Agreed... Osama only speaks for extremists and some conservatives in Islam.Fen321 wrote:
Osama doesn't speak for all Muslims....I thought the South Park episode with the NAGGER problem solved this issue.ATG wrote:
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.Turquoise wrote:
Um... that might work. I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.
So Osama is the new islamic prophet? If you are in war with the islamic world, start building concentration camps for the millons of americas who are Muslims.ATG wrote:
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.Turquoise wrote:
Um... that might work. I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.ATG wrote:
Bullshit.
* edit
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
But, Islam tolerates extremist who murder people in Allahs name. They tolerate schools that teach mindless hate.Fen321 wrote:
Osama doesn't speak for all Muslims....I thought the South Park episode with the NAGGER problem solved this issue.ATG wrote:
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.Turquoise wrote:
Um... that might work. I just wanted to clarify that, because if you bomb Mecca, you've effectively declared war on all of the Islamic World.
There are many things I believe Muslim nations are collectively guilty for. They need to deal with their own extremist problem, because by not doing so, tolerating militants going to places like America and committing acts of war is, an act of war.
In a way, I agree, but this same logic could be used to justify Britain attacking America for our past support for IRA terrorism. Many Americans funded the IRA a few decades ago.ATG wrote:
But, Islam tolerates extremist who murder people in Allahs name. They tolerate schools that teach mindless hate.Fen321 wrote:
Osama doesn't speak for all Muslims....I thought the South Park episode with the NAGGER problem solved this issue.ATG wrote:
Osama speaks for them, doesn't he? He declared war on us.
There are many things I believe Muslim nations are collectively guilty for. They need to deal with their own extremist problem, because by not doing so, tolerating militants going to places like America and committing acts of war is, an act of war.
Have you met his new adviser?EVieira wrote:
Bush isn't going to back down before the next election.
What would Leonidas do ?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-12 21:39:28)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Then the question becomes; is it worth picking a fight?Turquoise wrote:
In a way, I agree, but this same logic could be used to justify Britain attacking America for our past support for IRA terrorism. Many Americans funded the IRA a few decades ago.ATG wrote:
But, Islam tolerates extremist who murder people in Allahs name. They tolerate schools that teach mindless hate.Fen321 wrote:
Osama doesn't speak for all Muslims....I thought the South Park episode with the NAGGER problem solved this issue.
There are many things I believe Muslim nations are collectively guilty for. They need to deal with their own extremist problem, because by not doing so, tolerating militants going to places like America and committing acts of war is, an act of war.
It wasn't in Britains best interest to attack us. I can bet there are a few hundred thousand displaced Iraqis who wished OBL had had his thugs stay the hell home.
I'm not pretending to be a war-monger again.
Don't expect me to sit here and swallow Americas stunningingly comphrehensive political defeat in Iraq without saying what I would have done differently.
I might remind you I believe our government is wholly beyond running a war for noble reasons. I have lost all faith in the guys in power, and I speak as if we had good leaders doing the right thing.
Thats why I say bring the boys back home.
I see where your coming from. And yes I'll agree that fundamentalist in the Middle East are a threat and this needs to be addressed, but obviously its going to take some serious finesse to pull this off without destroying two of our closest friends in the region: Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Moderate voices do and have spoken out against the extremist I simply must point out that the vocal minority does over power the silent majority -- if you can equate this with toleration; I suppose then this is where our views diverge.
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
I hear ya, but at the same time, it seems very hypocritical for us to react so self-righteously when we have engaged in terrorism in our own ways. We haven't done anything like 9/11, but we've certainly funded insurgencies before.ATG wrote:
Then the question becomes; is it worth picking a fight?Turquoise wrote:
In a way, I agree, but this same logic could be used to justify Britain attacking America for our past support for IRA terrorism. Many Americans funded the IRA a few decades ago.ATG wrote:
But, Islam tolerates extremist who murder people in Allahs name. They tolerate schools that teach mindless hate.
