Something has got to be done about animals like this:
Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country’s most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.
Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city’s transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.
“What happened yesterday confirmed that as long as the cause and the root problem is still there … we will see the same effect we saw on July 7,” Bakri said.
“If the cause is still there the effect will happen again and again,” he said, adding he had no information about future attacks or contacts with people planning to carry out attacks.
Bakri, a Syrian-born cleric who has been vilified in Britain since 2001 when he praised the September 11 hijackers, said he did not believe the bombings and attempted attacks on London were carried out by British Muslims.
He condemned the killing of all innocent civilians but described attacks on British and U.S. troops in Muslim countries as “pro-life” and justified.
In an interview with Reuters, Bakri described Osama bin Laden, leader of the radical Islamist network al Qaeda, as “a sincere man who fights against evil forces.”
Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.
“I would like to see the Islamic flag fly, not only over number 10 Downing Street, but over the whole world,” he said.
A hate figure for the British tabloid press, the bearded and bespectacled Bakri said Islam contained “a message of peace for those who want to live with the Muslims in peace.”
“But Islam is a message of war for those who declare war against Muslims,” he said.
“I condemn any killing and any bombing against any innocent people in Britain or abroad, but I expect the British people to condemn the killing of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
However, asked about Islamist attacks on British and U.S. troops and on Israelis, he said: “If violence is pro-life I don’t condemn it.”
I am not a lawyer, and I really do not know British law, but it seems to me that this Sheikh would be somehow complicit if one more Brit is murdered byt these Islamofascists.
ppGaz
You’re walking on eggs, John. According the best available figures out there, 25,000 Iraqis (mostly civilians, by my count) have died during our occupation.
The fact that you, and others of course, but I’m talking to you — think that the events over there are justifiable because, you know, the World Is Better Off Without Saddam, doesn’t seem much of a stretch to me from what your boogeyman Islamist is saying. Justified killing is about two things: Killing, and justification. Justification is what lawyers and politicians do.
It’s not your fault, but you represent, whether you like it or not, the entire Bush-neocon worldview. I say this because you have stood here on these very soapboxes and defended the war I am talking about. I consider this war to be indefensible, and I consider its “justification” to be on exactly and precisely the same moral level as the one your Islamist boogeyman is talking from. That is to say, the most grotesque and deadly form of moral relativism.
Sorry, but that’s the way I see it. I think your protests here are frankly embarassing. It’s this kind of thing that radicals over there will seize upon to provide fuel for brainwashing more misguided hotheads into strapping on explosives.
Moral values require more than just self-justification and self-declaration of a set of moral scalars: My despicable behavior is justified because yours is worse.
I urge you to rethink your position.
Emma Zahn
Maybe Tony Blair can wonder out loud, “Who will rid me of this meddlesome ayatollah?”
*hope the html works
John Cole
Good Grief, ppgaz. Some of your comments deserve a serious response, but that was just whe folks at the Libertarian Samizdata would call ‘flourescent idiocy.’
ppGaz
I’m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree, then.
Because my reply was a polite way of saying exactly the same to you, except that I explained my answer, and you didn’t.
Let me try this:
“I would like to see the flag of American-style freedom fly not only over the White House, but the whole world.”
“America is a message of war for those who harbor those who preach war against America.”
“I expect the Muslim people to condemn the killings of Americans and Britons.”
“If violence is pro-freedom, and anti-Saddam, then I don’t condemn it.”
The guys sounds exactly like us, John. Only the team logo is different. Whether you like it or not, that’s a fact, and that’s the way the radicals over there see it. And of course, they’re right. Radical craziness is always grounded in some form of truth. It’s the subtle extrapolation of truth into craziness that makes it so dangerous.
——-/
If that explanation doesn’t work for you, try this:
Two wrongs do not make a right.
That bromide all by itself goes a long way to explaining why this stupid war is wrong.
Anyway, I have no stomach for arguing this with you. I don’t think either of us will change the other’s mind a whit. You’re stuck on your position, and I am quite sure than mine is correct.
John S.
ppGaz-
That’s a very well thought out and rational response. I happen to agree with most of your more salient points.
I sincerely hope John C. responds to you in like fashion, because I normally enjoy his equally well formulated opinions. But in this case, to merely dismiss your entire argument as ‘flourescent idiocy’ not only seems unfair, but also intellectually lazy.
Lord Locksley
What ppGaz is too gutless to say is that the overwhelming majority of people that have been killed in Iraq since the liberation of Bagdad have been killed by the same breed of whacko that were responsible for 9/11. This blatant and intentional omission is nothing less than a stealth libel of the US military because the unspoken inferrence is that we are responsible for the fatalities ikn question. Fortunately that brand of little girl happy crap is transparently obvious and doesn’t fool anybody but ppGaz.
ppGaz
Well, I give him a lot of slack. First of all, as I said when I first set foot on this island, I respect his views, even when I disagree with him. For these reasons: They are not self-serving, and they are entirely honest. I don’t fault people for being wrong (that is, disagreeing with me :-)).
The line between us and the Islamic buthheads is a lot thinner than most people think it is. The war in Iraq is tailor made to illuminate that point. It’s an arrogant war of choice, started without any proximate threat to the lives or land of the United States, and advanced with a rationale that can be described with the greatest of charity as “speculative”. To be blunt: It’s an experiment. Nothing more or less. And of course, it plays directly into the hands of John’s Islamo-potatohead, because it gives credence to what he is saying. If I’m a young Muslim hothead, I have no choice but to see it that way. I couldn’t possibly see it any other way, and the manipulators — like OBL, for an obnoxious example — will use it to their fullest advantage.
We’ve expanded terrorism, not shrunk it. It’s as simple as that.
Sojourner
ppGaz:
Amen. Anyone who thinks the Iraq war has reduced terrorism isn’t paying attention.
JonBuck
ppGaz:
There is a fundamental difference between collateral damage from a military operation intended to destroy insurgents, and specifcally targeting civilians, which is what the insurgents have been doing. Can you at least recognize that?
ppGaz
Yeah, blah blah blah. We’ve all seen this browbeating bullshit before.
The answer to your blast is: No, it isn’t. I have made and will make no attack on the military. The military in this country is under civilian control. All accountability rests with that civilian leadership. The military takes its orders from that leadership and responds with the greatest of courage and committment, and they’ll get nothing but praise from me for doing it. Their heroic deeds are not tarnished by the fact that their mission is based on wrong policy. And any attempt by you to speak the lie contained in your post will be answered with this response, as many times as necessary.
The fact that most deaths in Iraq are terrorist-caused has little relevance to the arguement I am having with John Cole. It does, however, speak to the idiocy of our policy. We’ve replaced the tyrrany of a rather ordinary despot with the tyrrany of terrorism run rampant. That’s hardly an improvement, especially if you are weeping over the body parts of your loved ones just blown up by a car bomb.
