Bronwen wrote: 1. If you want me to defend Bush you're pickin on the wrong chicken.
2. What crapola! How does killing and/or imprisoning as many as them as possible help them?
3. That may be true, the point is, the enemy is the filthy, blood-drenched Islamic religion, not a country or a people. One does not perceive a lot of terrorism amongst the Christians of those countries in the region in which Christianity is tolerated.
4. I know exactly how they came to power. I'm not sure you do, though. You seem to limit your study of history to propagandistic sources.
5. Why don't you give some examples of contemporary 'Christo-fascism'? And why do I know that they are going to be absolute nonsense before I even see them?
1) Now there ws me thinking you supported the war on terror
2) Would that were what was happening.
3) Substute jew or jewish religon in every one of your posts where you mention islam and you could be writing the propoganda leaflets for Hitler.
4) You seem to dismiss anything that challenges your world view as propoganda. You would make a good IMAM, never mind what the book actually says just believe your version and ignore the misguided fools that disagree.
5) Perhaps because you are not interested in thinking about what you believe. God forbid you should ever question what you have been told is the truth or ask "why do I believe that?".
How about those fundamentalists that would stop the teaching of evolution in schools and want their own particular myth treated as if it is true, given half a chance it evolutionary theory would not be part of the curriculum. or terrorists that blow up abortion clinics to inpose their will by fear. In Scotland we have interdenominational schools where the catholic hierarchy insist their pupils have a seperate entrance. Even the pupils think that one daft. Christian groups that try and ban the teaching of sex education in schools and insist on religious education or who picket outside theatres because they think the play is blasphemous-abpout time we did away with blasphemy laws altogether, the concept is ludicrous.
You never saw the IRA bombing campaoigns described as Catholic terror because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. You seem incapable of understanding that an IRA terrorist is still a terrorist as is a UDA terrorist or an islamic terrorists. Whichever religon whose name they carry out their atrocities in they are still terrorists. If you condemn terrorists then you should condemn them. This murderer good this one bad just doesn't make any sense.
You condemn what you see as british occupation of northern Ireland and applaud IRA freedom fighters as they blow up women and children but also applaud the israeli occupation of palestine and recent invasion of lebanon and condemn those who resist as terrorists. It seems terrorists/freedom fighter is a distinction you make depending on your mood.
From the Orangeman's perpective they are defending themselves from a religon that will not tolerate their faith and impose their beliefs on them. Religious warfare, sectarianism and blind hatred is hardly a preserve of the middle east.
I'm not even going to try and explain Irish history to you. You seem reasonably intelligent go ao and find out before you make inane comments about northern ireland being occupied by non irish louts. If you can come up with a rational explanation for religious hatred please expound it. While you're at it look in to the religious wars in europe. The peace of Westphalia ended the thirty years war, good place to start.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 14,00.html
Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.
In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.
Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.
You relish terms like islamofascists and use the language of hatred with great glee. You could be posting about any religon, just change islam to catholic or protestent or jew the sentiments are the same as of sectarianism hatred the world over. By it's nature religious relief is irrational, sectarianism is a violent expression of that irrationality but usually there are other reasons behind it as well. But its' very easy for a politician to use the language of religious hatred to demonise an enemy and essential if they want to stop rational debate getting in the way.
And Bush speaketh!!!
And Bush speaketh!!!
gmc wrote: 3) Substute jew or jewish religon in every one of your posts where you mention islam and you could be writing the propoganda leaflets for Hitler.
5a. How about those fundamentalists that would stop the teaching of evolution in schools and want their own particular myth treated as if it is true, given half a chance it evolutionary theory would not be part of the curriculum.
5b. ...or terrorists that blow up abortion clinics to inpose their will by fear.
5c. In Scotland we have interdenominational schools where the catholic hierarchy insist their pupils have a seperate entrance. Even the pupils think that one daft.
5d. Christian groups that try and ban the teaching of sex education in schools and insist on religious education or who picket outside theatres because they think the play is blasphemous-abpout time we did away with blasphemy laws altogether, the concept is ludicrous.
5e. You never saw the IRA bombing campaoigns described as Catholic terror because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign.
5f. You seem incapable of understanding that an IRA terrorist is still a terrorist as is a UDA terrorist or an islamic terrorists. Whichever religon whose name they carry out their atrocities in they are still terrorists. If you condemn terrorists then you should condemn them. This murderer good this one bad just doesn't make any sense.
5g. You condemn what you see as british occupation of northern Ireland and applaud IRA freedom fighters as they blow up women and children
5h. ....but also applaud the israeli occupation of palestine and recent invasion of lebanon and condemn those who resist as terrorists. It seems terrorists/freedom fighter is a distinction you make depending on your mood.
5i. From the Orangeman's perpective they are defending themselves from a religon that will not tolerate their faith and impose their beliefs on them. Religious warfare, sectarianism and blind hatred is hardly a preserve of the middle east.
5j. I'm not even going to try and explain Irish history to you. You seem reasonably intelligent go ao and find out before you make inane comments about northern ireland being occupied by non irish louts.
5k. You relish terms like islamofascists and use the language of hatred with great glee. You could be posting about any religon, just change islam to catholic or protestent or jew the sentiments are the same as of sectarianism hatred the world over. gmc, even for you that's a lot of hot air for a single post, and I will respond only very briefly because I have very little time, and frankly, because your nonsense doesn't deserve a longer response.
3. You can't get away with that, and the fact that you keep trying only attests to the fatuousness of your argument. You can't ass-ert that the the victims of terrorism are really the terrorists and the terrorists are really the victims and have any credibility except among morons and terrorist-sympathizers. If you challenge that evaluation, give the details of a recent Jewish or Christian suicide bombing.
5a. How about them? First of all, how are they threatening the world with nuclear annihilation? Secondly, where have they been successful? There are religious fanatics everywhere. In the USA, their fanaticism is constitutionally protected 'only to the end of my nose and no further'. I can't comment on the situation in other counrties, except to say that here in Germany, such fanatics are few in number and considered a joke or an embarrassment by everyone else.
5b. Those are terrorists indeed, but I know of no religion that supports that, except possibly Islam. I have no idea if legal abortion is available in any of the various Islamic hellholes.. I DO know that they think nothing of bombing the mosques of rival factions within Islam, so perhaps if they found an abortion provider they would bomb him/her also. I really don't know.
5c. Never having been in Scotland I will have to take your word for it. I really have no idea what sort of religious tension exists there.
5d. Again I can speak only for the USA. Religion in schools is unconstitutional, and this has been affirmed time after time. Peaceful picketing is, however, constitutionally protected.
5e. OK. I agree with that.
5f. I agree to some extent, but the former are not threatening the world with nuclear holocaust as the Islamic militants are. Surely you can perceive the distinction here.
5g. Whoa, young man, you are WAY over the line here. I never expressed, implied or even suggested any such thing, and as you must realize, IRA terrorists are condemned by their Church while Islamic clerics not only encourage but in many cases actually direct Islamic terrorism. You need to get a grip on reality.
5h. I'm not 'applauding' anything. The Israelis' choice is to fight terrorism or surrender to it. They have chosen to fight back. You would, in the same position, I guess, surrender. I hope for your sake and that of your family, especially the women, that you will never be in that position with regard to Islamic aggression.
5i. Here you are incorrect, and as a denizen of the region should know better. There are lots of Protestants in Eire and if there is any discrimination against them, I am not aware of it nor have I heard them complain. If I am wrong, please give some examples with documentation. They are obviously a minority religion, as in Italy, Austria, Poland, and some other European countries. I know of no oppression of Protestantism in any of those places, certainly not in Austria where I have lived. If there were any Protestants there we weren't aware of them but if we had been we certainly wouldn't have persecuted them!
5j. I am quite familiar with Irish history.
5k. See 3. Utter nonsense. Catholicism, Protestantism, Zen Buddhism, none of them threaten freedom and democracy around the world. Islamic terrorism does, and is very straghtforward about it. Wise up!
Edited the next day to make this correction:Item 5d should read: "The teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional." The teaching of religion is parochial schools is, of course, constitutionally protected.
5a. How about those fundamentalists that would stop the teaching of evolution in schools and want their own particular myth treated as if it is true, given half a chance it evolutionary theory would not be part of the curriculum.
5b. ...or terrorists that blow up abortion clinics to inpose their will by fear.
5c. In Scotland we have interdenominational schools where the catholic hierarchy insist their pupils have a seperate entrance. Even the pupils think that one daft.
5d. Christian groups that try and ban the teaching of sex education in schools and insist on religious education or who picket outside theatres because they think the play is blasphemous-abpout time we did away with blasphemy laws altogether, the concept is ludicrous.
5e. You never saw the IRA bombing campaoigns described as Catholic terror because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign.
5f. You seem incapable of understanding that an IRA terrorist is still a terrorist as is a UDA terrorist or an islamic terrorists. Whichever religon whose name they carry out their atrocities in they are still terrorists. If you condemn terrorists then you should condemn them. This murderer good this one bad just doesn't make any sense.
5g. You condemn what you see as british occupation of northern Ireland and applaud IRA freedom fighters as they blow up women and children
5h. ....but also applaud the israeli occupation of palestine and recent invasion of lebanon and condemn those who resist as terrorists. It seems terrorists/freedom fighter is a distinction you make depending on your mood.
5i. From the Orangeman's perpective they are defending themselves from a religon that will not tolerate their faith and impose their beliefs on them. Religious warfare, sectarianism and blind hatred is hardly a preserve of the middle east.
5j. I'm not even going to try and explain Irish history to you. You seem reasonably intelligent go ao and find out before you make inane comments about northern ireland being occupied by non irish louts.
5k. You relish terms like islamofascists and use the language of hatred with great glee. You could be posting about any religon, just change islam to catholic or protestent or jew the sentiments are the same as of sectarianism hatred the world over. gmc, even for you that's a lot of hot air for a single post, and I will respond only very briefly because I have very little time, and frankly, because your nonsense doesn't deserve a longer response.
3. You can't get away with that, and the fact that you keep trying only attests to the fatuousness of your argument. You can't ass-ert that the the victims of terrorism are really the terrorists and the terrorists are really the victims and have any credibility except among morons and terrorist-sympathizers. If you challenge that evaluation, give the details of a recent Jewish or Christian suicide bombing.
5a. How about them? First of all, how are they threatening the world with nuclear annihilation? Secondly, where have they been successful? There are religious fanatics everywhere. In the USA, their fanaticism is constitutionally protected 'only to the end of my nose and no further'. I can't comment on the situation in other counrties, except to say that here in Germany, such fanatics are few in number and considered a joke or an embarrassment by everyone else.
5b. Those are terrorists indeed, but I know of no religion that supports that, except possibly Islam. I have no idea if legal abortion is available in any of the various Islamic hellholes.. I DO know that they think nothing of bombing the mosques of rival factions within Islam, so perhaps if they found an abortion provider they would bomb him/her also. I really don't know.
5c. Never having been in Scotland I will have to take your word for it. I really have no idea what sort of religious tension exists there.
5d. Again I can speak only for the USA. Religion in schools is unconstitutional, and this has been affirmed time after time. Peaceful picketing is, however, constitutionally protected.
5e. OK. I agree with that.
5f. I agree to some extent, but the former are not threatening the world with nuclear holocaust as the Islamic militants are. Surely you can perceive the distinction here.
5g. Whoa, young man, you are WAY over the line here. I never expressed, implied or even suggested any such thing, and as you must realize, IRA terrorists are condemned by their Church while Islamic clerics not only encourage but in many cases actually direct Islamic terrorism. You need to get a grip on reality.
5h. I'm not 'applauding' anything. The Israelis' choice is to fight terrorism or surrender to it. They have chosen to fight back. You would, in the same position, I guess, surrender. I hope for your sake and that of your family, especially the women, that you will never be in that position with regard to Islamic aggression.
5i. Here you are incorrect, and as a denizen of the region should know better. There are lots of Protestants in Eire and if there is any discrimination against them, I am not aware of it nor have I heard them complain. If I am wrong, please give some examples with documentation. They are obviously a minority religion, as in Italy, Austria, Poland, and some other European countries. I know of no oppression of Protestantism in any of those places, certainly not in Austria where I have lived. If there were any Protestants there we weren't aware of them but if we had been we certainly wouldn't have persecuted them!
5j. I am quite familiar with Irish history.
5k. See 3. Utter nonsense. Catholicism, Protestantism, Zen Buddhism, none of them threaten freedom and democracy around the world. Islamic terrorism does, and is very straghtforward about it. Wise up!
