Post by: m1911owner on July 14, 2008, 08:45:46 AM
I can't wait to see what the story has to say...
Post by: doc2rn on July 14, 2008, 08:56:17 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 14, 2008, 08:56:33 AM
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 14, 2008, 09:01:03 AM
They certainly wouldn't be behind a McCain candidacy... I can believe their story that this is mocking the politics of fear. The article inside is supposed to be about how Obama got his start in Chicago politics.
That's a story I'd like to read about. Can you imagine the sleaze involved in a leftist elitist attorney getting his start in corrupt Chicago and being intimately involved with William Ayers and other such dirtbags?
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 09:18:28 AM
A publication that pimps for Seymour Hersh is, well, what you'd think it is.
Post by: grislyatoms on July 14, 2008, 10:09:05 AM
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 10:21:50 AM
Actually, the New Yorker claims their plan was to parody Obama's depiction by some Republicans. Nobody believes them though.
Also, it wasn't the Repubs who made a big deal about the "H" in Barack Hussein Obama." That would be HRC.
Post by: El Tejon on July 14, 2008, 10:29:44 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 14, 2008, 10:39:49 AM
Actually, the New Yorker claims their plan was to parody Obama's depiction by some Republicans. Nobody believes them though.
Also, it wasn't the Repubs who made a big deal about the "H" in Barack Hussein Obama." That would be HRC.
Yes. What's your point?
Post by: m1911owner on July 14, 2008, 10:43:28 AM
That is not Barry's house. You can tell because there is no United Nations flag.
Let's hope that's never Barry's house...
It's the Oval Office in the White House.
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 11:06:00 AM
Post by: Werewolf on July 14, 2008, 12:09:50 PM
I wanna hear his take on this.
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 12:44:07 PM
Where's ShootinStudent when you need him...
I wanna hear his take on this.
I wanna hear his take on this.
My take is that the ad was not constructive and will only be taken by the rumor mill to justify the kooky theories that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim agent.
It's ironic for me, having spent some time reading into what conservative/radical Islamic movements are trying to do in their countries, to come here and see people calling Obama a marxist and then turning around to call him a secret Muslim.
News flash folks: If the Muslim radicals magically took control, they would....abolish any income tax, tax at 2 percent of one's wealth, and fight communism as a form of odious barbarism.
In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals.
Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc.
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 01:07:33 PM
Actually, the New Yorker claims their plan was to parody Obama's depiction by some Republicans. Nobody believes them though.
Also, it wasn't the Repubs who made a big deal about the "H" in Barack Hussein Obama." That would be HRC.
Yes. What's your point?
My point is that the MSM & Dems will claim that the mean old Republicans started the nasty rumors about BHO being a Muslim (among other things). BHO claimed as much when he announced he was refusing public dollars and going with a privately-funded campaign as his reason to forego public moneis & limits.
Willie Horton is the model. He was invoked against Dukakkis during the 1988 Dem primaries by (drumroll, please) Al Gore.
Fast-forward to after GHWB and Dukakkis are the chosen candidates...
GHWB and his "Karl Rove" (Lee Atwater) decide to run a Willie Horton ad. The expressly do NOT include a photo of Willie, just a bunch of rough-looking actors (majority white), text, & a voiceover detailing Horton's crimes and Dukakkis's enabling.
Ever since then, it was the nasty racist GHWB/Lee Atwater/Republicans who invoked Willie Horton: first, last, always.
While Al goes on to get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 14, 2008, 02:04:02 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 02:06:16 PM
As if HRC had to start rumors. She had a hand in it, sure. But between his name, his father's religious and geographical background, his schooling in a largely Muslim nation, and his soft spot on the WOT, such rumors were inevitable.
What is his soft spot in the war on terror? As far as I can tell, his military policy is at least as expansive as GWB's.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 14, 2008, 03:17:01 PM
As if HRC had to start rumors. She had a hand in it, sure. But between his name, his father's religious and geographical background, his schooling in a largely Muslim nation, and his soft spot on the WOT, such rumors were inevitable.
