Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > A Fun Poll! Which One Was/Is More Dangerous At This Stage?

View Poll Results: Which One Was/Is More Dangerous At This Stage?
Poll Options:
Hitler in 1938 22 votes (47.83%)
America in 2003 7 votes (15.22%)
Global Jihad in 2006 12 votes (26.09%)
Other (Explain) 5 votes (10.87%)
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll
A Fun Poll! Which One Was/Is More Dangerous At This Stage?
Thread Tools
marden
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 07:29 PM
 
A Fun Poll! Which One Was/Is More Dangerous At This Stage?

Hitler in 1938

America in 2003

Global Jihad in 2006

I know you will ask me to define DANGEROUS.

That's part of the fun for you. YOU get to define what dangerous means.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 07:35 PM
 
This thread is just asking for a derail....





But I will refrain.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 08:17 PM
 
"marden" is missing from the list; why?
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
"marden" is missing from the list; why?
That's what the "other" is for…
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
That's what the "other" is for…


That's funny. Thanks for the laff, Pendergast and smacintush!
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 08:44 PM
 
Incidentally, I voted "other". We need to do all that is in our power to end the global threat of Country Music.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 08:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Incidentally, I voted "other". We need to do all that is in our power to end the global threat of Country Music.
Damn, the pure logic and reasoning you have so succinctly displayed has revealed a whole new level of dangerousness! I wish I could change my vote from "Hitler in 1938," which is otherwise the only correct answer in the poll.



greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 09:28 PM
 
The most dangerous threat to people is their own government.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2006, 09:44 PM
 
then the French are royally screwed
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 02:26 AM
 
I voted for Global Jihad in 2006, with global warming in 2006 a distant second place.

This was a fun poll, marden! I suggest you start similar polls regularly, so we can judge the pulse of this forum, and by proxy America (the world?!).
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 03:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
I voted for Global Jihad in 2006, with global warming in 2006 a distant second place.

This was a fun poll, marden! I suggest you start similar polls regularly, so we can judge the pulse of this forum, and by proxy America (the world?!).
Fun Poll #2 is now posted in the lounge.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 03:13 AM
 
I think Adriana Lima is the most dangerous.



For how I'm defining the word, anyway.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
BlueSky
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: ------>
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 11:45 AM
 
This is the most dangerous to the US, and will most likely be its downfall.

Immigration by the Numbers

...features Roy Beck demonstrating the catastrophe of the huge numbers of both legal and illegal immigration by Third World people into the modern nations. He uses standard statistics and simple gumballs to show this disaster in the making.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think Adriana Lima is the most dangerous.



For how I'm defining the word, anyway.

mommy!
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I think Adriana Lima is the most dangerous.



For how I'm defining the word, anyway.
Is she an immigrant?
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 01:23 PM
 
Well, wake me up when the terrorists hit the 60-million-killed mark.

Hitler must be rolling in his grave.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2006, 05:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Well, wake me up when the terrorists hit the 60-million-killed mark.

Hitler must be rolling in his grave.

greg
That's the problem with your argument. It relies only on assessing a threat based on proven harm done. If we are trying to PREVENT that harm from occurring, then your pov is bogus.

Of course 60 million had not yet died at the whim of the 1938 NAZI's. But based on your way of looking at things, even if we were to do things all over again, you would still not speak out against Hitler in 1938.

Why not?

Because there was not provable evidence of his danger.

There was only signs and indications.

Signs and indications that you ignore now in the face of Jihad are the same as the signs and indications that existed in 1938.

You'd miss warning of the danger of Hitler and thus help ASSURE the deaths of 60,000,000.

How many would die to the jihadists before you quietly said to yourself, "Ooops"?

And no one in their right mind would worry about Hitler's deportment beyond death nor care about his reactions to anything.

     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 02:11 AM
 
That's completely incorrect.

There were far more than "signs and indications" from the 1938 Nazis. There was a dedicated, fanatical leadership, a population that showed itself content (if not happy) to follow that leader's vision, and one of the greatest economic powers in the world in 1938. Above all this, in 1938 Hitler possessed what must unquestionably be considered the finest military in the world; a military that had devoted itself to studying the failures of the Great War and dedicated itself to correcting those failures in the event of another chance.

