Originally posted by Mark Question
CNN told me that al-Qaida is taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and that the idea of freedom to them is disgusting... They also informed me that at this very moment a terroist could be under my bed with a box-cutter.
I'm pretty suer that first thing wouldn't be to far fetched. It's not impossible that a group of extremists take control over Pakistan, and Pakistan is a nuclear power so that wouldn't really be good for anybody.
Originally posted by Mark Question
CNN told me that al-Qaida is taking control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and that the idea of freedom to them is disgusting... They also informed me that at this very moment a terroist could be under my bed with a box-cutter.
Whats a "box-cutter" or did you mean "bolt cutter"?
Pakistan is a bit on the chaotic side, and the military government is probably what has been holding it together like Saddam did in Iraq.
I wonder what will happen next, is a sort of civil war possible?
The way i see it. Pakistan was cut of from India so the Muslims can have their own "bit", now the real battle starts between the Extremists, Democrats and a behind the scenes string pulling ex military leader.
What a nightmare, especially for the normal civilians.
Just noticed an unusual twist to this story, aparently she died from banging her head on the sun roof, not from any gunshot or shrapnel wounds. Sounds a bit daft imo but nevertheless News link below.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071228/ts_afp/pakistanattacksbhuttoministry
Originally posted by Fishy
I'm pretty suer that first thing wouldn't be to far fetched. It's not impossible that a group of extremists take control over Pakistan, and Pakistan is a nuclear power so that wouldn't really be good for anybody.
I have a lot of problems with this statement. Before I even touch any of them, please answer this: Is the United States considered "extreme" for going into Iraq without fulfilling any requirements for a just war?
actually that story is false. she definately died from a gunshot and the gunshot is even seen in two different videos. thats just the government trying to take away responsibility from anything and avoiding a proper inquiry.
the military government isnt HOLDING anything together, they are the ones causing problems. oh hey does any1 know that over 87% of all national resources are used up by the pakistani military.
on the lighter side of things, my dad was out yestreday and he saw sumthing which has become quite usual. a group of idiotic teens stop a damn van by smashing the windshield, then go on to beat the people {civilians} inside. over 150 banks have officially been looted and set alight among the deaths of many people and complete discord. sumtimes i wonder if this country has any hop left or not, obviously these idiots have NUTHING to do with the death of bhutto but just hoodlums, who find an oppurtunity in instability and come out under the guise of "avenging her death" and loot and detsroy everything they see. its even a little funny.
Originally posted by chithappens
I have a lot of problems with this statement. Before I even touch any of them, please answer this: Is the United States considered "extreme" for going into Iraq without fulfilling any requirements for a just war?
...
You have a problem with me stating that extremists party's that hate our nations that could also get the control over nuclear weapons is a bad thing for the western world?
And yes I do think that the US was extreme for going into Iraq, but America isn't run by extremists that want to destroy the Muslim world. Huge difference there. America has already shown that it won't use it's nuclear arsenal for any reason since WWII and since the effects of such weapons are known. These extremists have not in fact they have shown that they are more then willing to die and throw their entire nation into chaos to hurt the US or other western nations.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^yes it is. bush and much of the right wing wud like nuthing more. srry, but evangelicals ARE extremists. and hey, wasnt it obama who said that america cud possibly bomb the muslim kaba at mecca?
Has Bush bombed Mecca? No he isn't a fool, has Osama attacked New York? Yes. Would he do so again given the chance? Probably. Nuclear weapons would give him that chance wouldn't they?
And Bush might be a religious nut he isn't somebody willing to kill for his religion he isn't somebody willing to overthrow other nations simply to spread the message of Christ.. Bush isn't an religious extremist.
I'm not saying what Bush did was all good, but I'd far rather have him in power of Nuclear missiles then some extremist terrorist idiot.
Just saw this video on some sky news website (link below) clearly showing someone shooting at Bhutto, its not gory.
Whether these bullets killed her or the blast is still a matter for discussion, maybe the shooter missed, he wasn´t holding the gun very accurately.
Originally posted by Fishy
Has Bush bombed Mecca? No he isn't a fool, has Osama attacked New York? Yes. Would he do so again given the chance? Probably. Nuclear weapons would give him that chance wouldn't they?And Bush might be a religious nut he isn't somebody willing to kill for his religion he isn't somebody willing to overthrow other nations simply to spread the message of Christ.. Bush isn't an religious extremist.
