You're doing it again bubbaloBubbalo wrote:
So, the only people who travel on airlines are Arabs and 80 yr old grandmothers?lowing wrote:
It would be impractical and seemingly un necessary, since 80 year old grandmothers have not been much of a threat to date.
If you deny that environment is a factor then I can't continue this conversation with you. There has to be somewhat even ground for discussion and there just wouldn't be any.kr@cker wrote:
They're just fucking lazy, it's easier to destroy someone else's house and bring them down to your level than it is to build your own.
Last edited by mpsmith (2006-07-08 21:24:52)
But of course, it is everyone else's fault that they are mass murderers hell bent on destroying or converting the western civilization, all in the name of Allah. I bet if we apologize for being free and Christians they might leave us alone and let us live. I am sure there are a few liberals in this forum who would die if they weren't first in line to do so. "peace at any price " after all.mpsmith wrote:
I just wanted to point out that countless terrorist attacks were prevented prior to the PATRIOT act. Really the only difference between now and then is that 9/11 got our attention whereas a few embassy bombings in other countries and a semi-failed attempt at blowing up the WTC didn't.
And militant Islamicism didn't start in the '90s. The Middle East has been hot for quite some time (and I do place a large part of the blame on Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and later the US).
Are you actually trying to justify their actions??mpsmith wrote:
If you deny that environment is a factor then I can't continue this conversation with you. There has to be somewhat even ground for discussion and there just wouldn't be any.kr@cker wrote:
They're just fucking lazy, it's easier to destroy someone else's house and bring them down to your level than it is to build your own.
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-08 21:30:37)
You're completely taking what I'm saying out of context. I was pointing out that a large part of the blame does lie on the western exploitation of the area in centuries past. Movements such as Islamicism don't occur in places that are economically and socially successful. Much of the Middle East's economic problems are results of western manipulation/influence.
One of Islamicism's major claims is that Islam is the only true way of life (that's actually their only major claim), including government, but they point to the failure of so-called westernized Middle Eastern governments (i.e. Egypt under Nasser) as the failure of western culture as a whole. I would posit that it wasn't western culture per se that failed, but governments set up and controlled by forces from the outside that set them up for failure.
One of Islamicism's major claims is that Islam is the only true way of life (that's actually their only major claim), including government, but they point to the failure of so-called westernized Middle Eastern governments (i.e. Egypt under Nasser) as the failure of western culture as a whole. I would posit that it wasn't western culture per se that failed, but governments set up and controlled by forces from the outside that set them up for failure.
I'm not trying to justify their actions. However, I know I'd be a very different person today if I'd been raised as a poor black male in the Mississippi delta. Or more in context, a poor Arabic male in the 1950s-'70s.lowing wrote:
Are you actually trying to justify their actions??mpsmith wrote:
If you deny that environment is a factor then I can't continue this conversation with you. There has to be somewhat even ground for discussion and there just wouldn't be any.kr@cker wrote:
They're just fucking lazy, it's easier to destroy someone else's house and bring them down to your level than it is to build your own.
[edit] For the record, I'm 100% behind taking off the gloves with regards to terrorists. Torture, whatever- I don't care. Do what needs to be done. However, the point of my initial comment was to emphasize that this kind of thing didnt "just happen," and that we need to be careful about what we do internationally because sometimes things come back to bite us.
Last edited by mpsmith (2006-07-08 21:41:39)
Doing what? You are trying to characterise non-Arabs as 80yr old grandmothers, I'm pointing out the fallacy of that argument.lowing wrote:
You're doing it again bubbalo
Last I heard, KKK were pro-white.Bubbalo wrote:
Also, whilst KKK is anti-white
Minor detail
it makes sense except.........what was the excuse for all turmoil in the region before they had western civilization to blame?? Their bullshit goes back to the beginning of recorded history. It seems now they have adopted a better excuse to fight and kill.mpsmith wrote:
I'm not trying to justify their actions. However, I know I'd be a very different person today if I'd been raised as a poor black male in the Mississippi delta. Or more in context, a poor Arabic male in the 1950s-'70s.lowing wrote:
Are you actually trying to justify their actions??mpsmith wrote:
If you deny that environment is a factor then I can't continue this conversation with you. There has to be somewhat even ground for discussion and there just wouldn't be any.
