84% decrease in the number of Israelis killed in terror attacks
- Thread starter Chanman
- Start date
Profiling at its finest--wonder how long it takes others to realize the merits.Quite similiar to infectious diseases--isolate and quaranteen. While each side complains about the other,if you seperate them them one will flourish and one falter.
---hmmm reminds me of another political anolgy
---hmmm reminds me of another political anolgy
Sounds like the wall there building is working. But soon someone will kill again and then the cycle starts over. Seems to be that way now for 50 years.
DOGS THAT BARK said:Profiling at its finest--wonder how long it takes others to realize the merits.Quite similiar to infectious diseases--isolate and quaranteen. While each side complains about the other,if you seperate them them one will flourish and one falter.
---hmmm reminds me of another political anolgy
Doesn't matter that it's their land to start off with?
Would like to see Arizona fenced off to hold all the illegal Mexican immigrants and see how you all feel about it?
How about trying to look from the other side of the fence for a change? :shrug:
man who cares about the psycho israelis....im looking out for #1
And my god, do you make this place unenjoyable, Manson. So you've just said that you don't care about anyone outside the US? So we can scrap the whole 'coalition' thing you went on and on about? Don't care so much now about the UK pulling out forces? So you'll stop ****ing whinging and whining about Canada/France and anyone else who doesn't want to be involved in this US get-rich-quick scheme? Good.
The sooner this election is over and your puppet Bush wins or loses the ****ing better...at least then with a bit of luck you'll disappear and stop posting a moronic post every hour!
ummm MR Christo...nice spin tactic but it isn't gonna work on me. I said I don't care about Israel, so you spin it by saying "I don't care about ANY country outside of the US".
Nice try.
Learn to read -- I said I don't care about Israel. I care about the U.S. first and foremost. Israel just set off a CARBOMB 4 days ago!! Now they are starting to use terrorist tactics just like Hammas!
Again, I don't care about Israel. That is my opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
MrChristo...if you dont like my posts....either email madjack and complain or simply skip over them. You're just jealous because I keep offering to back up my shit and it shuts everyone up. Cmon man, use your head. :nono:
Nice try.
Learn to read -- I said I don't care about Israel. I care about the U.S. first and foremost. Israel just set off a CARBOMB 4 days ago!! Now they are starting to use terrorist tactics just like Hammas!
Again, I don't care about Israel. That is my opinion, sorry if you don't like it.
MrChristo...if you dont like my posts....either email madjack and complain or simply skip over them. You're just jealous because I keep offering to back up my shit and it shuts everyone up.
Cmon man, use your head. :nono:
Last edited:
CHARLESMANSON said:
isreal killed a hammas leader in that car bomb!! :clap: i personally feel bad for isreal due to the fact there smack dab in the middle of those sick bastards.. calling that car bomb a terrorist tactic i would have to disagree bro.. no israeli has ever straped a bomb to himself and blew up inocent palestinians. which that hammas leader probably organised many innocent israeli deaths..
just my 2 cents..
gooooo bush!!
OK I See your point.....very true and I stand corrected........why didn't they use a missle though? I just thought it was wierd seeing a carbomb used, seemed like they were stooping to the terrorists level. I guess ya gotta fight fire with fire?
I happen to have a very good freind who is from Israel (he's been here 5 years) and he does tell me that the Israelis are just as nuts as the palestinians. He said he's embarressed of his gov.
go figure?? :shrug:
I happen to have a very good freind who is from Israel (he's been here 5 years) and he does tell me that the Israelis are just as nuts as the palestinians. He said he's embarressed of his gov.
go figure?? :shrug:
Last edited:
imagine replacing canada with palistein.. our country would be bonkers too!! having to live next to "hit and run" sick fawks like that.. looking over our shoulders day in and day out..( fawk that!!) the reason isreal did'nt use a missle might of been due to fact they might of sniffed it out.. who knows but the car bomb worked.. :clap:
:toast: yeah, I'd act froggy too if Iran was where canada or mexico is
good point.
