thoughts?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Oh, sorry. I thought we were talking about the present.

Presently only one country has nuclear warheads, the means to deliver them and has stated that they will destroy the US. Can you name this country? (Hint - it's the one you don't think is a serious threat compared to some religious nuts)

No, I don't consider NK to be as serious a threat as say.... Iran. I am more afraid of a bunch of religious nutcakes who believe Allah is commanding the to die for their religion, than a short little Elvis Impersonator who isn't going to launch anything unless China approves of it.

[billvon 3,108]

>No, I don't consider NK to be as serious a threat as say.... Iran.

Personally I am more afraid of a guy who has said he wants to kill me and has a gun than a guy who said he wants to kill me but can't get his hands on a gun. Both are nuts. One has working nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>No, I don't consider NK to be as serious a threat as say.... Iran.

Personally I am more afraid of a guy who has said he wants to kill me and has a gun than a guy who said he wants to kill me but can't get his hands on a gun. Both are nuts. One has working nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

I'm more afraid of a religion that has killed thousand of people already and has said it intends to kill thousands more. Including wiping out an entire country and attacking all who oppose it's religious zealotry.

Can you honestly say you are more afraid of a man with an AK47 who does nothing but threaten you, than you are of the man with a handgun who has already killed many of your neighbors?

[twibbles 0]

Quote

Quote

I lived in Malaysia for 16 years, a Muslim Majority country. and i don't see the majority of Muslims as extremist idiots. Have you had much experience with Islam outside the media?

True, which is why I recanted from"majority" and made it to large numbers around several areas of the world. The point I'm making is more of a comparative one...i.e. it's Islam who is bringing the most threat against the western world, and yes, it's in the tens of thousands who mean death and destruction.

Yes I've had experience with Islam outside of the media and yes they are generally great people. I'm not here to say every Muslim is an asshat (sorry for giving that feeling earlier), but just that Islam in general is producing incredible amounts of violent problems vs any other religion, group of people.

No disrespects mean't in the earlier post, i was genuinely curious, and i apolagise for not reading the earlier posts more throughly.
I have to agree that Islam seems to brings out the worst in people at this time. Might have something to do with strong belief and an unwillingness to see another point of view. I still remember the big riots in indonesia 8(?) years ago, but that might be more the suharto regiem using the army/militia along religious lines against the chinese-christian minority. It wasn't very far away from where i was living at the time.

Eugene

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of
people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Alternately, you could know thw whole story. For instance, at the Danish embassy burning there were TWO groups: one was a peaceful protest, the other were people who wre using the protest as a way to destroy.

It does not matter what group of people there are in the world. They all have their idiots. But codemning them all for the actions of some just makes you as bad as the muslims who blindly hate Americans.

There seems, to me, to be an intrinsic problem with islam itself, that it seems to really inculcate in its followers a deep-seated hatred of anyone not-muslim, and a deep-seated nearly hysterical zealotry that seems to go far beyond the zealotry of any religion I can think of. In short, I think that muslims become whack-jobs.

Oh, and you distinguish between the protesters who were "peaceful" and those who were violent. I don't. Neither group should be protesting: the people against whom they're protesting are [B]FUCKING ENTITLED[/B] to have drawn what they drew!! No one in the world has the sacrosanct, inalienable right to not be offended by others' use of their freedom!!

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Samurai136 0]

Quote

Remember, the point I was making is that it's Muslims who go out of their way, out of their borders to blame someone else who has nothing to do w/ the situation and attack them anyways. This is not about who fights among each other or one other "arch enemy," it's about who wants to destroy every western country, race, religion in the world.

The christian/ islamic crusades have been running in cycles for centuries.

The perception you have of muslims in other countries is probably the same perception they have of western (US) intensions.

US out spends at least 15 times the total annual budget of all possible muslim foreign enemies. Capitalism has brough western culture to the muslim world. From a certain point of view the "War on Terrorism" is a modern day crusade to extract wealth from the middle east and bring it "home" in the name of peace.

"Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian
Ken

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

The Hutus killed a MILLION Tutsis in Rwanda in 100 days; that's 10,000 people a DAY. What Muslim group has done that?

Tribalism kills just like religious zealotry. What's your point?

Quote

The Tamil Tigers, an atheist group, has killed around 50,000.

Aren't they a leftist group, though? Like the Shining Path and stuff? So we can pin down two major problem groups: muslims and marxists. Oh, and the barbaric african tribes.

Quote

We tend to notice Muslims only because a Muslim extremist group attacked us in 2001. But on the scale of the last half century, 9/11 doesn't even make it into the top 10.

Well, they also attacked us in 1993, and they attacked the U.S.S. Cole in what was that, 2000?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,108]

>Well, they also attacked us in 1993, and they attacked the U.S.S.
>Cole in what was that, 2000?

Yes. And again, small potatoes compared to the big massacres of the past 50 years - or compared to the number of innocent Muslims killed accidentally by the US during the Afghanistan or Iraq wars.

[likearock 2]

Quote

>Well, they also attacked us in 1993, and they attacked the U.S.S.
>Cole in what was that, 2000?

Yes. And again, small potatoes compared to the big massacres of the past 50 years - or compared to the number of innocent Muslims killed accidentally by the US during the Afghanistan or Iraq wars.

Interesting that you can trivialize the deaths by terrorism including 9/11 by calling them "small potatoes".

At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

[billvon 3,108]

>Interesting that you can trivialize the deaths by terrorism including
>9/11 by calling them "small potatoes".

No death is small potatoes to the people involved. But comparing 3000 people killed by an act of terrorism to a million people killed by systematic genocide - and saying that the act of terrorism is a much bigger deal - isn't going to help your argument.

>At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the
>terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Interesting that you can trivialize the deaths by terrorism including
>9/11 by calling them "small potatoes".

No death is small potatoes to the people involved. But comparing 3000 people killed by an act of terrorism to a million people killed by systematic genocide - and saying that the act of terrorism is a much bigger deal - isn't going to help your argument.

>At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the
>terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[likearock 2]

>At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the
>terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Isn't it fun to misquote smart people and put stupid words in their mouth?

And it's so much easier than actually understanding what they said or arguing against a position they actually defend.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Isn't it fun to misquote smart people and put stupid words in their mouth?

And it's so much easier than actually understanding what they said or arguing against a position they actually defend.

Nice of you to cut off what he did actually say. I guess that makes it easier to understand as well, right?

Quote

We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras.

He is comparing the terrorists, who don't have nuclear weapons, to the communists, who do. Since the communists who did have them never attacked us we shouldn't worry about the terrorists.

Or is English your second language?

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>At any rate, expect the numbers to be more comparable once the
>terrorists get a hold of some nukes.

We've been hearing that since the 1950's. The commies were going to kill us all. The Chinese are going to kill us all. And they HAD nuclear weapons and missiles. The terrorists don't. A wise man concerns himself with real threats, not chimeras.

And you persist in pretending that the mindset of these terrorists is anything remotely like the mindset of the leaders of a nation gathered around a table and trying to figure out how to come out on top economically in a tense situation with another well-armed country.

Terrorists, in this case muslim terrorists, desire to die in a conflagration that will bring them glory from allah, or had you forgotten? Because of their religious beliefs, it's no big thing to do the suicide-is-okay-as-long-as-I-get-to-kill-infidels thing.

Continue to treat this as though we're dealing with a rational national leadership, and you'll continue to miss seeing the threat of a handful of radical islamists being given a bomb by a sympathetic rogue state.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[billvon 3,108]

>So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear
>weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Nope. My position is that they don't have them, and thus are less of a threat than people who have them.

Who would you think was a greater risk - a guy who wanted to kill you and had a gun, or a guy who wanted to kill you and had only his fists?

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Nice of you to cut off what he did actually say. I guess that makes it easier to understand as well, right?