"Global jihad" has none of these things – no dedicated leader, no defining goal, no significant economic might, and no significant military to speak of. In addition, it doesn't have the benefit of disinterested or distracted Great Powers. The only significant threat "global jihad" poses at this time is IMO nuclear warfare by Iran – a possibility that seems relatively remote. Why? Because, unlike 1938 Hitler, Iran knows that it has no chance to survive such a war – any nuclear warfare it starts, no matter how destructive, will inevitably result in its own complete and utter destruction.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 04:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
That's completely incorrect.

There were far more than "signs and indications" from the 1938 Nazis. There was a dedicated, fanatical leadership, a population that showed itself content (if not happy) to follow that leader's vision, and one of the greatest economic powers in the world in 1938. Above all this, in 1938 Hitler possessed what must unquestionably be considered the finest military in the world; a military that had devoted itself to studying the failures of the Great War and dedicated itself to correcting those failures in the event of another chance.

"Global jihad" has none of these things – no dedicated leader, no defining goal, no significant economic might, and no significant military to speak of. In addition, it doesn't have the benefit of disinterested or distracted Great Powers. The only significant threat "global jihad" poses at this time is IMO nuclear warfare by Iran – a possibility that seems relatively remote. Why? Because, unlike 1938 Hitler, Iran knows that it has no chance to survive such a war – any nuclear warfare it starts, no matter how destructive, will inevitably result in its own complete and utter destruction.

greg
At LEAST ( ) Hitler tried to hide his true intentions.

"Global jihad" is very honest about what they intend to do. They have books and videos and audios and web sites and magazine articles and demonstrations and protests and killings and explosions and wars and rumors of war and conquest taking place all over the world and covered in the news.

I call it "Global Jihad" even though there are dozens or hundreds of variously named organizations all pursuing the same goal. And while you see this as a weakness it is actually an advantage to their movement.

You might be able to successfully fend off one or two normal sized guys but if there were a bunch of bees all trying to get you at the same time how many bee stings could you endure before you fell?

We were a robust, non-nonsense, agricultural and smokestack industrial era America in the 1940's and we did what we could to stay out of the war but when we were attacked we rolled up our sleeves and won the war without regard for what controversy might arise.

Now, do we have what it takes? Do we still have that vitality and will to win and to eliminate a foe that is more dangerous than Hitler and Tojo?

The Germans and Japanese were in uniform and were identifiable.

Jihad can look like Adam Gadahn or Johnny Walker Lind or anyone.

One in 10 Indonesia Muslims back violent jihad: poll

The details:
Around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims support jihad and justify bomb attacks on Indonesia's tourist island of Bali as defending the faith, a survey released on Sunday showed.

Indonesia is the world's fourth most populous country, with 220 million people, 85 percent of whom follow Islam, giving the Asian archipelago the largest Muslim population of any nation in the world.

"Jihad that has been understood partially and practiced with violence is justified by around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims," the Indonesian Survey Institute said in a statement.

"They approved the bombings conducted ... in Bali with the excuse of defending Islam," it added, saying the percentage of such support "is very significant."

While the vast majority of Indonesia's Muslims are relatively moderate, there has been an increasingly vocal militant minority and political pressure for more laws that are in line with hardline Muslim teachings.

The poll surveyed a random sample of 1,092 Muslim men and women.

Now, some quick math:

220 million Indonesians.

85 percent of them Muslim.

1 in 10 of those Muslims support suicide bombings to "defend their faith." (As Robert Spencer notes, "that's just those who are willing to tell a pollster something that they would know the government would not likely be happy to hear.")

So, that's 19 million Muslims for violent jihad in "moderate" Indonesia alone.

Another survey published over the summer underscores the myth of "moderate" Muslim Indonesia. The Washington Times editorialized:
More than two-thirds of Indonesians favor the country's current secular system of law, according to a privately funded nationwide survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle, a pollster. If that seems like good news, read it this way: This means there are "only" about 82 million Indonesians who favor Shariah. Approximately 216 million out of Indonesia's approximately 246 million inhabitants, or nearly nine-tenths of the population, are Muslims. And while Indonesia's religious and cultural climate is justifiably regarded as moderate in comparison to much of the rest of the Muslim world -- and its government is a very useful ally against terrorism -- the numbers still leave plenty of room for concern.

