newf said:
--------
I'm not sure if you know this, but people hating you is dangerous.
--------
Yeah, hating others is dangerous also.
-n
Bush, beatable in 2004?
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
You say this to a guy who's never thrown a serious insult at anyone, let alone a punch.
Colin Kennedy
[email protected]
[email protected]
`So what if the Arab world hates us?`
As a New Yorker, let me just say that I could MAYBE see somebody having this callous, ignorant, self-important hubristic attitude before September 11th, but in its wake, I am amazed that anybody could utter such a totally moronic thought.
Today`s Krugman column from the times.
Other People's Sacrifice
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: "We cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." He also spoke, in a way he hasn't before, about "sacrifice." Yet, as always, what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people.
It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible tax cuts.
Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, "Is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody business of rebuilding Iraq?" The example of Afghanistan (where warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban — remember those guys? — is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right.
Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while others do all the giving.
The money is actually the least of it. Still, it provides a clear test case. If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last tax cut. Now he says, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . ." What does he mean, "we"? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not.
Then there's the issue of foreign participation. The key question here is whether the Bush administration will swallow its pride and cede substantial control over the occupation to the U.N. That's surely the price of a large contingent of foreign soldiers. Mr. Bush didn't address this issue directly, but he did say that he is seeking only one more multinational division, which suggests that he isn't going to make major concessions.
Yet as I understand it, one more division won't make much difference in the security situation. In particular, it will do little to alleviate the looming problem identified by the Congressional Budget Office: in March, the U.S. will have to start withdrawing most of its troops if it wants to maintain "acceptable levels of military readiness" in the Army as a whole.
Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes major concessions, forget about it.
But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about money or control — it's about truth-telling. He squandered American credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid.
Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?
So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.
As a New Yorker, let me just say that I could MAYBE see somebody having this callous, ignorant, self-important hubristic attitude before September 11th, but in its wake, I am amazed that anybody could utter such a totally moronic thought.
Today`s Krugman column from the times.
Other People's Sacrifice
By PAUL KRUGMAN
In his Sunday speech President Bush made a call for unity: "We cannot let past differences interfere with present duties." He also spoke, in a way he hasn't before, about "sacrifice." Yet, as always, what he means by unity is that he should receive a blank check, and it turns out that what he means by sacrifice is sacrifice by other people.
It's now clear that the Iraq war was the mother of all bait-and-switch operations. Mr. Bush and his officials portrayed the invasion of Iraq as an urgent response to an imminent threat, and used war fever to win the midterm election. Then they insisted that the costs of occupation and reconstruction would be minimal, and used the initial glow of battlefield victory to push through yet another round of irresponsible tax cuts.
Now almost half the Army's combat strength is bogged down in a country that wasn't linked to Al Qaeda and apparently didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and Mr. Bush tells us that he needs another $87 billion, right away. It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I (like many others) told you so. Back in February I asked, "Is this administration ready for the long, difficult, quite possibly bloody business of rebuilding Iraq?" The example of Afghanistan (where warlords rule most of the country, and the Taliban — remember those guys? — is resurgent) led me to doubt it. And I was, alas, right.
Surely the leader who brought us to this pass, and is now seeking a bailout, ought to make some major concessions as part of the deal. But it was clear from his speech that, as usual, he expects to take while others do all the giving.
The money is actually the least of it. Still, it provides a clear test case. If Mr. Bush had admitted from the start that the postwar occupation might cost this much, he would never have gotten that last tax cut. Now he says, "We will do what is necessary, we will spend what is necessary. . . ." What does he mean, "we"? Is he prepared to roll back some of those tax cuts, now that the costs of war loom so large? Is he even willing to stop urging Congress to make the 2001 tax cut permanent? Of course not.
Then there's the issue of foreign participation. The key question here is whether the Bush administration will swallow its pride and cede substantial control over the occupation to the U.N. That's surely the price of a large contingent of foreign soldiers. Mr. Bush didn't address this issue directly, but he did say that he is seeking only one more multinational division, which suggests that he isn't going to make major concessions.
Yet as I understand it, one more division won't make much difference in the security situation. In particular, it will do little to alleviate the looming problem identified by the Congressional Budget Office: in March, the U.S. will have to start withdrawing most of its troops if it wants to maintain "acceptable levels of military readiness" in the Army as a whole.
Meanwhile, the administration is still counting on Iraq's receiving billions of dollars in aid from other countries. Unless the U.S. makes major concessions, forget about it.
But the most important concession Mr. Bush should make isn't about money or control — it's about truth-telling. He squandered American credibility by selling a war of choice as a war of necessity; if he wants to get that credibility back, he has to start being candid.