I'm not saying what Bush did was all good, but I'd far rather have him in power of Nuclear missiles then some extremist terrorist idiot.
Apparently you are not familiar with this term called "rhetoric." In basic terms, it means saying something without stating it explicitly.
There is a reason there was plenty of stereotyping going on now about people of Middle Eastern descent. Right after 9/11, people would stop what they were doing just to watch "one of those Arabs" and make sure they were not going to blow everyone up; I don't stay in New York, this was in Memphis, TN.
Terms like "Islamic extremists" don't pop up just because they can not find a different way to phrase it. You don't have to say, "I am a Christian and as such I have this and this policy." Oh and just so you know, terrorist actions can not be thwarted if an "organization" does not want them to be. People keep getting shot up in shopping malls in these smaller states.
Why couldn't the gov't stop them? Because they are random attacks. Seriously, anyone could walk in public venues and do these things. It doesn't take much organization to pull up in front of my house with a bomb attached and blow me up before I can post this reply. It is completely idiotic to think you can stop EVERYTHING. If terror is really meant to be applied we would be attacked all the time from everywhere. Not just in big cities, but also in Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho.
Just because you don't use a nuke doesn't mean you don't **** up an area with other sorts of bombs. THEY STILL KILL PEOPLE; however, as long as it not a nuke it's cool beans? Stupid.... man I need to stop.
Originally posted by chithappens
Apparently you are not familiar with this term called "rhetoric." In basic terms, it means saying something without stating it explicitly.There is a reason there was plenty of stereotyping going on now about people of Middle Eastern descent. Right after 9/11, people would stop what they were doing just to watch "one of those Arabs" and make sure they were not going to blow everyone up; I don't stay in New York, this was in Memphis, TN.
And how does this make the possibility of terrorists having nukes any less bad? That people are so stupid doesn't mean we should give people that want to destroy our way of life the weapons to do it.
Terms like "Islamic extremists" don't pop up just because they can not find a different way to phrase it. You don't have to say, "I am a Christian and as such I have this and this policy." Oh and just so you know, terrorist actions can not be thwarted if an "organization" does not want them to be. People keep getting shot up in shopping malls in these smaller states.
They are called Islamic extremists because they kill in the name of Allah, the Islamic God. They don't kill because of oil or weapons or money they kill because they believe that Allah wants them to kill other people with different idea's.
And of course there is a huge difference between somebody opening fire in a school or a mall and an organised terrorist organization. Anybody could create a bomb and blow up some store, this would create terror but the WTC bombing was another level. It was meant to destroy the American way of life completely in one blow. Destroy the government the economical center and the military power of the nation. Of course it didn't quite work out that way, but that doesn't change anything.
Why couldn't the gov't stop them? Because they are random attacks. Seriously, anyone could walk in public venues and do these things. It doesn't take much organization to pull up in front of my house with a bomb attached and blow me up before I can post this reply. It is completely idiotic to think you can stop EVERYTHING. If terror is really meant to be applied we would be attacked all the time from everywhere. Not just in big cities, but also in Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho.
Like I already said any terrorist attack can happen and it can't be stopped. It's the bigger attacks that people start to create a large message with a larger goal then just killing a few innocent people that can be stopped because they have to be organized, because there has to be communication between the group and the group leader, there has to be planning and what not. That changes facts a lot. A small attack although it could arguably have larger results if done often does not take that much planning or organization and as such is far less likely to be stopped.
Small attacks also don't happen (often) and it's a lower priority for the government. Even if it was a high priority it wouldn't change much but still.
Just because you don't use a nuke doesn't mean you don't **** up an area with other sorts of bombs. THEY STILL KILL PEOPLE; however, as long as it not a nuke it's cool beans? Stupid.... man I need to stop.
No it doesn't make everything okay. I never said the war in Iraq was justified or that NATO handled Afghanistan correctly. Nor would I ever say that the attacks on the WTC & Pentagon weren't bad. I'm just saying that no matter how bad those things are, it's nothing and I mean absolutely nothing compared to a few nuclear missiles on your head. And any smart nation would want to prevent their enemy's from getting those weapons at all costs.
