Real World Event Discussions
Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 15 of 18
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:29 PM
Rap, I'm going to take your post our of order...
Quote:So it's not just our religion that challenges their way of life, it's the whole ball of wax... our economy, our individualism, mobility, laws... everything In fact, our religion has very little to do with it.
I do think there are PLENTY of things in Western culture which are destructive to {I'm sure you meant to say "their"} society. There is a very real threat from Western thought that, intentionally or not, does potentially challenge the cultures found in the Mid-East. Whether it's Wal-Mart or Women's Rights, OUR way of life does challenge the control of the Theistic State.
Quote:But it's not just religion, as you say, it's a whole way of life. And do we allow them to freely practice their way of life in the Middle East? To quote- "Hell no". Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?
But it seems what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. We allow muslims to freely practice their religion in the West.
Quote:Hmmm, and how many Muslim civilians have we killed in order to impose "our way of life" on them??? You know, there's only so many times you can poke someone with a sharp stick until they get pissed off. If we had been messed with as much as they were, we'd be doing the same. Heck, we ARE doing the same, only with bigger weapons and less provocation.
You're still not getting it. The Islamo-nutcases ( not ALL Muslims ) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal. What has got me so aggitated ( sorry, not scared, as you falsly paint it ) is this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.
Quote:YAWN! Oh... were you saying something?? Yeah, they hate us. I get it. They want to cut off our heads and roast our weenies and throw our women into jail. And if we're VERY lucky, in that order.
It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatently stated they WILL do. Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism... And rest assured, you and I might not agree as to what is good or bad for society, but I'll bet the house that what ever we think 'should' be acceptable, the Islmo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed .
So, if they're THAT dangerous, why were we arming the muhajedeen... re-named into so-called "freedom fighters" to make them more palatable for the West... in the '80s? I do a slow boil when I read yet another horror story of Sharia law, and it was very clear who were were funding. And Saddam, whatever else he was, was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. So if Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat, why did we invade Iraq? And why are trying to impose a fundamentalist, Iran-linked government there?
Your thinking is clouded by fear of communism, of WMD, of Islamic fundamentalism. What will you be afraid of tomorrow?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:40 PM
Quote:
Now here comes the kicker: THE LEADERS ARE NOT AFRAID LIKE WE ARE.
Quote:
The Islamo-nutcases (not ALL Muslims) want not just to convert you, me and everyone else in the world, but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking - and he was willing to kill those who either wouldn't or couldn't conform. But you would not call him a Christian-fascist, would you?
Quote:
this passive ignorance that so many are displaying.
Second question - why do you presume ignorance? What would it take (short of running around saying 'the sky is falling !' for YOU to understand WE understand there's a threat?
Quote:
It's as if you're more afraid of the P.C. nazis than what the Islamo-terrorist have blatantly stated they WILL do
Third question - what P.C. nazis are we afraid of? In your book, aren't WE the P.C nazis?
Quote:
Your naive description of all the leaders using the actions of each other
Fourth question - Are you saying the leaders should be afraid? The populace should not be afraid? The leaders should not be afraid but populace should? What are you saying??
Quote:
is so disconnected with the CAUSE of all this.... Islamic Fundamentalism
Fifth question - When Afghanistan was off the map as far as most USers were concerned (remember far, far back - 8 years ago) nobody really cared if they were fundamentalist. Did you?
Quote:
the Islamo-fascist would sooner cut our heads off than accept what freedoms WE have grown accustomed.
Sixth question - what do you think is the reason for democratically elected Islamic-law republics - like Iraq?
Quote:
Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad have stated specifically that Israel should be wiped off the map ... There's nothing remotely close that either Olmert or Bush have said in comparison in regards to Iran or Hezbollah.
Seventh question - Axis of evil? You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?
So I want to ask you another question - you pretty much sidestepped SignyM's post and went on web-screaming the same old same old EVEN LOUDER !!! Can you engage in a discussion or do you always just plug your ears and say "I can't HEAR you !"
edited to add:
SignyM posted earlier, making much better sense.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 10:59 PM
On the clinton did it first thing: regime change
Yep, he did. And clinton was evil. Still is. And this is our model for conservative govt?
Quote:
but they're willing to KILL us and even themselves to achieve their goal.
Hmm, reminds me of someone else. Hmm who would that be.