Oh, WR is no challenge at all
good point.
Oh, WR is no challenge at all
"Doesn't matter that it's their land to start off with?
Would like to see Arizona fenced off to hold all the illegal Mexican immigrants and see how you all feel about it?
How about trying to look from the other side of the fence for a change"
I'd go one further-- Give me an island (more practical than a wall)
and a few requirements for citizenship and I can give you a country with little or no aids-no terrorists-no welfare other than disabilty--very few little need for liabilty insurance--taxes cut in half----have best physicians in the world waiting in line and the best and best healcare sysyem in the world at half the rates we now pay.
==--and only one penitentiary (just enough to hold people till they can be deported to U.S.) where the liberals and their attorneys can do with them as they see fit. As they have no chance to come back to Utopia--one felony and your history.
Would you like the basics on how easy it would be to accomplish this Utopia???
Would like to see Arizona fenced off to hold all the illegal Mexican immigrants and see how you all feel about it?
How about trying to look from the other side of the fence for a change"
I'd go one further-- Give me an island (more practical than a wall)
and a few requirements for citizenship and I can give you a country with little or no aids-no terrorists-no welfare other than disabilty--very few little need for liabilty insurance--taxes cut in half----have best physicians in the world waiting in line and the best and best healcare sysyem in the world at half the rates we now pay.
==--and only one penitentiary (just enough to hold people till they can be deported to U.S.) where the liberals and their attorneys can do with them as they see fit. As they have no chance to come back to Utopia--one felony and your history.
Would you like the basics on how easy it would be to accomplish this Utopia???
DOGS THAT BARK said:
I don't really understand, DTB, sorry. :shrug:
I'd say that I more than most people here realise that there is no such thing as a perfect world, and never will be. To put it simply, shit does happen and then you get on with it. Simple.
(And yet lots of people on here seem to think that Bush/Kerry are their saviours, and they will cease all terrorism...that being in Iraq will flush out and wipe out all terrorism...It's simply NOT going to happen.)
But anyway...back to the point at hand....Is that what you are suggesting?...That Israel was formed, so bad luck to the Arabs, get over it?
If so, fair enough...but history says that they won't give up. India and Pakistan have been fighting over the barest 10 km strip of dirt you could imagine for 50 years. The Balkan states have been going at it for 100 years!
I merely suggested that the majority of people see things from only one point of view, seeing that as 'right', and everything/one else is simply wrong!
Fact is there is ALWAYS two sides to a story (if not 3, 4, 9, 100's!), and it never hurts to look from the other direction whether you agree or not.
BTW, I don't want to get into an Israel/West Bank/Arab arguement...Just think it's unbelievable that in this day and age, pretty much an entire racial community can be effectively locked up, because a tiny % intend to cause harm.
You have valid point and I can see that the the Israeli/Palestine issue has lots of gray areas, and like you will not go into issue of who was intially right or wrong as too tough to judge.
The point I was trying to make is most controversies are on differences of 2 sides.Rather than argue-fight and kill-it would seem logical to segregate the sides and let each live on their own merits with their own convictions and time will tell who was right.
As in my analogy above it would be quite simple to create this Utopia --and those living there would enjoy benefits of their ulimate perceptions with no thoughts of ever leaving Yet those that would oppose the ideas are the very ones you would need the constraints to keep out--which is quite ironic when you think of it. It is mind boggeling to me that so many hate-fight and accuse the very source that lets then exist.
as an example I'll pick on Edward--he always disses dr's-- insurance companys--- big business ect--but he could not exist without them.
Case in point Trillions of dollars are spent each year on liabilty insurance of just individuals NOT counting corporations.
Why--because this has become a VERY litigatious society.
Consider this if you could agree to sign form where you waive the right to sue your doctor and in return get 20% reduction on his charges would you?