At least with other enemy's like Russia you could be sure that they wouldn't use them because of the retaliation that would follow on their own nation. People willing or in fact wanting to die for their religion are a lot less level-headed when it comes to these things and would sooner use a nuclear missile then any other country. That is why we should hope that Pakistan will never be ruled by ISLAMIC extremists who want to die for Allah and want to destroy our nations and our way of life. Because they might just use those nukes if they get the chance.
Bhutto's Son Chosen As Eventual Party Chief
19-Year-Old's Father To Preside Until Then
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, December 31, 2007; Page A01
KARACHI, Pakistan, Dec. 30 -- Pakistan's largest and most storied political party chose Sunday to continue its dynastic traditions, anointing the 19-year-old son of slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to be her ultimate successor but picking her husband to lead for now.
The selections mean that the Pakistan People's Party, which casts itself as the voice of democracy in Pakistan, will stay in family hands for a third generation.
Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, who had largely been shielded from the spotlight by his mother and has not lived in Pakistan since he was a young boy, will lead the party when he finishes his studies at Oxford University.
Speaking briefly but forcefully at a news conference in the Bhutto family's ancestral home, he said he would strive to honor his mother's legacy. "The party's long and historic struggle will continue with renewed vigor," he said. "My mother always said democracy is the best revenge."
Bhutto's husband, Asif Ali Zardari, whose reputation has long been tainted by corruption charges, will run the party for at least the next several years. He said Sunday that the succession strategy reflected the wishes of his wife, who died in a gun-and-bomb attack at a rally Thursday afternoon.
The party's new leaders -- neither of whom had been a major player in Pakistani politics -- take over at an especially turbulent time for the country, with elections on the horizon and President Pervez Musharraf clinging to power amid widespread unrest.
Asif Zardari quickly announced that the party will compete in the parliamentary vote scheduled for Jan. 8. Another opposition party, led by former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, indicated it will do the same.
But Musharraf allies strongly hinted that the election would be postponed, possibly for months. "Delaying the election is very much in the cards," said Tariq Azim Khan, information secretary for the major pro-Musharraf party. "If you ask me personally if I would go ahead, I would say it would be unfair to go out and campaign in these sad times."
Although the Bush administration pressed Pakistani leaders last week to keep to the election schedule, the State Department said Sunday that it had no objections to a slight postponement.
"If the people on the ground think this is not the time for an election, that is fine," said spokesman Robert McInturff. "But we would want to see an alternative date. We do not want to see an indefinite delay."
Bhutto's killing Thursday was followed by unrest across the country, as rioting broke out in major cities as well as small villages. The atmosphere remained tense Sunday, with army deployments in several key areas, but the violence eased. Still, Bhutto's legions of supporters continued to blame Musharraf for her death.
Zardari called Sunday for the United Nations to lead an international inquiry into his wife's killing, while conceding that he had declined to give Pakistani officials permission to conduct an autopsy. "Their forensic reports are useless," he said angrily, calling the suggestion of an autopsy "an insult to my wife, to the sister of the nation, to the mother of the nation."
The Bhuttos are often compared to the Kennedys because of their tendency toward charismatic leaders who meet tragic ends. Benazir Bhutto's father, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, himself a former prime minister, was hanged in 1979 by the military dictator who overthrew him. Her two brothers died in mysterious and violent circumstances.
The young man representing the newest generation of Bhuttos -- who added the famous name for the first time Sunday -- indicated he is acutely aware of that record, saying the chairmanship of the Pakistan People's Party is a position "that often is occupied by martyrs."
Nonetheless, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said he planned to return to Pakistan after he graduates from Oxford "to lead the party as my mother wanted me to."
Asif Zardari, meanwhile, left no doubt Sunday that he will be in charge in the interim. He pointedly asked reporters not to address questions to his son, and he lashed out at Musharraf's allies, calling them "the killer party."
Zardari, who wed Benazir Bhutto in an arranged marriage in 1987, is a controversial choice to lead the party, and some insiders worry it could fracture. During his wife's two terms as prime minister in the late 1980s and 1990s, he was known as "Mr. 10 Percent" for his reputation for taking money off the top of government deals. He served an extended jail sentence under Musharraf that stemmed from the alleged corruption.
"Zardari is not very much liked in the party. He goes for big hotels, world's best addresses. He wants to live like a prince abroad," said Rafiq Safi, a longtime party activist.
