Radiofree....It's a little late in the day to still be debating if there was a connection between those two assholes. Here's a photo of Saddam's sons. http://poetry.rotten.com/uday/index9.html I do believe that photo. Maybe we can debate them for a while.
posted by Patriot:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Look Phaed, we can go back and forth with my dog is better than your dog forever...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh? I don't think Islam is "better" than Christianity, if that's what you mean ... I think all religions are sad and hideous.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the bottom line is anybody who thinks that you have to dignify the incinaration of 3000 innocent people by the ideals of a perverted barbaric oppressive religion by asking"why do they hate us" needs to seek help for self esteem issues...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was making fun of the people that wonder that, not asking it myself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
People like you will start getting it when the next attack on this neck of the woods is about 10 times worse....these third world shit eaters and the area they come from should be turned into glass.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just think that it's easier, more cost-effective, and more results-oriented to stop causing terrorism, rather than keep dreaming up flashier and more brutal ways to respond to it. It's not that I think that terror acts are in any way justified ... it's just that the process by which they are inspired is hardly a mystery (as long as you live outside the Beltway.) Decades of interventionist U.S. policy in the Middle East, previously weak, p.c. policies on terrorist attack protocol, and the repeated failures of the Clinton Administration to "go get the bad guy" before the bad guy in question became a legend, as powerful dead as he is alive ... which is what 9/11 did for him.
Nearly every guerilla war in recorded human history has resulted in a humiliating and often devastating defeat for the "civilised" side. This is not a war in the sense of one side vs the other, one wins and that's that. Terrorism is a symptom; a side effect -- a drastic one to be sure, but it is not itself the sickness.
The sickness is in Jimmy Carter abandoning hostage Americans for over a year in Iran ... and in Ronald Reagan selling out the integrity of our country in order to get good press by caving in to the demands of the captors.
The sickness is in the drastic cuts in armed air marshals and the ban on armed pilots.
The sickness is in the "whatever you do, don't put up a fight" mantra of how to deal with a hijacking that was ohmed for three decades in this country, and in the fact that -- believe it or not -- the heroes of Flight 93 were technically breaking federal laws when they revolted against the hijackers.
The sickness is in a firm and controversial NORAD policy that turned out to be nothing more than window-dressing and political capital when the cards were on the table.
The problem is not terrorism. The problem is that America is a nation of undignified pussies who invite problems, then can think of no way to solve them but carpet-bombing and grandstanding. Terrorism is just a symptom of that problem. And Islam, Christianity and all the other religions of the world are all but irrelevant to the matter.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Look Phaed, we can go back and forth with my dog is better than your dog forever...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Eh? I don't think Islam is "better" than Christianity, if that's what you mean ... I think all religions are sad and hideous.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
the bottom line is anybody who thinks that you have to dignify the incinaration of 3000 innocent people by the ideals of a perverted barbaric oppressive religion by asking"why do they hate us" needs to seek help for self esteem issues...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was making fun of the people that wonder that, not asking it myself.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
People like you will start getting it when the next attack on this neck of the woods is about 10 times worse....these third world shit eaters and the area they come from should be turned into glass.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I just think that it's easier, more cost-effective, and more results-oriented to stop causing terrorism, rather than keep dreaming up flashier and more brutal ways to respond to it. It's not that I think that terror acts are in any way justified ... it's just that the process by which they are inspired is hardly a mystery (as long as you live outside the Beltway.) Decades of interventionist U.S. policy in the Middle East, previously weak, p.c. policies on terrorist attack protocol, and the repeated failures of the Clinton Administration to "go get the bad guy" before the bad guy in question became a legend, as powerful dead as he is alive ... which is what 9/11 did for him.
Nearly every guerilla war in recorded human history has resulted in a humiliating and often devastating defeat for the "civilised" side. This is not a war in the sense of one side vs the other, one wins and that's that. Terrorism is a symptom; a side effect -- a drastic one to be sure, but it is not itself the sickness.