Edited the next day to make this correction:Item 5d should read: "The teaching of religion in public schools is unconstitutional." The teaching of religion is parochial schools is, of course, constitutionally protected.
And Bush speaketh!!!
The people under the Islamic faith that are doing the suicide bombings though, are considers terrorits, I always thought that terriosts had to have no nation to given that title, yet they do it under the name of Islam or whatever sect of Islam that they are trying to pass their influence over. My argument then is that the zealots that are doing these acts are grossly mislabeled and misrepresent the islamic ideals. Basically put they are doing it under the name of Islam, but is that Islam?
If there were a person on this forum who read the entire Koran, then in which specific passage does it state that sacrifacing yourself for these ideals will give you what you want.
I think that the preception of the action of these sucide bombers is misinterpreted as religion, and instead should be represented as more of a desperate protest.
Now of course we are not going to say that every Isamic practioner is a suicide bomber or "terrorist" not to metion that ***** or Sunni Islamic member is not a "terrorist" but in my opinion it has been easier throughout this conflict to trademark those who were doing the bombings as one who was an Islamic terrorist, or at least if my memory serves me there was one particular instance when proganda was spreading that these "terrorists" were all apart of Islam in general like there was no distinction. (I don't remember exactly).
But anyway the main point here is that, the finger cannot be pointed at Islam, because its a grey term, in others words its way too general to just assume that everything rotates back to the Islamic faith; rahter why has this persuasion of sucide bombing suddenly sparked, and who or what is the cause for it? We all know the answer, but do we know the logic behind it?
(if this was confusing I apoligize)
If there were a person on this forum who read the entire Koran, then in which specific passage does it state that sacrifacing yourself for these ideals will give you what you want.
I think that the preception of the action of these sucide bombers is misinterpreted as religion, and instead should be represented as more of a desperate protest.
Now of course we are not going to say that every Isamic practioner is a suicide bomber or "terrorist" not to metion that ***** or Sunni Islamic member is not a "terrorist" but in my opinion it has been easier throughout this conflict to trademark those who were doing the bombings as one who was an Islamic terrorist, or at least if my memory serves me there was one particular instance when proganda was spreading that these "terrorists" were all apart of Islam in general like there was no distinction. (I don't remember exactly).
But anyway the main point here is that, the finger cannot be pointed at Islam, because its a grey term, in others words its way too general to just assume that everything rotates back to the Islamic faith; rahter why has this persuasion of sucide bombing suddenly sparked, and who or what is the cause for it? We all know the answer, but do we know the logic behind it?
(if this was confusing I apoligize)
And Bush speaketh!!!
posted by bronwen
gmc, even for you that's a lot of hot air for a single post, and I will respond only very briefly because I have very little time, and frankly, because your nonsense doesn't deserve a longer response.
You know you disappoint me bronwen. I enjoy this forum because most of the people will indulge in debate with people whom they have passionate disagreement out of interest and a desire to expand their knowledge. Very seldom does it get personal and most will look at the others points objectively.
I prefer to think the best of people and at first I thought you were simply obtuse, then i thought you might be deliberately trying to appear that way, then I thought perhaps english was a second language and you couldn't follow the nuances so I presevered rather than dismissing you as a complete numpty not worth the bother because you seem incapable of taking on board or even understanding most of the points made by myself and others or indeed having the courtesy of a civil reply.
I still like to think the best of people so rather than conclude you are a narrow minded bigot with the intellect of a dead budgie I've decided you are a space alien from a different planet. Don't bother replying because quite frankly I have lost interest in anything you have to say.
gmc, even for you that's a lot of hot air for a single post, and I will respond only very briefly because I have very little time, and frankly, because your nonsense doesn't deserve a longer response.
You know you disappoint me bronwen. I enjoy this forum because most of the people will indulge in debate with people whom they have passionate disagreement out of interest and a desire to expand their knowledge. Very seldom does it get personal and most will look at the others points objectively.
I prefer to think the best of people and at first I thought you were simply obtuse, then i thought you might be deliberately trying to appear that way, then I thought perhaps english was a second language and you couldn't follow the nuances so I presevered rather than dismissing you as a complete numpty not worth the bother because you seem incapable of taking on board or even understanding most of the points made by myself and others or indeed having the courtesy of a civil reply.
I still like to think the best of people so rather than conclude you are a narrow minded bigot with the intellect of a dead budgie I've decided you are a space alien from a different planet. Don't bother replying because quite frankly I have lost interest in anything you have to say.
And Bush speaketh!!!
gmc wrote: I still like to think the best of people so rather than conclude you are a narrow minded bigot with the intellect of a dead budgie I've decided you are a space alien from a different planet. Don't bother replying because quite frankly I have lost interest in anything you have to say.Which is, of course, just a dishonest way of saying that you are unable to defend any of your assertions or respond intelligently to any of the questions or challenges I've laid before you.
Why not at least be honest about it?
The reason I don't respond at greater length is that you and I have been through all of this several times before. You are boring me and we are boring the other members here. You can't keep insisting that the Israelis, victims of terrorism since the first day of their country's existence, are really the terrorists and that the terrorists, against whom Israel has defended itself bravely, are really the victims, and expect to have any credibility except among your fellow apologists for terrorism.
The sad part is that you don't seem to realize that Islamic terrorism extends far beyond the Middle East and will be knocking on YOUR door soon. How will you respond? Will you bake them a cake and turn your mother, wife, and daughters over to them, to be treated worse than animals under Shariya law, or will you defend your family, your country, and your way of life as the Israelis have done? Hmmm? It's your choice, guy.
Why not at least be honest about it?
The reason I don't respond at greater length is that you and I have been through all of this several times before. You are boring me and we are boring the other members here. You can't keep insisting that the Israelis, victims of terrorism since the first day of their country's existence, are really the terrorists and that the terrorists, against whom Israel has defended itself bravely, are really the victims, and expect to have any credibility except among your fellow apologists for terrorism.
The sad part is that you don't seem to realize that Islamic terrorism extends far beyond the Middle East and will be knocking on YOUR door soon. How will you respond? Will you bake them a cake and turn your mother, wife, and daughters over to them, to be treated worse than animals under Shariya law, or will you defend your family, your country, and your way of life as the Israelis have done? Hmmm? It's your choice, guy.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Previously posted by Scat:3. Why did we depose Saddam .Previously posted by me: 3. I dunno, but I know who's next. I haven't learned to spell his name yet but I think it starts with Ahmen.
Added the following day: ...or is it Ahmed...? I told you I couldn't spell it. In any case, he's the Ayatollah's top toady.A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d.
Big mouth, small brain.
Long name, short future.
Added the following day: ...or is it Ahmed...? I told you I couldn't spell it. In any case, he's the Ayatollah's top toady.A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d.
Big mouth, small brain.
Long name, short future.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: 2. What nonsense. Why should they hate that part of humanity which is trying to liberate them from Islamic terrorism? The only reason I can think of is that they must support that terrorism.
3. Huh? How does one show humanity to bloodthirsty muderers?
4. Well, yeah, I'd say history books and encyclopediae are reasonably reliable on such matters, and of course, one is always free to consult more than one. In doing so, I have never found any major conflicts or contradictions. However, BM, and this may come as a shock to you, there exist people of a certain mental disposition who seem always inclined toward believing the outrageous, the conspiratorial, and the propagandistic while regarding all of history generally regarded as accurate to be part of an enormous conspiracy to keep the 'truth' from us. Some of those nutcases inhabit this very forum. They are not difficult to spot.
5. You will have to talk to the Orangemen about that. I don't see them, despicable as they are, threatening the world with nuclear weapons any time soon, and by the way, being Catholic is hardly a misfortune.
Why not just say that the children in question are Irishmen having the misfortune to be living in a part of Ireland occupied by non-Irish louts?
2. Given that the original statement I was responding to was :-
Bronwen wrote: What crapola! How does killing and/or imprisoning as many as them as possible help them?
I do not see the relevance or your reply
3. Not with rants like :-
Bronwen wrote: That may be true, the point is, the enemy is the filthy, blood-drenched Islamic religion, not a country or a people. One does not perceive a lot of terrorism amongst the Christians of those countries in the region in which Christianity is tolerated.
4. I too use history book and encyclopedias (Britanica for preference). I also referrence quite a range of websites - mostly British, US or Israeli. I fail to see from my reading that the Islamic faith is filthy or any more blood drenched than the Christian and I would suggest that, if this is what you glean from your referrence works, then either the chioce of references is skewed or your reading of them is.
5. And I don't see the Palestinians threattening anyone with nuclear weapons either. You challenged me to :-
Bronwen wrote: give some examples of contemporary 'Christo-fascism'? And why do I know that they are going to be absolute nonsense before I even see them?
and I did exactly that - why are you now trying to change the subject?
The misfortune of the children in being Catholic is that they have to walk to school along a street on the edge of a Protestant area - no-one in this sorry tale is non-Irish.
As an example of contemporary 'Christo-fascism' it stands up perfectly.
3. Huh? How does one show humanity to bloodthirsty muderers?
4. Well, yeah, I'd say history books and encyclopediae are reasonably reliable on such matters, and of course, one is always free to consult more than one. In doing so, I have never found any major conflicts or contradictions. However, BM, and this may come as a shock to you, there exist people of a certain mental disposition who seem always inclined toward believing the outrageous, the conspiratorial, and the propagandistic while regarding all of history generally regarded as accurate to be part of an enormous conspiracy to keep the 'truth' from us. Some of those nutcases inhabit this very forum. They are not difficult to spot.
5. You will have to talk to the Orangemen about that. I don't see them, despicable as they are, threatening the world with nuclear weapons any time soon, and by the way, being Catholic is hardly a misfortune.
Why not just say that the children in question are Irishmen having the misfortune to be living in a part of Ireland occupied by non-Irish louts?
2. Given that the original statement I was responding to was :-
Bronwen wrote: What crapola! How does killing and/or imprisoning as many as them as possible help them?
I do not see the relevance or your reply
3. Not with rants like :-
Bronwen wrote: That may be true, the point is, the enemy is the filthy, blood-drenched Islamic religion, not a country or a people. One does not perceive a lot of terrorism amongst the Christians of those countries in the region in which Christianity is tolerated.
4. I too use history book and encyclopedias (Britanica for preference). I also referrence quite a range of websites - mostly British, US or Israeli. I fail to see from my reading that the Islamic faith is filthy or any more blood drenched than the Christian and I would suggest that, if this is what you glean from your referrence works, then either the chioce of references is skewed or your reading of them is.
5. And I don't see the Palestinians threattening anyone with nuclear weapons either. You challenged me to :-
Bronwen wrote: give some examples of contemporary 'Christo-fascism'? And why do I know that they are going to be absolute nonsense before I even see them?
and I did exactly that - why are you now trying to change the subject?
The misfortune of the children in being Catholic is that they have to walk to school along a street on the edge of a Protestant area - no-one in this sorry tale is non-Irish.
As an example of contemporary 'Christo-fascism' it stands up perfectly.
And Bush speaketh!!!
nvalleyvee wrote: Bryn Mawr.............
YOu corrupted the name of an excellent college with your go back to the middle east attitudes.
Get out of this country..............I do not want you here.................
You have slammed my beliefs in MY COUNTRY...........go HOME wherever your home is ...........GO...............DO NOT COME BACK
Sorry to disappoint you but I know nothing of your college - I was born in the village of Brynmawr and I'm proud of it.
Also, I'm not in your country so I cannot get out of it.
As far as I know, I have posted nothing in your direction and can therefore not have slammed your beliefs. If you are referring to my posts to Bronwen I happen to find her posted opinions offensive and I will say so whether you like it or not.
If you want to defend those opinions or post some of your own then you are quite welcome to but please, do so rationally.
YOu corrupted the name of an excellent college with your go back to the middle east attitudes.
Get out of this country..............I do not want you here.................
You have slammed my beliefs in MY COUNTRY...........go HOME wherever your home is ...........GO...............DO NOT COME BACK
Sorry to disappoint you but I know nothing of your college - I was born in the village of Brynmawr and I'm proud of it.
Also, I'm not in your country so I cannot get out of it.
As far as I know, I have posted nothing in your direction and can therefore not have slammed your beliefs. If you are referring to my posts to Bronwen I happen to find her posted opinions offensive and I will say so whether you like it or not.
If you want to defend those opinions or post some of your own then you are quite welcome to but please, do so rationally.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: Which is, of course, just a dishonest way of saying that you are unable to defend any of your assertions or respond intelligently to any of the questions or challenges I've laid before you.
