[Edit]Know Your Enemy: [peace-loving moslem fundamentalists] Doctrine and Order of Battle

[Guest]

This is a fascinating analysis, prepared for the Pentagon by the RAND Corp.

It doesn't look like they missed much.

As for the term "DELETE NON-PC TERM" (by which I refer to Wahabists [those fundamentalist Moslem whackos who want to shove Islam down everyone else's throats) , I MAKE NO APOLOGIES, for although "Death to America" has been heard from the Middle East for a generation, the fact is that these vermin are the enemy of mankind itself. In other words, the feelings are mutual, Mohammed.

mh

.

Okay, okay - see edit to title. But as far as I'm concerned, RIFWs (Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Whackos) can't die for Allah fast enough.

mh

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ignoring "Ragheads" and content for a moment, I love the image of a bunch of Taliban guerrillas sat on rocks in a dusty cave with their leader putting on a Power Point presentation with a laser pen.

[Skyrad 0]

Your language and attitue may go down well at your local White Aryan Brotherhood meeting, but personaly I think it makes you sound a wee bit intolerant and ignorant.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Guest]

Actually, that's probably not far off. [DELETE NON-PC TERM, SUBSTITUTE "peace-loving Moslem fundamentalists"] don't eschew techology for its own sake - they'll embrace it if it furthers their agenda. Laptops and cell phones were captured in caves in Afghanistan.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Skyrad 0]

The term 'Raghead' is not very acurate, the vast majority of Muslims (Wahibists included) do not wear Turbans. However it is a religious duty for all Sikh men to wear Turbans. So the chances are if you spot a 'Raghead' he is most proberbly a Sikh not a Muslim at all. I suggest that you may want to find another equaly offensive term to use to describe those you hate. How about 'Sand Nigger?' Its just a suggestion, I'm sure you have many other such terms in your volcabulary. Wouldn't want you to look like a uneducated racist idiot

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Guest]

That's very patronizing of you, but I think you'd feel differently if one of your loved ones perished at their hands in the name of Allah.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Mak 0]

Quote

This is a fascinating analysis, prepared for the Pentagon by the RAND Corp.

It doesn't look like they missed much.

As for the term "Raghead" (by which I refer to Wahabists [those fundamentalist Moslem whackos who want to shove Islam down everyone else's throats) , I MAKE NO APOLOGIES, for although "Death to America" has been heard from the Middle East for a generation, the fact is that these vermin are the enemy of mankind itself. In other words, the feelings are mutual, Mohammed.

mh

.

I don't like getting involved in political discussions on an anonymous board like this one, but this is the second time I've seen you reference "ragheads", so here goes:

And you wonder why the Arab world hates the US. With attitudes like yours it is no wonder. You do realize that "raghead" refers to the dress of Arabs and your use has no other connotation other than a racist one? (despite your lame attempt to qualify that definition). How do you distinguish between a "raghead" who meets your definition of trying to force Islam down your throat, and one who couldn't care either way?

Just curious - do you also have a similar qualification for crackers, niggers, dotheads and gooks?

The content of the Rand Corp study is of course now lost in the noise that your attitude has added to the discussion.

[Guest]

Yes, Sikhs wear turbans. However, I, and most other people familiar with the Mideast (and the Near east in the case of Sikhs [and Punjabis]) know the difference. The headgear styles are distinctive.

Respectfully,

mh

Edit to add: WAIT: are you sure it doesn't signify a cab driver?

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Ron 10]

Quote

And you wonder why the Arab world hates the US. With attitudes like yours it is no wonder. You do realize that "raghead" refers to the dress of Arabs and your use has no other connotation other than a racist one? (despite your lame attempt to qualify that definition). How do you distinguish between a "raghead" who meets your definition of trying to force Islam down your throat, and one who couldn't care either way?

How did Al Queda tell the difference between the people in the WTC that were not trying to destroy Islam from those that did?

Oh wait, they didn't care.

While the term "ragheads" may not have been needed...And maybe not accurate. Every pic I have seen of OBL has him wearing one.

His classification of all "ragheads" as evil, or their classification as the whole US as evil...Same thing really.

Quote

The content of the Rand Corp study is of course now lost in the noise that your attitude has added to the discussion.

Nope. I looked at it, and it had some good (Although already known) info.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Skyrad 0]

I think I'd be able to differentiate between terrorists who kill in a twisted perversion of a faith and the rest of that faith. If I were to have your attitude then I would belive that all Christians are murdering scum because some of them kill Abortion Dr's in the name of God. Or that all Catholics are terrorists because the PIRA, INLA, RIRA and ETA are Catholics. And going back to your use of the term 'Raghead' did you ever think that there is Arab Christians that wear the same clothing? Not to mention many other faiths. Maybe you should start thinking what hatred is doing to you? And how it mkes others percive you.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Yes, Sikhs wear turbans. However, I, and most other people familiar with the Mideast (and the Near east in the case of Sikhs [and Punjabis]) know the difference. The headgear styles are distinctive.