Lord Locksley
Actually the line between ppGaxz and the islamic buttheads is virtually non existant since he apparently ses no difference between the US military engaging the enemy in battle and jihadis blowing up children with car bombs. Taht old ‘moral equivalenhce’ argument is only valid to poeople who have no morals themselves – or those who lack the intellect or education to see the difference
John Cole
It isn’t a reasoned response. It isn’t rational. It is sheer idiocy wrapped up in anti-western pablum and fueled by a hatred for Bush and the ‘neocons.’ It is the antithesis of clear thinking, and instead the sort of muddle-head bullshit that passes for thought on the far left these days.
Since too many of you can not figure it out for yourselves, I guess I have to break it down for you:
Those innocents killed in the subway this month as a result of targeted attacks by radical Islamists? Those are justified killings, according to this Cleric. They aren’t innocents in his eyes- they are enemy combatants. If you can not figure out the difference between our soldiers killing the enemy and innocents getting killed accientally, and the targeting of civilians, that is on you (and I am not even going to quibble with the numbers you list, because it is immaterial in this debate).
As long as you are fighting the installation of a 15th century Muslim caliphate, you are the enemy and we will continue to blow up your people. This isn’t just Iraq he is talking abut. This is Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember, all you ‘dissent is the height of patriotism’ folks supported the invasion of Afghanistan, right?
In other words, he condemns the killing of all innocents, but there are no innocents, you see? Bin Laden killed 3,000 people on 9/11, but to this guy, they were enemy combatants, not innocents. We are the enemy. You are the enemy, despite your muddle-headed molly-coddling in the comments section of posts such as this.
In other words, conversion to Islam by the edge of a sword, and back to the days of Islamic glory. You remember those days, right? I think we called them the Dark Ages in Europe.
What this guy wants is the re-installation of the Muslim Caliphate, rule by Sharia worldwide (a la the Taliban), and you knuckleheads are sitting here claiming he has ‘salient points.’
I understand you hate Bush and the neocons, and you think the War in Iraq is a mistake, but this type of overt buffoonery is just damned flabbergasting to me.
These guys yearn for a return to the stone ages, where al lwomen wear Burkha’s, gays are killed, music and free expression are outlawwed, etc. Just something to keep in mind for you guys while you are pitching an absolute shit-fit in the next month over Judge John Roberts views on abortion, while excusing the despicable behavior of radical islamofascists.
You guys and your Bush hate fucking astound me.
ppGaz
No doubt. With all due respect, you could try listening and thinking about what others are saying, as opposed to just reacting.
My opposition to Iraq policy goes back to 1991, pretty much. It has little to do with hating Bush. My brother, a card carrying member of the Junior Neocons Club, will testify that I greeted Bush’s inauguration in 2001 with considerable optimism and good will. Of course, that was largely because I had made the mistake of believing the things he said during the campaign, but that’s another story. The point is, your couching this issue in terms of “Bush hating” is just not your best work. It’s the war I hate, and Bush just happens to be owner of it. If my grandmother were the owner of it, I’d be in her face. So can we just that particular crap, John? It really isn’t helpful, and it’s way off the mark.
John Cole
Lamest… Response… Ever…
Now, defend the cleric again and compare what he wants and thinks is legitimate to the United States and our allies and our actions, please.
ppGaz
I keep forgetting, it’s HTML.
Please replace with: So can we just put aside that particular crap ….
Lord Locksley
Well clearly ppGaz is operating on the post modernist Chomskyesque assumption that the West in general, and the US in particular, is wrong unless proven otherwise. I hate the war too,dork- but I hate letting jihadi whackos having a free hand and operating with impunity even more. I havea no doubt that ppGAZ is sympatico with Congresscutesy Pelosi who thinks that we need to close Club Gitmo so we can have a ‘clean slate’ with islam- as if such a thing were possible.
ppGaz
Yeah, you know John, sometimes the high school debate class thing is pretty tedious. I am not defending the cleric, I’m bashing you. The cleric is just the cleric; I take him to be just another fundy asshole with a rag on his head.
It’s you I’m arguing with. Or was, because if the best you can do here is call me an idiot and declare that I am defending the cleric, then I’m done. I can get that kind of repartee over at the corner bar, and over there I can get a beer and a shot to go with it. The cleric is wrong. And so are you. Get it?
John Cole
If you take the cleric’s opinion as reasonable and the behaviors he endorses as justified, then you are defending him AND attacking me.
And whether or not you are an idiot or not is not something have declared. I have stated that this line of thinking is idiotic.
And I don’t think I have ever, anywhere, defended our killing of innocents, either accidental or intentional.
Lord Locksley
Again with the ‘moral equivalence’ argumeant , right ppGaz? No difference between the cleric and John (or me either I guess) So what is ‘right’ by your lights? Just withdrawing form the Middle East altogether and letting terrorism have and unbrideled hand? Why is it you and all your lefty cohorts can condemn US policy so easily but never say what the ‘right’ thing to do is? Well that way you would have to go on record with a firm position or school of thought. And God forbid you should have to run that risk and have your own policy suggestions torn to shreds.
ppGaz
I didn’t say you had. I said you’ve defended the war. The war includes the unfortunate killings. For crissakes, John, you can do better than this. If I point out that you support the war, and the war kills people, then I’m accusing you of approving of killing them? What the fuck? Eisenhower was a great general whose plans killed thousands of people. Does that mean that Eisenhower loved killing? I happen to know that he hated it, and hated war. Let’s not talk as if we are two drunks who just met on the streetcorner.
ppGaz
Well, others can judge that for themselves. I stand on the observation, as well as on everything else I’ve said to this thread.
I thought I might get a reasoned response. My mistake, I won’t make it again.
Mike S
I see what you’re TRYING to get at ppq, but you can’t really compare the two. Extremist muslims would have no problem with killing millions of civilians to just make a point. No matter how I feel about President Bush there is simply no comparison between the two.
Lord Locksley
Maybe John can do better,ppGaz- but you obviously can’t. You have no constructive suggestions at all as to how we should handle terrorism either in Iraq or anywhere else in the world. You refuse to make even the merest hint of what our policy should be. Quite a luxury when you don’t have any responsibility to shoulder.
ppGaz
I have to say the same thing I said to John much earlier here: We’ll agree to disagree. There’s a point here that you are not getting. I can’t make you get it. I gave it a shot, I’ve said my piece, I’m done. I’ll wager that you think the same in reverse: That there’s a point I’m not getting.
I’ll make you a deal: You work as hard on getting my point as you would want me to work on getting yours, and we’ll call it a good exchange.
Lord Locksley
Indeed,ppGaz. We will agree to disagree. We have something and you have nothing. We have an affirmative policy for dealing with Islamic terrorism and you have the freedom to hide under the bed and do nothing and hope that the boogeyman will just go away if you keep quiet. Now you are free to go back to your ppGaz-ing which no doubt means staring enviously at male genitalia.
ppGaz
No, the offer was not extended to you, and is not extended to you.
