The War On Terror Will End When.........

Rahvin writes:

quote:

---

weakening Islamic extremism in Iraq

---

Excuse me, but what on earth does Iraq have to do with "the war on terror" in any way you wish to define it, even in the concept of "Islamic extremism" as it pertains to Islam against the world?The violence in Iraq is a civil war. All the players are Muslim, just differing sects. This is not a battle of Islam against the infidel. This is a civil war for control of a country.Note: This in no way implies Hussein was a good guy or that his regime had no dealings with any terrorist activities of any kind.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rahvin responds to me:

quote:

---

The reasons the Sunnis and Shia hate each other are different from the reasons AQ hates the US.

---

Indeed.But Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. It never has.

quote:

---

But the point of my statement was that, where the effects of terrorism and religious warfare are felt by the actual citizenry, the youth in Iraq are turning away from extremist Islam.

---

But "extremist Islam" has nothing to do with Iraq any more than "extremist Christianity" has to do with Ireland. Was it "extremist Americanism" that was at the heart of the US Civil War?

quote:

---

After all, AQ's tactics don't work very well in terms of attrition.

---

But Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. It's a civil war for the control of the country.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rahvin responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But Al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq. It never has.

---

​

Correction: it didn't until there were Americans there to kill. They are there, but a minor presence.

---

So minor that they account for less than 2% of the violence that is happening there. To pretend that Al Qaeda has any sort of real influence over the lives of people in Iraq is to ignore reality.

quote:

---

The Civil War was not fought between the Presbyterians and the Baptists, Rrhain.

---

I know. That's my entire point. There were factions in a war. That the conflict in Iraq is between different sects of Islam doesn't make it a religious war in and of itself. It's a civil war. They're fighting for control of the country, not for the complete elimination of the other sect. The civil war in Iraq is about the economics of tribalism, not religion.

quote:

---

It's not just a war for control of the country, it's a religiously motivated war of ethnic cleansing as well.

---

Only in the same sense that the war in Ireland was a "religious motivated war of ethnic cleansing." Are you saying Ireland is/was (depending upon how you measure it) a hotbed of "extremist Christianity"?Yes, religion plays a part in it, but it has more to do with tribalism, economics, and power than it has to do with religion.And if your claim is correct, that the youth of Iraq are eschewing "extremist Islam," why is it that the violence is getting worse? The surge didn't work. What caused the dip in violence was primarily a combination of Al Sadr calling a cease fire and the US bribing the populace to stop attacking us. Now that those are fading, the violence is coming back.

quote:

---

We get out of Iraq, and focus on helping the non-Taliban Afghanis actually improve their standard of living, and global terrorism could actually start to decline.

---

I agree, but the violence in Iraq will not stop just because we leave. It's just that they won't be shooting at us because we won't be there with targets on our backs. And if the civil war in Iraq suddenly stops becoming "global terrorism" simply because we're not there any more, then it isn't "global terrorism" now.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, your false implication here is that the war in Iraq is what comprises "global terrorism."

---

GAH!Did you read any of what I wrote?Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism except indirectly: It is a perfect symbol that terrorists use to recruit terrorists.If we were to leave Iraq, terrorism would probably decrease due to the loss of that symbol, not because of any change in the violence level in Iraq.

quote:

---

What about Israel and the stated Jihadist agenda as supported and advocated by heads of state and Islamic clerics worldwide?

---

What about it? Where did I hint that Iraq was the center of terrorism? I've been arguing against that claim for five years. That's the argument of Bush which I have denied from day one.Have you seriously not been paying attention?What part of "it isn't 'global terrorism' now" do you not understand? You quoted it, Buzsaw. Did you not even bother to read what you quoted? My entire point is that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war, not a terrorist war. If it isn't "terrorism" when we're not the one's being shot at, then it isn't "terrorism" now.

quote:

---

What about the Jihadist agenda/ambitions for Europe, Great Britain, and the Americas as they work to infiltrate our governments to subvert, intimidate via violence and conquer?

---

HAH!You really think they exist? You really think that the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world (more than the Catholics) are out to "infiltrate our governments to subvert, intimidate via violence, and conquer"? You really believe that?Time for a creationist moment:What would it take for you to be shown wrong? How could anybody show you that there is no Great Islamic Conspiracy to Rule the World (C)?Hint: The fact that there are terrorists who are Muslim who wish for global domination is not an actual response. There are terrorists who are Christian who wish for global domination. You're not afraid of them, are you? So what it is about Muslims that makes you suddenly take leave of your senses?And what would it take for you to be convinced that there is no monster under the bed?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Unlike the Dark Ages, the forces of Islamic Jihad today are making alarming progress into nuclear weaponry.

