It's just about having a mindset that is less invasive. People tend to get along better with each other when no one is trying to coerce or proselytize the other.lavadisk wrote:
Oh, yeah, I do agree that all the annoying old people who try and feck with other things that they dont agree on are stupid and just use their religion as an excuse. Even know that thats an annoying fact of america I dont think that that has anything to do with the war.
I hope so. I really don't know whats going to happen. Nobody dose.Turquoise wrote:
Well, that's an interesting analogy. I agree with it for the most part, but yeah, I don't think we have any other choice but to be somewhat savage to keep these people in line. We'll probably just install yet another puppet in Iraq, and then leave. Hopefully, we'll keep the new guy on a shorter leash.lavadisk wrote:
Oh yeah, just by knowing about them you can see what a totally theist society works out as. I think that whats happening now is kind of what the Natives and puritans were fighting over.
Both sides had strong views and they conflicted. We are on their soil but were not so incompitant as the puritans were.. Its kind of the other way around. We are the "savages" in their eyes and they are trying to get rid of us any way they can even if we be friendly to them. (not going to happen)
A well trained puppet would be good, but we'll probably keep pushing this democracy thing. The problem with giving democracy to poor muslims is that they elect dictators and theocrats.Turquoise wrote:
We'll probably just install yet another puppet in Iraq, and then leave. Hopefully, we'll keep the new guy on a shorter leash.
Theocrats especially... In sort of a sick way, we need a pro-American dictator in Iraq right about now. He'd have to be secular, though. Otherwise, wahhabism would still grow in Iraq.Reciprocity wrote:
A well trained puppet would be good, but we'll probably keep pushing this democracy thing. The problem with giving democracy to poor muslims is that they elect dictators and theocrats.Turquoise wrote:
We'll probably just install yet another puppet in Iraq, and then leave. Hopefully, we'll keep the new guy on a shorter leash.
Did you see some of the elections their? their was one guy who looked like the perfect new president(?). He was cool with the islams and used their religion as a main trust earning point. And the most important thing he did is know that "the sake of the holy land depended on the election."Turquoise wrote:
Theocrats especially... In sort of a sick way, we need a pro-American dictator in Iraq right about now. He'd have to be secular, though. Otherwise, wahhabism would still grow in Iraq.Reciprocity wrote:
A well trained puppet would be good, but we'll probably keep pushing this democracy thing. The problem with giving democracy to poor muslims is that they elect dictators and theocrats.Turquoise wrote:
We'll probably just install yet another puppet in Iraq, and then leave. Hopefully, we'll keep the new guy on a shorter leash.
But then they killed some of his family put a jihad on his head and blew up some houses on his block. It's a really hard issue right now. These democratic elections....
This is something new? As far as I know, they have wanted to "Bring down the west" since Reagen was in office.
Jihadist have wanted to kill me as long as I have been born. Same shit different day. Doesn't bother me any, or change how I live my life.
Your just another fear monger. Try to be original, we got enough of those.
Jihadist have wanted to kill me as long as I have been born. Same shit different day. Doesn't bother me any, or change how I live my life.
Your just another fear monger. Try to be original, we got enough of those.
Last edited by Stealth42o (2006-11-01 21:08:04)
I think I know who you're talking about. I can't remember his name though...lavadisk wrote:
Did you see some of the elections their? their was one guy who looked like the perfect new president(?). He was cool with the islams and used their religion as a main trust earning point. And the most important thing he did is know that "the sake of the holy land depended on the election."Turquoise wrote:
Theocrats especially... In sort of a sick way, we need a pro-American dictator in Iraq right about now. He'd have to be secular, though. Otherwise, wahhabism would still grow in Iraq.Reciprocity wrote:
A well trained puppet would be good, but we'll probably keep pushing this democracy thing. The problem with giving democracy to poor muslims is that they elect dictators and theocrats.
But then they killed some of his family put a jihad on his head and blew up some houses on his block. It's a really hard issue right now. These democratic elections....
But yeah, democracy isn't worth much when there is little order maintained in a country. People can't be expected to vote rationally while in a state of fear. Admittedly, this seems to be the case with America to a lesser extent.
To an extent, yeah... Iran certainly didn't like us while Reagan was president.Stealth42o wrote:
This is something new? As far as I know, they have wanted to "Bring down the west" since Reagen was in office.
Same shit different day.
Most of the anti-West sentiment came about after the creation of Israel. While I side with Israel on most things, I'd have moved the Jews to Wyoming if I could go back in time.
There could have been a beautiful, peaceful, and prosperous community for the Jews over in Wyoming, and no one would try and kill them there. Meanwhile, the Middle East could continue onward in its own dysfunctional way without having to involve us so much.
Of course, without that being a possibility, we're stuck having to play babysitter of the Middle East. Lately, we've had to spank the "baby" repeatedly.
The Bush adminstration, in ratcheting up support for war in Iraq, subtly tried to link the regime in Iraq to terrorism and 9/11 in the media. Tenuous tales of Al Qaeda operatives treated in Baghdad hospitals and the like. They carefully planted the false idea that the Saddam-hit would be a valuable part of the 'global' war on 'terror'. It was the fundamental basis upon which they garnered popular support among Americans for their actions. The fact of the matter was that Saddam posed NO THREAT to the United States of America. The fact Iraq is several thousand miles away from USA should have made you realise that!!lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.jonsimon wrote:
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.lowing wrote:
That would be only because that is the way you need to disect it to try and make an argument. You know exactly what I am saying
Maybe you should have been concentrating on people who make posters like this rather than following mysterious PNAC strategic goals:
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-02 00:56:45)
Saddam hiding his weapons programs from UN inspectors for 10 years was breaking the peace treaty and deemed a threat, and rightfully so. Saddam and his blood thirsty sons were terrorists in their own right.CameronPoe wrote:
The Bush adminstration, in ratcheting up support for war in Iraq, subtly tried to link the regime in Iraq to terrorism and 9/11 in the media. Tenuous tales of Al Qaeda operatives treated in Baghdad hospitals and the like. They carefully planted the false idea that the Saddam-hit would be a valuable part of the 'global' war on 'terror'. It was the fundamental basis upon which they garnered popular support among Americans for their actions. The fact of the matter was that Saddam posed NO THREAT to the United States of America. The fact Iraq is several thousand miles away from USA should have made you realise that!!lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.jonsimon wrote:
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.
Maybe you should have been concentrating on people who make posters like this rather than following mysterious PNAC strategic goals:
http://www.isop.ucla.edu/asia/nk/nk5.jpg
He had been SUCCESSFULLY contained for 10 years. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Congratulations.lowing wrote:
Saddam hiding his weapons programs from UN inspectors for 10 years was breaking the peace treaty and deemed a threat, and rightfully so. Saddam and his blood thirsty sons were terrorists in their own right.
So your saying that the Mid East wasnt a hot bed before we went into Iraq???CameronPoe wrote:
He had been SUCCESSFULLY contained for 10 years. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Congratulations.lowing wrote:
Saddam hiding his weapons programs from UN inspectors for 10 years was breaking the peace treaty and deemed a threat, and rightfully so. Saddam and his blood thirsty sons were terrorists in their own right.
Granted Saddam was more of a secularist, but none the less ran a terrorist regime to textbook. . .
World's better off without him PERIOD
People seem to keep glossing over the palestinian issue like it's a sidenote. From my understanding isn't that THE reason why there is Jihad? I would really like to see a debate on it by educated historians. Surely either the Israelies are meant to be there, or the palestinians are meant to be there - not both. One of them must have been there first ffs.
hezob allah, n all losers that beleive in "non muslims should die" Well you know what they can S*7% my %^&*! thats all i can say!
I'd be surprised if we made it to "2142".Hurricane wrote:
I really hope the events of BF2142 come true. Then all that will be left are some places in Europe and North Africa, with only soldiers from the EU and soldiers from the "PAC". No more islamic extremists. No more idiots. No more noobs.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Since when does Iraq consitute the whole of the 'middle east'. I said Iraq wasn't a hot bed. I don't know where you got the 'middle east' assumption from.fadedsteve wrote:
So your saying that the Mid East wasnt a hot bed before we went into Iraq???CameronPoe wrote:
He had been SUCCESSFULLY contained for 10 years. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Congratulations.lowing wrote:
Saddam hiding his weapons programs from UN inspectors for 10 years was breaking the peace treaty and deemed a threat, and rightfully so. Saddam and his blood thirsty sons were terrorists in their own right.
Granted Saddam was more of a secularist, but none the less ran a terrorist regime to textbook. . .
World's better off without him PERIOD
You're entitiled to your opinion, Gun.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
youre brainwashedURE_DED wrote:
nonsense
I'm curious, why is the rapture a issue? And bugging people about their personal life brings about more war? I’m confused, could you clarify?Turquoise wrote:
More rational things... Believing in a more adaptable version of religion. In other words, say, following Christianity, but not focusing on this rapture crap, and not bugging people about their personal lives. Basically, people minding their own business more, since we live in a free country.Stingray24 wrote:
The difference between Christianity's thoughts on the end of the world and Islam's are as follows:Turquoise wrote:
This is where we digress. Revelations is just as nutty as the 72 virgins bullshit that the Islamists believe in. Both the West and the rest of the world need to wake up and realize that a lot of religion is bullshit. It's much of the source of this entire terror conflict. When people start believing in more rational things, there will be less war....
Christians look forward to the return of Christ, but we know we have no power over that at all.
In direct contrast, Muslims believe they can bring about the return of the 12th imam and an era of Islamic "justice" and hasten it by the creating chaos on earth. We all know what that means and Ahmadinejad is in full agreement with the above.
Which is more scary? I'd say the latter. In your opinion, what more rational things will bring about less war?
Personally, I tell people about my faith not to bug them, but because I care. You may have had the experience of someone beating you over the head with Christianity, if so, that's not how it’s supposed to be done. Jesus spread his message with love and by meeting people’s needs and Christians should be doing the same thing. Christians used to have the luxury of minding our own business. A large majority went to church and our society as a whole was much more values based. Now, however, there are numerous groups trying to keep our voice out of the public square exactly because it's rooted in moral values. Times have changed and segments of our society vocally oppose Christian values. As a result, we have to speak up more in defense of the values we believe in. That’s the beauty of our free country, free speech and votes for all.
You'd have native Americans suicide bombing themselves.Turquoise wrote:
[
There could have been a beautiful, peaceful, and prosperous community for the Jews over in Wyoming, and no one would try and kill them there. Meanwhile, the Middle East could continue onward in its own dysfunctional way without having to involve us so much.
i have a strong aversion to religious dogma
Well i must say the video was not that interesting since, well it plays off fear and attempts to place a sense of imminent danger that is lurking in our backyards. While i understand the propaganda being stated by those in the video is overt, that in no way reduces the covert propaganda we see on a daily basis in the U.S. For the most part the west lives in a democratic society where overtly coercive propaganda will undoubtedly fail. So how do you get the people behind your cause? Well since we can't have the president saying death to the Middle East...he will gladly label it as the axis of evil for you. As the name implies they don't have a shred of anything good there. The media in the west, as well as most parts of the world, are used to subdue the masses into believing "their" polarized views.
How do they do it you ask, well if the media choses to report one thing, but disregard information contradicting that report well basically you have the perfect setup for manufactured consent. If the people are not aware of the other side how can they possible present some sort of resistance to what is going on. I encourage anyone to read "Necessary Illusions: thought control in democratic societies" by Noam Chomsky, in this book you will see a classic example how how the media can turn a situation, in this case the aid of Contras, as a good thing.
:side note:
CameronPoe i can see completely where you are coming from, but the majority of people in the states have been already indoctrinated to believe in absolutes, case in point look at Bush's use of words with regards to the enemy.
None the less kudos on trying to put a better view of the situation
Oh and i also must add that the amount of generalizations about the Middle East on most of the post are well frankly halarious. Not all Middle East people are Arab nor Muslim
How do they do it you ask, well if the media choses to report one thing, but disregard information contradicting that report well basically you have the perfect setup for manufactured consent. If the people are not aware of the other side how can they possible present some sort of resistance to what is going on. I encourage anyone to read "Necessary Illusions: thought control in democratic societies" by Noam Chomsky, in this book you will see a classic example how how the media can turn a situation, in this case the aid of Contras, as a good thing.
:side note:
CameronPoe i can see completely where you are coming from, but the majority of people in the states have been already indoctrinated to believe in absolutes, case in point look at Bush's use of words with regards to the enemy.
None the less kudos on trying to put a better view of the situation
Oh and i also must add that the amount of generalizations about the Middle East on most of the post are well frankly halarious. Not all Middle East people are Arab nor Muslim
Last edited by Fen321 (2006-11-02 09:50:47)
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=927423#p927423kebabking wrote:
hezob allah, n all losers that beleive in "non muslims should die" Well you know what they can S*7% my %^&*! thats all i can say!
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.jonsimon wrote:
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.lowing wrote:
That would be only because that is the way you need to disect it to try and make an argument. You know exactly what I am saying
pro-israel propaganda
there was no problem with ISLAM before the creation of ISRAEL
stop the support of ISRAEl and let them fight their religious war alone
there was no problem with ISLAM before the creation of ISRAEL
stop the support of ISRAEl and let them fight their religious war alone
NOT being able to oversee his weapons programs, as directed by the resolutions is hardly "containing" anything.CameronPoe wrote:
He had been SUCCESSFULLY contained for 10 years. Now Iraq is a hotbed of Islamic extremism. Congratulations.lowing wrote:
Saddam hiding his weapons programs from UN inspectors for 10 years was breaking the peace treaty and deemed a threat, and rightfully so. Saddam and his blood thirsty sons were terrorists in their own right.