So the words are what matters? Bush's words have been soft, and his bomb oh so harsh. Ahmadinejad says some harsh words, but no bombs.
Okay, but seriously folks this debate is the sort of waste of time I was talking about. We need to level it down to discuss problems and solutions in a reasonable manner.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 11:10 PM
Religion, culture. All the same thing when you're dealing w/ Sharia Law. Your attempt to split hairs here is pretty weak. We can't practice OUR religion in THEIR country, yet they can in ours ? What don't you see wrong here ?
Quote:
Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?
Overt invasions? Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait ? Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Puppet Gov'ts ? Please, that piece of Leftist rhetoric is as old and tired as Fidel Castro.
Quote:
Hmmm, and how many Muslim civilians have we killed in order to impose "our way of life" on them??? You know, there's only so many times you can poke someone with a sharp stick until they get pissed off. If we had been messed with as much as they were, we'd be doing the same. Heck, we ARE doing the same, only with bigger weapons and less provocation.
Hmm...guess we've not killed enough then, have we? Certainly we've not killed as many Muslims as they have killed THEMSELVES! You realize you're taking the side of OBL, w/ the trumped up claims of us 'messing' with them. That's a load of horseshit. It all comes down to power. They want to control us, and we're not too keen on that. They want us out of there? Fine, have them petition their Gov't and get us out. Don't blow up Marine barracks or fly planes into buildings.
Quote:
So, if they're THAT dangerous, why were we arming the muhajedeen... re-named into so-called "freedom fighters" to make them more palatable for the West... in the '80s? I do a slow boil when I read yet another horror story of Sharia law, and it was very clear who were were funding. And Saddam, whatever else he was, was NOT an Islamic fundamentalist. So if Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat, why did we invade Iraq? And why are trying to impose a fundamentalist, Iran-linked government there?
Your thinking is clouded by fear of communism, of WMD, of Islamic fundamentalism. What will you be afraid of tomorrow?
Why ? Because , at the time, those in charge thought that giving the Soviet Union a piece of the Middle East wasn't such a great idea. You see, taking Afghanistan would have put the Soviets closer to the Mid East oil fields, as well as control of a warm water port. Somthing they DIDN'T have too much of in those days. Oil + open ports = HUGE financial gains for the Soviety Union. Fact is, the Iron Curtain might not have fallen had they succeeded. We opted to help the locals in Afghanistan, mainly to stop the Soviets, and also w/ the hopes that some gratitude would be shown our way. Boy, were WE wrong! Hell, not even helping the muslims in Bosnia during the 90's granted us any favors!
Why did we invade Iraq? You honestly don't remember the 10 + yrs of broken cease fire agreements by Saddam from the Gulf War? The 17 U.N. resolutions, the 15-0 Security Council vote ?
If you really need to ask now, I got nothin' for ya dude. It's VERY WELL documented.
What I fear more than anything is appeasement and pacifisim by the likes of you in the face of a very real danger.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:53 AM
Rap, do you realize how unwrapped you sound?
Quote:But as old and tired as it is you can't refute it, can you? Because the fact is, "they" haven't invaded us, have they? "They" haven't installed a government in Washington. "They" haven't drawn our borders, or establised military bases in Ohio or annexed Texas, have they?
Let's recap the number of overt invasions and puppet governments and interventions that we've made there. Have they done the same to us? Did they overthrow any of our Presidents? Invade California? Monkey with our elections? Force us into onerous loans?- Signy
Overt invasions? Like kicking Saddam out of Kuwait ? Or going after al Qaeda in the Taliban run Afghanistan ? Puppet Gov'ts ? Please, that piece of Leftist rhetoric is as old and tired as Fidel Castro- Rap
Quote:Well, you just said we invaded Afghanistan, and kicked out Saddam- twice (once out of Kuwait, once out of Iraq) and we have't killed "enough" of them. That's a considersble amount of "messing" with them, wouldn't you say?
Hmm...guess we've not killed enough then, have we? Certainly we've not killed as many Muslims as they have killed THEMSELVES! You realize you're taking the side of OBL, w/ the trumped up claims of us 'messing' with them. That's a load of horseshit.
Quote:Yep
It all comes down to power.
Quote:AND WE WANT TO CONTROL THEM.
