| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fred Stone" |
| Date: |
29 May 2007 11:34:44 AM |
| Object: |
Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen
ts/shut_up_about_islam_and_be_safe/
You might well think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a point when she says Islam is
violent and a threat to a liberal society:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will arrive in Sydney today amid tight security…
The Somali-born Muslim - who fled to The Netherlands, became a Dutch
citizen and renounced her religion - has been under 24-hour guard since
the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a Muslim
extremist in Amsterdam…
Van Gogh’s film Submission, which examined the oppression of Muslim
women, was written by Hirsi Ali. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a
five-page death threat addressed to her, pinned to the filmmaker’s
chest.
But apparently local Muslim spokesmen think the real problem is what she
says, rather than the threat to her life from bigots when she says it:
However, University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer Jamila
Hussain said Hirsi Ali’s ideas were extreme and stigmatised Muslims.
“I think she’d be better staying where she came from,” Ms Hussain
said...
Actually, it’s such comments by Muslims who should know better which so
stigmatise their community. Even when such “leaders” claim Hirsi Ali
stigmatises them as violent and anti-liberal, they confirm there is in
fact something to fear:
Nada Roude, of the NSW Islamic Council, said Hirsi Ali’s comments on
the prophet Mohammed were a “no-go zone"…
“There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other’s
beliefs. The reaction from the community is likely to be quite
worrying.”...
Instead of seeing the “quite worrying” likely response from Muslims here
to the exercise of free speech as the real problem, Roude quite
typically reverses the blame, and claims the real problem is actually
the woman who has had to live under police guard for four years.
She’s not a victim, after all. No, the victim is the Muslim community
whose more extreme members have given her such reason to fear for her
life, and whose leaders so often refuse to defend her right to speak, to
visit and to live unmolested. Victimhood is once more triumphantly
claimed by people who should instead examine their own illiberal
culture:
Ms Roude said there seemed to be a double standard about who was
allowed to visit Australia, particularly as Hirsi Ali’s visit appeared
to have the potential to incite hatred.
“Muslims are not treated the same,” she said. “There are a set of
rules for one community and another for the rest of the community.
Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to
express their opinion is not welcome.”
Translated? Shut up and you’ll be safe. Criticise Islam, and the
consequences be on your head. No matter what we do to you, we are the
victims.
This is mad. Consider: of the three people mentioned above - two Muslims
and one non-Muslim - only one needs constant security. Who, then, is the
true victim? Who has more to fear?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| User: "GoDrex" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
30 May 2007 02:23:20 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns993F88EB3AABEfreddybear@66.150.105.47...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen
ts/shut_up_about_islam_and_be_safe/
You might well think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a point when she says Islam is
violent and a threat to a liberal society:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will arrive in Sydney today amid tight security.
The Somali-born Muslim - who fled to The Netherlands, became a Dutch
citizen and renounced her religion - has been under 24-hour guard since
the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a Muslim
extremist in Amsterdam.
Van Gogh's film Submission, which examined the oppression of Muslim
women, was written by Hirsi Ali. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a
five-page death threat addressed to her, pinned to the filmmaker's
chest.
But apparently local Muslim spokesmen think the real problem is what she
says, rather than the threat to her life from bigots when she says it:
However, University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer Jamila
Hussain said Hirsi Ali's ideas were extreme and stigmatised Muslims.
"I think she'd be better staying where she came from," Ms Hussain
said...
Actually, it's such comments by Muslims who should know better which so
stigmatise their community. Even when such "leaders" claim Hirsi Ali
stigmatises them as violent and anti-liberal, they confirm there is in
fact something to fear:
Nada Roude, of the NSW Islamic Council, said Hirsi Ali's comments on
the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".
"There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other's
beliefs. The reaction from the community is likely to be quite
worrying."...
Instead of seeing the "quite worrying" likely response from Muslims here
to the exercise of free speech as the real problem, Roude quite
typically reverses the blame, and claims the real problem is actually
the woman who has had to live under police guard for four years.
She's not a victim, after all. No, the victim is the Muslim community
whose more extreme members have given her such reason to fear for her
life, and whose leaders so often refuse to defend her right to speak, to
visit and to live unmolested. Victimhood is once more triumphantly
claimed by people who should instead examine their own illiberal
culture:
Ms Roude said there seemed to be a double standard about who was
allowed to visit Australia, particularly as Hirsi Ali's visit appeared
to have the potential to incite hatred.
"Muslims are not treated the same," she said. "There are a set of
rules for one community and another for the rest of the community.
Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to
express their opinion is not welcome."
Translated? Shut up and you'll be safe. Criticise Islam, and the
consequences be on your head. No matter what we do to you, we are the
victims.
This is mad. Consider: of the three people mentioned above - two Muslims
and one non-Muslim - only one needs constant security. Who, then, is the
true victim? Who has more to fear?
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=101
btw - I'm a liberal and I've never sided with muslims for anything.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
29 May 2007 01:04:41 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns993F88EB3AABEfreddybear@66.150.105.47...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/commen
ts/shut_up_about_islam_and_be_safe/
You might well think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a point when she says Islam is
violent and a threat to a liberal society:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will arrive in Sydney today amid tight security.
The Somali-born Muslim - who fled to The Netherlands, became a Dutch
citizen and renounced her religion - has been under 24-hour guard since
the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a Muslim
extremist in Amsterdam.
Van Gogh's film Submission, which examined the oppression of Muslim
women, was written by Hirsi Ali. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a
five-page death threat addressed to her, pinned to the filmmaker's
chest.
But apparently local Muslim spokesmen think the real problem is what she
says, rather than the threat to her life from bigots when she says it:
However, University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer Jamila
Hussain said Hirsi Ali's ideas were extreme and stigmatised Muslims.
"I think she'd be better staying where she came from," Ms Hussain
said...
Actually, it's such comments by Muslims who should know better which so
stigmatise their community. Even when such "leaders" claim Hirsi Ali
stigmatises them as violent and anti-liberal, they confirm there is in
fact something to fear:
Nada Roude, of the NSW Islamic Council, said Hirsi Ali's comments on
the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".
"There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting other's
beliefs. The reaction from the community is likely to be quite
worrying."...
Instead of seeing the "quite worrying" likely response from Muslims here
to the exercise of free speech as the real problem, Roude quite
typically reverses the blame, and claims the real problem is actually
the woman who has had to live under police guard for four years.
She's not a victim, after all. No, the victim is the Muslim community
whose more extreme members have given her such reason to fear for her
life, and whose leaders so often refuse to defend her right to speak, to
visit and to live unmolested. Victimhood is once more triumphantly
claimed by people who should instead examine their own illiberal
culture:
Ms Roude said there seemed to be a double standard about who was
allowed to visit Australia, particularly as Hirsi Ali's visit appeared
to have the potential to incite hatred.