What is his soft spot in the war on terror? As far as I can tell, his military policy is at least as expansive as GWB's.
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 03:41:21 PM
You think Bill Ayers might qualify as a blind spot?
Post by: Werewolf on July 14, 2008, 03:49:49 PM
As if HRC had to start rumors. She had a hand in it, sure. But between his name, his father's religious and geographical background, his schooling in a largely Muslim nation, and his soft spot on the WOT, such rumors were inevitable.
What is his soft spot in the war on terror? As far as I can tell, his military policy is at least as expansive as GWB's.
Please explain "...at least as expansive".
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 03:51:35 PM
As if HRC had to start rumors. She had a hand in it, sure. But between his name, his father's religious and geographical background, his schooling in a largely Muslim nation, and his soft spot on the WOT, such rumors were inevitable.
What is his soft spot in the war on terror? As far as I can tell, his military policy is at least as expansive as GWB's.
Yeah, if you didn't notice, it's apparent now that he was lying for the purposes of bolstering liberal support during the primary.
He's already as much as guaranteed that he's in the stay "as long as necessary" to make it an "honorable and victorious homecoming."
Then he wants to use any reduction in Iraq troop strength to send to Afghanistan.
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 03:52:44 PM
As if HRC had to start rumors. She had a hand in it, sure. But between his name, his father's religious and geographical background, his schooling in a largely Muslim nation, and his soft spot on the WOT, such rumors were inevitable.
What is his soft spot in the war on terror? As far as I can tell, his military policy is at least as expansive as GWB's.
Please explain "...at least as expansive".
He supports unilateral strikes on other countries, without UN, Congressional, or other approval as long as the motivation is counter-terrorism.
He's also become a supporter of an expanded war in Afghanistan, and a continued military presence in Iraq.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 14, 2008, 05:01:29 PM
In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims. Even the militant ones.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 14, 2008, 05:35:21 PM
In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims. Even the militant ones.
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 05:43:15 PM
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 05:57:53 PM
I suspect BHO has changed his position on Iraq & terrorism in general in the same way McCain has changed his tune on illegal immigration: with a wink and a nudge.
And he does have a soft spot for terrorists, given his association with Ayers & Dhorn (Dohrn?...who gives a rat's *expletive deleted*ss: Ayers' terrorist skank-ho). Folks who wished they blew up MORE than they managed to.
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 14, 2008, 06:12:57 PM
In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims. Even the militant ones.
It sounds funny, but I should have said especially the militant ones. I'm not joking. Such is my regard for left-wing religion. Conservative Muslims (even militants), much as I might disagree with them, are at least somewhat forthright. The mushy-headedness of these people that follow a religion they don't actually believe in. Ugh.
Post by: yesitsloaded on July 14, 2008, 06:20:23 PM
Post by: roo_ster on July 14, 2008, 06:52:16 PM
In my estimation, the notion that BHO is a Muslim is an insult to Muslims. Even the militant ones.
It sounds funny, but I should have said especially the militant ones. I'm not joking. Such is my regard for left-wing religion. Conservative Muslims (even militants), much as I might disagree with them, are at least somewhat forthright. The mushy-headedness of these people that follow a religion they don't actually believe in. Ugh.
What fistful wrote.
Post by: m1911owner on July 14, 2008, 07:08:46 PM
But... His father was a Muslim. Under Muslim law (as I understand it), if his father was a Muslim, so is he. And further, he was raised in Muslim schools.
So I think he's lying when he says that he's never been a Muslim. (And under the "once a Muslim, always a Muslim law, he's still a Muslim as far as Muslim law is concerned.)
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 07:57:47 PM
I think he's probably telling the truth when he says that he's not a Muslim.
But... His father was a Muslim. Under Muslim law (as I understand it), if his father was a Muslim, so is he. And further, he was raised in Muslim schools.
So I think he's lying when he says that he's never been a Muslim. (And under the "once a Muslim, always a Muslim law, he's still a Muslim as far as Muslim law is concerned.)
But... His father was a Muslim. Under Muslim law (as I understand it), if his father was a Muslim, so is he. And further, he was raised in Muslim schools.
So I think he's lying when he says that he's never been a Muslim. (And under the "once a Muslim, always a Muslim law, he's still a Muslim as far as Muslim law is concerned.)
Not even close-there is no such law. Daniel Pipes, FYI, is not an Islamic law expert or anything of the sort.
The only law in this area is that a Muslim father has the burden of teaching his kids Islam.
The only possible way for one to become an apostate in Islam is to willingly and intelligently accept the beliefs of the religion, and then to willingly and intelligently reject them; full capacity and understanding is necessary for both counts, hence, people who are born to a Muslim family and who decide they don't care about religion or want to be something else are not ever apostates.
Post by: longeyes on July 14, 2008, 08:38:45 PM
Houston, we have a semantic problem. Muslims, like the rest of us, are what they do, not what they think. And apostasy is punished in the Islamosphere--as you know.
Post by: De Selby on July 14, 2008, 08:50:44 PM
"Willingly and intelligently?"
Houston, we have a semantic problem. Muslims, like the rest of us, are what they do, not what they think. And apostasy is punished in the Islamosphere--as you know.
Houston, we have a semantic problem. Muslims, like the rest of us, are what they do, not what they think. And apostasy is punished in the Islamosphere--as you know.
Yeah, actually I do not know that, because...it isn't, for the most part. There are easily millions of people in majority Muslim states that are former Muslims who are now atheists, smaller numbers who are converts to Christianity and non-Muslim sects. There is no mass slaughter of these folks, nor is it even a live issue in most places. Saudi Arabia is about the only consistent exception to that rule.
Interestingly, "you are what you do, not what you think" is the legal rule adopted by the Muslim Brotherhood, and other followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Sayid Qutb. The more conservative Islamic groups believe that personal beliefs are flatly irrelevant to establishing and Islamic state, and that any inquests into one's conscience are improper. It's behavior that matters; the rest is a matter to be dealth with via the educational system, in their view.
Post by: Scout26 on July 15, 2008, 03:26:57 AM
News flash folks: If the Muslim radicals magically took control, they would....abolish any income tax, tax at 2 percent of one's wealth, and fight communism as a form of odious barbarism.
In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals.
Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc.
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals.
Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc.
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
Can you explain a little about Muslim banking policies/practices.......
Post by: longeyes on July 15, 2008, 03:57:35 AM
Post by: De Selby on July 15, 2008, 01:42:51 PM
News flash folks: If the Muslim radicals magically took control, they would....abolish any income tax, tax at 2 percent of one's wealth, and fight communism as a form of odious barbarism.
In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals.
Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc.
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
In terms of economic programs, which most people seem to be most concerned with when talking about Obama, the people on this board are by and large absolutely identical in beliefs to the Islamic radicals.
Yes, of course there are differences between the Islamic radicals and the economic libertarians on social issues, but in terms of economic policy they are the same-no state interference with private money, extremely low taxes, etc.
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
Can you explain a little about Muslim banking policies/practices.......
There are lots of complicated contract rules which I don't and most people don't understand, but the basics are as far as I know, the basic rules are no interest from just trading cash or instruments (you need to actually have a profitable business underneath it), and no gambling, as in with stock trades or loans.
They're mostly irrelevant today though, and have been for a long time. It wasn't even possible in any Muslim country to do shariah banking until relatively recently, and now it's more like a fad for the rich and pious than anything else.
This seems to be a decent article on the subject: http://www.metimes.com/Business/2008/04/24/islamic_finance/6986/
Post by: seeker_two on July 15, 2008, 03:21:34 PM
See Bill Clinton or Phil Graham for examples.....
