How is Militant Islam as large a threat as Hitler or stalin.

[perplexed]

Can anyone outline a situation were militant Islam results in the deaths of more than 20 million people?

 

[Nathan45]

Can anyone outline a situation were militant Islam results in the deaths of more than 20 million people?

 

[Nathan45]

...

seriously though, militant islam isn't as big a threat as hitler or stalin... they're capable of biting at our heels while blowing themselves up, but there's a zero percent chance of them forming an effective empire and taking over.

 

[perplexed]

...

 

[Gamezilla]

Can anyone outline a situation were militant Islam results in the deaths of more than 20 million people?

We lost plenty of Americans in 9/11. What's your point here? Are you saying we should just condone these actions? Whose to say those numbers don't wind up some day?

 

[FilM]

Al Qaeda deposes Musharraf, CIA and special forces unable to locate and lock down all Pakistani nuclear war heads, nuclear bomb explodes in Mumbai, 19 million people dead. Not that far fetched.

 

[Katlover]

Al Qaeda deposes Musharraf, CIA and special forces unable to locate and lock down all Pakistani nuclear war heads, nuclear bomb explodes in Mumbai, 19 million people dead. Not that far fetched.

Kinda is. The Pakistani military is rather possesive with their nukes. And very non-inclined to release control to a government. Not much chance of a nutjub launching them.

 

[FilM]

Kinda is. The Pakistani military is rather possesive with their nukes. And very non-inclined to release control to a government. Not much chance of a nutjub launching them.

So there are no Al Qaeda sympathisers in the military? and for how long can the Pakistani military hold on to the nukes if we have a civil war in the country? What if one officer in the right position is offered a handsome retirement package and a life-line out for the key to his silo?

Remember that it was a Pakistani nuclear scientist who took Lybian and North Korean money in return for help on the technology.

I pray you're right, but you only need one guy...

 

[TheNewWorldMan]

Can anyone outline a situation were militant Islam results in the deaths of more than 20 million people?

No, because Islam is not (yet) as well organized as Stalin or Hitler. Islamofascism is no less evil or murderous, however. I see many parallels between Islamofascism and radical Shinto: adherents believe they are chosen by a divine force to rule over the planet and exterminate or subjugate all who do not belong. The situation in Darfur and south Sudan during the war was just a back-country, primitive version of the Rape of Nanking.

 

[TheReasoner]

No, because Islam is not (yet) as well organized as Stalin or Hitler. Islamofascism is no less evil or murderous, however. I see many parallels between Islamofascism and radical Shinto: adherents believe they are chosen by a divine force to rule over the planet and exterminate or subjugate all who do not belong. The situation in Darfur and south Sudan during the war was just a back-country, primitive version of the Rape of Nanking.

Yet is the key word. If it ever were to become that organized it would pose a threat larger than either Hitler or Stalin ever could.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yet is the key word. If it ever were to become that organized it would pose a threat larger than either Hitler or Stalin ever could.

Islamofascism is not the only problem, in the sense that it is not the only threat of fascism that exists. Big government runs the high risk of leading a society into a mild form of fascism, under the cloak of homeland security, and then dependent on the circumstances, such as a perceived external threat, could lead to surveillance society.

 

[TheReasoner]

Islamofascism is not the only problem, in the sense that it is not the only threat of fascism that exists. Big government runs the high risk of leading a society into a mild form of fascism, under the cloak of homeland security, and then dependent on the circumstances, such as a perceived external threat, could lead to surveillance society.

I do not think big government is the problem. If you look at the Scandinavian nations in comparison to the US (where the government is arguably 'smaller' than in Scandinavia) you'll find that the US - having a smaller government - has a lot less press freedom. Citizen rights. Freedom of speech. and more. Big government isn't the issue- Big or small, governments can oppress or liberate. What it does depends on a plethora of factors from culture to economics and history. In Scandinavia we have a long history where our governments have shown us they can be trusted. And the people makes up the government. The elite does not. In the US history is very different, and has created a bigger distrust I think. This is not helped when the government allows itself to be controlled (to a large extent) by big corporations and industries such as RIAA, MPAA, Big pharma, Coca Cola etc.
We don't trust the US government either. And that is because the government has proven to be largely a puppet for the corporate interests in and outside the US. The US has done pretty bad things to other nations to ensure the interests of it's elite is met. Not the people. And often at the expense of the people. Examples range from the Iran-Contra scandal to pressuring other countries to arrest and try people for doing perfectly legal things which powerful US corporations dislike. Examples of this are DVD Jon and Piratebay.

So I argue that your issue is not big government. But a combination between what I would call a corrupt government (as I would label any government playing in the favor of rich and powerful individuals and organizations at the expense of civilians against the law of the nation.) and a lack of symbiosis between the government and the people. A symbiosis like that is never achieved by amputating the government. Nor by strengthening it. It needs a revamp. Neither a strengthening nor a weakening.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I do not think big government is the problem. If you look at the Scandinavian nations in comparison to the US (where the government is arguably 'smaller' than in Scandinavia) you'll find that the US - having a smaller government - has a lot less press freedom. Citizen rights. Freedom of speech. and more. Big government isn't the issue- Big or small, governments can oppress or liberate. What it does depends on a plethora of factors from culture to economics and history. In Scandinavia we have a long history where our governments have shown us they can be trusted. And the people makes up the government. The elite does not. In the US history is very different, and has created a bigger distrust I think. This is not helped when the government allows itself to be controlled (to a large extent) by big corporations and industries such as RIAA, MPAA, Big pharma, Coca Cola etc.
We don't trust the US government either. And that is because the government has proven to be largely a puppet for the corporate interests in and outside the US. The US has done pretty bad things to other nations to ensure the interests of it's elite is met. Not the people. And often at the expense of the people. Examples range from the Iran-Contra scandal to pressuring other countries to arrest and try people for doing perfectly legal things which powerful US corporations dislike. Examples of this are DVD Jon and Piratebay.