"Muslims are not treated the same," she said. "There are a set of
rules for one community and another for the rest of the community.
Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to
express their opinion is not welcome."
Translated? Shut up and you'll be safe. Criticise Islam, and the
consequences be on your head. No matter what we do to you, we are the
victims.
This is mad. Consider: of the three people mentioned above - two Muslims
and one non-Muslim - only one needs constant security. Who, then, is the
true victim? Who has more to fear?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
Interesting how the word "liberal" defines the fair and decent humans in
the conflict described above. "Anti-liberal" Muslims are the bad guys.
Liberal Muslims would be good guys.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is great. He
recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" by many of the
leaders of the worlds major religions. They all take the same position of
blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative alliance is
no accident.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
29 May 2007 02:50:49 PM |
|
|
"Rob Brown" <bbrown@csmflorida.com> wrote in
news:465c6bdb$0$9904$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns993F88EB3AABEfreddybear@66.150.105.47...
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comm
en ts/shut_up_about_islam_and_be_safe/
You might well think Ayaan Hirsi Ali has a point when she says Islam
is violent and a threat to a liberal society:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali will arrive in Sydney today amid tight security.
The Somali-born Muslim - who fled to The Netherlands, became a
Dutch
citizen and renounced her religion - has been under 24-hour guard
since the murder of film-maker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 by a
Muslim extremist in Amsterdam.
Van Gogh's film Submission, which examined the oppression of
Muslim
women, was written by Hirsi Ali. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, left a
five-page death threat addressed to her, pinned to the filmmaker's
chest.
But apparently local Muslim spokesmen think the real problem is what
she says, rather than the threat to her life from bigots when she
says it:
However, University of Technology Sydney Islamic law lecturer
Jamila
Hussain said Hirsi Ali's ideas were extreme and stigmatised Muslims.
"I think she'd be better staying where she came from," Ms Hussain
said...
Actually, it's such comments by Muslims who should know better which
so stigmatise their community. Even when such "leaders" claim Hirsi
Ali stigmatises them as violent and anti-liberal, they confirm there
is in fact something to fear:
Nada Roude, of the NSW Islamic Council, said Hirsi Ali's comments
on
the prophet Mohammed were a "no-go zone".
"There have to be boundaries in how far you go in respecting
other's
beliefs. The reaction from the community is likely to be quite
worrying."...
Instead of seeing the "quite worrying" likely response from Muslims
here to the exercise of free speech as the real problem, Roude quite
typically reverses the blame, and claims the real problem is actually
the woman who has had to live under police guard for four years.
She's not a victim, after all. No, the victim is the Muslim community
whose more extreme members have given her such reason to fear for her
life, and whose leaders so often refuse to defend her right to speak,
to visit and to live unmolested. Victimhood is once more triumphantly
claimed by people who should instead examine their own illiberal
culture:
Ms Roude said there seemed to be a double standard about who was
allowed to visit Australia, particularly as Hirsi Ali's visit
appeared to have the potential to incite hatred.
"Muslims are not treated the same," she said. "There are a set of
rules for one community and another for the rest of the community.
Anyone who causes harm to our society because they have the right to
express their opinion is not welcome."
Translated? Shut up and you'll be safe. Criticise Islam, and the
consequences be on your head. No matter what we do to you, we are the
victims.
This is mad. Consider: of the three people mentioned above - two
Muslims and one non-Muslim - only one needs constant security. Who,
then, is the true victim? Who has more to fear?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going
to lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after
that seemed like posturing."
Interesting how the word "liberal" defines the fair and decent humans
in the conflict described above. "Anti-liberal" Muslims are the bad
guys. Liberal Muslims would be good guys.
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi Ali
with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is great.
He recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" by many
of the leaders of the worlds major religions. They all take the same
position of blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 07:24:31 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is great.
He recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" by many
of the leaders of the worlds major religions. They all take the same
position of blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 09:02:33 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:h-6dnabsBq7jI8PbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
Indeed. Few and far between, and all too many of the radical Muslims get
mistaken for "moderates" by our own liberals.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is great.
He recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" by
many of the leaders of the worlds major religions. They all take the
same position of blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
"The sky is blue" is also an accurate statement and just as relevant to
the conversation about how liberals blame the victims of Islamists for
the Islamists' violence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 12:06:32 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:h-6dnabsBq7jI8PbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
Indeed. Few and far between, and all too many of the radical Muslims
get mistaken for "moderates" by our own liberals.
Like whom?
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
"The sky is blue" is also an accurate statement and just as relevant
to the conversation about how liberals blame the victims of Islamists
for the Islamists' violence.
How are liberals implicated?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 12:25:03 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in news:v-
idnVh2Gr4FncLbnZ2dnUVZ_v2knZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:h-6dnabsBq7jI8PbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
Indeed. Few and far between, and all too many of the radical Muslims
get mistaken for "moderates" by our own liberals.
Like whom?
Like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations that has ties to
HAMAS and Hezbollah.
Like the Muslim Students Association, another Saudi-backed radical
organization that preaches violent jihad and holds pro-Palestinian
anti-Semitic rallies at UC Irvine. WITH the University's express
approval, I might add.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
"The sky is blue" is also an accurate statement and just as relevant
to the conversation about how liberals blame the victims of Islamists
for the Islamists' violence.
How are liberals implicated?
Support for Palestine.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Lack of support for Afghanistan.
And that's just from personal observation on this newsgroup.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 09:21:25 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
get mistaken for "moderates" by our own liberals.
Like whom?
Like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations that has ties to
HAMAS and Hezbollah.
Like the Muslim Students Association, another Saudi-backed radical
organization that preaches violent jihad and holds pro-Palestinian
anti-Semitic rallies at UC Irvine. WITH the University's express
approval, I might add.
And what makes you say anyone mistakes them for moderates? Just curious. I'm
sure there are a few nutbags that might, just as there are nutbags on the
right that think Guantanomo should be expanded.
"The sky is blue" is also an accurate statement and just as relevant
to the conversation about how liberals blame the victims of
Islamists for the Islamists' violence.
How are liberals implicated?
Support for Palestine.
Last I looked, nearly every congressman in Washington was firmly in the
Israeli camp.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me, though). And
now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked it up and doesn't
know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A blank check?
Regardless, I don't see how opposition to the Iraq War has anything to do
with blame blame game as it was in Australia. If opposition to the war does,
then support for the war can be shown to do so too.
Lack of support for Afghanistan.
Really? Not this liberal. I, and I expect most liberals, had no problem with
the Afghanistan War. But if you care to cite some stats, by all means.
And that's just from personal observation on this newsgroup.