Yet in the speech on Sunday he was still up to his usual tricks. Once again, he made a rhetorical link between the Iraq war and 9/11. This argument by innuendo reminds us why 69 percent of the public believes that Saddam was involved in 9/11, despite a complete absence of evidence. (There is, on the other hand, strong evidence of a Saudi link — but the administration's handling of that evidence borders on a cover-up.) And rather than acknowledge that the search for W.M.D. has come up empty, he declared that Saddam "possessed and used weapons of mass destruction" — 1991, 2003, what's the difference?
So will Congress give Mr. Bush the money he wants, no questions asked? It probably will, but it shouldn't. Mr. Bush created this crisis, and if he were a true patriot he would pay a political price to resolve it. Maybe it's time for him to do a couple of things he's never done before, like admitting mistakes and standing up to the hard right.
Editorial page from the times that I linked to, for you people too lazy to click it:
Presidential Character
George Bush's long-term plans for 2003 probably did not call for his August vacation to be followed by a national television address trying to justify a floundering policy in Iraq. Just about nothing, in fact, looks like what he must have hoped for in the run-up to an election. To many Americans, the economic recovery is anything but ・2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost in the last three years. The number of people living below the poverty line is rising, the trade imbalance has reached unnerving proportions, and the federal budget deficits have grown so huge that even the International Monetary Fund has begun expressing concern. Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated version of its earlier incarnation.
It is useful at times like this to look back on the road that brought a president into trouble and try to divide bad luck from bad guesses, and both from the wrong turns that stem from the innate nature of the presidency itself. In the case of Iraq, there is a little of each. Early in his term, Mr. Bush was stuck with trouble that was not of his making, including both the terrorist attack and the sinking economy. His judgment about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to have been wrong ・and, worse, hyped. But over all, it was a bad guess that was shared by intelligence experts from the Clinton administration and many allies.
Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices.
He committed the military to war, but he told civilians they deserved big tax cuts. He seems determined to remake the Middle East without doing anything serious about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. His energy policy is a grab bag of giveaways to domestic oil and gas lobbyists. He refuses to ask for even the smallest compromise when it comes to fuel-efficient cars.
The pattern goes further. Mr. Bush rolled out a domestic agenda that included some ambitious programs aimed at lifting up America's least fortunate, particularly his No Child Left Behind education package. But in this ・ as in the African AIDS initiative and even his controversial faith-based initiative for social services ・Mr. Bush has been content to take the credit for proposing, without paying the political dues necessary to get things done. Certainly most American parents, whose public schools are racked by state and local budget crises, are not feeling that their children are enjoying better educational opportunity. The AIDS program that got such a positive response when the president unveiled it has been underfinanced by Congress, with the White House's encouragement.
Even the administration's foreign policy reflects its tendency to go for quick gratification without much thought of the gritty long haul. The invasion of Iraq appears to have been planned by people who assumed that after a swift military assault, Saddam Hussein would be gone and Iraq would quickly snap into a prosperous, semidemocratic state that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.
When it turned out that things were far more complicated, the president hedged on the price tag ・apparently out of fear that if Congress knew how high the bill was going to be, there would not be enough votes for another round of tax cuts. Congress, however, was happy enough to be deluded until it was too late. Now we know the cost is going to be massive, with much of the tab to be paid by the future generations who will be saddled with the Bush debt.
The United States has no clear exit strategy from Iraq or immediate hope of a turnaround in a violent, complicated and expensive commitment. The hard realities of postwar Iraq have convinced Mr. Bush that he needs the United Nations support he snubbed before the invasion. But even there he is avoiding the hard choice of acknowledging his error and ceding real authority to other nations. Diplomats are wondering, with good reason, whether Mr. Bush is embarking on a new era of international cooperation or simply giving them permission to clean up his mess.
Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price.
Presidential Character
George Bush's long-term plans for 2003 probably did not call for his August vacation to be followed by a national television address trying to justify a floundering policy in Iraq. Just about nothing, in fact, looks like what he must have hoped for in the run-up to an election. To many Americans, the economic recovery is anything but ・2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost in the last three years. The number of people living below the poverty line is rising, the trade imbalance has reached unnerving proportions, and the federal budget deficits have grown so huge that even the International Monetary Fund has begun expressing concern. Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated version of its earlier incarnation.
It is useful at times like this to look back on the road that brought a president into trouble and try to divide bad luck from bad guesses, and both from the wrong turns that stem from the innate nature of the presidency itself. In the case of Iraq, there is a little of each. Early in his term, Mr. Bush was stuck with trouble that was not of his making, including both the terrorist attack and the sinking economy. His judgment about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to have been wrong ・and, worse, hyped. But over all, it was a bad guess that was shared by intelligence experts from the Clinton administration and many allies.
Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices.
He committed the military to war, but he told civilians they deserved big tax cuts. He seems determined to remake the Middle East without doing anything serious about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. His energy policy is a grab bag of giveaways to domestic oil and gas lobbyists. He refuses to ask for even the smallest compromise when it comes to fuel-efficient cars.
The pattern goes further. Mr. Bush rolled out a domestic agenda that included some ambitious programs aimed at lifting up America's least fortunate, particularly his No Child Left Behind education package. But in this ・ as in the African AIDS initiative and even his controversial faith-based initiative for social services ・Mr. Bush has been content to take the credit for proposing, without paying the political dues necessary to get things done. Certainly most American parents, whose public schools are racked by state and local budget crises, are not feeling that their children are enjoying better educational opportunity. The AIDS program that got such a positive response when the president unveiled it has been underfinanced by Congress, with the White House's encouragement.
Even the administration's foreign policy reflects its tendency to go for quick gratification without much thought of the gritty long haul. The invasion of Iraq appears to have been planned by people who assumed that after a swift military assault, Saddam Hussein would be gone and Iraq would quickly snap into a prosperous, semidemocratic state that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.
When it turned out that things were far more complicated, the president hedged on the price tag ・apparently out of fear that if Congress knew how high the bill was going to be, there would not be enough votes for another round of tax cuts. Congress, however, was happy enough to be deluded until it was too late. Now we know the cost is going to be massive, with much of the tab to be paid by the future generations who will be saddled with the Bush debt.
The United States has no clear exit strategy from Iraq or immediate hope of a turnaround in a violent, complicated and expensive commitment. The hard realities of postwar Iraq have convinced Mr. Bush that he needs the United Nations support he snubbed before the invasion. But even there he is avoiding the hard choice of acknowledging his error and ceding real authority to other nations. Diplomats are wondering, with good reason, whether Mr. Bush is embarking on a new era of international cooperation or simply giving them permission to clean up his mess.
Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price.
When I said he targeted his fellow lefties, I was talking about target audiences, not having a crack at. Also I didn't ask if you hated him, just what you saw in show.
Also - I think the attitude "so what if the arab world hates us" is still alive and well in American foreign policy. I can't think of anything the US government has done since S11 that may address the problem of the Arab hatred for the US (except the idea that they can kill all the arabs that hate them... but I don't think that that idea has worked very well)
Also - I think the attitude "so what if the arab world hates us" is still alive and well in American foreign policy. I can't think of anything the US government has done since S11 that may address the problem of the Arab hatred for the US (except the idea that they can kill all the arabs that hate them... but I don't think that that idea has worked very well)
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
----------"Who cares if the Arab world hates us"---
Ya, I said that. And I'll explain why they hate us, tomorrow.
AND why we still shouldn't care.
In the meantime,
I would suggest that C-fan give me five (5 ) of his "ignorant, self-important" reasons about why we are hated(be specific to the Arab world).
And then give five (5) "moronic" solutions that we, as Americans, can implement to make them not hate us.
-n
Ya, I said that. And I'll explain why they hate us, tomorrow.
AND why we still shouldn't care.
In the meantime,
I would suggest that C-fan give me five (5 ) of his "ignorant, self-important" reasons about why we are hated(be specific to the Arab world).
And then give five (5) "moronic" solutions that we, as Americans, can implement to make them not hate us.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
Five reasons why the US is hated by the Arab world
1) The presence of US troops at Islams most scared place (Mecca) - Imagine if there were Al Queada troops hanging around at your churches.
2) The continuing support of the Isreal government by the US governement.
3) The trade in weapons of tourture with countries such as Saudi Arabia and the US
4) The support of oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East in the past and present by the US governement (Suadi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc.)
5) The continued attacks of Middle Eastern nations by the US - Afghanistan, Gulf War one and two, the continued bombing of Iraq between those wars, the bombing of a pharmacutical factory in Saudi Arabia etc.
Five solutions to stop the Arabs from hating the US.
1) Withdraw the troops from Mecca
2)Stop all arms trade and support for Israel
3)Ban the production and trade of weapons of tourture in the US and ratify the ICC (International Criminal Court).
4)Withdraw all support for all dictators in all countries around the world.
5) Withdraw all troops from the Middle East - compensate all the families of innocent victims in attacks by the US, pay to have Afghanistan and Iraq rebuilt, bring in clean up teams to remove the uranium depleted weapons and unexploded cluster bombs that have devestated the populations of Ira and Afghanistan.
