Now we know

[Michael Tee]

<<No, just the bringing hyperbole back to reality man>>

Good, then I hope you'll agree that the hillbilly's hyperbole (that this is a fight in which all of your lives are at stake) should be brought back to reality (that al Qaeda has no "stated purpose" of killing each and every American.)

[Michael Tee]

Just so no one loses track of the real point of this thread, here are the actual words of the hillbilly moron that Lanya was quoting:

<<We need to understand that this is, in fact, World War III. Unlike any other world war we've ever fought, this one is one we cannot afford to lose. Because losing it does not mean we lose some land or some geopolitical influence. It means we give up our own lives, because no less than that is the goal of the jihadists.">>

sirs says, it's all the same whether al Qaeda wants to subjugate us all, forcibly convert us all or kill us all.  Obviously, this is not the hillbilly's opinion.  Notwithstanding Hitler's intention to subdue the Allied Powers, the hillbilly clearly says that this is not simply a fignt against subjugation, it's a fight for our lives.  <It means we give up our own lives because . . . that is the goal of the jihadists.>>  Plainer than that, you can't make it.

plane says <<I don't think that the Kaizer or Hitler or Mosoulini or Tojo or Stalin ever promised to kill us all , I wonder why we cared on those occasions who would call the shots in Europe.>>  But the hillbilly KNOWS that; he says this is <<unlike any world war we've ever fought.>>  So sure, plane, according to this guy, the stakes were much lower in WWII because he claims you were NOT fighting for your lives then.  He claims now you are. 

So:  why did I call this silly, hysterical nonsense?  Because it IS silly and hysterical to claim that your lives are at stake in this struggle, unlike in previous world wars.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate that al Qaeda in its "stated purpose" or elsewhere has ever attempted or even justified the killing of all 300,000,000 Americans.  That is just pure bullshit.

[sirs]

<<No, just the bringing hyperbole back to reality man>>

Good, then I hope you'll agree that the hillbilly's hyperbole (that this is a fight in which all of your lives are at stake) should be brought back to reality (that al Qaeda has no "stated purpose" of killing each and every American.)

Not quite...that the hyperbole that it's the death of every living American is brought back to the reality that Al AlQeada's/militant Islam's goal is that every living American (actually any non-muslim) is to convert to Islam, be subjugated by it, or die...in other words, our lives are at stake

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to indicate that al Qaeda in its "stated purpose" or elsewhere has ever attempted or even justified the killing of all 300,000,000 Americans.  That is just pure bullshit.

Actually, that's an example of hyperbole, but yea, you could also call it BS, since it's not limited to simply killing every American     

[Plane]

So their goal being to merely subjuate or convert us is not so bad and not worth a fight?


Defending our way of life and freedom is worth now what it ever was.


The subjugation process sounds kinda unplesant anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_India

Considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the conversions to Islam typically represented by the following schools of thought:[2]

That Muslims sought conversion through jihad or political violence [2]
A related view is that conversions occurred for pragmatic reasons such as social mobility among the Muslim ruling elite [2]
Conversion was a result of the actions of Sufi saints and involved a genuine change of heart [2]
Conversion from Buddhists and the lower castes for social mobility and a rejection of oppressive caste strictures [citation needed]
Was a combination, initially made under duress followed by a genuine change of heart [2]
Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted, resulting the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian subcontinent and is highly embroiled with the politics of the partition and communalism in India.[2]

An estimate of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic calculations, was done by K.S. Lal in his book Growth of Muslim Population in Medieval India, who claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500 CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in later works.

The Hindu I have met are still proud of their resistance to conversion .