DescentBB

Posted: **Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:23 pm**

I see too many people (including people here on this very BB) that express the sentiment that islamists are isolated whack jobs that have no chance of turning the entire world muslim- and perhaps these islamists don't or CAN'T really mean what they say.

I say we ignore their ambitions at our peril.

“A Western individual observing the fantastic ambitions of the Iranian leadership scoffs: ‘What do they think, that they will Islamize us?’ The surprising answer is: Yes, they think they will Islamize us: The ambition of the present regime in Tehran is for the Western world to become Muslim at the end of a lengthy process. Accordingly, we have to understand that their rationality is completely different from our rationality. Their concepts are different and their considerations are different. They are completely unlike the former Soviet Union. They are not even like Pakistan or North Korea. If Iran enjoys a nuclear umbrella and the feeling of strength of a nuclear power, there is no knowing how it will behave. It will be impossible to accommodate a nuclear Iran and it will be impossible to attain stability. The consequences of a nuclear Iran will be catastrophic.” - Moshe Ya’alon

Islamists will most likely fail in their ultimate goal- but how much MORE human life will it cost us if we look the other way while they feverishly work on their goals?

Excerpt from: http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine ... m-1.436414

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:03 am**

And...

Moderator notice: folks, please refrain from E&C thread bumps in the future. --Jeff250

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:17 am**

There are many threats to our way of life TB, the trick is to identify them, convince who you can and move on to the next one.

Posted: **Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:33 am**

I once heard that Rock and Roll would steal the virginity of young girls and be the ruination of my generation. As it turned out...it was true.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:30 am**

I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:59 am**

Burlyman wrote:I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.

Right, and who was it behind the 9/11 attack and the subsequent retaliatory wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:50 am**

Moderator notice: folks, please refrain from E&C thread bumps in the future. --Jeff250

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:33 pm**

woodchip wrote:
Burlyman wrote:I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.
Right, and who was it behind the 9/11 attack and the subsequent retaliatory wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

it wasn't the religion of Islam, that's for sure.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:12 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:
Burlyman wrote:I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.
Right, and who was it behind the 9/11 attack and the subsequent retaliatory wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
it wasn't the religion of Islam, that's for sure.

Really? So what were the other religions involved?

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 5:31 pm**

I wasn't aware that a religion was a sentient collective entity that could commit crimes on its own.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:05 pm**

Top Gun wrote:I wasn't aware that a religion was a sentient collective entity that could commit crimes on its own.

No different that SUV's going amok and running over people

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:42 pm**

Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:08 pm**

callmeslick wrote:Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.

I'm afraid that you vastly underestimate the number of 'wacko minority' militant islamists. I truly wish there were as few of them as there are of 'McVeighs.'

Compared to militant islam, the number of non-muslim psycho mass murderers and their atrocities are mere gnats delivering pinpricks of death. Saplings in the vast forest of evil done in the name of islam.

Posted: **Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:58 pm**

Uh-huh.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:46 am**

callmeslick wrote:Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.

Last I checked Tim didn't shout "God is Great" just before the truck exploded.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:40 am**

ThunderBunny wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.
I'm afraid that you vastly underestimate the number of 'wacko minority' militant islamists. I truly wish there were as few of them as there are of 'McVeighs.'

Compared to militant islam, the number of non-muslim psycho mass murderers and their atrocities are mere gnats delivering pinpricks of death. Saplings in the vast forest of evil done in the name of islam.

you're joking, right? Either that, or completely clueless about Islam and the nature of extremism. Ever hear of a movement called National Socialism? Did in a few million people back in the late 1930's into the 40's. Read up on it.

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:42 am**

woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.
Last I checked Tim didn't shout "God is Great" just before the truck exploded.

way to go. Missed the analogy altogether. Why would anyone in the military invoke God, necessarily?

Posted: **Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:49 pm**

callmeslick wrote:
you're joking, right? Either that, or completely clueless about Islam and the nature of extremism. Ever hear of a movement called National Socialism? Did in a few million people back in the late 1930's into the 40's. Read up on it.

Militant islam isn't extreme. It's fundamentalist- going back to what the q'uran "teaches."

The nazis only endured for a few years. islam has endured for centuries- and so has the body count.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2012 5:20 am**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:
callmeslick wrote:Woody seems to indicate a measure of sarcasm, but for those that DON'T get it:

in 9/11, a very small extreme group, out of a smallish extreme sect(Wahabbist) of a subset(Sunni) of the religion of Islam carried out heinous acts. To use a valid analogy, blaming Islam is akin to looking at Timothy McVeigh and his cohorts, a wacky subset of
militia organizations, who are made up often of military veterans and then blaming veterans for Oklahoma City. It is goofy logic, if even logic at all.
Last I checked Tim didn't shout "God is Great" just before the truck exploded.

way to go. Missed the analogy altogether. Why would anyone in the military invoke God, necessarily?

I take it you were never in the military.

Posted: **Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:22 am**

woodchip wrote:I take it you were never in the military.

not the point, once again. You tried to equate one grouping(religious) with an analogous grouping(former military) and cited that the latter didn't cry 'God is great'. Why would they, and this time I will emphasize the key word: NECESSARILY? Or, do you think that it is mandatory to be religious to be in the armed forces?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:23 am**

callmeslick wrote:
woodchip wrote:I take it you were never in the military.

not the point, once again. You tried to equate one grouping(religious) with an analogous grouping(former military) and cited that the latter didn't cry 'God is great'. Why would they, and this time I will emphasize the key word: NECESSARILY? Or, do you think that it is mandatory to be religious to be in the armed forces?

I never equated McVeigh with the military...you did. You trying to infer something about veterans in your reply?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2012 5:37 pm**

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:48 pm**

I understood your argument slick.