You obviously don't have the faintest idea of what you are talking about. The Punjab is a geographical area, the people that come from there are known as Punjabis. Sikhism is a religion. You can be a Sikh and a Punjabi. Punjabis do not nessacerily wear any form of headwear and maybe Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Buddist or any other faith that exists. As for the 'Near East' If you look at a map you will see that the near east as you term it is located between the middle east and the far east.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Mak 0]

Quote

How did Al Queda tell the difference between the people in the WTC that were not trying to destroy Islam from those that did?

Oh wait, they didn't care.

The US is not at the same level as Al-Qaeda. That is what differentiates us from them. If we were to go down to that level, fixing the problem would be trivial. Nuke every Islamic country in the middle east and be done with it. To compare the US to Al-Qaeda is a childish argument.

Quote

While the term "ragheads" may not have been needed...And maybe not accurate. Every pic I have seen of OBL has him wearing one.

His classification of all "ragheads" as evil, or their classification as the whole US as evil...Same thing really.

And every picture of him also has a beard. Should we call all terrorists "beards"? No Ron, raghead was an epithet well before 9-11 and Harju's attempt to justify using it still sucks.

To classify evil by appearance is very insidious. This is what leads to all Arabs (or all Muslims) being lumped together as terrorists, treated as such and eventually being driven to act as such.

Quote

Nope. I looked at it, and it had some good (Although already known) info.

What I meant was that the discussion hence forth in this thread is going to focus around "raghead" instead of "RAND".

[Guest]

Quote

I think I'd be able to differentiate between terrorists who kill in a twisted perversion of a faith and the rest of that faith. If I were to have your attitude then I would belive that all Christians are murdering scum because some of them kill Abortion Dr's in the name of God. Or that all Catholics are terrorists because the PIRA, INLA, RIRA and ETA are Catholics. And going back to your use of the term 'Raghead' did you ever think that there is Arab Christians that wear the same clothing? Not to mention many other faiths. Maybe you should start thinking what hatred is doing to you? And how it mkes others percive you.

Um, not really. I kinda feel the same way about all religious fundamentalists of all stripes.

Anybody who beats his chest and holds some holy book in the air and declares that he's got the last word on it all and we'd better follow him or else - well, let's just say I have NO TOLERANCE.

By that definition, Rev. Jerry Falwell (a notorious bible thumper in the USA) could be classed as a "DELETE NON-PC TERM" (sans the rag, of course, but the mentality is the same).

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Guest]

You are right, Punjab is a region. I was only using it in the context that many Sikhs originate in that area (but as you have remarked, not all Punjabis are Sikhs. I've spent some time chatting with them, [many live here] so I'm not completely ignorant).

Please don't correct my geography.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[Skyrad 0]

Don't correct your geography? Why? It was wrong. Black mark and loose one house point

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Ron 10]

Quote

The US is not at the same level as Al-Qaeda. That is what differentiates us from them.

I think a large diffence MAY be the fact they are wanting to kill non-muslims in a religious war...I could be wrong, but I don't remember the US attacking anyone over religious differences.

Quote

Nuke every Islamic country in the middle east and be done with it.

It may come down to that.

Quote

To compare the US to Al-Qaeda is a childish argument.

To bitch about name calling is childish. To compare two groups that are at war with each other to each other is strategy.

Quote

And every picture of him also has a beard. Should we call all terrorists "beards"? No Ron, raghead was an epithet well before 9-11 and Harju's attempt to justify using it still sucks.

Not disagreeing with you on his poor use of words.
But just pointing out how "they" do the same to "us".

Quote

To classify evil by appearance is very insidious. This is what leads to all Arabs (or all Muslims) being lumped together as terrorists, treated as such and eventually being driven to act as such.

And them killing anyone that does not look/act/pray like them will make people hate them as well.

I think they are being lumped together just as they lump us together. Right or wrong its fact.

Quote

What I meant was that the discussion hence forth in this thread is going to focus around "raghead" instead of "RAND".

Only because you are trying to make it so.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Mak 0]

There really isn't any reason to try and backtrack from your original comment using a sarcastic substitution. If you honestly believe something, why not stand up for it?

Namely, if you stand by your original assertion that "ragheads" are not all Arabs but only those Islamists trying to shove their religion down other throats, why not leave the term in there?

Could it be that you realize the indefensibility of that position?

[Mak 0]

Quote

I think a large diffence MAY be the fact they are wanting to kill non-muslims in a religious war...I could be wrong, but I don't remember the US attacking anyone over religious differences.

I agree completely. What I was objecting to was the argument that because Al-Qaeda doesn't distinguish between civilians and the military, the US should not either (I'm paraphrasing loosely).

Quote

It may come down to that.

Unfortunately you may be right.

