Cheney and the other war hawks (ie, future Halliburton employees and lobbyists) are so disappointed.
Bush: US Must Remain Vigilant on Iran
President Bush said Tuesday that the international community should continue to pressure Iran on its nuclear programs, asserting Tehran remains dangerous despite a new intelligence conclusion that it halted its development of a nuclear bomb four years ago.
“I view this report as a warning signal that they had the program, they halted the program,” Bush said. “The reason why it’s a warning signal is they could restart it.”
Bush spoke one day after a new national intelligence estimate found that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, largely because of international scrutiny and pressure. That finding is in stark contrast to the comparable intelligence estimate of just two years ago, when U.S. intelligence agencies believed Tehran was determined to develop a nuclear weapons capability and was continuing its weapons development program.
#87, Todd,
Clinton was a better politician, speaker, and diplomat than Bush. He was much smoother, but I wouldnt [sic] go as far as to say that he did a darned good job.
Clinton is the better politician, speaker, and diplomat by a long shot. Clinton did a great job. This country enjoyed prosperity not seen since the 1960s with Kennedy and Johnson.
The extremists who previously were more concerned with Russia, now focused solely on the US and Western Europe.
Geeze your stupidity never ceases to amaze. A while ago your were claiming a superior access to geopolitical analysts. Apparently you didn’t learn anything from them.
The terrorism against the US in the 1990s was due to three things. America’s involvement against Iraq and subsequent sanctions, America’s keeping bases in Saudi Arabia, and most of all, America support for Israel. That was al Quaeda’s sole reason for being.
Both the CIA and the FBI had less agents and analysts covering the entire world than the NYPD has on shift at any one time in New York.
Bad analogy. California has more member in the National Guard than NYC has police officers. Both are totally meaningless. The NYPD is a police force. The others aren’t.
#89 Mister Fusion
No I am afraid you are the moron.
“You link to a site discussing something that happened 1500 years ago before England even existed. ” – Mister Fusion
Not only do you not know anything about history You apparently cant do math either.
It said 5th century. England was founded in the 10th century. That would only be 500 years. Perhaps you should have stayed in school.
And you are splitting hairs. It was the same place and descendants of those people.
“If you read what I wrote, I said IN Europe. I never suggested at any time that NO European was ever involved IN the slave trade. BUT, slaves were not an issue per se in Europe.” – Mister Fusion
WRONG AGAIN! Wow you just don’t know when to shut up.
Not that would normally use Wikipedia but I don’t feel I need to prove something that is a well know fact to anyone who has studied European history and I don’t feel I should have to do what your teachers or parents should have done for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_trade_in_the_Middle_Ages
So the facts are YOU ARE WRONG and you statement was erroneous!
“Of course, your only proof is something that happened 1500 years ago” -Mister Fusion
No. There is lots of proof so if you want to continue to look stupid I will oblige you and continue to counter you incorrect statements as you dig your hole deeper.
Why don’t you just admit you were wrong and apologize for pretending to know what you are talking about.
Before you get the chance I will redact the first part of my post because I missed the “ago”
But the rest still stands and you are still WRONG!
Mr. Fusion,
Your argument is that AQ only exists because of the US and our horrible interference in the region? Are you nuts???? Just because someone is mad at the US, it doesnt mean that whatever they do is America’s fault or that their anger is justified. These guys are insane…whether you choose to ignore them is up to you…they dont hate America because of our involvement in Saudi Arabia…that is a greivance that is used as a recruitment tool, not the reason for their existance. Radical Islamic groups exist for one reason…to spread islam and restore the original Caliphate that existed under their prophet. Then once they re-create that, they want to expand to the rest of the world. IF you dont believe me, then please look up some of Osama’s speaches, video’s, and teachings. He very specifically lays this out. So while our mistakes in the middle east can make it easier for him to recruit, his real problem with the US is that we aren’t ruled by Sharia and we stand in his way. Radicals just use the US involvement in the middle east as a rallying cry and a recruitment tool. Learn the facts….their is only about 100 different books you can read on the subject.
Terrorism wasnt created by the US involvement in the middle east or our support for Israel. Those facts just enable them to spin current events in their favor. They enable them to take angry disenfranchised Youth from around the world and turn them into hate mongering soldiers who blow up innocent women and children and kidnap and behead people while still alive.
Terrorist groups like AQ, exist because of radical religous clerics who twist the meaning of Islam (very much the same way the KKK twisted Christianity to support their views), states who support or give safe haven to those clerics, and the extreme poverty in which many of the people in these war torn countries live. Which by the way, is caused by the extreme abuse of power exhibited by their leaders (both political and religous). They deprive these people of a decent life and when these poor people become angry, they use religion to teach them why it is the west’s fault. However, before Clinton, they were too busy fighting the Russians who were actually invading the holy land. They conflict was over during the Clinton years and it enabled them to turn their attention toward us. Please look in to this, because like Europe’s involvement in colonialism and slavery, you dont seem to really know the truth.
Also, if you really want to use western involvement in the middle east as the problem here….then look no further than France…They brutalized and oppressed alegerians for many years and as a result, a large radical segement began to grow in Algeria. Those radicals have been involved with violent groups world-wide. Look where AQ and other groups are sending fighters. They are going to Indonesia, Africa, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Australia, Spain, etc. All of these places are part of the original Islamic Caliphate. That is not a coincidence.
#87, Todd,
Damn, you are too easy.
They are already pulling 15 month rotations as it is. And though often blamed on Bush, that is actually more of a result of the troop reductions of the 90’s. … Its too hard to recruit large numbers of volunteers and train them in a short period of time. Clinton was seriously misguided with his views on this.
How it must hurt to know the troop reductions started under Reagan and Bush I. Guess who was Secretary of Defense under Bush I? Can you say Dick Cheney?
Early in 1991 the secretary unveiled a plan to reduce military strength by the mid-1990s to 1.6 million, compared to 2.2 million when he entered office.
Between 1989 and 1993 when Cheney left office, the Army had been downsized by over 25%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Then we have the Republican Congress and their budget management in the 1990s. They gave the DoD a 1% (real money) cut in 1994 and a 2% cut in 1995. They still tried to ram through over $7 Billion in military purchases the DoD didn’t want or need but would benefit their districts.
For 1996 Clinton Administration advocated a five year modernization program. The Republican Congress preferred to spend Defense dollars on giant projects instead.
In 1997, William Cohen, a Republican was confirmed as Clinton’s new Secretary of Defense. Under his leadership and mostly Congressional pushing he reduced manpower by 115,000 active and National Guard personnel.