I would GLADLY sign a form that I would never sue anyone for any reason if in return I would be exempts from lawsuits.
The money I would save would be immense and what would I lose--except the right to sue.
Now who would have reason to not want this arrangement--other than those who have nothing to lose in lawsuits but everything to gain---and the attorneys
The point I was trying to make is most controversies are on differences of 2 sides.Rather than argue-fight and kill-it would seem logical to segregate the sides and let each live on their own merits with their own convictions and time will tell who was right.
As in my analogy above it would be quite simple to create this Utopia --and those living there would enjoy benefits of their ulimate perceptions with no thoughts of ever leaving Yet those that would oppose the ideas are the very ones you would need the constraints to keep out--which is quite ironic when you think of it. It is mind boggeling to me that so many hate-fight and accuse the very source that lets then exist.
as an example I'll pick on Edward--he always disses dr's-- insurance companys--- big business ect--but he could not exist without them.
Case in point Trillions of dollars are spent each year on liabilty insurance of just individuals NOT counting corporations.
Why--because this has become a VERY litigatious society.
Consider this if you could agree to sign form where you waive the right to sue your doctor and in return get 20% reduction on his charges would you?
I would GLADLY sign a form that I would never sue anyone for any reason if in return I would be exempts from lawsuits.
The money I would save would be immense and what would I lose--except the right to sue.
Now who would have reason to not want this arrangement--other than those who have nothing to lose in lawsuits but everything to gain---and the attorneys
Just think of the money we could have saved. I believe at last count over 50 years we gave Israel over 10 trillion. And what have we got. They send a suite case bomb over and blow up 20. Israel comes back with force and kills 50 of them. And on and on it goes. Iraq may just end the same way.
To the Left: You Are the Root Cause
by Patrick D. O'Brien
"We need to establish a meaningful dialogue with these angry Muslims who are acting out so violently, so that we can understand what the root cause is. It's obvious that they deserve our attention if they're willing to take such desperate measures to make their case. After we do that, then we can proceed with a plan of action to work with them and address their grievances."
Insert the sound of a turntable needle scratching across the grooves of a record here.
Why Does Islamic Terror Work?
Imagine for a moment that I want from you $10,000 and six hours of your time to explain how my way of life is superior and why you should do the same. Just because--trust me, this is a worthy cause. Would you grant me these two requests? No? Well, what if I stood outside your house yelling through a megaphone while you were trying to have dinner? No? All right then. How about if I throw a brick with a threatening note taped to it through your living room window? Do I have your attention yet? Yeah, you've called the cops. I anticipated that, though, so I got away pretty easily. Now I've taken someone you love hostage. Or I've bombed the homes of your relatives, killing some of them. I bet now you're thinking about giving me as much of your money and time as I ask for. In fact, I'm certain that you're now ready to listen attentively to the root causes--my legitimate grievances--that made me do these things. A fair part of the onus is on you, because it wouldn't have come to this if only you'd taken the time to give my cause the attention that it deserves.
As hyperbolic as the above fictional scenario is, it's not wholly dissimilar to how many on the left respond to violent Islamic terror. They look for the root cause of the Islamic rage which manifests itself in the form of murder and devastation. It is bizarre causality and moral relativism mixed into a crazy mode of thinking which exculpates terrorists for their crimes even as it invites more. These people who justify and apologize for Islamic terror seem to think that if a group is willing to go so far as to murder innocent civilians, with the actors sometimes killing themselves in the process, its cause must warrant our attention and sympathies. And off they go, looking for the putative "root causes" of murderous Islamic terror, discounting the suffering and death of the victims who have nothing to do with it.