So I argue that your issue is not big government. But a combination between what I would call a corrupt government (as I would label any government playing in the favor of rich and powerful individuals and organizations at the expense of civilians against the law of the nation.) and a lack of symbiosis between the government and the people. A symbiosis like that is never achieved by amputating the government. Nor by strengthening it. It needs a revamp. Neither a strengthening nor a weakening.

Great points there. I couldn't agree more. What I meant was in the context of the US is that the government is not only overly large with regards to constitutional limits, but it is at the same time, elitist and imperialistic in its agenda, and seemingly very largely separated from the people. Indeed, it tends to serve more the interests of corporate and globalist power-brokers than then interest of the people, and actually, at the expense of the people, economically and personally. Power must be returned to the people.

 

[TheReasoner]

Great points there. I couldn't agree more. What I meant was in the context of the US is that the government is not only overly large with regards to constitutional limits, but it is at the same time, elitist and imperialistic in its agenda, and seemingly very largely separated from the people. Indeed, it tends to serve more the interests of corporate and globalist power-brokers than then interest of the people, and actually, at the expense of the people, economically and personally. Power must be returned to the people.

Ah... I see. I am glad to say I misunderstood you.

We agree then

 

[perplexed]

So there are no Al Qaeda sympathisers in the military? and for how long can the Pakistani military hold on to the nukes if we have a civil war in the country? What if one officer in the right position is offered a handsome retirement package and a life-line out for the key to his silo?

Please think this through.

 

[Billnew]

Yet is the key word. If it ever were to become that organized it would pose a threat larger than either Hitler or Stalin ever could.

Militant Islam killed 3k people in one day costing them 9?
I think they could easily get numbers equal to the big boys in a few years worth of work.

They are disrganized and did 9-11, how hard is it to figure out they can do better if they were organized.

This is militant Islam, not Islam.

 

[FilM]

Please think this through.

I have, to the same extent that I thought through the implications of invading Iraq and was not far off in realising that a civil war would be the result, as well as a call to arms for extremists. I'm happy to see that the surge is working but I will leave my final judgement to the day we pull out of Iraq.


With regards to my Pakistani scenario, I said it was a possibility, not a definate. I'm more than happy to hear why you think it could never happen.

 

[ElizabethVu]

gue that your issue is not big government. But a combination between what I would call a corrupt government (as I would label any government playing in the favor of rich and powerful individuals and organizations at the expense of civilians against the law of the nation.) and a lack of symbiosis between the government and the people. A symbiosis like that is never achieved by amputating the government. Nor by strengthening it. It needs a revamp. Neither a strengthening nor a weakening.

You're right. We do have those problems. We've had those problems for centuries. But I disagree with you that big government is not a problem. It's our biggest problem. Corruption has be reduced by reducing the size of government, the influence of government, the amount of money the government has to waste, we reduce the corruption. The more power youn give the governmnet over people's lives, they more they will want, and the more they will abuse that power. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. So yes, big government is just as large a threat as any other we have.

 

[Billnew]

Islamofascism is not the only problem, in the sense that it is not the only threat of fascism that exists. Big government runs the high risk of leading a society into a mild form of fascism, under the cloak of homeland security, and then dependent on the circumstances, such as a perceived external threat, could lead to surveillance society.

This is why I support term limits for President. We need a new attitude in goverment. One that isn't focused solely on 9-11 and taking the fight to them, before they bring it to us.
We need a new set of eyes to reign in the goverment intrusion into the masses, in name of security. I believe either side can do this.

 

[TheReasoner]

You're right. We do have those problems. We've had those problems for centuries. But I disagree with you that big government is not a problem. It's our biggest problem. Corruption has be reduced by reducing the size of government, the influence of government, the amount of money the government has to waste, we reduce the corruption. The more power youn give the governmnet over people's lives, they more they will want, and the more they will abuse that power. Give them an inch, and they take a mile. So yes, big government is just as large a threat as any other we have.

If it is such a big problem by itself, how do you explain Scandinavia?
Your problem, I think, rests more in corporate control of the government as opposed to people's control of it.

One problem you get when you reduce the power of the government is that you inevitably increase the power of the corporations. And the corporations do not always have the good of the people in mind. In fact, corporations are money-driven beasts that seek but one thing: Income. This makes them a terrible steward. One who - if left unchecked - may resort to murder, and even genocide to achieve what it wants. This has happened before, and I do not doubt it will happen again. This isn't to say that governments do not do this of course.

My main point is that if you cut down on the government's size you automatically transfer power to other elements over which you have potentially less control. A democratic government howver, is by it's very nature one which is by the people for the people. Provided the symbiosis I mentioned is properly in place. Like it is in a few nations in the world.

So again I stress that your problem is not the size of your government. But the symbiosis between it and the people. Get your government to work for the people, and you can safely increase it's size to one which will keep the corporations from gaining too much power, while at the same time allowing them to thrive - without exploitation of the general populace.
But if you reduce and reduce the government, the corporations' power will grow and the corruption we already see in the US government will grow even more.