As soon as Donald Rumsfeld was sworn in, he initiated plans on making the military even smaller. Even after 9/11, those plans didn’t change. The focus was on using as few personnel as possible in favor of high tech weapons. The planned invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq using as few troops as possible became known as the Rumsfeld Doctrine. What had originally been called a trophy to Rumsfeld’s genius, became an insulting moniker to his short sightedness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumsfeld
Not to mention Mr. Fusion,
Are you really excusing Osama for blowing thousands of people up, just becasue he disagrees with our stance on Israel or our relationship with Saudi Arabia (remember, we are there with direct Saudi Govt. approval). He is a criminal….If you find out that a serial killer who is responsible for the death of thousands became a serial killer because his diagreed with his father when he was young, would you excuses his actions….NO!!!! That’s insane….whether he likes the Saudi stance on relations with the US or our view of Israel doesnt really matter to me. He still isnt allowed to wage Jihad on the west because of it. Do you not see how one sided your argument is. You say that AQ is the US’ fault for interfering in the middle east and say it in a way that it at least seems like you disagree with US support of Israel, etc. Yet isnt Osama doing the same thing to the west…by calling us evil and demanding we stay out of “his” region by invading ours. Isnt that infringing on our sovereignty. Who the hell is he to tell the west that we are evil. Screw him…I agree we need to interfere less around the world….but that doesnt excuse Osama’s demand that the west accept the Prophet and demand that we stop supporting Israel or Saudi Arabia. We have that right.
Furthermore, he invaded a country himself….what gave him the right to invade Afghanistan??? He is from Saudi Arabia. However, he doesnt view his take over of Afghanistan as an inavsion, because he views the world through radical islam. Which states that all of the middle east belongs to the Islamic Caliphate and not any one country….so he is able to go where ever he wants…because it all belongs to him as the leader of the radical movement. But if a christian or jew dare step on his blessed ground…he declares they must die. Im sorry, but your argument is one sided…..and quite anti-western…but then thats because your points come directly from the terrorist apologist handbook. Or AQ’s PR manual…whichever you choose. But thats OK, because most of the media’s talking points regarding the subject come from the same manual.
We finally do agree on something…the “Rumsfeld Docrtine” was a massive failure…Also, I think Cheney is a misguided man, who still tried to run the US using late 80’s strategy.
However, you only helped prove my earlier points…..that the previous 5 presidents have been involved in screwing this thing up. However, the US intelligence collapse was a direct result of Clinton Era Policy. the CIA prospered under BUSH I, because that was Bush I background. Remember, we didnt have any Huge intel fiasco’s during the first Bush’s term in office and the first Iraq war was done very well until the part where we deserted the Iraqi people in the end. So, even if the military downsizing was started before clinton, the intel collapse is all his own; and Clinton still chose to continue doing the military cuts. This is made evidently clear in both Tenet’s book and “the Terrorist Watch”. You should check em out, their give very good insight into what was going on at the time. Even if Tenet was a horses ass.
One more point, less troops in favor of more technology is good, but at some point it is dangerous. For example, 1 of our fighters may be able to kill 3-5 of other major powers (especially if its the F22), but what happens when you have 6 of our planes fighting 30 of another country’s at one time? We lose…the pilots cant keep up with that many. So it is worth noting that this can be a dangerous strategy. Another weakness is that every time we increase our technological capability we reduce the number of troops, but if we keep doing that, then we arent ever improving our capabilities, we are just replacing them and as many people know. To actually increase your capability you must increase the technology, but maintain the troop strenght.
The obvious plus to the reduction/modernization strategy is that you put less soldiers in harms way. But the major downside is that you have less soldiers to use when you really need them. In the end we needed more boots on the ground in Iraq to be successful, not more technology. We needed troop presence to prevent the terrorists from attacking. The technology has its limits when dealing with guerilla tactics. Guerilla tactic dictate that when your enemy is out in force, you lay low and wait for an opportunity to isolate a small segment of those troops and engage. That is why the surge has had a positive effect…the tactics of the war we are fighting dictate that the radical elements will lay low while our troop presence is high. Which buys some time for the Iraqi gov. to try to reach some agreements. We will see if it works, but it is working so far. Either way, the dem’s who kept saying that more troops would mean more casualties have been proven wrong. With recent troop causualties at some of the lowest levels of the war. Those numbers started declining after June…when the Surge was completed.
Fusion
al-Queada’s sole purpose for being is to violently spread islamic control through out the world (their motivation is the same as in the crusades) and create Islamic republics who follow Sharia everywhere.
Their complaints are that we are in Saudi Arabia and we support Israel….But why do they despise us so much for supporting Israel??? for the same reason that Islamic governments (Egypt for example) try to destroy or hide any archeological finds or evidence that demonstrates the existance of ancient jewish settlements (Naked Archeaologist on the History Channel had to deal with this in Egypt when he was looking for evidence of the mass migration of jews to from Egypt to the middle east (otherwise known as the Exodus). For whats it worth, he found some pretty convincing evidence. But he had to hide the fact that he was looking for that to gain approval from the government and he was watched by armed men the entire time.
They destroy this evidence and they hate us for supporting Israel because they are Jewish and not Islamic. They hate that someone other than an islamic follower is in Jerusalem. Though, Judaeism did exist before both Christianity and Islam, so technically, if you want to get into a religous argument (like the terrorists try to use)…the jews should be allowed to be there. In fact, the great Islamic Church in land (the dome of the Rock) was built on top of Solomon’s Temple. I must say here that I am not a very religous person (I go to church on holidays and thats about it), so I am not giving the religous argument in support of Israel…I am only saying, that even if you use the criteria provided by radical clerics, the Jews still have a very valid claim to the area. At least as valid a claim as anyone else.
#93, J
What a sad person. You make a claim. I refute your claim. You reply with a weak “proof”. I refute your “proof”. Then you get all upset because you can’t even read your own comment.
I never said slavery did not exist in Europe. It did. I do contend that it was not an issue IN Europe as it later became in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
“You link to a site discussing something that happened 1500 years ago before England even existed. ” – Mister Fusion
Not only do you not know anything about history You apparently cant do math either.
It said 5th century. England was founded in the 10th century. That would only be 500 years. Perhaps you should have stayed in school.
So what is your point? Your link was to a Wikipedia entry discussing German tribes on the British Isles having slaves in the 5th century. England did not exist at that time. To say that a country had a social condition 500 years before you claim it was even formed gave me a good laugh.
BTW, my degree is in History.
