Pope should have done some research

You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that 201,300,000 Indonesians do not support terrorism.

10% is certainly a larger number than, well, everyone but that 10% would like. The number of people who support terrorism in Indonesia is almost exactly identical to the number of atheists in America. Nobody would dream of saying the US is an atheist country, or that Americans are atheists, or even that atheists are a welcome and valued part of American society (Muslims - the 2nd most reviled segment of the population - are twice as liked/respected as atheists).

10% is not a negligible minority, but it is an overwhelming minority. Even Democrats have more influence.

 

Maybe you haven't read the entire thread. That was not the point. The point was that millions of Muslims are a problem to non-Muslims. That is entirely way too big a number to ignore. The most important thing is to figure out what to do about those millions.

 

I am thrilled that 90% of Indonesians don't want to kill me because I am an infidel, but when 187 million people from just one country are willing to committ terrorism in the name of Allah, that's a big problem and should be an eye-opener to many "normal" muslims to clean up in-house before it becomes an even bigger issue.

 

Millions of white people were once a huge problem to black people here at home. To the point of lynchings. The answer wasn't killing as many white people as possible.

The solution lies in the fact that there are so many Muslims who don't approve of terrorism. We need to get those people on our side, and bombing Muslim countries into the stone age doesn't really help.

 

We agree. The answer is not to target innocents but strike at the ones that are the problem. But that's a little simplistic as the terrorists hide among the innocents.

 

Further complicating the problem is the fact that while 10% of Muslims may support the concept of terrorism as valid jihad, the percentage of Muslims that might actually carry out acts of terrorism is much, much, much smaller. (We know this because of how relatively rare terror attacks really are - and no, an IED aimed at soldiers is not terrorism, it's asymmetric warfare.)

Which makes the fact that we've caused the deaths of nearly 3/4 of a million people in Iraq especially egregious.

I would propose that military action should be a relatively tiny portion of anti-terror efforts. It's just not that effective.

 

Everything is peachy, we have nothing to worry about..
Serenity now, serenity now...

 

so what is the solution?

 

I would agree that IED's used against military targets is not terrorism. But that is the key point. Used against MILITARY Targets. It is when they hit market places, police stations, and other civilian targets that it is terrorism.

I would debate the cause of death of the 3/4 Million people in Iraq as being the sole cause of the US. Please remember that Saddam was quite effiecent at killing his own people and alot of what is going on now didn't happen before only because Saddam brutally repressed the shia and sunni. I am not saying the US didn't have a big hand in it, but some perspective should be used here in that determination.

As for military action and how it should be deployed is the better question. To defeat a terrorist you have to find them and kill them. Obviously air strikes will not always get that result, at least not without taking out more people then they should have.

The correct response is for the US and Israel or any other country targeted by terrorism is to have a whole branch of service designed to fight terrorists. An anti-terror force. Make it a subset of the Dept. of the Army. The Marine Corps are a part of the Dept. of the Navy. Make a Corps of Anti-Terrorists whose sole purpose is to fight terrorism and fight them in a way that is effective and makes sense. You have to root them out and attack them in the same way they attack us.

 

I'm not sure about the situation in the US or Israel, but in the UK we may be a step ahead. We already have a whole branch of service specially designed to fight terrorists. They've been around for ages. They call them the "Police" over here. They're amazing. They, like, try to stop crimes and everything!!!

They work together with another specialist covert branch called the intelligence services. They try to help the police with their work. Some other countries also have these special services. Add to them a layer called the diplomatic service. Again some countries have invested in these forces, and the payoff is usually worth the investment.

With these powers combined they are a force to be reckoned with. Other countries (and even some in our country) are taking note of these innovative forces.

Of course sometimes crime happens in this country despite the best efforts of these special forces. Usually however the crimes don't kill as many British citizens as our response via military action would. Unfortunately in recent times this has been exascerbated because there hasn't been enough funding to enable these forces to do their jobs, what with all the military spending and so forth.

 

Really? They did a superb job of stopping the subway bombings didn't they? And about this whole "police" thing, when have they ever deployed to another nation where the terrorists were trained and supported?

I realize my post was a bit beyond your limited knowledge, but next time just ask for an explanation instead of looking stupid with one of your posts.

