Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40336911/ns/world_news-europe

I think this story just covers the tip of the iceberg.

The more we all fight the less likely we are to get along, I'm pretty sure that's a fact.  The longer the conflict the more likely more people will start saddling up on either side ready for a brouhaha.

At least this article mentions there are 5,000 extremists out there, with 20-50,000 sympathisers out of some 53 million people.  That's hardly a significant figure [I wouldn't condemn a whole people based on such a comparative minority.]

As a quick comparison, I did a not-very-thorough search that mentioned there were at least 150,000 neo-nazis operating in Western Europe, with some even getting a fair percentage of the vote, for a minority party in I think that one was Estonia, sorry closed the window and can't find it now.


Certainly if things keep going the way they are, it seems inevitable that there will be an escalation of violence.  With this in mind we should be trying to avoid it by promoting peace rather than getting our war-on.

I am genuinely concerned that sooner or later, civil war will break out in South Africa.  :bluesad:

I'm not scared of a couple of nutters.
I live in an islamic/sikh/hindu area of London and I haven't felt any tensions. Most families in my borough are from Pakistan, India and Afghanistan.
My neighbours, who are islamic, delivered my family early Christmas presents this very morning.

The media loves scare stories, and its stories like this that play in to the hands of the far right. People of any group will bunch towards their own when they feel under attack, and thats esspecially dangerous when there are such extreme people withing that group.

The problem is the islamic community has a sense of deep shame about these extremists, and they like to keep their head low when a story about the extremist comes up so they're not assocated with them, when they should shout out against them. Its such a shame the way the media protrays them all in the same light.


I wonder if Irish people were under attack like this in the 70's, 80's, 90's...

they've been saying this stuff forever. Back in the 80's they said France was going to be majority muslim by like 2006.

Oh, thats never happened before.
-Ed

The birthrate among ethnic French is sitting at about 1.4 children per couple.  The birth rate among Middle Eastern immigrants living in France is about 5 children per couple.  Do the math.  The Islamization of Europe is coming.

the problem is more that they AREN'T taking over. None of the big companies or universities are being run by or staffed by muslims. Hard for them to take over when they have zero power.


at any rate there are a number of europeans on this board and my guess is they have a little more insight into this than you or I so I'd hold off on the bold pronouncments. Again, guys like Le Pen said this was already to have happened by now back in the 80's.

When the workforce is 60%  Middle Easterners or more, and the current generation of European workers are retired and demanding all those cradle-to-grave benefits that socialism has promised them, they will have all the power they need - and they aren't going to appreciate being taxed at 50 to 80% of their income to finance the luxurious retirement of a bunch of elderly infidels.  You can sneer at me all you want, but the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, combined with falling birthrates in the Western World and the bizarre self-loathing for the Western heritage that has made most of the advances of the modern world possible is a combination that will achieve what none of the medieval sultans could dream of - the banner of the crescent floating over every European capital and the great cathedrals of antiquity converted into mosques.  Laugh all you want, the future of Western Civilization is more bleak now than it has been since the Middle Ages, and most Westerners either don't realize it or don't care.

China's the next super power, so you'd think that'd be a bigger concern to 'western society.'  :wink:

But if we're using maths and figures, I have an easy solution to the Europeans who feel under pressure: 'Get breeding.'

White europeans seem like they just need to get their batting average up if you're worried they're falling behind.

Then maybe people would loosen up a bit and have a good time.   :cheers:

I agree with both dean and indianasmith. Western civilization IS disappearing for the reasons both have stated, and I find it very sad. However, what are ya gonna do about it? indianasmith, you're a history man. You know as well as I do that great civilizations are temporary. The world is continually shifting between ages of dark and light. I'm a man of some faith in the supernatural, but am vehemently anti-religious, so I look at it differently than you may. Virtually every Christian I know looks at this as the end of days, the Lord is coming, the rapture is approaching, the New World Order and the Beast is about to take power, and so on. I work with a number of Christians and I hear them talk about this stuff at least once a week.

I just see it as yet another turn in the great historical wheel, and I find it very sad for different reasons than my Christian fellow citizens do. The great Western civilization that has developed since the last dark ages has been one of the greatest throughout all of history, in terms of civil rights especially, and of humanity being able to live free of the fear of tyrannical religious control and worship and believe spiritually as they choose. This a truly great thing that is being threatened.

However, history has demonstrated repeatedly that great civilizations of progress cannot last. The dark ages always return. It's unavoidable I'm afraid, and certainly makes me wish in many ways to have been alive at a different time. But, alas, I can only concern myself with what little I can control. It would seem that if Western civilization is threatened, then the only fix is outright hatred of Muslims and Easterners in general and a warlike attitude toward them. In that case, we are still f**ked, because in order to fight it we must stoop to their mentality, and as a deist, I see no difference between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam.

Call me a heathen and that I need to pick sides, but I'm sorry, I won't. I choose my own side. I will not choose sides in a religious war when I think both sides are out of their minds, just like I won't choose sides in a Democrat/Republican battle when I think both sides have lost their way. I believe in the basic ideals of Western civilization, decency, secularism, liberty, and a fierce opposition to a tryannical government, something my beloved USA is slowly becoming as a response to this "Islamization" or "Easternization," whatever you choose to call it. The East has already won, because we ARE denying what we are, we live in fear and entrust our security to an incompetent government that doesn't know what the hell they are doing. What more proof do you need that the terrorists have won. We need to blame ourselves just as much as them, because, like all great civilizations that have collapsed, they only need push a little, watch us destroy ourselves, then sift through the ashes.

What I find particularly disturbing is the media. They are doing just what is done by societies just before they collapse, saying "everything is fine." Recently I saw an article that said the job market was starting on an upswing, the justification for this claim being that unemployment claim numbers have dropped. The reality is that the reason unemployment numbers have dropped is that people's benefits have run out. Talk about some serious spin. But this is what I'm talking about. The Roman Empire did that same thing, placate the people and tell them everything is fine and indulge them in one of the biggest surges in entertainment they had ever seen.

So, indianasmith, I understand what you're saying completely, and agree with you wholeheartedly that our great Western civilization is going away. And I for one do care. But there's nothing we can do about it. All great civilizations, because they are so "civilized," eventually will not be able to stave off the barbarians, not without losing their civility and what made that society great, meaning the civilization is lost no matter how you cut it. Extremely sad, but historically, the truth.

so the problem is the birthrate?

so europeans should have more kids. problem solved, unless their new muslim overlords have them all neutered.


mathmatically speaking they have plenty of time to get going on this. the Israelis, who this argument was probably borrowed from, have a much shorter deadline.

onerous taxation due to the massive welfare state is likely the reason many aren't having more kids when they are physically able, and some leftover Malthusian population hogwash from the 70's where people thought the Earth was overpopulated. That got ingrained and is being pushed along a bit by the green crowd.

also, the so called expert here is from the CIA, the same "experts" who gave us the iraq war intel.

   I'm sure there are some true believers in any fundamentalist movement, but I also beleive that the people at the top of those movements, although perhaps originally motivated by spiritual reasons, become corrupted by their power and start to focus on that instead. The West has plenty of corrupt religious "leaders" and I don't see why the East would be any different.  Anjem Choudary could be stirring up all this trouble for secular reasons as well as religious ones. Notice how he's not the guy who's ever going to blow himself up. No, he's finding other people to do it for him.

    Also, although I think it will be a rough ride, I think most of the serious Islamists will become just as corrupt by goold old Western culture as we Westerners are. I think most of the serious suicide bombers and jihadists come from very impoverished backrounds and blowing yourself up to get to Paradise, or if your family is promised a cash reward for your fiery death, might look pretty good to some people who have it really tough. But once those people get a taste of our decadence, at least some of them will come over to the Dark Side.

That's sort of my view.  There's a lot of talk about radical Muslims in the West, but little talk about people who immigrate from relatively repressive countries and moderate their views due to exposure to our prosperity (and decadence).   

Well said by both of you. It's a given that some may change their views as a result of exposure to something they previously weren't, and may be better off or worse off for it, depending on how it affects them.

Humans have 2 sides to our thinking:

We have the rules we live by in our personal codes of conduct, and then, we
have the ones we rely on for inner theme when and if we need to legitimize our deviation from said codes. 

By nature, we are a self-serving and self-satisfying species, and are prone to breaking
our own rules when and if it serves us.   

It's old internal struggle-doing what's right for yourself,  vs. doing what "feels" good and right at the expense of others and possibly yourself. What a species we are..

So far, the Islamic immigrants pouring into Europe have shown little sign of assimilating. Look what happened in Holland when a newspaper dared to print political cartoons that depicted the prophet Muhammad.  PEOPLE DIED.  BUILDINGS WERE BURNED. RIOTS STARTED.  Then look at what happens when Hollywood, the media, and left-wingers like Olbermann and his ilk take advantage of every single opportunity to verbally and visually kick the church in the b@115 - NOT MUCH OF ANYTHING.