“If you read what I wrote, I said IN Europe. I never suggested at any time that NO European was ever involved IN the slave trade. BUT, slaves were not an issue per se in Europe.” – Mister Fusion
WRONG AGAIN! Wow you just don’t know when to shut up.
J, what the hell are they teaching in elementary school these days? Reading comprehension is obviously not one of them.
Slavery was never a huge issue after the middle ages. Yes, slaves were often bought and sold. Unlike the later Americas slave trade though, they usually were integrated into the host society within a generation or two.
That explains why specific genes are found in the Faroes, Hebrides, and Iceland that originated from the Picts in England. They were taken as slaves by the Norse who settled those regions while the Picts didn’t. Those same genes are much rarer in current Scandinavia.
#95, Todd,
I guess you have a difficult time comprehending too.
Your argument is that AQ only exists because of the US and our horrible interference in the region? Are you nuts????
Maybe you could quote where I inferred that. Maybe, though, you could check with your Gr. 10 geopolitical nerd group and discuss this.
Just because someone is mad at the US, it doesnt [sic] mean that whatever they do is America’s fault or that their anger is justified.
Are you trying to convince me or yourself? One of these days though, I expect you will learn that someone’s anger is usually rooted in their target’s actions. That does NOT mean those actions were right or wrong. Only that the target did something to piss off the angered party.
For example, if you enter my house and didn’t remove your shoes I would be angered at the insult even though you habitually never remove your shoes when entering another’s house.
they dont [sic] hate America because of our involvement in Saudi Arabia…
Oh? What happened at the Khobar Towers?
So while our mistakes in the middle east can make it easier for him to recruit,
And those mistakes are, …
While you are thinking about that point, please refer back to your original tirade that America doesn’t make mistakes, everyone else does.
Terrorism wasnt [sic] created by the US involvement in the middle east or our support for Israel. Those facts just enable them to spin current events in their favor.
True, terrorism wasn’t created by the US. Terrorism in the Middle-East. It was largely fueled by the three points I made earlier. Desert Storm, bases in Saudi Arabia, and support for Israel. Hey !!! Those are current events !!! And you can even add the US being involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.
However, before Clinton, they were too busy fighting the Russians who were actually invading the holy land. They conflict was over during the Clinton years and it enabled them to turn their attention toward us. Please look in to this, because like Europe’s involvement in colonialism and slavery, you dont [sic] seem to really know the truth.
First, the “Russians” never invaded the “holy land” [sic]. Unless you can find some reference to disprove that. The USSR, or Soviets, invaded Afghanistan in 1979, withdrawing in 1989. FYI, until 1978, all of the Arab Middle East nations were allied with the USSR. After 1978 Egypt became an American ally but the other countries, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and Libya were still Soviet allies. After the Iran Crises, Iraq and Saudi Arabia gradually joined the American sphere of influence.
***
You should really take some writing classes. Your thoughts are all over the place. It is extremely difficult to follow what you are talking about or referring to. It is quite possible that you are still copy and pasting other’s writings instead of your own and thinking they fit.
#98, Todd,
However, you only helped prove my earlier points…..that the previous 5 [sic] presidents [sic] have been involved in screwing this thing up.
First, it is wrong to start a sentence with a conjunction. It shows complete lack of intelligence to start a paragraph that way.
Second, would you please point out where the hell you even hinted that the previous five Presidents have screwed things up? So far, you have only castigated Clinton.
However, the US intelligence collapse was a direct result of Clinton Era Policy. the CIA prospered under BUSH I, because that was Bush I background. Remember, we didnt [sic] have any Huge intel fiasco’s during the first Bush’s term in office …
Hhmmm, Then, our Middle Eastern ally, Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait was also known ahead of time. The WTC bombing, within a matter of weeks after Clinton taking office, wasn’t because the CIA knew ahead of time. Were the preparations started after Clinton was inaugurated or did the CIA just not tell anyone? Gee, those sound like blunders to me. Major blunders.
This is made evidently clear in both Tenet’s book and “the Terrorist Watch”. You should check em out, their give very good insight into what was going on at the time. Even if Tenet was a horses ass.
Tenet has been put in a defensive position of going “ya but”. He is merely trying to cover his butt. Or do you have any Congressional Committee hearings where the CIA asked for more money than President Clinton put in the Budget? The “Terrorist Watch”? I’m not familiar with it, maybe you could link to a reputable review, such as from the “New York Times Book Review” or “Editor and Publisher”. I’m not doing your digging for you.
Another weakness is that every time we increase our technological capability we reduce the number of troops, but if we keep doing that, then we arent [sic] ever improving our capabilities, we are just replacing them and as many people know.
So, are the last three presidents all wrong, or just Clinton?
The obvious plus to the reduction/modernization strategy …
So now you are arguing strategy. This topic is how President Bush said Iran had a nuclear bomb program then retracted that statement. This is what I mean when I say you need to take a writing class. You can’t stay on topic and your thoughts are all over the place.
>>Fusion
That’s MISTER fusion to you, hijito.
>>Maybe you could quote where I
>>inferred that.
Implied, Fusion. Not inferred. You should go to church more often.
#99, Todd,
But why do they despise us so much for supporting Israel???
You really don’t understand, do you? Earlier you accused England of supporting apartheid. Now look at Israel and suggest that all those people in the occupied territories are free. Tell me that apartheid does not exist in Palestine.
Remember, a person or group’s anger will always have some foundation. The Palestinians see themselves locked in grinding poverty. Anytime a business starts to rise, it becomes a target for an Israeli bomb.
When Israel grabs a Palestinian, it is legal. If the Palestinians grab an Israeli, it is considered kidnapping.
If an Israeli kills a Palestinian, it is an accident. If a Palestinian kills an Israeli it is murder.
When a Palestinian uses a bomb, he is a terrorist. When an Israeli uses a bomb, he is a good soldier.
You are young and gullible. Someday, hopefully, you will mature. When you start college, hopefully you will have learned to write and hold a coherent thought.
***
I have no idea what happened with the History Channel, you didn’t link to any story. The only thing I can think of is that for centuries Egyptian antiquities were plundered. Now, Egypt not only wants their history back, they don’t want anymore leaving. Consequently all archaeological research in Egypt must be authorized and is supervised by the government. Most American states have similar, if less stringent, requirements. All to protect ancient sites from damage.
The galling thing about your diatribe on this point is that you assumed Egypt should not have any control over what foreigners do on their soil. You even attach motives, without any proof, to a practice that happens in most countries today.