I have nothing to say to you. You’re noise, and I was looking for signal.
Lord Locksley
Exactly,ppGaz You have nothing to say to me because I pointed the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of your do-nothing policy and in your little self created womb of sophistry you think that silence equals winning the arugment. Any fool can criticize the war or John or me- as you have so vividly demonstrated. But you leave this discussion without giving us any practical solutions at all for how to deal with the jihadi whackos whom you seem to think are no worse than the US military. Try again when you get to be a big boy and have to live in the adult world where those maniacs would just as soon cut your head off as look at you.
ppGaz
When did you start thinking that you and I were having a discussion? I was under no such impression.
Lord Locksley
Then whg do you keep responding to my posts, genius? Again you offer nothing but your own smug self satisfied criticism of the war and nothing at all on how to deal with the enemy. Which is as good as saying you have no solutions.
Demdude
Bakri said he would like Britain to become an Islamic state but feared he would be deported before his dream was realized.
I wonder, after this outburst, would be the reason not to deport him? In Syria he would be a small fish in the ocean of crackpots.
ppGaz
Solutions? When did the thread become about solutions? I was under the impression that it was about the speech of a cleric, and John’s statement about that speech.
In any case, if I want a discussion about “solutions”, I certainly won’t seek to have it with you. I’ve seen your work here, and I’m not interested.
Lord Locksley
When that kind of cleric dreams of a global Caliphate and making ME bow down to some goddamn meteorite in Mecca it is a problem that demands a solution whether you recognize that fact and are willing to admit it or not. You won’t address the enemy in realistic terms and you wont address the criticisms of your so called arguments. Which I’m sure suits the jihadis just fine. Your cowardics is manifestly axiomatic.
ARROW
The people that characterize the U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan as the cause of more terrorism must believe that a certain level of terrorism is acceptable. These jihadis are not going to stop unless we stop them. This is “bully” 101. Anybody that has gone to public schools has seen the way a bully works, and knows that appeasing them only gets you more of the same (but maybe not as frequently). As for the supporters of those bullies that we have brought out of their closets with our offensive efforts, they are at the root of the problem.
These closet religious fanatics need a reality check at some point in the scheme of things, or this issue will go on and on as they inculcate their young with their misbegotten beliefs. So if they want to take up a weapon or strap on some C4 because they sympathize with the jihadi cause, then so be it. Let’s get it over with, rather than dying the death of 1000 cuts. There are civilized ways to address grievances, and attempting to influence the politics in a country by blowing up innocent bystanders because they are evil “infidels” is not one of them.
Steve
Is “a certain level of terrorism acceptable”? No, of course not, any more than a certain level of murder is acceptable, or a certain level of children starving is acceptable. But all of these things are going to continue to happen, and accepting that fact is part of dealing with reality. Once you accept reality, it’s a lot easier to discuss what to do about the problem.
jg
Mecca is not a meteorite.
Terrorism in almost every case in history was caused by people trying to remove an occupyer from their lands. Its not about bullying. The things people will dream up to justify what Bush is doing is amazing. The IRA blew up bombs in London to get England out of Ireland, Osama recruited Saudis and hit us to get us out of his homeland. Hezbollah hit us in 83 to get us out of Lebanon. Palestinians want Israel removed from Arab lands. Everyone wants us out of Iraq. Pretty simple to understand that we are causing terrorism by being in Iraq.
Tulie
True. But some of us that lean left or disagree with methodology. I do not think that there is any possible way terrorism can be defeated with traditional military tactics. Terrorists by nature are organized in small, mobile groups with communication between them. They are not tied to one area or country. So invading a country to stop terrorism is pretty useless. You end up with what we have now – a civilian population left without homes or livelihoods, living under constant specter of violence, insurgents fighting back against what they consider to be an unjustified occupation, and terrorism not slowed down one iota. You end up with a population of civilians placed in so much hardship that some of those civilians are going to start to think that maybe the jihadists have a point, these Western people are evil.
Fighting terrorism must be done by adopting its methods, to some extent. Small, mobile groups of operatives searching for the terrorist groups. These have to be covert operations, or they are doomed from the outset.
ARROW
“Is “a certain level of terrorism acceptable”? No, of course not, any more than a certain level of murder is acceptable, or a certain level of children starving is acceptable.”
These problems are not part of an organized, group effort. We are talking about a few levels up from your examples. If you had a gang of roving murderers, rapists, and thieves in your neighborgood, would your advice be to leave them alone?
“Osama recruited Saudis and hit us to get us out of his homeland”
News flash, the Saudi government could have gotten us out of “his homeland.” Why didn’t he go after them?
Lord Locksley
I was referring to the ‘Black Stone of Kaaba’ which is located in Mecca and is in fact the object of veneration for every Muslim on Earth and to which they bow 5 times a day. The boming in Bali several years ago took place before we went into Iraq and had nothing to do with Israel either. There are countless similar examples which simply underscore the goal of militant Islam to cow the entire world into submission. Your attempt to suggest that ‘post hoc,propter hoc’- our being in Iraq is the cause of Moslem terrorism is laughable on its face. There was no Israel and no US when the first jihadis swarmed out of Arabia in the 7th Century. What you see them doing now issimply a contemoraneous continuation of what they believe to be their theological imperative. Only the actors and locations have changed.
jg
He saw us as an occupier that needed to be driven out. He tried going to the rulers, they banished him. Do you think he was going to try more diplomacy after successfully (in his eyes) beating the soviets back to russia?
I know what mecca is. Its not a meteorite. The kabaa houses the idols of all the tribes former gods. It was how mohammed got them to bow to mecca at the start of islam. Otherwise they would be a littel reluctant to follow mohamed. Why make fun of them? Are you one of Arrows bullies from grade school?
Lord Locksley
Not at all I’m simply a practising Christian who,unlike the jihandis in question, doesnt feel compelled to force my beliefs on the world by blowing up children with car bombs. By mocking their barbaric attempts to intimediate me and others into bowing down to the goddamn meteorite in question, I merely put their theological terrorism in perspective and put them on the same level as other totalitarian ideologies we have had to deal with in the past-something to be dealt with the same way- not by friendly persuacion but with the sword of St. Michael which the Lord of Hosts has given us.
jg
And thats why we lose. You and the administration think you can solve this peopblem by treating it like any other threat. Thats stupidity. Its not like every other threat. Its different and should be approached differently.
You called it a meteorite again. And this time after saying you aren’t just trying to make fun of their religion.
BTW you’re last few words puts you in their company. Calling down God and all that.
ARROW
“He saw us as an occupier that needed to be driven out. He tried going to the rulers, they banished him. Do you think he was going to try more diplomacy after successfully (in his eyes) beating the soviets back to russia?”
I can’t believe you are apologizing for a fanatic. My point was that his problem was with his fellow countrymen, not the U.S. He should have worked to get control of his own government. If that meant terrorism, then at least you a shot at calling it an internal political struggle.
Now if you’re saying that his real problem was with American culture, that’s another issue altogether. Most liberals in this country are fighting for many of the things bin Laden despises (homosexual rights, women’s rights, free speech (pornography), etc.). Should we change our culture to appease his beliefs? Or maybe we should give up the Jews, and help the Arabs wipe them out? After all, it was only the UN that put them in the Middle East.
ppGaz
The world is full of problems that “demand” solutions. You’ve talked about the need for them. I’m sure some people wait with bated breath to hear what yours are. Unfortunately, I am not one of those people. But don’t let that stop you from posting your well-thought-out solutions for everyone else to marvel at. Please.
jg
Apologizing? Is english your first language?
You’re in his head now? Stop seeing this from Arrows point of view. Bin Laden saw this as a problem with the US. The actual facts can be argued all day by us but it won’t matter because its how HE sees it thats important. He acted based on how he percieved the situation. How it actually was isn’t important. We know he was wrong, doesn’t change anything.
You mean like the Patriot Act and pat downs before getting on planes or subways? You mean calling out our own citizens as traitors. You mean trying to shut up the press and tear down the judiciary.
No I don’t think we should change our ways.
Lord Locksley
Look,jg, the Black Stone of Kaaba IS a meteorite. What did YOU think it was? The Big Rock Candy Mountian? By bowing to it Moslims venerate a creation rather than the Creator and it is no better than the idols they used to worship.Actually I’m NOT in the same company as they are. MY Savior and MY Holy Scripture dont tell me to behead every non-Christian in the world. If you8 can’t see the difference,then there are some serious gaps in your education.
jg
Do you actually think we would have left if the Saudis asked us? Not until we had another base in the middle east, like say Iraq.
jg
Its not a meteroite. It did not fall from space. It’s a hollow cube built to house religious idols.
How is bowing to it different than bowing to a cross in church?
Islam doesn’t teach beheadings anymore than christianity taught David Koresh whatever the fuck it was he thought was going on.
There are differences between islam and christianity, just not the shit you make up to feel justified in hating them. You’re part of the problem.
ppGaz
Your check is in the mail.
Don’t hold your breath. I have yet to find a single pro-Iraq-war advocate who can have that kind of conversation for very long. Generally, they’ll turn the talk into a browbeating or namecalling session. The adversary becomes a sissy, a girly man. The adversary is “sympathizing” with terrorists. The adversary is just a “Bush hater.” And on and on. It’s really tiresome. You think, well, let them vent and then eventually they’ll get around to having a reasonable discussion. Maybe, but I’m still waiting to see it happen.
Meanwhile, the truth about the Iraq war is that it is a grandiose — and IMV, grotesque — experiment. It is based on assumptions that exist in rhetoric but not in fact. Its proponents for some reason have to resort to trickery and deceit and browbeating to prop it up. While it may have some actual value outside of the wall of demagoguery it lives behind …. that wall is so pervasive that whatever is behind it has become invisible.
John Cole himself has spoken of falling support for this war and this president on these very pages. But God forbid anyone call him on his unflagging support for that war, because he’ll go all Usenet flamewar on you in a heartbeat, as we’ve seen here. God forbid anyone even point out the obvious …. that we aren’t going to win a war on terror by arresting everybody whose speech and ideas we suddenly decide we don’t like. He calls my assertion idiotic? What could possibly be more dog-fucking idiotic than the idea in his original post? A meathead shoots his mouth off to a microphone, and John would go after him as if he were Charles Fucking Manson? Are we going to thought-police and arrest our way to winning the War on Terror now?
This thread is a sad point for all of us. We are seriously fucked if this is the level of thinking that is guiding our policies and actions now. Terror continues to metastasize, and these motherfuckers are sitting around talking about spraying Bactine on it.
I don’t think these people could get a new idea into their heads if the public support for this war dropped to zero. They’d still be saying the same goddam things.
ARROW
“Do you actually think we would have left if the Saudis asked us? Not until we had another base in the middle east, like say Iraq.”
Can you say conspiracy theory? I don’t think we would have had much choice if the Saudi government flatly said we should leave. What the hell do we get out of having a base in that part of the world in any event? We got over there in the first place because of the kind and benevolent dictator, Saddam Hussein, that many liberals to this day say we should have left alone.
John Cole
People can read the whole thread, PPGAZ, so climb down off the cross and take off the crown of thorns, as it is getting tiresome and it is really transparent. Especially since we caught you erecting it and piercing yourself in the side.
This is not about my support for the war. This is about you claiming this vile mullah is right, and we are no better than the folks blowing up the twin towers and the discos in Bali and the resorts in egypt and the subways in England. Because, whether you can comprehend it or not, that is what you are saying. That is what he is saying.
So try to change the subject all you want. The post and your remarks speak for themselves.
jg
Yes but since this is a website I’ll simply type it. Conspiracy theory. Happy?
Of course it wasn’t a conspiracy theory, way to be dismissive. It was a question.
Why have the base? Are you serious? You don’t know why we maintained bases in SA? Why am I talking to you? You don’t know anything except that you agree with everything Bush says and you hate liberals.
Name one person (who isn’t Sean Pann) who says we should have left Saddam alone. Everyone I know and have talked to said they’re glad he’s gone but could Bush have shown any more incompetence in doing it?
Lord Locksley
jg, ask ANY Moslem about the Black Stone of Kaaba and they will tell you that it DId in fact fall from ‘heaven’and THAT is the reason they see it as holy. I dont bow to a cross in Churc, not being Roman Catholic so you would have to put that question to someone who is. The Koran DOES in fact command followers of Islam to kill all those who will not accept the plagiaristic p;edophile they follow.and bow to the goddamkn meteorite at the shrine in Mecca. I dont HAVE to make up shit-I know my history. You apparently DO have to since your ignorance of Islam is astounding. So your attempts to characterize ME as part of the problem is nothing b ut infantile ad hominen, I dont give a rat’s ass if you accept MY Saviour or not. These jihadi whackos DO and will deal with you if you don’t.
Mike S
And just so you know ppqaz, that was how I read it as well. I agree with you more often than I agree with John Cole but on this one your point is either poorly made or wrong.
jg
I know many muslims. My boss is a sunni from pakistan who has made the pilgrimage. Its not a meterorite and thats not why they bow to it. They aren’t scientologists, they don’t believe in beings from space. The kabaa is a cube built to house old religious idols. It was built. It did not fall from space. Only cathloics bow to jesus on a cross? Never been to a protestant church myself but that sure seems weird. Do only catholics wear the crucifix?
jg
PPg said that the mullahs ‘justification’ can be seen as the same as the ‘justification’ for the Iraq war. Not that either is right but that its wrong to condemn his justification when ours is just as flimsy. Maybe Im reading it wrong but thats how I read it.