Why not at least be honest about it?
Bronwen, even for you that is outragious.
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.
Why not at least be honest about it?
Bronwen, even for you that is outragious.
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Scrat wrote: I don't think so...Well, you obviously have a right to your opinion but you are ignoring that fact that...well, actually you're ignoring LOTS of facts, but let's start with just two or three.
The reason most of the terrorist leaders that you seem to admire so are still in business is that they're hiding in caves or holes somewhere. Otherwise they would have been reduced to grease stains on the pavement months or years ago.
Ahmawhatshisass is out there in the open and an easy target.
Iraq is a tiny part of the worldwide problem of Islamic terrorism, and as I pointed out previously, Bush and his ill-advisors will be history in less that 2 1/2 years. At that point - maybe sooner - the Iraq situation can be re-examined, but that has little to do with the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism. To imply that the European nations are taking, or will take sides with the terrorists against freedom and democracy is beyond silly, it's frankly quite asinine.
Iran WILL continue to develop nuclear capabilitiy and WILL be stopped, by the US, Israel or both. And that will be the end of both the Ayatollah and A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. That the Iranians, freed from the yoke of Islamic oppression, will then be successful in developing a free society I cannot guarantee.
The reason most of the terrorist leaders that you seem to admire so are still in business is that they're hiding in caves or holes somewhere. Otherwise they would have been reduced to grease stains on the pavement months or years ago.
Ahmawhatshisass is out there in the open and an easy target.
Iraq is a tiny part of the worldwide problem of Islamic terrorism, and as I pointed out previously, Bush and his ill-advisors will be history in less that 2 1/2 years. At that point - maybe sooner - the Iraq situation can be re-examined, but that has little to do with the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism. To imply that the European nations are taking, or will take sides with the terrorists against freedom and democracy is beyond silly, it's frankly quite asinine.
Iran WILL continue to develop nuclear capabilitiy and WILL be stopped, by the US, Israel or both. And that will be the end of both the Ayatollah and A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d. That the Iranians, freed from the yoke of Islamic oppression, will then be successful in developing a free society I cannot guarantee.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: Bronwen, even for you that is outragious.
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.Whaddayamean? It's one of her favorite responses.
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.Whaddayamean? It's one of her favorite responses.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: Bronwen, even for you that is outragious.
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.Well, I'm sorry, BM, that is not true. Maybe you'd better go back and read them again. Then if you haven't found all of the points to which he has NOT responded, I'll repeat them.
Anyway, why not let him speak for himself...oh yeah, I forgot, he turned chicken. Cluck, cluck, cluck!nv wrote: Originally Posted by nvalleyvee
Bryn Mawr.............YOu corrupted the name of an excellent college with your go back to the middle east attitudes.
Get out of this country..............I do not want you here.................
You have slammed my beliefs in MY COUNTRY...........go HOME wherever your home is ...........GO...............DO NOT COME BACKCalm down, NV. Actually, BM and I have very similar screen names. His means 'big hill' in Welsh, mine means 'white bosom' (two big hills). Bryn Mawr college is in....Pennsylvania?
GMC has been answering every one of your points - frequently and at great length.
That response was not worthy you.Well, I'm sorry, BM, that is not true. Maybe you'd better go back and read them again. Then if you haven't found all of the points to which he has NOT responded, I'll repeat them.
Anyway, why not let him speak for himself...oh yeah, I forgot, he turned chicken. Cluck, cluck, cluck!nv wrote: Originally Posted by nvalleyvee
Bryn Mawr.............YOu corrupted the name of an excellent college with your go back to the middle east attitudes.
Get out of this country..............I do not want you here.................
You have slammed my beliefs in MY COUNTRY...........go HOME wherever your home is ...........GO...............DO NOT COME BACKCalm down, NV. Actually, BM and I have very similar screen names. His means 'big hill' in Welsh, mine means 'white bosom' (two big hills). Bryn Mawr college is in....Pennsylvania?
And Bush speaketh!!!
Scrat wrote: I don't think so. Warfare has changed, the insurgents in the Mid East have found the answer to our style of combined arms warfare. Against them and their tactics it is all but useless.
Many of our generals still think we are fighting the Soviets/Russians, they have been programmed to think that way. The evidence of this is in the Israeli debacle in Lebanon. They are modeled after our own army. Our Armies have poor leadership, officers are carreerists, they won't say a thing for fear of losing their retirement benefits. This leads to bad information being exchanged resulting in self delusion, bad decisions and bad morale.
The military we have now find themselves struggling to keep people in the ranks and have to resort to any means necessary to fill the ranks. Thugs and many other kinds of dubious characters are entering the military not excluding the village idiot.
The cost of supporting the military infrastructure we have in the Mid East is not sustainable now. To send any amount of force into a country like Iran is pure idiocy inder these conditions. It seems the American military cannot control a country that has seen 2 decades of warfare (specifically Iraq) and had its army all but destroyed and a decade of sanctions placed on it.
Just what do you think will happen when we go after a much more capable foe like Iran which has a decent military capability complete with arms factories for such goodies as MANPADS and Kornet ATMs? They have had years to prepare. Not to mention many other goodies that can be used to slaughter soldiers at a very high rate.
Your statement is the fantasy of a deluded, insane and thought processed challenged mind.
Ever serve in the military there Scrat? By the ignorance of your statements I would seriously doubt it. You obviously have given your rants all of about three seconds of thought.
Let's begin with our critique:
Frist, warfare has not changed in the least, technology and lethality of weapons have changed but that is all. As most people who don't think much about an issue you have made a simple (incorrect generalization) about a very complex issue. Your statement about insurgents in the ME finding the answer to combined arms warfare while having a nugget of truth is basically incorrect.
In Iraq, the US invaded and easily defeated Iraqs conventional military and Fedayeen flunkies. A window of opportunity was missed because the Bush gang did almost no planning for what happened after the war. A chance to gain the goodwill of many Iraqis was squandered due to political and administrative mistakes not military ones. The insurgency that developed initially was of three types 1) Arab terroists from other contries inifiltrating into Iraq from Syria for a chance die fighting Americans (most have) 2) Left over Baathists, unhappy with being offered no power in the new Iraq 3) Shiite militias out to settle old scores and grab power for themselves and backed by the Iranian Theocracy who would love to see a new Islamo-facist state in Iraq as a buffer. Over time this has changed into a primarily sectarian conflict (civil war) between the Shia and Sunnis gunmen. Let's also not forget common thugs and criminals, the new national past time in Iraq is kidnapping for money. Americans are now stuck in the middle of this thanks to George W. Bush.
A word about tactics of the insurgents. Yes, they are effective because of the situation the Bush administration now finds itself. American convoys and patrols make easy targets to improvised bombs, and booby traps. This really has nothing to with the use of combined arms against the insurgents as they are not usually used in order to avoid massive civilian casualties and damage. It's not an appropriate tool. The tactics used by the insurgents are nothing new in the history of warfare.
I served fairly recently in the US military and call your characterizations of it's members a blatant lie. Our generals understand perfectly well what they are up against, many counseled (although not publically) against some of the very political decsions that got us into this mess. The military was designed to be a blunt trauma instrument for delivering deadly force to an enemy military and infrastructue. It was not designed to administer broken countries, police them, feed them, and provide basic services that a countries own government normally supplies. Since I have served personally with the men and women in US miliatry I know your statements about them to be pure BS. All of them are at least high scholl grads and many have a year or two of college. They are well trained and highly motivated. It's not their fault they have idiots for civilian authorities leading them. Your total lack of empahty and concern for them disturbs me greatly.
Finally, your statement about Iranian miliatry capabilities is a joke. Iran is the bully of the block in the ME but have only third world conventional military. They have very average air defenses and virtually no navy. They do have a lot of cannon fodder though and that makes them dangerous to their neighbors. Iran is counting on the current mess the Bush administration has created to keep the US out of a military confontation which Iran would lose very badly.
Many of our generals still think we are fighting the Soviets/Russians, they have been programmed to think that way. The evidence of this is in the Israeli debacle in Lebanon. They are modeled after our own army. Our Armies have poor leadership, officers are carreerists, they won't say a thing for fear of losing their retirement benefits. This leads to bad information being exchanged resulting in self delusion, bad decisions and bad morale.
The military we have now find themselves struggling to keep people in the ranks and have to resort to any means necessary to fill the ranks. Thugs and many other kinds of dubious characters are entering the military not excluding the village idiot.
The cost of supporting the military infrastructure we have in the Mid East is not sustainable now. To send any amount of force into a country like Iran is pure idiocy inder these conditions. It seems the American military cannot control a country that has seen 2 decades of warfare (specifically Iraq) and had its army all but destroyed and a decade of sanctions placed on it.
Just what do you think will happen when we go after a much more capable foe like Iran which has a decent military capability complete with arms factories for such goodies as MANPADS and Kornet ATMs? They have had years to prepare. Not to mention many other goodies that can be used to slaughter soldiers at a very high rate.
Your statement is the fantasy of a deluded, insane and thought processed challenged mind.
Ever serve in the military there Scrat? By the ignorance of your statements I would seriously doubt it. You obviously have given your rants all of about three seconds of thought.
Let's begin with our critique:
Frist, warfare has not changed in the least, technology and lethality of weapons have changed but that is all. As most people who don't think much about an issue you have made a simple (incorrect generalization) about a very complex issue. Your statement about insurgents in the ME finding the answer to combined arms warfare while having a nugget of truth is basically incorrect.
In Iraq, the US invaded and easily defeated Iraqs conventional military and Fedayeen flunkies. A window of opportunity was missed because the Bush gang did almost no planning for what happened after the war. A chance to gain the goodwill of many Iraqis was squandered due to political and administrative mistakes not military ones. The insurgency that developed initially was of three types 1) Arab terroists from other contries inifiltrating into Iraq from Syria for a chance die fighting Americans (most have) 2) Left over Baathists, unhappy with being offered no power in the new Iraq 3) Shiite militias out to settle old scores and grab power for themselves and backed by the Iranian Theocracy who would love to see a new Islamo-facist state in Iraq as a buffer. Over time this has changed into a primarily sectarian conflict (civil war) between the Shia and Sunnis gunmen. Let's also not forget common thugs and criminals, the new national past time in Iraq is kidnapping for money. Americans are now stuck in the middle of this thanks to George W. Bush.
A word about tactics of the insurgents. Yes, they are effective because of the situation the Bush administration now finds itself. American convoys and patrols make easy targets to improvised bombs, and booby traps. This really has nothing to with the use of combined arms against the insurgents as they are not usually used in order to avoid massive civilian casualties and damage. It's not an appropriate tool. The tactics used by the insurgents are nothing new in the history of warfare.
I served fairly recently in the US military and call your characterizations of it's members a blatant lie. Our generals understand perfectly well what they are up against, many counseled (although not publically) against some of the very political decsions that got us into this mess. The military was designed to be a blunt trauma instrument for delivering deadly force to an enemy military and infrastructue. It was not designed to administer broken countries, police them, feed them, and provide basic services that a countries own government normally supplies. Since I have served personally with the men and women in US miliatry I know your statements about them to be pure BS. All of them are at least high scholl grads and many have a year or two of college. They are well trained and highly motivated. It's not their fault they have idiots for civilian authorities leading them. Your total lack of empahty and concern for them disturbs me greatly.
Finally, your statement about Iranian miliatry capabilities is a joke. Iran is the bully of the block in the ME but have only third world conventional military. They have very average air defenses and virtually no navy. They do have a lot of cannon fodder though and that makes them dangerous to their neighbors. Iran is counting on the current mess the Bush administration has created to keep the US out of a military confontation which Iran would lose very badly.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: Ever serve in the military there Scrat? By the ignorance of your statements I would seriously doubt it. You obviously have given your rants all of about three seconds of thought.
Let's begin with our critique:
Frist, warfare has not changed in the least, technology and lethality of weapons have changed but that is all. As most people who don't think much about an issue you have made a simple (incorrect generalization) about a very complex issue. Your statement about insurgents in the ME finding the answer to combined arms warfare while having a nugget of truth is basically incorrect.
In Iraq, the US invaded and easily defeated Iraqs conventional military and Fedayeen flunkies. A window of opportunity was missed because the Bush gang did almost no planning for what happened after the war. A chance to gain the goodwill of many Iraqis was squandered due to political and administrative mistakes not military ones. The insurgency that developed initially was of three types 1) Arab terroists from other contries inifiltrating into Iraq from Syria for a chance die fighting Americans (most have) 2) Left over Baathists, unhappy with being offered no power in the new Iraq 3) Shiite militias out to settle old scores and grab power for themselves and backed by the Iranian Theocracy who would love to see a new Islamo-facist state in Iraq as a buffer. Over time this has changed into a primarily sectarian conflict (civil war) between the Shia and Sunnis gunmen. Let's also not forget common thugs and criminals, the new national past time in Iraq is kidnapping for money. Americans are now stuck in the middle of this thanks to George W. Bush.
A word about tactics of the insurgents. Yes, they are effective because of the situation the Bush administration now finds itself. American convoys and patrols make easy targets to improvised bombs, and booby traps. This really has nothing to with the use of combined arms against the insurgents as they are not usually used in order to avoid massive civilian casualties and damage. It's not an appropriate tool. The tactics used by the insurgents are nothing new in the history of warfare.
I served fairly recently in the US military and call your characterizations of it's members a blatant lie. Our generals understand perfectly well what they are up against, many counseled (although not publically) against some of the very political decsions that got us into this mess. The military was designed to be a blunt trauma instrument for delivering deadly force to an enemy military and infrastructue. It was not designed to administer broken countries, police them, feed them, and provide basic services that a countries own government normally supplies. Since I have served personally with the men and women in US miliatry I know your statements about them to be pure BS. All of them are at least high scholl grads and many have a year or two of college. They are well trained and highly motivated. It's not their fault they have idiots for civilian authorities leading them. Your total lack of empahty and concern for them disturbs me greatly.
Finally, your statement about Iranian miliatry capabilities is a joke. Iran is the bully of the block in the ME but have only third world conventional military. They have very average air defenses and virtually no navy. They do have a lot of cannon fodder though and that makes them dangerous to their neighbors. Iran is counting on the current mess the Bush administration has created to keep the US out of a military confontation which Iran would lose very badly.
you guys are the....uh... um...... stupid yeah.
(just kidding of course)
But in the essence of warfare, I think most can agree that the present adminstration does not see this as a war, but rather as a supression; and I think its because of this attitude that a lot of the tatics that have been emplemented have only prolonged the situation as oppossed to actually stopping it.
I have to ask you, you were out in Iraq, you were actually there with the bullets flying around your head, so ask you What did you think of the military support that you recieved while out there? I hope that I don't imply it like I am insulting the american army, but in the back of mind I think that the actual support is lacking to make sure the situation os taken care of.
Let's begin with our critique:
Frist, warfare has not changed in the least, technology and lethality of weapons have changed but that is all. As most people who don't think much about an issue you have made a simple (incorrect generalization) about a very complex issue. Your statement about insurgents in the ME finding the answer to combined arms warfare while having a nugget of truth is basically incorrect.
In Iraq, the US invaded and easily defeated Iraqs conventional military and Fedayeen flunkies. A window of opportunity was missed because the Bush gang did almost no planning for what happened after the war. A chance to gain the goodwill of many Iraqis was squandered due to political and administrative mistakes not military ones. The insurgency that developed initially was of three types 1) Arab terroists from other contries inifiltrating into Iraq from Syria for a chance die fighting Americans (most have) 2) Left over Baathists, unhappy with being offered no power in the new Iraq 3) Shiite militias out to settle old scores and grab power for themselves and backed by the Iranian Theocracy who would love to see a new Islamo-facist state in Iraq as a buffer. Over time this has changed into a primarily sectarian conflict (civil war) between the Shia and Sunnis gunmen. Let's also not forget common thugs and criminals, the new national past time in Iraq is kidnapping for money. Americans are now stuck in the middle of this thanks to George W. Bush.
A word about tactics of the insurgents. Yes, they are effective because of the situation the Bush administration now finds itself. American convoys and patrols make easy targets to improvised bombs, and booby traps. This really has nothing to with the use of combined arms against the insurgents as they are not usually used in order to avoid massive civilian casualties and damage. It's not an appropriate tool. The tactics used by the insurgents are nothing new in the history of warfare.
I served fairly recently in the US military and call your characterizations of it's members a blatant lie. Our generals understand perfectly well what they are up against, many counseled (although not publically) against some of the very political decsions that got us into this mess. The military was designed to be a blunt trauma instrument for delivering deadly force to an enemy military and infrastructue. It was not designed to administer broken countries, police them, feed them, and provide basic services that a countries own government normally supplies. Since I have served personally with the men and women in US miliatry I know your statements about them to be pure BS. All of them are at least high scholl grads and many have a year or two of college. They are well trained and highly motivated. It's not their fault they have idiots for civilian authorities leading them. Your total lack of empahty and concern for them disturbs me greatly.
Finally, your statement about Iranian miliatry capabilities is a joke. Iran is the bully of the block in the ME but have only third world conventional military. They have very average air defenses and virtually no navy. They do have a lot of cannon fodder though and that makes them dangerous to their neighbors. Iran is counting on the current mess the Bush administration has created to keep the US out of a military confontation which Iran would lose very badly.
you guys are the....uh... um...... stupid yeah.
(just kidding of course)
But in the essence of warfare, I think most can agree that the present adminstration does not see this as a war, but rather as a supression; and I think its because of this attitude that a lot of the tatics that have been emplemented have only prolonged the situation as oppossed to actually stopping it.
I have to ask you, you were out in Iraq, you were actually there with the bullets flying around your head, so ask you What did you think of the military support that you recieved while out there? I hope that I don't imply it like I am insulting the american army, but in the back of mind I think that the actual support is lacking to make sure the situation os taken care of.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Scrat wrote: 1. We are fighting a movement that involves hundreds of millions of people not just a few figureheads.
2. You're not even making sense.
3. I have my doubts. I don't think the American people can see beyond the clump of grass in front of their muzzle. Bush will be gone but the replacement (I'm betting on his brother Jeb) will carry the torch.
4. They already have taken sides. Why in the hell do you think Bush went begging a few months ago and got nowhere? The European powers are taking their own safety into account with a wait and see attitude and one of clear disdain for Bush's. That and for economic reasons is why they are aligning themselves closer to Russia.
5. We will do nothing against Iran. She has broken up the factories into smaller facilities and hid them well by now. Anything we see is from sats or air recon is just bait.
6. You forget, Iran has the one thing we cannot live without in quantity. Oil. America and Israel will do nothing against them.
7. Why do you think Israel is purchasing ICBM capable submarines (Dolphins) from your country? They are going for the one thing that will check any agression Iran may instigate.
8. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. Just like the West and the Soviets it will be a standoff.1. Hundreds of millions of unwashed ragheads milling in their own streets, beating themselves with whips like perverted lunatics doesn't worry me much. The leadership, if you want to call it that, is hiding in holes. And you are trying to make your readers here believe that the European nations support such human filth rather than democracy?
2. Why is that nonsensical? The man is criminally insane and will probably be dead within a year or two, unless, of course, he finds a hole to hide in too.
3. Well, let me take time out here to ask you a simple and direct question: Who would YOU like to see elected US president in 2008? You have refused previous requests to identify your ethnic ancestry, so that it's unclear what sort of creature we are dealing with here, or whether you were US-born, and I suppose that is your right, this is basically an anonymous forum. I am quite proud of my American citizenship and also of my German and British ancestry; if you are of Arab extraction, frankly I don't blame you for being ashamed of that. If I were in that position I wouldn't want to admit it either. But in any case, how about at least giving us your choice for '08? And if you're willing to do that, how about also giving us an idea of how your friends, neighbors, and co-workers, if you work, regard your anti-American, pro-terrorist stance? Has anyone notified the FBI or Homeland Security? I gotta tell ya, if I worked in the same office with you, and you spewed there what you spew here, I would tip them off.
4. See 1. Taken sides with Islamic murderers? As the Brits say, not bloody likely.
5. I will remember that you said that as Teheran lies in ashes and both A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d and the Ayatollah, living or dead, are hung by their balls and put on display.
6. I haven't forgotten that at all. How much oil does the USA get from Iran? I gotta be honest, I don't know, I assume it is 000.00, but I might be wrong. This is your chance to enlighten me. Regarding oil from other Arab states, that is guaranteed by treaties. If the treaties are abrogated, the Western nations will simply seize the oil fields. So? You were expecting that we would just do without? Also, how would the various oil-producing hellholes feed their people without the oil trade. Have they figured out a way to eat the stuff?
7. To defend their country, their families, and their freedom from filthy Islamic terrorists! A concept that seems to elude you.
8. It's not mutual. Iran doesn't have nuclear capabilities and will not be allowed to attain them. You can't make much progress in that respect while hanging by your balls.
Regarding the West and Russia, you are probably much younger than I. That was never anything more than a charade, and, lest anyone doubt that, the Soviets proved it conclusively by wimping out in Cuba. Russia lost untold millions in WWII and were not about to destroy those who survived in a meaningless nuclear holocaust over trivial matters. The current situation is completely different. Islamic terrorism menaces the entire world and MUST be destroyed soon. The clock is ticking. It's time to separate those who value their freedom from those who support the terrorists.
It's obvious that you and I have chosen sides already - opposite sides. So be it.
2. You're not even making sense.
3. I have my doubts. I don't think the American people can see beyond the clump of grass in front of their muzzle. Bush will be gone but the replacement (I'm betting on his brother Jeb) will carry the torch.
4. They already have taken sides. Why in the hell do you think Bush went begging a few months ago and got nowhere? The European powers are taking their own safety into account with a wait and see attitude and one of clear disdain for Bush's. That and for economic reasons is why they are aligning themselves closer to Russia.
5. We will do nothing against Iran. She has broken up the factories into smaller facilities and hid them well by now. Anything we see is from sats or air recon is just bait.
6. You forget, Iran has the one thing we cannot live without in quantity. Oil. America and Israel will do nothing against them.
7. Why do you think Israel is purchasing ICBM capable submarines (Dolphins) from your country? They are going for the one thing that will check any agression Iran may instigate.
8. MAD. Mutual Assured Destruction. Just like the West and the Soviets it will be a standoff.1. Hundreds of millions of unwashed ragheads milling in their own streets, beating themselves with whips like perverted lunatics doesn't worry me much. The leadership, if you want to call it that, is hiding in holes. And you are trying to make your readers here believe that the European nations support such human filth rather than democracy?
2. Why is that nonsensical? The man is criminally insane and will probably be dead within a year or two, unless, of course, he finds a hole to hide in too.
3. Well, let me take time out here to ask you a simple and direct question: Who would YOU like to see elected US president in 2008? You have refused previous requests to identify your ethnic ancestry, so that it's unclear what sort of creature we are dealing with here, or whether you were US-born, and I suppose that is your right, this is basically an anonymous forum. I am quite proud of my American citizenship and also of my German and British ancestry; if you are of Arab extraction, frankly I don't blame you for being ashamed of that. If I were in that position I wouldn't want to admit it either. But in any case, how about at least giving us your choice for '08? And if you're willing to do that, how about also giving us an idea of how your friends, neighbors, and co-workers, if you work, regard your anti-American, pro-terrorist stance? Has anyone notified the FBI or Homeland Security? I gotta tell ya, if I worked in the same office with you, and you spewed there what you spew here, I would tip them off.
4. See 1. Taken sides with Islamic murderers? As the Brits say, not bloody likely.
5. I will remember that you said that as Teheran lies in ashes and both A-h-m-a-d-i-n-e-j-a-d and the Ayatollah, living or dead, are hung by their balls and put on display.
6. I haven't forgotten that at all. How much oil does the USA get from Iran? I gotta be honest, I don't know, I assume it is 000.00, but I might be wrong. This is your chance to enlighten me. Regarding oil from other Arab states, that is guaranteed by treaties. If the treaties are abrogated, the Western nations will simply seize the oil fields. So? You were expecting that we would just do without? Also, how would the various oil-producing hellholes feed their people without the oil trade. Have they figured out a way to eat the stuff?
7. To defend their country, their families, and their freedom from filthy Islamic terrorists! A concept that seems to elude you.
8. It's not mutual. Iran doesn't have nuclear capabilities and will not be allowed to attain them. You can't make much progress in that respect while hanging by your balls.
Regarding the West and Russia, you are probably much younger than I. That was never anything more than a charade, and, lest anyone doubt that, the Soviets proved it conclusively by wimping out in Cuba. Russia lost untold millions in WWII and were not about to destroy those who survived in a meaningless nuclear holocaust over trivial matters. The current situation is completely different. Islamic terrorism menaces the entire world and MUST be destroyed soon. The clock is ticking. It's time to separate those who value their freedom from those who support the terrorists.
It's obvious that you and I have chosen sides already - opposite sides. So be it.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Are you for real!!!!!!
1. Hundreds of millions of unwashed ragheads milling in their own streets, beating themselves with whips like perverted lunatics doesn't worry me much. The leadership, if you want to call it that, is hiding in holes. And you are trying to make your readers here believe that the European nations support such human filth rather than democracy? (qouted from Bronwen)The re4. Really? Then why does every Muslim that I encounter here in Germany stink to high heaven? Granted that Germans feel that cleaning out toilets is beneath them and somebody's gotta do it, couldn't they at least wash up afterward?
reason most of the terrorist leaders that you seem to admire so are still in business is that they're hiding in caves or holes somewhere. Otherwise they would have been reduced to grease stains on the pavement months or years ago.
After reading this drivvle from you Bronwen all you have done is cemented the idea that l already had in my mind that you are an anti-semetic, xenaphobic racist.
No matter how many times many of thye good people on here have tried to show you the reasons for their opinions you appear to simply enjoy lashing out with hate and drivvle. So if someone doesnt agree with blowing the muslims up and getting rid of them as they all must be terrorists bewcause you say so then we automatically are terrorist sympathisers and we believe in them..come off it lady get a grip and understand that this is a debate and not all around the world yet have been brain washed into thinking that the world muslim goes hand in hand with death and terrorist or hate.
1. Hundreds of millions of unwashed ragheads milling in their own streets, beating themselves with whips like perverted lunatics doesn't worry me much. The leadership, if you want to call it that, is hiding in holes. And you are trying to make your readers here believe that the European nations support such human filth rather than democracy? (qouted from Bronwen)The re4. Really? Then why does every Muslim that I encounter here in Germany stink to high heaven? Granted that Germans feel that cleaning out toilets is beneath them and somebody's gotta do it, couldn't they at least wash up afterward?
reason most of the terrorist leaders that you seem to admire so are still in business is that they're hiding in caves or holes somewhere. Otherwise they would have been reduced to grease stains on the pavement months or years ago.
After reading this drivvle from you Bronwen all you have done is cemented the idea that l already had in my mind that you are an anti-semetic, xenaphobic racist.
No matter how many times many of thye good people on here have tried to show you the reasons for their opinions you appear to simply enjoy lashing out with hate and drivvle. So if someone doesnt agree with blowing the muslims up and getting rid of them as they all must be terrorists bewcause you say so then we automatically are terrorist sympathisers and we believe in them..come off it lady get a grip and understand that this is a debate and not all around the world yet have been brain washed into thinking that the world muslim goes hand in hand with death and terrorist or hate.
take a bite out of life it's there to be tasted!!
And Bush speaketh!!!
venus wrote: 1. After reading this drivvle from you Bronwen all you have done is cemented the idea that l already had in my mind that you are an anti-semetic, xenaphobic racist.
2. No matter how many times many of thye good people on here have tried to show you the reasons for their opinions you appear to simply enjoy lashing out with hate and drivvle.
3. So if someone doesnt agree with blowing the muslims up and getting rid of them as they all must be terrorists bewcause you say so then we automatically are terrorist sympathisers and we believe in them..come off it lady get a grip and understand that this is a debate and not all around the world yet have been brain washed into thinking that the world muslim goes hand in hand with death and terrorist or hate.1. Sweetie, if you wanna run your mouth off in print I suggest you begin with a good course in remedial spelling.
2. Terrorist supporters are not 'thye good people'. Indeed, in my opinion they share the terrorists guilt, responsibility, and untimately, their peril. As I said here a couple of times before, if you're out in the street yelling, 'Death to America - Death to Israel', you have no cause for compliant if EITHER of those nations kills you first. That is self-defense, V. Such people must be challenged, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one doing so here. That I might be a bit more confrontational than others I admit.
3. Dear, before we talk about 'blowing Muslims up' let's get down-to-earth about all the people that the Muslims blow up day after day in freedom-loving, democratic countries all over the world. Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
As I said before (lordy, how I hate having to keep repeating myself), when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist. Until then, I'll have to continue living in the real world, a world menaced by Islamic murderers of the foulest sort.
2. No matter how many times many of thye good people on here have tried to show you the reasons for their opinions you appear to simply enjoy lashing out with hate and drivvle.
3. So if someone doesnt agree with blowing the muslims up and getting rid of them as they all must be terrorists bewcause you say so then we automatically are terrorist sympathisers and we believe in them..come off it lady get a grip and understand that this is a debate and not all around the world yet have been brain washed into thinking that the world muslim goes hand in hand with death and terrorist or hate.1. Sweetie, if you wanna run your mouth off in print I suggest you begin with a good course in remedial spelling.
2. Terrorist supporters are not 'thye good people'. Indeed, in my opinion they share the terrorists guilt, responsibility, and untimately, their peril. As I said here a couple of times before, if you're out in the street yelling, 'Death to America - Death to Israel', you have no cause for compliant if EITHER of those nations kills you first. That is self-defense, V. Such people must be challenged, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one doing so here. That I might be a bit more confrontational than others I admit.
3. Dear, before we talk about 'blowing Muslims up' let's get down-to-earth about all the people that the Muslims blow up day after day in freedom-loving, democratic countries all over the world. Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
As I said before (lordy, how I hate having to keep repeating myself), when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist. Until then, I'll have to continue living in the real world, a world menaced by Islamic murderers of the foulest sort.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Scrat wrote: What in the hell do you know?
They have found the answer. A bunch of Mujahadeen in homespun cotton cloaks with 40 year old weapons and the MK 1 eyeball are depriving the 500 billion dollar (+/-) NATO war machine of control of Afghanistan?
I am spot on. Don't drop that nugget on your head Zinky.
Unfortunately people like you are making the same mistake the Soviets made when they went into the A-stan, Israel made in Lebanon and we made in Iraq, Viet Nam.
You can use that sledge hammer to smash the cup but the mercury inside of it is going to be all over the place.
They are still there. They continue to fight for power in Iraq, and they are not alone.
The conventional military at the time of the invasion? I think that any competent person would be stretching it to call it a military.
And they took out Al-Zaqari with a foot patrol? An M-1 tank? A mass of marines walking over the fields firing from the hip?
They used combines arms there, successfully for once. Intel pointed to a house on the ground, spec ops surrounded the place and they hit it with 500lb bombs.
Combined arms is what they are relying on, the force magnifier. 1 man is a walking army. That is what they used on the Taliban. They are still using it in Iraq with (I suspect) little success except in certain instances.
That is the same basic flaw that the insurgents are using to their advantage. A one man army can only see so far even with eyes in the sky. They cannot see into garages where carbombs are being made, they cannot see tunnel systems like the Heezies had under the noses of the IDF (an old standby of the VC) which they were unprepared for.
The insurgents have adapted their fighting methods and I would say very successfully. I find your argument lacking.
Any statement I uttered I will not be taking back any time soon. As a matter of fact in light of certain things happening such as that rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family, including her 8 year old sister, I have lost one hell of a lot of respect for our military.
Why? I was once in the military and I know the mindset. I have seen lots of video shot by soldiers that show behavior no better than the so called terrorists. I expect more than that.
I'll not take back anything I have said about any 0 in the military as in my eyes they are the worst. Simple self involved, vainglorious egomaniacs that don't have the courage to speak out because it's easier to keep ones mouth shut and collect your pension.
Cowards.
That's all for tonight folks.
So when were you in the miltary Scrat? What service and branch? Been in combat? I doubt it. I bet you didn't even finish your full enilstment. I think most likely you just couldn't cut it and now hate the miltary.
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.
They have found the answer. A bunch of Mujahadeen in homespun cotton cloaks with 40 year old weapons and the MK 1 eyeball are depriving the 500 billion dollar (+/-) NATO war machine of control of Afghanistan?
I am spot on. Don't drop that nugget on your head Zinky.
Unfortunately people like you are making the same mistake the Soviets made when they went into the A-stan, Israel made in Lebanon and we made in Iraq, Viet Nam.
You can use that sledge hammer to smash the cup but the mercury inside of it is going to be all over the place.
They are still there. They continue to fight for power in Iraq, and they are not alone.
The conventional military at the time of the invasion? I think that any competent person would be stretching it to call it a military.
And they took out Al-Zaqari with a foot patrol? An M-1 tank? A mass of marines walking over the fields firing from the hip?
They used combines arms there, successfully for once. Intel pointed to a house on the ground, spec ops surrounded the place and they hit it with 500lb bombs.
Combined arms is what they are relying on, the force magnifier. 1 man is a walking army. That is what they used on the Taliban. They are still using it in Iraq with (I suspect) little success except in certain instances.
That is the same basic flaw that the insurgents are using to their advantage. A one man army can only see so far even with eyes in the sky. They cannot see into garages where carbombs are being made, they cannot see tunnel systems like the Heezies had under the noses of the IDF (an old standby of the VC) which they were unprepared for.
The insurgents have adapted their fighting methods and I would say very successfully. I find your argument lacking.
Any statement I uttered I will not be taking back any time soon. As a matter of fact in light of certain things happening such as that rape and murder of a 14 year old girl and her family, including her 8 year old sister, I have lost one hell of a lot of respect for our military.
Why? I was once in the military and I know the mindset. I have seen lots of video shot by soldiers that show behavior no better than the so called terrorists. I expect more than that.
I'll not take back anything I have said about any 0 in the military as in my eyes they are the worst. Simple self involved, vainglorious egomaniacs that don't have the courage to speak out because it's easier to keep ones mouth shut and collect your pension.
Cowards.
That's all for tonight folks.
So when were you in the miltary Scrat? What service and branch? Been in combat? I doubt it. I bet you didn't even finish your full enilstment. I think most likely you just couldn't cut it and now hate the miltary.
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: So when were you in the miltary Scrat? What service and branch? Been in combat? I doubt it. I bet you didn't even finish your full enilstment. I think most likely you just couldn't cut it and now hate the miltary.
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.Scat doesn't answer personal questions, probably because doing so would reveal, or at least suggest, his real motive for supporting Islamic terrorism.
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.Scat doesn't answer personal questions, probably because doing so would reveal, or at least suggest, his real motive for supporting Islamic terrorism.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: Scat doesn't answer personal questions, probably because doing so would reveal, or at least suggest, his real motive for supporting Islamic terrorism.
Yeah, he's probably one of their schills and really lives in Damascus.
Yeah, he's probably one of their schills and really lives in Damascus.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Scrat wrote: I'll be back tonight. I can't play right now. What race am I? IT'S CALLED A SEARCH.
Do it losers.
Your nurses are calling you for your medications scat..
Do it losers.
Your nurses are calling you for your medications scat..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: 1. Sweetie, if you wanna run your mouth off in print I suggest you begin with a good course in remedial spelling.
2. Terrorist supporters are not 'thye good people'. Indeed, in my opinion they share the terrorists guilt, responsibility, and untimately, their peril. As I said here a couple of times before, if you're out in the street yelling, 'Death to America - Death to Israel', you have no cause for compliant if EITHER of those nations kills you first. That is self-defense, V. Such people must be challenged, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one doing so here. That I might be a bit more confrontational than others I admit.
3. Dear, before we talk about 'blowing Muslims up' let's get down-to-earth about all the people that the Muslims blow up day after day in freedom-loving, democratic countries all over the world. Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
As I said before (lordy, how I hate having to keep repeating myself), when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist. Until then, I'll have to continue living in the real world, a world menaced by Islamic murderers of the foulest sort.
The thing that makes me laugh about the right wing pseudo-concern-moralist brigade, is that they have the audacity to say "We went over there to liberate the Muslims" or the ever predictable soundbite of "Saddam was killing his own people"....yeah right, as if you really give a crap when you come out with your Islamophobic right wing racist bile.
If you were so worried about him killing his own people or those poor repressed innocent 'rag heads', then you'd have protested against the west selling him the weapons in the first place.
Hypocritical xenophobic racist.
Haven't you learned anything about totallitarian oppression from your own countrys history?
As for your theory on self defence.
Interesting when you consider that with all the laser guided and satellite technology that can read a licence plate from 30,000 feet, the person pulling the trigger may well have been trained at the Stevie Wonder School of Optic Science....but then again, that's just collateral damage, right?
Then I guess Western casualties fall in the same denominator.
"Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
Of course. They have every right to be pissed off but with that you have to balance the equation by accepting these muslims are pissed off at the constant bombing of their own innocents which run into numbers far greater than even a militant racist can count on the fingers of one mutant hand.