Sorry, I'm a data-driven guy. I don't lend credence to hunches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 09:31:21 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:ZvWdnX18tts4H8LbnZ2dnUVZ_rqhnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
get mistaken for "moderates" by our own liberals.
Like whom?
Like CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations that has ties to
HAMAS and Hezbollah.
Like the Muslim Students Association, another Saudi-backed radical
organization that preaches violent jihad and holds pro-Palestinian
anti-Semitic rallies at UC Irvine. WITH the University's express
approval, I might add.
And what makes you say anyone mistakes them for moderates? Just
curious. I'm sure there are a few nutbags that might, just as there
are nutbags on the right that think Guantanomo should be expanded.
"The sky is blue" is also an accurate statement and just as
relevant to the conversation about how liberals blame the victims
of Islamists for the Islamists' violence.
How are liberals implicated?
Support for Palestine.
Last I looked, nearly every congressman in Washington was firmly in
the Israeli camp.
Last I looked, there's a lot of yap about supporting Palestinian
statehood, even though they can't manage to keep from shooting at each
other in the state they've got.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the defeatist
talk hasn't let up since.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A
blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to the
mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
Regardless, I don't see how opposition to the Iraq War has anything to
do with blame blame game as it was in Australia. If opposition to the
war does, then support for the war can be shown to do so too.
It's the same game whether it's played here or there.
Lack of support for Afghanistan.
Really? Not this liberal. I, and I expect most liberals, had no
problem with the Afghanistan War. But if you care to cite some stats,
by all means.
Really? The same complaints that we're hearing about Iraq were being
made about Afghanistan too. The Q word was all over the news just like
it was about Iraq.
And that's just from personal observation on this newsgroup.
Sorry, I'm a data-driven guy. I don't lend credence to hunches.
I go by what I see with my own eyes. Sorry if that's not on some nice
URL with a pretty name.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
01 Jun 2007 12:46:51 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Support for Palestine.
Last I looked, nearly every congressman in Washington was firmly in
the Israeli camp.
Last I looked, there's a lot of yap about supporting Palestinian
statehood, even though they can't manage to keep from shooting at each
other in the state they've got.
Even moderate Israelis want to make Palestinian statehood work. You're not
going to get rid of Palestinians. All we can hope for is that statehood will
eventually lead to momentum for peace. What's the alternative?
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the defeatist
talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a year.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A
blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to the
mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
You're dreaming. Democracy ain't gonna happen in Iraq. You can jam it down
their throats but 1000+ years of sectarian rivalry won't be broken by the
good intentions of the Bush Administration.
The alternatives are a strong "president" or partition.
Regardless, I don't see how opposition to the Iraq War has anything
to do with blame blame game as it was in Australia. If opposition to
the war does, then support for the war can be shown to do so too.
It's the same game whether it's played here or there.
It's the same game whether it's played here or there.
Lack of support for Afghanistan.
Really? Not this liberal. I, and I expect most liberals, had no
problem with the Afghanistan War. But if you care to cite some stats,
by all means.
Really? The same complaints that we're hearing about Iraq were being
made about Afghanistan too. The Q word was all over the news just
like it was about Iraq.
Sorry, missed it. Who said it? Is it just one person or the Democratic
Caucus? *****, I can probably find conservatives that think we should nuke
Kabul in order to start the road to Armageddon.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it serves to
characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the fringe. Obviously, it
comforts you to believe that every liberal in the world is completely
antithetical to everything you believe. Hey, whatever floats your boat,
dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan be able to
stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active. Pakistan is still
uncooperative. I think there's more hope for this than Iraq. This liberal
does not now nor ever has had a problem with the Afghan theater. On the
contrary, I think we owe it to those guys after we abandoned them to the
Taliban.
And that's just from personal observation on this newsgroup.
Sorry, I'm a data-driven guy. I don't lend credence to hunches.
I go by what I see with my own eyes. Sorry if that's not on some nice
URL with a pretty name.
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know what it's
based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a jab at you. It's just
that hunches of this sort are completely unreliable. Also, the sample here
at a.a. is decidedly liberal (ooops...just my perception...no data).
To make it worse, people tend to speak more stridently on Usenet than they
normally would or really believe since it is rather anonymous and also
because exxagertaed opinions get more attention here.
Perhaps you've noticed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
01 Jun 2007 06:23:12 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:U5mdnabUtcRXL8LbnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Support for Palestine.
Last I looked, nearly every congressman in Washington was firmly in
the Israeli camp.
Last I looked, there's a lot of yap about supporting Palestinian
statehood, even though they can't manage to keep from shooting at
each other in the state they've got.
Even moderate Israelis want to make Palestinian statehood work. You're
not going to get rid of Palestinians. All we can hope for is that
statehood will eventually lead to momentum for peace. What's the
alternative?
Hope is not a plan. The Palestinians are caught in a suicidal death cult
and can't seem to find any way to do anything but hurt themselves.
They've been given every conceivable opportunity to make peace and all
they do is throw themselves blindly into the fire again.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the defeatist
talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a year.
I will refer you to the archives of this very newsgroup.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A
blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to
the mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
You're dreaming. Democracy ain't gonna happen in Iraq. You can jam it
down their throats but 1000+ years of sectarian rivalry won't be
broken by the good intentions of the Bush Administration.
But of course the thousand years of hate between Arabs and Jews will be
fixed by the good intentions of liberals.
The alternatives are a strong "president" or partition.
Why is it that you think the Palestinians, who are at each others
throats, will somehow magically come to grips if they're given statehood
but you don't think that will happen in Iraq?
This is just another manifestation of liberal support for dictators and
tyrants.
Regardless, I don't see how opposition to the Iraq War has anything
to do with blame blame game as it was in Australia. If opposition to
the war does, then support for the war can be shown to do so too.
It's the same game whether it's played here or there.
It's the same game whether it's played here or there.
Lack of support for Afghanistan.
Really? Not this liberal. I, and I expect most liberals, had no
problem with the Afghanistan War. But if you care to cite some
stats, by all means.
Really? The same complaints that we're hearing about Iraq were being
made about Afghanistan too. The Q word was all over the news just
like it was about Iraq.
Sorry, missed it. Who said it? Is it just one person or the Democratic
Caucus? *****, I can probably find conservatives that think we should
nuke Kabul in order to start the road to Armageddon.
It was headlines in all the newspapers. It was discussed on this
newsgroup. We were (allegedly) "losers" who couldn't even scare the
braaaaave Taliban with our smart bombs until we sent in the B-52's. I
was here, Geoff, and I remember, even if you refuse to do so without me
digging up an URL for you.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it serves
to characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the fringe.
Obviously, it comforts you to believe that every liberal in the world
is completely antithetical to everything you believe. Hey, whatever
floats your boat, dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan be
able to stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active. Pakistan is
still uncooperative. I think there's more hope for this than Iraq.