Mike
“Anyway, I have no stomach for arguing this with you. I don’t think either of us will change the other’s mind a whit. You’re stuck on your position, and I am quite sure than mine is correct.”
I guess the fact that Egypt sent troops and support to Iraq explains why they were attacked as well…oh maybe not.
“The guys sounds exactly like us, John. Only the team logo is different. Whether you like it or not, that’s a fact, and that’s the way the radicals over there see it.”
The guy is not exactly like us. Period. Only a blithering Blame-America First idiot would think that. Is that name calling? Yeah, so what? Irrational thoughts only deserve irrational responses. Deal with it.
Lord Locksley
Kaaba (a square building) is the ‘House of God’, where the divine touches the mundane and it is toward the Kaaba that Muslims face during their prayers. The Kaaba is located in the courtyard of the Great Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. According to the Koran, the cubic-shaped structure was built by Adam according to a divine plan. When Ibrahim (also known as Abraham) was ordered by Allah to build a Shrine for worship he uncovered the original foundation of the Kaaba built by Adam. Ibrahim with the help of his son Ismael (also known as Ishmael) erected the new shrine on the original foundation. When the Prophet Muhammad began to preach to the people of Mecca the Kaaba was a shrine for the pagan deities of the Arabs. After the Prophet established control of Mecca, the shrine was rededicated to Allah. Around the Kaaba is a restricted area, haram, extending in some directions as far as 12 miles, into which only Muslims may enter.
The actual structure of the Kaaba has been demolished and rebuilt several times in the course of its history and was originally four walls without a roof. The Kaaba is now a cubed shaped one room structure that is about 60 feet high, 60 feet wide from east to west and 60 feet from north to south. A door is fixed about 7 feet above ground level facing north east.
The Black Stone, or the Kaaba stone, is set on the outside of the eastern corner of the Kaaba and is about 5 feet above the ground. The stone is a dark reddish brown color and its diameter is about 12 inches. The Black Stone is now in pieces, three large parts and smaller fragments, which are now encased in a massive silver band. It is presumed to be of pre-Islamic origin, possibly meteoric and has always been the dark color it is because it was burned as it fell through the atmosphere. Some Muslims believe that this stone fell from the sky during the time of Adam and has the power to cleanse worshippers of their sins by absorbing them into itself. For these, the Black Stone is believed to have originally been colored white, but it turned black because of the sins it has absorbed over the years. Others believe the stone was given to Ismael by the angel Gabriel in order to provide the cornerstone for the Kaaba. The Black Stone is kissed by all who can gain access to it but is not considered idol worship. The single most important reason for kissing the stone is that Prophet Muhammad did so. No devotional significance whatsoever is attached to the stone.
Source -http://www.toursaudiarabia.com/kaaba.html
Now shut the fuck up,jg You dont know your ass from a hole in the ground
jg
Ah, so you just declare thoughts to be irrational to justify your name calling. NIce. Whens recess?
ppGaz
John, I already told you, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Your points have already been stated, and so have mine.
The “cross” and “thorns” rhetoric is useless. If you want to enter into a war of characterizations of each other, I can hold my own with the best of them. You’ve twisted my words, you’ve put words into my mouth that I did not speak, you have suggested not exactly subtly that I am somehow supporting terrorists by expressing my views, you’ve sat by there while some thug calls me “girly” and as much as calls me a fucking terrorist, you’ve ignored every single one of the salient points I’ve constructed in this thread.
For what purpose are we now to reopen this back-and-forth? A new round of browbeating?
You are barking at the moon, John. The public is getting to understand that the standard-issue message is not congruent with reality:
Newsday
Are the war pit bulls now going to suggest that it’s obscure posters like me who are somehow swaying public opinion in the wrong direction? Could it be the flaccid and feckless press which went three years into this war thing, starting in the late summer of 2002, without ever really questioning the assumptions or making a serious challenge to the official line, could they be responsible?
Or is it just possible that the official line is wrong, John? Is that possible?
If yes, then how about some discussion of that possibility?
If no, then let’s not pretend that this is anything but a closed subject here.
ARROW
“Why have the base? Are you serious? You don’t know why we maintained bases in SA? Why am I talking to you? You don’t know anything except that you agree with everything Bush says and you hate liberals.”
The above response does not qualify as an answer! I would think better of you if you used your Halliburton/oil meme.
“Everyone I know and have talked to said they’re glad he’s gone but could Bush have shown any more incompetence in doing it?”
Yeah, we would be glad to see him gone, but let’s not doing anything to make that happen. Dare I ask, how should Bush have done it? As I recall, Bush gave Saddam 72 hours to leave. Nobody wanted the asswipe, not even the French, who were blocking UN resolutions for him. Go figure. Why didn’t Saddam just open his doors to unrestricted inspections if he had nothing to hide? After all, there were no WMD in Iraq, right? Your simplistic view of the world is frightening. I think it comes from not having first hand experience with much of it.
ppGaz
I didn’t say he was. I said he sounded like us, and he does.
It’s a distinction that is central to my point. If you don’t want to take the trouble to make that distinction, fine.
Failure to make that distinction is a big mistake. Every hothead in Islam sees it that way. You can argue with me all day, but they are your problem.
jg
You produce something that says the stone might possibly a meteorite (because its black) and think thats it. Argument over. LOL. The kabaa is the building not the little black rock in the corner. They pray to the building which houses the former idols. Not the little black rock in the corner. You’ve created your own myth about te kabaa based on something you’ve read on the net and got it wrong. Sorry. The little black rock may have fallen from space but its not what they bow to. The little black rock is just one of the idols from the religions of the beduoin tribes that eventually mohammed brought together under islam. I would be happy to poke holes in the origins of islam but I won’t play along while people make shit up.
ppGaz
I may be dense, or distracted …. but I have no idea on earth what you are talking about.
Lord Locksley
George Orwell said it best during WW@ about the pacifists in the UK- that by opposing the war, they were objectively aiding the Nazis. He was right. And by suggesting that we do nothing affirmitive to resist and oppose the Islamo-fascists who want us to bow down to their shrine and the METEORITE, ppGaz and jg BOTH effectively help the terrorists.
jg
More troops from the beginning? Not make up bullshit wmd evidence thats weak on its face which alienates the people who could’ve helped us get this done right. As much as I hate Saddam and am glad he’s out of the picture there was no emergency to get this done. We acted like it was an emergency, rushed it and batched it. Then to make it worse the president has refused to see reality ever since. ‘Freedoms on the march’, ‘they’re just dead enders’, ‘last throes’. Wolfowitz said it was ridiculous that we’ve spent $30 billion to keep him under sanction. That was global cash. How much has it cost us alone to run this war? Plus tax cuts????????
