Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)

flipper <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:46:24 -0500, Bruce Morgen <editor@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

flipper <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:21:25 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:17kn43libevs3me76koot4cdqc8upllpgq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:57:48 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[snip to get to 2 points to re-address]

In fact, you clueless idiots keep claiming the U.S. 'helped' Saddam so
how the bloody hell could his wars be the result of the U.S. 'fucking'
with him? Your own B.S. contradicts your own B.S..

For your information, Mr.Mentally Preverted Genius, you are still operating
under the false premise that Saddam caused 9/11 and is a terrorist.

Another of your delusional fantasies.

It is the terrorists who do not want the US installing military bases in
their "holy" lands as in Saudi Arabia,

You are such a propaganda fool. The U.S. did not put bases in their
"holy" lands.

Look up "Bin Sultan Air
Base" -- it was staffed
and run by Americans in
the wake of Gulf War I
and was closed by
Dumber'nyuh, as per
Osama Bin Laden's demand
that armed "infidels" be
expelled from Islam's
"holy land."

Thanks but I already knew of it. And it wasn't in any 'holy land', nor
were/are any of the others.

Wahabbist Islam considers
the entire Arabian
penninsula a holy land,
much like fundamentalist
Judaism considers
Palestine in its entirety
to be "Eretz Yisroel"
(the Biblical "Land of
Israel).


do not want the US setting up and/or
supporting puppet dictators as in Iran,

The U.S. did not 'set up' the Ayatollah in Iran

No, we set up his
predecessor, the corrupt
and clueless Shah who
provided Khomeini with a
perfect excuse to stage
his Islamic revolution!

I see you're up on at least one of the more popular left wing myths.

Fact of the matter is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran 3
years premature in 1941 when the British and Russians forced his Nazi
sympathizing father, Reza Shah, to abdicate.

The U.S. had nothing to do with it and I say 3 years "premature"
because Reza Shah died in 1944 and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would have
ascended to the throne at that time anyway, even with no intervention.

During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous
monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great
and, you will note, the U.S. didn't put him on the throne either.

The Palevi family has no
relation to the historical
Persian Empire and the
last Shah was propped up
by the U.S. (largely via
the CIA) for his entire
disastrous and corrupt
reign. The British and
Soviet roles were very
limited -- Once the cold
war started in earnest,
the monarchy was utterly
dependent on U.S. support
because the British
couldn't fund it and the
Soviets had become our
adversary in the region.

and, in case you
hadn't noticed, aren't particularly 'supportive' of it.

do not want the US exploiting their
resources - oil,

Paying them $60 bucks a barrel is sure some 'exploitation', all right.

Paying *who*, schmuck?

The countries it comes from, schmuck.

Exactly -- none of that
wealth trickles down to
the people, it enriches
the corrupt dictatorships
that play ball with
western (mostly U.S.)
oil interests! The
Saudi royals and their
friends are stinkin' rich,
the people of Saudi Arabia
are left entirely out of
that prosperity and are
providing homicide bombers
for Al Qaeda et al while
some of those rich Saudis
fund the terrorism.

Do you think anyone
other than big oil
companies of corrupt
puppet dictatorships
sees a penny of those
ginormous petrodollars?

They're nationalized by their own self made 'puppets' and none of the
oil companies were any too pleased about it at the time either.

The point is, the people
get no benefit from the
oil trade -- any quarrels
between their tyrannical
governments and western
oil interests is
irrelevant to them, they
hate and resent both!

and do not want to adopt the culture of the US or it's predominent
religion.

The U.S. never even so much as 'asked' them to do either.

The de facto state
religion of American
foreign policy is "The
Green God"

How positively rude of us to engage in free trade and pay people for
their goods.

You, no doubt, prefer the old 'traditional' rape, pillage, loot, burn
approach.

I prefer a pragmatic,
effective approach that
takes the cultural
realities of the regions
involved into account.
"Free trade" is not an
unmitigated benefit --
it favors those in a
position to sell
resources, which for the
most part have been
secured via the modern
equivalent of "the old
'traditional' rape,
pillage, loot, burn."

Iow, "free trade" ideology
improves nothing and,
because it conflicts with
regional traditions, it
exacerbates cultural
tensions both within the
countries involved and
between the region and
western interests.