If there is to be a fair discourse, then you have to accept that both sides are to blame.
You cannot have the west moaning and bitching about the Saracen heathens killing innocents, when the west themselves on a grand scale throughout history have done the very same thing.
The soundbite of the West saying that Islam is trying to force its will on the rest of the world, is made redundant when the west is trying to force it's own version of totallitarian democracy on the east.
It doesn't want it.
If it did, it would have faught for it.
If Iraq is putting up such a fight against the west, do you not think they could have put up a fair battle against their own tinpot dictator?
No, I didn't think you'd even consider that line of reasoning & logic.
"when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist."
And when I see millions of peace loving Christians waving holier than thou banners saying "Stop Christian Terrorism", I'll consider your point.
Don't forget now that good ol' Dubya referred to this current political strategy as a "Crusade".
Bad choice of words there you nasty old Christian warmonger...no?
As for my spelling, why I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were charging the lowest line of attack.
Word to the wise, your own spelling and sentence structure could do with a little work.
Pedant.
2. Terrorist supporters are not 'thye good people'. Indeed, in my opinion they share the terrorists guilt, responsibility, and untimately, their peril. As I said here a couple of times before, if you're out in the street yelling, 'Death to America - Death to Israel', you have no cause for compliant if EITHER of those nations kills you first. That is self-defense, V. Such people must be challenged, and in case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one doing so here. That I might be a bit more confrontational than others I admit.
3. Dear, before we talk about 'blowing Muslims up' let's get down-to-earth about all the people that the Muslims blow up day after day in freedom-loving, democratic countries all over the world. Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
As I said before (lordy, how I hate having to keep repeating myself), when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist. Until then, I'll have to continue living in the real world, a world menaced by Islamic murderers of the foulest sort.
The thing that makes me laugh about the right wing pseudo-concern-moralist brigade, is that they have the audacity to say "We went over there to liberate the Muslims" or the ever predictable soundbite of "Saddam was killing his own people"....yeah right, as if you really give a crap when you come out with your Islamophobic right wing racist bile.
If you were so worried about him killing his own people or those poor repressed innocent 'rag heads', then you'd have protested against the west selling him the weapons in the first place.
Hypocritical xenophobic racist.
Haven't you learned anything about totallitarian oppression from your own countrys history?
As for your theory on self defence.
Interesting when you consider that with all the laser guided and satellite technology that can read a licence plate from 30,000 feet, the person pulling the trigger may well have been trained at the Stevie Wonder School of Optic Science....but then again, that's just collateral damage, right?
Then I guess Western casualties fall in the same denominator.
"Let's begin with the terrorist attacks on the USA five years ago and those in your own Underground more recently. You don't think that the victims of such atrocities should be a little pissed off?
Of course. They have every right to be pissed off but with that you have to balance the equation by accepting these muslims are pissed off at the constant bombing of their own innocents which run into numbers far greater than even a militant racist can count on the fingers of one mutant hand.
If there is to be a fair discourse, then you have to accept that both sides are to blame.
You cannot have the west moaning and bitching about the Saracen heathens killing innocents, when the west themselves on a grand scale throughout history have done the very same thing.
The soundbite of the West saying that Islam is trying to force its will on the rest of the world, is made redundant when the west is trying to force it's own version of totallitarian democracy on the east.
It doesn't want it.
If it did, it would have faught for it.
If Iraq is putting up such a fight against the west, do you not think they could have put up a fair battle against their own tinpot dictator?
No, I didn't think you'd even consider that line of reasoning & logic.
"when I see millions of 'peace-loving Muslims', marching on Mecca carrying signs and banners saying 'STOP ISLAMIC TERRORISM NOW', then I will be convinced that millions of 'peace-loving Muslims' exist."
And when I see millions of peace loving Christians waving holier than thou banners saying "Stop Christian Terrorism", I'll consider your point.
Don't forget now that good ol' Dubya referred to this current political strategy as a "Crusade".
Bad choice of words there you nasty old Christian warmonger...no?
As for my spelling, why I'm sorry, I didn't realise we were charging the lowest line of attack.
Word to the wise, your own spelling and sentence structure could do with a little work.
Pedant.
take a bite out of life it's there to be tasted!!
And Bush speaketh!!!
by Venus If Iraq is putting up such a fight against the west, do you not think they could have put up a fair battle against their own tinpot dictator?
I think it is more accurate to say that Iraq is fighting more amongst it's own internal population than against the west. Many more Iraqis are now being killed in secterian battles and good old criminal activities than in the so called struggle against the west.
Also what what constant bombings of innocent civilians are you talking about? Can you document any? There are some mistakes that have been made usually because some po'd Iraqis or Afghan decides to even an old score and passes bad information to the Iraqis or US forces.
You seem to be of the same mis-informed ilk as Scat when it comes to current events and military issues.
I think it is more accurate to say that Iraq is fighting more amongst it's own internal population than against the west. Many more Iraqis are now being killed in secterian battles and good old criminal activities than in the so called struggle against the west.
Also what what constant bombings of innocent civilians are you talking about? Can you document any? There are some mistakes that have been made usually because some po'd Iraqis or Afghan decides to even an old score and passes bad information to the Iraqis or US forces.
You seem to be of the same mis-informed ilk as Scat when it comes to current events and military issues.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote:
You seem to be of the same mis-informed ilk as Scat when it comes to current events and military issues.
Is that mis-informed as in "doesn't think like I do"?
Your own take on reality is suspect any your abusive language more so.
"so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up." is hardly rational debate - have you taken nothing out of the threads on personal abuse being unwelcome here?
You seem to be of the same mis-informed ilk as Scat when it comes to current events and military issues.
Is that mis-informed as in "doesn't think like I do"?
Your own take on reality is suspect any your abusive language more so.
"so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up." is hardly rational debate - have you taken nothing out of the threads on personal abuse being unwelcome here?
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: Is that mis-informed as in "doesn't think like I do"?
Your own take on reality is suspect any your abusive language more so.
"so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up." is hardly rational debate - have you taken nothing out of the threads on personal abuse being unwelcome here?
Why don't you re-read the thread and see who started it. The entire thread is filled with personal abuse, slander and blatant lies.
and after that why don't you mind your own business.
Your own take on reality is suspect any your abusive language more so.
"so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up." is hardly rational debate - have you taken nothing out of the threads on personal abuse being unwelcome here?
Why don't you re-read the thread and see who started it. The entire thread is filled with personal abuse, slander and blatant lies.
and after that why don't you mind your own business.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: Why don't you re-read the thread and see who started it. The entire thread is filled with personal abuse, slander and blatant lies.
and after that why don't you mind you own business.
It is my business and keep your advice to yourself.
I've been reading and contributing to this thread since it started instead of jumping in at post 65 of 75 - why don't you read the thread and look at all of the hate filled bigotry and mis-information before you start you foul mouthing.
and after that why don't you mind you own business.
It is my business and keep your advice to yourself.
I've been reading and contributing to this thread since it started instead of jumping in at post 65 of 75 - why don't you read the thread and look at all of the hate filled bigotry and mis-information before you start you foul mouthing.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: It is my business and keep your advice to yourself.
I've been reading and contributing to this thread since it started instead of jumping in at post 65 of 75 - why don't you read the thread and look at all of the hate filled bigotry and mis-information before you start you foul mouthing.
Oh really, were you elected the thread police? If people want to lie and hurl insults about issues which they obviously have no knowledge they can expect to get called on it. I don't appreciate what Scrat and Venus said about the US military. I will be very passionate in my defense of it.
As I said I read the entire thread and it is full of abuse. I noticed you didn't jump in when others were abusing an apparently unpopular poster.
Now butt out.
I've been reading and contributing to this thread since it started instead of jumping in at post 65 of 75 - why don't you read the thread and look at all of the hate filled bigotry and mis-information before you start you foul mouthing.
Oh really, were you elected the thread police? If people want to lie and hurl insults about issues which they obviously have no knowledge they can expect to get called on it. I don't appreciate what Scrat and Venus said about the US military. I will be very passionate in my defense of it.
As I said I read the entire thread and it is full of abuse. I noticed you didn't jump in when others were abusing an apparently unpopular poster.
Now butt out.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: Oh really, were you elected the thread police? If people want to lie and hurl insults about issues which they obviously have no knowledge they can expect to get called on it. I don't appreciate what Scrat and Venus said about the US military. I will be very passionate in my defense of it.
As I said I read the entire thread and it is full of abuse. I noticed you didn't jump in when others were abusing an apparently unpopular poster.
Now butt out.
Nobody did and I wouldn't pretend to be - that's a job for admin.
What give you the right to tell me where to post?
As I said I read the entire thread and it is full of abuse. I noticed you didn't jump in when others were abusing an apparently unpopular poster.
Now butt out.
Nobody did and I wouldn't pretend to be - that's a job for admin.
What give you the right to tell me where to post?
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: Nobody did and I wouldn't pretend to be - that's a job for admin.
What give you the right to tell me where to post?
Never mind, sorry if the post offended you..
What give you the right to tell me where to post?
Never mind, sorry if the post offended you..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: Never mind, sorry if the post offended you..
and more power to you for it Sir.
Now shall we discuss the issues?
I'll assume that the decision to go to war was genuine on the part of Bush and Blair and not a move in some hidden agenda.
As I see it the initial mistake was in thinking that you can fight a mobile and distributed enemy with main force – doing so in someone else's country just compounds the problem. As the British found in Ireland, terrorism is a criminal matter best handled by the Police with military assistance and not a call to war conducted by the combined forces.
Secondly, by destroying the countries government and infrastructure you are (a) ensuring that you have a long task ahead of you clearing up the mess and (b) earning the hatred of the entire population and much of the population of allied countries. Neither of these consequences is of any help in the “War Against Terror.
The attack on Iraq was never part of the “War Against Terror - there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq and there was no evidence of intent to terror on the part of Iraq. Having one open front in Afghanistan what is the reasoning behind opening a second front? Again, it just reinforced the view that the “War Against Terror was an attack on Islam and led to an increase in support for the terrorists rather than harming them. This also goes for the threatening and bullying of Iran.
The ever more extreme statements from Bush are further reinforcing the view that this is a war against Islam – ably abetted by the media demonisation of all Muslims This can only further increase the support for the terrorists and, for God's sake, the US cannot fight the entire Muslim world.
The Human Rights abuses and disregard for International Law show by Guantanamo Bay are seriously damaging the image of the US as did the outrages at Abu Grade. America is not immune to world opinion in the long term and this is one of the reasons for the poor support within Europe.
All in all, the terrorists are in a stronger position now than they were immediately after 9/11 and that is almost entirely due to Bush's mishandling of the situation.
and more power to you for it Sir.
Now shall we discuss the issues?
I'll assume that the decision to go to war was genuine on the part of Bush and Blair and not a move in some hidden agenda.
As I see it the initial mistake was in thinking that you can fight a mobile and distributed enemy with main force – doing so in someone else's country just compounds the problem. As the British found in Ireland, terrorism is a criminal matter best handled by the Police with military assistance and not a call to war conducted by the combined forces.
Secondly, by destroying the countries government and infrastructure you are (a) ensuring that you have a long task ahead of you clearing up the mess and (b) earning the hatred of the entire population and much of the population of allied countries. Neither of these consequences is of any help in the “War Against Terror.
The attack on Iraq was never part of the “War Against Terror - there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq and there was no evidence of intent to terror on the part of Iraq. Having one open front in Afghanistan what is the reasoning behind opening a second front? Again, it just reinforced the view that the “War Against Terror was an attack on Islam and led to an increase in support for the terrorists rather than harming them. This also goes for the threatening and bullying of Iran.
The ever more extreme statements from Bush are further reinforcing the view that this is a war against Islam – ably abetted by the media demonisation of all Muslims This can only further increase the support for the terrorists and, for God's sake, the US cannot fight the entire Muslim world.
The Human Rights abuses and disregard for International Law show by Guantanamo Bay are seriously damaging the image of the US as did the outrages at Abu Grade. America is not immune to world opinion in the long term and this is one of the reasons for the poor support within Europe.
All in all, the terrorists are in a stronger position now than they were immediately after 9/11 and that is almost entirely due to Bush's mishandling of the situation.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bryn Mawr wrote: and more power to you for it Sir.
Now shall we discuss the issues?
I'll assume that the decision to go to war was genuine on the part of Bush and Blair and not a move in some hidden agenda.