That is why I find it so incredible when theists, atheists, and agnostics say there is no difference between fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam.  When was the  last time you saw a Baptist suicide bomber?  Or a Methodist hijacker screaming praises to John Wesley right before he slammed his plane into a building full of innocents?  Or a Presbyterian driving a truckload full of explosives into a Buddhist house of worship?  I'm not saying that Christians have never been violent - such a claim would be ludicrous - BUT I will shout from the rooftops that Christians who practice violence in the name of their faith do so in ABSOLUTE VIOLATION OF EVERYTHING JESUS OF NAZARETH EVER TAUGHT.   Muslims who make war on the infidel are simply doing what Muhammad ordered his followers to do, and what he himself did.  He was a violent man of the sword from the beginning to the end of his religious career.

EXAMPLE FOLLOWS:
  You can read this story in John's Gospel, chapter 8.  A woman was dragged before Jesus who had been captured in the very act of adultery and thrown down at his feet.  The Pharisees demanded to know what should be done with her - should she be stoned, as the law suggested, or not?  Jesus stooped and wrote in the dirt without a word.  When they persisted in their demands, he said: "Let her be stoned - but let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone."  They dropped their rocks and split. (Yes, that is a paraphrase.  But what comes next isn't.)  Jesus said "Woman, where are your accusers?  Does none condemn you?"  She said "No one, Lord."  He replied: "Neither do I condemn you.  Go your way, and sin no more."

This story comes from the Hadith, the stories of Muhammad's life that were written down by his disciples after his death for the guidance of future Muslims.  A woman came to Muhammad and said "Prophet of God, I have committed adultery.  How can I make amends?  He refused to answer, and she said:  "O Prophet!  I am with child!  What should I do?"  He said: "Return to me when you have delivered the child of your adultery."  She came back after the child was born, and asked again how to atone for her sin.  He said "Wait till the child is weaned, then give it to one of my followers." When the child was weaned, she returned to Muhammad and presented it to one of his close followers.  She asked again how to atone for her adultery, and Muhammad had her buried in the sand up to her neck and stoned to death.  When her blood splashed the robe of one of her executioners, he cursed her lifeless body.  Muhammad chided him, saying that she had paid a dear enough price for her sin, and blessed her corpse before he walked away.

Now, do you STILL say that there is no difference between Christianity and Islam?

I don't know that the fact that there have been riots over sensitive issues proves that Muslims don't assimilate into democratic societies.  Particularly when you consider the fact that Muslims in many parts of Europe are still an underclass: poor, and often discriminated against.  We had disaffected people in this country rioting over the Rodney King verdict.

France has suffered the worst Muslim riots, and from everything I can tell they treat Muslims the worst.  From what I hear (and not just from Doggett) things seem to be much better in Britain.

For the record I don't think Christian fundamentalists and Islamic fundamentalists are the same, or equally dangerous. I also have very little fear of Islamic fundamentalism overthrowing the world order.  Their harsh, anachronistic philosophy doesn't have an ability to win many hearts and minds.  I suspect Western sitcoms, video games and bikinis win over two Muslim teens for every one Western teen who's attracted to shia law, stoning adulterers and praying 5 times a day.     

Welcome to the jungle,folks. I wonder what the American Indians thought when us white folks ran them into the ground? I don't feel sorry for Europe,, I don't feel sorry for us, I don't feel sorry for anyone. The world has been turning for millinium...ain't gonna stop cuz I don't like it.

I think the world would be a better place if we all read Robert Heinlan. But I sure ain't gonna enforce that on anyone.... :lookingup:
What's that song...by Doris Day...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJD798-q0bY

I like the idea that,in the film, all sortsa mad sh!t is happening around her....yet.... :drink:

You are both right on one count - what will happen will happen.  If God is real (and I believe He is), it's all part of some plan too big for us to grasp.  And if, per chance, he isn't, then none of it will matter in eternity.

In the meantime, I will continue to teach my students to cherish our Western heritage and not listen to those who would tear it down because of its flaws.  I will live large, love extravagantly, laugh often, and (hopefully) die happy before things hit their worst.

Again, I agree with this post immensely. I understand that you may take offense over someone like myself saying I don't see a difference between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism, but to a deist like myself who DOES believe in a higher order that is far too big for us to grasp, fundamentalism is fundamentalism. I also should have clarified myself a bit better, as I'm talking more about if the Christian world, in an effort to combat Islamization, takes on a more fundamentalist approach in reaction, I can certainly see just as much likelihood at extremist and violent behavior, because of what I think about that potential in humans. True, you don't see Christians, even ones who would be defined as fundamentalists behaving to some of the these extremes, probably because they reside within a Western culture that shuns such behavior, but I firmly believe if you put the more fundamentalist-minded Christians within the same environment as the middle east, you would see some soldiers of God do some pretty horrendous things. Perhaps not in a suicidal sense, but certainly homicidal.

As much as you may think this is a slam of Christianity, I assure you, it is equally applied to all religions. And it is fair to recognize peaceful Muslims for whom the fundamentalists are a source of shame, just as it is fair to recognize Christians who love everybody and hate the sin over the sinner, as compared to the "God Hates Fags" crowd. I for one do recognize the difference and don't lump all Christians in the same category.

Where I come from is a place where I recognize that religious fervor can stir ANY religion to acts similar to what you see the fundamentalist Muslims committing. If you don't think Christians are capable or would do that kind of thing, I would point out Jim Adkisson who walked into a Unitarian Universalist Church and killed two people because he was upset with (his words) "liberals in general as well as gays." And what about the KKK, or groups like the Lambs of Christ? Yet somehow it is unreasonable for me say there is no difference. Fundamentalist extremism recognizes no religious boundaries. Whip people into enough of a fervor over their faith and all is possible.

So, indianasmith, it's clear we are going to disagree on some items and probably some definitions of terms, and you may take offense. I take offense from what I consider fundamentalist whackos who would take upon themselves the judgement of humanity that only God should judge, be it Christianity, Islam, etc. While I am in direct disagreement with revealed religion according to my spiritual beliefs, I do recognize Christians and Muslims I meet who are good and decent people and who live in a manner that would seem to reflect what their faith is supposed to be about. What you say about the Muslim faith is true, their very faith and beliefs ARE more readily condusive to violence and extremism than Christianity, which is all the more reason why I don't understand the actions of some fundamentalist Christian groups who supposedly believe in a faith of peace, turning the other cheek, and loving all people. So why don't more of them practice it? Again, because of the potential for violence over religious fervor that humans have always had.

I hope you recognize our shared reverence for our great Western civilization. I do cherish it and will fight for it, but on my own terms. This is a part of Western society, the sovereignty of the individual, and this is what I hold so dear and detest seeing vanish. And yes, Islam and the East in general are in great odds to that, which is the greatest of all Western virtues in my opinion. I think if we are honest with ourselves we will admit that we are in greater agreement over the basics of what makes Western society so great than our disagreements in this thread would suggest.

??? like the topic itself, this is a really stale and mostly false talking point. When was the last time anyone here remebers any of these entities doing this to "the church" ?

The murder of Dr. George Tiller, for one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj5IOWvttq8

In this clip Olbermann mentions "far right extremism" and also mentions the religious implications and associations that played the part in Tiller's murder.

He mentions prayer vigils for Tiller's death (allegedly attended by Scott Roeder) and far-right religious anti-abortion groups such as "Project Rescue." 

And he mentions Scott Roeder's attendance at a prayer rally, and outrightly calls Roeder "a terrorist."   All point to religious aspects of Tiller's murder. 

And it's no secret that anti-abortion shares a space with Christian beliefs.  As we can see, Olbermann was his usual less-than-subtle self.

he was right. the guy who killed Dr Tiller would probably freely admit he was a far right christian extremist or whatever. Thats not an attack on religion.

Here is another example of how a fundamentalist Christian walked into a church and murdered someone over religious reasons. Could somebody explain to me how he was NOT a terrorist?

As for O' Reilly, I personally, I would actually agree to some extent with indianasmith and Umaril on just the notion that the Hollywood left is very happy to attack Christianity and to give Islam a pass in many ways. But I'm isolating that item only. I have absolutely no problem with Hollywood attacking Christianity, I just find it hypocritical when they ignore the superstitious madness of extremist Islam, or paint Islam in a somehow more sympathetic light than Christiandom. As much disdain as I may have to either religion, I have just as much disdain for that kind of hypocrisy.

Well, first you're saying that religion "isn't being attacked."  But yet, you say that Olbermann is right, and you assume that  Roeder would "probably freely admit that he was a Christian extremist, or whatever."

