Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey

[Michael Tee]

<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>

Appalling.  Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war.  THOSE innocents (oooops!! of course I meant "collateral damage")  died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.

[sirs]

<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>

Appalling.  Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war.  THOSE innocents died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.

And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America?  My guess it included alot of "innocents".  In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits.  No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy

[Mr_Perceptive]

<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>

Appalling.  Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war.  THOSE innocents (oooops!! of course I meant "collateral damage")  died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.

Slay the combatant enemy by whatever means is necessary. Protect the innocent. Any other interpretation is garbage, regardless of what side you are on. Killing innocents is the act of a weak man. Weak in spirit. Weak in mojo. I spit on them and welcome them to fight man to man. Pu---ies.

I never killed an innocent in my life. I killed many who deserved it and many who perhaps didn't as they were just doing what they were told. Too bad about the latter, but God'll sort it out in His time.

Any real man of character protects the innocent. Even cares for your enemy's women and children.

[Michael Tee]

I seem to be very badly misunderstood.  I am as realistic as the next guy concerning a reasonable amount of civilian casualties in any war.  The critiques of my posts seem to start from the point that I am an unrealistic schmuck because I don't appreciate that any war has a civilian casualty toll, but in fact I appreciate that point very well.

My post was in response to the article posted by sirs in which an Islamic "terrorist" was lambasted for his unrepentant attitude, his lack of concern over the death toll in the WTC/Pentagon attacks.  My point was the utter fucking hypocrisy of the post, since the Americans are as quick as their "terrorist" enemies to justify civilian death tolls (much higher on the Arabic-speaking side, BTW) by the great cause for which they were "sacrificed," national liberation on the "terrorist" side, "democracy" on the American.

<<And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America?  My guess it included alot of "innocents". >>

Well, given that "innocents" die in any war, it probably included "some" innocents.  How many would make up "a lot" is a highly subjective matter.  However, I think in modern warfare, due to aerial bombardment, you will tend to have a much larger number of civilian victims dying in war than you had in the 18th Century.  The civilian death toll in the 18th century's wars must have been relatively low.

<<In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits.  No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy>>

The conventional apportionment we were taught was one-third rebel, one-third loyalist and one-third neutral or undecided.  I don't give a shit that you escaped monarchical rule.  Frankly, I believe you got yourselves a much better system than we did and a lot earlier on.   And I also believe that you reaped the rewards of your adventurism, some of them good, some of them not so good.  Canada proceeded on a slow, steady, unimaginative course of non-rebellion and obedience, and in the end we built ourselves a much superior society to yours, more equitable, more peaceful and more respected.

[Mr_Perceptive]

My apologies, then, if I misunderstood you, Michael Tee.

[Michael Tee]

No apology necessary, Mr. P.   I was not offended, but I felt I owed you the correction.

[sirs]

<<And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America?  My guess it included alot of "innocents". >>

Well, given that "innocents" die in any war, it probably included "some" innocents.  How many would make up "a lot" is a highly subjective matter.  However, I think in modern warfare, due to aerial bombardment, you will tend to have a much larger number of civilian victims dying in war than you had in the 18th Century.  The civilian death toll in the 18th century's wars must have been relatively low.

All the while avoiding answering the question.  Excellent  Yet, that's all you're doing here, claiming all these "innocents" lost fighting for "democracy".  Obviously in a pathetically sarcastic tone, since in your mind those actually trying to win their democracy are by their very act collaborators in your book.  And "even if" (using your tried and untrue technique) Iraqis wanted democracy & freedom, American forces have no intention of helping to bring about such....last thing on their list of things to do, right?

<<In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits.  No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy>>

The conventional apportionment we were taught was one-third rebel, one-third loyalist and one-third neutral or undecided.  I don't give a shit that you escaped monarchical rule.  Frankly, I believe you got yourselves a much better system than we did and a lot earlier on.   And I also believe that you reaped the rewards of your adventurism, some of them good, some of them not so good.  Canada proceeded on a slow, steady, unimaginative course of non-rebellion and obedience, and in the end we built ourselves a much superior society to yours, more equitable, more peaceful and more respected.

All the while again avoiding the point, that Americans did fight for their Independence, did fight to rid themselves of a ruling monarchy, and did so with the help of the French, who without such we may still be part of the English empire.  So goes Iraq, fighting for its fledgling freedom & democracy, people risking everything to bring that taste of freedom to their country.  Risks you apparently spit on, because America is helping to bring it about, and since it's America, it can't be a good thing.....it just can't.