-- iow, huge
profits no matter who is
destroyed by that motive!
The unstated motive for
the Iraq invasion and
occupation is the mideast's
acceptance of the "Green
God" and American
commercialism as their de
facto religion.

The reason was to prevent a lunatic dictator with delusions of
becoming the next Saladin from invading more countries and developing
more WMD and spreading them around to other lunatics who fancy
themselves god's enforcer and think flying planes into skyscrapers is
a Jim Dandy idea.


We wouldn't have this problem if we as an alleged Christian nation
(according to Falwell, Robertson, Bush, Reagan, Lump*** and bunch
of conservative creeps who want to remove the separation of church and
state) would do the Christian thing of stop fucking with those people
and their country, ask forgiveness for the past injustices the US imposed
upon them and to make amends. But as a "Christian" nation instead
we retailiate with the same role as the bully that they have to fight against
with dirty tricks and it never fucking ends.

Pure unadulterated crap.

Well, your incompetent "solution" isn't working.

Actually, it is. What isn't happening is a 10 minute microwave dinner
solution to satisfy the instant, just drop in water and stir, kool-aid
crowd.

Ed is right, it's not
working at all

In fact, it is.

-- and the
American people are
rightfully losing patience

Because they're used to 10 minute microwave meals and TV episodes
resolved in prime time. Plus a barrage of clueless left wing
pontificates who care for nothing but their own aggrandizement.

with paying for this
obvious and ongoing
failure with blood and
treasure ad infinitum et
ad nauseam! We have
already been in Iraq for
longer than WWII in its
entirety

And Iraq would be 'over' too if we leveled it flat to the ground like
happened to Germany in WWII but the idea is to avoid WWIII and the
flattening of entire countries.

That takes time. But, then, it also doesn't result in battles, like
WWII, where you lose more men in one day than the entire Iraq conflict
from beginning to end.


-- the American
people aren't a "drop in
water and stir, kool-aid
crowd" at all, and they
have the right to demand
more from their leaders
than continuing policy
failure and deterioration
of their country's
position and reputation
in the world! Iow, we've
been patient and our
patience is at an end --
deal with it.

I am 'dealing with it'. What I don't want to deal with is an Al Qaeda,
or other fundamentalist, running Iraq with reconstituted WMD.


However, let's clean the slate
so to speak and just ignore arguing about the best solution, because I would like
your honest answers about the following:

I don't believe that for a moment but, for the sake of discussion,
I'll pretend there's a rat's chance in hell you half way meant it..

What is the root cause of terrorism?

Terrorism is a tactic. The 'root cause' is that Al Qaeda, and like
minded Islamists ala the Qutb philosophy, chose it to further their
agenda.

That is not a cause --

It's the 'root' where radical Islam diverges from the rest.

answer the damned
question and stop
evading it. Why do
people in general

Speak for yourself, pal.

and
radical Islamists in
particular turn to
terrorism,

Because killing infidels and apostates is perfectly fine and, as they
have explicitly stated, they love death as much as you love life.
Meaning, kill us, eh, we go to Allah, but you'll run like a scared
rabbit if we kill a few of you.

They've stated it over and over and you're providing the 'proof' of
it.

what is the
"root cause" Ed asked
you to state?

And I answered it, below.

Qur?an 8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until
he has made a great slaughter in the land.

Qur?an 8:12 I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and
incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.

Those excerpts comprise
scriptural rationales

That's what the scripture reference says, yes. How perceptive of you
to notice the obvious.

and are clearly not the
"root cause" requested.

Try reading the whole message.

A Jewish or Christian
terrorist could find
similar rationales in
the Old Testament with
ease

First. Christian guidance comes from the New Testament and, second, if
anyone were using the 'rationale' you claim they'd be on the wrong end
of an M-16 too.

-- the Crusaders
of medieval times

News flash, this isn't the 12'th century.

One does wonder, though, how in the world they missed the fact of it
being god's will for Islam to conquer the Byzantine Empire. Well,
that's infidels for you.

had
much higher-ranking
clergy behind than than
Al Qaeda does,

Al Qaeda does not share your opinion of religious authority.

so let's
not confuse excuses
with the actual cause.

Al Qaeda does not share your heretical disdain of god's word.


So, what is the root
cause of terrorism,
Flopsweat?