They want to control us,
Quote:Oh, you mean that our control should be so complete that they should just spread their legs any time we decide to invade? Would you not even "allow" them some feelings of nationalism? Does any act of self defense on their part become a terrible threat? Where is your perspective, man?
They want us out of there? Fine, have them petition their Gov't and get us out. Don't blow up Marine barracks or fly planes into buildings.
Quote:YAWN!!! ... Oh! You were sayin'? Rap, all you're doing is running a "Fear of the Month" club. Every fear is the BIGGEST fear ... until the next fear comes along. So today you're sweating Islamic fudamentalists... which for all I know will drive you into the arms of some dictator- maybe even Russia or China, or {gasp} France, if you get worked up enuf about it... who will then in turn become the next fear of the month.
Because , at the time, those in charge thought that giving the Soviet Union a piece of the Middle East wasn't such a great idea. You see, taking Afghanistan would have put the Soviets closer to the Mid East oil fields, as well as control of a warm water port. Somthing they DIDN'T have too much of in those days. Oil + open ports = HUGE financial gains for the Soviety Union. Fact is, the Iron Curtain might not have fallen had they succeeded. We opted to help the locals in Afghanistan, mainly to stop the Soviets, and also w/ the hopes that some gratitude would be shown our way. Boy, were WE wrong! Hell, not even helping the muslims in Bosnia during the 90's granted us any favors!
Why did we invade Iraq? You honestly don't remember the 10 + yrs of broken cease fire agreements by Saddam from the Gulf War? The 17 U.N. resolutions, the 15-0 Security Council vote ?
How can we take your fears seriously if you can't even prioritize them? GET A GRIP, MAN! You're embarassing yourself!
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:11 AM
Just found this blog by Britain's former ambassador to Ubekistan on this recent terror plot.
Quote:
Read the entire article here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled. . .
Don't know how much of this is true. But it does make one question, doesn't it, how easy it is to swallow the "next 9/11" story if enough media outlets repeat it?
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:19 AM
Quote:Hitler wasn't a Christian, in fact in private he was anti-Christian, but he was publically pro-Christian, create a German master race Christian empire thing.
Originally posted by Rue:
First question - why do you specify "Islamo"? Hitler was an xtian who also wanted to remake the world to his liking - and he was willing to kill those who either wouldn't or couldn't conform. But you would not call him a Christian-fascist, would you?
He couldn't of done it without the Christians, and I suspect the people at the head of the 'Islamo-Fascists' are very much the same.
So I think Christian-Fascists might fit quite well.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 10:21 AM
SignyM - I did refute your claims, if you'd just read my post. All you've done is ignroed what I said and repeated yourself. Sorry, saying it twice doesn't make it any more real.
No, we don't want to CONTROL them, we just want them to stop murdering everyone across the globe. Is that too much to ask?
Quote:
Oh, you mean that our control should be so complete that they should just spread their legs any time we decide to invade? Would you not even "allow" them some feelings of nationalism? Does any act of self defense on their part become a terrible threat? Where is your perspective, man?
Every time we invade. Wow, you're a piece of work. How DO you live in the real world wearing those blinders?
Invasion No.1 - Iraq invades Kuwait, and ignores world demands to leave Kuwaits sovereign soil. We went after Iraq, and (sadly) only did what the UN charter mandated.
Invasion No. 2 - al Qaeda attacks the US, and we were justified in going after them. ( Hell, even Clinton fired rockets at the AQ bases back in the 90's ) The Taliban didn't help us out, so we took them out. We were justified.
Invasion No. 3 - Iraq, still not playing nice, finally gets its last warning. It doesn't abide. We go in.
Hardly makes your case, now does it ?
Yawn, all you can do is repeat yourself, as you ignore the realities of the world. Why am I wasting my time ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 11:05 AM
Quote:He's not the one ignoring realities, that would be you, but since you get all you're knowledge of the world from the partisan propoganda channel you probably think you're the only one who knows what he's talking about.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Yawn, all you can do is repeat yourself, as you ignore the realities of the world. Why am I wasting my time ?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thursday, August 17, 2006 1:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Hero,
Laura can't win. She's too chappaquiddicky.
I'm willing to bet that she would never ride in a car driven by Ted Kennedy.
And she's a Librarian, so she's got the Librarian vote wrapped up.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME