[invisibleX]

Wow, this is fantastic. I've had a lovely little post just waiting for a thread like this.

I like the choices. However I don't look at the danger level based on threats or action. Afterall I can SAY I'll commit xenocide but without the means to do so it is an empty threat. Potential is everything.

Hitler in my view could never have completed his goals however he did accomplish some very terrible things. Not just the persecution but the ability and will to carry it out.

"Islamic Jihad". Well despite the fact it is an imaginary event I'll consider it. It would require so much more than our hearts and minds or even nukes. It would take things that Islam cannot offer, and terrorists can't manufacture. Most of all it would require universal unity of muslims in the ME and the US, something which simply does not exist. No, the Jihad terrorists boast of is just that: a boast. If they could actually follow through I strongly doubt they would share their plans with us. They have shown understanding of surprise tactics.

Now the big one: America. Are we as dangerous as Hitler or an imaginary war? Maybe. If we tried we could create something near enough to this Jihad. Persecute Muslims here at home, more random wars in the ME, could potentially cause some serious unrest here at home. Still wouldn't bring about the end result of your imaginary Jihad (presumably the conquering of the free world by a bunch of extremists) but it would be bad enough. We could start a nuclear war, or any major war for that matter, far worse than WWII.

I don't expect to make the devout waver. Your ignorance sustains you and you're welcome to it. I will not address the ignorant and patently false statements in your quotes because it just isn't worth it. Its just a collection of bullshit in a nice wide scatter pattern. Speak and I'll listen, recite extremist lies and I'll ignore you.

[invisibleX]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Troll lets be honest. No one forms an opinion in a vacuum. Everyone's opinion is based on someone elses opinion. If your opinion is shared by someone else, and that someone else can communicate your belief better than you can, I would use their text as well.

This is nothing but a lame ad-hominem attack. Attack the messenger instead of the message.

Marden isn't simply quoting an idea he is posting pages and pages of articles. Nobody can possibly reply to them because you can't tell what represents Marden's opinion and what doesn't. The inability to express your own ideas isn't cute; I can use google too.

Now, do you believe Marden's bullshit? This whole Jihad thing? The articles he quotes? You defend him often but thats about it.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by marden 

And that's a good reason why the 1938 world can be SOMEWHAT pardoned for not taking action against him in 1938. He had hidden his true intentions so no one really knew that he planned to do what he eventually did.

You're dead wrong. The cowardly appeasement of Hilter through the 30's was one of the worst mistakes the west ever made. If we had listened to Churchill and others sooner we could have stopped Germany's military build-up and averted a war entirely.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by invisibleX 

recite extremist lies and I'll ignore you.

You seem to be doing well enough on your own.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If we had listened to Churchill and others sooner we could have stopped Germany's military build-up and averted a war entirely.

Much like Iran and N. Korea today.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Much like Iran and N. Korea today.

Very much so, yes.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Hello, did you forget the whole first world war thing???

Oh, and for your comparison to be valid, you'd have to say that national, socialist, fascists had never done anything to anyone. Iran has never done anything to anyone in the same way as Germany had never done anything to anyone. Your problem is with "jihadists" remember? Besides, Germany had the number 1 Army in the world in 1938. Iran isn't even in the top 10.

Iran is #8, according to Jane's (JIR).

[Troll]

Originally Posted by MacNStein 

Iran is #8, according to Jane's (JIR).

I stand corrected then.

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by marden 

All I know is that YOU seem to dismiss the danger to us.

Well let me see.

As the only Superpower left, with the strongest army, the greatest number of nuclear weapons, the most powerful financially, the most projected military force, the greatest network of surveillance and espionage, etc, I think it is natural there is some envy and that this is your problem, and you are not innocent in what is happening to you. Clear?

You seem uninterested in doing anything to help America protect itself.

See the above sentence. And let me add: absolutely.

You seem unwilling or unable to do anything to discourage those who would target us.

Actually, I think America is doing an excellent job at shooting itself in the legs, throwing itself in the mud, and triggering more adverse reactions against itself. As for my part, I keep telling you you are making a terrible mistake in misrepresenting the enemy, and in making far worse than it really is. I am not saying it is non-existent; I am saying America (and you) sometimes feel the need to create enemies to better define itself, create political attention amongst its too often apathic and uninterested population.