This liberal does not now nor ever has had a problem with the Afghan
theater. On the contrary, I think we owe it to those guys after we
abandoned them to the Taliban.
We didn't abandon them. We did set up the NATO force there.
And that's just from personal observation on this newsgroup.
Sorry, I'm a data-driven guy. I don't lend credence to hunches.
I go by what I see with my own eyes. Sorry if that's not on some nice
URL with a pretty name.
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know what
it's based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a jab at you.
It's just that hunches of this sort are completely unreliable. Also,
the sample here at a.a. is decidedly liberal (ooops...just my
perception...no data).
Oh, let me tell you, Geoff, there's plenty of data.
To make it worse, people tend to speak more stridently on Usenet than
they normally would or really believe since it is rather anonymous and
also because exxagertaed opinions get more attention here.
Perhaps you've noticed.
Who me? Little quiet mousie Fred? ;)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
02 Jun 2007 02:37:25 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Even moderate Israelis want to make Palestinian statehood work.
You're not going to get rid of Palestinians. All we can hope for is
that statehood will eventually lead to momentum for peace. What's the
alternative?
Hope is not a plan. The Palestinians are caught in a suicidal death
cult and can't seem to find any way to do anything but hurt
themselves. They've been given every conceivable opportunity to make
peace and all they do is throw themselves blindly into the fire again.
The question stands.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the defeatist
talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a year.
I will refer you to the archives of this very newsgroup.
You want me to research evidence for your claim? Nonetheless. if what you
say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of most what a
clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention from Afghanistan. I
sure did.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A
blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to
the mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
You're dreaming. Democracy ain't gonna happen in Iraq. You can jam it
down their throats but 1000+ years of sectarian rivalry won't be
broken by the good intentions of the Bush Administration.
But of course the thousand years of hate between Arabs and Jews will
be fixed by the good intentions of liberals.
I didn't say that.What alternative do you propose for Palestine?
The alternatives are a strong "president" or partition.
Why is it that you think the Palestinians, who are at each others
throats, will somehow magically come to grips if they're given
statehood but you don't think that will happen in Iraq?
I don't think they will. But there is always hope. In both cases. I just
don't think that the US has done a damn thing to help the situation by
invading Iraq.
This is just another manifestation of liberal support for dictators
and tyrants.
Puh-leeeeze. This was my opinion. Not that of "liberals". And show how
liberals support dictators and tyrants. You don't think the Republicans
absofuckinglutely love a dictator when it suits their need? Get a grip.
Sorry, missed it. Who said it? Is it just one person or the
Democratic Caucus? *****, I can probably find conservatives that
think we should nuke Kabul in order to start the road to Armageddon.
It was headlines in all the newspapers. It was discussed on this
newsgroup. We were (allegedly) "losers" who couldn't even scare the
braaaaave Taliban with our smart bombs until we sent in the B-52's. I
was here, Geoff, and I remember, even if you refuse to do so without
me digging up an URL for you.
Again...you want me to back up your claim. Regardless, anecdotal evidence is
not evidence of the general opinion of liberals.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it serves
to characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the fringe.
Obviously, it comforts you to believe that every liberal in the world
is completely antithetical to everything you believe. Hey, whatever
floats your boat, dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan be
able to stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active. Pakistan is
still uncooperative. I think there's more hope for this than Iraq.
This liberal does not now nor ever has had a problem with the Afghan
theater. On the contrary, I think we owe it to those guys after we
abandoned them to the Taliban.
We didn't abandon them. We did set up the NATO force there.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know what
it's based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a jab at
you. It's just that hunches of this sort are completely unreliable.
Also, the sample here at a.a. is decidedly liberal (ooops...just my
perception...no data).
Oh, let me tell you, Geoff, there's plenty of data.
Yeah right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
02 Jun 2007 06:43:14 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:H6idnQX6I42rg_zbnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Even moderate Israelis want to make Palestinian statehood work.
You're not going to get rid of Palestinians. All we can hope for is
that statehood will eventually lead to momentum for peace. What's
the alternative?
Hope is not a plan. The Palestinians are caught in a suicidal death
cult and can't seem to find any way to do anything but hurt
themselves. They've been given every conceivable opportunity to make
peace and all they do is throw themselves blindly into the fire
again.
The question stands.
I don't know of a good alternative. You don't either. I know of some
ruthless machiavellian alternatives, but nobody's bloody-minded enough
to try them in the real world.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the
defeatist talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a
year.
I will refer you to the archives of this very newsgroup.
You want me to research evidence for your claim?
I don't care what you do.
Nonetheless. if what
you say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of most
what a clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention from
Afghanistan. I sure did.
Yeah, right, you're prescient, among all your other stellar virtues.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want? A
blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to
the mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
You're dreaming. Democracy ain't gonna happen in Iraq. You can jam
it down their throats but 1000+ years of sectarian rivalry won't be
broken by the good intentions of the Bush Administration.
But of course the thousand years of hate between Arabs and Jews will
be fixed by the good intentions of liberals.
I didn't say that. What alternative do you propose for Palestine?
Seal their borders, cut off all their aid, and let the survivors out
when they come crawling begging to make peace.
The alternatives are a strong "president" or partition.
Why is it that you think the Palestinians, who are at each others
throats, will somehow magically come to grips if they're given
statehood but you don't think that will happen in Iraq?
I don't think they will. But there is always hope. In both cases. I
just don't think that the US has done a damn thing to help the
situation by invading Iraq.
What does Iraq have to do with Palestine, other than giving Muslims an
excuse?
This is just another manifestation of liberal support for dictators
and tyrants.
Puh-leeeeze. This was my opinion. Not that of "liberals". And show how
liberals support dictators and tyrants. You don't think the
Republicans absofuckinglutely love a dictator when it suits their
need? Get a grip.
Puh-leeeeze. It's not just your opinion. Liberals complain every time
America does anything that threatens to disturb the "stability" or the
"sovereignty" of a dictatorship. They're oh-so-solicitous of "elected
leaders" of people who HAVE no rights because they live under
dictatorships or thugocracies like that of Chavez in Venezuela. And they
have the *gall* to compare the elections we held in Iraq to those Saddam
held.
Sorry, missed it. Who said it? Is it just one person or the
Democratic Caucus? *****, I can probably find conservatives that
think we should nuke Kabul in order to start the road to Armageddon.
It was headlines in all the newspapers. It was discussed on this
newsgroup. We were (allegedly) "losers" who couldn't even scare the
braaaaave Taliban with our smart bombs until we sent in the B-52's. I
was here, Geoff, and I remember, even if you refuse to do so without
me digging up an URL for you.
Again...you want me to back up your claim.