---

Oh, really? Who are these "forces of Islamic Jihad"? Be specific.Iraq was never a "force of Islamic Jihad" and as we have been repeatedly reminded, had no nuclear weapons program since the first Gulf War.Iran? As we have been shown, Iran hasn't had a nuclear program for five years.Pakistan? WE ARE THE ONES WHO GAVE THEM THE NUKES!So exactly where do you find evidence that "the forces of Islamic Jihad today are making alarming progress into nuclear weaponry"?Be specific.

quote:

---

Unlike the Dark Ages these Jihadists also have the blackmail leverage of much of the global oil supply which deters the Western powers who need the oil to retaliate.

---

Irrelevant. The question is not whether there are different techniques being used for fanaticism. The question is, and I quote: What does the fact that they have "our oil under their sand" have anything to do with fanaticism?I should point out that the Muslims at the time had the blackmail leverage of much of the holy cities of Christianity which spurred the Western powers who needed the holy cities. The specific means of the blackmail is immaterial.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, your statement appeared to read that since you think Iraq wasn't global terrorism there's no global terrorism.

---

Huh? Show me the direct quote where I even hinted at such a thing. My entire post of Message 25 was Iraq this, Iraq that, and how Iraq doesn't have anything to do with "global terrorism." In fact, I specifically made a distinction between Al Qaeda and Iraq: My guess is that you were referring to the sentence immediately preceding that one: But what on earth did you think I meant when I said, "there"? Luxemborg?Of course not. I was referring to Iraq. The violence in Iraq is not "global terrorism." It's a civil war.How on earth can that possibly be interpreted to mean that there is no terrorism?Perhaps you were referring to Message 23 where I said: But again, how does this mean there is no global terrorism? It simply points out that what is going on in Iraq is no more "global terrorism" than what was going on in Ireland or what happened in the US during the Civil War. That hardly means there is no global terrorism. It simply means that those particular events aren't part of it.

quote:

---

Global terrorism doesn't mean every single nation on earth is being terrorized.

---

I never said it was. But, you are avoiding my direct questions to you:What would it take for you to be shown wrong? How could anybody show you that there is no Great Islamic Conspiracy to Rule the World (C)?Hint: The fact that there are terrorists who are Muslim who wish for global domination is not an actual response. There are terrorists who are Christian who wish for global domination. You're not afraid of them, are you? So what it is about Muslims that makes you suddenly take leave of your senses?And what would it take for you to be convinced that there is no monster under the bed?Do you not understand the point? You said, and I quote: You're intimating that the world is under credible and significant threat. It isn't. That doesn't mean there isn't terrorism. It simply means that it isn't nearly as dramatic as you are making out.

quote:

---

Whether or not Iraq was invaded Iraq contributed to global terrorism by funding and supporting Jihad against Israel as funds were given to suicide bombers by the Iraqi government.

---

Just as we did to the various guerilla organizations in Central Ameica. I guess we're terrorists, too.Note, this doesn't mean there aren't terrorists, but it does mean that you don't understand your own argument: The desire to destroy Israel is not an attempt to "dominate the globe."

quote:

---

They also refused to allow inspection by the world body to whom they said they would allow in.

---

Yes and no. Yes, the inspectors were kicked out, but then they were let back in. The inspectors were in Iraq all during our march to war. Blix was literally BEGGING Bush to back off and let him do his job.On the very day that Bush announced the invasion, the weapons inspectors in Iraq were destroying some missiles as they had too long of a range. They were shown doing so on international television. The invasion couldn't proceed because we had to pull the inspectors out.Where on earth did you get this lie that there were no inspectors in Iraq?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

1. The bottom line is that the war on terror is primarily Jihad driven and Iraq was funding the terrorists.

---

No, they weren't. Haven't you been listening? Iraq had no ties to "global terrorism." Hussein despised Al Qaeda and AQ despised Hussein.

quote:

---

2. Inspectors were banned from strategic areas which were where the inspectors needed to go and where satelite photos indicated suspicious activity.

---

Incorrect. Inspectors had complete access to everything, whenever, wherever. Blix was literally BEGGING Bush to back off and let him do his job.

quote:

---

3. The consensus of many is that by banning inspections in strategic locations time was bought to export and move weapons to friendly havens to avoid detection.

---

And those "many" (why are they nameless, Buzsaw? Don't you know who they are?) were all wrong. There were no weapons to find. Iraq had dismantled its weapons program.

But none of your prophecy is relevant, Buzsaw. All that was supposed to happen 2000 years ago. Jesus directly told people that they would live to see the end of the world. So unless you're trying to say that there are 2000-year-old people running around, then the expiration date has long passed.And since Israel isn't being invaded, your prophecy fails.And since Islam is not on a Global Quest to Rule the World (C), your claims fail.What would it take for you to admit you were wrong?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

DrJones* writes:

quote:

---

And the new testament is a johhnycomelately with some old testament stuff interlaced to lend it some emasure of merit.

