Is scuse moi your new catch phrase?
Let’s try to actually eradicate a bit of ignorance, shall we?
Hussein exiled OBL from Iraq. Did not help. Exiled. Mainly because he recognized competition when he saw it.
Shall we look and see who those 9/11 jets were “full of” (to use your eloquent phrase)? Oh, my. Saudis. Interesting. And yet, we have nothing but love for the house of Saud. Our hatred of terrorism appears to soften when it comes to our oil supply. And yet, I don’t notice any curtailling of extremist/terrorist behavior in Saudi Arabia. Or even hatred of Americans. They may love our money, but they don’t have much use for us otherwise.
“Bin Laden reduced to a miserable impotent cave-dweller”… Hm. Doesn’t quite have the ring to it that “We will not rest until he is captured and forced to answer for his crimes!” does, but I guess it’ll have to do in light of our clueless leader’s declaration of having lost interest back in '02. And really. After attempting to swat a fly with a $2bil Sherman tank in Afghanistan, who can blame him? Why do something like, oh, I don’t know, restructure our intelligence department to actually work & recalling that guy from that shudder other administration who warned that token chick you got on your administration about OBL in the first place, when you can have so much more fun planting phony evidence about the country you’re itching to invade?
Well, of COURSE I didn’t specify it. Because my point was, we should at least FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS! If we knew what it was, we wouldn’t have to figure it out.
Anyhow, I don’t think we’re communicating at all, and I don’t like being a pitting asshole, so I’m going to cease this conversation unless you genuinely wish to continue it.
Yes, it is…thank you for noticing.
Okay, let’s try.
Oh, you poor, poor simple-minded liberal, you. What better place to hide something than a location already searched, eh? Who’s to say that after giving good ol’ OBL the boot, Hussein becomes persuaded that al-Qaeda can indeed cause us major damage if only they could get their hands on the means, a means he can provide. He then arranges for underlings to supply them (the terrorists) while publicly proclaiming his disdain for them.
All thoughout the Arab world, it’s common practice to express disapproval and/or disdain for certain types of terrorist activity while simultaneously supporting it under the table. (Arafat is the most obvious example of this.) And besides, who says OBL is the only problem? Not me, certainly.
If you’ll notice, I talk about ‘terrorists’, not this terrorist or that. (Just today more innocent people – having nothin’ to do with anything’ – were killed while peacefully eating and going about their business in Bali. An al-Qaeda spin-off is suspected.) These dickweeds are all over the planet, and any and all of them are a threat. Even if Hussein truly wouldn’t have aided OBL, he might still have decided to aid some other group. He was an exceedingly dangerous loose cannon and he had to go.
To the best of my recollection, I don’t believe the Saudi government was ever implicated the 9/11 attack…yes, no? Remember, we’re talking about Muslim extremists, not the Saudi government.
If you will recall, my remarks about OBL were in answer to black455’s bringing him up to me. But be that as it may, OBL’s time will come. My comment to you was in response to your ridiculous assertion regarding the alleged “total lack of result in running the terrorists for 9/11 responsible to ground as of this date.” What I stated, including mention of OBL as an impotent cave-dweller, was in response to that.
Nice strawman, though.
You mean that intelligence department that was emaciated by Clinton (and by Democrat Congresses ever since the Soviet Union fell)?
Too bad that ‘other guy’ didn’t have the intestinal fortitude of the current guy, as well as his unwillingness to pass problems off to future administrations. If he had, we wouldn’t be having these problems today, and many thousands of people who have died wouldn’t have…including those who died on 9/11.
In closing, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to eradicate a little more ignorance.
…and yet they’ve only begun attacking the United States relatively recently, and have explicitly stated that their aims are political, not cultural.
Fucking amazing, isn’t it?
I know the ionzing particles of insight are having trouble penetrating the lead sheilding around your cranium, but given the excuses your side of the isle makes for the excreable acts of bigotry commited against the trappings of freedom and individualism that your friends seem to have a problem with, you should at least be able to comprehend the concept of “Love the sinner, hate the sin.”
They’re perfectly happy to condemn us to hell for fucking each other up the ass, getting drunk, doing the macarena, and letting women wear pants, but they’ll leave it at that.
Though I don’t think your view is common-sense, I don’t disagree that it’s simple.
Name one majority Muslim country that has accepted the Western way of life without having it imposed by military force.
ObL is just the primary source.
There are plenty of Western analysts, many (if not most) of whom aren’t even in the same universe as your touchy-feely liberal strawman and are full to the tits with Conservative, if not capital-R Realist, street cred, who think he’s basically being straightforward when he issues those fatwas.
It’s funny that you type with so much conviction, when your words belie such ignorance.
Number 1: By any interpretation of Islam, with the obvious exception of the wackos in the NOI, Allah supposedly doesn’t give a shit what color your skin happens to be. Where the fuck did you get the notion that alQ does? Remember John Walker Lindh, dumbass?
Number 2: The only Muslim who can legitimately declare a jihad of conquest is the Caliph. We all know how big ObL is on his fundamentalism. Ain’t no Caliph right now, is there? Hmmm… maybe they’re motivated by something else? Maybe?
Funny that you think we’re the gullible ones, given that you’ve swallowed the simple, uncomplicated propaganda rationale hook, line, and sinker.
My goodness. Bald face lies. Those are always fun.
Please adjust tinfoil hat and supply proof, so I am able to see just how misguided I am.
Not the only one, but certainly the most high profile at that time. Al qaida was, IIRC, named as the terrorist network we could most likely expect an attack from. Wow. Good thing that guy without intestinal fortitude was wrong about that, huh? Oh, wait…
So, now it’s okay to bomb someone for actions they may take at some undetermined point of time in the future, if they gain resources that it’s almost impossible for them to gain? Good to know.
Oh, but if only. We have not run the terrorists to ground. Unless by all those “thousands apprehended or killed” you are including every civillian and soldier kille d in Afghanistan, as well as the people currently residing in Guantanamo without proof of wrong doing.
As for the government: you’re the one who quite clearly stated “All thoughout the Arab world, it’s common practice to express disapproval and/or disdain for certain types of terrorist activity while simultaneously supporting it under the table.” Can’t have it both ways. Either that exists or it doesn’t. Which is it?
I realize this is a dream you cling to in order to justify all your positions. I apologize for having to dispel your dream due to the fact that it’s utter bullshit. President Clinton actually increased spending on anti-terror measures. A move which was sneered at roundly by the GOP as an attempt to deflect criticism because the president liked to have sex (thoroughly understandable, I doubt any of them have gotten blown in years.).
Richard Clarke was brought on from Dubya’s daddy’s administration with Bush the senior’s full recommendation. Condolleeza Rice refused to meet with him, brushed the warnings about Al Qaida and other terror networks aside and then lied to Newsweek about it.
Oh, no. Thank you. It’s rare to find someone so willing to put themselves forward as an example of why sheeple-hood is a bad thing.
I remembered that too, and my reaction is still “what the !##$$%”. We were gonna git him. We was gonna hunt the mangy varmint and gun him down at high noon. No place ta hide. No where ta run. The posse is on tha trail and ridin’ hard. Oooh Iraq! Oooh shiny!
I never wanted Bin Laden reduced to a cave dweller. I wanted him reduced to bone and ash. I still do. Instead, we’re somewhere else (Iraq), and Iraq is falling into civil war, thanks to us.
When? The US “outsourced” the job to his warlord buddies, when it looked like we had him surrounded. WE let him go. I guess OBL’s time will come. He has to die of old age eventually. :rolleyes:
More likely kidney failure. I’m still waiting to hear why it is so difficult to find a 7’ tall Pakistani on dialysis, but I’ve yet to receive a decent answer. Dialysis requires upward of 5 hours per day, 3-4 days/wk sitting in a chair attached to a machine. It also requires regular care from a physicians and leaves the patient in a weakened state. Not really something that can be attended to in a cave.
I remember seeing documentries about children in Africa being used as child soldiers, it is a horrific thing. Is there evidence the same thing happens in the Middle East?
Parents wanting children to share their religion (along with the local religious leader) is enough to breed extremists in those places where even hope is hopeless, no matter what the religion or political belief.
Yes.
http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=13110
And from http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp441.htm:
Question: What do you feel when you pray [for the souls of the martyrs]?
Sabri: I feel the martyr is lucky because the angels usher him to his wedding in heaven…
Question: Is it different when the martyr is a child?
Sabri: Yes, it is. It’s hard to express it in words. There is no doubt that a child [martyr] suggests that the new generation will carry on the mission with determination. The younger the martyr – the greater and the more I respect him…
Question: Is this why the mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons’ death?
Sabri: They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom. It is a great display of the power of belief. The mother is participating in the great reward of the Jihad to liberate Al-Aqsa.42
Oh, and I’m sick of the Misrepresentation that I’m some sort of right-wing racist.
I’m against apartheid, against war [any war], pro gay marriage, pro-choice, etc, etc. I’m even a bit of a socialist. :o
I’m just against the xenofobic, anti-Semitic, anti-women, discriminatory religion called Islam.
That is awfully tolerant of you.
Do you have any preference in the Christian on Christian violence that was Northern Ireland (will that ever be finished?).
Anti-Semitism is not a Muslim exclusive thing is it? Did the the Dutch railways just apologise for shipping Jews off to death camps? Religion had about as much relevance then as it has now. Scapegoats were what it is/was about.
Anti-women? Shit, take away the last century (barely) and the whole fucking world has been anti-women. Just because the Western world has recently found that women are as good if not better does not mean that centuries of tradition (as wrong as it may be) will be forgotten easily. Does the concept of the Italian mama still exisit?
As for discrimatory religions! Fuck the day Christianity stops seeing the world as “US and godless heathens who need converting”. The world maybe better off.
**
Yes, **Max, the fucking CRUSADES!!!
Look up the derivation of the Arabic word for stranger/enemy. Read some history while you’re at it.
(Returning to the OP, if I may.)
I really do not like the argument of “I was (in Vietnam, Iraq, jail, debt, whatever) you were not so your opinion has no value.” It is simply a personal attack.
I would just like to say that I buy orange juice from muslims on a daily basis, and they have never once shown me anything that resembles hate or contempt for my lifestyle. I have friends who are muslim, and their disapproval is almost always with the foreign policy of America. The muslims who have shown disapproval for things other than the foreign policy of America show a contempt for things that I share, like the materialistic selfishness and ignorance of the large portion of the populace that attacks something they know very little about. Trust me, muslims don’t hate America just cuz. They hate America because America has been raping them in the ass for years, and because Americans are too stupid to realize that the Sun has never set on the British Empire, that we are still the same empire that forced multiple ethnicities to work under one oppressive government called Iraq. The problem was shitty European map-makers in the past, and the problem now is people holding a blind adherence to those shitty European map-makers of the past. European colonialism has caused a clusterfuck all over the world, it was a bad fucking idea then, and it’s a bad fucking idea now. When we stop trying to be the colonial power teaching the savages how to operate, they’ll probably stop attacking us.
Erek
You do realize that Islam has something like 70 sects, none of which agree completely with any of the others right? You do know that women and young people all over the Arab world are resisting that conservative mentality that you are claiming to hate. You do realize that Iran is FAR MORE powerful now than it was 5 years ago right?
Erek
calm kiwi Fuck tolerance. It’s a meaningless word.
So…You’re back in the past once again, huh. And talking out of your pathetic PC neck.
I don’t need a scapegoat. A scapegoat for what, exactly, you dumb shit.
A scapegoat for smothering our freedom of speech?
A scapegoat for calling our women ‘whores’ and beating our gays to a pulp?
A scapegoat for shooting a teacher through the head because he dared to mention the holocaust?
A scapegoat for slicing a filmmaker’s throat because he dared to make fun of the Islam?
etc, etc, etc…
This is just the Netherlands I’m speaking of.
For more info about your precious muslims ask the Australians who visited Bali.
OK, before I go any further, you’re claiming here that if one were to make a list of the 10 things that most motivated 9/11, the #1 item on that list would be The Crusades? When Mohammed Atta saw the WTC tower through the windshield and knew he was about to die for Allah, the last thought that went through his mind was “Fuck YOU, Richard the Lion-Hearted”?
And all the meddling that the US has done in the middle east, that was just small potatoes compared to a set of battles that took place so long ago that almost no one really remembers what happened in them?
I mean, REALLY? You think that if I go over to GD and say “the primary cause of 9/11 was the crusades, yes or no”, the very smart and knowledgeable people there would agree that yes, it was; or if they didn’t, it would just be because of liberal bias? And if you travelled back in time to the year 1900 and convinced the US government to throw its weight around and get the Jewish homeland somewhere other than the middle east, and then set up good economic deals with the middle eastern states for their oil while pushing them towards openness and democracy (or whatever), that 9/11 STILL likely would have happened, because of the crusades?
Let me ask you a question… if you meet a person who is Islamic, and after chatting with that person for a while, you realize that person is NOT racist, sexist, xenophobic, or determined to destroy democracy, do you still continue to think poorly of that person because of his or her faith? If so, why? And if not, how can you say that you’re opposed to Islam as a whole?
If you’re opposed to certain bad characteristics of Islam, go for it. If you claim that they are overrepresented in the brand of Islam that is practiced in Holland, you may be right. But that’s different from being opposed to the religion as a whole.
For instance, I think that one of the greatest threats to the US right now, far more likely than Islamic terrorism to destroy the country we really should be, is the Christian religious right. I consider myself strongly opposed to them and everything they stand for. Does that make me opposed to Christianity?
“Skeptics think they know everything.”
No, not always. In fact, the most scrupulous of skeptics readily concede they know little with any degree of certainty. They simply don’t accept assertions that aren’t backed up with evidence, and feel having limited knowledge whose basis is open to all for empirical inspection is preferable to claims to knowledge where the purported evidence is purely subjective and inscrutable. That’s a far cry from the position of the arrogant straw man the faithful decry, which is an incredible irony, given they expect skeptics to respect their alternate position, that the mind of God is somehow known to them, whilst offering absolutely nothing of substance to demonstrate they have the slightest idea of what they’re talking about.