How long to the next FATWA?

[Manedwolf]

Actually the non-Islamacist terrorists tend to do things in relatively civilized fashion - they target politicians and such. And they NEGOTIATE. They have TERMS. We may not like 'em. We may not want 'em around. But we can DEAL with them.
 
The Islamacists want us dead.
 
D E A D .
 
Why?
 
We're not them.
 

This is also simply untrue-there is not a single Islamist organization on the planet which holds that all people who "aren't them" must be killed, or anything remotely similar.  Not even Bin Laden and his kooky band of murderers.

You're right. They offer three choices.

1. Convert.
2. Become dhimmi and pay the tax.
3. Die.

[De Selby]

I'm saying that IRA terrorism arose solely as a response to British tyranny.  Islamic terrorism has no single, identifiable catalyst, however.   There is no purpose, AFAICT, to compare the two.

This is a cartoon version of Irish/British history as much as it is a cartoon history of Islamic terrorism.  

The victims of the IRA conflict have been by and large Irish-sorry, but the fact that the IRA claims that all protestants in Northern Ireland are "british occupiers" does not make it so.   Just like Bin Laden's claim that America has "murdered millions of Muslims, justifying attacks on Americans everywhere" (that is literally what Bin Laden claims) does not make it so.

[De Selby]

Actually the non-Islamacist terrorists tend to do things in relatively civilized fashion - they target politicians and such. And they NEGOTIATE. They have TERMS. We may not like 'em. We may not want 'em around. But we can DEAL with them.
 
The Islamacists want us dead.
 
D E A D .
 
Why?
 
We're not them.
 

This is also simply untrue-there is not a single Islamist organization on the planet which holds that all people who "aren't them" must be killed, or anything remotely similar.  Not even Bin Laden and his kooky band of murderers.

You're right. They offer three choices.

1. Convert.
2. Become dhimmi and pay the tax.
3. Die.

Sorry, but there is not one single Muslim terrorist group out there with this agenda.  Not even Al Qaeda.  A quick perusal of their volumnous statements makes it obvious that two things motivate these terrorists:

1. The perception that America and its allies are targeting Muslims for attacks
2. The fundamental belief that all citizens of an opposing country, be they women or children, are legitimate targets in warfare.

That is the root of their criminal campaign, not some bizarre religious law that has never existed.

[Modifiedbrowning]

2. The fundamental belief that all citizens of an opposing country, be they women or children, are legitimate targets in warfare.

So, why shouldn't we kill all Islamoterrorists again?
I am no saying all Muslims are Islamoterrorists as you like to imply, but if these people have this killing of all citizens of their enemy as a goal, why shouldn't we wipe them out?

[De Selby]

2. The fundamental belief that all citizens of an opposing country, be they women or children, are legitimate targets in warfare.

So, why shouldn't we kill all Islamoterrorists again?
I am no saying all Muslims are Islamoterrorists as you like to imply, but if these people have this killing of all citizens of their enemy as a goal, why shouldn't we wipe them out?

Who is saying we shouldn't?

One thing to consider though is that you will find a view identical to number 2 expressed on this very board.  There are many, many people who believe in "total war," which is exactly what the Bin ladenites of the world believe. 

Search this board for threads on war, and you will find no shortage of people who say that civilian casualties on "the other side" are irrelevant, and that massive killing (even nuking) is acceptable as long as it produces results. 

How should we deal with them?