If you could read you'd see I answered it.


IOW, why were those certain people allegedly
from the Middle East (Saudis mostly) so intent on blowing up the WTC with the
failed attempt the first time and then 9/11? What was their motivation?

Short sighted question. It's like asking why the U.S. invaded Sicily
in WWII.

No parallel whatsoever.

Yes, there is and if you bothered with 2 seconds of thought you might
be able to grasp it. Well, probably not but I'm an optimist.

Sicily was territory of a
nation (Italy) that was
at war with the U.S.
)another nation) and
occupied by troops of a
third nation, Germany,
that had also declared
war.

All of which is irrelevant. The point is the invasion of Sicily was
not 'the goal', it was an intermediate strategy toward a larger goal
so asking only one 'why' of a 'bit' misses the 'root cause'. But,
then, if you'd have bothered to read one more sentence down before
your silly "let's take one line at a time" nonsense you'd have seen
that.


It certainly happened. And the 'goal' was to take Sicily. And
there was surely a 'motivation' behind it but 'Sicily', per see,
wasn't it, past being a strategy toward a larger goal.

That larger goal was the
defeat of the Axis
powers in a world war --

Certainly closer but that wasn't the 'end goal' either. Read
Roosevelt's address to the nation.

what is the equivalent
goal of the 9/11 mass
murders?

Already told you, down below. Oh, that's right. You don't actually
care about the 'reason' you just want to hack individual sentences.

It's not hard
to find -- iirc is was
published by Al Qaeda
almost immediately after
the atrocities were
committed and probably
beforehand.

I doubt you read Al Qaeda's declaration and I'd wager you didn't read
Hitler's 'reasons' for invading Poland either. I also doubt you'd
understand either even if you did but it seems clear you'd buy
whatever a dictator, or terrorist, says hook, line, and sinker.


Qur?an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them,
take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using
every stratagem of war.

Do you think it was a strike against the USA or against the world (being the WORLD
Trade Center)?

A strike against the U.S.A.

It was against more than
than just the U.S. -- as
subequent attacks elsewhere
in the world demonstrated.

The other attacks were not 9-11.


Like what was their beef?

Legion and there is just about nothing that isn't 'their beef'. Qutb
was supposedly an admirer of the U.S. till he visited in 1951 where he
was shocked at materialism, individual freedom, capitalism, poor
haircuts, triviality, enthusiasm for sports, and "animal-like" mixing
of the sexes (which went on even in churches).

There was a very specific
beef and it was published
by Al Qaeda. Look it up
and learn

I already have, plus a lot more.

Go back and read the Sicily paragraph.

-- what you've
posted here is a good
general insight into the
Al Qaeda mindset,

Keep working on it and do some research.

but it
is neither the "beef" in
question nor is it the
root cause of terrorism
requested by Ed.

It most certainly is and if you would read their own 'strategy' papers
to each other you might get a clue.


He wrote "the American girl is well acquainted with her body's
seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive
eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round
breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and
she shows all this and does not hide it."

And

"Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy
their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ... "

Both of those statements
could have come from an
American "Christian"
segregationist of the
same era -- or from
Jerry Falwell up until
a couple of days ago.

But they didn't add you should kill the infidels for it and that war
is required.


In other words, the U.S. is everything evil and corrupt.. As Qutb
explained in Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq, anything non-Islamic was evil and
corrupt, while following Sharia as a complete system extending into
all aspects of life, would bring every kind of benefit to humanity,
from personal and social peace, to the "treasures" of the universe.

Again, a religious rationale
-- neither a specific beef
nor a root cause.

Al Qaeda does not share your heretical disdain for the word of God.


More of the same follows
-- elaborate evasions of
the questions at hand!

You're the one evading.


[snipped]

The immediate strategy is Al Qaeda perceives the U.S. as the primary
barrier to reconstituting the Caliphate and a 'true' Islamic State,
and by "State' they mean Ummah, the community or Nation of all
Muslims, which would include Spain, Africa from the equator up, the
Middle East, Turkey, portions of Eastern Europe, the Caucuses,
sections of Southern Russia, Pakistan, India, and Southeast Asia. Plus
probably a few I missed off the top of my head.

That's not all you missed
-- you're confusing the
philosophical underpinnings
of radical Wahhibist Islam

Salafism

with the specific beef that
triggered the 9/11 atrocties
and the generalized root
cause of terrorism.