I don't care what you do.
Regardless, anecdotal
evidence is not evidence of the general opinion of liberals.
I read enough liberal newsgroups and blogs, I know what the general tone
is. Goodness knows, I read alt.atheism.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it
serves to characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the
fringe. Obviously, it comforts you to believe that every liberal in
the world is completely antithetical to everything you believe. Hey,
whatever floats your boat, dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan be
able to stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active. Pakistan is
still uncooperative. I think there's more hope for this than Iraq.
This liberal does not now nor ever has had a problem with the Afghan
theater. On the contrary, I think we owe it to those guys after we
abandoned them to the Taliban.
We didn't abandon them. We did set up the NATO force there.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
*****, you want it both ways, don't you?
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know what
it's based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a jab at
you. It's just that hunches of this sort are completely unreliable.
Also, the sample here at a.a. is decidedly liberal (ooops...just my
perception...no data).
Oh, let me tell you, Geoff, there's plenty of data.
Yeah right.
None so blind as those who will not see.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
03 Jun 2007 05:48:11 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The question stands.
I don't know of a good alternative. You don't either. I know of some
ruthless machiavellian alternatives, but nobody's bloody-minded enough
to try them in the real world.
You've said that we need to kill every Muslim that hates us. Isn't that your
strategy in a nutshell?
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the
defeatist talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a
year.
I will refer you to the archives of this very newsgroup.
You want me to research evidence for your claim?
I don't care what you do.
Why bother wasting time typing your ***** if you know I'm not going to
buy it?
Nonetheless. if what
you say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of most
what a clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention from
Afghanistan. I sure did.
Yeah, right, you're prescient, among all your other stellar virtues.
I never claimed prescience. But my opposition to the Iraq War is a matter of
record.
And now even Republicans are calling for change. Bush fucked
it up and doesn't know how to fix it. What the ***** do you want?
A blank check?
I want support for American efforts to bring democratic reforms to
the mideast. Whether you agree with it or not.
You're dreaming. Democracy ain't gonna happen in Iraq. You can jam
it down their throats but 1000+ years of sectarian rivalry won't be
broken by the good intentions of the Bush Administration.
But of course the thousand years of hate between Arabs and Jews will
be fixed by the good intentions of liberals.
I didn't say that. What alternative do you propose for Palestine?
Seal their borders, cut off all their aid, and let the survivors out
when they come crawling begging to make peace.
Great idea! Now pretend like you are talking with adults that really value
your opinion and come up with something reasonable.
The alternatives are a strong "president" or partition.
Why is it that you think the Palestinians, who are at each others
throats, will somehow magically come to grips if they're given
statehood but you don't think that will happen in Iraq?
I don't think they will. But there is always hope. In both cases. I
just don't think that the US has done a damn thing to help the
situation by invading Iraq.
What does Iraq have to do with Palestine, other than giving Muslims an
excuse?
Wha does it matter so long as they consider the two related?
This is just another manifestation of liberal support for dictators
and tyrants.
Puh-leeeeze. This was my opinion. Not that of "liberals". And show
how liberals support dictators and tyrants. You don't think the
Republicans absofuckinglutely love a dictator when it suits their
need? Get a grip.
Puh-leeeeze. It's not just your opinion. Liberals complain every time
America does anything that threatens to disturb the "stability" or the
"sovereignty" of a dictatorship. They're oh-so-solicitous of "elected
leaders" of people who HAVE no rights because they live under
dictatorships or thugocracies like that of Chavez in Venezuela. And
they have the *gall* to compare the elections we held in Iraq to
those Saddam held.
Hmmmm...who exactly said that?
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican support?
Sorry, missed it. Who said it? Is it just one person or the
Democratic Caucus? *****, I can probably find conservatives that
think we should nuke Kabul in order to start the road to
Armageddon.
It was headlines in all the newspapers. It was discussed on this
newsgroup. We were (allegedly) "losers" who couldn't even scare the
braaaaave Taliban with our smart bombs until we sent in the B-52's.
I was here, Geoff, and I remember, even if you refuse to do so
without me digging up an URL for you.
Again...you want me to back up your claim.
I don't care what you do.
This is Fred sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming, "lalalala...I
can't hear you".
Regardless, anecdotal
evidence is not evidence of the general opinion of liberals.
I read enough liberal newsgroups and blogs, I know what the general
tone is. Goodness knows, I read alt.atheism.
Well, it's my opinion that you are wrong.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it
serves to characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the
fringe. Obviously, it comforts you to believe that every liberal in
the world is completely antithetical to everything you believe.
Hey, whatever floats your boat, dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan
be able to stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active.
Pakistan is still uncooperative. I think there's more hope for
this than Iraq. This liberal does not now nor ever has had a
problem with the Afghan theater. On the contrary, I think we owe
it to those guys after we abandoned them to the Taliban.
We didn't abandon them. We did set up the NATO force there.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
*****, you want it both ways, don't you?
That's when we abandoned them to the Taliban. What do you mean "both ways"?
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know
what it's based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a
jab at you. It's just that hunches of this sort are completely
unreliable. Also, the sample here at a.a. is decidedly liberal
(ooops...just my perception...no data).
Oh, let me tell you, Geoff, there's plenty of data.
Yeah right.
None so blind as those who will not see.
Fred Stone, the self-loathing atheist, loves Christian fundamentalists and
gets a chub on every time he can quote a Bible verse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
03 Jun 2007 05:32:42 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:9KKdnS6dIfaz2P7bnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
The question stands.
I don't know of a good alternative. You don't either. I know of some
ruthless machiavellian alternatives, but nobody's bloody-minded
enough to try them in the real world.
You've said that we need to kill every Muslim that hates us. Isn't
that your strategy in a nutshell?
No, that's not quite right. I only want to kill the ones who are trying
to kill us.
Lack of support for Iraq.
Liberals were largely for the Iraq war when it started (not me,
though).
And that "support" dried up in about three weeks. We were hearing
"quagmire" not more than a week after the invasion and the
defeatist talk hasn't let up since.
*****. Popular support for the Iraq War persisted for over a
year.
I will refer you to the archives of this very newsgroup.
You want me to research evidence for your claim?
I don't care what you do.
Why bother wasting time typing your ***** if you know I'm not going
to buy it?
The material is there, Geoff. If you can't be bothered to look at it,
why should I be bothered to post an URL for you to ignore?
Nonetheless. if what
you say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of
most what a clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention
from Afghanistan. I sure did.
Yeah, right, you're prescient, among all your other stellar virtues.
I never claimed prescience. But my opposition to the Iraq War is a
matter of record.
Yeah, you were against it when all it took was defeatism.
<...>
But of course the thousand years of hate between Arabs and Jews
will be fixed by the good intentions of liberals.
I didn't say that. What alternative do you propose for Palestine?
Seal their borders, cut off all their aid, and let the survivors out
when they come crawling begging to make peace.
Great idea! Now pretend like you are talking with adults that really
value your opinion and come up with something reasonable.
The Palestinians aren't going to give up their dreams of destroying
Israel unless they are utterly beaten. Letting up on them before they
come crawling on their bellies in total submission just lets them think
that they "won".
<...>
What does Iraq have to do with Palestine, other than giving Muslims
an excuse?
Wha does it matter so long as they consider the two related?
It's just an excuse, Geoff. If we give them Israel on a silver platter,
they'll just find another excuse. We can't fix the Crusades. We can't
give them al-Andalus(that's Spain to you, infidel). We certainly can't
establish the Caliphate for them.
This is just another manifestation of liberal support for dictators
and tyrants.
Puh-leeeeze. This was my opinion. Not that of "liberals". And show
how liberals support dictators and tyrants. You don't think the
Republicans absofuckinglutely love a dictator when it suits their
need? Get a grip.
Puh-leeeeze. It's not just your opinion. Liberals complain every time
America does anything that threatens to disturb the "stability" or
the "sovereignty" of a dictatorship. They're oh-so-solicitous of
"elected leaders" of people who HAVE no rights because they live
under dictatorships or thugocracies like that of Chavez in Venezuela.
And they have the *gall* to compare the elections we held in Iraq to
those Saddam held.
Hmmmm...who exactly said that?
Sean C, just in the last day or two. Others, especially lefty bloggers,
in relation to Chavez as well. Jack Fucking Murtha on TV this fucking
morning.
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican
support?
Is that supposed to excuse Democrats for supporting dictators?
<....>
I don't care what you do.
This is Fred sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming,
"lalalala...I can't hear you".
This is Geoff projecting all over me.
Regardless, anecdotal
evidence is not evidence of the general opinion of liberals.
I read enough liberal newsgroups and blogs, I know what the general
tone is. Goodness knows, I read alt.atheism.
Well, it's my opinion that you are wrong.
Ok fine.
Does every conservative believe that? No. I don't feel that it
serves to characterize every conservative by the beliefs of the
fringe. Obviously, it comforts you to believe that every liberal
in the world is completely antithetical to everything you believe.
Hey, whatever floats your boat, dude.
That being said, what's the end game there? When will Afghanistan
be able to stand on it's own? The Taliban is still active.
Pakistan is still uncooperative. I think there's more hope for
this than Iraq. This liberal does not now nor ever has had a
problem with the Afghan theater. On the contrary, I think we owe
it to those guys after we abandoned them to the Taliban.
We didn't abandon them. We did set up the NATO force there.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
*****, you want it both ways, don't you?
That's when we abandoned them to the Taliban. What do you mean "both
ways"?
The Taliban didn't even exist then. You want to blame the US for NOT
occupying Afghanistan when we weren't even there, and then you want to
blame us for "occupying" Iraq. You want to blame us for "unilateral"
action in Iraq and you want to blame us for "multilateral" action in
Darfur.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
Well it's your opinion then. And nothing more. And since I know
what it's based on, I can't lend it much credence. This isn't a
jab at you. It's just that hunches of this sort are completely
unreliable. Also, the sample here at a.a. is decidedly liberal
(ooops...just my perception...no data).
Oh, let me tell you, Geoff, there's plenty of data.
Yeah right.
None so blind as those who will not see.
Fred Stone, the self-loathing atheist, loves Christian fundamentalists
and gets a chub on every time he can quote a Bible verse.
Well yeah, you got me there, I do love my mother.
And I might as well get *some* use out of all those damn Bible verses I
memorized when I was a kid. ;-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
04 Jun 2007 08:43:24 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
The question stands.
I don't know of a good alternative. You don't either. I know of some
ruthless machiavellian alternatives, but nobody's bloody-minded
enough to try them in the real world.
You've said that we need to kill every Muslim that hates us. Isn't
that your strategy in a nutshell?
No, that's not quite right. I only want to kill the ones who are
trying to kill us.
Nice lame quibble. Any idea how you want to accomplish this mind-numbingly
simplistic strategy? Just line them up and ask each one if they want to kill
Americans, I suppose.
Why bother wasting time typing your ***** if you know I'm not
going to buy it?
The material is there, Geoff. If you can't be bothered to look at it,
why should I be bothered to post an URL for you to ignore?
I would ignore a URL. It's just another anecdote. You made a claim. You back
it up. Nonetheless, this newsgroup cannot be characterized as representative
of the general population.
Nonetheless. if what
you say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of
most what a clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention
from Afghanistan. I sure did.
Yeah, right, you're prescient, among all your other stellar virtues.
I never claimed prescience. But my opposition to the Iraq War is a
matter of record.
Yeah, you were against it when all it took was defeatism.
How is opposition to the Bush Administrion's policies in the runup to the
war defeatism? We were not attacked so defeat wasn't an issue. I was against
diverting our resources and our national attention away from the Afghanistan
War. That is the real defeatism.
The Palestinians aren't going to give up their dreams of destroying
Israel unless they are utterly beaten. Letting up on them before they
come crawling on their bellies in total submission just lets them
think that they "won".
Whatever. Your armchair politics are not the least bit realistic.
Hmmmm...who exactly said that?
Sean C, just in the last day or two. Others, especially lefty
bloggers, in relation to Chavez as well. Jack Fucking Murtha on TV
this fucking morning.
I don't know who Sean C is and I couldn't care less about left bloggers.
Anyone can point out extreme viewpopints on either side. What's the point?
Why would it upset you? It's no more representative of mainstream liberal
opinion than the KKK is of conservative opinion.
I didn't see the news this morning and I haven't seen anything on the web
about Mutha supporting dictators, etc.
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican
support?
Is that supposed to excuse Democrats for supporting dictators?
It's called realpolitik Fred. Get real.
I don't care what you do.
This is Fred sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming,
"lalalala...I can't hear you".
This is Geoff projecting all over me.
Sorry, must have been some bad clams.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
*****, you want it both ways, don't you?
That's when we abandoned them to the Taliban. What do you mean "both
ways"?
The Taliban didn't even exist then.
The Taliban emerged as a result of the power vacuum left when the Soviets
pulled out. We could have helped rebuild Afghanistan, but we didn't. It was
good enough that we defeated the Russians.
You want to blame the US for NOT
occupying Afghanistan when we weren't even there
First off. We were there. Not as an occupying force, but we were there.
Regardless, I never blamed the US for not occupying Afghanistan. But it was
a strategic mistake not to help them rebuild after the Soviet withdrawal.
and then you want to
blame us for "occupying" Iraq. You want to blame us for "unilateral"
action in Iraq
I don't blame us for occupying Iraq, but for the unilateral action that
precipitated the occupation...emphatically yes.
and you want to blame us for "multilateral" action in
Darfur.