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 01:41:21 AM
207 million Muslims live in Indonesia. Indonesia is a Presidential republic. Its constitution guarantees religious freedom, and its government cooperates fully with the US in fighting radical Islamic terrorism. Al-Quaeda considers itself at war with Indonesia.
159 million Muslims live in Pakistan. Pakistan is a militaristic craphole, where the punishment for honor killings involves a long drop and a short rope. It is an ally of the United States, and receives United States funidng and weaponry. Al-Quaeda is at war with Pakistan.
157 million Muslims live in India, which is the world's most populated democracy. India is not in any way hostile to the US.
132 million Muslims live in Bangladesh, which is parliamentary democracy. Religious freedom is guaranteed in the country's Constitution, though sometimes violated - religious proselytism is discouraged, and hate crimes sometimes committed. There is no systematic oppression of Christians or anybody else.
70 million Muslims live in Egypt, a militaristic craphole, but an ally of the United States. Religious freedom is protected (except for radical Islam). Christians are not harassed.
68 million Muslims live in Turkey, a parliamentary republic (though with de-facto military rule behind the scenes). A powerful ally of both the US and Israel. Freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed.
Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.
Post by: Jamisjockey on July 16, 2008, 03:40:32 AM
GD America right? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about Rev. Wright by now?
How dare you judge a man by his self described "mentor"!!
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
I'm not sure if you understand how laughable most of what you post is.Post by: longeyes on July 16, 2008, 05:05:54 AM
Quote
Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.
Perhaps you have not read the polls that indicate a substantial percentage of Muslims, globally, are down with jihadism? The issue is not ALL Muslims, the issue is that tens of million, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people are sworn to hostility against the West and support violent opposition. Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.
I think your characterizations of general "tolerance" in some of the nations you mention are fatuously romanticized.
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 16, 2008, 07:46:07 AM
Quote
The statisticians at Gallup say their sample - calibrated to reach illiterate and educated, urban and rural, male and female - is representative of 90 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslins, within a plus or minus 3-point margin of error.
Quote
Among the Muslims surveyed, 7 percent condoned the 9/11 attacks
Quote
What distinguishes them is not their perception of Western culture or freedoms, but their perception of US policies. Even radicals say they support democracy. But 63 percent of radicals do not believe that the United States will allow people in the region to fashion their own political future without direct US influence.
Source: Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think, published by Gallup Press, ISBN: 978-1-59562-017-0
Articles quoted (since I don't have the book on hand): http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0517/p12s04-wogi.html http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/karen_long/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1205569971148590.xml&coll=2&thispage=1
Post by: agricola on July 16, 2008, 08:33:29 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 16, 2008, 10:49:37 AM
Quote
Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.
Re-read my post, then. Nowhere did I claim that Iran poses no thread at all to the civilized world. However, Iran, Al-Quaeda, and their buddies, combined, do not compose a thread so intimidating that protecting against them should be the first order of concern for the conservatives (that is, you and me. I view libertarianism as a sub-type of conservatism, perhaps I'm wrong.)
As for well-armed:
The most modern aircraft in Iran's service is Mig-29, a 1983 design. Iran has 29 of these.
In fact, Iran has not more than 70 recent fighters. It has 250 fighter aircraft when you count anything and everything, even old, beaten clunkers.
Israel has 500 aircraft.
Excuse me if I refuse to be afraid.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 11:43:34 AM
GD America right? Or are we supposed to have forgotten about Rev. Wright by now?
How dare you judge a man by his self described "mentor"!!
Obama is less like the Muslim radicals, in other words, than many people who post on this forum, with respect to his economic policy.
I'm not sure if you understand how laughable most of what you post is.I don't understand how that's laughable, because it's an easy fact to verify. The Jihadists rival McCarthy in their anti-communist and pro-free market rhetoric.