Zardari also has many critics in Western capitals, including Washington, which could further complicate U.S. hopes that Musharraf and the PPP might form a coalition that would unify moderate forces in Pakistan against extremism. "The U.S. is not going to be excited about working with Zardari," said Daniel Markey, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
But the pressure to keep the party's leadership in family hands was intense, reflecting the unorthodox nature of the PPP as a party for the impoverished masses that is largely run by a collection of wealthy landlords -- the Bhutto family being by far the most prominent.
For true believers in the magic of the Bhutto name, people who are not members of the clan are ineligible to lead. Even Zardari is viewed with suspicion because he came to the family through marriage, not blood.
"There's something wrong with the region," said former party official Makhdoom Khaleeq Zaman, referring to the South Asian tendency for political dynasties. "It's not very democratic."
While Benazir Bhutto was groomed to lead the party by her father, it is unclear whether her son went through the same training.
His birth in 1988 -- on the eve of elections that Bhutto won, making her the first female prime minister of a Muslim nation -- generated headlines around the world. But after that, she took great pains to guard his privacy. He largely grew up in exile in London and Dubai, and little is known about him outside the family.
In her autobiography, Bhutto described the birth of her first child, calling him "the most celebrated and politically controversial baby in the history of Pakistan."
"There were congratulatory gunshots being fired outside the hospital, the beating of drums" and cries of "Long live Bhutto," she wrote.
On Sunday, when Bilawal Bhutto Zardari was reintroduced to the world, dozens of emotional party activists repeated that cheer and added a new one: "Bilawal, move forward! We are with you."
[FONT=times new roman]Correspondent Emily Wax in Islamabad, staff writer Robin Wright in Washington and special corrondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar contributed to this report. [/FONT]
Originally posted by Fishy
And how does this make the possibility of terrorists having nukes any less bad? That people are so stupid doesn't mean we should give people that want to destroy our way of life the weapons to do it.
What does that have to do with stereotyping? I was talking about people being stereotyped and that was your response. Besides, no one is certain of anyone nuclear capabilities in that region. If you would like to challenge me on this feel free, but it will be debunked swiftly.
Originally posted by Fishy
They are called Islamic extremists because they kill in the name of Allah, the Islamic God. They don't kill because of oil or weapons or money they kill because they believe that Allah wants them to kill other people with different idea's.
"In (the Christian) God We Trust" is on all U.S. capital. I fail to see a difference in how this works any differently.
Originally posted by FishyAnd of course there is a huge difference between somebody opening fire in a school or a mall and an organised terrorist organization. Anybody could create a bomb and blow up some store, this would create terror but the WTC bombing was another level. It was meant to destroy the American way of life completely in one blow. Destroy the government the economical center and the military power of the nation. Of course it didn't quite work out that way, but that doesn't change anything.
Like I already said any terrorist attack can happen and it can't be stopped. It's the bigger attacks that people start to create a large message with a larger goal then just killing a few innocent people that can be stopped because they have to be organized, because there has to be communication between the group and the group leader, there has to be planning and what not. That changes facts a lot. A small attack although it could arguably have larger results if done often does not take that much planning or organization and as such is far less likely to be stopped.
Small attacks also don't happen (often) and it's a lower priority for the government. Even if it was a high priority it wouldn't change much but still.
So the scary terrorists don't do small projects in the U.S, why?
Originally posted by FishyNo it doesn't make everything okay. I never said the war in Iraq was justified or that NATO handled Afghanistan correctly. Nor would I ever say that the attacks on the WTC & Pentagon weren't bad. I'm just saying that no matter how bad those things are, it's nothing and I mean absolutely nothing compared to a few nuclear missiles on your head. And any smart nation would want to prevent their enemy's from getting those weapons at all costs.
At least with other enemy's like Russia you could be sure that they wouldn't use them because of the retaliation that would follow on their own nation. People willing or in fact wanting to die for their religion are a lot less level-headed when it comes to these things and would sooner use a nuclear missile then any other country. That is why we should hope that Pakistan will never be ruled by ISLAMIC extremists who want to die for Allah and want to destroy our nations and our way of life. Because they might just use those nukes if they get the chance.
The ends do not fit the means if you never solidify what the hell was the root of the problem anyway. How the hell did we get to terrorists with nukes anyway?
This went from trying to find Bin Laden to Iraq with "real" WMDs to a humanitarian effort and now we are sure someone like Pakistan or Iran will offer nukes to terrorists (although no one has proven they even have a functioning nuke program) so we must have a democracy in the region to help ease the tension... or some bullshit along those lines.
Point is, all of this is bullshit. The U.S. is just as "extreme" and as much of a bully as anyone.
dont be a blind idiot fishy. the western media has practically taken away you ability to assess things objectively. for comparison, bush's regime has officially killed 2.5 % of the entire civilian population of iraq{while the real figures can easily be 10 times that high}, lets not even go to afghanistan. it actively supports and funs israel, a terroris state who destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan in the current illegal war, cages people up like animal and kills thousands. bush's policy towards syria and iran is also openly proclaiming his sentiments towards a certain part of the world. all the above mentioned examples are of MUSLIMS, please do NOT claim that little mister texan redneck isnt a ****in relegious fundamentalist cause he IS. there are nearly as many muslim fundamentalists as there are christian fundamentalists and BOTH are EQUALLY harming the world. do not be biased.
Originally posted by chithappens
What does that have to do with stereotyping? I was talking about people being stereotyped and that was your response. Besides, no one is certain of anyone nuclear capabilities in that region. If you would like to challenge me on this feel free, but it will be debunked swiftly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declared_nuclear_states#Other_known_nuclear_powers
Pakistan has nuclear weapons you can say what you want about that. It's not something I would like to give to people that want to destroy our way of life.
"In (the Christian) God We Trust" is on all U.S. capital. I fail to see a difference in how this works any differently.
The difference is that we are not willing to kill Muslims because they do not believe in our God. we are not willing to destroy Israel because it's filled with Jews. We are not willing to blow up Mecca simply because we can, if we were it would have been done already. Some of those people are willing to do so, only replace their city's with ours. See the difference?
So the scary terrorists don't do small projects in the U.S, why?
Do I look like Osama Bin Laden to you? Go ask him.
The ends do not fit the means if you never solidify what the hell was the root of the problem anyway. How the hell did we get to terrorists with nukes anyway?
That's completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how it happened, what matters is that it happened or might happen in this case. And that's the dangerous part. But I guess you just want them to have nuclear missiles because we made mistakes in the past. Or are still making them now. That's probably a great idea. We did something wrong so we are going to give our enemy's who have no regard for life their own or that of their country men nuclear weapons which they can use to create world war 3 and possibly civil wars all over the western world not to mention untold destruction upon our city's. That's probably a real good idea...
Or wait, let me reconsider that. Of course that's not a good idea.
This went from trying to find Bin Laden to Iraq with "real" WMDs to a humanitarian effort and now we are sure someone like Pakistan or Iran will offer nukes to terrorists (although no one has proven they even have a functioning nuke program) so we must have a democracy in the region to help ease the tension... or some bullshit along those lines.
Bin Laden does not have anything to do with this, except for the fact that he proved that Islamic extremists are willing to destroy their own country, their houses and their lives to hurt the US and the rest of the western world. If Al-Qaeda gets their hands on these nukes or some other organization it would make no difference. As long as they hate our way of life it's not a good situation to be in.
Point is, all of this is bullshit. The U.S. is just as "extreme" and as much of a bully as anyone.
The US does not use nuclear weapons upon Muslim city's. The US is not actively trying to destroy the Muslim way of life. What they are doing is wrong but it is a completely different thing. The threat that comes from that does not even compare.
And even if it did, which it doesn't. It would make no difference because I would still rather that the US would do things like that then a state run by Muslim extremists who hate us. Call me selfish but I'd rather see Baghdad go boom then London, New York, Washington, Berlin, Paris or whatever.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
dont be a blind idiot fishy. the western media has practically taken away you ability to assess things objectively. for comparison, bush's regime has officially killed 2.5 % of the entire civilian population of iraq{while the real figures can easily be 10 times that high}, lets not even go to afghanistan. it actively supports and funs israel, a terroris state who destroyed much of the infrastructure of lebonan in the current illegal war, cages people up like animal and kills thousands. bush's policy towards syria and iran is also openly proclaiming his sentiments towards a certain part of the world. all the above mentioned examples are of MUSLIMS, please do NOT claim that little mister texan redneck isnt a ****in relegious fundamentalist cause he IS. there are nearly as many muslim fundamentalists as there are christian fundamentalists and BOTH are EQUALLY harming the world. do not be biased.
And yet again, what the US does is not right. I never claimed it is. The US however is not using nuclear weapons. And they aren't supporting Isreal because it isn't a jewish state. They are supporting Israel becaues it's a pro-western state. It's the same reason why the US marginally supports Egypt. In a lesser way but Egypt is a less important ally. The US also has ties with Turkey and relies on them a lot. They work with Turkey and with the exception of Turkey they are the one's trying most to get them into the European Union. A union that's filled with America's allies.
Both Egypt and Turkey are Muslim nations. So don't bullshit me about Christian extremism, perhaps he is a christian extremists, perhaps he honestly believes that all non christians will go to hell. But he certainly isn't trying to speed it up and he isn't working against the Muslim world with everything he can just to make sure that their country's remain ****ed up.
oh and lets not forget people, america is the ONLY nation in the world who HAS ever used nuclear weapons against innocent civilians in hiroshima and nagasake, if there is any1 who shud be suspected of using nukes against their enemeis, its the US.
Both used in completely different circumstances. Both used in a time when the effects of Nuclear weapons were still unkown. Both used in a time when bombing entire city's and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was normal anyway. Has the US ever used their nukes since then? No.
And the chance that they will again is quite small as well. Somebody who is willing to destroy Israel no matter what the cost might not be so hesitant to use those nuclear weapons as the US is to use theirs now. Because let's be honest this entire war in Iraq could have been long over if the US was only half as cruel as you claim it is.
^the US still uses depleted uranium ammunition in iraq and afghanistan. bush does support israel because of the fact that he is a fundi, as do most other evangelical private foundations and churches{sending tens of billions in funding every year} and the bush regime takes ABSOLUTELY no notice of all the TERRORISM israel dishes out which is far more than all muslim terrorists of the region combined. and no, the us does NOT support egypt at ALL. it just doesnt mess with them much because of its position geographically and politically, just like it doesnt mess with north korea much irrespective of how bad they actually can be. and PLEASE think of a better muslim example than friggin TURKEY, its basically a secular conutry who wud do anything, even kiss the E.U's ass to get accepted in the E.U. the only other american ally that i know of wud be saudi arabia, not because the american government loves em, but because of all the oil and business relations. plus the nearly 8% contribution to american economy and letting america use their soil and the gulf for attacks and military presence.
do not BULLSHIT YOURSELF about christian extremism, it is every bit as arrogant and harmful to the world as muslim extremism and has compareable, if not greater, political power than muslim extremism. and yes, he is doing exactly that, although not perfect;y.
as for the second part, no it wasnt completely different circumstances, they were innocent civilians and a city, not a military target. the affect of nuclear weapons was QUITE well known, dont be ridiculous, as was teh affect of radiation, plus the yield of the bomb was known. do not forget that nukes were tested BEFORE ever being dropped on japan. even the crew of the enola gay was told that the wepon in question would crack the very crust of the earth itself, they knew DAMN well what they were droppiong so dont pull that shit. and just to impress the fact even more that america didnt give a SHIT then what got killed int he process. BEFORE teh nukes were dropped, the two major cities were napalm bombed which killed MORE people than the nukes later. it is no justification to say that this sort of thing was NORMAL then. it is still just as WRONG. and it doesn change the fact that america is still the only country EVER in history to have used nukes against people and civilians. not to mention it still RETAINS the biggest arsenal of nukes in the world so really i say that the world has more reason to be worried abotu CHRISTIAN fundies doing such a thing than muslim, or atleast equally worry abotu both{apparently you are SEVERELY misjusdging the level of fundamentalism found in the christian south of america}
as for the destroying israel comment. israel is equally motivated and taking PRACTICAL steps to distroy israel/lebona etc to take ovve rthe enitre new canaan region which they beleive belongs to them. israel also kills hundreds of times more people{not to mention tortures millions} than muslim terrorists kill in israel. as for the iraq comment, 2.5 % of the entire population of iraq is officially dead and unofficially, the figures normally rise about 8 to 10 times that amount as seen by experts. so your last argument is not true.