Quote:We did notice them from about 700AD to about 1683. The divisions within Islam are minor, its like saying that Pepsi is no threat to Coke because Janice in Human Resources doesn't like Rachel in Legal over at Pepsi HQ.
The empire was a threat. It was the same empire established by Muhammed himself. Since we took that away, the people have been exposed as petulant children unable to mount a serious threat. There is a very clear distinction. Prior to dismantling the empire, it was the major threat. Since it was dismantled, it has required very little effort.
Quote:Also, nobody on this board (except maybe abu who want say anything that will help the infidels) aside from me understands the differences. I do - and I can tell you, they are minor. The disagreements are about whether to give us a chance to surrender first, whether we should be executed or live as slaves, what war booty to divide amongst themselves.
I think you are getting ahead of yourself there. Remember, while the Muslims argue about whether to take us as slaves or kill us, they are living in caves eating goats. Surely that matters. It is the ideology itself that prevents them, or allows outsiders to rpevent them, from re-establishing a dangerous empire. It creates a culture of sumpremacy that is great while you reign supreme, but worse then useless when you loose that power. Terrorism is new for Muslims as well as us. They used to wage conventional war extremely well. Resorting to terrorist tactics is an indication of their strategic postion.
Quote:Kilcullen goes on to explain that in these kind of wars, an extremely small but sufficiently psychopathic element can 'infect' (as he terms it), a local population and they do it by exploiting whatever local problem is causing grief in a local area, which will generally have nothing to do with an Islamist agenda.
Sounds like Pauline Hanson biding her time.
Quote:In one of them he discusses how he and his team deactivated areas in Iraq. Not by killing in the instance he described but by first capturing and holding senior al Qaeda operatives. When local Iraqi insurgents were captured, he would show them who al Qaeda really were. Local insurgents were duped into thinking they were fighting a righteous cause and that their noble leaders supported the fight. When they were shown who they were fighting for, what were they? Non-Iraqis, all serious criminals - i.e. murderers, rapists, armed robbers etc - most covered in tattoos, many of them dealing drugs on Iraqi streets and controlling crime gangs on the streets. This had the effect of shocking most Iraqi insurgents into realising who they were really fighting for - a common crime gang - and quickly coming to the conclusion that this filth was hardly worth the price of fighting or losing one's life for.
Entirely predictable when you read what Abu said about seeing the best in fellow Muslims and assuming they are right until proven wrong.
Forum
Pages: 
Churches oppose Islamic school (Read 43657 times)