Lord Locksley
jg you didnt even try to distinguish between the cube and the meteorite-assuming they were one and the same. and you denied that Muslims believe it fell from the sky. so you are hoist on your own petard. Whether they bow to the cube ore the rock is a distinction without a difference. What remains is that you dont see the difference between idol worashipers who would kill us four our non-belief,l and those of us who oppose that affirmatively.
jg
I said to do nothing? You thnk terrorism is the muslim way of conversion? Are you nuts? They don’t want to convert us to Islam. They want us to leave Arab lands. Its that simple. We can’t leave so we have to find a way to make this shit work. I agree with killing those who are committing acts (if they even survive) but I don’t agree killing muslims will stop other muslims from strapping on a vest. Do you?
Lord Locksley
Much easiera to stop Saddam BEFORE he gets a nuclear weapons capability. Einstein knew this when he wrote FDR in 1938 about Germany’s research into splitting the atom and the heavy water facilities at Telemark. An ounce of prevetion has saves us hudndreds of thouseands of casualties down the road.
ppGaz
Please cite the post in which I stated that I think we should “do nothing … to resist.” You are a very stupid man, sir. Not wanting to do what you want to do is not the same thing as doing nothing. You do not own the problem.
Lord Locksley
jg, how many clerics have to say openly that they want a global Caliphate before you understand what that means? It means they want EVERYONE to bow down to either the cube or the meteorite . If you arae whuss enough to let them make you do that, go ahead .I for one dont intend to give up eating bacon with my eggs.
Lord Locksley
I asked you THREE times what is YOUR answer to the problem, and all you did was pretend you didnt want to discuss it. You HAVE no answer to the problem or you would have already outlined it.
jg
I didn’t make the distinction because you said the object they bow to fell from space,it didn’t. Something in the object they bow to may have fallen from space, I’ll give you that but its not a part of ttheir religion. Islam is Christianity 2.0 just as Christianity is Judaism 2.0. Muslims have lots of respect for Jesus, they believe he was a prophet but that we lost our way when we elevated him to son of God. Thats why of sent another prophet, Mohammed. He went up a mountain and came back with a plan for a new religion descendant from Abraham that ries to avoid the ‘mistakes’ of Judaism and Christianity.
Once again they don’t kill us for our beliefs. Stop listeing to Rush. His goal is to influence not inform.
jg
Clerics talk. Doesn’t mean they speak for everyone. Palestinians blow themselves up in Israel because some mullah wants to be a Caliph? No. They want Israel out of Arab lands. Of course they would love ‘one world, one religion’. Do you deny Christianity would want that? Its not why terrorism is committed.
Lord Locksley
So you really believe that their pedophile ‘prophet’ had it revealed to him that we were supposed to revert to idol worshiplike the pagans instead of worshipping the Creator in spririt? That alone ought to tell you his message is bogus.
Lord Locksley
Terrorism is but one ‘tool’ they use to establish the Calaiphate- ‘by any means necessary’ They can blow themselves up all they want in the West Bank and Gaza but Israel aint leaving
Lord Locksley
By the way,jg,- Im sure you are unaware of this but virtually AALL the land that comprises what was the orginal 1947 Jewish homeland was purchased over the preceeding years from abasentee landlords- so it isnt ‘Arab’ land
ppGaz
Tough shit, my good sir. You haven’t defined any problem for which a solution can be proposed. Do you want to go big, and just lump it all into “terrorism?” Or do you want to get more granular? It’s your question, so take the trouble to ask it in some meaningful fashion.
If your answer is “terrorism,” I’ve answered that question several times on these pages. I might take the trouble to go over it again with you, but I am not going to waste my time doing so with a person who talks like you. You’re a thug. You call people “girly” and suggest that if they don’t agree with you, they are “supporting terrorists.”
Which part of “I have nothing to say to you” did you not understand? Do you want to come down off that bully high horse of yours and actually address whatever you think the “problem” is? Then you’ll have to declare that. Otherwise I’m not interested. You can spend the next two days poring over the site’s archives and find my blurbs on that subject yourself. While you’re at it, also look for other stated “solutions” to the “problem” and let’s make a compare and contrast list, what do you say? You do want to explore this fully, don’t you? Or do you just want to beat down the ideas that aren’t yours?
On a more general tack, I happen to think that doing something stupid is not preferable to doing nothing. I’m under no obligation to single handedly solve the world’s most glaring problem (at the moment) or else forfeit my right to point out the huge shortcomings of a policy that I think is a bunch of crap. I don’t have that obligation, and you aren’t going to impose it on me. So again, you’ll need to step back.
jg
WHAAAAAAAAAAT?!!!!!
I don’t subscribe to his message. You really think this is a holy war don’t you? Thats just how the mullahs get the people to do their bidding. Its like yelling ‘liberal media’ so people will only listen to FOX.
Yup. Terrorism is hardly ever successful. Worked on us in 83 but we were leaving lebanon anyway.
Good point. But do you think it matters to an Arab? Do you see the problem yet? You’re point of view isn’t relevant. Its what the Arabs think that drives them, not reality.
ARROW
“More troops from the beginning?”
This suggests to me that you are thinking that it was right to go in the first place. It was just a question of timing.
“Then to make it worse the president has refused to see reality ever since.”
I doubt that seeing “reality,” as you put it, would change our status in Iraq. It would only provide Bush’s opponents with ammunition to politicize the issue to their advantage. He might not be the most brilliant President we’ve ever had, but you have to give him some credit.
“That was global cash. How much has it cost us alone to run this war? Plus tax cuts????????”
Tax cuts have nothing to do with the war. But this line of reasoning does give me some insight into how you think. It’s almost as if you think the government has a right to all income earned by citizens, and by not taking as much it is costing the government. I think this type of socialistic thinking is ridiculous!
ppGaz
Exactly. Which is why … exactly why …. arresting some beardo in front of a microphone whom those Arabs (actually, those particular, and I assume, minority Muslims) think sounds just like us, only he’s on their side ….. makes no damned sense. How many loudmouths do these people think we’d have to arrest to stem the tide of dysfunctional thinking??
Terrorism is all about dysfunctional thinking. Otherwise, why would people strap on explosives? Where would you lock up all the dysfunctional thinkers? How would you find them? If you arrest one, haven’t you just spurred ten more into action? Do we think that this is just a game of attrition here? At what point does the whole world just become a larger version of Israel-Palestine?
Christ, I thought my workmate who seriously suggested “just nuking” all those troublesome people was nutty. I’m not sure that the “arrest the clerics” idea isn’t even nuttier.
How do people think they are going to escape the liberty-crushing Patriot Act, if seemingly rational people are going around talking about arresting people for their thoughts? Especially when their thoughts are, in the grand scheme of Mulsim things, pretty commonplace?
I’m at the point where I have no idea what the fuck these people are thinking any more. I guess they think that strutting and tough talk is going to solve the problem.