When have I ever said anything about Darfur? What's the point of widening
this discussion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
04 Jun 2007 11:30:30 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:PNOdnb_vLPlji_nbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
The question stands.
I don't know of a good alternative. You don't either. I know of
some ruthless machiavellian alternatives, but nobody's
bloody-minded enough to try them in the real world.
You've said that we need to kill every Muslim that hates us. Isn't
that your strategy in a nutshell?
No, that's not quite right. I only want to kill the ones who are
trying to kill us.
Nice lame quibble. Any idea how you want to accomplish this
mind-numbingly simplistic strategy? Just line them up and ask each one
if they want to kill Americans, I suppose.
They've been announcing their intentions pretty loudly, Geoff.
Why bother wasting time typing your ***** if you know I'm not
going to buy it?
The material is there, Geoff. If you can't be bothered to look at it,
why should I be bothered to post an URL for you to ignore?
I would ignore a URL. It's just another anecdote. You made a claim.
You back it up. Nonetheless, this newsgroup cannot be characterized as
representative of the general population.
How do I back it up since you admit that you'll ignore anything I cite?
Nonetheless. if what
you say is true, then that's to our credit since we saw ahead of
most what a clusterfuck Bush would make by diverting his attention
from Afghanistan. I sure did.
Yeah, right, you're prescient, among all your other stellar
virtues.
I never claimed prescience. But my opposition to the Iraq War is a
matter of record.
Yeah, you were against it when all it took was defeatism.
How is opposition to the Bush Administrion's policies in the runup to
the war defeatism? We were not attacked so defeat wasn't an issue. I
was against diverting our resources and our national attention away
from the Afghanistan War. That is the real defeatism.
The war was always larger than just Afghanistan, Geoff.
The Palestinians aren't going to give up their dreams of destroying
Israel unless they are utterly beaten. Letting up on them before they
come crawling on their bellies in total submission just lets them
think that they "won".
Whatever. Your armchair politics are not the least bit realistic.
Thank goodness for that. It's the "realists" who have fucked up politics
for the last fifty years.
Hmmmm...who exactly said that?
Sean C, just in the last day or two. Others, especially lefty
bloggers, in relation to Chavez as well. Jack Fucking Murtha on TV
this fucking morning.
I don't know who Sean C is and I couldn't care less about left
bloggers. Anyone can point out extreme viewpopints on either side.
What's the point? Why would it upset you? It's no more representative
of mainstream liberal opinion than the KKK is of conservative opinion.
I didn't see the news this morning and I haven't seen anything on the
web about Mutha supporting dictators, etc.
You don't read websites that would quote him on that.
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican
support?
Is that supposed to excuse Democrats for supporting dictators?
It's called realpolitik Fred. Get real.
It was Realpolitik that got us into this mess in the first place. It was
Realpolitik that supported the Shah in Iran and that supplied arms to
both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. It is Realpolitik that thinks that we
can "engage" Iran while they build atomic weapons with which to threaten
the entire mideast. It is Realpolitik that thinks that Iran will feel
"secure" once they have those atomic weapons and that will make them
peaceful. If that's realism I'll take the brown acid, please.
I don't care what you do.
This is Fred sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming,
"lalalala...I can't hear you".
This is Geoff projecting all over me.
Sorry, must have been some bad clams.
I'm talking about after the Russians pulled out.
*****, you want it both ways, don't you?
That's when we abandoned them to the Taliban. What do you mean "both
ways"?
The Taliban didn't even exist then.
The Taliban emerged as a result of the power vacuum left when the
Soviets pulled out. We could have helped rebuild Afghanistan, but we
didn't. It was good enough that we defeated the Russians.
That was more of that Realpolitik.
You want to blame the US for NOT
occupying Afghanistan when we weren't even there
First off. We were there. Not as an occupying force, but we were
there.
Not in force, and mainly through proxies like the Pakistanis. Which
turns out to have been another less-than-ideal situation.
Regardless, I never blamed the US for not occupying
Afghanistan. But it was a strategic mistake not to help them rebuild
after the Soviet withdrawal.
and then you want to
blame us for "occupying" Iraq. You want to blame us for "unilateral"
action in Iraq
I don't blame us for occupying Iraq, but for the unilateral action
that precipitated the occupation...emphatically yes.
and you want to blame us for "multilateral" action in
Darfur.
When have I ever said anything about Darfur? What's the point of
widening this discussion?
Just making a point, Geoff.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Geoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
06 Jun 2007 12:49:02 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
Nice lame quibble. Any idea how you want to accomplish this
mind-numbingly simplistic strategy? Just line them up and ask each
one if they want to kill Americans, I suppose.
They've been announcing their intentions pretty loudly, Geoff.
Fine then. What's the plan?
How is opposition to the Bush Administrion's policies in the runup to
the war defeatism? We were not attacked so defeat wasn't an issue. I
was against diverting our resources and our national attention away
from the Afghanistan War. That is the real defeatism.
The war was always larger than just Afghanistan, Geoff.
Oh, fine. So it's larger than Afghanistan. So does that make us
automatically go to Iraq? The motivation to go to Iraq was manufactured.
The Palestinians aren't going to give up their dreams of destroying
Israel unless they are utterly beaten. Letting up on them before
they come crawling on their bellies in total submission just lets
them think that they "won".
Whatever. Your armchair politics are not the least bit realistic.
Thank goodness for that. It's the "realists" who have fucked up
politics for the last fifty years.
Well, no ways near the level that the idealists have in the last seven.
I didn't see the news this morning and I haven't seen anything on the
web about Mutha supporting dictators, etc.
You don't read websites that would quote him on that.
Fine. You don't want to support your statement. See ya.
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican
support?
Is that supposed to excuse Democrats for supporting dictators?
It's called realpolitik Fred. Get real.
It was Realpolitik that got us into this mess in the first place. It
was Realpolitik that supported the Shah in Iran and that supplied
arms to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. It is Realpolitik that
thinks that we can "engage" Iran while they build atomic weapons with
which to threaten the entire mideast. It is Realpolitik that thinks
that Iran will feel "secure" once they have those atomic weapons and
that will make them peaceful. If that's realism I'll take the brown
acid, please.
Neocon-idealism has only become possible because of the successes of
realpolitik. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration overstretched their
capability and their political support. Realpolitik will be back and
specifically with regard to Iraq or the muzzies will take over. Mark my
words.
The Taliban emerged as a result of the power vacuum left when the
Soviets pulled out. We could have helped rebuild Afghanistan, but we
didn't. It was good enough that we defeated the Russians.
That was more of that Realpolitik.
