“Foolhardy” would be the term.
Conservative should take heart from the fact that there probably won’t be any gay marriages performed there.
Yup. And you’re helping. To wit:
– bolding mine.
'tis indeed:
– Highlights mine.
Ignorance fought.
That list from lewrockwell.com almost certainly includes security personnel at US embassies. China, Russia, and N. Korea are all on that list. You can’t possibly be claiming that the US has a military base in N. Korea.
I claim nothing. Stats do. Here’s another source. Plenty more to be found.
“Soldiers” does not equal a military base.
The majority of those are single or double digits, too small to be a base. It’s misleading to keep referring to them as “installations” without defining the term. Liaison officers do not an occupying force make.
You’re claiming that your cite proves that we have bases in a majority of countries in the world. Your cite does nothing of the kind because it lists N. Korea as a country with US soldiers and under no definition do we have a base in NK. Your cite is meaningless regarding bases.
Yes. Let’s stop misleading people about America’s military bases and get back to the topic at hand: the Victory Mosque[sup]TM[/sup] that the godless Islamo-fascists want to erect right on top of Ground Zero.
TWEEEET!
As a minor hijack, the dispute over the U.S. overseas military extension was mildly irritating. As a major hijack, it is over. Anyone wishing to continue that fight, take it to a different thread.
[ /Moderating ]
Everything pisses off Muslims. A cartoon turns into deadly riots. A book turns into a death sentence.
So unless the United States backs up the most egregiously backward versions of Islam, it’s anti-muslim? How did it work out for Iranians with the new regime? The only thing suppressed by the Shaw was the misogyny that defines current leadership.
And amazingly enough so does being bombed, or tortured, or being invaded and/or tyrannized by a US backed regime. Like it or not, there are millions of Muslims who have perfectly good reasons to be angry at the US.
He also suppressed democracy and political dissent - that was one of the reasons we put him in there. And it was our installation of the Shah that eventually led to the revolution that let the Islamic theocrats into power. Without our overthrow of their democracy it’s entirely possible that would never have happened. But then, America has always been the enemy of democracy despite all of its noble sounding propaganda.
You’re the one backing Imam Rauf’s assertion that US policies were an accessory to the event of 9/11. If Muslims feel that they have been wronged then Dr Sultan is accurate in her assertion the new mosque will be viewed as a symbolic victory. As a Muslim and trained Psychiatrist who lived in Syria she is infinitely more qualified than you are to explain how Muslims feel. Absent a reasoned response you simply attacked her credibility.
the only thing he suppressed were the zealots currently tormenting Iranians. The CURRENT government screens potential political candidates for religious purity before they are allowed on a ballot.
If anything, the other guy took someone saying that someone who has, according to him, supported 9/11, is in poor taste to develop building, and that the controversy is antithetical to the stated goal, and tried to paint him as a racist. The fact that he’s a 9/11 survivor is just icing. The point is that the guy was an asshole, and thus the exact opposite of what Muslims need to convince people that they are truly a religion of peace.
Such a person would be seen a threadshitter here, if not a troll. He was gunning for a reaction, while the other guy, while he used a bit of emotional rhetoric, at least was good enough not to try to insult anyone.
Just because the Muslim guy was meaner than the firefighter doesn’t mean he won–in fact, quite the opposite.
And this is coming from a guy who would think building a mosque right at ground zero would be the ultimate “fuck you” to Islamic terrorists.
So? There are also millions of Muslims who are angry at the U.S. for completely stupid reasons. This is inevitable when religion and politics get intertwined, or when when someone wants to get them intertwined. A trivial political sleight isn’t somebody criticism your system of government - it’s them profaning your religious beliefs! There’s no easier way for dictators and wannabe dictators to get the stupid to play along then by accusing some outsider of slamming their religion. In the U.S., people who would like to make Christianity the official religion (as Islam is the official religion in many countries) bleat about some specious “war on Christmas” and the idiots bleat right back.
Sure, you’ve got lots of Muslims pissed about wedding parties getting massacred by U.S. bombs, but you’ve also got lots of Muslims getting pissed because somebody drew a cartoon. If they’re not going to be selective about what they’re pissed about… fuck 'em! Let them be pissed. You can’t stop it anyway.
And here we see the genesis of 9-11. :rolleyes:
Oh, garbage. The Shah’s SAVAK was quite notorious for tormenting Iranians; we even trained them in torture techniques. And the whole reason we forced the Shah on them was so he would oppress them in our interest.
The rather obvious flaw in your argument is assuming that those are all the same people. Even the most tolerant Muslim is going to be angry when you murder his friends and family. It’s also classic dehumanization - it’s a call to go ahead and massacre them and torture them, it doesn’t make any difference. It’s also factually incorrect; for example, after our invasion of Iraq we ended up fighting foreign radicals who had not been radical before we invaded. But I suppose it’s easier to pretend that they are all demons who hate us for no particular reason.
You know; when a man who openly despises all religion as stupid and evil tells you that you are being prejudiced towards the followers of a religion, perhaps you should listen.
Ah, but do you hate the United States more than you hate Islam? 