[edit] For the record, I'm 100% behind taking off the gloves with regards to terrorists. Torture, whatever- I don't care. Do what needs to be done. However, the point of my initial comment was to emphasize that this kind of thing didnt "just happen," and that we need to be careful about what we do internationally because sometimes things come back to bite us.
No I am not Bubbalo, you know exactly what the spirit of my post was all about.Bubbalo wrote:
Doing what? You are trying to characterise non-Arabs as 80yr old grandmothers, I'm pointing out the fallacy of that argument.lowing wrote:
You're doing it again bubbalo
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-08 22:54:18)
yeah i saw this on the news, the terrorists are lucky it didnt happen because i was born in NJ
would have had to get the old gang together, it would have been all hell for the terrorists then
would have had to get the old gang together, it would have been all hell for the terrorists then
Just out of curiosity, what are you referring to? "Beginning of recorded history." What's that? And what specific instances are you referring to?lowing wrote:
it makes sense except.........what was the excuse for all turmoil in the region before they had western civilization to blame?? Their bullshit goes back to the beginning of recorded history. It seems now they have adopted a better excuse to fight and kill.
I suggested that you could just as easily pat search everyone, not just Arabs, and you responded that that would be unnecessary since 80yr old grandmothers aren't a threat. How is that not calling all non-Arabs 80yr old grandmothers?lowing wrote:
No I am not Bubbalo, you know exactly what the spirit of my post was all about.
Also, to say that Muslims have been waging wars of aggression in a manner worse than Europe since the beginning of recorded history is demonstrably false. Crusades, anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_Eastmpsmith wrote:
Just out of curiosity, what are you referring to? "Beginning of recorded history." What's that? And what specific instances are you referring to?lowing wrote:
it makes sense except.........what was the excuse for all turmoil in the region before they had western civilization to blame?? Their bullshit goes back to the beginning of recorded history. It seems now they have adopted a better excuse to fight and kill.
I found this article if you wanna read it. I learned somethings just skimming it, and then I found it interesting enough to go back and actually read it. I think it does a good job of explaining the history ( in a nutshell ) of the region and how things lead up to todays world. I read it and did not take it as biased in any one direction but more as a matter of fact, in its presentation of information.
All I am trying to say is this region has been wrapped up in religious and fanatical turmoil forever. Hell, the Bible could be a pretty good history book that supports my opinions.
you are correct, the above link includes the crusades, however, it is the middle east we are talking about now isn't it? It is the middle east that never seems to have had a period of peace in all of history doesn't it?Bubbalo wrote:
I suggested that you could just as easily pat search everyone, not just Arabs, and you responded that that would be unnecessary since 80yr old grandmothers aren't a threat. How is that not calling all non-Arabs 80yr old grandmothers?lowing wrote:
No I am not Bubbalo, you know exactly what the spirit of my post was all about.
I used it as a bit of absurdity to prove a point bubbalo, or do you REALLY REALLY that I am trying to say all non-arabs are 80 yr old grandmothers??
Also, to say that Muslims have been waging wars of aggression in a manner worse than Europe since the beginning of recorded history is demonstrably false. Crusades, anyone?
I think in my opinion what is happening today is a reverse crusade of sorts, the islamic terrorists are out to convert or kill the christian world much like christians did to the muslims back in the 10th or so century. We have just put the terrorist lable on them ( which I agree) instead of calling them "crusaders"...whatcha think?
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-09 05:00:49)
Of course, recorded history begins in China. Besides which, the comparison is foolish: the Middle East would have been settled before Europe.
lol this thread is so funny so many stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about and are basically just repeating the bush administration's talking points about the phony so-called war on terror. You should just give up and lodge yourself permanently up Bush's ass where you will feel warm and safe.
Last edited by JimmyBotswana (2006-07-09 05:05:25)
Ahhhhh, so I guess a thank you for catching these terrorists is not in Bush's future from you huh?? That doesn't surprise me, if you hate Bush I guess it would be hard to swallow your pride and acknowledge ANYTHING good that has come from his leadership, after all His efforts just saves 1,000s of more lives, not counting the previous exposed plots in NY and California etc......JimmyBotswana wrote:
lol this thread is so funny so many stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about and are basically just repeating the bush administration's talking points about the war on terror. You should just give up and lodge yourself permanently up Bush's ass where you will feel warm and safe.
I say this assuming that if Bush is responsible for all the terrible thing in the world, ( hurricanes and global warming and war and such) that he MUST also be responsible for ALLLLLL the good that happens as well., such as catching terrorists before they strike.
When has Europe been at peace?lowing wrote:
you are correct, the above link includes the crusades, however, it is the middle east we are talking about now isn't it? It is the middle east that never seems to have had a period of peace in all of history doesn't it?
I'd agree with that. So how can you condemn them for treating others as they were treated?lowing wrote:
I think in my opinion what is happening today is a reverse crusade of sorts, the islamic terrorists are out to convert or kill the christian world much like christians did to the muslims back in the 10th or so century. We have just put the terrorist lable on them ( which I agree) instead of calling them "crusaders"...whatcha think?
Sometimes? You seem to forget that in the Technology Age that secrets don't last long anymore. Even in countries like Iraq where they can barely keep the power on.mpsmith wrote:
I'm not trying to justify their actions. However, I know I'd be a very different person today if I'd been raised as a poor black male in the Mississippi delta. Or more in context, a poor Arabic male in the 1950s-'70s.lowing wrote:
Are you actually trying to justify their actions??mpsmith wrote:
If you deny that environment is a factor then I can't continue this conversation with you. There has to be somewhat even ground for discussion and there just wouldn't be any.
[edit] For the record, I'm 100% behind taking off the gloves with regards to terrorists. Torture, whatever- I don't care. Do what needs to be done. However, the point of my initial comment was to emphasize that this kind of thing didnt "just happen," and that we need to be careful about what we do internationally because sometimes things come back to bite us.
I can condemn their actions today, and I can say the same thing about the crusades, no difference. in todays thinking, neither can be justified.Bubbalo wrote:
When has Europe been at peace?lowing wrote:
you are correct, the above link includes the crusades, however, it is the middle east we are talking about now isn't it? It is the middle east that never seems to have had a period of peace in all of history doesn't it?
rarely, but the point I am making is, the turmoil in the middle east is hardly the result of much outside influence since they have been at it since biblical times. If they didn't have Israel to blame on everything it would be something else.
I'd agree with that. So how can you condemn them for treating others as they were treated?lowing wrote:
I think in my opinion what is happening today is a reverse crusade of sorts, the islamic terrorists are out to convert or kill the christian world much like christians did to the muslims back in the 10th or so century. We have just put the terrorist label on them ( which I agree) instead of calling them "crusaders"...whatcha think?
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-09 08:15:14)
I don't think Bush has done anything special to fight terrorism. I'm pretty sure the same things would be happening no matter who was/is president. Of course we can't really know that with certainty at this point. Or ever, really.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhh, so I guess a thank you for catching these terrorists is not in Bush's future from you huh?? That doesn't surprise me, if you hate Bush I guess it would be hard to swallow your pride and acknowledge ANYTHING good that has come from his leadership, after all His efforts just saves 1,000s of more lives, not counting the previous exposed plots in NY and California etc......JimmyBotswana wrote:
lol this thread is so funny so many stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about and are basically just repeating the bush administration's talking points about the war on terror. You should just give up and lodge yourself permanently up Bush's ass where you will feel warm and safe.
I say this assuming that if Bush is responsible for all the terrible thing in the world, ( hurricanes and global warming and war and such) that he MUST also be responsible for ALLLLLL the good that happens as well., such as catching terrorists before they strike.
As for Middle Eastern history, I'm quite familiar with it. I think that the region wasn't much different from any other place in the world, but I think that began to change in the 19th century with European interest. The entire world has been at war with itself for recorded history- not just the Middle East. It just happens to manifest itself differently in the Middle East presently.