You criticize those who would alert American non-Muslims to the threat that exists.

Interesting that you have to specify "American Non-Muslim".

As for yelling "wolf", you made yourself heard so often it is now background noise.

You don't stand up to be someone we can feel good about and draw confidence from.

You can trust me to be honest with you. Whether you give this credence or not is up to you.

But lest you think I have nothing good to say, I'll admit you cry and whine and criticize and bitch pretty well.

Which is a typical raction from you when you feel unsupported and contradicted. That is you usual pattern, and that unfortunately, discredits you automatically.

Again: I am not saying there is no threat from Al-Qaeda. I am saying the Muslim world is not that monolithic mass hoping for America's destruction. Any opinion supporting your position is just an opinion, it is not a statement of fact.

Next step is probably you ignoring me.

[marden]

Dear Readers,

The poll results suggest you are unable to divorce yourselves from your knowledge of what came BEFORE 1938 and AFTER 1938.

Moreover, now that you have a present day NAZI-like threat before you many of you can't recognize it.

There is NO way to prevent martyrdom. There is NO shortage of martyrs. Their motivation is divinely inspired. Their will is iron. They are smarter than we are. They are able to speak our languages. They are able to appear as moderate Muslims. They may work with us and walk among us. They study our tactics and our culture and institutions and religions and our media.

They know you. And despite the fact that the Jihadists do so much out in the open which would have awakened the Brits and the Yanks and spelled the demise of Hitler before he ever had a chance were these same things done in 1938, these things are done before your eyes and under your noses and you still sleep.

Maybe I was wrong about MacNN posters.

I thought this was where the brightest posters hung out.

Guess I was wrong.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Well let me see.

As the only Superpower left, with the strongest army, the greatest number of nuclear weapons, the most powerful financially, the most projected military force, the greatest network of surveillance and espionage, etc, I think it is natural there is some envy and that this is your problem, and you are not innocent in what is happening to you. Clear?



See the above sentence. And let me add: absolutely.



Actually, I think America is doing an excellent job at shooting itself in the legs, throwing itself in the mud, and triggering more adverse reactions against itself. As for my part, I keep telling you you are making a terrible mistake in misrepresenting the enemy, and in making far worse than it really is. I am not saying it is non-existent; I am saying America (and you) sometimes feel the need to create enemies to better define itself, create political attention amongst its too often apathic and uninterested population.



Interesting that you have to specify "American Non-Muslim".

As for yelling "wolf", you made yourself heard so often it is now background noise.



You can trust me to be honest with you. Whether you give this credence or not is up to you.



Which is a typical raction from you when you feel unsupported and contradicted. That is you usual pattern, and that unfortunately, discredits you automatically.

Again: I am not saying there is no threat from Al-Qaeda. I am saying the Muslim world is not that monolithic mass hoping for America's destruction. Any opinion supporting your position is just an opinion, it is not a statement of fact.

Next step is probably you ignoring me.

We are seduced by what we can do; our enemies focus on what they must do. We have fallen so deeply in love with the means we have devised for waging conceptual wars that we are blind to their marginal relevance in actual wars. Terrorists, for one lethal example, do not fear "network-centric warfare" because they have already mastered it for a tiny fraction of one cent on the dollar, achieving greater relative effects with the Internet, cell phones, and cheap airline tickets than all of our military technologies have delivered. Our prime weapon in our struggles with terrorists, insurgents, and warriors of every patchwork sort remains the soldier or Marine; yet, confronted with reality's bloody evidence, we simply pretend that other, future, hypothetical wars will justify the systems we adore--purchased at the expense of the assets we need.

[...]

There is, in short, not a single enemy in existence or on the horizon willing to play the victim to the military we continue to build. Faced with men of iron belief wielding bombs built in sheds and basements, our revolution in military affairs appears more an indulgence than an investment. In the end, our enemies will not outfight us. We'll muster the will to do what must be done--after paying a needlessly high price in the lives of our troops and damage to our domestic infrastructure. We will not be beaten, but we may be shamed and embarrassed on a needlessly long road to victory.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...qrsob.asp?pg=1

[Pendergast]

Nice regurgitation, and again, this supports my points.

Cheers!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

Nice regurgitation, and again, this supports my points.

Cheers!