No, I'm not. You're confusing a short term strategy toward a larger
goal as a 'root cause' and, further, mistaking deliberate propaganda
issued by an attacker as valid.

All Hitler wanted was the Sudetenland, remember? That is, after all he
wanted was Austria and before all he wanted was Poland.

Bin Laden's model is Afghanistan where, according to his view, He and
his mujahadeen, by the will of Allah, drove out the Soviets. And, as
he sees it, the Soviet Union collapsed right afterward as a result of
his jihad. And then the Afghan communist regime collapsed and the
Taliban, a 'true Islamic leadership, came to power.

That forms the basis of his "the far enemy" strategy where, in his
theory, destroy the U.S. (inevitable and he estimates 10 years because
that's how long the Soviet Union lasted) and then the local Muslim
governments will naturally fall, like in Afghanistan,

Afghanistan didn't have a
"local Muslim government"
-- it had a local Muslim
set up as a puppet by the
Soviets.

That's what I said.

The various
Kings, Emirs, and
dictators currently
supported by the U.S. in
the middle east and
adjoining southwest Asia
exist in much the same
way, with the U.S. taking
the role of the Soviets

Utter nonsense. We didn't set those governments up and unless you're
suggesting we dance into those regions overthrowing everyone and doing
exactly what you falsely claim, and presumably object to, then how
would you suggest the world do business with each other?

-- by and large, these
rulers have no more of a
legitimate constituency
than Saddam Hussein did,
and our support of them
earns the U.S. the emnity
of the people they
continue to tyrannize,
pretty much driving them
into the waiting arms of
Al Qaeda and other violent
radical movements.

So your 'great plan' is to overthrow them all or, better yet, recreate
the Iranian revolution fiasco over and over.


and the
Caliphate will rise from the ashes forming an Islamic empire, like the
good ole' days, and they can get on with the original mission of
converting the remaining non-believers to the truth.

A pipedream that I'm quite
sure even Bin Laden doesn't
believe will ever come true
-- Islam itself is too
fractured for any such
unified rule to ever happen,
as the Shiite-Sunni civil
war in Iraq demonstrates!

In the first place, what *you* may think possible is irrelevant to
what motivates Al Qaeda, and that was the question asked.

Secondly, if you want to know what to 'give away' you need to know
what the other side really wants and consulting Chamberlain on how
well 'one at a time' works would be in order.

You seem to be living under the illusion that Al Qaeda, and the rest,
think like you do and are motivated by the same kinds of consideration
but they have a distinct advantage in knowing 'the way', that it's
Allah's will, and, obviously, inevitable.

In short, your estimation of their chances of succeeding is ignorant
non-believer hooey because it's already been written, and you lost.
It's just a matter of understanding which tactics Allah said to use
and Bin Laden's figured it out. Terrorize the great Satan and he'll
wither away, just like in Afghanistan.

After all, they were so adamently intent
in committing that destruction that they even thought it was worth sacrificing their
own lives in the process.

You're so 'secular western'. Martyrdom for Allah is an honor and
pleasure, and only a non-believer could possibly imagine staying on
earth preferable to being with Allah.

Iow, you can't defeat people
like that with military
force

That does not follow any more than you can't beat Kamikaze Japan.

-- they're happy to
die, our troops just want to
survive and go home.
You've made a case for your
opposition!

No, the "might as well give up and grow a beard" is your conclusion,
not mine


Qur?an 9:111 The Believers fight in Allah?s Cause, they slay and are
slain, kill and are killed.

Qur?an 9:44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask for
an exemption from fighting with your goods and persons. And Allah
knows well those who do their duty.

Qur?an 61:4 Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause.

So why would they have so much hatred against the
"righteous benevolent gracious super powerful" USA?

Because the U.S. is infidel, not following Sharia, and opposes the
righteous will of Allah that all mankind obey his word and laws.

If they weren't tyrannized
by U.S. puppets in their
own countries, this would
never even enter their
minds

Utter nonsense. It is integral and fundamental to their religious
interpretation.

-- but because those
so-called "moderate"
governments suppress all
poltical opposition, the
only place for them to
turn is the mosque, and
the only mosques offering
a solution have radical
mullahs and sheiks who
advocate violence with a
scruptural rationale!