I am not really sure how you can say Bush has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the foiled terror plots.mpsmith wrote:
I don't think Bush has done anything special to fight terrorism. I'm pretty sure the same things would be happening no matter who was/is president. Of course we can't really know that with certainty at this point. Or ever, really.lowing wrote:
Ahhhhh, so I guess a thank you for catching these terrorists is not in Bush's future from you huh?? That doesn't surprise me, if you hate Bush I guess it would be hard to swallow your pride and acknowledge ANYTHING good that has come from his leadership, after all His efforts just saves 1,000s of more lives, not counting the previous exposed plots in NY and California etc......JimmyBotswana wrote:
lol this thread is so funny so many stupid people who have no idea what they are talking about and are basically just repeating the bush administration's talking points about the war on terror. You should just give up and lodge yourself permanently up Bush's ass where you will feel warm and safe.
I say this assuming that if Bush is responsible for all the terrible thing in the world, ( hurricanes and global warming and war and such) that he MUST also be responsible for ALLLLLL the good that happens as well., such as catching terrorists before they strike.
As for Middle Eastern history, I'm quite familiar with it. I think that the region wasn't much different from any other place in the world, but I think that began to change in the 19th century with European interest. The entire world has been at war with itself for recorded history- not just the Middle East. It just happens to manifest itself differently in the Middle East presently.
We saw all through the 90's,the US and its warship and embassies,get blown to hell under Clinton. As a direct comparison, since 911 and Bush's pro activeness toward combating terrorism, we have not had another attack,and in fact, repelled numerous attempts.
Why on earth is it so hard to give him the credit for this?? If they succeeded in Jersey,the libs would be dancing in the streets celebrating his failure but since the plots have been repelled he gets no credit. A very very transparent view point.
Because terrorism wasn't a primary concern, as I said earlier. It took 9/11 to get our attention. Prior to 9/11 Bush didn't care anything about terrorism and was more concerned with missile defense. 9/11 would have had the same net effect on any presidency.lowing wrote:
I am not really sure how you can say Bush has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the foiled terror plots.
We saw all through the 90's,the US and its warship and embassies,get blown to hell under Clinton. As a direct comparison, since 911 and Bush's pro activeness toward combating terrorism, we have not had another attack,and in fact, repelled numerous attempts.
Why on earth is it so hard to give him the credit for this?? If they succeeded in Jersey,the libs would be dancing in the streets celebrating his failure but since the plots have been repelled he gets no credit. A very very transparent view point.
And as I also said earlier, terrorism isn't a new phenomenon. And it most certainly didn't start in 1993. As far as terrorist attacks against the US, you have to look back to the '70s.
Last edited by mpsmith (2006-07-09 12:35:46)
Ahhhhh i think you are mistaken, Terrorism was no concern of the Clinton administration, AND WE WERE ATTACKED SEVERAL TIMES UNDER HIS TERM IN OFFICE. He did nothing. Bush is doing something.......give him the credit he deserves already.mpsmith wrote:
Because terrorism wasn't a primary concern, as I said earlier. It took 9/11 to get our attention. Prior to 9/11 Bush didn't care anything about terrorism and was more concerned with missile defense. 9/11 would have had the same net effect on any presidency.lowing wrote:
I am not really sure how you can say Bush has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the foiled terror plots.
We saw all through the 90's,the US and its warship and embassies,get blown to hell under Clinton. As a direct comparison, since 911 and Bush's pro activeness toward combating terrorism, we have not had another attack,and in fact, repelled numerous attempts.
Why on earth is it so hard to give him the credit for this?? If they succeeded in Jersey,the libs would be dancing in the streets celebrating his failure but since the plots have been repelled he gets no credit. A very very transparent view point.
And as I also said earlier, terrorism isn't a new phenomenon. And it most certainly didn't start in 1993. As far as terrorist attacks against the US, you have to look back to the '70s.
And what has been done to fix up the injustice of the crusades?lowing wrote:
I can condemn their actions today, and I can say the same thing about the crusades, no difference. in todays thinking, neither can be justified.
Well for openers...NOT blowing New York City comes to mind.Bubbalo wrote:
And what has been done to fix up the injustice of the crusades?lowing wrote:
I can condemn their actions today, and I can say the same thing about the crusades, no difference. in todays thinking, neither can be justified.