The sickness is in Jimmy Carter abandoning hostage Americans for over a year in Iran ... and in Ronald Reagan selling out the integrity of our country in order to get good press by caving in to the demands of the captors.
The sickness is in the drastic cuts in armed air marshals and the ban on armed pilots.
The sickness is in the "whatever you do, don't put up a fight" mantra of how to deal with a hijacking that was ohmed for three decades in this country, and in the fact that -- believe it or not -- the heroes of Flight 93 were technically breaking federal laws when they revolted against the hijackers.
The sickness is in a firm and controversial NORAD policy that turned out to be nothing more than window-dressing and political capital when the cards were on the table.
The problem is not terrorism. The problem is that America is a nation of undignified pussies who invite problems, then can think of no way to solve them but carpet-bombing and grandstanding. Terrorism is just a symptom of that problem. And Islam, Christianity and all the other religions of the world are all but irrelevant to the matter.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Now compare this record to the example of the countries that have officially done away with religion. To the countries that have outright banned religion and imprisoned those who try to practice it (the ultimate test of the theory of separation of church and state).
Yes, I am talking about Communist countries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your argument that the ultimate test of the success or failure of the complete separation of Church and State can be measured by those countries who have founded their politics on atheism is inherantly flawed. Whether a country is founded on Islam and rejects Christianity, or is founded on Christianity and rejects all other religions, (see George W. Bush) it is the very fact that religion is in any way discussed as a matter of politics that maintains the joint venture of Church and State. Thus, a political structure founded on the rejection of ALL religions, to such a degree as to make them illegal and punishable by death, is in no way a legitimate separation. A legitimate separation would have its politicians not make mention of religion at all, a complete non-factor.
Full separation of Church and State argues that in no way, through inclusion or exclusion, shall the influences of religion or any form of theistic faith modify, alter, or form the foundation of the political practices of that nation. The atheism that you refer to is an active rejection of all religion, thus inevitably defining its political stance from a religious perspective. A truly separated country would likely resemble agnosticism, not atheism.
Regarding your suggestion that Christianity has a "calming influence on government" (easily the most absurd and unsupported claim I've heard in recent years): you fail to acknowledge the Holocaust, one of the most barbaric and successful acts of genocide in recent history, and led by a man who routinely declared himself a Christian. Exactly what calming influence did Christianity have then?
Sorry, but your bias was simply too obvious.
Now compare this record to the example of the countries that have officially done away with religion. To the countries that have outright banned religion and imprisoned those who try to practice it (the ultimate test of the theory of separation of church and state).
Yes, I am talking about Communist countries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Your argument that the ultimate test of the success or failure of the complete separation of Church and State can be measured by those countries who have founded their politics on atheism is inherantly flawed. Whether a country is founded on Islam and rejects Christianity, or is founded on Christianity and rejects all other religions, (see George W. Bush) it is the very fact that religion is in any way discussed as a matter of politics that maintains the joint venture of Church and State. Thus, a political structure founded on the rejection of ALL religions, to such a degree as to make them illegal and punishable by death, is in no way a legitimate separation. A legitimate separation would have its politicians not make mention of religion at all, a complete non-factor.
Full separation of Church and State argues that in no way, through inclusion or exclusion, shall the influences of religion or any form of theistic faith modify, alter, or form the foundation of the political practices of that nation. The atheism that you refer to is an active rejection of all religion, thus inevitably defining its political stance from a religious perspective. A truly separated country would likely resemble agnosticism, not atheism.
Regarding your suggestion that Christianity has a "calming influence on government" (easily the most absurd and unsupported claim I've heard in recent years): you fail to acknowledge the Holocaust, one of the most barbaric and successful acts of genocide in recent history, and led by a man who routinely declared himself a Christian. Exactly what calming influence did Christianity have then?