Why do so many on the left presuppose that there must be some sort of root cause which justifies Muslims murdering innocents? Or to be blunt, how could any rational and ethical person lend validity to the idea that murdering defenseless civilians warrants any sort of consideration beyond contempt and severe retaliation? Because that's what understanding the oft-touted "root cause" of Islamic terror means. It is basically the same as saying: "We haven't yet given your complaints and demands any attention. But now that you've killed unarmed civilians, we can see that what you have to say must have import and merit, so now we are ready to listen and to help eliminate the 'root causes' of your actions." Does this make any sense, rationally or morally? Maybe I was just a precocious child, but when I was young and got sent to my room for yelling out loud and acting up, I got the message: If you want Mom's attention, ask politely and calmly. I've never forgotten that lesson, and it has served me well innumerable times in my life. Bad behavior just cannot be rewarded, and sensible people know this.
When murder and destruction are used for the purpose of achieving practical gains, success is often measured in increments rather than in decisively conclusive victories. When Islamic terrorists draw world attention to their cause with their criminal acts, that is a positive achievement for them, even if that attention primarily takes the form of disgust and outrage--the message is still reaching an audience. When their acts of terror win them even a small portion of their demands, this is a material and psychological triumph. In short, whenever the investment of terrorism does not exceed its gains, it is a success. But when Islamic terror brings its targets and other outsiders to the table to "establish dialogue," to negotiate, to make concessions, or otherwise consider "root causes," that is a spectacular coup. It additionally justifies the original act of terror, while providing incentive for more, and inspiring other groups to present their supposed grievances in the same way. The upshot of all this is that lots of innocent people die, stability and the rule of law are completely undermined, and the thugs of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, et al are shown that their savage acts of violence produce positive results.
Today's Islamic terrorists worldwide have learned that their ruthless enterprise of death can sometimes return high yields with money, sympathy, release of jailed associates, and other concessions. Furthermore, with the advent of media technology, even if their demands go unmet, their message is still broadcast to all the world, and this provides the gain of a shaken enemy (us). They engage in acts of terror because it pays dividends to do so. If the mujahideen get more out of a terror attack than what they originally put into it, then of course they will feel compelled to do it again--as will other groups. Why wouldn't they?
Remove the Incentive
This is why acts of terror must be disincentivized. Islamic terrorists must be shown consistently and categorically that their murderous acts will always cost them far more than whatever they may have gained. Our message to all Islamic terrorists needs to be this: "If you choose to employ violence, destruction, and murder to make your point, we will not listen, we will not change our policies, and we will certainly not entertain the notion that there are any "root causes" outside of the fact that you thought we would offer any of the above actions. In addition, we will mercilessly hunt you down, summarily kill or otherwise incapacitate you and your fellows, and make it impossible for you to walk in the free light of day, let alone commit more acts of terror." Any other message beyond this justifies terror and promotes more. We must say to each and every ambitious jihadi out there that if they engage in acts of terror to get their message across, we will be resolutely committed to never seeking to understand "root causes," no matter how worthy the fundamental cause or how legitimate the grievance might actually be .
Islam has demonstrated time and again that it is either unable or unwilling to police itself and to bring its "extremists" to heel. Therefore, it is up to the rest of us to take effective steps to halt the killing and mayhem in Allah's name. Let's be clear, and have the resolve to follow through: If you decide to use terror as a means of advancing your cause, your gains will be zero and your losses will be great.
If we are to be realistic, disincentivization is the only rational--and ethical--course of action for addressing and responding to every bus bombing by Hamas, every beheading by Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad or Ansar Al-Sunnah, every assassination by Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon, and every apocalyptic attack by Al Qaeda. All of these savage Islamic criminals are committed to their hateful and homicidal agenda. They are not amenable to the niceties of modern civilized discourse and mutual understanding. They are thoroughly convinced that their GOd is pleased with their barbaric handiwork, and they will not relent. So we too, must be steadfastly committed to an uncompromising program of making their lives as miserably inhospitable as we possibly can--to the point of taking their lives if we must. If these wicked people were open to fair and open settlement of disagreements, they wouldn't find resourse to their horrendous misdeeds in the first place. To negotiate with them or to treat them as anything more than the vicious criminals they are is just a slap in the face to their victims.