Next week I am moving back to Sweden. My claim to a piece of land there is that the Celts originally came from Sweden. So what if it was 2500 years ago. The Celts originally lived in Sweden. No, I don’t speak Swedish or know of any Nordic blood in my veins, I do have Celtic blood. It could get crowded though as most of the Germanic tribes also came from Sweden and Norway. Damn it though, if Jews can claim land after thousands of years then so should I.
Mr. Fusion.
You really are delusional aren’t you?
“You make a claim. I refute your claim. You reply with a weak “proof”. I refute your “proof”. ” – Mr. Fusion #100
If you replaced “weak “proof” with “NO proof” and reverse the positions you got it right. lol Suffer from transference much?
This is what you said originally
“It hasn’t been an issue in Europe for 1500 years, since the fall of the Roman Empire” – Mr. Fusion #67
This is what you changed it to once you were proven wrong.
“Slavery was never a huge issue after the middle ages.” – Mr. Fusion #93
Nice three card Monty move. So which one of your statements are you going to stick with? They can’t both be correct.
You do realize those are different times right? LOL I am waiting for the argument that brings in the definition of huge.
“Your link was to a Wikipedia entry discussing German tribes on the British Isles having slaves in the 5th century.” – Mr. Fusion
I posted 2 different links. My point with the first link was to point out that “apartheid” has been in England even before it was called England. It continued well past that point as pointed out by my second link. Perhaps you didn’t bother to read the second one (the Wikipedia one) because if you had you might have read this.
“About 10% of England’s population entered in the Domesday Book in 1086 were slaves.” “The slave trade in England was abolished in 1102”
Wasn’t in England Huh? and if you don’t think the slaves of England suffered from apartheid you are grossly stupid.
“Slavery in medieval Europe was so common that the Roman Catholic Church repeatedly prohibited it—or at least the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands was prohibited at, for example, the Council of Koblenz in 922, the Council of London in 1102, and the Council of Armagh in 1171”
Wasn’t an issue in Europe huh? It was such a non issue that the Catholic Church had to act on it.
“they usually were integrated into the host society within a generation or two” – Mr. Fusion #100
Oh I guess that makes it ok then. Yeah I guess that must mean it wasn’t an issue. Racist asshole!!!
“BTW, my degree is in History” – Mr. Fusion #100
Apparently not.
Another 3 card Monty attempt dragging up the “gene” issue.
Too bad for you slavery is only one of the explanations for the way the gene pools spread.
Your original post on the matter was wrong. Why don’t you just own up like a man and say you made a mistake and were wrong?
#106, J,
Again, you feel an urgent need to demonstrate your lack of intelligence. You can either wait until you get to Grade 10 to find out or read the next paragraph.
Slavery and apartheid are NOT the same thing. Slavery is the ownership and forced servitude of another human. Apartheid is the forced living conditions on a race or races of people by the government / controlling race. Usually, intermingling between races is forbidden.
Slavery was NOT an issue in Europe. I NEVER said it never existed. In the feudal societies that developed, starting 1500 years ago in Europe, slavery was not as profitable as serfdom.
In Late Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, what we now call serfs were usually designated in Latin as coloni (sing. colonus). As slavery gradually disappeared and the legal status of these servi became nearly identical to that of coloni, the term changed meaning into our modern concept of “serf”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serf
NOTE, Late Antiquity is from 300 to 600 AD.
The Vikings were capturing slaves from what is now The Netherlands, France, Ireland, and Great Britain up until about 1000 AD. They were few and about the only incidence until later when the Taters captured slaves in eastern Europe. Most of those slaves were removed from Europe to Asia where slaves were a problem. As you pointed out, the Church was instrumental in abolishing slavery.
***
You said:
“Slavery was never a huge issue after the middle ages.” – Mr. Fusion #93
Well, see the header from #93.
# 93
J said,
on December 7th, 2007 at 10:06 am
So I guess you made another error.
Oh, you could always go back to what I said in #89, shit, I’ll even re-post it for you.
If you read what I wrote, I said IN europe. I never suggested at any time that NO European was ever involved IN the slave trade. BUT, slaves were not an issue per se in Europe. Of course, your only proof is something that happened 1500 years ago.
And what had you posted up until then?
“When was England EVER apartheid?” – Mr. Fusion
Well it seems you don’t know the history of England very well. I will chalk that one up to a poor education.
I will wet your appetite for knowledge. with this link. Don’t rush in you may hurt your brain.
http://tinyurl.com/3d792j
Next time look something up before asking dumb questions that are purposed to insult your opponent.
And what is your link about? A newspaper article about something that happened 1500 years ago when invading German tribes were settling in what is now England. You want it to be England, but even then you admit,
My point with the first link was to point out that “apartheid” has been in England even before it was called England
It wasn’t called England because England didn’t exist until several hundred years later. (FYI, it was known as Britannia and the local people were Britons, a Celtic tribe)
***
“About 10% of England’s population entered in the Domesday Book in 1086 were slaves.” “The slave trade in England was abolished in 1102″
The common use for the concept slave applied equally to most servants; owned, indentured, obligated, or free. A couple centuries later they came to be called peasants. Literacy was not very common back then. Also, please note, the Doomsday Book was written in Latin. The information was condensed. Literal translations will give a very false picture of actual life.
***
Wasn’t in England Huh? and if you don’t think the slaves of England suffered from apartheid you are grossly stupid.
Slaves usually were forced to live with their masters. As were most servants up until 100 years ago. That means if the Master lived in London, so did the servants. If the master lived in Devon, so did the servants. Apartheid would mean that they were not allowed to live in London, Devon, or where ever the government decreed that race could not live.
***
they usually were integrated into the host society within a generation or two” – Mr. Fusion #100
Oh I guess that makes it ok then. Yeah I guess that must mean it wasn’t an issue. Racist asshole!!!
I never claimed slavery was good. You are the one screaming how prevalent it is. 1000 years ago.
***
Your original post on the matter was wrong. Why don’t you just own up like a man and say you made a mistake and were wrong?
Because I wasn’t. You have this twisted, unsourced, factually incorrect idea that slavery and apartheid are the same thing and are currently in use in England. Your own citations proved you wrong.
You have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the almighty nerve to accuse me of being a racist asshole. My only response to that is geeze, what a small mind. I’m effen tired of explaining the facts of life to grade school kids.
Mr. Fusion
“Slavery and apartheid are NOT the same thing.” – Mr Fusion #107
I am well aware of that and NEVER said or hinted at such a thing. I said “if you don’t think the slaves of England suffered from apartheid you are grossly stupid”
How did you get that I equate apartheid to slavery? I said the slaves also suffered from apartheid as most slaves do. You seem to be the one that doesn’t know the meaning of apartheid. Lets get the definition of apartheid shale we?
I will have to skip the first on from most dictionaries because they relate directly to South Africa
Dictionary.com: apartheid: 2. Any system or practice that separates people according to race, caste, etc.
American Heritage Dictionary: apartheid: 2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups. 3.The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
Merriam Webster: apartheid: 2. Separation Segregation.
Since you didn’t quote your source I will assume it came from your ass. Or you scoured down the numerous applications of the word until you found one that included the word “government” as to better bolster your case. Unfortunately, the true meaning of the word does not designate what causes the segregation to take place.
Hum Are you sure you want to stick with the slaves lived with their owners so that means there was no segregation or apartheid for them argument?
“Slavery was NOT an issue in Europe. ” – Mr Fusion #107
You keep saying that but you are wrong and now you are going to try and parse words.
“In Late Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, what we now call serfs……….” Mr. Fusion #107
Do you think this says that serfs and slaves are the same? Don’t worry I will get to that later and No it doesn’t.
“The Vikings were capturing slaves from what is now ” BLA BLA BLA – Mr. Fusion #107
I don’t even know where to start but I will chalk that up to you trying to put me on some tangent from the fact that you were wrong. Look at the “FACTS” Mr. Fusion. They are posted for you and they are easy to see and understand for anyone with a high school diploma
“And what is your link about?” BLA BLA BLA – Mr. Fusion #107
You seem to want to go on about my first link. I said it was from 5th century and it was to wet your appetite. I expected you not to be so stupid and go out and bother to learn that which you seem to think you already know. The you go on a deliberately mis quote me in some kind of attempt to convince your self that you are correct. Here is what you did you posted
“My point with the first link was to point out that “apartheid” has been in England even before it was called England ” and you left out the rest
“It continued well past that point as pointed out by my second link.” Kind of important don’t you think? Then you blather on about something you know very little about.
“The common use for the concept slave applied equally to most servants; owned, indentured, obligated, or free.” Mr. Fusion #107
Wrong! Didn’t you bother to even click on the Wikipedia link? It says….
“The institution of serfdom in medieval Europe was separate and distinct from chattel slavery; serfs were tied to the land and obliged to work the land for their lord, but they were not chattel property. Serfs could not be bought or sold, and usually could not be removed from their land, absent criminal or civil violations”
If I were you I would just stop because YOU ARE WRONG! But if you are a glutton for punishment I will oblige.
“Also, please note, the Doomsday Book was written in Latin. The information was condensed. Literal translations will give a very false picture of actual life.” – Mr. Fusion #107
It was a census not a fucking novel. Knowing the difference I would say you are attempting what the Republicans try all the time “Attacking the source.” If you are trying to somehow say that a slave wasn’t a slave but instead a serf or servant you are wrong. There is much more evidence of slavery than that one simple book. and the interpretations are correct.
“Slaves usually were forced to live with their masters. ” – Mr. Fusion #107
And how exactly does that mean they didn’t suffer from apartheid? You really need to understand apartheid and it’s meaning. Then maybe you won’t post such dribble.
“Apartheid would mean that they were not allowed to live in London, Devon, or where ever the government decreed that race could not live.” – Mr. Fusion #107
No really you need to look up the real meaning for apartheid not just what you read about South Africa.
“I never claimed slavery was good. “- Mr. Fusion #107
By saying such insensitive things like “they usually were integrated into the host society within a generation or two” and “Slavery was NOT an issue in Europe” would lead I would think any educated person to the fact that you display a lack of respect for those people during those two “generations” that suffered through it. Don’t bother to parse words you have already proven yourself ignorant and racist.
Wait I need to break this last one up because I started laughing at you.
“Because I wasn’t. You have this twisted, unsourced,” – Mr. Fusion #107
I gave you 2 sources. You didn’t bother to read the second. So once again you are showing a skill for misrepresenting.
“factually incorrect idea that slavery and apartheid are the same thing” – Mr. Fusion #107
As I stated above I never said that nor implied that.
“and are currently in use in England.” – Mr. Fusion #107
Where the fuck did I say that? Oh that’s right I didn’t. As a matter of fact no one did.
“You have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the almighty nerve to accuse me of being a racist asshole.” – Mr. Fusion #107
No need for me to accuse. Your words speak for themselves. I just pointed it out.
Mr. Fusion,
You talk about my comprehension???
>>”While you are thinking about that point, please refer back to your original tirade that America doesn’t make mistakes, everyone else does.”
I specifically stated that America makes mistakes. I specifically stated that America was not perfect. I am simply trying to show you that everything that is wrong in the world is not America’s fault. The the roots of terrorism run deep in the middle east and the goals of the terrorist are not as simple as revenge against the west.
In the book titled, Al-Zarqawi – Al Qaeda’s Second Generation, Jordanian Journalist Fouad Hussein described AQ’s seven-phase, 20-yr plan to establish an Islamic Caliphate:
1. The Awakening – provoke the US to attack the middle east
2. Opening Eyes – current phase – turn the islamic community into a movement by recruiting young men and making Iraq the central base of operations.
3. Arising and Standing Up – Attack regional powers like Syria, Turkey, Israel, and Jordan
4. Take Over – Begin collapsing the governments of hated Arabic countries – attack oil infrastructure, banking systems, and suppliers and engage in cyber-terrorism to cripple the western economy.
5. Caliphate – with weakened or toppled governments and a decreased willingness and ability to fight, an Islamic state can be created throughout the middle east and into indonesia.
6. Total Confrontation – A fight between the Islamic Caliphate and the non-believers.
7. Victory – One and a half billion member Islamic army defeats all others with in a few years.
They want to destroy the west and take it over in the name of Islam. They dont just want us out of Saudi Arabia and Iraq, they want us off the planet. You complain that fighting terrorism is causing terrorism (i.e. – your argument that the US is fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, being in Saudi Arabia, etc.). What would have happened if we decided to do nothing after 9-11? Are you honestly implying that we did not have just cause to invade Afghanistan after what happened? People who follow your logic are quite honestly pathetic bleeding heart morons and you are going to get us all killed with your mis-guided compassion.
Prior to 9-11, AQ and other groups like it were recruiting thousands of jihadists each month and sending them to terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. Should nothing have been done about this??? Even after 9-11?? Osama and his Taliban war mongers were illegally occupying a country and using it as a terrorist base camp to launch attacks through out the world. Those people from those camps reached New York and DC on 9-11. Yet you seem to imply that fighting terrorism causes terrorists. They were making pletny before 9-11 and have been for decades. Someone has to stop this jihadi factory. Do you honestly think the attacks would stop if we just pulled out of the middle east and gave into the terrorist demands? How dumb are you?? Here are some quotes to show you how they really feel.
