Are we realy this gullible?
POSTED BY: oldenglanddry
UPDATED: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 01:53
VIEWED: 13731
PAGE 16 of 18
Quote:
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
Hitler was a fascist. In fact the term was invented to describe him. Now the Islamic fascists are not Nazis, there's is a religeous rather then a racial/governmental fascism. So to distinguish this particular form of fascism, the term Islamafascist is used. Like the difference between a Marxist and a Stalinist.
Quote:
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?
Because no person who truly understood the threat would be so obstructionist in opposing it. The Democrats and liberals have put more time, effort and thought into defeating Bush then they ever would consider doing to defeat Bin Laddin. Aside from shouting "you missed the turn" from the backseat, the Democrats haven't done a thing except oppose every major policy and undermine every domestic and international agenda the United States has put forth since January 20, 2001 (roughly noon EST).
Quote:
Third question - what P.C. nazis are we afraid of?
The ones who say that profiling is bad. Yes its bad, but its damned effective and should be an option in narrowly defined and strictly controlled circumstances.
Also the ones who condemn war but remain silent about terror (ie CNN International).
Quote:
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?
Some did. Those few who saw the Cole bombing and other attacks for what they were. Clinton did, thats why he dropped a couple missiles there and assumed that would do the job. A lot of people cared, but hardly any cared enough to do something about it. History has shown that democracies sleep deep. Its a weakness that our enemies have exploited time and again. But democracies also tend to kick ass (eventually), thats a lesson our enemies never seem to learn.
Quote:
Sixth question - what do you think is the reason for democratically elected Islamic-law republics - like Iraq?
A big part of it is history. Another part is that in many places the religeous oriented parties are the most organized since interest-based parties tend to form first in small groups before seeking larger alliances of common interests. In many ways the emerging Democracy in the Middle East is following the same general pattern that showed up in other emerging Democracies in the mid-20th Century. Military coups and strongmen are the next phase...then the return to popular democracy in a more effective form.
Quote:
Seventh question - Axis of evil? You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?
That pretty much sums it up. Two sides and either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem...and you know how we treat folk who are part of the problem.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- I'm repeating myself because you're repeating yourself.
Quote:Oh? Then what were we doing in Iran, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia in 1950? 1960? 1970? 1980? Please go read up on it and tell me. I really do expect an answer because you're whole argument is predicated on the idea that "terrorists" just popped up de novo because of some defect in their religion and the rest of us are all innocent bystanders.
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?
And, BTW, in your own words, we invaded three times in ten years. Now whether we justify it to ourselves or not- and of course we will always justify it to ourselves, even if we have to lie about it- none of our conquests are going to beat their breast saying "Yeah THANK GOD were were invaded! We deserved it" especially if we have not made a positive material difference in their lives. When the Romans invaded Gaul or Britain or Spain, they knew they were going to meet armed resistance. They didn't bother to get hysterial about it because it's part of empire- building. You, otoh, seem to think that our conquests should be thankful for the boot heel on their neck, and when that doesn't happen you mess yourself with fear.
But let's look at the history and result of our invasion of Afghanistan. You justified supporting the Taliban because of fear of communism. Then you justified the invasion because of the Taliban. And now people- but especially women are worse off in Afghanistan than under the Soviets. All those women doctors and lawyers and teachers that managed to graduate under Soviet rule are now back under the burka. Why? Because we funded the Taliban for years and they've developed a strong base. Because we're bypassing even our puppet leader (Karzai) and funding the petty warlords directly who in turn are developing a narco-state. And like Somalia, the people are going to become so tired of instability that they will WELCOME a return of the Taliban. And what do we do then? Re-invade? Overturn Karzai in favor of some bigger, meaner bastard who's killed his way up the ladder?
AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS STILL ALIVE.
What about Iraq? For a while, we funded Saddam against Iran. Iran, as you may recall, rebelled against the Shah who we had installed after getting rid of Mossadegh. So sure, we got rid of Saddam Hussein on the pretext of WMD (which didn't exist). But now we have a theocractic Iran-allied government in power. How does THAT advance your so-called "war on terror"?
We've interfered with the Middle East and messed it up royally. I doubt that you would tolerate that kind of interference in the USA. If you saw Mexican tanks on the streets and Mexcian flags flying over four states you'd get all pissed off, wouldn't you? Of course you would.
It's the same with anyone who is occupied, whether its the Irish, Native Americans, Morrocans, or Tibetans. What I truly don't understand is why you lack the perspective to see that, and react with gibbering terror to our conquests as if they were our conquerers. In your case, I think the terrorists have won because you're in a state of terror.