Just over two-thirds of respondents disapprove of the death penalty for those who renounce Islam, according to the survey, which was first reported by Rupert Murdoch's www.news.com.au. More than three-quarters of Indonesians disapprove of mandatory head scarves. Nearly two-thirds oppose stoning for adultery. More than 75 percent are against severing the hands of thieves.

When the aggregate numbers of people are factored in, the study looks considerably more disturbing. If one-quarter of Indonesians favor cutting off the hands of thieves, it suggests that upwards of 60 million Indonesians favor the practice. If roughly 164 million Indonesians oppose stoning adulterers, it means that more than 80 million favor doing so.

Add those jihadi-endorsing and sharia-embracing masses to these Muslims polled in Britain in July:
13% of British Muslims think that the four men who carried out the London Tube and bus bombings of July 7 2005 should be regarded as “martyrs”

7% agree that suicide attacks on civilians in the UK can be justified in some circumstances, rising to 16 per cent for a military target

16% of British Muslims say that while the attacks may have been wrong, the cause was right

16% would be “indifferent” if a family member decided to join al-Qaeda and two per cent would be proud
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006121.htm
( Last edited by marden; Nov 20, 2006 at 04:27 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 04:13 AM
 
Until somebody can provide some good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume this "Global Jihad" is about as big a threat to the world order as the Flat Earth Society is to modern geography. Once more, you seem to be drinking the jihadists' Kool-Aid and letting their terrorism have its intended effect on you. Meanwhile, I see that they are much fewer and much weaker than the rest of the world. So your analogy of a bunch of bees versus one guy is inaccurate. It's more like a hundred ants versus all of Texas. You might go, "See, an ant bit that guy! It's dangerous!" But actually, the ants aren't going to take over Texas even if they really, really want to. If the ants become a problem, crush them, but don't let them control your life through fear.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 04:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Until somebody can provide some good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume this "Global Jihad" is about as big a threat to the world order as the Flat Earth Society is to modern geography. Once more, you seem to be drinking the jihadists' Kool-Aid and letting their terrorism have its intended effect on you. Meanwhile, I see that they are much fewer and much weaker than the rest of the world. So your analogy of a bunch of bees versus one guy is inaccurate. It's more like a hundred ants versus all of Texas. You might go, "See, an ant bit that guy! It's dangerous!" But actually, the ants aren't going to take over Texas even if they really, really want to. If the ants become a problem, crush them, but don't let them control your life through fear.
So, that's 19 million Muslims for violent jihad in "moderate" Indonesia alone.

But how many are needed to present a threat to the US? To the WORLD?

If you look at the United States' population of 300,000,000 you recognize we are a very populous nation.

We have 2,479,713 total troops. List of countries by number of total troops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is less than 1% of our population.

With only a MINORITY of our total number of troops stationed in the M.E. (appx 200,000 Global U.S. Troop Deployment, 1950-2005 ) we are still seen as a military threat to Iraq or Iran or Afghanistan or the regions where our manpower is congregated.

Yet, when we discuss 15% of the world's 1.2 billion - 1.8 billion Muslims being a jihadist threat that we should be concerned with, some of you look askance.

15% of 1,200,000,000 = 180,000,000 that's a LOT of jihadists.

Then if you add Iran's 11,770,000 soldiers and paramilitaries I wonder how many there must be before you raise your eyebrow? Or open your eyes?

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...=1#post3204501
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 04:46 AM
 