Sorry, but your bias was simply too obvious.
I think this business of which religion/non-religion/world view would yield the most desirable government is totally bogus. People are people my friends, and they'll always find a way to divide themselves into tribes. Whether it's religion, partisan politics, ethnicity, what have you . . . humans have a tendency to identify themselves with a group and persecute people who don't belong to that group. Religion gets a bad rap and people blame it for all sorts of crap, but really we should all look at ourselves and recognize that the real culprit isn't religion but rather whatever innate urge made you tease the nerds back in high school and makes you laugh at racist/sexist/sectarian jokes today. We all do it boys, it's best to recognize it and try not to let it rule your actions . . .
xpanda
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Whether a country is founded on Islam and rejects Christianity, or is founded on Christianity and rejects all other religions, (see George W. Bush) it is t <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
G.Bush has not rejected any relgion and has gone out of his way to kiss Islam ass after 9/11.
Hitler claimed he was a christian but the holocaust didn't happen in "Gods" name.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Exactly what calming influence did Christianity have then?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The holocaust was stoppped by a coalition of mostly Christian nations...Hows that for calming?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Whether a country is founded on Islam and rejects Christianity, or is founded on Christianity and rejects all other religions, (see George W. Bush) it is t <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
G.Bush has not rejected any relgion and has gone out of his way to kiss Islam ass after 9/11.
Hitler claimed he was a christian but the holocaust didn't happen in "Gods" name.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Exactly what calming influence did Christianity have then?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The holocaust was stoppped by a coalition of mostly Christian nations...Hows that for calming?
Another thing you high brow thinkers, and condescending know it alls seem to forget.Is that all people are given the god given right to be free.This is a strong christian concept.The US Constitution and Bill of Rights evolve from these beliefs....Compare this philosphy, to anything, anything the muslim world has going for it.
"The very first act of the new Bush administration was to have a Protestant Evangelist minister officially dedicate the inauguration to Jesus Christ, whom he declared to be 'our savior.' Invoking 'the Father, the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ' and 'the Holy Spirit,' Billy Graham's son, the man selected by President George W. Bush to bless his presidency, excluded the tens of millions of Americans who are Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, agnostics, and atheists from his blessing by his particularistic and parochial language."-- Alan M. Dershowitz, in "Bush Starts Off by Defying the the Constitution," Los Angeles Times, January 24, 2001.
The very fact alone that your position in these posts is obviously anti-Muslim, and that much of your language is exceedingly hostile in nature, suggests to me that this Christianity that you espouse is nowhere near as calming as you are trying to have us believe. I'm not saying that all Christians are, by that fact alone, hate-*****rs and ready to strike in its name, but perhaps you are not the best spokesperson for the cause?
The very fact alone that your position in these posts is obviously anti-Muslim, and that much of your language is exceedingly hostile in nature, suggests to me that this Christianity that you espouse is nowhere near as calming as you are trying to have us believe. I'm not saying that all Christians are, by that fact alone, hate-*****rs and ready to strike in its name, but perhaps you are not the best spokesperson for the cause?
DannyMay...You're full of shit. Nothing Saddam could broadcast on television would make me hate that prick anymore than I do now.
BTW, I'm assuming they had complete coverage of 9/11 on their television stations. Weren't those "dead Americans"? Or maybe somehow under the liberal reasoning, that doesn't count.
BTW, I'm assuming they had complete coverage of 9/11 on their television stations. Weren't those "dead Americans"? Or maybe somehow under the liberal reasoning, that doesn't count.
The deaths of 5,000+ Americans et al is hardly overlooked by liberal sympathisers. However, the responsibility lies with Al Queda, not Saddam (although no true Liberal could offer support for Saddam's ideologies, either.)
The point is simply that if one is to identify themselves as against irrational, theistic-driven, state-sanctioned murder, as per 9/11, then the Iraq invasion shall not be exempt from their reasoning. A simple case of two wrongs not making a right.