As in, Bring It On.
jg
I was a big supporter of Bush and this war up until about middle of the summer 03. Right around the time Bush changed the reasons for war to liberal freeing oppressed people bullshit.
Not only did you miss my point but you fabricated one and used it to rail against a strawman. Poor strawman sittng around minding his own business til you come along and stabbed him.
My point was Bush needs cash to run this war. Bush gets cash from us. Only an idiot would provide tax cuts in a time of war. You don’t give away billions then embark on an adventure that costs billions. Not if you represent the party of fiscal responsibility.
Taxing citizens is not socialism. High taxation sucks but get rid of the places the money goes before cutting the funding. Otherwise you end up borrowing the money. Which we’ve done in a huge way.
ARROW
“Not only did you miss my point but you fabricated one and used it to rail against a strawman.”
I didn’t fabricate anything, you were the one that said “How much has it cost us alone to run this war? Plus tax cuts????????” The “Plus tax cuts” lines is meaningless without the preceeding sentence. The obvious implication is that tax cuts are a cost to the government. Less tax receipts are not a cost to government, unless you think government is entitled to all receipts and are giving some back out of the kindness of their “heart.”
“Only an idiot would provide tax cuts in a time of war. You don’t give away billions then embark on an adventure that costs billions.”
Let’s see, Bush cuts taxes, and government tax receipts are up. You did hear that the projected deficit for 2005 was down $94 billion, didn’t you? I can assure you that spending is not down. Again, you show your stripes, the government doesn’t give away anything, it takes the people’s money.
albedo
I guess I’m a little late to the party here, but I thought this was an interesting comments thread. My 2 cents:
I don’t see a moral equivalency between clerics like the one cited and our government. All violence is not the same. There is a moral difference between collateral damage caused by military strikes and, say, blowing up a subway.
That said, clerics like the one cited do not speak for mainstream Islam. We must remember that we are fighting a small extreme sect that does not represent the wishes of the average Arab in the Middle East. That is why I believe the Iraq War to be generally wrongheaded.
As stated above, the central issue uniting most of the terrorists and would-be terrorists out there is not the oft-cited Wahhabist desire for a caliphate – a ridiculously high-minded motivation to ascribe to these people. Mainly, they want us off their turf.
Does that mean we should go, or that everything would be peppermints and unicorns if we closed all our military bases around the world? Of course not. I don’t have all the answers, nor does anyone on this site, and I do accord the Bush administration some respect for trying to do something.
I do think, however, we should be spending more of our manpower and money on border security and less on dubious nation-building projects. The Mexican border could not be more porous. I don’t have the figures, but I’d assume that the money spent on Iraq would have gone a long way towards fixing that problem, along with providing realistic port and aiport security. If we’re really serious about defending ourselves against terrorism, these things would be the top priority, not deposing dictators halfway around the world.
jg
You do realize that the only thing that went down was how bad the deficit would be. Talk about looking for a silver lining.
‘Obvious implication’? I think someone found an opportunity to go on a ‘I hate taxes’ rant. I’m sorry you had to totally miss my point to do it though. Tax cuts are only a ‘cost’ to government when we are still running the programs they used to pay for. First you should get rid if the need for the taxes. Are you one of the neew Limbaugh republicans? The ones who think a platform of the republican party is tax cuts? Its not. Its smaller federal government. Less taxes is incidental. Shrink the government and they don’t need as much of our money. Problem is that the last three republican presidents have grown the size of the federal gov’t while at the sametime dropping a meaningless and essentially toothless tax cut on us. The taxes will go back up. They have to. We aren’t pulling in enough revenue to fund our government. But it’ll happen when theres a democrat in the White house. That way Rush can lead you in the bitching sessions. Would you willing halve your salary because you can just put essential items on your credit cards? If you are willing to do that 55 million people will vote for you to be president. Economics don’t matter when you control the airwaves apparently. They’re bankrupting our future while telling us that flag burning liberals are our enemy. We have a credit company freindly bankruptcy bill and now Paris Hilton can inherit tax free all thanks to gay marriage on the ballot of swing states. Get your head out of your ‘taxes are unconstitutional’ ass and look around.
Mike
“But do you think it matters to an Arab? Do you see the problem yet? You’re point of view isn’t relevant. Its what the Arabs think that drives them, not reality.”
So we just need to understand them… Bullshit.
I’m already tiring of this, so how about instead all the Liberals here go take a look at this:
http://www.unite-against-terror.com/
It’s a website where you’ll find many prominent libs (just like you) who aren’t gonna take it anymore. They’re tired of the same old “Blame the West first” idiocy and are asking like minded libs. to sign up with them for taking a stand.
Here’s my favorite line:
“We stand firmly against those who apologize for the terrorists and who misrepresent terrorist atrocities as ‘resistance’.”
Take a look, read their reasons for signing. If you still disagree, then there’s no hope for you and you’ll continue to bitterly blame your government and your neighbors for the fact that Islamists DON’T want you just “out of their country”, they want you to convert or die.
Good old Christopher Hitchens may say it best:
Christopher Hitchens (Writer)
Association with this statement and with many of its fellow-signatories involves two commitments. The first is the elementary duty of solidarity with true and authentic resistance movements within the Muslim world, such as the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, who were fighting against Ba’athism and Talibanism (and the latent alliance between the two) long before any American or British government had woken up to the threat. It should go without saying that, though the suffering of their peoples was intense, neither Jalal Talabani nor Ahmed Shah Masoud ever considered letting off explosive devices at random in foreign capitals. I have my political and ideological differences with both groups, but these differences are between me and them, and are not mediated through acts of nihilistic murder.
My second commitment is equally elementary. The foreign policy of a democracy should be determined only at election times or by votes in Congress or Parliament. It is one hundred per cent unacceptable even to imply, let alone to assert, that a suicide-murderer or his apologists can by these means acquire the right to any say in how matters are decided.
Both of these observations, and indeed this very statement, would be redundant if it were not for the widespread cultural presence of a pseudo-Left, and an isolationist Right, both of whom have degenerated to the point where they regard jihadism as some form of “liberation theology”. The old slogans are often the best, and “Death to Fascism” is life-affirming in these conditions.
So…I wonder how many of the libs here will agree with them?
albedo
How about we hate the terrorists and also try to understand their motivations. Why is it one or the other? How about all the Conservatives here quit being such a bunch of willfully stupid cavemen (since everyone is Liberal or Conservative and believes One Thing or the Other). What a crock of shit.
ppGaz
It is, if you are making up the intent behind the statement, and then attacking it as a strawman.
Understanding the terrorists is not about therapy. It’s about assessing the danger they pose and thereby making plans that are congruent with reality. A common-sense approach to any problem, but one which, for reasons I cannot fathom, eludes the tough-talking crowd, who would apparently rather bluster and foram at the mouth than do a workmanlike job of waging, not a useless “war on terror,” but an effective war on vulnerability and terror opportunity.