Wow, 180 million soldiers and they haven't managed to do jack **** to the civilized world as of yet. These bungling dolts are even less of a threat than I'd imagined.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Until somebody can provide some good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume this "Global Jihad" is about as big a threat to the world order as the Flat Earth Society is to modern geography.
I am quite surprised at you, Chuckit. The Flat Earth Society did not perpetrate the most devastating attack in the history of the United States. The Flat Earth Society isn't fighting for terror-anarchy in Iraq. The Flat Earth Society isn't overtly threatening America and Israel with destruction (i.e. Iran). The Flat Earth Society hasn't refused for 48 years to end its perpetual warfare against the Jewish state. The Flat Earth Society isn't responsible for genocide and slavery in Africa. The Flat Earth Society did not plot to blow up jets over the Atlantic using items stashed in carry-ons. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Indian trains. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the English subway. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Madrid trains. The Flat Earth Society has not made it a stated intention to acquire WMD. The Flat Earth Society has not vowed to institute Sharia over the entire earth. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the subjugation of Jews and Christians. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the conversion or destruction of all polytheists. The Flat Earth Society does not have a billion people under its banner. The Flat Earth Society is not a combatant in most of the world's armed conflicts.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I am quite surprised at you, Chuckit. The Flat Earth Society did not perpetrate the most devastating attack in the history of the United States. The Flat Earth Society isn't fighting for terror-anarchy in Iraq. The Flat Earth Society isn't overtly threatening America and Israel with destruction (i.e. Iran). The Flat Earth Society hasn't refused for 48 years to end its perpetual warfare against the Jewish state. The Flat Earth Society isn't responsible for genocide and slavery in Africa. The Flat Earth Society did not plot to blow up jets over the Atlantic using items stashed in carry-ons. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Indian trains. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the English subway. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Madrid trains. The Flat Earth Society has not made it a stated intention to acquire WMD. The Flat Earth Society has not vowed to institute Sharia over the entire earth. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the subjugation of Jews and Christians. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the conversion or destruction of all polytheists. The Flat Earth Society does not have a billion people under its banner. The Flat Earth Society is not a combatant in most of the world's armed conflicts.
So? Are you seriously suggesting that because they have carried out a successful attack on an unprepared country (9/11) and like to fight amongst themselves a lot, they are right about to take over the entire world?

Like I said, is any of the civilized world even close to being militarily taken over by jihadists? No. Would they like to? Probably. But they don't have the power to do anything except kill a few people here and there.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Wow, 180 million soldiers and they haven't managed to do jack **** to the civilized world as of yet. These bungling dolts are even less of a threat than I'd imagined.
And THAT, dear readers, is why I chose to cite the Hitler of 1938. That was before he had done anything. And even with that being the case you have made a TREMENDOUS MISTAKE.

In 1938 Hitler had done NOTHING but he had shown signs that many people correctly read and because they did their lives were saved. Millions more didn't believe he would do such things as others feared and they stayed. And millions of them paid with their lives.

In 2001 we saw that Jihad was real and yet with the safety that the President has provided many of you take that to mean there is no danger. And so you say that even though there were fewer German soldiers in 1938 than there are Iranian soldiers and paramilitaries today.

You say so even though:

Hitler had attacked no country but in the past year Somalia has fallen to Islam and thousands have died because of Jihadists.

Chamberlain was able to visit Hitler in Germany right before hostilities began but the President of the United States is unable to visit Indonesia longer than 6 hours because of fear from jihadist attack.

Hitler controlled the military of one country. The Jihadists who would be chanting Death to America may be from one of the countries in green or yellow but they could be anywhere.


Nations with a Muslim majority appear in green, while nations that are approximately 50% Muslim appear yellow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:12 AM
 
So? Are you seriously suggesting that because they have carried out a successful attack on an unprepared country (9/11) and like to fight amongst themselves a lot, they are right about to take over the entire world?
No, I am suggesting,
1. The Jihadists are capable of inflicting a lot of harm - they already have and they can do so again. In fact, they are causing significant harm on a daily basis, but it's just below your radar.

2. They don't just fight amongst themselves - they fight the rest of the world.

3. They are not about to take over the world, but they can certainly damage it considerably. Do they really have to be on the verge of taking over the world like the fascists of WWII were in order for you to acknowledge the threat rather than mock it?

Like I said, is any of the civilized world even close to being militarily taken over by jihadists? No. Would they like to? Probably. But they don't have the power to do anything except kill a few people here and there.
Are you ignorning what's occurring in Iraq because Iraq isn't a civilized country? And even if you do not think the forces of Jihad are close to having the strength to take over a civilized country, would your response be any different if tomorrow a country did fall to Jihad? I wager it would not change. You'd just write that off too. If you see a fire approaching your home, do you wait until the roof is on fire before you evacuate?
( Last edited by Big Mac; Nov 20, 2006 at 05:22 AM. )

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
So? Are you seriously suggesting that because they have carried out a successful attack on an unprepared country (9/11) and like to fight amongst themselves a lot, they are right about to take over the entire world?

