Islam and Terrorism

Andalus

Whether your 9/11 idea is a revision or not, or if it is wrong or not, just does not matter. What matters is almost everyone in the US still believe, as do I: pious Muslims did 9/11. But that doesn't matter either.

Why? Because things now going on are long gone consequences of long gone 9/11 and that is that. In addition, IMHO, these things are very much to the disadvantage of our sworn enemies. These alternate 9/11 ideas don't count for much more then a JFK or Star Trek convention. In fact, I don't know if they HAVE a convention yet?

Shery - Here is another examply of many power centers.

Even if we had prepared a false report, it would still have required hundreds of congressmen and Senators to enact a law requireing conversion. All those companies to whom conversion would cost money and disruption would have contacted those people and simply said. "Pass that law and forget about next year's campaign contribution."

So it would not have matter much anyway, except for the cost to the companies of getting the law defeated. Either the cost of lobiests to pass along the 'threat', or, perhaps, the costs of increased contributions to defeat the law.

ejdavid wrote: Dear Andalus - ITEM BY ITEM REMARKS Format: Most quotes are statements made by Andalus. The others are mine. Some of mine were provided to Andalus earlier, and some of them are new, as indicated. 1) "Spain was Muslim for 700 years. Islam has as much a claim as Catholicism." A poor product of an antique imagination. Spain belongs to the people who live there. Your comment: "Who were Christian heretics ruled by despotic foriegners under CHurch pressure to conform." My rebutal: You mistake history for current events. Spain, like all states, go through many stages. You are not talking about the same subject, which is Spain today. Your original post as much as shouts, that a powerful enough Islamic State is entitled to conquer and rule modern Spain. I simply take issue with that. Further, in my next statement I offer peacefull ways to achieve the same result.

I see a strawman. 

You discussed people. I gave you a response about people. You are trying to quibble over people vs events. 

2)You may attempt conversion. You can try to get their votes for Sharia. It is even legal to outbreed them. But "ISLAM" has no more claim to rule the people then does the Vatican." Your comment: "incoherent diatribe". My rebutal: This is neither incoherent nor a diatribe. It is simply providing a peaceful method to achieve Sharia Law in Spain without reconquista. After all, you are the one telling us "Islam" has as much a right to rule Spain as does Catholicism. I simply agree, but point out IMHO that neither one has any right to rule that does not include the options I listed.

The Shariah that once did exist in Spain allowed both Christian and and Jews to thrive. You are trying to presuppose the idea of "shariah", and equivicate it as it pleases you.

I would rather have the shariah than the secular mess that your neocons are now trying to superimpose on the rest of the world.

3)Reconquista? I think the ashes and mass relocations of post WWII Europe cured Europe. Iran next? The results won't add up to Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Stalingrad etc etc etc or the ossuaries of WWI. But think Southern Lebanon times, well one or two hundred? Pick a number. Mass relocations? Jihaddists believe those will all be Jews...." Your comment: "More incoherent diatribe. Please make a direct point." My rebutal: Europe has been traumatized by colonizations, recolonizations, and reconquista upon reconquista for millenia. The last one was so severe the people finally gave up on the idea, and accepted the borders they now have. Europe has had peace and prosperity for continuing generations as a result.

Europe did the traumatizing and the colonizing. The last I read, Europe has never been a victim.

My direct point is the Middle East may be heading for exactly the same sort of experience. Carnage and destruction so entirely severe the people will finally give up trying to remove Israel.

Or else people will get sick of paying billions of dollars to Israel as tax payers and let Israel stand on its own.

4)However, Laden was wrong about the Taliban, and his camps are gone. Your comment: "OBL was trained by the CIA. That is a fact. Those camps are from an era that the CIA set up to fight the soviets." My rebutal: You did not comment on my statement at all. My comments were A) jihaddists believe they can drive Israel in the sea during a comming war, and B)Jihadists do not have a good history at calculating such things.

Which Jihadists do you speak of?

Israel wants to drive non-Jews off the land and out of sight. European Jews have set up a colony, and called it Israel. Those Jihadists have destroyed and wiped out entire villages and commited genocide. One day the necons in the US will not be able to protect them.