As I see it the initial mistake was in thinking that you can fight a mobile and distributed enemy with main force – doing so in someone else's country just compounds the problem. As the British found in Ireland, terrorism is a criminal matter best handled by the Police with military assistance and not a call to war conducted by the combined forces.
Secondly, by destroying the countries government and infrastructure you are (a) ensuring that you have a long task ahead of you clearing up the mess and (b) earning the hatred of the entire population and much of the population of allied countries. Neither of these consequences is of any help in the “War Against Terror.
The attack on Iraq was never part of the “War Against Terror - there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq and there was no evidence of intent to terror on the part of Iraq. Having one open front in Afghanistan what is the reasoning behind opening a second front? Again, it just reinforced the view that the “War Against Terror was an attack on Islam and led to an increase in support for the terrorists rather than harming them. This also goes for the threatening and bullying of Iran.
The ever more extreme statements from Bush are further reinforcing the view that this is a war against Islam – ably abetted by the media demonisation of all Muslims This can only further increase the support for the terrorists and, for God's sake, the US cannot fight the entire Muslim world.
The Human Rights abuses and disregard for International Law show by Guantanamo Bay are seriously damaging the image of the US as did the outrages at Abu Grade. America is not immune to world opinion in the long term and this is one of the reasons for the poor support within Europe.
All in all, the terrorists are in a stronger position now than they were immediately after 9/11 and that is almost entirely due to Bush's mishandling of the situation.
Actually I agree with almost everything you posted here.
I think the Bush administration rushed into the war in Iraq without much of a plan for what happened after it was won. I think this was mostly Cheney's doing as Bush was pretty much of a novice in foreign affairs at the time.
One reason I was upset with Scrat's post is that he stated no one in the military opposed the decison which was not true. The US military wanted no part of an invasion of Iraq. The administration was repeatley warned by senior miliatry leaders not to risk getting bogged down in Iraq particuarly as the job was not finished in Afghanistan.
I agree there was no linkage between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and it was just another false excuse to invade (as was the WMD reasoning).
Much goodwill has been lost to the US and relations with many of our close allies have been poisoned.
I think the issue with Gitmo is somewhat overblown as there are a lot of not very nice people being held. They get better treatment there than many would get in their country's of origin. Due to another mistake by the Bush administration their legal status is definetley in question. I would have just called them pow's and treated them IAW with the Geneva Convention. That will soon be corrected I think by the US Supreme Court.
I think the Republicans will be out of power after the next US Congressional and tpresidential elections if the democrats can field anyone approaching electable candidates. Perhaps then we can get refocused and mend relations with other countries.
My only issue with anyone in this thread was the insensitve trashing of people who are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan by people who obviously have no clue about the people who serve. The US military over-all represents the society from which it comes (except for the extremley well off who tend not to serve). There are some bad apples of course but they are mostly good people, well trained, highly disciplined and motivated, but stuck in a mess they didn't create.
I did get a bit over-emotional I suppose and typed before my brain caught up.
Now shall we discuss the issues?
I'll assume that the decision to go to war was genuine on the part of Bush and Blair and not a move in some hidden agenda.
As I see it the initial mistake was in thinking that you can fight a mobile and distributed enemy with main force – doing so in someone else's country just compounds the problem. As the British found in Ireland, terrorism is a criminal matter best handled by the Police with military assistance and not a call to war conducted by the combined forces.
Secondly, by destroying the countries government and infrastructure you are (a) ensuring that you have a long task ahead of you clearing up the mess and (b) earning the hatred of the entire population and much of the population of allied countries. Neither of these consequences is of any help in the “War Against Terror.
The attack on Iraq was never part of the “War Against Terror - there were no links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq and there was no evidence of intent to terror on the part of Iraq. Having one open front in Afghanistan what is the reasoning behind opening a second front? Again, it just reinforced the view that the “War Against Terror was an attack on Islam and led to an increase in support for the terrorists rather than harming them. This also goes for the threatening and bullying of Iran.
The ever more extreme statements from Bush are further reinforcing the view that this is a war against Islam – ably abetted by the media demonisation of all Muslims This can only further increase the support for the terrorists and, for God's sake, the US cannot fight the entire Muslim world.
The Human Rights abuses and disregard for International Law show by Guantanamo Bay are seriously damaging the image of the US as did the outrages at Abu Grade. America is not immune to world opinion in the long term and this is one of the reasons for the poor support within Europe.
All in all, the terrorists are in a stronger position now than they were immediately after 9/11 and that is almost entirely due to Bush's mishandling of the situation.
Actually I agree with almost everything you posted here.
I think the Bush administration rushed into the war in Iraq without much of a plan for what happened after it was won. I think this was mostly Cheney's doing as Bush was pretty much of a novice in foreign affairs at the time.
One reason I was upset with Scrat's post is that he stated no one in the military opposed the decison which was not true. The US military wanted no part of an invasion of Iraq. The administration was repeatley warned by senior miliatry leaders not to risk getting bogged down in Iraq particuarly as the job was not finished in Afghanistan.
I agree there was no linkage between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and it was just another false excuse to invade (as was the WMD reasoning).
Much goodwill has been lost to the US and relations with many of our close allies have been poisoned.
I think the issue with Gitmo is somewhat overblown as there are a lot of not very nice people being held. They get better treatment there than many would get in their country's of origin. Due to another mistake by the Bush administration their legal status is definetley in question. I would have just called them pow's and treated them IAW with the Geneva Convention. That will soon be corrected I think by the US Supreme Court.
I think the Republicans will be out of power after the next US Congressional and tpresidential elections if the democrats can field anyone approaching electable candidates. Perhaps then we can get refocused and mend relations with other countries.
My only issue with anyone in this thread was the insensitve trashing of people who are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan by people who obviously have no clue about the people who serve. The US military over-all represents the society from which it comes (except for the extremley well off who tend not to serve). There are some bad apples of course but they are mostly good people, well trained, highly disciplined and motivated, but stuck in a mess they didn't create.
I did get a bit over-emotional I suppose and typed before my brain caught up.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
LOOK!!! LOOK!!!!
just thought i would throw that in. ..........:p
he he
just thought i would throw that in. ..........:p
he he
And Bush speaketh!!!
These threads always get emotional, but then the issues being discussed are life and death ones. My opinion on the Iraq war is that it has been the biggest foreign policy disaster of the last 50 years. The standoff between Sadam (who is a monster and deserves everything he gets) was a completely different affair to the growth of the Jihaddist movement and its militant anti-modern take on Islam. My belief is that people within the Bush administration saw the war as a good opportunuity to "get" Saddam for all of the problems he has caused since 1990, and also to provide a lesson for others in the region about the military force that the west can bring to bear in the region. I am also quite sure that the U.S. and British military were not happy about the mission they were given at it obviously involved an open-ended commitment to a war in a country that has been rife for a civil war since its independence in the 1950s. There was no doubt that the coallition forces would defeat Sadam's tinpot regieme, but what happened after that no-one in political control really seemed to consider fully. To my mind the lives, resources, and political good will that has been lost in this war have been wasted on the wrong target and it will take years to undo the damage that this strategic mistake have caused.
However, all that said, its done now, and its not possible to just disengage from Iraq immeadiatly without creating potentially worse problems. The damage to U.S. foreign policy in the region, international law, the Nato alliance, and increased instability can be repaired over time, though it will be difficult. Morally speaking its good that Saddam and his cronies have been deposed, but realistically it would have been better to leave him isolated in Iraq and to have used the billions of dollars and military assets to persue Al Queda and the people who are funding and enabling the spread of Islamic militants across the world. Its cold comfort to those people who have gone there and done their jobs, and in many cases paid with their lives, but ultimatley they have been very, very badly let down by their political leaders.
However, all that said, its done now, and its not possible to just disengage from Iraq immeadiatly without creating potentially worse problems. The damage to U.S. foreign policy in the region, international law, the Nato alliance, and increased instability can be repaired over time, though it will be difficult. Morally speaking its good that Saddam and his cronies have been deposed, but realistically it would have been better to leave him isolated in Iraq and to have used the billions of dollars and military assets to persue Al Queda and the people who are funding and enabling the spread of Islamic militants across the world. Its cold comfort to those people who have gone there and done their jobs, and in many cases paid with their lives, but ultimatley they have been very, very badly let down by their political leaders.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
And Bush speaketh!!!
zinkyusa wrote: So when were you in the miltary Scrat? What service and branch? Been in combat? I doubt it. I bet you didn't even finish your full enilstment. I think most likely you just couldn't cut it and now hate the miltary.
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.Scrat's posted before that he served honorably in the Navy. Don't know what happened since, though. :rolleyes:
You don't anything about what's going on Iraq or about warfare so why don't you crawl back under your rock and shut the f%$k up.Scrat's posted before that he served honorably in the Navy. Don't know what happened since, though. :rolleyes:
And Bush speaketh!!!
venus wrote: 1. Of course. They have every right to be pissed off but with that you have to balance the equation by accepting these muslims are pissed off at the constant bombing of their own innocents which run into numbers far greater than even a militant racist can count on the fingers of one mutant hand.
2. And when I see millions of peace loving Christians waving holier than thou banners saying "Stop Christian Terrorism", I'll consider your point.
3. Word to the wise, your own spelling and sentence structure could do with a little work.
4. Pedant.1. Sorry, dear, people who harbor and support terrorists are not 'innocents', and the terrorists who hide behind such people are cowards of the vilest sort.
2. I am not aware of any modern Christian terrorism. Maybe you could give some examples. For instance, how many Christians do you see wrapping themselves in explosives and committing acts of mass murder? How many Christian leaders do you see (or not see) hiding in holes and caves?
3. Maybe you could give some examples of that too.
4. First time I've been called that this week. But then, it's only Wednesday.
2. And when I see millions of peace loving Christians waving holier than thou banners saying "Stop Christian Terrorism", I'll consider your point.
3. Word to the wise, your own spelling and sentence structure could do with a little work.
4. Pedant.1. Sorry, dear, people who harbor and support terrorists are not 'innocents', and the terrorists who hide behind such people are cowards of the vilest sort.
2. I am not aware of any modern Christian terrorism. Maybe you could give some examples. For instance, how many Christians do you see wrapping themselves in explosives and committing acts of mass murder? How many Christian leaders do you see (or not see) hiding in holes and caves?
3. Maybe you could give some examples of that too.
4. First time I've been called that this week. But then, it's only Wednesday.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: Well, I'm sorry, BM, that is not true. Maybe you'd better go back and read them again. Then if you haven't found all of the points to which he has NOT responded, I'll repeat them.
Anyway, why not let him speak for himself...oh yeah, I forgot, he turned chicken. Cluck, cluck, cluck!Calm down, NV. Actually, BM and I have very similar screen names. His means 'big hill' in Welsh, mine means 'white bosom' (two big hills). Bryn Mawr college is in....Pennsylvania?
I'm afraid you flatter yourself Bronwen you are actually not all that frightening. When all you can do is resort to insults you have lost the arguement. Sadly you don't seem to understand that.
It is tempting to lower one's standards and respond in kind to your insults but you would probably accuse me of getting them from an anti-semitic propoganda website then deliberately misconstrue (hopefully you do do it deliberately I'd hate to think you were that thick) because you can't think of a suitable response.
Anyway, why not let him speak for himself...oh yeah, I forgot, he turned chicken. Cluck, cluck, cluck!Calm down, NV. Actually, BM and I have very similar screen names. His means 'big hill' in Welsh, mine means 'white bosom' (two big hills). Bryn Mawr college is in....Pennsylvania?
I'm afraid you flatter yourself Bronwen you are actually not all that frightening. When all you can do is resort to insults you have lost the arguement. Sadly you don't seem to understand that.
It is tempting to lower one's standards and respond in kind to your insults but you would probably accuse me of getting them from an anti-semitic propoganda website then deliberately misconstrue (hopefully you do do it deliberately I'd hate to think you were that thick) because you can't think of a suitable response.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Accountable wrote: Scrat's posted before that he served honorably in the Navy. Don't know what happened since, though. :rolleyes:
I PM'd and apologized to him for my comment which was out of line..
I PM'd and apologized to him for my comment which was out of line..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
And Bush speaketh!!!
Bronwen wrote: 1. Sorry, dear, people who harbor and support terrorists are not 'innocents', and the terrorists who hide behind such people are cowards of the vilest sort.
2. I am not aware of any modern Christian terrorism. Maybe you could give some examples. For instance, how many Christians do you see wrapping themselves in explosives and committing acts of mass murder? How many Christian leaders do you see (or not see) hiding in holes and caves?