...

Or is English your second language?

Congratulations. You've got 'nasty' down well. Unfortunately you don't have 'understanding' down yet. See BillVon's reply then you may apologize to both of us.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[likearock 2]

Quote

>So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear
>weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Nope. My position is that they don't have them, and thus are less of a threat than people who have them.

Who would you think was a greater risk - a guy who wanted to kill you and had a gun, or a guy who wanted to kill you and had only his fists?

In this case, the guy who right now has only his fists is just waiting patiently for his good buddy (Iran) who's on the verge of getting some very big guns.

That's the trouble with nuclear arms. You can only prevent countries from getting them. You can't do anything once they have them.

[billvon 3,108]

>In this case, the guy who right now has only his fists is just waiting patiently for his good buddy . . .

Did you have an answer to the question I asked you?

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Nice of you to cut off what he did actually say. I guess that makes it easier to understand as well, right?

...

Or is English your second language?

Congratulations. You've got 'nasty' down well. Unfortunately you don't have 'understanding' down yet. See BillVon's reply then you may apologize to both of us.

Congratulations yourself. I would think that the most basic indicator of understanding would be the ability to distinguish between a question (which is what you so vehmently objected to) and a statement.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>So your position is even if the terrorists got there hands on nuclear
>weapons, they wouldn't use them?

Nope. My position is that they don't have them, and thus are less of a threat than people who have them.

Who would you think was a greater risk - a guy who wanted to kill you and had a gun, or a guy who wanted to kill you and had only his fists?

I'm more afraid of a guy with a knife who has already killed 20 people than I am of the guy with a gun who says he might use it.

[billvon 3,108]

>I'm more afraid of a guy with a knife who has already killed 20
>people than I am of the guy with a gun who says he might use it.

An excellent answer to a question I didn't ask! I will take your reply as an indication that you can't answer my question without conceding the point. Fair enough. I am pretty confident 99.99% of people feel more threatened when threatened with deadly force than when they are not threatened with deadly force, and I am sure you feel the same way (and would admit it if you weren't intent on 'winning the argument.')

Countries bent on our destruction with nuclear weapons are more of a threat than countries bent on our destruction that DON'T have nuclear weapons. We can probably move on to the next topic now.

[likearock 2]

Quote

>I'm more afraid of a guy with a knife who has already killed 20
>people than I am of the guy with a gun who says he might use it.

An excellent answer to a question I didn't ask! I will take your reply as an indication that you can't answer my question without conceding the point. Fair enough. I am pretty confident 99.99% of people feel more threatened when threatened with deadly force than when they are not threatened with deadly force, and I am sure you feel the same way (and would admit it if you weren't intent on 'winning the argument.')

Countries bent on our destruction with nuclear weapons are more of a threat than countries bent on our destruction that DON'T have nuclear weapons. We can probably move on to the next topic now.

Not really. Because, all analogies aside, the biggest nuclear threat is for groups without a return address (such as terrorists) to acquire them. That is much more of a threat than for a country to have them. Mutually assured destruction just doesn't work without a return address.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I'm more afraid of a guy with a knife who has already killed 20
>people than I am of the guy with a gun who says he might use it.

An excellent answer to a question I didn't ask! I will take your reply as an indication that you can't answer my question without conceding the point. Fair enough. I am pretty confident 99.99% of people feel more threatened when threatened with deadly force than when they are not threatened with deadly force, and I am sure you feel the same way (and would admit it if you weren't intent on 'winning the argument.')

Countries bent on our destruction with nuclear weapons are more of a threat than countries bent on our destruction that DON'T have nuclear weapons. We can probably move on to the next topic now.

Wrong. I don't believe NK wants to kill us, therefore I find your entire premise invalid.

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

but that might be more the suharto regiem using the army/militia along religious lines against the chinese-christian minority

You can blame almost all the problems in that region (during that period) on Suharto and his cronyism. THe guy was patronaging out the ass and just destroying every aspect of the region.