If the US did all that and then continued to be a tolerant and passive nation, I am sure that no terrorist attacks aimed at the US would occur.
1) The presence of US troops at Islams most scared place (Mecca) - Imagine if there were Al Queada troops hanging around at your churches.
2) The continuing support of the Isreal government by the US governement.
3) The trade in weapons of tourture with countries such as Saudi Arabia and the US
4) The support of oppressive dictatorships in the Middle East in the past and present by the US governement (Suadi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan etc.)
5) The continued attacks of Middle Eastern nations by the US - Afghanistan, Gulf War one and two, the continued bombing of Iraq between those wars, the bombing of a pharmacutical factory in Saudi Arabia etc.
Five solutions to stop the Arabs from hating the US.
1) Withdraw the troops from Mecca
2)Stop all arms trade and support for Israel
3)Ban the production and trade of weapons of tourture in the US and ratify the ICC (International Criminal Court).
4)Withdraw all support for all dictators in all countries around the world.
5) Withdraw all troops from the Middle East - compensate all the families of innocent victims in attacks by the US, pay to have Afghanistan and Iraq rebuilt, bring in clean up teams to remove the uranium depleted weapons and unexploded cluster bombs that have devestated the populations of Ira and Afghanistan.
If the US did all that and then continued to be a tolerant and passive nation, I am sure that no terrorist attacks aimed at the US would occur.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
******I'll break this up into 2 posts**********
I'll use an analogy to defend my "Who cares why they hate us..." statement. I'll borrow from a political quiz that I can't remember completely.
If a man breaks into to your house with a knife. Do you?
A. Ask him "Why do you hate us?" while he cuts up your family.
B. Grab your shotgun.
When I saw the films of people dancing with joy across the Middle East as the WTC went down in flames, I was angry. I am still angry. I was not wondering why they hate us. I know why.
I'll use an analogy to defend my "Who cares why they hate us..." statement. I'll borrow from a political quiz that I can't remember completely.
If a man breaks into to your house with a knife. Do you?
A. Ask him "Why do you hate us?" while he cuts up your family.
B. Grab your shotgun.
When I saw the films of people dancing with joy across the Middle East as the WTC went down in flames, I was angry. I am still angry. I was not wondering why they hate us. I know why.
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
I agree with Jeremy's first solution. We should have no troops in Saudi Arabia.We might have different reasons for thinking so. His other reasons have merit and I won't say he's wrong.
I have a different angle though.
Imagine this scenario:
I grew up in a very religious town, there were churches from many different religions, but imagine there were only Christian churches.
What if I said that I hate all other religions? that I would kill every last person who didn't convert or leave, that my town was a religious "mecca" and other faiths polluted our purity.
Would you try to appease me? or would you correctly call me a racist intolerant bigot?
Here's some reasons why the most fundamentalist, violent Arabs(including those in power) hate us.
1. We do not have an Islamic government.
2. We afford women rights, and allow them to own property and hold positions of power.
3. We tolerate, even celebrate homosexuality.
4. We allow other religions other than our own to be practiced.
5. We have perverted media and pornography.
Here's 5 solutions to the reasons-------
1. Establish an Islamic council to control all government.
2. Strip women of their rights and property force them to cover their faces and public. Treat them like the cattle that they are.
3. Imprison or kill all homosexuals,or at least drive them underground so that they fear acting openly gay.
4. Close down all non-Muslim churches. Destroy all non-muslim religious symbols.
Convert or deport or murder all Jews, Christians, Hindus...etc etc.
5. Eliminate all pornography, graphic images, magazines, websites. (no more Brittany Spears)
The real hardcore America haters will not allow America's "decadent" culture and values to pollute their nations and families. They will fight to the death to stop it.
My 5 "solutions" all sound unacceptable to me. I will not implement these policies so "they won't hate us".
-n
edit:
p.s.
The I.C.C. is a terrible idea. Giving foreign courts authority in your nation is a bad idea. Ask the Brits if they have a country anymore.
Here's 3 people who the I.C.C. will never go after:
Fidel Castro
Yasser Arafat
Kim Jong Ill (sp?)
I have a different angle though.
Imagine this scenario:
I grew up in a very religious town, there were churches from many different religions, but imagine there were only Christian churches.
What if I said that I hate all other religions? that I would kill every last person who didn't convert or leave, that my town was a religious "mecca" and other faiths polluted our purity.
Would you try to appease me? or would you correctly call me a racist intolerant bigot?
Here's some reasons why the most fundamentalist, violent Arabs(including those in power) hate us.