There are many things I believe Muslim nations are collectively guilty for. They need to deal with their own extremist problem, because by not doing so, tolerating militants going to places like America and committing acts of war is, an act of war.
It wasn't in Britains best interest to attack us. I can bet there are a few hundred thousand displaced Iraqis who wished OBL had had his thugs stay the hell home.
I'm not pretending to be a war-monger again.
Don't expect me to sit here and swallow Americas stunningingly comphrehensive political defeat in Iraq without saying what I would have done differently.
I might remind you I believe our government is wholly beyond running a war for noble reasons. I have lost all faith in the guys in power, and I speak as if we had good leaders doing the right thing.
Thats why I say bring the boys back home.
We need to choose our battles more carefully, and I would argue that Iraq was in no way in our best interests. Now that we've occupied the place anyway, we might as well be practical about it....
I do... the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.Fen321 wrote:
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
Solution?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
+1Turquoise wrote:
We haven't done anything like 9/11, but we've certainly funded insurgencies before.ATG wrote:
Then the question becomes; is it worth picking a fight?Turquoise wrote:
In a way, I agree, but this same logic could be used to justify Britain attacking America for our past support for IRA terrorism. Many Americans funded the IRA a few decades ago.
It wasn't in Britains best interest to attack us. I can bet there are a few hundred thousand displaced Iraqis who wished OBL had had his thugs stay the hell home.
I'm not pretending to be a war-monger again.
Don't expect me to sit here and swallow Americas stunningingly comphrehensive political defeat in Iraq without saying what I would have done differently.
I might remind you I believe our government is wholly beyond running a war for noble reasons. I have lost all faith in the guys in power, and I speak as if we had good leaders doing the right thing.
Thats why I say bring the boys back home.
Now that we've occupied the place anyway, we might as well be practical about it....
I agree with the principle behind this video, but here's something I noticed. Some have said that we need to focus all these efforts on supporting the moderates in Islam against the extremists, but there are people in Africa with even greater needs: basic needs like food, water, and shelter.Kmarion wrote:
Solution?
If we're going to take a more active role in the world, it should begin with Africa, not with the Middle East.
Personally, I'd prefer we just take a less active role and beef up our own security, while "filtering" immigration, and enforcing better border security.
Nice video; I really needed a dose of Rational Muslim.Kmarion wrote:
Solution?
A friend of mine majoring in Economics teacher essentially made that claim. He backed it up though showing the sluggish economy heading towards recession while we continently then plan a war that funnels billions of dollars worth of Arms + stimulating our production. So i suppose it wouldn't be too hard to make that claim. I'm just afraid we would need something more than figures/statistics in order to convince anyone. Perhaps a video tape of Bush and Co. literally stating that they were going to do this...lol perhaps an Alien intervention might peek the interest of the American public.....oh and of course the alien must look exactly like Anna Nicole Smith...now that's fucking news!Turquoise wrote:
I do... the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.Fen321 wrote:
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc fallacy always comes up .
The US is quite capable of doing both. Our private charities do allot of work in Africa as well.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with the principle behind this video, but here's something I noticed. Some have said that we need to focus all these efforts on supporting the moderates in Islam against the extremists, but there are people in Africa with even greater needs: basic needs like food, water, and shelter.Kmarion wrote:
Solution?
[youtbe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4LjfrZoCU[/youtube]
If we're going to take a more active role in the world, it should begin with Africa, not with the Middle East.
Personally, I'd prefer we just take a less active role and beef up our own security, while "filtering" immigration, and enforcing better border security.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You made my eyes cross with that post.Fen321 wrote:
I'm just afraid we would need something more than figures/statistics in order to convince anyone. Perhaps a video tape of Bush and Co. literally stating that they were going to do this...lol perhaps an Alien intervention might peek the interest of the American public.....oh and of course the alien must look exactly like Anna Nicole Smith...now that's fucking news!Turquoise wrote:
I do... the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.Fen321 wrote:
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc fallacy always comes up .