3. Maybe you could give some examples of that too.
4. First time I've been called that this week. But then, it's only Wednesday.
1, 2 & 3)
As it appears to be Help The Remedial week, allow me to ellucidate on this.
Now how many times in the past 5 years have you heard good ol' Dubya's crusade as an extension of Christian extremism?
How many times has his soundbite of "This is a Crusade" been played out over the world AP?
How many times have people made the reference that he is a hard line, right wing Christian?
Have you any idea of the severity of the word Crusade in the Muslim world?
....would you like me to go on? No really, I could.
Let's not forget that Hitler was considered a Christian. Wether this was true religious piety or a political leaning towards the Almighty, is questionable, but then, no more questionable than all those nasty 'rag heads' being affiliated to terrorism or Islam.
Careful with those rules of play Bronwyn, you might be considered a huge hypocritical racist otherwise.
Christian leaders hardly need to hide in holes when they have an army to do their dirty work for them.
The same Christian leaders who have the power to count hairs on a Tarantula's testicles from 30,000ft and who still end up bombing innocents.
The double standards of the same leaders who take no action in the deliberate bombing of UN command posts in Lebanon, simply shaking their heads and making all the right noises in all the right places.
I'm pretty sure that had it been a Muslim state doing the UN bombing, things would have been mighty different.
Your xenophobic/racist assumption that all 'rag-heads' are filthy terrorists, is such a wonderful sweeping generalistion, that you should have no problem with me if I say all Germans are Hitler supporting, Jew exterminating Nazi's.
...you are German, right?
4)
Indeed it is only Wednesday.
Imagine what wonderful words of loqaucious woe I have in my well versed lexicon, ready to fire from the hip at your seemingly lacklustre, depressing anti-egalitarian rantings.
Never base your assumptions on the lack of punctuation as a self appointed decree of an inability to make an effort.
2. I am not aware of any modern Christian terrorism. Maybe you could give some examples. For instance, how many Christians do you see wrapping themselves in explosives and committing acts of mass murder? How many Christian leaders do you see (or not see) hiding in holes and caves?
3. Maybe you could give some examples of that too.
4. First time I've been called that this week. But then, it's only Wednesday.
1, 2 & 3)
As it appears to be Help The Remedial week, allow me to ellucidate on this.
Now how many times in the past 5 years have you heard good ol' Dubya's crusade as an extension of Christian extremism?
How many times has his soundbite of "This is a Crusade" been played out over the world AP?
How many times have people made the reference that he is a hard line, right wing Christian?
Have you any idea of the severity of the word Crusade in the Muslim world?
....would you like me to go on? No really, I could.
Let's not forget that Hitler was considered a Christian. Wether this was true religious piety or a political leaning towards the Almighty, is questionable, but then, no more questionable than all those nasty 'rag heads' being affiliated to terrorism or Islam.
Careful with those rules of play Bronwyn, you might be considered a huge hypocritical racist otherwise.
Christian leaders hardly need to hide in holes when they have an army to do their dirty work for them.
The same Christian leaders who have the power to count hairs on a Tarantula's testicles from 30,000ft and who still end up bombing innocents.
The double standards of the same leaders who take no action in the deliberate bombing of UN command posts in Lebanon, simply shaking their heads and making all the right noises in all the right places.
I'm pretty sure that had it been a Muslim state doing the UN bombing, things would have been mighty different.
Your xenophobic/racist assumption that all 'rag-heads' are filthy terrorists, is such a wonderful sweeping generalistion, that you should have no problem with me if I say all Germans are Hitler supporting, Jew exterminating Nazi's.
...you are German, right?
4)
Indeed it is only Wednesday.
Imagine what wonderful words of loqaucious woe I have in my well versed lexicon, ready to fire from the hip at your seemingly lacklustre, depressing anti-egalitarian rantings.
Never base your assumptions on the lack of punctuation as a self appointed decree of an inability to make an effort.
take a bite out of life it's there to be tasted!!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
And Bush speaketh!!!
Venus! :yh_hugs
Note: the hug has no bearing whatsoever on whether I agree.
Note: the hug has no bearing whatsoever on whether I agree.
And Bush speaketh!!!
AND...she beads shawls....WHATTA' WOMAN!
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
And Bush speaketh!!!
'kay.
I don't believe you, but ...
'kay.
I don't believe you, but ...
'kay.
And Bush speaketh!!!
venus wrote: 1. Now how many times in the past 5 years have you heard good ol' Dubya's crusade as an extension of Christian extremism?
How many times has his soundbite of "This is a Crusade" been played out over the world AP?
How many times have people made the reference that he is a hard line, right wing Christian?
Have you any idea of the severity of the word Crusade in the Muslim world?
2. ....would you like me to go on? No really, I could.
3. Let's not forget that Hitler was considered a Christian.
4. Your xenophobic/racist assumption that all 'rag-heads' are filthy terrorists, is such a wonderful sweeping generalistion, that you should have no problem with me if I say all Germans are Hitler supporting, Jew exterminating Nazi's.
5. ...you are German, right?.1. Where are you getting such utter nonsense? Don't you WANT your government to defend you from terrorists? Were the Underground killings OK with you? Would you like them to continue on a regular basis? Where exactly are you coming from here?
2. OK, then, how about answering my questions directly instead of simply bloviating. Give some example of Christian terrorism. Defending one's family, one's country, and one's way of life from Islamic murderers is not terrorism.
3. Uh, no, nailcakes, he was considered a mass murderer and a full-fledged lunatic to boot. When he got angry, he used to drop to the floor and start eating the carpet. That's a fact.
You are obviously very young. To understand how such a piece of human garbage managed to come to power you have to understand German history, which I obviously cannot outline for you in this post. Anyone who opposed him was summarily killed, which is, I imagine, why the so-called 'good, peace-loving Muslims' don't oppose the terrorists who have hijacked their religion. Thank God the allies didn't capitulate to Hitler as the Islamic religion has done to these murderous jackals.
In order to defeat Hitler, however, the Allies had really no choice but to reduce his entire country to smoldering ruins, with great loss of civilian life. That is a fearsome thing, but they had little choice, and that is, unfortunately, what will probably happen, and happen SOON, to the Islamic hellholes that support the terrorists. So, sweetheart, if you are of that persuasion, you'd better settle your sweet little tuches down in merry old England for the duration. You may not be completely safe there, but you'll likely be safer than in the hellhole you crawled out of.
4. You need to re-read my posts. I said that I keep waiting for Muslims who are NOT filthy terrorists to at least attempt to take back their religion. There were many attempts by Germans to eliminate Hitler, I have seen no such thing within the Muslim community, but I'll keep watching.
5. Half German, half British (and All-American), with the British half predominantly Welsh. Have you heard of the Urdd? They would like Welsh autonomy, their own independent state, free from outside occupation. Sound familiar? It doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, but that's what they want. Have you seen them blowing themselves and/or their fellow Brits up lately?
Now that you know about my ethnicity how about telling us about your own? Hmmm? Or are you ashamed of it?
How many times has his soundbite of "This is a Crusade" been played out over the world AP?
How many times have people made the reference that he is a hard line, right wing Christian?
Have you any idea of the severity of the word Crusade in the Muslim world?
2. ....would you like me to go on? No really, I could.
3. Let's not forget that Hitler was considered a Christian.
4. Your xenophobic/racist assumption that all 'rag-heads' are filthy terrorists, is such a wonderful sweeping generalistion, that you should have no problem with me if I say all Germans are Hitler supporting, Jew exterminating Nazi's.
5. ...you are German, right?.1. Where are you getting such utter nonsense? Don't you WANT your government to defend you from terrorists? Were the Underground killings OK with you? Would you like them to continue on a regular basis? Where exactly are you coming from here?
2. OK, then, how about answering my questions directly instead of simply bloviating. Give some example of Christian terrorism. Defending one's family, one's country, and one's way of life from Islamic murderers is not terrorism.
3. Uh, no, nailcakes, he was considered a mass murderer and a full-fledged lunatic to boot. When he got angry, he used to drop to the floor and start eating the carpet. That's a fact.
You are obviously very young. To understand how such a piece of human garbage managed to come to power you have to understand German history, which I obviously cannot outline for you in this post. Anyone who opposed him was summarily killed, which is, I imagine, why the so-called 'good, peace-loving Muslims' don't oppose the terrorists who have hijacked their religion. Thank God the allies didn't capitulate to Hitler as the Islamic religion has done to these murderous jackals.
In order to defeat Hitler, however, the Allies had really no choice but to reduce his entire country to smoldering ruins, with great loss of civilian life. That is a fearsome thing, but they had little choice, and that is, unfortunately, what will probably happen, and happen SOON, to the Islamic hellholes that support the terrorists. So, sweetheart, if you are of that persuasion, you'd better settle your sweet little tuches down in merry old England for the duration. You may not be completely safe there, but you'll likely be safer than in the hellhole you crawled out of.
4. You need to re-read my posts. I said that I keep waiting for Muslims who are NOT filthy terrorists to at least attempt to take back their religion. There were many attempts by Germans to eliminate Hitler, I have seen no such thing within the Muslim community, but I'll keep watching.
5. Half German, half British (and All-American), with the British half predominantly Welsh. Have you heard of the Urdd? They would like Welsh autonomy, their own independent state, free from outside occupation. Sound familiar? It doesn't seem like a very good idea to me, but that's what they want. Have you seen them blowing themselves and/or their fellow Brits up lately?
Now that you know about my ethnicity how about telling us about your own? Hmmm? Or are you ashamed of it?
And Bush speaketh!!!
from Venus The same Christian leaders who have the power to count hairs on a Tarantula's testicles from 30,000ft and who still end up bombing innocents.
Venus, I was wondering what you meant by this? I also don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Even having so called "smart" weapons it's still very easy to hit the wrong target or have a weapon malfunction. If the US, Israel and and other western countries were interested in causing mass civilian casualties you see them in the hundreds of thousands. The fact of the matter is both countries do not deliberatly target them unlike our enemies. In Iraq and in the first Gulf War the US has changed or aborted targets simply because of the fear of killing large numbers of civilians. We have taken additonal American casualites in order to avoid harming civilians. If you want an example take the Battle of Falluja. There were thousands of insurgents using it to launch attacks on US and Iraqis forces as well as holding, torturing and videotaping hostage executions. We have a weapon known as MOAB which is conventional but can cause nearly the same physical damage as a small nuclear bomb (without the radiation). We could have used two or three of these things on Falluja and no more problem and not one Marine harmed. Instead we offer a grace period for civilians to escape and then go in on the ground. 18 Marines die and many more are maimed and wounded. Don't you think this is different than leaving an improvised bomb in a crowded market on the off chance that an American patrol will wander by?
I don't believe there are currently any organized Christian, Buddist, or Hindu organizations orchestrating terrorism on the scale of Al Qeda, Hizbollah and Hamas.
To say someone who did something was a Christian is not the same as saying they did it in the name of Chrisitianity. I am not a Christian and am not defending it's past atrocities which are many; but they were in the past. I think you are using false analogies here.
I think there are major differences in this fight and one side is more wrong than other. Just my opinion.
Venus, I was wondering what you meant by this? I also don't really understand the point you are trying to make. Even having so called "smart" weapons it's still very easy to hit the wrong target or have a weapon malfunction. If the US, Israel and and other western countries were interested in causing mass civilian casualties you see them in the hundreds of thousands. The fact of the matter is both countries do not deliberatly target them unlike our enemies. In Iraq and in the first Gulf War the US has changed or aborted targets simply because of the fear of killing large numbers of civilians. We have taken additonal American casualites in order to avoid harming civilians. If you want an example take the Battle of Falluja. There were thousands of insurgents using it to launch attacks on US and Iraqis forces as well as holding, torturing and videotaping hostage executions. We have a weapon known as MOAB which is conventional but can cause nearly the same physical damage as a small nuclear bomb (without the radiation). We could have used two or three of these things on Falluja and no more problem and not one Marine harmed. Instead we offer a grace period for civilians to escape and then go in on the ground. 18 Marines die and many more are maimed and wounded. Don't you think this is different than leaving an improvised bomb in a crowded market on the off chance that an American patrol will wander by?
I don't believe there are currently any organized Christian, Buddist, or Hindu organizations orchestrating terrorism on the scale of Al Qeda, Hizbollah and Hamas.
To say someone who did something was a Christian is not the same as saying they did it in the name of Chrisitianity. I am not a Christian and am not defending it's past atrocities which are many; but they were in the past. I think you are using false analogies here.
I think there are major differences in this fight and one side is more wrong than other. Just my opinion.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.