 

When well these monkies stop saying that the US and the so called "Israel" are the only targets of terrorism while in fact they are if anything the most terrorist states along with the UK in present days. Other examples of these terrorists in the recent history include the nazzi Germany, communist Soviet Union, communist China and faschist Italy.

I bet that "certain" people along with the media puppets are dancing around naked in excitement on the growing popularity nowadays of calling the Muslim world terrorists.

Ah the sempleton media puppets.

 

Did the army do a great job of stopping the subway bombings? Or did the army's actions just exascerbate the situation, as most independent observers (and leaked government documents) have stated?? Would a "Corps of Anti-Terrorists" have made any difference?

That's where the much-mooted diplomatic service comes in. (Unless you count Iraq, where the Coalition forces are training the Iraqi police. Ineffectively).

Yes, your post blew my mind. You're so original and informative, I have never heard viewpoints like yours ever before in my life.

 

Just a silly, silly post. So apparently your answer to combat terrorism is to do nothing different.

 

At least we know where you stand. Hamas, Hizzbulah, Al Queda - ok. US, Israel, UK = terrorists.

 

Are you calling me a monkey? If I were black that would certainly be a racist statement would it not? Did you read my post or did you just get a hard on once you saw US and Israel? Because if you had stopped at that point you missed that I said among other countries.

So tell me boy, when has the US flown planes into buildings? When have we strapped bombs onto people and had them blow themselves up in market places? And why do you live in a nation you say is terroristic? Wouldn't you feel safer and better living in Saudi Arabia instead of the UK?

 

Are you saying that the subway attacks are an acceptable means of protest against UK military politics? Yes a corps of Anti-Terrorists would make a difference since they would be free to combat these people on their turf where they train.

Well in case you missed it, which you seem to have, I have stated for quite a long time around here that the US military's job is not to train other countries police forces or rebuild their nations.

Ah yes your pearls of wisdom keep me laughing day in and day out. Perhaps one day the world will be blessed by a publication of your assinine ideas.

 

Yes I am calling you a monkey along with other simple minded people like you. And no it wouldn't be a racist statement because I don't know what color you are and don't care for that matter even if you were purple with yellow spots. My comparison to you with a monkey is based solely on your intellect that is in fact similar to monkies "and again NO am not discremenating against mentally challenged people because if you are retarded you should say so and we well speak with you in an appropriate matter". Monkies are known for being immitating animals that just copy what other monkies do and there is a popular example about a number of monkies with some bananas, a laddar and a water hose "I think you might've heard about it". You and individuals like you are just immitating what the terrorist governments and media are saying. And I'll tell you "boy" that the US is responsible about the deaths of millions of civilians "not thousands as in the case of the planes", millions in Heroshima and Nagazaki, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam......etc. Israel is responsible about terrorist attacks against Palastinian, Syrian and Lebanese people. For an attack to be initiated by a state "even if it wasn't a recognised state such as the so called "israel"" against civilian people doesn't exclude it from being a terrorist attack.

And about living in the UK instead of KSA "not that it's of your business", YES I would feel both safer and better in KSA and NO am not living here and not in a million years I'll live here. I'm just here for some kind of you can call it a long business visit "just as some British and American people live in KSA for some time and for some reason" , and as soon as my business here finishes I'll be out of here.

do you understand, "boy"?!

 

NO, thats not exactly where I stand. But more importantly, where do YOU stand?

" I'm thinking... on very thin Ice".

 

I think its pretty clear where I stand, but I'll be happy to answer your questions.

 

Because if you actually knew anything you would know that Jihad doesn't exclusivly mean people wanting to kill in the name of their faith.

Of the 5 different kinds of Jihad only 1 actually involves violence. The other 4 involve fighting for your faith using words, speech and your money or even with your own inner feelings.


Apologies to any muslims if I anything I have said above is wrong but I'm going off High School R.E

 

When did I say ever say anything approaching "subway attacks are OK"? I simply outlined cause and effect. And a corp would have made zero difference. "These people" in the case of the subway attack were British citizens.

And without diplomatic cover the operation of an "anti-terrorist corps" in an independent sovereign country would itself be a terrorist act, contrary to international law. The US still does this anyway, but it has lost goodwill due to its action.

I'm always happy to help the less fortunate with their worldly problems