Christianity is a religion, is it not? And Roeder is being associated with it.  It is an attack on religion because it's associating religious themes with the murder of Dr. Tiller.

Just because Olbermann isn't outrightly condemning the entire religion in a way that you or anyone else would define such a thing, dosen't mean it's not an attack.

Clash of cultures looms on badmovies.org, experts say.  :wink:

Umaril, I'm trying to be fair here. lester has a point. The doctor was murdered over religious premises. That's not attaching religious themes to the murder. They were already attached. That would almost seem that you are suggesting that the murder should be reported by the media but the motivations behind the murder should be ignored if they are religious? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something here but I'm not quite sure what you're suggesting.

umaril- you should work for Jesse Jackson or Abe Foxman. They could really use someone with your skillset of taking everything as a slight and finding bigotry where no one else can see it.


at any rate, China is conquering western civilization, not islam. They are eclipsing us in econmic strength and will fairly soon eclipse us in most other meaningful ways in no small part because they don't get caught up in ivory tower debates of this nature. They do business with Iran, they do business with us.  They don't care if we appreciate Confucious or Lao Tze or Mao for that matter.

No more than the extremists who used Islam and Holy War to attack on 9\11.




Very well said, and worthy of a free drink  :cheers:

People tend to forget the Media and their age old practice of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."  Even in jail, you will have rival gangs who ally for the purpose of taking down a common enemy (or a percieved enemy.)  No different in The Media either.

And, the fact that they have been slamming Christianity to the exclusion of the actions of extreme Islam,  is an example of that mindset, as well as their blatant hypocrisy in their dismissal of all things Muslim.

But it also shows FEAR on the part of The Media. Mainstream Christians are tolerant and turn the other cheek to The Media and their antagonism.

On the other hand, the ambiguous nature of Islam (made clearer by the recent calls for Jihad against The Media for taking that one step too far against Islam) also play a fair part in so-called "free pass" The Media gives to Islam.

No matter the ratio of hypocrisy to fear, it's no big secret that The Media is constantly exercising hypocrisy in their attacks upon Christianity, and their free pass to Islam.




Part hypocrisy, part fear. But being the lunatics they are, hypocrisy is and always will be the greater part of The media and their BS.

you've stated this numerous times and provided no proof. who is the media anyway? does FOX news bash christianity?

is the guy that killed the abortion doctor a good example of "mainstream christians"?

would you like some cheese with your whine?




If the people in Europe don't want muslims they should pass a law expelling them and /or not allowing any more in.  no war of civilizations neccesary.

Bigotry?
I'm not the one who assumed to speak for Roeder, you did. And in your assumption that Roeder would "probabaly admit that he was a Christian extremist," you yourself are not only assuming to speak for Roeder, but you are also trying to turn the tables on me for pointing out the dual nature of your statement.  Maybe you should work for Olbermann.



And? 


Any more than anyone of the Liberal mindset (or the general well intentioned White Liberal guilt mongers) would be spared if we welcomed Islam and it's teachings the same way were they taken hostage. 

Does Al Jazeera or the state run Islamic media slam the actions of their extremist brothers?


Is 9\11 a good example of decent Muslims? 

Was The murder of Pro-Life man James Pouillon (and the Media's overlooking of it while they canonized Tiller) a decent example of the assumed tolerance the Left has towards other peoples' opposing views, or the fact that both were wrongdoing defined?


Oh yes, the usual desperate attempt to antagonize when one is cornered on his\her hypocrisy with no way to disprove. Let it be said for the record that it's you doing this, and not me. 

Finally:


Expelling Muslims? NOW whose attacking religion?     Way to contradict yourself, bud.  :cheers:

Al jezeera does all the time. but what does this have to do with anything?


no, so Olbermann slamming the guy who killed dr Tiller is no more anti christian than saying 9/11 was done by muslim extremists is anti muslim. whose point are you trying to make?


??  You are being a blowhard and a wuss at the same time. it has nothign to do with the merits of this discussion at all.



I was not advocating they do that. You are totally missing the point. My point was that Frances open borders imigration policy and massive welfare state doesn't mean there is a war of civilizations, it means France's policies aren't working for it. 


"if we welcomed islam and its teachings the same way were they taken hostage". I'm sorry I do not understand what that  means.

Now you two, this is silly. My opinion is that this is much more an East vs. West struggle in general. The lines are being drawn, and in my mind we are fighting over the wrong things. Far too many people are looking at this from a religious perspective and mixing religion with politics and that's not going to solve anything. lester brought up a salient point in that whatever is going on between the Christian world and the Muslim world is peanuts compared to what China is doing. China loves all this religious fighting. Why? Because it keeps us Americans distracted while they leverage the USA into complete self shutdown. If the deal with Russia happens and they abandon the US dollar, the Euro will become the world reserve currency by default. The collapse is happening and here we are arguing over religion.

The important tragedy is the loss of the Western culture, and that is what should unite us. Western civilization has been the light of the world for several centuries, and that light is going out. The Roman Empire was the light of the world at one time, and look at their religious beliefs? One could generate a powerful argument that Christianity played a significant role in the downfall of Rome. My point is that religious turmoil seems to accompany the collapse of great civilizations throughout history. Look at every great civilization and the amount of religious turmoil that was happening at the time of collapse. The religious turmoil that accompanied the fall of the Roman Empire is particularly significant when you look at the 1000 years of the Dark Ages that followed.

Given the bigger picture, and with all due respect to both of you, WTF are you arguing about? And me too, for that matter?

I apologize to umaril for calling him names. not kosher at all.  :thumbdown:

This has proved to be a fascinating thread, as I hoped it would. 
Lester, your absolute indifference to human evil as long as it doesn't touch you personally continues to bother me.
Umaril, although we agree on many things, I do think you tend to wax thick-skinned at times.
Flick - You are a remarkably reasonable person, and I hope, at some point, that life throws us together so that we can sort out the cosmos over a fresh pizza - my treat!
Rev. Powell - kudos for the light touch when things get heated!

And to everyone else who responded, thanks!

You know what it has to do with. FOX gives Christians a free ride, Al Jazeera syas nothing of Islamic extremism.  Don't play dumb with me.




Whose point were you trying to make when you spoke for Roeder below?


It IS an attack on religion, as it is assuming religious beliefs were Roeder's SOLE motivation. And that's just what the Media wanted you to believe, to the exclusion of all other possible factors.

This was the Media's wet dream and gotcha' moment for everything anti-Christian. 

And to be fair, they never said one word about the murder of James Pouillon by a Pro-Choice man who killed him for the sign he was holding. Only one act was seen as wrong, and Tiller was martyred by the media for being Left-Wing and Pro-Choice.



Neither does namecalling.




If I, as a right-wing person, said "expel all Muslims" I'm sure there would be hell to pay, regardless of the context with which I was trying to make the statement.  But, I'll give you half off for your nail-on-the-head statement that France's immigration policies smell just about as bad their cheese. 


I was harmonizing with your earlier statement that we would be wiped out by the Chinese whether or not we "appreciated" Sun Tzu or Confucius or Mao.   

By the same token, extremist Muslims wouldn't spare any of us if we appreciated Mohammed or The Quran.  That's what I meant.  Was it really that hard?

I'm not disagreeing with the point made by Lester. The Chinese ARE the wild card in any future conflict.  But I would hardly call the literal street fight America is into with Islamic extremists, "peanuts."  We are losing.

We are losing for the same reasons we lost Vietnam..international and domestic political interference, and the fear of what the other countries would think, if we stooped to Al Qaeda's level to beat them at the own game. America always has to "go by the book" all the while our enemies hit below the belt. And as long as we don't take the gloves off, it will be the same.


Too many factors to label here, but I agree with you. I understand what he was saying. 

But when people like Lester are content to allow the world to go to to hell in a handbag along with his indifference to human evil (as Indianasmith said earlier) then you have to ask yourself just WHY it is that our light is going out.

Noone cares, that's why.

when was the last time you watched an al jezeera broadcast?



the light  is going out because we waste blood and treasure "caring " via our government/ miltary industrial complex about problms in parts of the world who don't want our help and who we have no interest in. the road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say. Conservatives seem to grasp this when it comes to domestic policy but get lost in nationalistic hubris when it comes to foreign policy. I have no idea why that is.

fighting wars in the middle east is not compassioniate and doesn't make us stronger.  It's sadistic and makes us weaker. The war on terror has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives and has not made anyone more pro US or made us safer. Whatver it was supposed to do, which was somehow inspire deomcracy to take hold in the middle east so they would be more interested in starting starbucks franchises than terorrism or something, hasn't worked.  




we lost vietnam because it was a dumb idea that people, you know the ones who were PAYING for it and fighting in it, didn't support.  It wasn't vital to our national security for Vietnam to become a democracy. killing tens of thousands of vietnamese didn't make it any more vital to that security.  


Of course, once we left and Vietnam got a chance to soak in communism for a few more decades they said holy crap this system stinks, now they are begging us to open sweat shops there and we are trading with them.  Markets "won" the vietnam war, the state lost and the same thing will likely happen with the middle east where they are now getting american satellite tv and loving it  Jihad? sorry I don't want to miss desperate housewives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/07/wikileaks-cables-letterman-housewives-saudi)

bottom line: our government should leave us and other people alone.

People in Europe should have more kids and anyone who thinks muslims or mexicans or mexican muslims are taking over western civilization should do the same.

Sweden has a very very selective immigration process and if you don't get a job in 6 months you're out. France and other countries could easily adopt a policy like this.

Really?  You think we're losing?  Why?  I see Islamic extremists like criminals, like the Mafia.  They kill people every now and then, but I have very little fear of them ever exerting significant power on the world stage.   

The exception would be Iran getting nuclear weapons, but that's not Islam per se.  I'm just as concerned, if not more so, about North Korea.     

Lester, I have come to like you over the years I've been here, although we very seldom agree about much save movies.  But there is a strain of . . . well, selfishness to your libertarian side that apalls me at times.

It seems like the world of Lester would be a place where the USA would stand aside and let Hitler finish the Holocaust - until there was not a single Jewish person left in Europe, or any gypsies or Slavs or Poles - because "he wasn't doing anything to us."

I believe it is the duty of good men, in every age, to oppose evil.  Sometimes by words, and sometimes by force.  If good refuses to oppose that which is plainly evil, how can it claim to be good?

Islamic fundamentalism is evil, pure and simple.  Glutted with oil money, its reach grows stronger day by day.  Saudi Arabia donates billions of dollars to U.S. Universities to fund "Departments of Middle Eastern Studies", then provides the "scholars" to teach there - and they use their classrooms to propagate hatred for Jews, Christians, and the U.S. and Israel.  All across Europe, in the land once known as "Christendom," the extinction of evangelical Christianity following World War I and the failure of "multicultural socialism" to provide a meaningful philosophy or belief system to replace it has resulted in hundreds of young people coming to mosques to hear what the mullahs have to say . . . and to be infused with their rage and hatred of the West.  Those who want no part of it are running away.  One Dutch expatriate, quoted by Mary Steyn, says "I was used to enjoying my freedom - I never did learn to defend it."

You  may be content to see the light go out, my friend.  But I am not.  I will speak out, and if it ever comes down to it, I will defend my way of life with all that I have.  But when you allow evil to camp on your doorstep before you try and do something about it, it's only one step away from being inside your house.

That being said, in the end, the only thing stronger than hate is love.  Our society has embraced sensuality in place of love and anger in place of passion, and all that does is make us vulnerable.

I don't know what the answer is, and I may not be making a great deal of sense right now.  But the current trend of events scares the hell out of me.

Nearly 100 years ago, Lord Grey said on the brink of the Great War: "The lamps are going out all over Europe. They shall not be lit again in our lifetime."

It's happening again.

Same here. 

I'm not concerend about anything.

Except my weird hand.

The lamps are going out in the west because of the loss of reason. There is little other cause.

Was bored and flicking through channels and came across this interesting documentary by chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QKxHINgloA



http://www.reelbadarabs.com/synopsis.html (http://www.reelbadarabs.com/synopsis.html)


Basically it's about how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood, and is pretty interesting.  One point they make which I found appropriate for this thread is how would you feel if every movie you see coming from America is either making you out as a fool or a violent Terrorist?  I imagine it doesn't do a lot to promote peace in any case.

Its like the outcry when Billy Zane was in that Turkish movie a few years ago about Americans killing Muslims; it wasn't exactly a good or accurate representation of Americans, people were hurt and upset, and that was just one film.  Imagine if there's practically a whole genre of movies like that about your culture, with little to no redeeming Arab characters in them at all.  And it's been happening since the beginning of cinema...

Not only does it p**s off the people being portrayed inaccurately but more importantly it also dehumanises them to the point where nobody cares about them anymore/actively hates them without just cause.

Perhaps if they quit living up to the stereotype people would quit holding it.

Of course I realize that not all Arabs, and not all Muslims, are terrorists or have terrorist sympathies.  But enough of them do that many otherwise rational Westerners - myself included - distrust and fear the lot of them.  It doesn't help when their mullahs forbid them from forming close friendships with "infidels", and teach them that lying to trick the infidel into a sense of false security is no sin.

Many of them simply ignore those teachings, of course - but enough of them don't ignore them that the veil of suspicion and hostility settles over the whole group.

 We are not in the 1930's. radical islam is not Hitler. They don't have massive war machine rampaging through Europe. They want us out of their countries. They are more like the south in the civil war, except we don't even have the fig leaf of a written agreement with them saying they have to remain in a union. (The south, as I'm sure you know, didn't want to take over the north.)

Virtually all arabs and persians, wether they are shia, sunni or christians or whatever, hate the united states foreign policy. They are not united by really anthing but that.




Let me turn this around on you Indiana: are ALL wars justified??  Were all of Clintons interventions in the 90's a good idea?

If we hadn't gone to war in Iraq all the people who died in that war would be alive and with their families. doesn't that count for something?  

I'm fine with people being "hawks" what worries me is

1. when there seems to be absolutely no clear criteria for when you go to war over not and

2. lets face it, how important can these wars be to people like you when you aren't willing to enlist yourself?

people in ww2 put their money where there mouth was and joined. people aren't doing that now.  for one reason or another they don't actually care as much when push comes to shove.



but we're broke!  we're borrowing money from the Chinese to fight these wars. What about our own survival?



it's not at our doorstep. the middle east is on the other side of the world!! and all they want is for us to leave them alone!!

They'e been radical fundamentalist weirdos since before our country existed.

We lead another way of life and it is obviously superior in most measurable ways.


all wars claim to be good. Hitler thought that wiping out jews and gypsies and having everyone be atheist and live in the countryside was for the betterment of mankind.

war is the original evil. World war 1 gave us communism. The onerous sanctions of the treaty of versailles gave us Hitler.  I'm not about letting holocausts go on, I'm about stopping them from happening in the first place.  That's a lot better than stopping one that's in progress isn't it?

For your information, Les, I am a proud veteran of the U.S. Navy, 1982-86.  And, when we went into Iraq in 2003, I DID try to re-enlist.  I was told that I was too old and too overweight.
It hurt!  So don't go branding me with your "chicken hawk" label.

Once more you fall into that convenient argument, "All they want is us to be out of their countries." 

It's a crock.  What the Islamists want, and what the Quran demands, is that the entire world submit to Islam.  That is their program, that is their goal.

Comparing them to the South in the Civil War?  Once more your sympathy lies with those who participated in one of history's great evils.  My only regret is that the Union did not hang or imprison the entire planter class and hand their plantations over to their slaves!   At the very least, they should have ""hanged Jeff Davis from that Sour Apple Tree!"  (and, for the record, I'm a sixth generation Texan and a tenth generation southerner, and a descendant of slaveholders.  My family was on the wrong side of history on that call.)

Are all wars justifiable?  No.  Was the war in Iraq justified?  I still believe it was.

Would putting a round through the head of the likes of Usama bin Laden or Mullah Omar be justified?  Hand me the fricken rifle.

Well we all knew that was coming, since I was called a blowhard and a wuss when I cornered Les and forced his hand on his BS.  Maybe there's a place for Les in Berkeley..


Why hasn't anyone seen this? There again, with most liberals content to let the world go to hell in a handbasket as long as they satisfy themselves for the day, it's no wonder.


Well, while we're on the subject of The Civil War and great evils,  burning Atlanta, Georgia to the ground and killing all those civilians and destroying their farms was one the North still has to answer for. 

Ironic that the North was there to free enslaved men, yet took it on themselves to destroy those who had nothing to do with the war Or slavery. But no we don't get taught that, only that the South was wrong in it's dealings. God bless the Media and PC history..

And personally, I get tired of people slapping the South all the time. There's a lot of hard working people that pound their daily salt just like the rest of us.



Time will tell. Not all truths are immediately apparent. Things may yet be discovered.

Well the figures in the original post on European Islamists seem to indicate that the majority of Muslims in Europe are fairly moderate: out of 53 million there are approx 55,000 sympathising with the Islamist cause.  That is certainly not a majority so by that logic they aren't living the stereotype yet we still are perpetuating it in our media. 

We are much more likely to see people on the news protesting and shouting against something or someone, just like we're more likely to go out of our way to complain about bad service than reward good service at the store; negativity is generally more vocal.

I was talking to some friends about this topic the other day, and some part of the general consensus we came to, vague as it was, is that in many of the more infamous "Terrorist" countries that we usually bring up when talking about violent Jihadists, violence is a more readily accepted in everyday life, so therefore they are more apparently violent.  As such it does lend me towards the opinion that in many cases extremist behaviour tends to be more societal and environmental rather than specifically and solely religious.

In the modern, western first world countries we have a more options of resolving conflict, where it seems they have less, which is why you see less violence of a religious nature perpetrated in first world western christian countries.


On a somewhat related side note the worst violence of recent ages in Europe stem mainly from regional disputes rather than religious ones, and some of the worst violence was perpetrated against Muslims rather than by them, [8,000 Muslims wiped out in one particular infamous moment of history, the Srebrenica Massacre.]

By my count, and its not thorough at all, if we stack up the numbers: Over the last 100 or so years, 'terrorist' violence by political separatists/Nationalist crazies [or on a broader stroke, Non-Islamic/Jihadist based reasons] in Europe far outweigh Fundamental Islamist violence.

Sure both are horrible, but again I am at pains to try and change peoples prejudices based on the actions of a minor percentage of the population.  If we play the 'Innocent until proven guilty' game, then the Christian westerns have far more to answer for than the Islamic population in Europe, yet many make them out to be some horrid creatures that are out to get us.    :lookingup:  Please...

Watch the documentary I mentioned earlier, or snippets of it which are readily available online.  Say what you will about Islamists, who are generally terrible fundamentalist thugs, but please don't paint such a broad stroke over the whole religion for that reason.

I'm sorry Indy, it seems like we've been battling it out particularly lately in these two threads: it's just both are interesting topics of discussion and I clearly like talking about and debating them, and figure that its a fruitful endeavour, regardless of the outcome.   Or maybe I'm just a glutton for punishment, I don't know...  :smile:

:cheers:

lester -

You and I are kindred spirits in many ways. Your basic values and my own are very similar. You strike me as a fellow libertarian. My only criticism, and I mean this in a friendly and constructive way, is that you seem to have a very sympathetic view of the Muslim world which you do not apply to the mainly Judeo-Christian western world. If you know me at all you will know that this is not a defense of Judeo-Christianity. Far from it. Rather, just an observation that your sympathies seem to paint you as almost pro-Muslim. I'm not judging that, per se, I'm simply saying that this is going to affect how members of this board, who are by and large of the western world, respond. It also makes you appear to not have a rational view of the Muslim world. Perhaps you are simply defending a people who are not hear to defend themselves, and that I can respect, but it paints you as pro-Muslim. Just an observation and one I hope you will take as nothing more than that.

when did you corner me on my BS, umaril?


show me specifically then I'll respond, Otherwise you are just bragging with nothing to back it up. I have no idea what you're talking about.



indiana- So you don't think, for example,  that the mujhadeen were driving the USSR out of afghanistan in the 80's? You think they were trying to TAKE OVER RUSSIA???

what abuot the insurgency in iraq? You don't think they were trying to drive the US out of Iraq? I don't understand. i would think that was pretty clear.


 yes, there is a tiny minority of muslim who want the WHOLE world to submit to radical islam. MOSt muslims, christians and other types in the middle east just want us out of out countries and al queda capitalizes on that.



and why don't you want to address the fact that our our military presence and massive security apparatus costs tons of money?

What about the deficit and debt?  I can only assume you don't understand or care about the money at interest we are borrowing daily and continue to owe to Russia, China and others. trillions.,

Very worrisome that you don't factor that in to your thinking. not very conservative.

bottom line:  I don't think I was put on this earth to fight the muslims in the middle east. muslims have been in the middle east since islam was invented and will be there long after I'm dead. I have bigger fish to fry.


here's the difference between me and you: My beliefs don't involve taking money from you. Yours involve taking money from me. and sending young men and women to their deaths in a  pretty close appproxamation of Hell.



also umaril:




and yet,  you said WE need to "take the gloves off"??


at any rate: I agree with you 100%. Indianasmith doesn't.  ask him why. I think the South was justified in leaving the union and Lincoln shold have respected that. Slavery was ended peacefully all over the wrld except here. 600,000 people, most of whom had nothing to do with the slave trade, dying for "humanity" does not add up. There had to have been a better way.


flick james- what would be wrong with being pro muslim? I don't understand. I'm not btw. I have nothing in common with a bunch of religious fanatics in a part of the world I will probably never go to.  I respect their desire from independence from our government which I also want. that's it.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. You did understand that it was an observation, yes? I'm simply referring to a way you come across, which does not assume anything about you personally, and how it affects responses to your posts. I thought I stated that clearly enough.

okay. I didn't get what you meant. My position is that the western way of life wherever it is practiced is vastly superior to like communism or islamism or whatever others are trying to do. I don't think we need to  import elements of dictatorial systems in order to fight those systems.

 :thumbup:

Sorry I kind of abandoned the debate the last day or so . . . I'm pretty sick right now with Bronchitis, and don't have a lot of energy.  Fascinating thread, though.

One little history teacher's note, however - Slavery did not "end peacefully everywhere in the world but here."  Remember the Haitian revolt?

Secondly - Sherman ordered for the business district of Atlanta to be burned.  It was crammed full of military resources that the Confederate armies could use against him, and he could not take the stuff along or spare troops to guard it.

After the Union marched out of Atlanta, deserters from both sides, along with some runaway slaves, spread the fire all over the city.  While every war produces some civilian casualties, the evils of Sherman's march to the sea have been exaggerated by Southerners for 145 years now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrMCqOmsMB4

[

Well, you DID give me a bunch of BS (your personal opinions, which to be fair, had it coming as per your own invalidation of mine and Indy's as BS as well)  and when I cornered and countered you, you took the hissy fit route and started namecalling.

Well, your bad, not mine or Indy's.


also umaril:





You know damn well what I mean.  You can't fight a street fight above the waist. We're trying to win by a rulebook dictated by Congress and somewhat ineffective R.O.E. We need to adapt and overcome. 

I'm not talking about hurting innocents, either. And I think you knew that.

And I will admit, that I don't have all the answers,  but I know that our leaders should stay out of the military's decisions, let us do the job we were meant to do, or put a uniform on themselves, and do it themselves if they think they can do better.

When have we fought to win a war since WW2?  We haven't. We're not allowed to...

 

I'll tip my hat to that one.  But the thing is is that history is always written from the point of the victors, not the vanquished.  And there are a LOT of unspoken horrors that befell the Southern people at the hands of the North, that will never have a chance to be told.

And with the one-sided hatred promoted against the South in history classes and college campuses all over the U.S. (based solely on slavery and their defense of Gun Rights and their positions on religion) the real horrors will always take a backseat to the surface issues.

Liberals need to get it thru their heads..The Civil War wasn't solely about slavery. It was  a
fringe issue. It was also about individual rights and the right of people to be free of big government and to choose their own paths.  Be that as is, slavery was wrong, end of story.

And that makes me ask something else: The North "freed" the slaves. right?

If the North was so "accepting" of slaves after the war, how come it took another hundred or so years of race riots and civil disobedience to win that acceptance?  Again, slavery was only a fringe issue.

Wow. How did this turn into a North/South thread?

you never countered me nor did I ever throw a hissy fit.



how can you take off the gloves without hurting innocents? take off one glove?




gulf war 1?


Besides, this makes my point more than yours or his. WHy would you throw young men and women out into wars when they aren't going to be allowed to fight with their gloves off and where the press is going to sabotage them?

The difference is between:

1. fighting for our own preservation - issues of tact are not going to come up

2.the preservation of western civiliation/ allies we feel are vital. - people will likely overlook human rights issues.


and 3. simply playing at empire and being the worlds police. - you aren't really wanted so everything you do is suspect.

self preservation goes without saying and there are good arguments (none of which I agree with) for elements of #2.  #3 is basically a jobs program for beaurocrats and other well connected people in and around capitols and is generally deliterious to a nations security in every meaning of that word. Pretending our current military stature in the middle east is 1 or even 2 doesn't make it so. If it was we probably wouldn't be having this discussion we would all be at the recuruitment office and ther wolkd be very little in the press about guantanamo, abu graib etc. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

and again I agree on all the civil war stuff.

I'm sorry, did I say hissy fir? namecalling is a p**sY fit.




Again you conveniently take me out of context.





Oh yeah, right. AWe achieved a military objective. We could have easily taken Saddam down, as we had a HUGE coalition, and those willing to do it. As usual, the UN decided to back out and told the reamining armies they were doing so at their own risk.

If we got Saddam then, we wouldn't have had this BS NOW..


So we back down to the press? Since when do Americans have to back down to the press?  Put the muzzle on them like was done in WW2. The press had rules back then.

Oh but again I forget, rules are baseline Nazi-ism and repression because everyone feels they should just say what they want w\o any regard for the damage it creates.  :lookingup:



Well put, no disagreements there.



Huan rights and self-preservation?

Self preservation often has a very high price tag that comes with it. Noone ever said it came free.   If we had taken this attitude during WW2, things would be different now.

As far as human rights issues being overlooked, I defer to the cowardly Al Qaeda jerks who throw acid in womens' faces, burn their schools, and treat women like sh@t in the name of God. A woma recently got her nose cut off (saw this on HLN.)

Let's not forget Al Qaeda in Iraq-remember about 5 years ago when they threw gasoline in the face of a little boy named Yousef?  Are the people who do this interested in human rights?

We always hear what AMERICA does, and nothing of what the other side(s) do to their own.   

And it makes me mad because we always hear these "human rights" folk screaming about what America does, but yet you tell them about the stuff I mentioned above, and suddenly it turns into "well that's just how it is over there, sh#t happens."

Maybe if it happened to THEM, they'd have a different take on it.

Umaril, my bud, you are right on so very many things, but . . .

slavery a "fringe issue" in the Civil War?

Please.  Get real.

Don't believe me - read the newspaper editorials throughout the South during the secession crisis.  Read the Ordinances of Secession in every Southern State.
Or consider this quote from the inaugural address of Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the CSA:
"Our government is founded upon the supposition. . . that the white man is not equal to the black man, that slavery is his natural and normal condition. . . Our government is the first in the world to be founded upon this. . . fact"

No slavery, no Civil War.  Pure and simple.  Or, as one of my colleagues put it: "The cause of the Civil War was perhaps not so much slavery itself as the South's irrational desire to hang on to it at all costs . . . "

As a historian and a Southerner, I am deeply troubled by the observations of the Civil War's Sesquicentennial that seek to either avoid or whitewash this issue.  The fact is, North and South had compromised on every other issue for 80 years.  Slavery was the one thing on which they could not find common ground.  Why?  Because the South was willing to do ANYTHING to expand slavery into the national territories.

The best evidence of this, for me, is to carefully read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.  He directed the bulk of it at the South, and begged them to listen to the voice of reason.  He pointed out that, on the sensitive issue of slavery, the laws of their own composition were still on the books.  The South had become so paranoid they were perfectly willing to tear the country in two rather than tolerate even moderate restrictions on the SPREAD of slavery . . . which is all Lincoln had committed to do.  And, in launching an unjust war of secession, they effectively doomed their own "peculiar institution."

Ok.....Indy...we are as far apart as cats and dogs on politics,relgion...BUT!- I agree with this-by Ronald Reagan.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfejBpD_wm4

Best speech Reagan ever made. We all need to get together. Now I sound like a hippie. Ugh.

Who says we have to agree to be friends, RC? :cheers:

if that's true then you just called yourself a name.


thats the point.  the context doesn't matter. If you believe in taking the gloves off you believe in it. If you don't you don't.  I'm opposed to abu graib for the same reason I'm opposed to the stuff you were talking about. Principles don't change if they are principles.



if we had taken out saddam then we would have had the iraq post war hell but in the 90's. it would have ruined that decade the same way it ended up ruining the 00's.  Cheney said Saddam wasn't worth one american life and he was absolutely right. The shias and sunnis didn't like each other any more in the 90's and the muslims ,al queda and otherwise, didn't like the US anymore then either.


 the press doesn't define public opinion. Most of the media and most leftists were opposed to the previously mentioned war, gulf 1, and we still one that.  and there were very few protests about vietnam till it was several years old.  

and about the only mainstream commentator I can recall who was against the iraq war publicily was Patrick Buchanan and it still went the way it did.



lol  okay put the muzzle on the INTERNET.  THat strategy worked real well for the soviets union, particularly in afghanistan. not a peep from the USSR press about what was gong on there.

Oh OK, so because I mis-spelled hissy fit means I'm dumb? I was referring to your hissy fit where you called me a blow-hard and a wuss, and how, in speaking in terms of you, I shouldn't have said you were having a hissy fit, but a p*ssy fit.  NO, it's still about you, not me.



Well I'm sure if you're that opposed to Abu Ghraib, perhaps you'd like to defer to the people who were beheaded by Al Qaeda in Iraq?  A bit of humiliation warranted beheadings?  At least the Abu Ghraib people are still alive.



Well we had the coalition, we had the pre-Clinton military numbers, and we easily could have gotten the job done because we had the numbers back then. Iran was NOT a threat like they were now, and the other Arab states were behind the move. It was a missed oppurtunity. We had the chance to make Iraq a pro-American ally then.




But the press and the media can turn public opinion. Noone seems to understand that. There have beenmany good causes that went South because the media lit the fire under the right people, fed the reaction, and reaped the rewards of the deliberately calculated interference they planned.





Well, had there been stronger methods in place, maybe Wikileaks might not have happened. But no, liberty came over safety, and now we have a virtual World Royal Rumble on our hands because one man did this. 

Now we have the possibility of every nation in the world turning on each other because of the distrust this man has created.

Is it really worth all of this just because some selfish bastards wanted to know what was happening?

but if name calling is throwing a hissy fit and you called me a p***y then you also threw one.


this is exactly the type of thinking that led poeple to belive the iraq war wuold be a cakewalk.


that's how the ball bouces. it's called life. I know how the media does things. I supported Ron pual in 2008. We would have thousands and thousands of peoples at rallies and the meida didn't care. It was annoying but we kept going and now the guy is a mid level rock star


good. we need a royal rumble.


If they don't want to be exposed as the treachorous two faced people they are they should stop being so treachorous and two faced.

Shut down the CIA and the state department if wikileaks is such a threat. Everyone in the government should quit and get real jobs and let the people of the world get on with their lives.

Umaril and lester: I hope you will entertain my analysis of your ping-pong battle. It's mine alone, and feel free to tell me to f**k off if you like. I won't be offended.

Umaril: I understand your patriotism and dedication. I would not dream to question it. I think where you cannot find common ground with lester is that lester, as far as I can ascertain, is a true libertarian, and objectivist to the core. I share a lot of his fundamental principles. The problem is, these objectivist principles can come across as unpatriotic to some, because a true objectivist is going to question government actions at every turn. It is my opinion that, because of this posture, lester probably sees you as an unquestioning patriot, which may be a bit unfair.

Now, these are how your posts to one another come across to me. I am but one person.

Lester: you have a critical eye that I think outdoes my own. Like I said before, on a fundamental level you and I have much in common, despite a few minor details we may not see eye to eye on, which probably don't matter anyway. You are very hard-nosed (much like myself), but sometimes it seems almost to a fault. You are very passionate about your views, but sometimes I think you could benefit from some effort in trying to find a common ground. This does not mean you have to compromise your views, it simply means that at some point, argument must make an effort at gaining understanding rather than further polarizing two people that don't necessarily have to be polarized.

One of my all-time favorite quotes is from F. Scott Fitzgerald, which to me has always illustrated the finest way to approach any debate:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

Then again, perhaps I have completely misread the situation.

I'm not offended by that at all but I have to say I would not call myself an objectivist because I don't even know what one is. I came to libertarianism not via ayn rand and I still have not read any of her books. anarchist would be closer to the mark but then that is frought with bad connotations. Umaril and I have common ground on civil war revisionism so there's hope.

Again, YOU threw the first punch. I countered. Don't cry because you got a bloody nose.

Nice playground tactics...fall down and tell everyone you're OK, then go in and tell your mom that I punched you.  Again, you called me names first.  You owe ME the apology.




Gulf War 1. You know which one I'm talking about. Again, nice try to conflate the two.



Then don't complain about the CIA and America then, because if you suport the media, you support the biggest liars of all.  Good call, Les.




So you WANT a World War?  Over your selfish needs to pry into things that aren't your business?  Great, we'll all know who to thank when the mushroom clouds start popping up everywhere, Thanks people like you and ASS-ange for your part in it. The human race thanks you for your part in our forthcoming extinction.

Just remember one thing: when the game is over, the King and the Pawn go back in the same box, and you'll be just another nobody like everyone else.


That's not for you to decide. You are not a politician. You are meant to know certain things, but not ALL things. Any why is it that it's only OK for the LEFT to have a right to know, but when the Right wants to know something, it's none of our business?

And as far as being "treacherous and two-faced", I suppose the fact that the Media gave Bill Clinton rock star status for his Whitehouse follies with Monica was a great example of keeping people honest?  Did you support THAT?

Oh but I forgot, it was HIS business, but yet if a Bill was a Right-Winger he'd be treated like crap.

You're such a fuc*in' hypocrite.


You would LOVE an America w\o  a CIA and State Dept,.wouldn't you? Then we can be taken over by everyone from every part of the world. That's what you want, isn't it? Some foreign enemy to walk in and save us from ourselves?  Just remember that when Chinese soldiers begin landing in our backyard..

I'm not saying that there ISN'T dishonesty, but it's not your call (or wikileaks) to judge the world stage as 100% dishonest, in every case. That's what you're doing.

Have you (or anyone else) ever one thought about how much of Wikleaks is deliberate, bald faced lies aimed at intentional defamation, and not the real truth? 

Most likely NOT, because of your asinine desire to let the world go to hell in a handbag as long as YOU get YOUR personal material\narcotic\spiritual satisfaction for the day.

How much of it is for personal revenge, and not the actual truth? And you're willing to roll with LIES in the name of honesty and security? Dosen't that make YOU just as bad as the individuals you target thru Wikileaks?  Again, you're such a hypocrite. 

 

To be fair, thus far at least it seems like its all legitimate.  Wikileaks attempts to fact check where possible [though with hundreds of thousands of documents, they probably can't get them all checked] and the most telling thing of all is that nobody from Government has claimed they are lies, which is essentially saying 'yup this is true'.

Sure, they're pushing an agenda, but considering that's one of transparency and openness in government it would be pretty ironic if they are hiding some hidden nefarious ulterior motive...

Why would I get mad at you? You're only seeing it the way you see it. You did nothing wrong.  you're good with me.  :cheers:


This is gonna get long, so hold on to your steering wheel.

Les IS being unfair. He's throwing everything I say under the bus to suit his own beliefs that any defense of America is patritoic extremism.   And about his hero ASS-ange:

Has Les EVER thought that Wikileaks is forging some of these document to add lies to the truth to create a bigger snowball that was originally thrown?   

And if he knows this (and continues to support it) then he has no right to criticize the CIA or any other US entity as "liars"  because HE is supporting the lies of Wikileaks in an effort to defame and instigate for his own selfish purposes.

And that is the difference between him and me: I am not speaking out of selfishness.  I don't believe that people should just do whatever they want, or let a system go
to hell in a handbag as long as I get my way for the day. Les apparently DOES.

Oh and a word about  his "Objective Questioning." 

Les is deliberately using questioning to reject any truth around him, and not for purposes of finding the truth.

I've had experience with his kind: I used to have a friend that did that all the time.. "yeah BUT, yeah, BUT"

These people are called "right fighters" because no matter how right the other person is, they deliberately try to force the door open to try to reinforce that THEY are right, and will not stop until they accomplish one of two goals:

A: Either force the other person to drop the issue out of frustration, or B: They have created the illusion that they ARE right, and use that to continue their little rejection of everything around them, to concentrate on their own little world.

And that is a form of Sociopathy because it promotes selfishness and self-centeredness, with antagonization and instigation as tools to provoke anger in a further effort to say they were right about their opponents.

Les really needs to grow up.

So, to this way of thinking,  Les and Wikileaks are right to question authority and the government, but I (and others like myself) are wrong to question their motives of alleged "honesty" and "transparency"? Sorry, dosen't add up.

As to the Government not saying anything, that should NOT be an admission of guilt.

There are thousands of documents, as you said.  The dust needs to settle.  And just because the finish line can't be seen yet, does NOT mean that Les' team has won, OR that they are right about everything they percieve as "the truth." 

I would like to hear Les if Julian Assange and Wikileaks were Right-wing. Then, it would all be "a bunch of lies." 

I suppose, in his efforts to support "honesty" and "transparency" I wonder if Lester remembers that Obama and Congress deliberately filled the Healthcare Law with 2,000-some pages of legal mumbo jumbo?

And, that that mumbo-jumbo was a deliberate attempt to stall for time to interpret the deliberate and well-placed gray areas in the bill, while Harry Reid and crew used that time to push it thru Congress and into "law."

OR, that the bill was unconstitutional in it's forcing upon the American public?

Is Wikileaks saying anything about THAT?  Just wondering...

I did apologize several pages ago. i don't expect the same from you though your calling me a p***y and now a f**kin hypocrite is way worse than anythign I said. You've really made quite an entrence for yourself on this forum sir

They are the same thing.. It's the same country.  If we'd "finished the job" in the 90's  we would have occupied Baghdad in the 90's. The equation was the same, same people same place. Al queda was in existence.  



does anyone know what umaril is saying here? supporting trhe media? you mean supporting free speech? I don't know what you are talking about seriously.


I want to prevent a world war

 
 they are very much my business.


lol you're welcome. but it's the guys in the think tanks in DC and the senate who you should be thanking. they're the ones starting the wars. The only war i'm fighting is on them.


I think everyone shuold know everything.


was there something ELSE about that affair you needed to know?? I think we got the gist of it in the Starr report. The guy lied under oath. This is ancient history and I'm a registered republican fyi.


I doubt that would happen unless they want to come into posssession of about 14 trillion in debt.


I don't think anyone has made that claim. If they feel they have been lied about they should say so. I don't think there is any speculation that the documents aren't genuine is there?


??

at any rate regarding this topic. what can Europe do but have more children? They can adjust their immigation policies and make immigration to their country from non western, potentially non capitalist people less attractive by offering less in welfare benefits but at the end of the day their population is dying out because they aren't reproducing enough for replacement.

Just a reminder that you're not the only one on this board who can be a real SOB when he has to.  Don't expect it from me? Don't do it again then. Do it, and expect it. That's your two choices. Pick one or the other.




Al Qaeda was in existence? Oh so it this to say that Al Qaeda DOES have ties to Iraq? Oh but noone belived that before, why believe it now?  Now you support the second invasion and legitimize Al Qaeda's role in Iraq?   Uh huh...explain.




You know damn well. Again, good try.


I want to prevent a world war


 
Oh, and you are...?



Oh yes, again calling America and the CIA on alleged lies while taking everything Assange says as truth.  Again, thank you for your hypocrisy.

America started the wars? Apprently WE gave N. Vietnam and N. Korea and the Middle East all those AK-47's and Soviet supplied hardware?  Good one. You're really on a roll, Les.  So we have no right to fight Communist aggression at all?

Oh and don't forget it was a DEMOCRAT who got us into Vietnam (Kennedy) and 2 Republican presidents that got stuck with HIS mess. And it was a DEMOCRAT (Bill Clinton) who made enemies out of former Bosnian Serb allies when he bombed Yugoslavian Kosovo, a country where we had NO STAKE OR BUSINESS AT ALL.

Want to talk about useless wars now?  What does your buddy ASS-ange say about THAT?



Oh sure, that's why you're trying to dismiss and invalidate MY questioning of your motives. And that's why the left constantly calls any attempt at Right-Wing questioning as desperation and denial.  Again, good call, Les.



You're a Republican?  Yeah, sure. Believe everything Lefty Assange says in Wiki, then suddenly become a fair-weather, bubble-gum Republican when it suits your need. Not a good time to change horses here, bud. A bit "transparent" in it's own doings, wouldn't you say? You're about as Republican as Hitler was a humanitarian.



And how much do we owe them, in trillions? Think of it as "foreclosure" of an unpaid mortgage..



Oh sure...the media (whom you support) will make sure than ANY and ALL claims to truth about Wiki and it's BS will be promoted, while any proof that they are LYING, will conveniently get buried in the backrooms of the news vaults.  Don't kid me..you yourself said you know how the media works, and you're Ok with it. And if so, you promote your own brand of deceit.

In your little "quest" for truth, be sure to questionthe motives of those whose word
YOU are taking as ultimate gospel. That's all I ever asked, and I don't think that's an unreasonable request.  If you think it's unreasonable, that's your problem.

so if I call you 2 extremely mild pg rated names once then apologize for it, you have the right to call my expletives for the rest of time. got it


no al queda exists to drive out occupiers from foreign nations. so if we'd gone to iraq they would have come over to help the locals drive us out like they ended up doing in the 00's.

Al queda didn't have a "presence" in iraq though. They had one in Afghanistan quite openly.


an american citizen. I'm paying for this, I own it.


yeah exactly. whose point are you trying to make?


couldn't agree more.


take it up with the left. Again, I'm for all questioning.


republican is just a box you check off on a ballot. I am, in fact, a registered republican. I have registered to vote and I am registered with that party. sorry if that offends you in someway.


yeah good point. maybe we should stop trying to spread democracy and start trying to get our own house in order so this doesn't happen.


and again, no one in the whole world besides you is claiming wikileaks forged any documents. THat's not the issue with it.

Oh yes, you're the victim. And that's "me" not my.  And those were your words, not mine.



Oh yes, and their rejection of womens' rights, throwing acid in their faces,  bombing womens' schools, and the arrest of women for simply showing an ankle is the mark of a group that you support?  Do you support abuse of women too?




No you don't own Wikileaks.

And if you continue to deny that they are adding lies to an already volatile mix of deliberate instigation for their own motivated personal revenge (and not the truth itself) all the while you point the finger at your enemies for doing the same, you are NOT an American citizen.