Specifically, Laden believe his jihaddists could defeat invading American forces as had been done with the Soviets. He was wrong.

I do not know OBL personally. I am not privy to his personal insights and views. I do know that the US government was implicit in the training of his "jihadists". SO perhaps the CIA put these views you speak of in their heads?

5)That Quida guy in Iraq was wrong about the Suni diaspora arriving to overwhelm the Shia. The Sunni humpty dumpty is gone for good. You comment: "You are now babbling. I beg you to take hold of yourself and make a coherent point." My rebutal: I refer you to the September 11, 2006, issue of The New Yorker, page 52, column three first full paragraph. It is an excerpt from "The Master Plan", and details various Islamic approaches to the jihad. In this section I quote ".....Zarqawi explained that "if we succeed in dragging [the Shia] into the arena of sectarian war it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger." A few paragraphs later "Zarqawi did not heed Al Qaeda's requests [stop beheadings etc as bad PR]. As the Iraqi jihad fell into barbarism, Al Quaeda's leaders began advising their followers to go to Sudan or Kashmir, where the chances of victory seemed more promising." In summary, Zarqawi's predicion for a Sunni victory in Iraq is wrong.

Your quotes do not conclude he was wrong, it concludes that his tactics turned people off.

6)That Hezzi guy in Lebanon did not expect the Israeli "overreaction". And that Iranian guy in the bad liesure suit claims he will only lose half Iran to eliminate Israel. Your comment: And the neocon dribble trickles.....and trickles......and trickles... My rebutal: Apparently, no one on the Hezbollah side expected Israel to do as much damage as it did. Otherwise why would they all call it a "massive overreaction". I have read reports that the Hezzi guy his very own self has said as much openly. Accordingly, the Hezbollah puppet/Iranian predictions were wrong.

 

No, but Bush knew as did the Israeli DF who had planned this very event months earlier. Hezbollah did not think Israel would wipe out the entire economy of a nation for two soldiers who were placed in a precarious situation for the ease of Hezbollah to grab. They thought Israel would give two of 9000 prisoners that have been left to rott in Israeli prisons without any charges, as Israel had done in the past.

The mass murder committed by Israel was a planned event and the two soldiers were nothing but a pretext for an assault. It had nothing to do with the two soldiers.

Israel did not forsee the many casualties it would have inflicted on them.

So what? What is your point?

As for the guy in the bad liesure suit? He predicts the cost of eliminating Israel would be destruction of half Iran. My point is, what if he is wrong as well? How much MORE then half of Iran might be lost to the Muslim world?

Iran has not attacked another nation. Israel has. Iran does not have a major army worth mentioning. Israel does. Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon. Israel has hundreds. Iran was threatened by the west to be bombed and then divided up amongst western backed leaders. Now that Iran has made rhetorical statements in return, the neocons have mistranslated the rhetoric and created a new boogyman for the mislead western masses.

Your point makes many assumptions. Bad form.

7) Your final comment "If your contributions continue to be incoherent rants without any real point, the thread will be considered for closure." My rebutal: I will leave the gentle reader to judge who is more coherent in this small debate. However, this is Andalus's forum, and I consider his judgement of its worth as final.

A debate has a topic, which may consists of several key points, that define and support a conclusion. This threas does not have this structure.

Furthermore, I have already had a reader complain about the thread. If the thread simply rehashes minor points that never end and never conclude a larger point, then the thread has lost its coherence.

 

Dear Andalus,

Thank you for taking time for a better rebutal, although I don't agree with it.

For instance you wrote: "Your quotes do not conclude [Zarqaw] was wrong, it concludes that his tactics turned people off."

My rebutal: Zarqaw predicted his war efforts (tactics) would inspire Sunnis to join him in a civil war with Shia. "...it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis..." As you pointed out, he turned them off instead. He made many of them sick to the stomach instead of joining him. I would call that a wrong prediction on his part.

At any rate, I believe this thread has been a very great success for everyone, judging by the more then 700 viewings! Many points have been well presented by many people to the readers for them to judge. I have nothing more of value to add, and am resigning from this thread as of now.

Thank you for your attentiveness and hard work in maintaining the forum....I know it must be frustrating at times.

Sincerely,
EJ