1. We do not have an Islamic government.
2. We afford women rights, and allow them to own property and hold positions of power.
3. We tolerate, even celebrate homosexuality.
4. We allow other religions other than our own to be practiced.
5. We have perverted media and pornography.
Here's 5 solutions to the reasons-------
1. Establish an Islamic council to control all government.
2. Strip women of their rights and property force them to cover their faces and public. Treat them like the cattle that they are.
3. Imprison or kill all homosexuals,or at least drive them underground so that they fear acting openly gay.
4. Close down all non-Muslim churches. Destroy all non-muslim religious symbols.
Convert or deport or murder all Jews, Christians, Hindus...etc etc.
5. Eliminate all pornography, graphic images, magazines, websites. (no more Brittany Spears)
The real hardcore America haters will not allow America's "decadent" culture and values to pollute their nations and families. They will fight to the death to stop it.
My 5 "solutions" all sound unacceptable to me. I will not implement these policies so "they won't hate us".
-n
edit:
p.s.
The I.C.C. is a terrible idea. Giving foreign courts authority in your nation is a bad idea. Ask the Brits if they have a country anymore.
Here's 3 people who the I.C.C. will never go after:
Fidel Castro
Yasser Arafat
Kim Jong Ill (sp?)
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
If those reasons are true, why is it the US in particular that they hate? There a plenty of countries like that. Why don't they hate New Zealand or Sweden or Canada? Why is it particularly the United States? Why don't the Al Queada spokesmen and leaders ever use those reasons? Why do they always say things along the lines of - We will continue to fight until the US ends its middle eastern occupation and interference? What evidence do you have that they those reasons have anything to do with the "hatred" of the US. As for the people dancing for joy in the middle east - Imagine this secnario - you live in a falling down slum while across the valley you can see a now jewish occupied house that your great great grandfather built. Your wife and three children were killed in an Israel attack - you still have a piece of the shell that killed them with the words "Made in the U.S." printed on it. You here on the radio that there has been aa massive attack on the US. How do you expect most people would feel. Were you not happy when the US started bombing Iraq. How is that any different - if anything it's worse because you have no personal reason to hate Iraq or the Iraqi government. I think it's always wrong to celebrate the death of another human being but it's often easy to understand. That's a true story by the way, about the palestinian - although I don't think the man in question danced on the streets. He was a suicide bomber who blew himself up last year.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
Jeremy said:
------------------
There a plenty of countries like that. Why don't they hate New Zealand or Sweden or Canada? Why is it particularly the United States?
------------------
They hate those nations also, for the same reasons, but the U.S. is the most successfull and thus most envied.
In the past, Europe has fought with, and repelled the Islamic advance on several occasions (with varied success).
Taking Europe as a whole is currently impossible, because America has allies that it would not allow to be destroyed.
So those who would sweep across Europe and convert (or kill) everyone, know that America must be destroyed or crippled first.
Europe would then fall "like a house of cards". From within or from the outside, Europe does not have the will to survive. Even using nuclear weapons, they could not stem the tide. (they wont nuke themselves).
I gotta go to class soon, but your explanation of why people hate Jews sounds like justification to me.
Do you condone deliberately blowing up women and children to remove the "pigs", from land you think is yours?
I think the "nazi-fication" education that Palestinians recieve for the last 50 years helps feed the fire of hate.
How can you achieve peace when one side learns from Kindergarden that:
Jews are descendants of pigs and apes(not human).
All of Palestine must be cleansed of the in-human Jews.
-n
------------------
There a plenty of countries like that. Why don't they hate New Zealand or Sweden or Canada? Why is it particularly the United States?
------------------
They hate those nations also, for the same reasons, but the U.S. is the most successfull and thus most envied.
In the past, Europe has fought with, and repelled the Islamic advance on several occasions (with varied success).
Taking Europe as a whole is currently impossible, because America has allies that it would not allow to be destroyed.
So those who would sweep across Europe and convert (or kill) everyone, know that America must be destroyed or crippled first.
Europe would then fall "like a house of cards". From within or from the outside, Europe does not have the will to survive. Even using nuclear weapons, they could not stem the tide. (they wont nuke themselves).
I gotta go to class soon, but your explanation of why people hate Jews sounds like justification to me.
Do you condone deliberately blowing up women and children to remove the "pigs", from land you think is yours?
I think the "nazi-fication" education that Palestinians recieve for the last 50 years helps feed the fire of hate.
How can you achieve peace when one side learns from Kindergarden that:
Jews are descendants of pigs and apes(not human).
