It's obvious some of you get a rush

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Who came up with the 10-15% figure?

If it was that high and roughly 100-150 million people were walking around with Jihad on their mind I would assume that 9/11 would have occurred monthly and we'd be in a full on world war.

I know plenty of muslims, I know some of the most prominant Utahn muslim leaders, I have been to their parties, I have talked with them, and never once was I threatened, or made to feel afraid.

Are there a large group of them that are full of hate, bigotry, and irrationality? Yes there is, do we solve the problem with more violence towards them? I don't think we do.

There's 1.2 billion Muslims in the World. An estimated 10-15% of them are of the violent, evil, nihilistic type.

10-15% is pretty large when you're talking about 1.2 billion people.

No one has said anything derogatory here towards Muslims who live peaceably and are law abiding citizens of whichever country they hail.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by All-American

Same way you have peace when X number of radical lamanites want you dead. Figure it out.

And what happened...The Lamanites eventually exterminated them.

Yeah...let's just sit around and do nothing. You'll note at that time, the Nephites didn't lay their arms down. They fought to the bitter end.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

There's 1.2 billion Muslims in the World. An estimated 10-15% of them are of the violent, evil, nihilistic type.

10-15% is pretty large when you're talking about 1.2 billion people.

No one has said anything derogatory here towards Muslims who live peaceably and are law abiding citizens of whichever country they hail.

Who came up with this figure?

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Who came up with this figure?

Watch this in it's entirety.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ly+About&hl=en

[All-American]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

And what happened...The Lamanites eventually exterminated them.

Yeah...let's just sit around and do nothing. You'll note at that time, the Nephites didn't lay their arms down. They fought to the bitter end.

You need to read the bit between 4th Nephi and Ether VERY closely. There's a reason the Nephites were exterminated, and it had more to do with their own bloodthirsty, gung ho attitude than anything else.

The Nephites were situated in a nearly impregnable spot, plugging up the narrow neck. They could have remained their indefinitely, and Mormon knew this. He was busy building up his own defenses. Yet, his own people were so zealous about eliminating the enemy forces that they went out on their own offensive strike. Not only was the offensive unsuccessful, it decimated the defending troops, and being thus weakened, they were forced from their defenses. "And from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun."

The two greatest Nephite generals, Captain Moroni and Mormon, both advocated defense over offense. Neither were interested in offensives, and only once in the entire book did a hot-tempered Moroni even indicate he might try an offensive campaign in what many feel was an empty threat he had no intention of following up upon. Both generals saw the ultimate solution to the Lamanite problem lying beyond the battlefield.

The difference between the two? Moroni's men believed him. Mormon's men didn't. One group survived. The other didn't.

As much as I advocate fighting to the bitter end, I'd rather not have a bitter end.

[MikeWaters]

even BluePete advocates defense over pre-emption.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

You need to read the bit between 4th Nephi and Ether VERY closely. There's a reason the Nephites were exterminated, and it had more to do with their own bloodthirsty, gung ho attitude than anything else.

The Nephites were situated in a nearly impregnable spot, plugging up the narrow neck. They could have remained their indefinitely, and Mormon knew this. He was busy building up his own defenses. Yet, his own people were so zealous about eliminating the enemy forces that they went out on their own offensive strike. Not only was the offensive unsuccessful, it decimated the defending troops, and being thus weakened, they were forced from their defenses. "And from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun."

The two greatest Nephite generals, Captain Moroni and Mormon, both advocated defense over offense. Neither were interested in offensives, and only once in the entire book did a hot-tempered Moroni even indicate he might try an offensive campaign in what many feel was an empty threat he had no intention of following up upon. Both generals saw the ultimate solution to the Lamanite problem lying beyond the battlefield.

The difference between the two? Moroni's men believed him. Mormon's men didn't. One group survived. The other didn't.

As much as I advocate fighting to the bitter end, I'd rather not have a bitter end.

These Armageddon scenarios are no win scenarios. Let's postpone any such scenario as long as possible.

I agree, if we ignore the admonitions of our leaders, striking out when we need not, then we will cease having any protection in the future. We should pull back from our adventurous preemptive mode.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by creekster

I didn't say democarcy, although my flip refernce to the founding fathers was misleading. I mean they must be weaned from their radicalism. they may come to be more materialistic as a result of their detachment from the most radical strains of thought, but they will not be first seduced by materialism. In fact, thinking this can happen strikes me as rather silly. Besides, how do you inseret a 'desire' for materialism without first injecting other cultural concepts that make it relevant to their lives and belif systems? If anything, I think you have your list above completyely backwards.

This is more than just a matter of having access to material possessions. [By the way, you say you disagree that they wanty materialism. I assume you mean that you disagreee that they want material possessions, as it is clear beyonf cavil that the radical islamic culture rejects thre values of amterialism] If it were, we would not see so many radical muslims in Germany, France and other European countries (or even in Indoneisa, for that matter). This is a war of cultures, of ideas. Economic progress may be important, but it is not the answer, or an exclusive first step.

You are right about one thing; I don't ahve the answers, but I certainly don't think seduction by Wal-Mart should be the focus.

I think the problem is that we are talking about "them" as if "they" are a cohesive group. There are a lot of elements in the Middle East that would love to live the materialistic lifestyle and abandon some of the rigors of radical Islaam. In fact, that is precisely why radical Islaam is so upset with the West right now. Many of their own are adopting the Western lifestyle (such as women wanting jeans, kids listening to rock music, satellite tv feeding in messages from Western cultures, etc.). When radical Muslims see those things happening to their own neighbors, they are enraged and they fight back violently. They fight against their own (through torture, intimidation, kidnappings, beheadings, violent persecution of "liberalized" women) and against those they deem responsible for spreading the invective messages (primarily the US and Israel). As materialism takes a greater hold there, the push back will grow even stronger. The two cultures CANNOT coexist because one culture is premised on the absence of the other.

[UteStar]

I think that the Afghan war and the Iraqi war tell two different stories on how America chooses to 'fight' the war on terror:

Afghan: When the US went there and started the mini war, there was justification for it (in many people's eyes). They knew who the bad guys were and what needed to be done.

Iraq: It seemed like we were grasping at straws to show the 'terror' link and go after them. Yes Saddam is a truly evil man. But what is the price? Do any of you believe that this war is going to end anytime soon? Did we do more good in getting rid of Saddam or did we do more ill will in regards to how America is perceived. Yes, Iraq wanted to get rid of Saddam, but they didn't want the evil West empire to be the ones that did it.

There is a war against terror...America needs to decide if the 'war' should be fought thru intelligence, a stronger CIA, a stronger FBI and a stronger relationship with international governments...or if the 'war' should consist of bombing out countries in the hope that we nail some bad people. It is not a black and white issue even though Bush and the administration try to make it so...its not a for us or against us situation.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by El Guapo

I think the problem is that we are talking about "them" as if "they" are a cohesive group. There are a lot of elements in the Middle East that would love to live the materialistic lifestyle and abandon some of the rigors of radical Islaam.

As this was in response to my comment, I feel compelled to point out that my initial quote disitinguished between radical Islam/radcilaized Muslims and other Muslims and strains of Islam.