“We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again” – Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris
“One day the United States would be a Muslim country rules by Islamic law, not by violent means, but by persuasion” – Imam Zaid Shakirs(American Muslim Leader)
“We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy” – Muslim Cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed
“Whoever insults the message of the Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.” -Anjem Choudary (to a crowd in London)
“You are in a situation in which you have to live like a state wihtin a state, until you take over. But until this happens, you have to preach, until you become such a force that the people they just submit to you, hands up, until you become strong enough to take over.” – Dr. Ijaz Mian (Undercover Mosque)
Many of the terrorists who were trainded by been laden in Afghanistan have been either arrested or killed in many different regions in the world. Bin-laden trained radicals have been found in the US (9-11), Germany, England, the horn of Africa, Canada, Indonesia, Australia, Spain, and every country in the middle east. Hezbollah has even been found in South America. Now, if they are only concerned about revenge against America or the west…then why are they stirring conflict in every region in the world? What does Somalia have to do with troops being in Saudi Arabia? What does Indonesia have to do with Iraq???
A known fact is that terrorists are media masterminds. AQ’s PR department would put Coca-Cola’s to shame. My earlier point was that AQ uses perceived greivances against the west to recruit future jihadi’s (most throught the internet and with a little bit of help of the western media).
In fact, according to Faiz Abdullah al-Shahri, an expert on Saudi extremism estimated that there are about 4800 jihadi propoganda web-sites on the net. While speaking at a new Technology Confrence at Riyadh University, said that the sites attract around 250,000 visitors each week and that around 900 internet sites linked to al-Qaeda were being set up every year.
Unfortunately many in the media (bleeding hearts like you) actually listen to every single greivance Osama has against the west. They try to understand his problem, but they cant. Osama stays silent, while people like you fall for his crap and help do his PR work on blogs like this one. The sad thing is, you dont even realize thats what he has you doing. Because your compassion, your liberal views says that we just need to understand him and it will all make sense. But it doesnt. How can try to understand a man as evil as Hitler? He claimed that Jews were the cause of all of Germany’s problems (a claim that would be supported by Osama). Did that make him right? NO!!!
Osama, and the other jack asses like him want nothing less than for Islam to rule the world. While I openly admit that in order to limit the future spread of radicalism we need to pay attention to the greivances of the middle east; but we can’t allow our bleeding hearts to be taken adavantage of by this extremist enemy. Because that is their plan. Yes, bad things haven happened in the middle east, but may of those bad things were caused by their own people and even if a policy in the west in disliked by them…they they still dont have the right to attack us. Or anyone else. So, for the local insurgent or for the local guy who blows up babies with a bomb strapped to his back…it may be about our involvement in Iraq, but for the leadership, the group that trains, supplies, and directs these nut jobs, it is about power and domination.
If you pay attention, they are walking contradictions. They say they hate the west because of our greed and drug use. Osama comes from one of the richest families in the world and Afghanistan produces almost all of the worlds opium products. They claim that the west is responsible for the deaths of Islamic people all over the world. Yet he sends suicide bombers into crowded markets, killing innocent men and women. They claims They claim that the west wants to domenate the world, then they openly makes remarks about how Islam will rule the world once again. They claim that they are oppressed by Israel (and they have been in many cases), but they launch rockets into Israel homes everytime they get a chance. In fact, even after Israel signs agreements and withraws from key positions, They continue the attacks, they just use the ground they just took to lauch harsher attacks. They complain that the west has used water boarding against jihadists, yet they have been kidnapping, torturing, or even beheading people for years. OPEN YOUR EYES!!!! They use greivances to gain sympathy and recruits and then they exploit it and take more ground and continue the attacks.
Also, as far as the presidents….I have said at least 3 times that all 5 of our last presidents have led us down this road. I said that if any of them had acted prior to 9-11, 9-11 might not have happened. And that all of them deserve their fair share of the criticism. I specifically stated the Carter mess (hostage crisis, negotiating w/terrorists), Bush I (first gulf war), Clinton, and even Bush II. I even said that I give Reagan a little break because he at least saw the fall of the Berlin wall during his time in office (and he was old). I didnt only blaim clinton; in fact, I said that Carter was way worse (one of the worst presidents ever!). Scroll back up and find it yourself…Im not going to do your work for you. And by the way, I didnt take us here, you did, im just refuting your over-the-top Bush hatred that tends to cloud the judgement of otherwise decent peoople. Question his policies…I do, but stop grandstanding for the Left….if you are so willing to criticize the the current president, then you should be willing to admit the shortcomings of the last guy (who was in office until just before 9-11, who decided against killing or kidnapping Osama when he had the chance, who led our intelligence community to slaughter, and who ran from Somalia).
>>”When Israel grabs a Palestinian, it is legal. If the Palestinians grab an Israeli, it is considered kidnapping.”
>>”If an Israeli kills a Palestinian, it is an accident. If a Palestinian kills an Israeli it is murder.”
>>”When a Palestinian uses a bomb, he is a terrorist. When an Israeli uses a bomb, he is a good soldier.”
Mr. Fusion,
I like your BS far left logic……yet when compared to reality, your logic falls short.
In Reality…..When an Israeli security officer arrests a palestinian plotting to kill innocent civilians it is legal; when a palestinian terrorist grabs and beheads an Israelis citizen, it is considered kidnapping and murder.
When the police arrest arrest someone it is legal, when a civilian kicks down a door, handcuffs a suspect, and stuffs them in the back seat it is kidnapping. (as it should be)
When a cop shoots a dangerous suspect justifiably he is declared a hero, when a criminal shoots a cop he is a murderer. (as it should be)
Here is how you and other bleading hearts like you see the world….When a terrorist tries detonates a bomb in a market, killing or injuring hundrds, he is just a misunderstood oppressed youth who just needs to be understood; when a Israeli cop shoots the guy to prevent him fromm killing those people, he is a horrible oppressor who deserves to be hit with more terror attacks.
You are out of your mind!
Mr. Fusion
Again, you have oversimplified a problem that is definately less than simple. You have pointed to our involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia as the reason for the modern jihadist…when in reality it is much larger than that. That is just a recruiting call.
