Why extremists succeed
 

Although the history backing up the author's opinion is pretty much bulletproof, just watch Barry's buddies line up here to shoot this piece down. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif
Islamic extemists will continue to run amok while the mainstream muslims repeat the past. I once asked a german member here "How was Hitler able to convice his countrymen to stuff jews into ovens?" I can't remember just what he said , but it was pretty close to this part:

Very few people were true Nazis," he
said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more
were too busy to care.
A German's view of Islam | 1 of 137

The Nazi's didn't succeed...........if you hold this up as a stellar analogy, how is it that Islamic Extremists are going to succeed?

Tell that to a group of Jews.

How will IE's succeed? Don't look now LBS, but your country has paid dearly since 9-11. Their goal was to hurt America, and they have.( and it's not over) What has been spent post 9-11 would probably just about cover HCR costs, don't you think?

I guess you were talking about the kind of success that is perpetual and happens only in the imagination.

You'll understand if I don't take seriously an article that ends with:

"Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just
deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the
passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself
a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands,
world wide, read this and think about it, and send it on - before
it's too late."

Typical histrionic nonsense that you predictably bought hook, line and sinker.

I think you should have quoted this:

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the
"silent majority," is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live
in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the
murder of about
20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese
Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way
across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the
systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by
sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it
not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?
The bottom line in all of that is that the atrocities are allowed to happen. We see by whom.

I don't really give a rats ass what you take or leave. Zat clear enough for ya?

So we should wait until the atrocities are equivocal with those of Germany, China, Japan, and Rwanda?

Sunshine, I think their stance is if I post black, they say white.....and so on. History proves the writer of the piece's point, all I did was post it (and comment, modzillas) so more people could read it.

Yeah, I have some of those who follow me around here too. http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Don't feel like you're the Lone Ranger on that issue. Either of you...

So. Let's accept everything the guy says, (which I don't) for the sake of argument.

What then should we do???

The premise is that extremists succeed? Do they? I have yet to see examples of that. Afghanistan would be an example, to me, of extremism in charge, and it would be a real stretch to find anything about Afghanistan that might be considered success.

There is an old Navy saying that helps to conditioning ones self to handle such circumstances:
1. If you can lift it...Steal it !

2. If it doesn't move ....Paint it !

3. If it moves... Salute it !

OK... you've done everything possible relax http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag.../001_smile.gif

I'm confused, what is the point of the OP?

I was aware of that long ago.

The point I got from it is that extremists don't succeed. But no one takes them on before they have committed an inexcusable number of atrocities.

I think the only one on here who is very proactive regarding islamic terrorists is OSB. His posts indicating that once they have done lip service to Al Quaida, they are now terrorists, and we need to take action. That is about as far reaching as it gets anywhere I have ever been. I have actually been engaged in conversations with people who think it is a person's constitutional right to pledge themselves to AQ under the freedom of speech doctrine. But there are limits, and joining a terrorist group should be over the limit. They are not merely disagreeing with what we say, they are out to destroy us and I don't think we should wait until they do to fight them.

According to the article it is 'peace loving people' who do not take up arms against those who commit atrocities. I have read many times that Americans turned their heads any time there was a train taking Jews to the concentration camps. We know. We do nothing. Until the enemy is formidable. Then the casualties are so great as to shame us because we did nothing for so long.

Ha, ha. I can't help it, that you haven't been able to articulate the point of your post.

So far it's as if I would say:

"See, rain makes you wet."

Yea, and what?

What should I conclude from a statement like that?

Should I:

1. Not go out in the rain
2. Put on a rain coat
3. Bring an umbrella

You have thus far failed to state your position as it relates to your OP.

Are you being critical of a particular policy?

Are you suggesting preemption on all known lawless regimes and entities?

On one hand I think you're suggesting preemption, yet on the other hand you bring up the cost of our response to 9/11. Is it your contention that we should have taken more severe preemptive actions to prevent 9/11? Or should we have responded to 9/11 more modestly?

So, could you articulate the point of your post? I would be interested in this discussion if it has a point.

http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...ies/crying.gif


3 of the biggest trolls on the forum complaining about being challenged on their trolling.


Cry me a fucking river.

Then why don't you wander over to a thread that makes sense to you? You're adding absolutely NOTHING here. Check "The Basement". http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/imag...s/rolleyes.gif You're just a hologram of Tann, you don't want discussion, but to stir shit. Stir away, I ain't playin after this waste of time post.

Simple: IslamoNazis are in vastly greater number than German Nazis and they are not afraid of death. In fact, they desire death, particularly, through jihad.