Does the US really think they can handle this new kind of warrior? These people have fought off the Russians and survived, they are experienced and willing to die.
TALIBAN REORGANIZING AND GAINING STRENGTH
The Taliban are no longer on the run and have teamed up with al-Qaida once
again, according to officials and former Taliban who say the religious militia
has reorganized and strengthened since their defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led
coalition nearly two years ago.
https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C...51638%2C00.html
[center]Remembering...[/center]
As today is September 11th, I thought I would pay tribute to those who lost their lives and continue to loose their lives each day. It seems terror and suicide as a means of attack has become more popular in the world, and certain parts of the world has become a sick with evil. May God help us all.
[hr]
There was a lot of talk in the wake of the attacks on 9/11 as to the reasons al Qaeda gave for attacking this country. In the days immediately following the attacks, and to this day, I think most people reject the idea that the attacks were in any way linked to U.S. policies. Instead there is a sense that "they" just hate us. But there were specific complaints or demands raised by al Qaeda...
Are they now going to give up? Of course not. And that raises the question of what exactly, or I guess more precisely, why exactly are they at war with us? What are their aims? No one would ever propose meeting or accepting their demands, whatever they might be, but do they have specific aims, or is the war an end in itself? This isn't just an academic exercise. This is a new kind of war, and we need to understand what the other side wants. And that's just it, we may never understand. If the goal is to foster some sort of global war between Islam and the West, then we're in for a long hard struggle. Because if nothing short of our annihilation or collapse or something equally apocalyptic will satisfy them, then how will this war ever end?
Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
ABCNEWS Washington bureau
[quote]Because if nothing short of our annihilation or collapse or something equally apocalyptic will satisfy them, then how will this war ever end?[/quote]
This is a war of civilizations. Those who fight it with terror and destruction against the innocent, do so to impose their ideologies upon the world.
It will end when the most oppressive form of Islam rules the world. When everyone lives Sharia law. When there is not a single Jew alive in the world. When the US is at least as poor as Bangladesh. When the entire world has reverted to a lower level of civilization than was enjoyed during the Dark Ages.
These are the goals of the Islamist terrorists. They may be a small percentage of Muslims (estimated at 10%). But 10% of over 1 billion people means that there are 100,000,000 committed to this cause, willing to do anything to achieve these ends.
The only other way to end this is to completely defeat it. There is no middle ground, no way to compromise. Either the complete defeat of Christianity, Judaism, and secular humanism, or the defeat of Islamism (not Islam).
NightHawk
[quote]These are the goals of the Islamist terrorists. [/quote]
Is there such a thing as Islamist terrorists? Personally, I don't think so. Or they're islamists or not, but I know the Islam itself doesn't support terrorism and whoever interpret the words of the Islam in that way are wrong in my opinion. What I mean is unfear to use the word Islamit terrorist when there are so many great muslim people who do not agree with all this craziness and still have to deal with it. This is like to say 'Mormon Fundamentalist' (the ones who practise still polygamy) and we know there is not such a thing. Just a thought.
These killers, these sick people who enjoy destroying life cannot be called Islamists or Muslims, they must be call beasts.
[quote]Is there such a thing as Islamist terrorists?[/quote]
I see that I must define a term or two.
A Muslim is a follower of Islam. An Islamist is a radical Muslim, who seeks the complete subjugation of the world under Sharia law.
Islamism is an ideology that is even more oppressive than communism. It doesn't recognize the right of ANY religion other than Islam to exist. Islamists celebrated the deaths of 3000 people on 9/11. Islamists celebrate when Palestinian Arabs kill little children.
Not all Muslims are terrorists. Only a small percentage of Muslims are Islamists. However, pretty much all of the terrorists are Islamists. Thus the appellation - Islamist terrorists.
NightHawk
Nighhwalk, thanks for the explanation but my point is that the term 'Islamist' is incorrect and unfair, the word 'Islam' is being used there and the teachings of the Islam doesn't agree with the murders of hundreds of people, it doesn't rejoice in the death of little children either. My point is that they can call them 'Terrorists, extremist' but the use of the word 'Islam' there is out of place and meant to be deceiving.
I can see your point. However, Islamist is becoming the accepted term for those people who want to subject the world to Islam (corrupt or not) through force and terror. It is not my own term. As I said, it is the description of an oppressive political ideology.
NightHawk
[quote]However, Islamist is becoming the accepted term for those people who want to subject the world to Islam (corrupt or not) through force and terror[/quote]
I understand, and that's what it concerns me the most, the fact that is becoming the 'accepted' term for those people.
[quote]It is not my own term. As I said, it is the description of an oppressive political ideology. [/quote]
Yes I know it's not your own term, I don't know if you agree with it or not. Particularly I totally disagree with it therefore I don't use it, just like I said before how people call 'Mormons Fundamentalists' to those practising ilegal polygamy still...they're not Mormoms, why should I use the word 'Mormon' then?. Same applies to the Islamit Terrorists, the use of the word Islam is already a misconception on the real purpose that this people has. Just my opinion of course. It may be an acceptable term, but definetly doesn't make it right.