I'm am completely sick and tired of hearing "moderate" muslims say that the extremists are a small fringe and don't represent the true islam. I say, actions speak louder than words. The islam that I, and most Americans know, believes it's gods work to kidnap and decapitate civilians, to practice genocide on fellow muslims, to hide behind children and civilians. Rather than hunt down and eliminate these fringe extremists, islamic governments acquisce, and more often shelter, supply, and train them. Our Pakistani friends are in bed with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is aiding insurgents, and the government we created in Iraq is openly working against the safety of the Coalition forces that protect it.
most moderates might not support or condone the fringe, but they sure as shit tolerate it. It's a lot like the way most Americans feel about torture, we don't accept it or endose it, but deep down we all think it's a necessary evil. that's what islamic extremism is to most moderates, a necessary evil.
sorry for ranting.
most moderates might not support or condone the fringe, but they sure as shit tolerate it. It's a lot like the way most Americans feel about torture, we don't accept it or endose it, but deep down we all think it's a necessary evil. that's what islamic extremism is to most moderates, a necessary evil.
sorry for ranting.
I would argue that the manpower and funds that Iraq uses make it extraordinarily difficult for us to do much of anything about border security.Kmarion wrote:
The US is quite capable of doing both. Our private charities do allot of work in Africa as well.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with the principle behind this video, but here's something I noticed. Some have said that we need to focus all these efforts on supporting the moderates in Islam against the extremists, but there are people in Africa with even greater needs: basic needs like food, water, and shelter.Kmarion wrote:
Solution?
[youtbe]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4LjfrZoCU[/youtube]
If we're going to take a more active role in the world, it should begin with Africa, not with the Middle East.
Personally, I'd prefer we just take a less active role and beef up our own security, while "filtering" immigration, and enforcing better border security.
Ron Paul is the most vocal Congressman about the dollar hegemony argument, and he's Republican (surprisingly). He and Chuck Hagel (another Republican) are some of the most antiwar Congressmen in office. So, it's good to see that even some Republicans are against this war.Fen321 wrote:
A friend of mine majoring in Economics teacher essentially made that claim. He backed it up though showing the sluggish economy heading towards recession while we continently then plan a war that funnels billions of dollars worth of Arms + stimulating our production. So i suppose it wouldn't be too hard to make that claim. I'm just afraid we would need something more than figures/statistics in order to convince anyone. Perhaps a video tape of Bush and Co. literally stating that they were going to do this...lol perhaps an Alien intervention might peek the interest of the American public.....oh and of course the alien must look exactly like Anna Nicole Smith...now that's fucking news!Turquoise wrote:
I do... the military industrial complex and dollar hegemony in the oil trade.Fen321 wrote:
Well going back on topic though -- Iraq -- had very little to do with extremist. Yet, we ended up there after doing so well in Afghanistan why? Who knows... i sure as hell don't know.
Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc fallacy always comes up .
That was contingent upon a withdrawal. I don't know where we got the notion that it takes billions of dollars to support moderate Muslims. (Although for some radical reason we think it is necessary to support Israel). Support can come in many different ways.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that the manpower and funds that Iraq uses make it extraordinarily difficult for us to do much of anything about border security.Kmarion wrote:
The US is quite capable of doing both. Our private charities do allot of work in Africa as well.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with the principle behind this video, but here's something I noticed. Some have said that we need to focus all these efforts on supporting the moderates in Islam against the extremists, but there are people in Africa with even greater needs: basic needs like food, water, and shelter.
If we're going to take a more active role in the world, it should begin with Africa, not with the Middle East.