Just because you aren't aware of a fact, doesn't mean it's laughable for someone else to cite it.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 11:44:45 AM
Quote
Just here I've listed over two-thirds of the world's Muslim population, who do not oppress Christians, behead gay whales, or want to kill Americans.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.
Sorry, the idea that the Islamic world represents some form of overriding threat to the United States, the West, Cute Puppies, and Our Way of Life, of the same level that the Nazis were, is a pile of nonsense.
Perhaps you have not read the polls that indicate a substantial percentage of Muslims, globally, are down with jihadism? The issue is not ALL Muslims, the issue is that tens of million, perhaps hundreds of millions, of people are sworn to hostility against the West and support violent opposition. Closed societies that lack free inquiry and espouse militancy against "outsiders" constitute, in my mind, a very definite threat, especially when seriously armed and seriously well-financed.
I think your characterizations of general "tolerance" in some of the nations you mention are fatuously romanticized.
Uh, how does claiming that there are not insane killing sprees against everyone else point to "general tolerance"? You can have a violent, corrupt society without any of those things he listed.
Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them. But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
Post by: Dntsycnt on July 16, 2008, 12:00:20 PM
Quote
Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them. But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons. Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.
While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.
Post by: De Selby on July 16, 2008, 12:02:14 PM
Quote
Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them. But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons. Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.
While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.
Yep-that is a good resource you posted. But the facts will not get in the way of people's ideology, and the ideology among many here is "Muslims hate non-Muslims!"
Post by: agricola on July 16, 2008, 12:50:54 PM
Quote
Sure, there are lots of radical anti-American views and support for them. But that has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.
In the enormous Gallup poll previously cited, it was found that when radicals tried to justify their violence, they invariably gave political reasons. Those who were against the radical violence gave religious reasons.
While I despise all religion, and it is certainly a contributing factor, I'm not so sure it's the problem here.
It is and it isnt. Often in fairly recent history, due to the savage nature of the ruling cliques in almost any muslim state you care to mention (at one time or another), the only place where grievances against the regime (or events elsewhere) could be espoused was from the pulpit within the mosque. As sometimes happens when the Church gets involved in politics in the West, the religion and original political grievances became intertwined.
There is also of course the ongoing "investment" by Wahabbi groups in mosques around the world, which both seeks to spread a version of Islam and an interpretation of world politics alongside it.
Post by: longeyes on July 17, 2008, 06:41:09 AM
When politics and religion are fused, then we have a problem. And isn't that what is going on?
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 07:35:41 AM
I wasn't talking about just Iran with its antiquated MIGs. I was talking about radicals with the kinds of small nukes and smallpox vials that can really ruin your day.
Again: There will ALWAYS be someone out there who can seriously ruin your day. There ARE threats.
But these guys are nothing on the level of the Germans or Soviets. They are not an existential threat to the West, making their destruction the number one priority.
I believe stuff like rolling back the New Deal and achieving liberty in my lifetime is far more important.
Quote
When politics and religion are fused, then we have a problem. And isn't that what is going on?
So when are we going to end the participation of Orthodox Jewish parties in Israeli politics?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 17, 2008, 09:16:53 AM
I wasn't talking about just Iran with its antiquated MIGs. I was talking about radicals with the kinds of small nukes and smallpox vials that can really ruin your day.
Again: There will ALWAYS be someone out there who can seriously ruin your day. There ARE threats.
But these guys are nothing on the level of the Germans or Soviets. They are not an existential threat to the West, making their destruction the number one priority.
I believe stuff like rolling back the New Deal and achieving liberty in my lifetime is far more important.
I will certainly agree that ending the New Deal and recapturing liberty is vital. I think you're wrong to ignore the threat of modern terrorism. I would say that both are equally important. It doesn't matter how many liberties you've regained if you die because your government wasn't willing or able to protect you from foreign attack.
