What scares me? Other than psychotic Islamic radicals bent on murdering all non-Muslims in the name of Allah The Merciful? People who refuse to see that danger. I have a few here that are like that. I won't name names, they know who they are. I believe it's because they don't want to see the mounting danger. They're so politically correct and "non-judgmental" that to acknowledge that there is a growing danger with Islamic fundamentalist would rock their very foundation. They're the Neville Chamberlain's to our Winston Churchill's. They're quite content in believing that what ever happens to the evil American Empire is payback for the way we've fucked over the poor Arabs in the past. People like John, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and myself could talk until we're blue in the face, it wouldn't matter. In these people's eyes, there's no real threat. It's all talk and grandstanding. And if there is an attack? Well, we had it coming. Agree with me? Then you've got a pretty good I.Q. Don't? Then you're one of the people I'm talking about and I really don't give a crap what you think.
Let the long winded, over compensating essay rebuttals begin.
Categories:
Democrats/Liberals,
Islam,
Middle East,
War On Terror
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Agreed.
No, it's recognition that America represents a far greater threat to the rest of the world, than any nation does to it.
It's been more than sixty years since a sovereign nation has had a go at America, yet how many has America invaded since then?
Trigger-happy, America's record speaks for itself!
America doesn't respect the U.N., or any other nation.
Why shouldn't anyone voice their concerns about the sizable threat to world peace that America represents?
What does America see as the restriction on its right to invade another nation?
Is there any restriction, or do you have the right to invade any country? International Law isn't a restriction, what is?
Even when America doesn't actually invade a country, it doesn't stop it from interfering with that nation, how can you people justify that?
What is the limitation to American use of force before it can be considered payback?
Where do you people draw the line on what is your business, and what is not?
And who has the right to question America's use of force abroad?
"And if there is an attack? Well, we had it coming. Agree with me? Then you've got a pretty good I.Q."
Oh! there's that destructive binary thinking again...
Just because I don't support your president's simple-minded 'well you're either with us or against'... does mean that Americans being killed is any more preferable than Arabs being killed.
I'll spell it out: KILLING IS BAD FOR EVERYONE
I have no desire to support one thug force against another, but the really ugly, outrageous part is the expectation that the world should be grateful for an armed gang of psychopaths, 'freeing' people for their own selfish motives.
The reality is that no one wants to be invaded, regardless of how shitty their leader is, because they prefer 'their shitty leader', not yours.
They may occasionally expect you to 'fix what you've broken' (and that doesn't mean channeling aid to your own private contractors, and back through tax).
If you invade a country, don't expect them to thank you (that really is adding insult to injury).
Just own-up to your own ugly motives.
JohnK hates Islam, he's not only American, but don't pretend it makes the world safer, if you have to do it, own-up to your xenophobia, but make out you are doing it for the rest of us.
As for the hysteria that an imminent attack gives America the right to throw 'human rights' away (short of a non-aligned European nation, ie one without an antagonistic foreign policy), you are probably in one of the safest place on earth, so ditch this 'we have to torture and execute to protect ourselves' crap
(3000 of 290 million killed in terrorist attacks on America, you've got a far greater chance of being killed by one of your psychos with a gun walking down the street, and yet your people still insist that 'the right arm every wierdo' makes the place safer. Simple equation: No guns = no gun crime)
Don't think that anyone 'refuses to see the danger', if anything, most see it, and acknowledge that America is doing everthing to increase the danger.
If you insist on war, almost completely at random (Afganistan, Iraq, these nations have not attacked America, only a couple of people who lived there for awhile did... if I set off a bomb on American interests, would you insist on invading my country?), you will have to kill everyone to be finished with war, you are pissing people off.
You can't bomb countries into the dust, kill a bunch of people, then expect a 'thank you'.
So, yes, there is danger, but your foreign policy is geared towards increasing it. Do you expect the world to be grateful for that?
And there's one of those long winded, over compensating essay rebuttals I was talking about. I'm still waiting for Za's eight page response.
"And there's one of those long winded, over compensating essay rebuttals I was talking about"
Forecasting it is one thing, refuting it is another matter entirely
Isn't it a luxury to be able to rely on the greatness of others! (:p
"There are none that are so blind as those who refuse to see."
There should be no doubt now; Liberalism is a mental disorder.
Some people are so bent on ignoring the threat that even after they are kidnapped by radicals they turn around and defend their kidnappers. - Hostage Defends Terrorist
"Not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Germans were Nazis"
finally!
although, don't let John and Chris hear you say that.
That is the basis for what I have been trying to say (the funy part is I am now condemned for it).
To brand a people ALL terrorists (something that some have done repeatedly), just makes the unreasonable use of military force possible.
Angus, maybe you should go back through the archives so you know my views. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslim.
I'm sorry Chris, your opinion had been over-shadowed by John's long-wind xenophobic inability to separate Islam from Terror.
I am sorry that I included you in the offending statement.
Sure, the a lot of 'terrorist type attacks' are presently carried out by Arabs, and I think it has more to do with nation/culture, than religion,
Sure there are plenty of Terrorists that use refer to Islam in an attmpt to justify blombing up men, women, and children.
They do it appealing to 'higher power' to validate their actions.
In the same way western leaders appeal to God, freedom, etc, to validate their actions
Terrorism is a tool of the weak, in asymmetric warefare, but to try and twist the comflict into some form a symmetric warefare (ie. go nation against nation) doesn't solve terrorism,
It makes it worse if anything (Iraq being a good example)
Arabs/Muslims are only one of the groups involved in terrorism at the moment, and yesterdays terrorist, can be today's sovereign nation (middle east 1940's bombings)
South east Asia has many groups using asymmetric warefare techniques: muslims, christians, dozens of small ethnic groups, and often it is muslims on the recieving-end of the bombings,
But it just doesn't make it to CNN, Fox etc, unless someone can find a causal link to Islam.
So, focusing on Islam as the source of terrorism is neither accurate, nor helpful.
Terrorism cannot be fought with conventional force, and it is harmful to try
I think you guys are making a huge mistake not making the connection between the basic Ideology and violent philosophies of the Qur'an; Who and what Muhammed was( peanut butter upon him); and the violence all over the world in the name of Allah the moon God. Muslims the world over are opening telling every one it is so; the only people who do not believe it are non muslims who rufuse to see the connection.
Bill O'Reilly could talk himself blue in the face, it wouldn't stop 90% of what he says being crap.
Yes, there are radical Muslim extremists, but they're not as big a threat as you make out. Most of them are stuck fighting out local political issues. By attempting to target them however, following along the Bush doctrine at any rate, you're actually bringing them into a fight with the US. A better strategy would involve a more subtle approach.
Za; Will they as big a threat as "we" make them out to be if and when nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry are emloyedin thier tactics?
Just curious as to when "they" will become a threat to you.
They'll never be as big a threat as you make out - because you'd have use believe we're fighting against an army of 1.4 billion people, when we're not. This is a minority group we're dealing with, in an assymetrical war.
Yes, they're a threat, but the only thing that really increases how much of a threat they are is the way the US and the West handles this war. Assymetrical wars should never be fought with armies. It makes you look like an idiot when you invade somewhere only to find that you can't locate your enemies - and it tends to help them get more recruits.
You and Chris both regularly say you don't give a damn what people abroad think about the US... well that's a big pity, since that's the thing which has the biggest influence on just how much of a threat terrorists are against you. The more people are fed up with the way the US acts, the more likely they are to either join, or aid these groups.
What we want to do is keep these groups as minorities, and make sure that they get ostracised from the societies they're in. Nothing you've suggested so far would help with either of these goals.
I have not suggested anything that I can recall other than defeating these threats. For the long term, not band aid action.
If the fights need to be asymetrical; then what nation on earth has expert experience?
Also; It is impossible to isolate these "minority" groups when governments of some nations support their ideas and fund to export them. It is either an all nation effort or nothing; it would seem for such an asymetrical war. After all; it is an Ideology that is the basis of the warfare. Not just because some people are pissed off at the actions of others.
If you look at what Asymetrical warfare entails; you will see most all elments of it being conducted worldwide in the global war of terrorism lead by The United States.
"I have not suggested anything that I can recall other than defeating these threats."
Yeah, it's convenient John. I keep pointing out that what you are advocating is genocide. You hide behind words such as 'stop', defeat', and praise the 'war of terror'. You openly admit that you want to prosecute a war against an entire faith.
I think you are being disingenuous, saying you have not 'suggested anything'. You haven't said the actual words, but your meaning is clear, as you can't fight a war to 'stop' or 'defeat' Islam, without commiting genocide (how else would this war work? You're going to wave a magic wand, and suddenly all 'evil muslims' become 'good christians'?).
As for the rest of your last two posts, John, you need to find out what 'asymmetric warefare' is.
"It is either an all nation effort or nothing"
It is no longer 'asymmetric' if you fight nation against nation that has 'symmetry'. ie. nation = nation. Rather than 'nation' versus 'small terrorist organisation' (asymmetry)
As for nations who have experience in sush warefare. Well, England in the shambles they made of Northern Ireland, fought an asymmetric war (England+Irish Prodestants versus IRA), and they screwed-it-up marginally less than the US/UK+co war in Iraq. The thing that the British did differently is avoiding the indiscriminate use of ballistic weapons (ie. they didn't bomb the place flat, taking out civilians, infrastructure, the future.)The other thing they didn't do is consider the whole nation/cultural group, the enemy (not quite). Don't get me wrong, I don't think that the Britsh did a good thing in Northern Ireland, they just did 'less bad'.
"the global war of terrorism lead by The United States"
... finally something we agree on!
the hysterical fear of islam that america is promoting is the single greatest use of terror (just look at how shit-scared of muslims you are John)
Which is why I'll only call it the 'war of terror'. 'of' denoting ownership/use, ...america is using 'terror' as both an excuse, and a method
Since Angus is so critically ignorant of what asymetrical warfare is;(see Ireland example above); I should mention that it includes any and all methods of fighting a conflict. Military combat is only one aspect.
Your hysterical fear and loathing of America and anything American; including myself; not only invalidates anything you comment on; but shows your inability to answer the profound questions which spawned this thread. (See Original article)
Calm down; little one and take a deep breath and try to become coherant before you post. Might lay off the Foster's as well.
You just don't have a clue, do you John?
Apart from the fact that you don't even know how to spell 'asymmetric', you've neither explained, nor given example of what you are talking about.
'Northern Ireland' is a good example of the concept of assymetric warfare, as it is the selective engagement of a supposed 'terrorist oganisation', the IRA (one mans 'terrorist', is another mans 'freedom fighter'), rather than fighting the whole nation.(even if it was a brutal, grubby, ongoing occupation)
"methods of fighting a conflict. Military combat is only one aspect."
You hide behind statements like this (and criticism without explanation or example).
So how do you propose that this conflict be fought, if not by military force?
You've not had problem with the use of military force so far, and even claimed that the war of terror was only called that because of 'political correctness', claiming it's actually a war against Islam. The current war is being fought with military force, and you've suggested that its scope isn't broad enough, you won't directly say that you endorse military force(and hide behind the lack of commitment), but you can't suggest the war isn't broad enough, without implying that you support the basic method.
SO WHAT ARE YOU ACTUALLY PROPOSING?
MAKE A STATEMENT, AND OWN IT
As I said, it appears you are disingenuous, not openly supporting anything, not openly rejecting anything in detail, and using this lack of commitment to any position a something to hide behind.
"Your hysterical fear and loathing of America and anything American; including myself"
No, I rationally oppose the reckless use of violence, regardless of who is doing it, and since there is significantly more support for american use of violence (and disproportionate use of violence), there more to oppose. The fact that I was critical of England in the previous post should demostrate that I don't have the kind of single-mind obssession with america that you are suggesting (like you on Islam, John). Its just that you lot seem to think that 'america's shit doesn't stink'.
No John, I don't fear you, I pity you, that over-blown xenophobia must eat you up, like a cancer.
"inability to answer the profound questions which spawned this thread"
'profond questions', you've got to be joking, I can't get a straight answer out of you, let alone a profound question.
"Calm down; little one and take a deep breath and try to become coherant before you post. Might lay off the Foster's as well."
Don't patronise me you clown, you're just confirming that you really don't have anything to say, statements without substance, objections without objects. The only claim you seem to stand by, is your idea, that Islam=terrorism (and even that is erroneous).
As for the Fosters. I don't drink, but if I did, it wouldn't be Fosters. No one in Australia drinks Fosters, that's just the pig-swill that we sell to america/Europe (Your country is trying to fuck my country with a 'free-trade agreement', supporting agriculture with subsidies, and your poor defenseless pharmaceutical industry, with ridiculous laws. You've screwed your own health-care industries, now you want to start on ours. 'free trade' with america, no thanks) So, offloading our shittest brand of beer is a small consolation
The asymmetrical warfare that I have mentioned and owned many times here(though you cannot understand it because of your pacifistic mentality) ie: read Cowardice: is Political, Social, Financial and military. Hows that? Exactly what The USA is doing in the war on the Islamic Death cult. It will work too if cowards and enemy sympathisers such as yourself get out of the way.
"I rationally oppose the reckless use of violence, regardless of who is doing it, and since there is significantly more support for american use of violence (and disproportionate use of violence), there more to oppose."--Anus Fumes
Rationally oppose? Fancy way of saying coward? Still upset that bigger kids beat your ass and stole your lunch money? LMAO! Pussies like you and Za are a dime a dozen but don't be afraid of me. Honest I would not hurt you or my country hurt your tiny little nation.
"Its just that you lot seem to think that 'america's shit doesn't stink'.
No John, I don't fear you, I pity you, that over-blown xenophobia must eat you up, like a cancer."--Anus Fumes
Actaully I don't feel that way but you can't seem to stop insulting me so what better way to show how insignificant you and your nation is to our existance than to rub your nose in it like a puppy who has soiled the carpet? And Xenophobia? Get real. I advocate the death of Islam as a political and philosophical and religious force in this world. Your pity though is much misplaced. I have a wonderful life. I just don't sit around and throw out tired old leftist dogma and propoganda unlike yourself; I actually get involved with community service and political advocacy. Try it sometime when you feel like kicking your dog around. Just spare us here at RWRM.
"The only claim you seem to stand by, is your idea, that Islam=terrorism (and even that is erroneous)."--Anus Fumes
Erroneous by your account but that is actually just an opinion; like mine is an opinion. Time will tell who is correct. The smart money is on my opinion.
"As for the Fosters. I don't drink, but if I did, it wouldn't be Fosters. No one in Australia drinks Fosters, that's just the pig-swill that we sell to america/Europe"--Anus Fumes
You don't drink that swill? Good for you. I wouldn't either and so does nobody else I know in America. It doesn't sell. It tastes like shit just like your country's food. Since the rest of your anti-american financial statement amounts to nothing but jelousy; I won't comment on them.
Though I do look forward to my country putting whatever business you personally are in; OUT of business. Unless it benefits the USA.
Shit, John
You go from vague and pointless, to childish, without a coherent thought in between… that’s pretty pathetic.
Normally I’m happy to debate any topic, but you, John, have managed to demonstrate beyond any shadow of a doubt, that you just aren’t up to the challenge.
Not even close.
All you’ve got is attempted cheap-shots that demonstrate that you don’t have a clue what you are saying.
Example:
“I just don't sit around and throw out tired old leftist dogma and propoganda unlike yourself; I actually get involved with community service and political advocacy.... "
Heaven help your community if you think that 'political advocacy' is related to 'community service'... Now let me guess, you force your political views on the people in your neighbourhood.
"unlike yourself; I actually get involved with community service"
I'm in the welfare/community service/community development sector. It is one of the areas in which I am educated and trained, it is also the sector in which I work.
It’s clear you don’t know what Welfare/Community Services/Community Development is. I'm sure that you think you know what these things are, but if you think that 'community service' and 'political advocacy' are similar, it is clear that you don't.
I'd explain a little bit about the concepts, except it is clearly going to be lost on you, as 'advocating the death of Islam', and your other forms of bigotry, are clearly incompatible with the basic principles of Welfare/Community Service/Community Development.
(with the possible exception that a judge sentenced you to do ‘community work’ as a penalty for a ‘hate crime’).
“I actually get involved”
You ‘get involved’, well you wouldn’t be saying that if you worked in the sector, which leaves the possibility that ‘community service and political advocacy’ are some kind of ‘hobby’ to you.
Amateurs who think they are going to 'get involved' in the community service sector, are about as much use as ‘tits on a bull’ (and that goes double for arrogant, xenophobic, bigots).
“Just spare us here at RWRM.”
Don’t worry John, I’ll leave you alone…
You don’t present a challenge,
and simply aren’t worth the effort
You are right for a change; Anus. It is pointless to debate you because after all; you already know everything. So now that you have achieved the perfect mind which outdoes even God himself; I'am sure you wont be hasseling us mortals anymore with your knowledge and power of thought.
Glad to know your working on the perfect Liberal utopia in your community. Let us know how that works out. But one word there; If you get paid for it; it's not community service.
I have not suggested anything that I can recall other than defeating these threats.
Except that all Muslims want to see us dead.
If the fights need to be asymetrical; then what nation on earth has expert experience?
Not many, but it would pay to at least listen to your military advisors, instead of firing them when they disagree.
Also; It is impossible to isolate these "minority" groups when governments of some nations support their ideas and fund to export them.
Right - because there's never been such a thing as an unpopular government move. Changing the social atmosphere within those nations that do do this would obviously have no effect on the size of these groups.
After all; it is an Ideology that is the basis of the warfare. Not just because some people are pissed off at the actions of others.
Right - which is why the Sunnis and Shi'ites are fighting. Ideology. Not revenge for years of oppression. That's why so many Arabs want the land that was taken during... every war Israel has participated in. Ideology - not because they want their homes back.
You really don't understand people at all John. You're very good at conflating governments and non-state elements, but you're not very good at analysing these situations at all - which would be why the Pentagon disagrees with you even when you use their documents.
No john, it's not that I have 'devine powers', it just you are deficient. You have trouble stringing together a coherant sentence, and more recently you've had nothing to contribute other than child insults.
Debating a topic with you is like 'clapping with one hand', you just aren't addressing the issues.
So you can ridicule me in my absence (and you call me a coward), but now you'll only be wasting your own time, and not mine as well.
Good-bye
Good luck
Oh!
... PEACE!
Speaking of Incoherence
and not addressing the issues; we all still do not know why some people do not see Islamo-Fascism as a "threat" but see The United States as a huge threat. Even after the length of this comment thread.
The other question to everyone is does the mentally ill mind KNOW it is mentally ill? If we answer this question then I think we have the answer to the first.
Post a Comment