---

And the Old Testament is a johnnycomelately with some Babylonian stuff interlaced to lend it some measure of merit.Gee, I wonder how the Hindu...even older the Judaism...feel about this.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, Unless you can cite something Babylonian

---

Ahem.The story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh.You know this. It's been brought up here plenty of times. Please don't play dumb. Genesis is filled with Babylonian mythology.I note that you haven't actually responded to the point, however. You are arguing that Islam and Mormonism are based on Christianity, therefore Christianity wins. But Christianity is based upon Judaism (as DrJones* pointed out), therefore Judaism wins. And since Judaism is based upon even older theologies, not even Judaism wins.Would you be so kind as to actually respond to the points that were made against your argument?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The story of Noah is a direct rip-off of the story of Ut-Napishtim from the Epic of Gilgamesh.

---

​

LOL.

---

Ahem. Babylonian mythology predates the story of Genesis. The Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the story of Noah.The first writings of Genesis are from sometime around the 8th or 9th centuries BCE. The first copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh are from the third millennium BCE.

quote:

---

What the Biblical account has lending to it's credibility as the genuine original that Gigamesh does not have is a treasure trove of corroborative data supportive to the Biblical record, much of which I and others have cited in the archived threads.

---

Except that you haven't, really. The Bible is a pretty poor historical document. Genesis, in particular, is quite bad.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

Evidently many in government on both sides of the isle figured they had the capacity to make lethal weapons.

---

Ahem. "Both sides of the aisle" assumes that the other side had the same information as what the administration had. As we have been shown numerous times, they did not.Congress did not have the same information the President had. The only information they had came from the President. Since we know the President was cherry-picking evidence to bolster his desire to go to war, are we surprised that there were members of Congress who agreed with the President?If I lie to you and you fall for it, how does that make you at fault for my lie?

quote:

---

Poison gas was used by Saddam to massacre the Iraqis up North who were problematic to him.

---

Yes, that's true.Question: When was that done? Hint: A Bush was President.Question: Who gave him the gas? Hint: A Republican was President.You seem to be heading toward the distraction of, "Are you saying the world would be a better place with Hussein still in charge?" as if that had anything to do with what we're talking about.Whether or not Hussein was a bad man is immaterial. The question is whether or not he was a threat to the United States sufficient to justify declaring war.All the evidence we were getting out of Iraq showed that he had no weapons and wasn't creating any. The inspectors that were in the country had complete access to everything they wanted, whenever they wanted it, and they were literally BEGGING Bush to back off and let them finish their job.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

Rrhain, please document that the US ever sent any poisonous gas or chemical weapons to Iraq.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Let us not play dumb, Buzsaw. You are perfectly capable of doing your own homework. This is common knowledge. You know how to use a search engine. Search for "us iraq gas reagan nerve iran."From "Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement," by John King. As William Blum wrote in 1998 ("Anthrax for export: U.S. companies sold Iraq the ingredients for a witch's brew"): Nightline, June 9, 1992: U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
"Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War" ... For you to pretend that you don't know this shows either extreme naivete, deliberate ignorance, or something that I'm not allowed to mention here.And let's not get distracted by the canard that, "Other countries were selling them chemical and biological weapons, too." This isn't about the Dutch or the Germans or Singapore. This is about the United States, the fact that we were the ones who installed Hussein, and the fact that we supplied him with the very weapons we said he wasn't allowed to have. We gave them to him because we wanted him to use them against Iran.After it was discovered that Hussein has used his chemical weapons against the Kurds, the US Senate unanimously passed sanctions to cut off Iraq from pretty much all US technology.Reagan quashed it.Why is it you don't know these things, Buzsaw?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Buzsaw writes:

quote:

---

And to convince both sides of the isle in the US and the world body that they were still there ready for use in Jihad. Thus the invasion.

---

Except all the news coming out of Iraq was that there weren't any. Blix and the rest of the inspections teams had complete access to everything, any time they wanted. They were BEGGING for Bush to back off and let them do their jobs.You seem to keep forgetting that we had to pause to pull the inspectors out of Iraq before we could invade. On the very same day that Bush announced we were going to invade, there were televised news reports of the inspectors destroying missiles that were over the range limit imposed.You keep acting as if the state of affairs in 2003 were identical to what they were in 1998.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

petrophysics writes:

quote:

---

[The war on terror will end when] someone shows up with enough balls to finish what Charles Martel started in October 732 A.D.

---

Huh? What does the Battle of Tours have to do with Ireland or Darfur or Japan or the United States?Surely you're not saying that the only terrorism that exists is carried out by Muslims on non-Muslims, are you?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.