Replies

We face a threat of Islamic terrorism as dangerous as any of the many threats of our history including that of Nazi Germany, Soviet Communism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese Imperialism.

Hyperbole never helps an argument.

Is Islamic terrorism going to invade, conquer and rule the US? Nope, they don't have anything close to the capability, despite the fact they would love to do so.

Is Islamic terrorism going to kill hundreds of millions of Americans in less than an hour, as was quite possible during the Cold War? Nope. See above comment.

So how is Islamic terrorism dangerous. Only because we let it be. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Islamic terrorism in an irritant, not a genuine threat. And it's only an irritant becaue we let it be one, out of PC, multi-culturalism and other aspects of our own society, which is the real threat.

So how is Islamic terrorism dangerous. Only because we let it be. That's an entirely different kettle of fish. Islamic terrorism in an irritant, not a genuine threat. And it's only an irritant becaue we let it be one, out of PC, multi-culturalism and other aspects of our own society, which is the real threat.

Are you out of your g*****n mind? Iran, one of the most fanatical Islamic countries and an active sponsor of terrorism around the world, is on the verge of having a nuclear weapons program, if they don't already. Once they have that, there is nothing stopping them from handing those weapons off to some jihadist yahoo who is willing to set it off in a population center. Seeing as how the USA refuses to implement even the most rudimentary border control in the south (or the north for that matter), it would be a relatively simple task to transport a nuke into Mexico, then up into the US and nuke LA. The only thing stopping them would be the technical proficiency with the device. If they get that far, the rest is inevitable.

The advantage with the Soviet nuclear threat was that the Soviets were relatively sane in comparison and could be trusted not to start a nuclear armageddon which would destroy both sides. Not so with the Muzzie fanatics, including the one in charge of Iran. Furthermore, look how much damage the muzzies wrought with just some box cutters and a few men? Imagine what they could accomplish with greater weaponry. The Nazis and Japanese were, indeed, dangerous, but they were never going to invade our homeland and they didn't have the benefit of micro technology that exists today to implement the level of sabotage that the muzzies could now. The ONLY thing that will stop these nutjobs from attempting this is if they think that, when we lose a city, we'll take out 2 or 3 more of their countries.

The very idea that Islam is a mere annoyance rather than a genuine threat is the most asinine thing I've seen in a while.

>>>Hyperbole never helps an argument.

Is Islamic terrorism going to invade, conquer and rule the US? Nope, they don’t have anything close to the capability, despite the fact they would love to do so.

Is Islamic terrorism going to kill hundreds of millions of Americans in less than an hour, as was quite possible during the Cold War? Nope. See above comment.

So how is Islamic terrorism dangerous. Only because we let it be. That’s an entirely different kettle of fish. Islamic terrorism in an irritant, not a genuine threat. And it’s only an irritant becaue we let it be one, out of PC, multi-culturalism and other aspects of our own society, which is the real threat.<<<<

Please allow me to politely disagree. I can see your heart is in the right place, and your thoughts are shared by others.

The mere fact that Islam wants to conquer the West is sufficiently threatening. Communism from the Soviets couldn’t harm the United States in the 1920s, either; it took decades of spying and forced labor to achieve nuclear parity with the West. During World War II, neither the Japanese nor the Germans had the means in 1941 to conquer and subdue the United States. The fact that they sought to do as a long-term goal was sufficient.

Likewise, we haven’t had a megadeath attack from Islam - yet. However, they are planning to do so. The “permission” to use nuclear weapons against American targets has already been “granted” by Islamic authorities. The target death toll I’ve read about was four million, two million of which must be children. That, too, is sufficiently threatening.

I would agree wholeheartedly that political correctness and multiculturalism are also enemies of the American way of life. In that regard, we’re in a two-front war - with Islam from the outside, and with the Left from the inside. I also agree that the Left has gone out of its way to reduce our effectiveness against Islamic attacks.

However, I disagree that Islamic terrorism is a mere irritant. I’m more in agreement with Samuel Huntington in his book “The Clash of Civilizations,” where he points out that everywhere Islamic culture meets another culture there is war. That irritant shows up worldwide, and not just against us, but against all non-believers. An irritant that is not attended to develops into an infection, and then moves on to kill the victim. In fact, that’s one of the strategies of groups like the Muslim Brotherhood - death by 1,000 cuts. A more modern term is asymetrical warfare.

Anyway, please be well, and I hope that I maintained politeness here. It’s hard to tell sometimes when I’m just sitting here typing.

The very idea that Islam is a mere annoyance rather than a genuine threat is the most asinine thing I’ve seen in a while.
I Need to Repeat the Above and add;

You are sounding like Micheal Moore,,,

Hyperbole never helps an argument.

Nor does silence. Mind defending your ridiculous assertions?