I am sick to death of the high-horse that the Bush administration (ala Daddy) rides around on ... true hypocrisy. One shall not, nor should not, forget that the 'weapons of mass destruction' that were such a threat to the peacability of the US were at one time property of the Reagan administration. Let us not also forget that Bin Laden himself was a student of the CIA ... amazing how politics comes around to bite you in the ass, isn't it???
Simply put, Saddam is an asshole, Osama is an asshole, and your Mr. Bush (take your pick, either or) is also an asshole.
The whole lot of them deserve one another.
The point is simply that if one is to identify themselves as against irrational, theistic-driven, state-sanctioned murder, as per 9/11, then the Iraq invasion shall not be exempt from their reasoning. A simple case of two wrongs not making a right.
I am sick to death of the high-horse that the Bush administration (ala Daddy) rides around on ... true hypocrisy. One shall not, nor should not, forget that the 'weapons of mass destruction' that were such a threat to the peacability of the US were at one time property of the Reagan administration. Let us not also forget that Bin Laden himself was a student of the CIA ... amazing how politics comes around to bite you in the ass, isn't it???
Simply put, Saddam is an asshole, Osama is an asshole, and your Mr. Bush (take your pick, either or) is also an asshole.
The whole lot of them deserve one another.
The point behind going after Iraq is the fact that whole area is breeding ground for terrorism.They can pull all that shit all they want over there..but after 9/11 the rules have changed....The Clinton,Carter liberal appeasment approach to terroism resulted in 3 k dead and a trillion dollar hit to the economy.(The, Ok you can fxck my sister approach is over.)....And what you moronic foreign fux don't realize is how the American economy goes, so goes the rest of the world.I am pissed at Bush for not being more aggressive,I have to pay taxes for a nuclear arsenal that they don't use,and have to read daily about young real American deaths.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The very fact alone that your position in these posts is obviously anti-Muslim, and that much of your language is exceedingly hostile in nature, suggests to me that this Christianity that you espouse is nowhere near as calming as you are trying to have us believe. I'm not saying that all Christians are, by that fact alone, hate-*****rs and ready to strike in its name, but perhaps you are not the best spokesperson for the cause? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah....so whats your point??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The very fact alone that your position in these posts is obviously anti-Muslim, and that much of your language is exceedingly hostile in nature, suggests to me that this Christianity that you espouse is nowhere near as calming as you are trying to have us believe. I'm not saying that all Christians are, by that fact alone, hate-*****rs and ready to strike in its name, but perhaps you are not the best spokesperson for the cause? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah....so whats your point??
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
I am pissed at Bush for not being more aggressive,I have to pay taxes for a nuclear arsenal that they don't use,and have to read daily about young real American deaths.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I always suspected it, but now I know. Patriot you are just yanking people's chains in here trying to get a reaction. Suggesting that the US should nuke middle-Eastern countries is too over-the-top even for you. You're busted, buddy - that last post just gave you away.
I am pissed at Bush for not being more aggressive,I have to pay taxes for a nuclear arsenal that they don't use,and have to read daily about young real American deaths.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I always suspected it, but now I know. Patriot you are just yanking people's chains in here trying to get a reaction. Suggesting that the US should nuke middle-Eastern countries is too over-the-top even for you. You're busted, buddy - that last post just gave you away.
Clinton, Carter approach is the reason 9/11 happened. What proof do you have of this? The reason the hostages were taken in Iran was due to our support of a corrupt man who in many ways was similar to Saddam Hussein. Carter I feel would have succeeded in getting their release except he was undermined by the treasonous arms for hostages deal which resulted in Carter losing the election. As for 9/11, this is just a opinion but I feel strongly if we never had the first Gulf War, which was a joke since Kuwait was no democracy, never had bases in Saudi Arabia then 9/11 never would never have happened. Plus pressuring Israel to pursue real peace. As for unused nuclear arsenals, are you truly suggesting we should just bomb whole countries like Iraq? My lord, what a piece of pathetic rat filth you are if that is the case.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by American:
I'll never forget the Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 happened. It showed where they're coming from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are referring to the footage shown on CNN (and others) of Middle-Easterners parading, and laughing, and shooting their guns off, then you are referring to footage taken of Palestinians filmed several years prior to 9/11. CNN was chastised for this shameless debacle of some of the worst propaganda to hit the airwaves shortly thereafter. Irresponsible journalism.
I'll never forget the Muslims dancing in the streets after 9/11 happened. It showed where they're coming from.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you are referring to the footage shown on CNN (and others) of Middle-Easterners parading, and laughing, and shooting their guns off, then you are referring to footage taken of Palestinians filmed several years prior to 9/11. CNN was chastised for this shameless debacle of some of the worst propaganda to hit the airwaves shortly thereafter. Irresponsible journalism.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
The point behind going after Iraq is the fact that whole area is breeding ground for terrorism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to help oust the Russians from Afghanistan, then can you not also concede that the US is also a breeding ground for terrorism?
The point behind going after Iraq is the fact that whole area is breeding ground for terrorism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Since Bin Laden was trained by the CIA to help oust the Russians from Afghanistan, then can you not also concede that the US is also a breeding ground for terrorism?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patriot:
Another thing you high brow thinkers, and condescending know it alls seem to forget.Is that all people are given the god given right to be free.This is a strong christian concept.The US Constitution and Bill of Rights evolve from these beliefs....Compare this philosphy, to anything, anything the muslim world has going for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hate to burst your ignorant bubble but god knows it needs it. A "christian" constitution? Don't make me laugh. Those "ignorant savages" you are so fond of, i.e. the Iriquois nations, essentially had a constitutional government upon which the founding fathers modeled ours.
Most of what you write about people other than new-world order white guys like yourself, seems to be a torrent of rationalization which allows you to see others as less than human and therefore subject to any sort of mistreatment, killing, genocide, what-have-you, that you and yours wish to perpetrate.
And this no doubt is done in the name of ... christianity? The supposed principles that guided our founding fathers to build a representative democracy, so that you can rationalize killing anyone who gets in your way because you're superior? Are you drunk or just completely unable to locate your own humanity, soul and intellect? I know you have one but it seems to be in remission or something.
Look in a mirror when you accuse others of being "high brow". You are the ultimate high brow, a guy who thinks people who aren't exactly like him deserve nothing more than the end point of his sword; or rather, a sword that some poor kid will carry for him in a foreign land and likely die in doing so.
Another thing you high brow thinkers, and condescending know it alls seem to forget.Is that all people are given the god given right to be free.This is a strong christian concept.The US Constitution and Bill of Rights evolve from these beliefs....Compare this philosphy, to anything, anything the muslim world has going for it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I hate to burst your ignorant bubble but god knows it needs it. A "christian" constitution? Don't make me laugh. Those "ignorant savages" you are so fond of, i.e. the Iriquois nations, essentially had a constitutional government upon which the founding fathers modeled ours.
Most of what you write about people other than new-world order white guys like yourself, seems to be a torrent of rationalization which allows you to see others as less than human and therefore subject to any sort of mistreatment, killing, genocide, what-have-you, that you and yours wish to perpetrate.
And this no doubt is done in the name of ... christianity? The supposed principles that guided our founding fathers to build a representative democracy, so that you can rationalize killing anyone who gets in your way because you're superior? Are you drunk or just completely unable to locate your own humanity, soul and intellect? I know you have one but it seems to be in remission or something.
Look in a mirror when you accuse others of being "high brow". You are the ultimate high brow, a guy who thinks people who aren't exactly like him deserve nothing more than the end point of his sword; or rather, a sword that some poor kid will carry for him in a foreign land and likely die in doing so.