All of Palestine must be cleansed of the in-human Jews.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
What are these beliefs based on? Did you read them somewhere or did you just come up with by yourself? I can quote members of Al Queada saying things like - "We will not allow America to dream of security until the same exists in Palestine and all of the Middle East" - but can quote them saying "We want to destroy all the nations of the world that are not Islamic"? Do you know how many kindergartens teach that. Are you basing that on one kindergarten or on every kindergarten attended by palestinians?
What do you mean, "your explanation of why people hate Jews sounds like justification"? Are saying that it is a just reason to hate the Jews, or that it's just an excuse - the Man had lost his whole family - and everything his family had ever had, but that didn't motivate him to be a suicide bomber - what really motivated him was what his dead children learnt at kindergarten.
What do you mean when you say "the "nazi-fication" education" Do you know what the word Nazi means - do you what the politics of Nazism are? Do you know what Nazi's believe? Do you know what the differences between the Nazis and the Palestinians are (and the differences are numurous and obvious). Do you think that all the Palestinians want to become suicide bombers or that they all want to kill the Jews? If you don't think it is all of them, what percentage would you put it at?
I do not condone the blowing up of Women and Children any more than I condone the blowing up of a 7 story building to kill one man (who is accused of being a terrorist, but wasn't in the building anyway). And I certainly don't condone the genocide commited by Sharon in the 80s in Lebanon or the execution of a deaf man who would not turn around and obay the soldier speaking to him. In israel the crimes commited by both sides are great - but one set of crimes is commited in the name of the people of Israel - with the might of the US army behind it - while the other set of crimes are commited by a tiny minority of militants - many of which have lost family members and hope. "I would rather die on feet then live on my knees" - Zapata. When someone has taken away everything you have, when all you have left is your life and your pain, what do you have left to bargain with?
What do you mean, "your explanation of why people hate Jews sounds like justification"? Are saying that it is a just reason to hate the Jews, or that it's just an excuse - the Man had lost his whole family - and everything his family had ever had, but that didn't motivate him to be a suicide bomber - what really motivated him was what his dead children learnt at kindergarten.
What do you mean when you say "the "nazi-fication" education" Do you know what the word Nazi means - do you what the politics of Nazism are? Do you know what Nazi's believe? Do you know what the differences between the Nazis and the Palestinians are (and the differences are numurous and obvious). Do you think that all the Palestinians want to become suicide bombers or that they all want to kill the Jews? If you don't think it is all of them, what percentage would you put it at?
I do not condone the blowing up of Women and Children any more than I condone the blowing up of a 7 story building to kill one man (who is accused of being a terrorist, but wasn't in the building anyway). And I certainly don't condone the genocide commited by Sharon in the 80s in Lebanon or the execution of a deaf man who would not turn around and obay the soldier speaking to him. In israel the crimes commited by both sides are great - but one set of crimes is commited in the name of the people of Israel - with the might of the US army behind it - while the other set of crimes are commited by a tiny minority of militants - many of which have lost family members and hope. "I would rather die on feet then live on my knees" - Zapata. When someone has taken away everything you have, when all you have left is your life and your pain, what do you have left to bargain with?
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cf ... -03&cat=PPHighDemonslayer wrote:c-fan said:
------------------------
A majority of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11. (...) Maybe you`re in that majority.
-------------------------
I guess I do believe that there was some type of connection. On it's face, that should not be an outlandish belief. .........
c-fan said:
------------------------
(...)He did not(....)
------------------------
How do you know?
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
so interesting . . .
I have been quiet, but now it is time I made a fool of myself.
so here it goes:
Question 1:
Jeremy, would you say that you side with Palestinians/radical muslims over Israel (check your spelling by the way!!!)?
Let me remind you that Israel is the ONLY democratic country in the middle east. Accordingly, they are aided by the United States, bevcause we support democracy. Israel, for the most part, practices absolute tolerance of all cultures and they accurately educate the children in their public schools about why hatred of other religions/nations is unacceptible, and about contemporary issues. Unfortunately, Palestinian schools do not do the same thing. And this is documented fact by the way. If you do not believe, please check out "Honest Reporting" at http://www.honestreporting.com/ and the film they created called "Relentless." In recent samples taken by this, they found that in virtually all Israeli children's textbooks, tolerance is preached, along with an accurate portrayal of comtemporary societal issues. However, the same group, Honest Reporting, found NOT ONE palestinian children's textbook that preached equality or tolerance! Each textbook conveyed the following message, in one way or another, that Jews were inferior people, that they were opressors, and that they should be done away with. THis is a horrible travesty.
Question 2: (to Jeremy)
Do you believe that Yasser Arafat is a good leader of his people? Do you think that he follows through socially with what he says that he will do?
He doesnt. He has lied to the world innumerously. And there is primary source documented video evidence to prove it, and Honest Reporting has captured it and used it to show Arafat's inadequacies. In fact, the group tested Arafat on 5 measures that he promised to fulfill diuring the Camp David Peace Accords and they reported that Arafat has not yet even fulfilled one of his promised obligations! And how many years has it been now?!!!!! On the other hand, Israel has fulfilled, in the minds of Honest Reporting, all 5 measures that they promised to address. Israel does what it says. And Arafat, the leader of Palestine, does not. He lies. He kills. So why should the US do anything but continue to treat he and, unfortunately, his people whom he has brainwashed, like the unworthy liars that they are? This is also why the US supports Israel, becaus they actually want peace, and they strive for it.
Do not hate the Israeli country because the US supports them. And to all those who do not support Israel, I am sorry, but you are turning a blind eye to the only country in the middle east with any real potential and an honest striving for a peaceful way of life!
please go here: http://www.honestreporting.com/relentless/ and here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/relentle ... railer.asp
If you do not, I hate you, and you are a moron and do not deserve to read the words with which I have presented you.
Jeremy
there is so much more i wanna say, but i wont.
so here it goes:
Question 1:
Jeremy, would you say that you side with Palestinians/radical muslims over Israel (check your spelling by the way!!!)?
Let me remind you that Israel is the ONLY democratic country in the middle east. Accordingly, they are aided by the United States, bevcause we support democracy. Israel, for the most part, practices absolute tolerance of all cultures and they accurately educate the children in their public schools about why hatred of other religions/nations is unacceptible, and about contemporary issues. Unfortunately, Palestinian schools do not do the same thing. And this is documented fact by the way. If you do not believe, please check out "Honest Reporting" at http://www.honestreporting.com/ and the film they created called "Relentless." In recent samples taken by this, they found that in virtually all Israeli children's textbooks, tolerance is preached, along with an accurate portrayal of comtemporary societal issues. However, the same group, Honest Reporting, found NOT ONE palestinian children's textbook that preached equality or tolerance! Each textbook conveyed the following message, in one way or another, that Jews were inferior people, that they were opressors, and that they should be done away with. THis is a horrible travesty.
Question 2: (to Jeremy)
Do you believe that Yasser Arafat is a good leader of his people? Do you think that he follows through socially with what he says that he will do?
He doesnt. He has lied to the world innumerously. And there is primary source documented video evidence to prove it, and Honest Reporting has captured it and used it to show Arafat's inadequacies. In fact, the group tested Arafat on 5 measures that he promised to fulfill diuring the Camp David Peace Accords and they reported that Arafat has not yet even fulfilled one of his promised obligations! And how many years has it been now?!!!!! On the other hand, Israel has fulfilled, in the minds of Honest Reporting, all 5 measures that they promised to address. Israel does what it says. And Arafat, the leader of Palestine, does not. He lies. He kills. So why should the US do anything but continue to treat he and, unfortunately, his people whom he has brainwashed, like the unworthy liars that they are? This is also why the US supports Israel, becaus they actually want peace, and they strive for it.
Do not hate the Israeli country because the US supports them. And to all those who do not support Israel, I am sorry, but you are turning a blind eye to the only country in the middle east with any real potential and an honest striving for a peaceful way of life!
please go here: http://www.honestreporting.com/relentless/ and here:
http://www.honestreporting.com/relentle ... railer.asp
If you do not, I hate you, and you are a moron and do not deserve to read the words with which I have presented you.
Jeremy
there is so much more i wanna say, but i wont.
My name: Jeremy Mirken, AKA Chocolatey Shatner, AKA jerk enemy rim.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
I kick it with trunk chef elf and liz luck key my.
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
allan referenced my post, and posted a link titled:
"Bush dispels notion of link between Iraq, 9/11 attacks"
an excerpt:
------------------------------------
(.........)
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said in response to a reporter's question.
But he added, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
(..........)
------------------------------------
When I say ("I guess I do believe that there was some type of connection.)
I am referring to the belief that he (Hussein) had al Qaeda ties.
That's a reasonable belief.
Maybe the reason so many people believe that he was directly involved, is because we have nine candidates out there saying , "Iraq was not involved, blahblahblah."
The public might distrust, and believe the opposite of whatever those shrill clowns are screaming.
They have been useful clowns, who will be brushed aside if(when) Hillary enters the race.
-n
"Bush dispels notion of link between Iraq, 9/11 attacks"
an excerpt:
------------------------------------
(.........)
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with Sept. 11," Bush said in response to a reporter's question.
But he added, "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
(..........)
------------------------------------
When I say ("I guess I do believe that there was some type of connection.)