Yeah, so what? Did I say that realpolitik was some kind of magic wand? I
think there needs to be a balance between realpolitik and idealpolitik or
whatever you want to call it. If we really gave a ***** about them, we should
have rebuilt that country, a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan. Just as we
should in Iraq. And as in Afghanistan, we're fucking it up in Iraq.
You want to blame the US for NOT
occupying Afghanistan when we weren't even there
First off. We were there. Not as an occupying force, but we were
there.
Not in force, and mainly through proxies like the Pakistanis. Which
turns out to have been another less-than-ideal situation.
Damn straight. realpolitik...not so good there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
06 Jun 2007 07:52:27 AM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
news:c8Odnf9aXPFM1_vbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in
Nice lame quibble. Any idea how you want to accomplish this
mind-numbingly simplistic strategy? Just line them up and ask each
one if they want to kill Americans, I suppose.
They've been announcing their intentions pretty loudly, Geoff.
Fine then. What's the plan?
How is opposition to the Bush Administrion's policies in the runup
to the war defeatism? We were not attacked so defeat wasn't an
issue. I was against diverting our resources and our national
attention away from the Afghanistan War. That is the real defeatism.
The war was always larger than just Afghanistan, Geoff.
Oh, fine. So it's larger than Afghanistan. So does that make us
automatically go to Iraq? The motivation to go to Iraq was
manufactured.
The motivation to go to Iraq had been "manufactured" starting in 1991.
The Palestinians aren't going to give up their dreams of destroying
Israel unless they are utterly beaten. Letting up on them before
they come crawling on their bellies in total submission just lets
them think that they "won".
Whatever. Your armchair politics are not the least bit realistic.
Thank goodness for that. It's the "realists" who have fucked up
politics for the last fifty years.
Well, no ways near the level that the idealists have in the last
seven.
I disagree.
I didn't see the news this morning and I haven't seen anything on
the web about Mutha supporting dictators, etc.
You don't read websites that would quote him on that.
Fine. You don't want to support your statement. See ya.
Fine, you don't bother to investigate world events. See ya.
Are there no dictators that have now or in the past had Republican
support?
Is that supposed to excuse Democrats for supporting dictators?
It's called realpolitik Fred. Get real.
It was Realpolitik that got us into this mess in the first place. It
was Realpolitik that supported the Shah in Iran and that supplied
arms to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war. It is Realpolitik that
thinks that we can "engage" Iran while they build atomic weapons with
which to threaten the entire mideast. It is Realpolitik that thinks
that Iran will feel "secure" once they have those atomic weapons and
that will make them peaceful. If that's realism I'll take the brown
acid, please.
Neocon-idealism has only become possible because of the successes of
realpolitik.
Where "success" means "failure".
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration overstretched
their capability and their political support.
Where "political support" means "the fickleness of liberals and the
courage of RINOs".
Realpolitik will be back
and specifically with regard to Iraq or the muzzies will take over.
Mark my words.
Realpolitik is the UN. Realpolitik is the interminable useless jaw-jaw
about Darfur. Realpolitik is telling every terrorist leader and every
tyrant in the world that *WE DON'T CARE WHAT THEY DO AS LONG AS THEY
DON'T DO IT TO US*. ***** Realpolitik.
The Taliban emerged as a result of the power vacuum left when the
Soviets pulled out. We could have helped rebuild Afghanistan, but we
didn't. It was good enough that we defeated the Russians.
That was more of that Realpolitik.
Yeah, so what? Did I say that realpolitik was some kind of magic wand?
You were implying it all over the place.
I think there needs to be a balance between realpolitik and
idealpolitik or whatever you want to call it. If we really gave a *****
about them, we should have rebuilt that country, a Marshall Plan for
Afghanistan. Just as we should in Iraq. And as in Afghanistan, we're
fucking it up in Iraq.
Geeze, Geoff, you blame us for the terrorists who bomb the fucking
electric stations that *we* rebuild. You blame us for the terrorists who
drive fucking carbombs into crowds. You blame us for the terrorists who
tear down every damn thing that we try to build up. What the ***** is
your problem?
You want to blame the US for NOT
occupying Afghanistan when we weren't even there
First off. We were there. Not as an occupying force, but we were
there.
Not in force, and mainly through proxies like the Pakistanis. Which
turns out to have been another less-than-ideal situation.
Damn straight. realpolitik...not so good there.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Brown" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 12:10:31 PM |
|
|
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h-6dnabsBq7jI8PbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
Or this liberal. ***** Islam, the Koran, American wannabe Theocrats who are
mostly conservative Republican Christians, their magic Babble and any
religion which tries to impose their magic guys rules by proxie on me.
I don't care who, what or how anyone wastes their time "worshiping"
(worship, what a repugnant concept). Just don't impose it on everyone else
by force and intimidation.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is great.
He recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" by many
of the leaders of the worlds major religions. They all take the same
position of blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
My point was that many of them are willing to impose their religious
beliefs on everyone else as are Muslims. The difference is just a matter of
method.
Rob Brown
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shut Up About Islam, And Be Safe |
31 May 2007 12:29:45 PM |
|
|
"Rob Brown" <bbrown@csmflorida.com> wrote in
news:465f022c$0$4692$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:
"Geoff" <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h-6dnabsBq7jI8PbnZ2dnUVZ_hmtnZ2d@giganews.com...
Fred Stone wrote:
Notice how the "liberals" in the United States side *against* Hirsi
Ali with *with* the "Anti-liberal" Muslims.
Not this liberal. IMHO, there is a dearth of liberal Muslims.
Or this liberal. ***** Islam, the Koran, American wannabe Theocrats
who are
mostly conservative Republican Christians, their magic Babble and any
religion which tries to impose their magic guys rules by proxie on me.
I don't care who, what or how anyone wastes their time "worshiping"
(worship, what a repugnant concept). Just don't impose it on everyone
else by force and intimidation.
I am reading Hitchens "God is not Great". Which by the way is
great. He recounts the reaction to Salmon Rushdie's "Satanic
Verses" by many of the leaders of the worlds major religions. They
all take the same position of blaming Rushdi and not just Muslim
leaders.
The conservative Republican and American religious conservative
alliance is no accident.
What an odd non-sequitur.
Perhaps, but an accurate statement nonetheless.
My point was that many of them are willing to impose their religious
beliefs on everyone else as are Muslims. The difference is just a
matter of method.
I don't know of any Christians, even the looniest of right-wingers who
will hurt a hair on your head if you tell them to *****, you're not
interested.
The Muslim Jihadis will hack your head off with a rusty knife if you
don't convert when they make the offer.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"When they put out that deadline, people realized that we were going to
lose," said an aide to an anti-war lawmaker. "Everything after that
seemed like posturing."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
| | | | | |