It's like blaming all Christians for that acts of Scott Roeder. Because that guy blew the head off of someone in the name of Christianity, are we to believe that every self-proclaimed Christian is going to do the same thing?

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:08 pm**

So if Islam is the new boogeyman, why is our military shifting a lot of it's focus to the Asian theater? More worried about China maybe?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... story.html

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:12 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:I understood your argument slick.

It's like blaming all Christians for that acts of Scott Roeder. Because that guy blew the head off of someone in the name of Christianity, are we to believe that every self-proclaimed Christian is going to do the same thing?

If it was a derided religion with brown people, yes.

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:18 pm**

CobGobbler wrote:I understood your argument slick.

It's like blaming all Christians for that acts of Scott Roeder. Because that guy blew the head off of someone in the name of Christianity, are we to believe that every self-proclaimed Christian is going to do the same thing?

One instance does not make for a movement. I don't recall any Christen's saying "Praise Be To God". OTOH I suspect we can come up with hundred of Islamic faith based atrocities where other Muslims are either quiet or are mouthing Allahu Akbar while dancing in the streets...like right after 9/11

Posted: **Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:33 pm**

Considering there are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, I'd say 20 of them being involved on 9/11 doesn't exactly constitute a movement.

Not enough bombs to beat these people. Other strategies for dealing with them are probably the wisest course of action. They live in caves, mountains, holes in the ground, what do you suggest?

Posted: **Wed Jul 25, 2012 3:04 am**

woodchip wrote:
Burlyman wrote:I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.
Right, and who was it behind the 9/11 attack and the subsequent retaliatory wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

It was the united snakes of america killing its own citizens, or rather, the authority that controls it.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 4:26 pm**

Burlyman wrote:
woodchip wrote:
Burlyman wrote:I seriously doubt isislam is a major threat.
Right, and who was it behind the 9/11 attack and the subsequent retaliatory wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It was the united snakes of america killing its own citizens, or rather, the authority that controls it.

You want to clarify this convoluted attempt at logic?

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:23 pm**

I also believe that 9/11 was staged. There are way to many holes in the official story, and it certainly has proved to be politically convenient, looking back.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:29 pm**

If we are to survive exactly as we are, build your neighbor and community.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:10 pm**

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I also believe that 9/11 was staged. There are way to many holes in the official story, and it certainly has proved to be politically convenient, looking back.

Again: get help. You are either delusional or hopelessly foolish.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 6:59 pm**

Top Gun wrote:
Sergeant Thorne wrote:I also believe that 9/11 was staged. There are way to many holes in the official story, and it certainly has proved to be politically convenient, looking back.
Again: get help. You are either delusional or hopelessly foolish.

For a rarity, I have to agree with TG

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 7:16 pm**

Well, I think we can rule out hopelessly foolish. Kind of a wild jab, with some spite thrown in. Delusional is a possibility, but last I checked I was doing better than average, for what that's worth. Show me a single high-rise that has collapsed due to fire and I'll re-think it. Bonus points for a reasonable explanation of the loss of "Building 7". Wrap it all up by explaining why the Air Force failed to respond, and we'll see who's foolish.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 9:24 pm**

That's beating a dead horse. Being in construction my whole life I find it all a little suspicious too, but there is nothing to gain from that discussion.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2012 12:44 am**

If the old link I had to an excellent Popular Mechanics article that debunked pretty much all of the most common conspiracy talking points still worked, I'd put it up here in an instant.

Edit: Cool, here we go.

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:57 pm**

Nice try (not really), but whoever wrote that article omitted certain "facts," as well as certain talking points, all while using the word FACT in a poor attempt to sabotage scrutiny and attack its readers psychologically (i.e., mental and emotional rape).

He never once mentioned all the witnesses who heard explosions at the base of the building before it collapsed, and these witnesses never said anything at that time about a conspiracy.

He never mentioned the footage of news reporters reporting that building seven had collapsed while it was still standing.

He brought up certain non-issues that aren't relevant to the idea that the administration of the United States is guilty of treason.

There are still plenty of examples of why this article is poor and doesn't answer any pressing questions. I don't have time to mention them here, and I don't know that people are interested.

I like this page the most: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... ws/4199607

Not because of what the author wrote, but because the headings of each section are the methods that the media and other government officials use against anyone who wants to investigate. This guy at popular mechanics is projecting it onto the opposition.

The people at popular mechanics should be ashamed of themselves. They are guilty of treason and you're funding the operations of our administration every day.

Just use the words "paranoid," "conspiracy theories" (make sure it's plural to reinforce the idea of disconnection), put FACT in green where your half-truths are and CLAIM in red where sections of the opposition's statements have been included but omit most of what they say to you and you have a recipe for disaster, basically.

Be sure to put such words in large, bold text, and you'll incite enough anger to keep almost all of your support. Don't forget to include "9/11, 9/11, 9/11" and "they're fighting for our freedom" somewhere. If you can, include a link to content from the controlled opposition about certain unproven ideas like aliens so people will laugh before they gain enough context about what's really wrong with society.

Sorry, America, but I can see through the double-speak, and the evidence is not in your favor.

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2012 2:59 pm**

Why do you still post here, again?

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:23 am**

You don't need to know why.

By the way, replying with nothing that supports your claims makes your point of view look really REALLY bad. Shockingly bad. I hope for your sake you have sufficient evidence that shows that Americans aren't being lied to.

Posted: **Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:23 pm**

No, it shows that your post was so shockingly stupid that it wasn't worth the physical effort on my part to type out a longer response.

DescentBB

Laughing at Islam

Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam

Re: Laughing at Islam