We formed a government both to preserver our liberties and to provide for the common defense.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 09:30:39 AM
Quote
I will certainly agree that ending the New Deal and recapturing liberty is vital. I think you're wrong to ignore the threat of modern terrorism. I would say that both are equally important. It doesn't matter how many liberties you've regained if you die because your government wasn't willing or able to protect you from foreign attack.
The problem is, we are not moving to end the New Deal. We've allowed people like the neoconservatives (I don't mean the bogeyman of crazy leftist here, but the actual political denomination) to take prominent positions in the conservative movement.
It's not a 'walk before you run' question, because we are not walking. We're moving in the wrong direction.
Further, terrorists committed attacks in major American cities long before 9/11, they just got really lucky in that one. THey will also continue to commit these attacks. There is no emergency.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 09:35:46 AM
Further, terrorists committed attacks in major American cities long before 9/11, they just got really lucky in that one. THey will also continue to commit these attacks. There is no emergency.
Not if we destroy them.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 09:37:47 AM
Further, terrorists committed attacks in major American cities long before 9/11, they just got really lucky in that one. THey will also continue to commit these attacks. There is no emergency.
Not if we destroy them.
Destroy whom? Al-Quaeda?
After you kill every last emmeber of AQ and affiliated group, other such group will spring up.
If a bunch of dissatisfied, semi-literate, sexually-insecure goatheards is enough to cause Americans to curl up and cry emergency, then there's ALWAYS going to be an emergency.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 09:42:12 AM
Further, terrorists committed attacks in major American cities long before 9/11, they just got really lucky in that one. THey will also continue to commit these attacks. There is no emergency.
Not if we destroy them.
Destroy whom? Al-Quaeda?
After you kill every last emmeber of AQ and affiliated group, other such group will spring up.
And you keep destroying them, just as the British entirely wiped out the Thugee cult.
If they're found to be operating in an area, you drop leaflets that citizens have a day to get out. Then you level that town to rubble.
Curiously, the terrorists won't find many havens soon.
Fight a WAR, or give up. We've been screwing around for seven years, afraid of offending people who want to destroy us. At this point, Western civilization and all that it has accomplished in the last two millennia are at stake.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 09:45:10 AM
What specific conditions need to be accomplished for the "emergency" to be over?
America will ALWAYS have enemies. There will not be a perfect world with sunshine and unicorns, EVER.
When do we cancel the emergency and get our freedom back?
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 09:46:28 AM
I ask you again.
What specific conditions need to be accomplished for the "emergency" to be over?
America will ALWAYS have enemies. There will not be a perfect world with sunshine and unicorns, EVER.
When do we cancel the emergency and get our freedom back?
What specific conditions need to be accomplished for the "emergency" to be over?
America will ALWAYS have enemies. There will not be a perfect world with sunshine and unicorns, EVER.
When do we cancel the emergency and get our freedom back?
We didn't seem to have such "emergencies" back when we reacted to any such threat with overwhelming and devastating force until it was destroyed or surrendered unconditionally.
I was always taught that if someone tries to get into a fight with you, shoving you, don't shove back, just hit them as hard as you can and end it right there. We're just shoving and being shoved.
There will never be bunnies and unicorns, no. But there can be a world in which nobody DARES touch any US interests, because they know the cruise missiles will level every last bit of their interests within hours.
Are we a superpower, the last remaining superpower? We sure as hell don't act like it.
Post by: MicroBalrog on July 17, 2008, 09:50:51 AM
Quote
We didn't seem to have such "emergencies" back when we reacted to any such threat with overwhelming and devastating force until it was destroyed or surrendered unconditionally.
That's very well and true. But here's what we (the West, not just America) did now:
We enacted a whole bunch of 'anti-terrorist' laws - under different names in various countries, variously expanding surveillance.
We expanded 'security' in airports (TSA is particularly known for its, uh, habits).