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

There is NO way to prevent martyrdom. There is NO shortage of martyrs. Their motivation is divinely inspired. Their will is iron. They are smarter than we are. They are able to speak our languages. They are able to appear as moderate Muslims. They may work with us and walk among us. They study our tactics and our culture and institutions and religions and our media.

I kept waiting for the introduction of some new super-hero. Turns out it was jihadists! Man, with superhuman attributes like that, it's no wonder they've conquered the world–

...oh, wait...

I thought this was where the brightest posters hung out.

Guess I was wrong.

Guess you were. I for one freely admit to being stunned as me arse, but something tells me that's just my cultural upbringing talking.

greg

[ink]

Originally Posted by Pendergast 

"marden" is missing from the list; why?

Oh man...

[Atomic Rooster]

Did anyone think of Russia. Last year they cutoff heating oil and natural gas to Ukraine.

Guess where most of Europe gets it's oil and gas?

Only one guess.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Did anyone think of Russia. Last year they cutoff heating oil and natural gas to Ukraine.

Guess where most of Europe gets it's oil and gas?

Only one guess.

Islamofacists that Bush has successfully pacified?

[Pendergast]

Originally Posted by ink 

Islamofacists that Bush has successfully pacified?

You beat me to it.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by ink 

Islamofacists that Bush has successfully pacified?

My info says Russia.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

I kept waiting for the introduction of some new super-hero. Turns out it was jihadists! Man, with superhuman attributes like that, it's no wonder they've conquered the world–

...oh, wait...


Guess you were. I for one freely admit to being stunned as me arse, but something tells me that's just my cultural upbringing talking.

greg

[Reagan]Well, there you go again![/Reagan]

You seem to LOVE the illogical way of appraising current events.

ILLOGICAL "LOGIC": Using the lack of precedent as a way to 'prove' that a certain situation does not exist or can not exist.

Example of ILLOGICAL "LOGIC": There was never any world leader like Hitler. Therefore, Hitler couldn't exist.

The truth is that though they HAVEN'T conquered the world that has no bearing on whether they might do so in the future. Or what it will cost us to prevent their efforts from being successful.

Or the cost of turning a blind eye to the possibility.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Islamofacists that Bush has successfully pacified?

Our military can conceivably deal with the Russian military. Just as their military leaders would like to think they can deal with us.

But who has a surefire way of dealing with 100 martyr attacks in every major Western city every day?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

ILLOGICAL "LOGIC": Using the lack of precedent as a way to 'prove' that a certain situation does not exist or can not exist.

Example of ILLOGICAL "LOGIC": There was never any world leader like Hitler. Therefore, Hitler couldn't exist.

The truth is that though they HAVEN'T conquered the world that has no bearing on whether they might do so in the future. Or what it will cost us to prevent their efforts from being successful.

Or the cost of turning a blind eye to the possibility.

Being afraid of things merely because they are possible is called paranoia.

We should use logic and reason to determine whether something is worth worrying about. Often the cost of being close to 100% safe against something is greater than the cost of taking the remote chance that it will happen. One of the principles of logic is that propositions may be assumed to be false until some reason is given to believe otherwise.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

What he said.

"Risk assessment, risk avoidance, risk management and risk acceptance." All very logical.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Being afraid of things merely because they are possible is called paranoia.

We should use logic and reason to determine whether something is worth worrying about. Often the cost of being close to 100% safe against something is greater than the cost of taking the remote chance that it will happen. One of the principles of logic is that propositions may be assumed to be false until some reason is given to believe otherwise.

Pretending to ignore the plethora of evidence that exists is called messing with marden.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden 

Pretending to ignore the plethora of evidence that exists is called messing with marden.

I'm not pretending to ignore anything. I see little evidence that Muslims pose a grave threat to my safety.

[ink]

Originally Posted by marden 

Our military can conceivably deal with the Russian military. Just as their military leaders would like to think they can deal with us.

But who has a surefire way of dealing with 100 martyr attacks in every major Western city every day?

Noboy does, Marden.

That's why we just continue to live our lives according to our dictates, faith, and science.

To lead by example, if you will.

Once we start questioning everyone around us as the enemy, we've lost; either as a species or as a culture. That's the end-game.

You're like one of those people who's afraid to go downtown because you might run into a (gasp) homeless person, or a mugger. Life is full of risks, and you can't enjoy it if you jump at shadows all day long.

Edit: Even if some of those shadows are real. Take reasonable precautions and hope (pray?) for the best.

[marden]

Originally Posted by ink 

Noboy does, Marden.

That's why we just continue to live our lives according to our dictates, faith, and science.

To lead by example, if you will.

Once we start questioning everyone around us as the enemy, we've lost; either as a species or as a culture. That's the end-game.

You're like one of those people who's afraid to go downtown because you might run into a (gasp) homeless person, or a mugger. Life is full of risks, and you can't enjoy it if you jump at shadows all day long.

Edit: Even if some of those shadows are real. Take reasonable precautions and hope (pray?) for the best.

I'd prefer being thought of as a lighthouse.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Well, you're also insane. So that could explain it.

greg

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Well, you're also insane. So that could explain it.

greg

Reported.

[marden]

What the Islamists Have Learned
How to defeat the USA in future wars.
by Michael Novak
11/22/2006 1:35:00 PM

If I were an Islamist, a terrorist, a sworn foe of democracy, here is what I think I would have learned from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is what I would write down in my hard-earned manual of instruction.

BY THE WILL OF ALLAH, in all wars to come, may it prepare our brave martyrs for combat operations!

Today, the purpose of war is sharply political, not military; psychological, not physical. The main purpose of war is to dominate the way the enemy imagines and thinks about the war. Warfare is not, these days, won on a grand field of battle. Nor is it won by the force that wins series after series of military victories. Nor is triumph assured by killing far higher numbers of the enemy. The physical side of warfare no longer holds precedence.

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed

their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

The weaker political will yielded to the stronger will.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/991gvxyi.asp

CONTINUED AT LINK.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

One of these days, you're going to give a "summary" of your "own viewpoint," even if it is based on some research that you've done.

When that day comes, I shall probably die of a heart attack – admittedly partly from shock, and partly from the perogies with fried onions and bacon slathered with sour cream and complemented with some Newfoundland Screech rum that I'm inhaling right now. But hey...it's the thought that counts, abemardeneen. It's the thought that counts.

greg

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by marden

Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction

Yeah, all these terrorist sympathizers who are trying to make jihadists out to be a grave threat really ought to be ashamed of themselves for imposing upon the imagination of America the image that jihadists want projected of themselves.

Hey, wait…

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Being afraid of things merely because they are possible is called paranoia.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Being afraid of things merely because they are possible is called paranoia.

And they call the wind, Mariah.

[Troll]

Marden, do you think that the "jihadi threat" is worse today than it was in 2001?

Given your support for Bush, I would imagine you don't. In that case, how do you explain the fact that all this threat (that you say is more dangerous than Nazi Germany in 1938) has managed to achieve over the last 5 years is to kill a few hundred people in a few sporadic terrorist attacks? 5 years after 1938, millions of people were dead and there was a real war (not a war on emotions or concepts) taking place globally?

[marden]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Marden, do you think that the "jihadi threat" is worse today than it was in 2001?

Yes.

Do I think it would have grown worse had we done nothing in Iraq?

Yes.

Do I think it would have grown worse had we done nothing AT ALL, ANYWHERE?

Yes.

Do I think it will grow worse if we stay in Iraq (going large, going long or even going home)?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Troll 

Given your support for Bush, I would imagine you don't. In that case, how do you explain the fact that all this threat (that you say is more dangerous than Nazi Germany in 1938) has managed to achieve over the last 5 years is to kill a few hundred people in a few sporadic terrorist attacks? 5 years after 1938, millions of people were dead and there was a real war (not a war on emotions or concepts) taking place globally?

You can't use what happened AFTER 1938 to justify your answer to the poll. That is why many of you are confirmed to be liberals because you are unable to mentally separate the Hitler that had yet to BECOME the most evil figure of the 20th Century from the leader who later BECAME the most evil figure of the 20th Century.

You can not look at the isolated results outside of the context of their particular set of dynamics.

To save myself the keystrokes I will boil it down to this one thing (again).

In regards to Germany, we had to resort to extreme measures, i.e. World War II to defeat Germany, but we were fighting an enemy that was fighting us on equal terms and using the same weapons; ships, subs, planes, tanks, bombs, artillery, infantry, rifles and manpower and whoever was better able to make use of those elements would win.

In regards to Global Jihad, we have only a % of people who correctly recognize it is an enemy. They have far more numbers of individuals willing or eager to martyr themselves for their cause than we have.

Even if we employed the exact same types of tactics which led to victory in Europe we could not necessarily defeat global jihad because we can not and will not kill every Muslim on Earth. And unless enough of them were killed ALL OVER THE GLOBE so that their iron will and divine motivation was eliminated through attrition and all the others became discouraged they would continue to attack.

But rather than do what we would have to do to win we would, instead, think of the humanity that would suffer and die at our hands and how debased our actions would have made us. And we would relent or do less than what was necessary to bring an end to the deaths and suffering. We would do just enough to make it look as though we were combatting Jihad (as you'll recall Hezbollah called for israel to use a measured response as though they have come to expect the West will not fight to WIN but only to put up a good show).

Meanwhile the jihadists would think only of victory for Allah.

We had a way to defeat Nazi Germany.

We have no way to defeat 180,000,000 of Allah's warriors who want to martyr themselves.

[Troll]

I think it's extraordinary that you think that the terrorist threat has grown during George Bush's term. 5 years down the line and you think he still isn't winning!

As for your telling us what we can and can't do in your poll, you seem to be forcing us to think that the terrorist threat suddenly arose yesterday. It didn't. The threat of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists has been with us for decades. If you want to cast your net as widely as you are then you need to think about the Munich Olympics or the St. Michel bombing or the attempt to fly an Airbus into the Eiffel Tower or the first attacks on the World Trade Center. That was the first hint we had that we might have a problem. Just as we might only have had a hint in 1938 that we had a problem with Hitler. The difference is that despite decades of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, their impact has been minimal. There are far more pressing concerns for the globe than your "Jihadis".

Originally Posted by marden 

We have no way to defeat 180,000,000 of Allah's warriors who want to martyr themselves.

And this is precisely where you wander off into loony land. There are not 180 million people out there ready to become soldiers for an extremist agenda. I showed you why your numbers are wrong previously so I won't go over that. There are possibly a few thousand people spread all over the globe that are engaged in the kinds of activities you talk about. The whole reason they are able to conduct attacks is because there aren't many of them. There aren't many of them to arm, there aren't many of them to hide. If the number of fighters ever got anywhere near 180 million, then they would have to come out of the woodwork and then they would be facing the collective might of practically every army on the planet. And they would lose in days if not hours. Besides, why you think that we don't have a way to defend ourselves against terrorism is beyond me. We've been doing it for decades.

[voodoo]

Other: Bill Gates in 1981

V

[Nicko]

Hmmm, seems to me mardin should just take the bullet and convert to Islam.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

Hmmm, seems to me mardin should just take the bullet and convert to Islam.

Dear Readers,

Who in this thread is a jihadist? Anyone? One poster? Two? More? What do you think their goals are?

The primary battlefield today lies in the minds of opposing publics.

The main strategic aim of war today is to dominate the mind of the enemy's public, and then ultimately to dominate the mind of that public's leaders.

Let me offer three examples. At what moment did the war in Vietnam come to an end? At that precise moment when America's leaders decided that they could not resist the unrelenting storyline of the enemy, which had long prevailed in their own press. The press surrendered first, then the leaders of the nation.

Observe that the Cold War ended not in an explosion of unprecedented violence, but rather at the precise moment when the Soviet elites no longer believed their own storyline. Superior ideas cowed them, superior will, superior narratives. Quite suddenly, the invincible Soviet elites folded, accepted humiliation, allowed the Wall to come down, and watched in bitterness as hundreds of millions of formerly captive peoples chose new forms of government.

The endgame was psychological, not military. There was a military component--Star Wars--but nobody knew whether or not that would ever work. It was the idea of that weapon, and will or Reagan to proceed with it.

The weaker political will yielded to the stronger will.

Yet, as always, will followed storyline. First comes narrative, then the acts that give it flesh in history.

What we have discovered in Iraq is the weakest link in the ability of the United States to sustain military operations overseas. That link is the U.S. media. They are Islamists' best friends.

Experience shows that the mainstream press of the United States is alienated from the U.S. military. In addition, the American press is extremely vulnerable to anti-U.S. propaganda. Thus, the American public will be fed nearly everything that foreign adversaries--our band of brothers--wish to feed it about the war. Therefore, I write: Maxim # 1: To defeat America, impose upon the imagination of its media your own storyline.

Even if you can muster only 10,000 soldiers over the entire countryside of Iraq, paint the narrative like this: The Americans are irresistible occupiers, and yet they cannot prevent small (even individual) acts of destruction. Daily, unrelenting acts of destruction demonstrate that chaos rules. The American strategy, and the American storyline of the war, are invalidated by continuing chaos, highly visible, every single day, on worldwide television. The new dominating story is that the Americans cannot win.

Even though our own forces (for nearly two whole years now) can no longer afford to fight in a single operation lasting longer than a few hours, our martyr-brothers cannot be prevented from committing daily acts of destruction--the more stomach-turning the better--which demonstrate a ferocious will and a determination to destroy.

In such wars, my brothers, whichever party maintains the stronger will, along the most durable storyline, always wins.

To defeat the United States, then, it suffices to demonstrate that their vaunted military, for all its awesome power and tactical bravery in the field, cannot halt daily "chaos." To achieve this victory over America, it is not even necessary to create actual "chaos," but only its appearance. This definition of chaos cannot be made on cerebral, analytic, statistical, or comparative grounds. (In October the Times of London reported, "An average of 112 cars a day have been torched across France" this year, with 15 attacks a day on police and emergency services and nearly 3,000 police officers injured. We don't need comparisons like this or comparisons with traffic deaths and violent crimes in individual U.S. states.)

No, the shadowy existence of this "chaos" in Iraq is projected by a steady stream of stomach-churning, atavistic, destructive acts, staged day by day where the cameras of the U.S. press cannot resist them. Some of these acts bring orange explosions and black smoke, others consist simply of dumping dead and tortured bodies where the public cannot avoid discovering them.

We design these images to show that our fighters will go where the United States will not, that our brave martyrs have harder linings in their stomachs than anyone in the West, and that our ferocity and determination, day after day, cannot be resisted.

The aim of our terror is to induce surrender before the great battles are even fought. This is the true meaning of "asymmetric" warfare. The weaker side in military strength may demonstrate conclusively that it has a stronger stomach for relentless, unstoppable acts of terror.

Besides, brothers, there seems to be a psychological tic in the minds of American journalists, which prevents them from understanding that our terror is ultimately aimed at them. Today, yes, they think it is aimed at their government, and will cripple their political opponents within that government. Without qualm or fear, therefore, they do our bidding day after day. Willingly, gleefully, with much self-congratulation, they pump our storyline into the bloodstream of the Western public.

This is far easier than anyone ever taught us. This is our new discovery, our contribution to the history of warfare. Before our very eyes, the West grows fainter and weaker every day.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...2/991gvxyi.asp

By the way, in the way you used it this phrase:

mardin should just take the bullet

is a physical threat.

The way you would no doubt swear you intended it would read thusly:

mardin should just bite the bullet

Your welcome.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by marden 

Dear Readers,

Who in this thread is a jihadist? Anyone? One poster? Two? More?

Ahahaha!!

This is almost as good as foreign agents and Islam's Best Soldiers. If we ever needed confirmation that Marden is Mojaberdeen, there we have it - the condescending "dear readers" and the paranoiac "there's a terrorist in this thread" all in one post!

[OreoCookie]

Natural disasters, shortage of water and famine are far more dangerous than any of the points on the list. In December 2003 200,000 people died from a tsunami and left many more without shelter, Hurricane Katrina devastated the New Orleans area, killing at least 1,800 people.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by marden 

Dear Readers,

Who in this thread is a jihadist? Anyone? One poster? Two? More? What do you think their goals are?

Originally Posted by Edward R. Murrow

No one familiar with the history of his country, can deny that congressional committees are useful. It is necessary to investigate before legislating. But the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the Junior Senator from Wisconsin has stepped over it repeatedly. His primary achievement has been confusing the public mind as between the internal and the external threats of communism. We must not confuse dissent from disloyalty. We must remember always, that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another, we will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason. If we dig deep into our history and our doctrine, we will remember we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who dared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Sen. McCarthy's methods to keep silent or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history but we cannot escape responsibility for the result. There is no way for a citizen of the republic to abdicate his responsibilities. As a nation we have come into our full inheritance at a tender age. We proclaim ourselves as indeed we are, the defenders of freedom where ever it still exists in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And who's fault is that? Not really his, he didn't create this situation of fear he merely exploited it, and rather successfully. Cassius was right, the fault dear Brutus is not in our stars, but in ourselves. Good night, and good luck.

Hyuck.

greg

[Dark Helmet]

Doesn't hitler top every list including least fashionable mustache?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet 

Doesn't hitler top every list including least fashionable mustache?

I see a lot of old geezers with a Hitler-mustache. Seems popular in a certain age-group.

V

[marden]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Hyuck.

greg

Your quote was from, "See it Now" (CBS-TV, March 9, 1954)

The institutions of McCarthyism

There were many anti-Communist committees, panels and "loyalty review boards" in federal, state and local government, as well as many private agencies that carried out investigations for small and large companies concerned about possible Communists in their employ.
In Congress, the most notable bodies for investigating Communist activities were the House Un-American Activities Committee, the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Between 1949 and 1954, a total of 109 such investigations were carried out by these and other committees of Congress.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

It took Murrow 4 years to figure out that enough was enough?

No.

It was ONLY after McCarthyism ceased to be regarded as a necessary cleansing that was called for and altogether appropriate, that Murrow spoke up. McCarthyism was doing a great job and then it began turning on us and became a "dog" that was unable to be controlled. It started to harm the wrong people.

Yet, you act as if McCarthyism was all bad. It WASN'T! I bet none of your liberal professors or textbooks emphasized the value of McCarthyism. You seem to think there is something sacred and wonderful about having harmful elements in our society or government and doing nothing about it.

Greg's Mantra:

When you get a virus, be joyous.

If you get an intestinal parasite, that's outta sight!

Leukemia? How dreamy, eh?

There is nothing good about allowing foreign bodies to invade, inhabit and accumulate and attack it's host. What do you think Iran or Syria or Hamas would do if they knew that Americans were hiding amongst them and plotting to do their government harm?

"But we are BETTER than they are," you'd say, "and we should not stoop so low as to behave as they would (and DO!)."

No, greg. You got it bass ackwards.

The only way we can PREVENT ourselves from becoming like them (as they annex us when they achieve total conquest) is to isolate ourselves from their potentially harmful effects while doing what we can to eliminate their numbers.

I think this may leave you unconvinced, so why don't you give me your addy and I'll come over with some rats, mice, cockroaches, termites and wasps and I will secretly introduce them into your home.

Then I want you to preach to me about the evils of, "the little man."

The Little Man on the Bright Yellow Trucks

The Little Man is Born
In 1931, when Western Exterminator was but 10 years new, its founder was persuaded to advertise in the yellow pages of the telephone book. "You must have a logo," the phone folks said, "and why not let us design it?" So from the pen of their artist, Vaughn Kaufman, "The Little Man with the Hammer" sprang to life.



The Name Game
The small guy with big eyes and a tall top hat was an instant success. He was a commanding little person, with one warning finger raised against a rodent, and a large mallet tucked under his arm. "Kernel Kleenup" was his official name, but it never really stuck. Even after a 1964 television contest to re-name him, the employees who knew and loved him best still called him just the "Little Man".

Big Job for a Little Man
The Little Man gets around. Generations of children have gaped at his image on our trucks, which are seen around town as service technicians make their rounds for Residential and Commercial customers. He has made it into movies, toured with a rock band, and become a collectible. Printed or painted, flat or inflated, the Little Man is still at the peak of his powers.

http://www.west-ext.com/little_man.html

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I see a lot of old geezers with a Hitler-mustache. Seems popular in a certain age-group.

V

Ron Mael

[The Left]

obviously America has been the most dangerous to the world peace.

[marden]

Originally Posted by The Left 

obviously America has been the most dangerous to the world peace.

Obviously Cod Liver Oil is bad for one's health.

Obviously stripping the paint from the exterior of a house and exposing it to the elements before painting is bad.

Obviously opening up a patient who shows no outward signs of illness to excise a tumor is silly.

Obviously eggs should be eaten or used whole and in the shell.

Obviously America has been the most dangerous to the world peace.

There. Where it belongs.

[The Left]

well eggs should not be eaten and I'm not sure about cod liver oil being bad for you...but maybe it is.