Quote

To bitch about name calling is childish. To compare two groups that are at war with each other to each other is strategy.

I'm assuming by "bitch about name calling" you are referring to my objection to the term "raghead". I would have much rather seen a discussion of the strategy. But the two issues are somewhat independent and by choosing to call it a "Raghead Doctrine" prejudices the comparison even before it's begun.

The reason I chose to bitch about name calling is that Harju has used the term numerous times. I want to highlight the fallacy of identifying the enemy by appearance - it's racist for one thing (and doesn't do a good job for another).

Quote

And them killing anyone that does not look/act/pray like them will make people hate them as well.
I think they are being lumped together just as they lump us together. Right or wrong its fact.

Quote

Lumping those that want to kill us is one thing. Using the term "ragheads" to do that lumps many others, excludes many more and is racist. That is what I was objecting to.

Quote

Only because you are trying to make it so.

I'll carry this further in PMs if anyone wants to do so (or maybe a different thread if someone opens one). Harju just raised my hackles with his repeated use of a racial epithet (despite his protestations about its selective applicability).

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

How did Al Queda tell the difference between the people in the WTC that were not trying to destroy Islam from those that did?
....
His classification of all "ragheads" as evil, or their classification as the whole US as evil...Same thing really.

You think mh is on the same level as al queda?

Wow, thats really harsh.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

By that definition, Rev. Jerry Falwell (a notorious bible thumper in the USA) could be classed as a "DELETE NON-PC TERM" (sans the rag, of course, but the mentality is the same).

Well in that case is 'The feeling mutual Jesus'?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Ron 10]

Quote

You think mh is on the same level as al queda?

No he is calling Islamic extremists "Ragheads".
He is not trying to kill as many as he can so he can get a bunch of virgins.

The Islamic extremists are calling the US "the Great Satan", AND killing people.

One is much worse....I'll let you pick which one, the guy that says the non-Politically correct thing, or the guy that goes around killing people since they don't pray to the same God.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Mak 0]

Quote

One is much worse....I'll let you pick which one, the guy that says the non-Politically correct thing, or the guy that goes around killing people since they don't pray to the same God.

Sorry to butt in again (this thread's got me worked up!) - but why should one have to choose? Both are reprehensible and there is no compulsion to agree with either one.

Edited to add:
I don't mean to imply I support suppressing non politcally correct viewpoints - I just think there's a difference between racism and PC.

[chuckbrown 0]

Quote

Sorry to butt in again (this thread's got me worked up!)

Welcome to the Speaker's Corner. Carry on.

[billvon 2,998]

>>Nuke every Islamic country in the middle east and be done with it.

>It may come down to that.

If it does, we will be far worse than any terrorist could ever be.

>I think they are being lumped together just as they lump us
> together. Right or wrong its fact.

I agree there. Decide for yourself if it's right. If it's right, then do it. If it's not, don't do it. Saddam tortured, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of people - that doesn't mean it's OK for us to do the same thing. Your morals should be your own, not those of your enemy. Unless, of course, you want to become him.

[Ron 10]

Quote

>>Nuke every Islamic country in the middle east and be done with it.

>It may come down to that.

If it does, we will be far worse than any terrorist could ever be.

I never said it was not...But this is a religious war...For them it is a way to get into heaven and get a lot of virgins...Jihad is not about winning a war for them, its about fighting one.

How do you fight an ememy that does not care if he wins as long as he takes a bunch of you out, he is doing his mission? This is not about land, or money. Its about them securing a place in the after life.

Quote

I agree there. Decide for yourself if it's right. If it's right, then do it. If it's not, don't do it. Saddam tortured, raped and murdered hundreds of thousands of people - that doesn't mean it's OK for us to do the same thing. Your morals should be your own, not those of your enemy. Unless, of course, you want to become him.

Sometimes in war you have to do bad things...Simple fact is we are one of the only countries that play by the rules...Yes, we wrote most of them it seems, but here is a real life situation for you:

You are walking down some street in Iraq. A crowd starts to split. In the middle of this split is a group of women and children. You are taking fire, not from them, but from the gunners HIDING behind them and shooting from between their legs. They are using the women and children as COVER. And the women are not being held there...They are standing there as a human shield....Do you shoot back? Do you risk killing the shields? Or do you stand there and seek cover yourself..(Hint: if you are the recipient of a close ambush...There will be none to be found). While your men and yourself get cut to pieces?

Answer...you kill them, before they kill you.

Now the US would never use women for shields (And the insurgents would not care anyway), but it is happening everyday in Iraq. Then they claim we just opened up on "civilians" "For no reason".

War is fucked up, but when against an enemy that only wants to destroy you in anyway possible...shit happens.

It may simply come to one of us...Christains or radical Muslims will have to dissapear.

When one side decides to declare war based on religion, not money or land...Then it will not end till one of the religions are gone.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334