You are an insult to the country for using hypocrisy as your ledge for rationale in this thing, while claiming truth and honesty to be your motives. And for you to attack me and try to discredit me for trying to point this out to you, shows your very being. 

Flick James already said it a few posts back. You are very unfair. And apparently very offended at those who point it out, otherwise you wouldn't continue to twist my words all the while you know damn well what I'm saying.



For your little buddy ASS-ange to criticize that as wrongdoing as well, if you see ALL wars and such as the wrongdoing he is using as his front to throw the world into chaos.



Oh but there's no wrongdoing on Clinton according to Wikileaks, is there? OR that he and Hillary voted FOR Iraq 2?



No, I'm taking it up with YOU and your quest to turn America into a Third World country in your support of what you call right. But like most people, when it affects YOU, you'll be the first to whine, so...



It's not me you have to prove your worth to, you've betrayed yourself. You already proved that you care nothing for the party you represent,that you are just using it for inner theme.

It's all about what you can get and how you can get it. You've shown that. And in doing so, proved your true worth as a true self-serving sociopath.  No skin off my back, ain't my problem. You have to live with it, not me.



Oh sure, and we should allow the Chinese and Russians to be our housekeepers as we allow ourselves to become a paper tiger? So we stop spreading democracy, but allow our enemies to continue their own human rights violations until it reaches our doorstep? 


Oh yes I know, I'm very much the problem.  I'm your problem. I'm your problem because I don't believe you.

I too, am an American, and I'M paying for it too.  So if MY questioning of YOU, and YOUR motives, is somehow offensive to YOU, that's YOUR problem.  I have rights too.

I have to congratulate you Left-Wingers. Knowing that you continually LIE, CHEAT, and have the power to SILENCE your opponents (and never get caught doing it because of all those who protect you) must be a nice thing. 

Maybe Assange sould address that too.

 :bouncegiggle:

You guys are killing me. It's like it's gone from ping-pong game to war-ball to hurling grenades at each other.

Let me know when you break out the RPGs.

let's get back on topic if we can.

Oh, NOTHING I said was intended to justify America's treatment of the Indians!  And you really won't find me trying to do so.  The seizure of the continent from them is one of those ugly, oozing moral sores from America's past that we are still trying to sort out.
That being said, for the most part, North and South were equally guilty of oppression of the Natives - it was the people of Georgia and Alabama who demanded that the government drive the Cherokee off their lands, and the people of New York and Pennsylvania that stole land from the Iriquois and Seneca.   As far as Lincoln goes, his policy towards the Indians was better than that of many Presidents, and worse than a few.  He was, in that regard, not as far ahead of his time as he was on the issue of slavery and citizenship for African Americans.  But, considering his remarkable capacity for personal growth, had he lived, I think that his attitude towards the Indians would have grown and changed for the better as he had more time to deal with Indian affairs.

Now, as far as motivation of emancipation goes, the truth of the matter is this: Lincoln, as President of the United States, had no legal authority to free the slaves in any states, and in fact told the South so in his first inaugural address.  However, once the rebellion began, he did have the authority as commander-in-chief to sieze rebel property and resources in order to limit their ability to make war.  That's why the Emancipation Proclamation applied ONLY to those states in rebellion against the Union at the time it was issued: Lincoln still did not have the constitutional authority to touch slavery in the parts of the Union where armed insurrection was not occurring.  But, the South's willingness to start a war to save slavery, as well as the shift in public opinion towards emancipation, did create a groundswell of support to eliminate slavery once and for all in the only Constitutionally legal way: via the Amendment Process.  Lincoln lived just long enough to see the 13th Amendment ratified.

American history is filled with examples of moments that we have failed to live up to the creeds our founders articulated.  Even our founders themselves did not always live up to the ideas they believed in.  But that does not make those ideas any less worthy of emulation.   And the beauty of it is, for every moment America has failed to live up to its promises, there are many moments that it has done so magnificently, which is why I still believe this is the greatest nation on earth.

"Our government is founded upon the supposition. . . that the white man is not equal to the black man, that slavery is his natural and normal condition. . . Our government is the first in the world to be founded upon this. . . fact"

No slavery, no Civil War.  Pure and simple.  Or, as one of my colleagues put it: "The cause of the Civil War was perhaps not so much slavery itself as the South's irrational desire to hang on to it at all costs . . . "


OK, so if I need to "get real", and if 'All men Were Created Equal' as you say, explain the case of the American Indian.  They were treated WORSE than the slaves..

Apparently we were under the supposition that the Indian was also inferior to the White man? What's yer old Honest Abe have to say about that? What were his and Grant's feelings about "killing the noble savages"?

Maybe now is a good time to quote your good old, reliable history books that say that General Philip Sheridan was quoted as saying that "the only good Indian was a dead Indian'? That's some quote from a guy who recently fought to free others who were felt about the same way...

The Black man was freed to make the American Federal govt. the heroes, then it was back to killing the Red man by the same hand that acted in freedom for the Black man.  Can you deny that? 

A bit hypocritical, perhaps? Oh but land and gold were involved. I see...

Forced onto reservations...forced to cut their hair and attend "Christian" schools who forced them to forget their heritage. Prevented from practicing their religious customs and languages.  Occasionally massacred to make examples out of those who would dare take pride in their heritage.  Denied the ability to own land.   

The Indian agencies gave them sh*t and Shine-ola and made them believe they could live off of it.  Promised them good land for crops and gave them dust and sand, with the saved money used for more important things like whiskey and whores at the local bar..

Oh and who was it that turned the Indian into alcoholics, all the while the same behavior was seen as culturally acceptable by those of other White Anglo-Saxon ethnicities?

Did the Black man have to suffer these indignities after the Civil War? No, the Black man walked free after the Civil War.

The Indian became nothing more than cannon fodder because the Settlers wanted their land, with their rejection of Anglo-Saxon Christianity as their excuse to remove them of that land. "Manifest Destiny" as it were?

Were 46 treaties broken with the Blacks? No, but they were with the Cherokee. Oh and let's not mention the Trail Of Tears and Washeeta River (one of many previous high scores by those who previously fought for the freedom of ALL men.)

What does history say about THIS?   I'm not mad at you, but I wonder what your feelings as a historian are about that, given history promotes the victor and smites the vanquished..

See my reply above on that issue, Umaril - think you double posted, or else took your previous post and added a few comments.

To recap:
I don't justify or admire the 19th Century White man's treatment of the Native Americans.

In an earlier thread I refered to a quote from F. Scott Fitzgerald, one of my all-time favorites:

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."

I think that post, indiana, exemplifies the spirit of that quote. We may butt heads on matters of religious history, but this post was well done.

Yeah I did re-post.

I corrected some spelling typos. God forbid I mis-spell then that'll be used against me too.

I know you don't agree with the Indian issue.  You're an OK guy.

But apparently some people DO agree with mistreatment. 

In an earlier post, Lester praises Al Qaeda as a "force to drive others out of their countries" but says nothing of their mistreatment of women.

I guess that's a small price to pay for Al Qaeda's rock star status with Les and all their fanboys in Liberal La La Land?   Add potential mysoginist to Les' list.

You're never going to persuade Lester to agree with you when it comes to foreign policy - he is strictly an America first, isolationist thinker.  He has a good deal in common with the Republican party of the 1930's in that regard.  Of course, I think they were wrong too! LOL

However, he is NOT a Liberal.  He despises all government overreaches and expansions of power.

Personally, I say abolish the Congress and the Constitution and make me supreme emperor of the U.S.  I could get things fixed up in a jiffy!

Now . . . . what were we talking about?

So let me get Lester straight...we should abolish our Secret Service (our first line of defense) because of a few sh#t deals?  Does Lester think OTHER countries should do the same with theirs, or just America?  And does he see other countries as inherently evil, or just America?

And in his desire to pin something on American govt. he overlooks the fact that Wikileaks could easily start a war between one or more countries as they throw gas on something that was unfounded to begin with?  Are you going to tell me that ALL of Wikileaks is true?

Is he (or you for that matter) willing to risk the possible start of WW3 because of someone's deliberate lies?  Is this level of desire for truth worth the potential consequences, especially if it uses it's own version of the truth to tell a lie?

Have they thought that many more innocent people are going to get smeared from the implications of those who care neither for truth or lie as long as they get their desired effect?  There ARE other things to consider.

Are you or anyone going to tell me that Wikileaks is being totally honest?  I see, he can question, but I or anyone else can't?  If Les were so concerned about America he'd realize both parties have the right to question motives, not just he and his rapist friend Assange.

This thread has also degenerated into a bunch of name calling.  Which is a shame, because there was quite a bit of thoughtful and respectful discussion by most everyone involved.  Locked.