Beside all of these considerations when seeking out "root causes" one must answer a very simple question: If terror is the inevitable result of oppression, poverty, disenfranchisement, dispossession, or other privations, then where are the Tibetan, the Haitian, the native American, or the Greek Cypriot terrorists? The Turkish Armenians and the Kurds were ignored when they tried to employ terror to advance their respective causes, and guess what happened? It stopped.
by Patrick D. O'Brien
"We need to establish a meaningful dialogue with these angry Muslims who are acting out so violently, so that we can understand what the root cause is. It's obvious that they deserve our attention if they're willing to take such desperate measures to make their case. After we do that, then we can proceed with a plan of action to work with them and address their grievances."
Insert the sound of a turntable needle scratching across the grooves of a record here.
Why Does Islamic Terror Work?
Imagine for a moment that I want from you $10,000 and six hours of your time to explain how my way of life is superior and why you should do the same. Just because--trust me, this is a worthy cause. Would you grant me these two requests? No? Well, what if I stood outside your house yelling through a megaphone while you were trying to have dinner? No? All right then. How about if I throw a brick with a threatening note taped to it through your living room window? Do I have your attention yet? Yeah, you've called the cops. I anticipated that, though, so I got away pretty easily. Now I've taken someone you love hostage. Or I've bombed the homes of your relatives, killing some of them. I bet now you're thinking about giving me as much of your money and time as I ask for. In fact, I'm certain that you're now ready to listen attentively to the root causes--my legitimate grievances--that made me do these things. A fair part of the onus is on you, because it wouldn't have come to this if only you'd taken the time to give my cause the attention that it deserves.
As hyperbolic as the above fictional scenario is, it's not wholly dissimilar to how many on the left respond to violent Islamic terror. They look for the root cause of the Islamic rage which manifests itself in the form of murder and devastation. It is bizarre causality and moral relativism mixed into a crazy mode of thinking which exculpates terrorists for their crimes even as it invites more. These people who justify and apologize for Islamic terror seem to think that if a group is willing to go so far as to murder innocent civilians, with the actors sometimes killing themselves in the process, its cause must warrant our attention and sympathies. And off they go, looking for the putative "root causes" of murderous Islamic terror, discounting the suffering and death of the victims who have nothing to do with it.
Why do so many on the left presuppose that there must be some sort of root cause which justifies Muslims murdering innocents? Or to be blunt, how could any rational and ethical person lend validity to the idea that murdering defenseless civilians warrants any sort of consideration beyond contempt and severe retaliation? Because that's what understanding the oft-touted "root cause" of Islamic terror means. It is basically the same as saying: "We haven't yet given your complaints and demands any attention. But now that you've killed unarmed civilians, we can see that what you have to say must have import and merit, so now we are ready to listen and to help eliminate the 'root causes' of your actions." Does this make any sense, rationally or morally? Maybe I was just a precocious child, but when I was young and got sent to my room for yelling out loud and acting up, I got the message: If you want Mom's attention, ask politely and calmly. I've never forgotten that lesson, and it has served me well innumerable times in my life. Bad behavior just cannot be rewarded, and sensible people know this.
When murder and destruction are used for the purpose of achieving practical gains, success is often measured in increments rather than in decisively conclusive victories. When Islamic terrorists draw world attention to their cause with their criminal acts, that is a positive achievement for them, even if that attention primarily takes the form of disgust and outrage--the message is still reaching an audience. When their acts of terror win them even a small portion of their demands, this is a material and psychological triumph. In short, whenever the investment of terrorism does not exceed its gains, it is a success. But when Islamic terror brings its targets and other outsiders to the table to "establish dialogue," to negotiate, to make concessions, or otherwise consider "root causes," that is a spectacular coup. It additionally justifies the original act of terror, while providing incentive for more, and inspiring other groups to present their supposed grievances in the same way. The upshot of all this is that lots of innocent people die, stability and the rule of law are completely undermined, and the thugs of Hamas, Al Qaeda, Ansar al Islam, et al are shown that their savage acts of violence produce positive results.
