All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
I don't knooow. Sounds like a "nuclear attack on all of Islam" to me. ;)
The nuclear option, eh? Heaven forbid that? And be sure to pass that along to the mullahs in Teheran while you're at it.
Now THAT is PRICELESS!
Haha! That comment, incidentally, wasn't meant to be sarcastic in a mean-spirited fashion--just so there's no confusion. I fully respect--and understand--your prior decision. I just didn't see much a of difference, in actual terms, between what I did, and the follow-the bouncing-severed-head (now that's an idea!) diddy about the Koran; afterall, the Koran IS the Koran--whether it's read by radical Muslims or normal Muslims.
Just being picky--that's what I do. :)
What good is having a nuclear deterent when your only option is to use it after one or more of your cities are smoldering craters? Pass it along to the mullahs but don't forget to pass it along to the limpwrists in Washington too.
Gotcha. And, I just wanted to be clear with you. I'm glad we understand each other. Keep it up, bro.
Deterence--the underpinning of our entire nuclear strategy--only works when one's opponent is rational. I have severe doubts if a theocracy (and the society and 'religion' from whence this theocracy sprang) that celebrates murder-suicide as the highest moral good can be rational in any possible sense.
Think anyone inside the beltway realizes these salient facts?
In short: no.
Counter-intuitive as it may be, I don't know if we can say that mullahcrats are irrational without knowing what their ultimate goal is. For instance, it seems irrational to you and I that Stalin would wreck his own economy, military and intelligentsia, unless you consider that Stalin's actual goal was, indeed, to destroy all of the above in favor of institutionalizing his absolute rule. Perfectly rational.
Likewise, we may think that the mullahs are crazy for wanting to instigate a nuclear attack that would certainly leave a good portion of the world in ashes, unless that's precisely what they want. I'm sure they're confident that they have the means to survive such a conflict, even if their people do not.
I guess we're just arguing semantics, but I think it's helpful in knowing our enemies. Barbarians can be very rational.
Well, I myself am fairly anti-Semantic. But consider this: contrary to the "common knowlege" (which is really just more "political spin"/"taquiya" by Islamic propagandists), there are basically three groups of people who do not want to see Israel destroyed.
One group consists of the Israelis themselves & others friendly to Israel. Another group consists of those supportive of democracy in general, and opposed to Islamofacism. The third group? The rulers of Arab (& most other Muslim) countries...
(While the typical Arab "man in the street" wishes for the destruction of Israel, Arab rulers, of course, would be horrified if this were to occur.)
Perhaps, however, Iran's rulers are so far out that they actually do want to destroy Israel.
That possibility is truly frightening.
afterall, the Koran IS the Koran--whether it's read by radical Muslims or normal Muslims.
And that's a HUGE problem, isn't it?
And who among us can compete with the word of Allah--not the inspired and open to interpretation word, but THE word?
I'd agree with you on your third point inasmuch as without Israel, who--besides America--would the Middle East have to blame its failures on?
Post a Comment