Your bleading heart beliefs dont even begin to scratch the surface of why terrorists do what they do. Your oversimplification of one of the most chaotic and least simplistic issues and regions in world history is sad and quite frankly it reminds of George Bush. So while you hate him so much, you are beginning to act like. You have the wrong view of these groups and you are unwilling to see the truth, despite mounds of evidence that contradict your bleading heart assumptions. Terrorists arent just oppressed people reacting. They are cold, brainwashed souls who have been sold a brutal form of Islam and will stop at nothing until you believe it as well. They are lost angry bigots who long for the destruction of everything that isnt Islamic.
Mrs. Fusion,
Todd has it right. Islamic fundamentalist groups are the same types of groups as the KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, and right-wing extremists groups. Beside their disagreements over which groups they should hate, the only real difference is that the media and the public as a whole has condemned and stopped trying to understand the KKK, Neo-Nazi’s, and right wing extremists. We realize that they are bigots and violent criminals. So we ignore them and in some cases arrest them when needed, but because of public outcry and unpopularity, their membership numbers have decreased in most places over the years. If the same changes were made in middle eastern society, the threat posed by these radicals would soon be dramatically minimized. Instead, the leadership of these countries actually support and fund many of these groups, for their own politcal agenda. So, these groups are never dealt with by the countries they occupy (which I will call a “host country”). In my opinon, it is the responsibility of the “host nations” to deal with the threat of terrorism. Afterall, these groups are a creation of theirs and have been used to help pursue their international objectives. So they should have to deal with them now. Unfortunately they do not, so when another country is hit by an attack by one of those groups they protect…it is that victim country’s right to retaliate, if the host state won’t do it. For example, If an american citizen bombed a french embassy, we would have to help them find the culprit, otherwise we would be quietly supporting the action and France should have the right to come here and conduct an investigation. The KKK thrived in the south decades ago because the local people supported their mission. That is exactly what is going on in the middle east now. Some moderates may not support the actual violence the radicals create, but they do support part of their message. Otherwise they wouldn’t allow them to hide in their communitites.
Unlike with the KKK and neo-nazi’s, when it comes to the terrorists, the public tries to examine and understand why they do these things, instead of condemning them and running them out of society.
The problem is that you can’t understand crazy, so they need to stop trying. It is called crazy, because it doesnt make sense. It defies logic. Thats why a sane person looks at a pro-lifer who bombs an abortion clinic in confusion….Because they are killing people in the name of being pro-life. A blatant contradiction. Or a republican senator who campaigns for pro-life causes on the basis of the sanctity of life, but then supports the death penalty (contradiction).
In this case, its a liberal public who actually tries to make sense out of how a person can kill their own people with a suicide bombing, when their motivation for the bombing is the plight of their own people. Thats crazy!!! Its even crazier that the public in that area would then support the terrorist group who did that. Which is why, thank god, the insurgents in Iraq have begun to turn on AQ. They have realized how insane this is too. Why would they support terrorist groups who complain about the destruction caused by the US invasion, when those terrorist groups are now the people most responsible for the continued death and destruction in the country. They have seen with their own eyes that the US is the one trying to help bring the peace and that the terrorists are the people who want to continue the conflict, death, and destruction because the jihadist’s goals are regional and international, not local.
I know this doesnt have much to do with the article, but someone has to refute the crap coming out of your keyboard.
(“Next week I am moving back to Sweden. My claim to a piece of land there is that the Celts originally came from Sweden. So what if it was 2500 years ago. The Celts originally lived in Sweden. No, I don’t speak Swedish or know of any Nordic blood in my veins, I do have Celtic blood. It could get crowded though as most of the Germanic tribes also came from Sweden and Norway. Damn it though, if Jews can claim land after thousands of years then so should I.” Mr. Fusion)
I believe that in his entry, Todd was not giving an actual argument using religion to support his beliefs; he was simply saying that the radicals religous claim to be the rightful owners of Jerusalem is weak and that the argument doesnt even stand up to its own merits. Not that he actually believed it himself….you like to twist the facts and statements Mr. Fusion.
I dont think that anyone would argue (except the Israeli’s) with complete confidence that the post WWII plan for the millions of jews who were displaced was the best plan they could have devised. It was based on the assumption that a group of people would be much safer if they had a country of their own (which, with the exception of the terrorist threat) has been proven to be true. However, it did ignore the current lives and culture of many palestinians. It did produce undue harship, but that isnt what this fight is really about. Thats what some palestinians fight about, but this fight, to radical elements in the middle east, is about religion and culture. Otherwise, that palestinian would only fight for palestine, not in Africa as well. They hate our culture and demand we change it; then they say that they hate us for telling them how to live. Yet, they then tell us that we must understand and appreciate their culture and that we must change how we live or they will attack us. Kind of a contradicition again Mrs. Fusion.
Please keep defending them and blaming their actions on the west; keep explaining away their homicidal tendancies…..it only proves what we have been saying to you this whole time; Apologist!
Thanks Mark, at least someone gets it…
Mr. Fusion,
You do realize that one of AQ’s core strategies in Iraq has been to bomb various religous sights and gathering places around the country (both shiite and sunni) in order to feed suspicion and promote violence along the already strained sectarian lines. To cause these groups to turn on one another and cause more death, destruction, and fear. To promote the misery in these people’s lives. Because a terror group is only able to recruit and expand when people are miserable and want someone to blame. Happy people don’t blow themselves up for a cause.
Why would AQ do this if they were only concerned about Palestine or if they were truly concerned about their fellow man in Iraq? They wouldn’t. They would only do this if fear, violence, and war helped their motives and it does, if their motives are a wider regional war and eventually a war against the west. This is a war of ideas for them…why else would they try to kill and intimidate everyone that disagreed with them?
This has absolutely nothing to do with the article, but some of your assumptions and comments made on this post are made by many misguided people on the left and its time that reasonable people put a stop to it. Bush oversimplified the problems in the Middle east and thought we would be seen as liberators, but you have oversimplified the problem so much that you make excuses for terrorists based the the terrorists own logic and then condemn our own president, calling him criminal. Maybe its just me, but that seems a little skewed. I have to agree with Mark…your just another apologist or appeaser (whichever you perfer).
“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping he will be eaten last.” – Sir Winston Churchill(not verbadum, but very close). You state that our confrontation with terror groups only helps them recruit more followers, but we had to start somewhere…they were already being recruited at freakishly high numbers before we invaded. They would have recruited in even higher numbers after 9-11 if we didn’t respond at all. Osama had us in a tough spot, if we dont respond to his attacks the terrorists grow stronger and their attacks more violent; if we did respond in force, as we did, then Osama’s claim that the US is trying to invade the muslim world comes true. See, he is a PR mastermind….Its like the lawyer who asks you “why” you killed the girl instead of “IF” you killed the girl. You cant answer it without looking dumb. So we needed to start somewhere. Osama gave us a trick question at least we answered it. Some good has been done…the Taliban has been removed from power, Saddam is gone, AQ’s pre-war infrastructure was seriously damaged, and the AQ leadership is isolated and on the run, forced to live in caves. So while the war on terror is just beginning, we have put a nice dent in the enemies plans.