Today's Islamic terrorists worldwide have learned that their ruthless enterprise of death can sometimes return high yields with money, sympathy, release of jailed associates, and other concessions. Furthermore, with the advent of media technology, even if their demands go unmet, their message is still broadcast to all the world, and this provides the gain of a shaken enemy (us). They engage in acts of terror because it pays dividends to do so. If the mujahideen get more out of a terror attack than what they originally put into it, then of course they will feel compelled to do it again--as will other groups. Why wouldn't they?
Remove the Incentive
This is why acts of terror must be disincentivized. Islamic terrorists must be shown consistently and categorically that their murderous acts will always cost them far more than whatever they may have gained. Our message to all Islamic terrorists needs to be this: "If you choose to employ violence, destruction, and murder to make your point, we will not listen, we will not change our policies, and we will certainly not entertain the notion that there are any "root causes" outside of the fact that you thought we would offer any of the above actions. In addition, we will mercilessly hunt you down, summarily kill or otherwise incapacitate you and your fellows, and make it impossible for you to walk in the free light of day, let alone commit more acts of terror." Any other message beyond this justifies terror and promotes more. We must say to each and every ambitious jihadi out there that if they engage in acts of terror to get their message across, we will be resolutely committed to never seeking to understand "root causes," no matter how worthy the fundamental cause or how legitimate the grievance might actually be .
Islam has demonstrated time and again that it is either unable or unwilling to police itself and to bring its "extremists" to heel. Therefore, it is up to the rest of us to take effective steps to halt the killing and mayhem in Allah's name. Let's be clear, and have the resolve to follow through: If you decide to use terror as a means of advancing your cause, your gains will be zero and your losses will be great.
If we are to be realistic, disincentivization is the only rational--and ethical--course of action for addressing and responding to every bus bombing by Hamas, every beheading by Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad or Ansar Al-Sunnah, every assassination by Al-Ikhwan Al-Moslemoon, and every apocalyptic attack by Al Qaeda. All of these savage Islamic criminals are committed to their hateful and homicidal agenda. They are not amenable to the niceties of modern civilized discourse and mutual understanding. They are thoroughly convinced that their GOd is pleased with their barbaric handiwork, and they will not relent. So we too, must be steadfastly committed to an uncompromising program of making their lives as miserably inhospitable as we possibly can--to the point of taking their lives if we must. If these wicked people were open to fair and open settlement of disagreements, they wouldn't find resourse to their horrendous misdeeds in the first place. To negotiate with them or to treat them as anything more than the vicious criminals they are is just a slap in the face to their victims.
Beside all of these considerations when seeking out "root causes" one must answer a very simple question: If terror is the inevitable result of oppression, poverty, disenfranchisement, dispossession, or other privations, then where are the Tibetan, the Haitian, the native American, or the Greek Cypriot terrorists? The Turkish Armenians and the Kurds were ignored when they tried to employ terror to advance their respective causes, and guess what happened? It stopped.
There need to be intensively punishing repercussions for all acts of Islamic terror--even for murder/suicide attacks. Someone must end up receiving a severe recompense when Islam's holy warriors decide to take the lives of innocents along with their own for the sake of becoming a shahid and in the hopes of furthering their cause. This can be in the form of a forfeiture of some assets from the terrorist's family, destruction of their home or any other home that harbored them, or seizure of funds provided after their death--all in accord with clearly and predetermined guidelines. Also, as Israel has shown, employing swift and harsh retaliation against the Islamic suicide terrorist's organization is effective at incapacitating them, preventing further attacks, and shelving the organization's cause. Again, bad behavior cannot be rewarded.
