"War with Muslims has just begun" says attempted Times Square bomber

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/05/new.york.terror.plot/?hpt=T1

This is probably just an empty threat to look tough in the face of his sentencing.

ProTip: Enemy leaders surrender (or die) rather quickly when you bomb everything that sticks out of the ground more than an inch in their homeland.

Not such a big threat. Best just ignore it.

When the president basically just said "Pfft, not worth our time" to the war in Iraq, it's hard to take a threat from that area of the world seriously.

What the... what sickens me is the way that this guy speaks for the rest of his religion. He's a terrorist who got caught and got his punishment, and now he's trying to... I can't say any more.

Fatum Cruelis wrote:ProTip: Enemy leaders surrender (or die) rather quickly when you bomb everything that sticks out of the ground more than an inch in their homeland.

So I guess the tens of thousands of innocent lives are just acceptable losses?

And what do you mean, Sweet Mercy?

SupaSEGA wrote:So I guess the tens of thousands of innocent lives are just acceptable losses?

They're not citizens of any of the countries that are fighting against them, obviously, so my answer is a rather patent yes.

SupaSEGA wrote:

Fatum Cruelis wrote:ProTip: Enemy leaders surrender (or die) rather quickly when you bomb everything that sticks out of the ground more than an inch in their homeland.

So I guess the tens of thousands of innocent lives are just acceptable losses?

And what do you mean, Sweet Mercy?

I mean, this guy killed tens of thousands of innocent people, and now he's trying to say that "The war with Muslims has begun", despite the fact that Islam is a peace-promoting religion.

Why is he doing this? Why is he dragging his religion into this? If he was religious, why not stay at home and pray? I just find it wrong that he can commit an act of terrorism in the name of his religion.

Fatum Cruelis wrote:

SupaSEGA wrote:So I guess the tens of thousands of innocent lives are just acceptable losses?

They're not citizens of any of the countries that are fighting against them, obviously, so my answer is a rather patent yes.

Letting innocent lives die is just wrong. If our country approves of it, then I'm done with the US.

Fatum Cruelis wrote:

SupaSEGA wrote:So I guess the tens of thousands of innocent lives are just acceptable losses?

They're not citizens of any of the countries that are fighting against them, obviously, so my answer is a rather patent yes.

That's an extremely juvenile way to look at it.

Jmh wrote:

Fatum Cruelis wrote:They're not citizens of any of the countries that are fighting against them, obviously, so my answer is a rather patent yes.

Letting innocent lives die is just wrong. If our country approves of it, then I'm done with the US.

Obama doesn't approve of it. Nor does anyone in the Government. I wish I could say the same about the Republicans (cough cough, the people who STARTED the Iraq war) or the Tea Party.

@Jmh: Oh, so it's perfectly okay when a terrorist tries to bomb the busiest place in the entirety of the US, but if the US kills a single innocent, that treachery simply can not stand! Right. Look: we're fighting against full-fledged psychos, and when you fight against full-fledged psychos, you have to be a full-fledged psycho. Do you know how many Islam-caused terrorist attacks there would've been after 9/11 if we did to the Muslims the same thing we did to the Japs during WW2? Zero. You know why? Because the people who would've caused them would have been locked away.

@Supa: Maybe. Even so, it's also an extremely right way to look at it, and the war would've been fought much the same way I suggested (and won much quicker, and, you know, won at all) if the US government had the collective intellectual capacity to realize the UN can't touch them for breaking "war laws" because they're the one country that funds the entire operation. By the way, those "war laws" are an oxymoron. Ever heard of the old phrase "All is fair in love and war"? It's true. Further, the countries the US are fighting against don't follow aforementioned restrictions, so why should the US troops be crippled by them? Crap like that leads to Vietnam.

@Sweet: Therein lies the problem. Nobody in the US government knows how to fight a war anymore. As for who started the war on terror, the terrorists struck first, so it's only reasonable to say that they started the war.

Fatum Cruelis wrote:@Jmh: Oh, so it's perfectly okay when a terrorist tries to bomb the busiest place in the entirety of the US, but if the US kills a single innocent, that treachery simply can not stand! Right. Look: we're fighting against full-fledged psychos, and when you fight against full-fledged psychos, you have to be a full-fledged psycho. Do you know how many Islam-caused terrorist attacks there would've been after 9/11 if we did to the Muslims the same thing we did to the Japs during WW2? Zero. You know why? Because the people who would've caused them would have been locked away.

I would rather die a proud citizen of America than die a murderer.

@Sweet: Therein lies the problem. Nobody in the US government knows how to fight a war anymore. As for who started the war on terror, the terrorists struck first, so it's only reasonable to say that they started the war.

Fighting terrorism does not mean waging war on a country. When you fight a country, you kill a lot of innocent civilians. If you wish to eradicate terrorism, you strike at the terrorists, not the populance. Something the Labour Government in UK still doesn't get, but they had two successive Prime Ministers in power who were both war criminals, after all.

@Jmh: I never said you had to be a soldier.

@Sweet: You're right. To stop terrorism, you kill terrorists. You know what the easiest way to kill terrorists is? Rip their home country to shreds.

Fools such as this make islam look bad.
Islam is derived from the word salam, which literally means peace.
If he wants to be useful, he should go somewhere where there IS a war and fight over there, instead of killing hundreds of poor innocents.
He disgusts me.

I completely agree with you Sweet Silence :)

@Sweet: You're right. To stop terrorism, you kill terrorists. You know what the easiest way to kill terrorists is? Rip their home country to shreds..

@karkooshy: True.

@Mly:
What about all the poor innocent people who are citizens of the country?

Well.... I guess get the citizens out of there (If it's possible).

Jmh wrote:Well.... I guess get the citizens out of there (If it's possible).

It won't be. You can't evacuate the citizens of an entire country to catch a terrorist group. What you do is send MI5 agents to the country to infiltrate the system, find the terrorist organisations, and arrest every single member in the Terrorist organisations and fly them all to US for sentencing. And not a single innocent civilian is harmed. Now why did nobody think of this before?