Like I said, is any of the civilized world even close to being militarily taken over by jihadists? No. Would they like to? Probably. But they don't have the power to do anything except kill a few people here and there.
We went to Somalia got our men killed and left with our tails between our legs. Jihadists went to Somalia, took control, established Islamic rule.

Is this not enough for you?

Somali Islamists Declare Victory; Warlords on Run

By MARC LACEY
Published: June 6, 2006

NAIROBI, Kenya, June 5 — After months of fierce fighting, Islamic militias declared Monday that they had taken control of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu, defeating the warlords widely believed to be backed by the United States and raising questions about whether the country would head down an extremist path.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/06/wo...rica/06somalia. html?ex=1307246400&en=337223154d2129f3&ei=5088&...


Then once they conquered Somalia they began to conquer their neighbor, Ethiopia.

October 26, 2006

"Thousands" in Somalia enlist for jihad against Ethiopia

An update on this story. "Somali Islamists recruit for jihad against Ethiopia," by Mustafa Haji Abdinur for AFP:

MOGADISHU -- Somali Islamists have begun recruiting thousands of young fighters to fight a jihad against Ethiopia, officials said Wednesday, amid fears of all-out war across the lawless Horn of Africa nation.

A day after claiming to have captured an Ethiopian military officer in fierce weekend battles with a militia allied to Somalia's weak government, the Islamists said that at least 3,000 people had enlisted for combat in the holy war.

Many of the new recruits have signed up in the last two days, since the supreme leader of the powerful Islamist movement announced the start of a threatened jihad against Ethiopian troops alleged in Somalia, officials said.

"We have at least 3,000 young fighters who have now registered to fight the enemy of Allah," a senior official with the Supreme Council of Islamic Courts (SICS) official said in Mogadishu.
The newcomers, including women, will join what the Islamists claim are tens of thousands of battle-hardened gunmen who seized Mogadishu in June from warlords and now control most of southern and central Somalia.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/013741.php


All of this has happened in the last 12 months. Do a MacNN search.
( Last edited by marden; Nov 20, 2006 at 05:26 AM. )
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by marden View Post
And THAT, dear readers, is why I chose to cite the Hitler of 1938. That was before he had done anything. And even with that being the case you have made a TREMENDOUS MISTAKE.

In 1938 Hitler had done NOTHING but he had shown signs that many people correctly read and because they did their lives were saved.
Except you're wrong. The Bungling Jihad Dolts have already begun their attacks. We've seen what they can do, what they crow about, and it's a **** of a lot less than we could do if we felt like trying. They aren't doing nothing, they're just not doing anything effectual.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
3. They are not about to take over the world, but they can certainly damage it considerably. Do they really have to be on the verge of taking over the world like the fascists of WWII were in order for you to acknowledge the threat rather than mock it?
I cannot argue every point at once. At the moment, I was discussing Abe's theory that the world is about to be militarily taken over by jihadists.

It is true, they can kill quite a few people, but so can any group of people so filled with hate. And that is a much bigger topic than this thread. The point is, the future of this problem, as well as its solution, is not similar to Germany in the 1930s. You might argue that it's somewhat similar to Japan of the same era (at least more so than Germany), I guess, but even that is a bit of a stretch.
( Last edited by Chuckit; Nov 20, 2006 at 05:25 AM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
I cannot argue every point at once. At the moment, I was discussing Abe's theory that the world is about to be militarily taken over by jihadists.
Fair enough, although I do not think that's the hypothetical he posed. He asked which was the biggest threat to the world.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:28 AM
 
Oh, just FYI, I edited my post above to address what you were talking about a little more. (Not a whole lot of specifics, but I thought it was at least worth weighing in on.)
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:31 AM
 
Thank you, Chuckit. Sorry if I have come off a bit harsh in this thread.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:50 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Except you're wrong. The Bungling Jihad Dolts have already begun their attacks. We've seen what they can do, what they crow about, and it's a **** of a lot less than we could do if we felt like trying. They aren't doing nothing, they're just not doing anything effectual.
You know they have taken over Somalia. You know they are suspected of having infiltrated the US with suitcase nukes. You know that the IDF couldn't rout Hezbollah from Lebanon and that we haven't yet beaten the Jihadists in Iraq. You know that Ahmadinejad has vowed to wipe Israel off the map and that they are called the little Satan and we are the Great Satan and that there are certain triggers that could set off a world wide Holy War.

What would a real apologist say that you haven't?
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 05:58 AM
 
The Sunday Times November 19, 2006

Focus: My life as a spy at the heart of Al-Qaeda

Al-Qaeda trained Omar Nasiri in its Afghan terror camps as a bomber and sent him to London. Unknown to them he was also working for western intelligence. Here he reveals his life as a double agent operating at the very edge of the law

Abu Hamza looked at me with his one good eye as we were introduced. “Masha’Allah, brother,” he said. “Can you meet me in the office after prayers?” “Of course,” I told him.

When prayers were finished I stood outside the office on the first floor of the Finsbury Park mosque in north London. Hamza approached with a young boy by his side. He gestured with his hook and the boy opened the door for him. We sat on the floor and Hamza asked the boy to bring us tea.

Hamza asked me which of the camps in Afghanistan I had been in, and I told him. Then I leant forward slightly. “I met someone you know,” I said in a conspiratorial voice. Hamza raised his brow just slightly.

“I trained with Assad Allah,” I told him. “He told me about the nitroglycerine, and how you lost your hands.” Hamza looked away. “Brother,” he whispered, not meeting my gaze, “please don’t share that story with anyone.”
Focus: My life as a spy at the heart of Al-Qaeda - Britain - Times Online
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 11:18 AM
 
Sigh. I don't know where to start with all the inaccuracy in this thread.

Originally Posted by marden View Post
At LEAST ( ) Hitler tried to hide his true intentions.

"Global jihad" is very honest about what they intend to do. They have books and videos and audios and web sites and magazine articles and demonstrations and protests and killings and explosions and wars and rumors of war and conquest taking place all over the world and covered in the news.

I call it "Global Jihad" even though there are dozens or hundreds of variously named organizations all pursuing the same goal. And while you see this as a weakness it is actually an advantage to their movement.
First off, you seem to think that in 1938 Hitler was hiding on the down-low and had given no one evidence of his true intentions (as you've mentioned several times in this thread). We've already established before that you don't know your history well; this is in fact quite wrong. Hitler had already broken Great War treaties by re-militarizing Germany, and had as well taken back the Rhine from the French (ie. re-militarized it as well). Of course, in 1938 Hitler also took over the Czech Sudetenland, and later that year took over the rest of Czechoslovakia. So your various analogies with how sneaky Hitler was, and his lack of action contrasted with the jihadists' in Somalia, are blown to bits.

We went to Somalia got our men killed and left with our tails between our legs. Jihadists went to Somalia, took control, established Islamic rule.

Is this not enough for you?
No, this isn't "enough for me." Once again, you show your penchant for twisting history to suit your needs for dramatic analogy. These two military actions aren't even comparable. You are suggesting that jihadists somehow conquered where UN/American might failed; of course, you either once again have no idea about the conflict you're talking about, or you're deliberately twisting the facts into something convenient for your argument. Neither helps your cause. I suggest you go look up UN involvement in Somalia to educate yourself on what actually took place there, and the goals of that humanitarian mission. Yet again your analogy is handily destroyed.

What I especially like is the "dangerous jihadist muslims" calculations:
Around one in 10 Indonesian Muslims support jihad and justify bomb attacks on Indonesia's tourist island of Bali as defending the faith, a survey released on Sunday showed.
Yet, when we discuss 15% of the world's 1.2 billion - 1.8 billion Muslims being a jihadist threat that we should be concerned with, some of you look askance.

15% of 1,200,000,000 = 180,000,000 that's a LOT of jihadists.
Ahhhh...and abe, like the article, looks at these numbers and goes "horrifying! 180 million people are jihadists!

But what does that even mean? Do these 180 million have bombs? No. Do these 180 million have guns? No. Do these 180 million have leadership, or economic clout? No. Do these 180 million have any sort of military strength? No.

The thing is, you refuse to recognize that these kinds of estimated polls are just as valid as estimated America's military power based on the number of citizens that support the Army, or America's military, or America's military actions. Far and away the vast majority of these people will never join the Army, and never participate in military measures. Similarly, the vast majority of those 180 million people who "support" jihadism are in the same boat – they're shopkeepers, or unemployed (a real threat), or fishermen, or politicians, or family men, or whatever – and while they might think jihadism is a good idea if asked, they're not all going to run and join a jihad group and start a war.