Global Islamic terror is a new threat which requires the old methodology of severe punitive consequences, rather than a modern rehabilitative approach, if we are looking to prevent it and to respond to it effectively when it does happen. We need to adopt measures which will make it clear to Islamic terrorists that on one hand we are willing to liberally apply painful attrition to stop and to punish them, while on the other hand, at home, refusing to adopt the totalitarian ideology which drives them in their vile and inhuman crimes. It's a balancing act. It's a chance to set things right and to make the world a better place by eliminating Islamic terror's payoffs. These maniacs are fanatically committed to establishing a politicoreligious dystopia, and they're going to keep killing until they are stopped. We must beat them now so that they don't threaten our children tomorrow.
Still Looking for Root Causes?
If you don't understand this simple calculus of confronting and neutralizing Islamic terror, you are probably idealistic, a bit foolish, in thrall to political correctness, or maybe some combination thereof. There are two primary causes of Islamic terror: an unreformed, violent, and totalitarian politicoreligious ideology which is seen as infallible by its adherents; and a proven record of terror achieving at least some degree of success in attaining desired results. These are what drives the violent mujahideen to commit such atrocious crimes in the name of Allah. These are the true root causes of Islamic terror.
If you look for the "root cause" of the Muslim rage that finds expression in the murder of unarmed children, women, and men, you are lending a legitimacy to terror which it certainly does not deserve. If you make qualitative distinctions between the political and armed wings of Hamas; if when the mujahideen fly packed jetliners into skyscrapers, or kidnap civilians and then slaughter them on film, you claim that they are merely reacting naturally to the imperialism of the evil, oil-hungry West; if you assert that Palestinian Arabs are blowing to bloody shreds Jewish children and the elderly on commuter buses because they have no other choice when confronting Israel's superior military might--if you offer up anything at all to justify or excuse such vile acts at this point in the game of fighting global Islamic terror, then in a not insignificant way, you are the root cause.
Global Islamic terror is a new threat which requires the old methodology of severe punitive consequences, rather than a modern rehabilitative approach, if we are looking to prevent it and to respond to it effectively when it does happen. We need to adopt measures which will make it clear to Islamic terrorists that on one hand we are willing to liberally apply painful attrition to stop and to punish them, while on the other hand, at home, refusing to adopt the totalitarian ideology which drives them in their vile and inhuman crimes. It's a balancing act. It's a chance to set things right and to make the world a better place by eliminating Islamic terror's payoffs. These maniacs are fanatically committed to establishing a politicoreligious dystopia, and they're going to keep killing until they are stopped. We must beat them now so that they don't threaten our children tomorrow.
Still Looking for Root Causes?
If you don't understand this simple calculus of confronting and neutralizing Islamic terror, you are probably idealistic, a bit foolish, in thrall to political correctness, or maybe some combination thereof. There are two primary causes of Islamic terror: an unreformed, violent, and totalitarian politicoreligious ideology which is seen as infallible by its adherents; and a proven record of terror achieving at least some degree of success in attaining desired results. These are what drives the violent mujahideen to commit such atrocious crimes in the name of Allah. These are the true root causes of Islamic terror.
If you look for the "root cause" of the Muslim rage that finds expression in the murder of unarmed children, women, and men, you are lending a legitimacy to terror which it certainly does not deserve. If you make qualitative distinctions between the political and armed wings of Hamas; if when the mujahideen fly packed jetliners into skyscrapers, or kidnap civilians and then slaughter them on film, you claim that they are merely reacting naturally to the imperialism of the evil, oil-hungry West; if you assert that Palestinian Arabs are blowing to bloody shreds Jewish children and the elderly on commuter buses because they have no other choice when confronting Israel's superior military might--if you offer up anything at all to justify or excuse such vile acts at this point in the game of fighting global Islamic terror, then in a not insignificant way, you are the root cause.
I see the Native Americans mention. I just find it a shame how we took there land. But know there getting even with there gambling halls. But this dude seems to forget that.