Personally, I'd prefer we just take a less active role and beef up our own security, while "filtering" immigration, and enforcing better border security.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Feel free to do that rant thing more often.Reciprocity wrote:
I'm am completely sick and tired of hearing "moderate" muslims say that the extremists are a small fringe and don't represent the true islam. I say, actions speak louder than words. The islam that I, and most Americans know, believes it's gods work to kidnap and decapitate civilians, to practice genocide on fellow muslims, to hide behind children and civilians. Rather than hunt down and eliminate these fringe extremists, islamic governments acquisce, and more often shelter, supply, and train them. Our Pakistani friends are in bed with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is aiding insurgents, and the government we created in Iraq is openly working against the safety of the Coalition forces that protect it.
most moderates might not support or condone the fringe, but they sure as shit tolerate it. It's a lot like the way most Americans feel about torture, we don't accept it or endose it, but deep down we all think it's a necessary evil. that's what islamic extremism is to most moderates, a necessary evil.
sorry for ranting.
Very true. We need to cut off government funding to Israel NOW. Don't expect PNAC or AIPAC to allow Bush to do that though. As long as both of those lobbies hold a shitload of influence in our government, we'll continue to fund Israel. Lieberman is also part of the problem.Kmarion wrote:
That was contingent upon a withdrawal. I don't know where we got the notion that it takes billions of dollars to support moderate Muslims. (Although for some radical reason we think it is necessary to support Israel). Support can come in many different ways.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that the manpower and funds that Iraq uses make it extraordinarily difficult for us to do much of anything about border security.Kmarion wrote:
The US is quite capable of doing both. Our private charities do allot of work in Africa as well.
Nevertheless, I would agree that there are multiple ways to support moderate Muslims, but a lot of the reason for extremism is connected to poverty that is a direct result of Middle Eastern governments that we support.
I wait for the inevitable islamophobia thread.ATG wrote:
Feel free to do that rant thing more often.Reciprocity wrote:
I'm am completely sick and tired of hearing "moderate" muslims say that the extremists are a small fringe and don't represent the true islam. I say, actions speak louder than words. The islam that I, and most Americans know, believes it's gods work to kidnap and decapitate civilians, to practice genocide on fellow muslims, to hide behind children and civilians. Rather than hunt down and eliminate these fringe extremists, islamic governments acquisce, and more often shelter, supply, and train them. Our Pakistani friends are in bed with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Saudi Arabia is aiding insurgents, and the government we created in Iraq is openly working against the safety of the Coalition forces that protect it.
most moderates might not support or condone the fringe, but they sure as shit tolerate it. It's a lot like the way most Americans feel about torture, we don't accept it or endose it, but deep down we all think it's a necessary evil. that's what islamic extremism is to most moderates, a necessary evil.
sorry for ranting.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Indeed but poverty is not fixed with cash, it is through empowerment and education. (Long term at least)Turquoise wrote:
Very true. We need to cut off government funding to Israel NOW. Don't expect PNAC or AIPAC to allow Bush to do that though. As long as both of those lobbies hold a shitload of influence in our government, we'll continue to fund Israel. Lieberman is also part of the problem.Kmarion wrote:
That was contingent upon a withdrawal. I don't know where we got the notion that it takes billions of dollars to support moderate Muslims. (Although for some radical reason we think it is necessary to support Israel). Support can come in many different ways.Turquoise wrote:
I would argue that the manpower and funds that Iraq uses make it extraordinarily difficult for us to do much of anything about border security.
Nevertheless, I would agree that there are multiple ways to support moderate Muslims, but a lot of the reason for extremism is connected to poverty that is a direct result of Middle Eastern governments that we support.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yeah -- it helps release that needless stress.
For instance is this a Moderate or an Extremist Fundamentalist(redundant eh?).....?
Both sides using the same logic to justify their fractured view of a belief. A pity really.
P.S.
Its a Moderate from the video above
For instance is this a Moderate or an Extremist Fundamentalist(redundant eh?).....?
Both sides using the same logic to justify their fractured view of a belief. A pity really.
P.S.
Its a Moderate from the video above
Last edited by Fen321 (2007-04-12 22:20:11)