Finally: according to your figures, 15% of Muslims are "jihadists." Why isn't the other 85% mentioned? You know, the 1.something billion Muslims that don't support global jihad? Where are they in this equation?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Macrobat
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 11:43 AM
 
Actually, all signs seem to be pointing at an attempt to "take over" one of the same countries Hitler did - France.

And Chuckit - name a single one of the armed conflicts now occurring worldwide that is NOT Muslim versus non-Muslim.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 12:21 PM
 
marden, do you take into account that Germany was the economic and military superpower of the world, whereas the jihadists live in tents with camels? I'd think that would factor into dangerousness just a little bit.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Until somebody can provide some good reason to think otherwise, I'm going to assume this "Global Jihad" is about as big a threat to the world order as the Flat Earth Society is to modern geography. Once more, you seem to be drinking the jihadists' Kool-Aid and letting their terrorism have its intended effect on you.


"Global Jihad" doesn't exist. Hitler was dangerous because he was the leader of a country and a military that responded to him. There is no such equivalent among terrorist groups. They neither have anything like the power Hitler had nor are they coordinated. If they were to stick their heads out in the way that would be required in order for them to do anything significant, they would be cut down if not by the governments of the countries they work in then by others.

The absolute worse case scenario is that they somehow manage to get a dirty bomb and managed to kill say 10,000 people. That is nothing even vaguely approaching the threat that Hitler posed in 1938. The worst case scenario then was that he could credibly take over the planet. Nor is the threat of Islamic terrorism even in the top 3 of threats to mankind at this point. Global warming, diseases like AIDS and TB (which is now drug-resistant) and the wealth gap are far greater threats and responsible for far more deaths than Islamic terrorism.
( Last edited by Troll; Nov 20, 2006 at 12:51 PM. )
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
And Chuckit - name a single one of the armed conflicts now occurring worldwide that is NOT Muslim versus non-Muslim.
Are you serious? You really think you're not going to get pages of response to this? I mean, I can think of a host of terrorist organisations that have nothing to do with a battle between Muslims and non-Muslims. How about ETA for one or Nagaland where Christian fundamentalist terrorists conduct an armed campaign against all other religions, notably Hindus. And that's just terrorism. As for armed conflicts and off the top of my head:

Phillipines
Kashmir
Angola
Tamils
Cote d'Ivoire
Nepal
Mozambique
DRC
Haiti
Rwanda
Uganda
Colombia
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by Macrobat View Post
Actually, all signs seem to be pointing at an attempt to "take over" one of the same countries Hitler did - France.

And Chuckit - name a single one of the armed conflicts now occurring worldwide that is NOT Muslim versus non-Muslim.
I am personally waiting for a response to Troll's reply to you.

I mean, how can you be so patently blind? Will you recognise how destructively prejudiced you are?

I bet not.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:50 PM
 
3 people in here are either smart-asses or seriously brainwashed.

I think I picked "other"

Humanity its its worst enemy.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac View Post
I am quite surprised at you, Chuckit. The Flat Earth Society did not perpetrate the most devastating attack in the history of the United States. The Flat Earth Society isn't fighting for terror-anarchy in Iraq. The Flat Earth Society isn't overtly threatening America and Israel with destruction (i.e. Iran). The Flat Earth Society hasn't refused for 48 years to end its perpetual warfare against the Jewish state. The Flat Earth Society isn't responsible for genocide and slavery in Africa. The Flat Earth Society did not plot to blow up jets over the Atlantic using items stashed in carry-ons. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Indian trains. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the English subway. The Flat Earth Society did not bomb the Madrid trains. The Flat Earth Society has not made it a stated intention to acquire WMD. The Flat Earth Society has not vowed to institute Sharia over the entire earth. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the subjugation of Jews and Christians. The Flat Earth Society has not pledged to the conversion or destruction of all polytheists. The Flat Earth Society does not have a billion people under its banner. The Flat Earth Society is not a combatant in most of the world's armed conflicts.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Are you serious? You really think you're not going to get pages of response to this? I mean, I can think of a host of terrorist organisations that have nothing to do with a battle between Muslims and non-Muslims. How about ETA for one or Nagaland where Christian fundamentalist terrorists conduct an armed campaign against all other religions, notably Hindus. And that's just terrorism. As for armed conflicts and off the top of my head:

Phillipines
Kashmir
Angola
Tamils
Cote d'Ivoire
Nepal
Mozambique
DRC
Haiti
Rwanda
Uganda
Colombia
How about...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledgment
of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by marden View Post
The Sunday Times November 19, 2006

Focus: My life as a spy at the heart of Al-Qaeda



Focus: My life as a spy at the heart of Al-Qaeda - Britain - Times Online
So marden, what are you trying to say?

Basically, all you are doing is, under the cover of a "fun" poll, you try to feed us with quotes sustaining your positions about Muslims.

As I see others demonstrating ongoing argumentation in the order of "liberal apologists", I see you do a very good repartie: you basically avoid discussions by posting under different guise the same message:

"Muslims are a threat."

This is getting extremely tiresome and is revealing of your ongoing obsessions anout things you don't want to understand, because it satisfies to feed hatred in a non-stop fashion.

How can we discuss with you when all you do is either post another huge, boring quote, or turn your back on us because we disagree with you?

You are a propagandist, an agent provocateur with a purpose, and a bad one at that. What I am saying is not to deny concerns about Middle East, but rather, to show how your behavior goes overboard in extremes.
     
nonhuman
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Baltimore, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Are you serious? You really think you're not going to get pages of response to this? I mean, I can think of a host of terrorist organisations that have nothing to do with a battle between Muslims and non-Muslims. How about ETA for one or Nagaland where Christian fundamentalist terrorists conduct an armed campaign against all other religions, notably Hindus. And that's just terrorism. As for armed conflicts and off the top of my head:

Phillipines
Kashmir
Angola
Tamils
Cote d'Ivoire
Nepal
Mozambique
DRC
Haiti
Rwanda
Uganda
Colombia
Actually... The Tamils are Muslims fighting against the predominately Buddhist Sinhalese... But your point is still good.
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 06:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by marden View Post
How about...
This demonstrates my point.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 07:58 PM
 
Moved to page 2
( Last edited by marden; Nov 20, 2006 at 11:11 PM. )
     
Pendergast
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 08:03 PM
 
I think you still are the most dangerous person with your propaganda.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
So marden, what are you trying to say?

Basically, all you are doing is, under the cover of a "fun" poll, you try to feed us with quotes sustaining your positions about Muslims.

As I see others demonstrating ongoing argumentation in the order of "liberal apologists", I see you do a very good repartie: you basically avoid discussions by posting under different guise the same message:

"Muslims are a threat."

This is getting extremely tiresome and is revealing of your ongoing obsessions anout things you don't want to understand, because it satisfies to feed hatred in a non-stop fashion.

How can we discuss with you when all you do is either post another huge, boring quote, or turn your back on us because we disagree with you?

You are a propagandist, an agent provocateur with a purpose, and a bad one at that. What I am saying is not to deny concerns about Middle East, but rather, to show how your behavior goes overboard in extremes.
I believe that when people discount the threat or dismiss the threat they are doing no one any good. I have no problems with Muslims. Those who love Allah and who love America and would fight and die to support our system of government are those who I consider brothers.

Anyone else, if they pose a threat significant enough to do everything I mentioned in my post to BRussell, they are a danger and there are people who don't understand that. This poll shows us the truth of what people think.

If you look at what I said above and don't believe Islam is a greater danger than 1938 Germany then that is a misperception. What are YOU doing about that misperception?

Letting it exist as it is?

Or trying to enlighten people?

And what would you call someone who saw a danger but said nothing about it?

I know what I call it.
     
marden  (op)
Baninated
Join Date: Sep 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2006, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post
I think you still are the most dangerous person with your propaganda.
Dangerous to America?

I believe I am acting in the same spirit as the main character in Schindler's List. I'm trying to save as many people as I can but I'm doing it by spreading the news. If there were nothing to my 'rants' you would just dismiss me. But instead you think I'm dangerous.

Hmmm.
( Last edited by marden; Nov 20, 2006 at 08:25 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:52 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,