At some point you have to stand your ground and fight, otherwise, the crocodile will just eat you once everyone else is gone. Then who will we turn to for help. Other crocodiles? By the way, I know you have had trouble with your comprehension, so, a crocodile is a metaphor for a terrorist. The appeaser is you and others like you, who are afraid to deal with these criminals. These appeasers include Carter and Clinton as well.
Todd and Mark
Not only are you two boys poorly educated, you’re wrong. Only you will never understand why you are wrong because you are so busy denying everything. You can’t absorb information.
Todd, you wondered why “they” hate us. I explained why. But no. You have to argue that isn’t true. WELL PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR SHOES !!! Because that is what they see and that is why they hate Americans. A fourth reason is the unbridled hatred as shown by asshats like you. Your arrogance is what leads to this situation. For christ’s sake, do you love those who hate you? Do you love those who treat you like dirt? Do you love those who impose apartheid on your people or brethren?
Wait !!! it is their own fucking fault all Palestinians are subject to discrimination. It is every Arab’s fault. It is all because of every Muslim.
Fucking kids today.
Todd,
I forgot to ask. Were you trying to make a point?
Last time I checked it was sunni’s discriminating against shiites and vice versa. and that still doesnt explain why they blow up their own people in an effort to incite more violence. Thats not hatred toward the US, thats hatred toward their own people and complete disregard for their own families and friends. When their leaders squander amazing riches on palaces (I think Saddam had more than 10), and abuse their own people in amazingly cruel ways, that isn’t the west doing it. When their men habitually abuse women and feel it is their right to do what they please with them, that is not the west. So how exactly am I wrong?? It wasn’t a weserner who declared war in the name Allah against all non-believers. It was Osama.
>>”WELL PUT YOURSELF IN THEIR SHOES !!! Because that is what they see and that is why they hate Americans. A fourth reason is the unbridled hatred as shown by asshats like you. For christ’s sake, do you love those who hate you? Do you love those who impose apartheid on your people or brethren?”<<
No, I dont. and that is why i have such distates for those who choose to use terror tactics against innocent americans for those who, simply because I come from a western nation, want me dead. People who openly say that I must believe in their god or I deserve to die. But maybe thats just me.
Mark,
Maybe some day when you grow up you might understand. I can only explain the answer is the same for every conflict. Power. The same power grab can be seen in Western society as well. No, I won’t get into specifics because you would then again miss the issue and start harping on those examples.
Yes, one faith blows up the other one. One uses a car bomb, the other a 1000 lb bomb or missile from an airplane. It doesn’t matter. Someone died and not necessarily who you wanted to. The friends and relatives of the dead want revenge.
When our leaders squander riches on making themselves even richer is that any different? No, I never suggested Saddam was an Angel. If you look at what this administration has done to enrich giant corporations at the people’s expense then Saddam is not that much worse.
No, maybe you didn’t declare war on Allah. In our name though America invaded their world. It appears you don’t understand that. Maybe you will justify America’s invasion for whatever reason. Maybe you can justify your arrogance and supposed superiority over Middle Eastern people. Just don’t be surprised that when an oppressed people fight back, someone gets hurt.
Todd,
Your question was why do they hate us. I answered that question. You dispute the answer because you believe your arrogance is pure. You claim you are so much better then they are. So much better in fact that you refuse to see what Western nations have done in the name of their “god”.
As I pointed out before, it doesn’t matter if it was a car bomb or a 1000 lb missile. If you are dead you are dead and the friends and relatives will look at who they believe responsible. And hate. And that hatred may retaliate or be picked up by news cameras or whatever. But it is real.
If you tell me you have never heard someone suggest everyone in Iraq or Afghanistan should just be wasted you are a liar. If you can then turn around and tell me that that is OK but if an Iraqi says something similar it is wrong, you are the disillusioned one.
BTW, I find it slightly silly that both you and Mark write identically. Rambling dissertations about some vague point. You both use similar syntax and styles. You ignore the salient points to go off on a tangent when you can’t refute the point. Could it be, …
Members of the same Gr. 10 nerd club ???
>>”No, maybe you didn’t declare war on Allah. In our name though America invaded their world. It appears you don’t understand that. Maybe you will justify America’s invasion for whatever reason. Maybe you can justify your arrogance and supposed superiority over Middle Eastern people. Just don’t be surprised that when an oppressed people fight back, someone gets hurt.”<>”When our leaders squander riches on making themselves even richer is that any different? No, I never suggested Saddam was an Angel. If you look at what this administration has done to enrich giant corporations at the people’s expense then Saddam is not that much worse.”
Your telling me that corporations gaining money from Bush’s policies is almost as bad as Saddam using chemical weapons on his own people and Osama hitting 3 buildings with airplanes. Your are so dillusional its painful. I dont claim that I am better than anyone. (except for jack asses like Hussein and Osama and radical religous people who blow up women and small children).
>>”Yes, one faith blows up the other one.”<>”The friends and relatives of the dead want revenge.”<<
I know. So why is it that our invasion of Afghanistan is so wrong after what happened on 9-11? Yet they are justified for the Khobar Towers Bombing, 2 African Bombings, the USS Cole, the WTC (both times), the Pentagon? Oh and by the way…all of that happened before 9-11. The friends and the relatives of the 9-11 victims want revenge on the bastards who took their mother or father or brother or sister away from them. These countries harbor these groups, who will with out doubt attack agains. So are they so wrong for wanting their revenge too?? So in your eyes, the west is not allowed to defend itself because we are privledged and live good lives, but the people from the middle east are allowed to blow anyone up they please, because they had a tough child hood. Man, serial killers would love to have you as their local district attorney.
>>”On the left, perhaps with a good intention—to fight racism and stigmatization of Muslim community, the general mood is to support the Islamist movement, the veil, gender apartheid, and all the Islamic values which are deeply reactionary, discriminative and misogynist. This is very wrong. This is in effect racism—to say that gender apartheid and discrimination is OK for the “Muslim.” This is in fact a double standard.”<>”Yes, I am a staunch enemy of the Islamic Regime in Iran. This is a brutal regime that has executed more than hundred thousand people. It is a brutal dictatorship that oppresses the people and it is misogynist to its bones. I have been fighting this regime from the day it came to power.”<< Azar Majedi