If the chest-thumpers would pull their heads out of their asses and stop trying so hard to pump themselves up, trying so hard to prove that they and only they understand the problem, and open their FUCKING EYES, they’d have a chance to see that the global terrorist threat is hardly anything like the comic-book bullshit peddled by the Bush administration, and start doing things that will actually protect American lives and property.
THAT’s what “understanding the terrorists” is about. Understanding the threat.
Here’s what NOT understanding it looks and sounds like:
“Osama — Wanted Dead or Alive.”
“Osama? I am truly not that concerned about him”
“Mission Accomplished”
“Bring it on”
“The insurgency is in its last throes”
That’s why it’s essential to understand what these crazy bastards are about and how the brain tumor of their ideas spreads all over the place. So that proper measures can be taken, and the useless ones …. like attacking a country that had little terrorist significance and turning it into the goddam Mecca of terrorism … can be reviewed and revised.
The assholes who constantly scream the lies about “understanding the terrorists” are doing a great imitation of people who are more interested in having the last word, and being right, than they are in actually doing anything useful about terrorism.
As I said earlier to this thread, the people are catching on to the fact that the knee-jerk tough talk is out of touch with reality. Support for the policy continues to sag, and it will continue to sag, until the assholes wake up and smell the coffee.
ppGaz
You did realize that most of the hyped “revenue increase” was not due to improvements in the economy, but in fact were due to expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts?
Every economic analysis I’ve seen lately seems to indicate that this little bubble of revenue, due not to Bush’s economic policies — as if anyone could figure out what the fuck they are — being successful but to a temporary lag in a tax cut scheme that will go away next year — will put us right back on the same slippery slope to higher deficits in the near years unless there is some miraculous turnaround.
These lying shitheads in the White House can’t be honest about anything, apparently.
ppGaz
By Maura Reynolds The Los Angeles Times Thursday 14 October 2004
This is what you get when the people in charge don’t take the time to step back from their own bullshit, and learn to understand the true nature of the terrorist threat. You get the words of the President of the United States, looking like a damned idiot a couple of years later.
People have stopped buying the bluster and the bullshit.
People around here would do well to stop trying to peddle it.
ARROW
You still don’t get it… a reduction in tax receipts to the government is NOT A COST to them. Honestly, this has nothing to do with politics, and is true regardless of the status of programs. Oh well, I’m done trying to explain it to you.
Meaning you won’t be able to walk away so easily from debts YOU incurred?
Meaning the government will not be able to tax your estate if its less than $5 million? When you get a chance, explain to me why the government has any right to whatever assets you have when you die. Theoretically, they took a share when you earned it. And when you die, they get another cut? The only people that think this is fair are socialists.
I’m sure you have a point, but you need to work on the part where you explain what it is.
This comment is just flat out wrong ppGaz. Maybe you could point to just ONE of these economic analyses that support your point.
Mike
“albedo Says:
How about we hate the terrorists and also try to understand their motivations. Why is it one or the other? How about all the Conservatives here quit being such a bunch of willfully stupid cavemen (since everyone is Liberal or Conservative and believes One Thing or the Other). What a crock of shit.”
Screw their “Motivations”. What a crock of shit.
You don’t attempt to understand madmen, you kill them.
Here’s an idea:
How about we treat the Islamist Terrorists much as we did the Nazis?
Not compromise with them as Neville Chamberlain tried to do, not listen to their concerns about the Jew/Homosexuals/Slavs/etc., or how the German people suffered under the terms of the treaties of WWI, but recognize that they are human scum, mass murderers, intent on conquering the world with their brand of political/religious poison, and they only deserve to be destroyed. Can you at least agree with that? Or does the fact that they are truly evil scum not enter into your world view?
Everybody on the left wants to bring up Iraq. Iraq has made us more unsafe, Iraq has bred more terrorists, etc. This all assumes that by invading Iraq and giving Iraqis a chance at something better, this somewhat gives terrorists “cover” because this was wrong and therefore the terrorists are somehow right. In other words, they aren’t REALLY terrorists, they are “Freedom Fighters” much like the Minutemen as I recall your hero Michael Moore stated.
Also, Libs don’t want to talk about the fact that we hadn’t invaded any Muslim countries prior to 9-11, yet did that save us from attack? Were we somehow “safe”? Take Iraq completely out of the equation, forget it ever happened. Pretend Saddam is happily continuing to starve/torture his countrymen, plot a new attack against a neighbor, try to kill another American President, attempt to gather WMDs, all under the wondrous management of the joke known as the UN. Forget Iraq.
Now…would we be safe? Would Americans be able to do business, travel overseas or even ride the subway in NY?
ppGaz
Widely reported.
Try this:
Deficit Disorder – NYT July 23
John S.
Just as an aside, WWII and Nazi references are just about as cliché as historical references go. Sure, you can come up with scores of anecdotal evidence to link these things to present day circumstances, but I could also make a compelling argument that apples really are just like oranges if I had to.
The short of it is that Islamic (or other) terrorists are not Nazis. They are not an organized political party in control of a government and they are not trying to create a race of Super-Islamists by exterminating particular ethnic groups (as shown by the indiscriminate nature of their attacks).
And using terms like “everybody”, “all” and “Left/Right” (upper-case) is absurd. To speak about these issues in such huge sweeping generalizations is greatly oversimplifying a very complex issue. Not “everybody on the left wants to bring up Iraq” to use as the primary cause for an increase in terrorism, though it is of course a relevant issue in the realm of current events. Michael Moore is not every Liberals “hero”, unless stated otherwise. And so on…
Here’s an idea, how about we try having a conversation that isn’t entirely made up of extremes and gross caricatures? I know it would be intellectually easier for me to just say “Mike, like everyone else on the Right, is a xenophobic chickenhawk who is foaming at the mouth”, but since when does inflammatory rhetoric ever make a cogent argument?
It doesn’t.
ppGaz
On the mental acuity scale, that statement is right up there with:
“How do you know dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago? Were you there?“
war bird
They are faceless cowards who use bombs to force countries to compley with their demands they should be tracked down and hung from the nearest tree you can drag them to call it fronteer justice
ARROW
I won’t quibble whether a NYT opinion piece qualifies as “economic analysis.” The following excerpts are from the Monthly Budget Review, A Congressional Budget Office Analysis, July 7, 2005:
My point, this data does not support your assertion that most of the hyped “revenue increase” was due to expiration of some of the Bush tax cuts.
albedo
“Screw their “Motivations”. What a crock of shit.
You don’t attempt to understand madmen, you kill them.”
These people are not insane. Delusional, certainly. I agree we should kill them, too. Do you not agree that it might be helpful in weeding out and exterminating the root causes of this type of fundamentalism to gain a comprehension of why they might be blowing up commuters (and themselves)? If not, you’re a bloviating dead weight that has nothing further to contribute to winning this fight.