I am referring to the belief that he (Hussein) had al Qaeda ties.
That's a reasonable belief.
Maybe the reason so many people believe that he was directly involved, is because we have nine candidates out there saying , "Iraq was not involved, blahblahblah."
The public might distrust, and believe the opposite of whatever those shrill clowns are screaming.
They have been useful clowns, who will be brushed aside if(when) Hillary enters the race.
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
HighDemonslayer
- Egyptian Footgod
- Posts: 1070
- Joined: 17 Jun 2003 19:34
- Location: Arizona
jeremy:
European-Islamic conflicts are not a belief of mine, They were history.
America is relatively new on the scene and creates problems for the conquest of Europe.
Senor Grommet's post described the "Nazi-fication" education I was alluding to.
edit:
-----------------
Oh yeah, who was lamenting the fact that Bush messed up Clinton's "success" in the middle East?
Many more death's, on both sides, have occured AFTER 1993, when those stupid Oslo Accords were signed.
Hasn't Arafat been expelled from several Arab nations for "threatening the stability" of the governments there?
Israel should have expelled(or killed) him many years ago.
-----------------
-n
European-Islamic conflicts are not a belief of mine, They were history.
America is relatively new on the scene and creates problems for the conquest of Europe.
Senor Grommet's post described the "Nazi-fication" education I was alluding to.
edit:
-----------------
Oh yeah, who was lamenting the fact that Bush messed up Clinton's "success" in the middle East?
Many more death's, on both sides, have occured AFTER 1993, when those stupid Oslo Accords were signed.
Hasn't Arafat been expelled from several Arab nations for "threatening the stability" of the governments there?
Israel should have expelled(or killed) him many years ago.
-----------------
-n
Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-----------------------------------
-nathan
-
blackcrown
- Multidex Master
- Posts: 316
- Joined: 23 Apr 2003 13:09
- Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Re: so interesting . . .
Sorry to nit-pick, but Qatar is also a democractic nation now.Senor Grommet wrote:Let me remind you that Israel is the ONLY democratic country in the middle east.
Eric
Eric Palmer
-
Senor Grommet
- Post Master General
- Posts: 3394
- Joined: 18 Oct 2002 20:25
- Location: Greater Santa Cruz, CA
Re: so interesting . . .
Question 1:
Jeremy, would you say that you side with Palestinians/radical muslims over Israel (check your spelling by the way!!!)?
Firstly I appologise for my incorrect spelling - I couldn't find what you were talking about but I often make stupid spelling mistakes, I'm sure you knew what I was talking about anyway. I would side with the palestinian civillians over Israel. I would never support the radical muslims, however I do my best to try to understand what motivates them and always try to improve my understanding of the situation. I don't see any real difference between the civilians killed in suicide bombs and those killed by Israeli tanks except that five are killed by tank for every person who dies in a bomb (counting the suicide bomber).
Question 2: (to Jeremy)
Do you believe that Yasser Arafat is a good leader of his people? Do you think that he follows through socially with what he says that he will do?
I don't think he is a good leader at all. However I think Sharon is a worse leader and I hope that he is eventually tried for crimes against humanity, in particular the geonicde that he instigated in Lebanon. The leader of cause does not make it any more or less just. I try to judge issues such as this on the cause more than on the leaders. If both Sharon and Arafat stepped down than I think that would be a big step towards peace in the area.
Jeremy, would you say that you side with Palestinians/radical muslims over Israel (check your spelling by the way!!!)?
Firstly I appologise for my incorrect spelling - I couldn't find what you were talking about but I often make stupid spelling mistakes, I'm sure you knew what I was talking about anyway. I would side with the palestinian civillians over Israel. I would never support the radical muslims, however I do my best to try to understand what motivates them and always try to improve my understanding of the situation. I don't see any real difference between the civilians killed in suicide bombs and those killed by Israeli tanks except that five are killed by tank for every person who dies in a bomb (counting the suicide bomber).
Question 2: (to Jeremy)
Do you believe that Yasser Arafat is a good leader of his people? Do you think that he follows through socially with what he says that he will do?
I don't think he is a good leader at all. However I think Sharon is a worse leader and I hope that he is eventually tried for crimes against humanity, in particular the geonicde that he instigated in Lebanon. The leader of cause does not make it any more or less just. I try to judge issues such as this on the cause more than on the leaders. If both Sharon and Arafat stepped down than I think that would be a big step towards peace in the area.
Oh and I'm a little bemused by your assurtion the US supports democracy considering the dictators that are and have been supported in the past. ( check out the history of the following countries and their relationship with "the land of the free": Peru, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Russia, Cuba, Bolivia, Mexico etc.)