NO government devised by man can satisfy their beliefs. And that is an
integral part of it.

How in the world did you EVER get the ridiculous notion that man's
will could supercede god's?


Just another example of the 1400 year long western plot to destroy
Islam.

Again, that's just an
adopted rationale and
neither a root cause nor
the specific beef behind
the 9/11 atrocities.

You're thinking 'western' and, in that context, I was originally
inclined to contemplate a similar notion, in the same sense as
'persecuted' Germans in Poland being viewed as a 'rationale' by Hitler

But you don't get 'the lingo' nor the philosophy of it. "Persecuted'
is explained in the Qur?an as anything non-Islam, as all truth and
happiness flows from Islam. You, however, think in terms of western
'liberalism' but the U.S. does not follow Sharia so, regardless of
what your infidel mind imagines is 'good', it's 'persecution', end of
story.

It's not a feint, well, except for them being quite willing for you to
believe whatever nonsense you like as long as it works to their
benefit, it's simply a 'truth' that anything not properly Islamic is a
persecution.

Blindingly obvious and self contained too. If it's not their vision of
Islam then it's persecution and anyone who disagrees is a non-believer
who, by definition, is unqualified to discuss it.



People don't do such things
for no reason, right? It's not like it was some childhood prank or sports competition
or audition to be on "Survivor" was it? I'd like to hear your theory.

The farce of your questions shows I was correct about you being
disingenuous.

He's in no way disengenuous

LOL. Well, nice of you to throw a joke in.

-- and you continue to be
elaborately evasive by
bringing in scriptural
rationales instead of
dealing with the questions
at hand!

Al Qaeda does not share your disdain for truth and God's will.

And if you like,
provide your most practical humane solution afterwords.

Bin Laden, as well as many associates, have given you the answer:
Recognize Islam as the true and only way, submit, and follow Sharia.
Problem solved.

Even Bin Laden doesn't
expect

You really don't have any idea whatsoever about what Bin Laden
'expects'.

or demand this
of countries with
"infidel" majorities --

It's been stated in precisely those terms multiple times. You just
weren't listening.

Answer me this. Just what would induce them to leave infidels alone?
Seriously. Why would you allow God's creation to be polluted by
infidels, especially when he said to get rid of them?

he just wants those
countries to *** out
while he and his guys
try to accomplish it in
the Muslim world.

All he wants is the Sudetenland.

Btw, just how 'pleased' with the U.S. do you think all the Muslims who
don't share his view of Islam will be if we hand them over to him?

And, on that same note, why is it that people who, as a planned
strategy, wantonly murder innocents always seems to be who you want to
accommodate?

I suggest you study up on the proper length to wear your beard.

Again, this is irrelevant
fear mongering -- radical
Muslim dominance of the
the western world is
simply not going to
happen regardless of
scriptural rationales or
radical rhetoric.

Oh it's quite possible. Especially if you hand over half the world to
fanatics who "love death" and view you as an abomination against God's
will.

What makes you think that these particular fundamentalists, who's
whole ideology is recreating the ways of the 'original' believers, as
they interpret it, intend to behave any differently than those they
explicitly emulate? It's all written down, right to the last task.
Which, btw, includes telling you anything whatsoever as long as it
furthers the will of Allah.


It
comprises a threat to
so-called "moderate"
regimes in the Muslim
world, but only because
those de facto puppet
governments tyrranize
their people with U.S.
suppprt.

Good thing there's 'liberal' Bin Laden to save them, eh? Instead of
being 'tyrannized' they can live in the harmony of barbers murdered
for giving bad haircuts and the 'freedom' to submit or die. And we
have a shining example of 'liberated' Muslims in what Bin Laden lauded
as the closest thing to (they weren't quite strict enough) a true
Islamic State, The Taliban.

No problem with those folks having WMD, no sir'ee. I'm just not sure I
can handle that much happiness.

Please take as much time
as you like. This is not a set-up. These are not loaded questions. I just want to keep
an open mind and hear your theory if you really have one.

Suuuuuure you do.

He does

LOL

Good of you to end on a joke.

-- and we're
still waiting for an
answer that addresses
the questions at hand.
I for one won't be
holding my breath for
one from the likes of
you.

I already did, if you can read.

.