At least in some countries, we got to the point where candidates are evaluated almost SOLELY on their foreign/security policy (q.v. McCain, q.v. the Israeli leadership). This means stifling debate and reform on other issues.
I do not think there is an emergency currently that justifies this.
Post by: longeyes on July 17, 2008, 10:01:18 AM
Quote
And you keep destroying them, just as the British entirely wiped out the Thugee cult.
If they're found to be operating in an area, you drop leaflets that citizens have a day to get out. Then you level that town to rubble.
Curiously, the terrorists won't find many havens soon.
Fight a WAR, or give up. We've been screwing around for seven years, afraid of offending people who want to destroy us. At this point, Western civilization and all that it has accomplished in the last two millennia are at stake.
If they're found to be operating in an area, you drop leaflets that citizens have a day to get out. Then you level that town to rubble.
Curiously, the terrorists won't find many havens soon.
Fight a WAR, or give up. We've been screwing around for seven years, afraid of offending people who want to destroy us. At this point, Western civilization and all that it has accomplished in the last two millennia are at stake.
+10
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2008, 10:08:12 AM
-The thugee cult was likely an invention of the British to justify a crackdown on dissidents; that is the historical consensus at this point. So it's interesting that it's cited in this case, where terrorism is rapidly becoming a justification for all sorts of stuff unrelated to violence.
-The Russians did the whole leveling villages thing in Afghanistan. Check out how that turned out for them.
-Refusing to insult people's religious beliefs or to kill them on the basis of being the same religion as a terrorist is not political correctness-it's called basic human decency.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 17, 2008, 10:31:25 AM
How Ironic:
-The thugee cult was likely an invention of the British to justify a crackdown on dissidents; that is the historical consensus at this point.
-The thugee cult was likely an invention of the British to justify a crackdown on dissidents; that is the historical consensus at this point.
Not among anyone but revisionist liberal professors.
You know, I just realized, you haven't defended the Mongol Horde yet. When are you going to get to excusing them or claiming they were an invented threat?
Post by: De Selby on July 17, 2008, 10:44:13 AM
How Ironic:
-The thugee cult was likely an invention of the British to justify a crackdown on dissidents; that is the historical consensus at this point.
-The thugee cult was likely an invention of the British to justify a crackdown on dissidents; that is the historical consensus at this point.
Not among anyone but revisionist liberal professors.
You know, I just realized, you haven't defended the Mongol Horde yet. When are you going to get to excusing them or claiming they were an invented threat?
Really...who is it that's defending the existence of the thugee cult as historical fact?
Post by: El Tejon on July 17, 2008, 10:48:25 AM
June Gwa Yen, Cantonese for person from China, China person.
Post by: seeker_two on July 17, 2008, 01:03:44 PM
...right now, we're still in the panic mode.....and we haven't hit the bee hard enough to stop stinging.
Post by: PremiumSauces on July 20, 2008, 09:34:49 AM
Post by: alan2 on July 20, 2008, 12:00:44 PM
Post by: RocketMan on July 20, 2008, 12:02:25 PM
Mrs. Obama sort of resembles Angela Davis, at least as my memory serves.
Aside from any resemblance, I'll bet they have a similar political outlook.
Post by: roo_ster on July 20, 2008, 06:38:01 PM
Mrs. Obama sort of resembles Angela Davis, at least as my memory serves.
[easily_offended]Oh, they all look the same you you?!?![/easily_offended]
Post by: Manedwolf on July 21, 2008, 04:24:34 AM
Quote
"The New Yorker's Washington correspondent has been denied a press place on Barack Obama's tour of the Middle East and Europe after the magazine depicted the presidential candidate as a terrorist on its cover.
The Obama camp said there was not enough room on the aircraft but the move is being seen as a snub to the magazine.
The Obama camp said there was not enough room on the aircraft but the move is being seen as a snub to the magazine.
The vindictiveness of liberals. Backstabbing politics right out of high school.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/21/usa