EDITED TO ADD: Rap, I conclude that you're terrified because you keep reacting to situations in ways that are predictably self-defeating. I'll bet you supported Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which had the predicted effect of pissing off a lot of Lebanese and increasing Hezbollah's influence. And given what I've just said about the populations of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon reacting in predicabtly nationalistic ways to interference and invasion, what do you think would happen if we were to bomb Iran? Are we trying to line up everyone in the Middle East against us?
And it's working so well for us!
July violence in Iraq the deadliest since March 2003
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/17/iraq.main/index.html
Bin Laden still hugely significant
www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/amanpour.answers/index.html
UN WARNS T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Firstly Hitler wasn't strictly a fascist, he was a nazi. Nazisim is an offshoot of Fascism but not the same thing entirely, and facist was not invented to describe Hitler. Fascist was a term for a follower of fascism, which was the name of the movement that was headed by Benito Mussolini and ruled Italy from 1922. It's roots come from the Itallian word Fascio used in the 19th century to describe various political groups. It's inception has absolutly nothing to do with Hitler.
Originally posted by Hero:
Hitler was a fascist. In fact the term was invented to describe him.
Quote:There being no religious component to Nazism is something you better take up with the Christians who supported Nazism to bring around a holy German Empire. You might also want to tell the Jews that the holocaust had nothing to do with them being Jewish.
Now the Islamic fascists are not Nazis, there's is a religeous rather then a racial/governmental fascism.
Quote:Not really, Marxism is a type of Communism, Stalinism is a type of Totalitarianism.
Like the difference between a Marxist and a Stalinist.
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
Hi Citizen
I agree that Christian-Fascist works for Hitler. But the US media - more importantly the ultra-right wing version Unwrapped favors - would never :aghast: use that phrase.
I was just messing with his mind, trying to run it into the wall of his own internal contradictions. 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen,
Just another comment. I also noticed the congruencies between OhReally!, Limp-baugh, Sean Insanity - and Unwrapped. What's WORSE, dubya, that pinnacle of intellectual acumen, is ALSO now quoting those sources. Could it possibly get any better.
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 propaganda channel you probably think you're the only one who knows what he's talking about.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK Zero,
I was kinda' waiting for Unwrapped, but I'm short on time.
So here' a little teaser for now:
Quote:I'm afraid to the core. Yes. Very, very afraid. I'm so afraid that Muslims will completely take over or destroy the entire non-Muslim world I'd do anything. Anything. I demand the US join the ICC. I demand the US coordinate its policing with its European allies (who've been at this a lot longer). I demand the US secure its borders. There are so many effective things to do and the US isn't doing any of them and I don't know why.
Because no person who truly understood the threat would be so obstructionist in opposing it.
Satisfied?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero,
Wrongo goof
Fascism = Benito Mussolini
Responding to your rants is probably a waste of time, and I see Citizen already pointed this one out. Well, Seriously, if you don't know jack, do yourself a favor and look jack up on the internet before posting. The fact that you never fact check before posting stuff you're not sure of is what makes us think you're a moron. No offense to the mentally challenged, apparantly they can be elected president, and then have people much smarter than they defend the idiotic policies which they know are wrong in exchange for a hefty paycheck.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
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
Thanks for posting this.
Strangely though, it seems that Auraptor does'nt want to comment on it.
I suppose theres a first time for everything.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
YEAH !!
I want dubya to talk about 9/11 some more !
CBS 11-13
36 up
57 down
7 uncertain
-21
Newsweek 7-10
37 up
59 down
4 uncertain
-22
Fox 8-9
36 up
56 down
8 uncertain
-20
http://www.pollingreport.com/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aurapter- i find the "pancake theory" a real stretch; i understand its believed that the temperatures from the Jet fuel melted hundreds of thousands of welds and trusses, simultaneously, to allow a perfectly level free fall of the proceeding floors, but its a mathematical improbability..especially to happen on both buildings as it did. why have other steel buildings, throughout history, burned for DAYS, and white hot temperatures, and remained standing..yet our buildings burn for a few hours, and the entire lower portions, which were intact let me remind you, pulvarize and implode perfectly? why did the firemen claim they could put the fires out? what about the explosions that they heard, which brought gag orders against them? why did Larry Silverstein imply that building 7 was "pulled"? i realize a plane hit each building, but Jet fuel does not melt and pulvarize and entire building, and bring it down next to free fall speeds, perfectly into its base! it just doesnt happen like that...especially when so many other pieces of the governments story is suspect. do you honostly believe American elements had nothing at all to do with this?>
and Christian fascism is an oxy moron. American fascism is more appropriate...yet is that not a threat aswell? why no fearmongering about that
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME