Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditFollowing the horrific shootings at the Fort Hood army base in Texas, Connecticut Senator Lieberman pulled a thread from the right-wing blogosphere and called for a congressional inquiry into whether the incident was an act of "terrorism."
Not domestic terrorism, but full-blown terrorism that is comparable to what is seen in the most unstable of warzones.
"This was an attack on America troops," Lieberman chirped on Fox New Sunday. "You've got to see it as if 12 American troops were killed in Afghanistan."
But, wait, U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are fighting a strategically-sophisticated and structurally-coordinated enemy that employs traditional military tactics and terrorist strategies such as suicide bombings in urban areas.
Is Lieberman serious about making a comparison between what happened at Fort Hood and what happens in Kabul?
Not really.
When he's pinned down, Lieberman makes the slightly more precise calim that the Army doctor who killed 13 people and wounded 29 at Fort Hood showed signs of being a "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist."
Never mind that another way of saying "self-radicalized, homegrown terrorist" might be "completely isolated mental-health case."
Never might that, when he started running the "terrorist" line on Fox New Sunday, host Chris Wallace used a sound line of questioning to make it clear that the senator did not have "any evidence so far (from) what you and your staff have heard in briefings that.. he was exchanging communications either in this country or overseas with other Islamic radicals."
Lieberman says he plans to use his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee to launch a congressional investigation into the motives behind what he describes as "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11."
In his calmer moments, Lieberman admits that "it's premature to reach conclusions about what motivated [Major Nidal Malik Hasan]" and acknowledges that "the stress he was under" was a factor.
But, of course, the "homegrown terrorist" line was a headline grabber.
And the senator will not let go.
So be it.
Let's call Joe Lieberman's bluff.
Let's have the Homeland Security Committee hearings.
While the Army and the FBI will conduct both criminal invesigations and serious inquiries into why Major Hasan's breakdown was not adequately noted or addressed by his commanders, congressional oversite of the military is always appropriate.
So have the hearings. But make them real.
There's no need to downplay the fact that Major Hasan was a Muslim, or that he appears to have bought into some of the most extreme -- and broadly rejected -- variants on Islam.
There's nothing wrong with asking precise, detailed questions that offer as much explanation and detail as can be accumulated. There is no point in being politically correct -- or in being politically incorrect. Embrace transparency and facts. Bring in experts and ask questions.
Ask all the questions.
What was the bigger factor motivating Major Hasan: stress or religion?
Was Major Hasan a cold, calculating Islamic extremist or a deeply troubled man who was about to be dispatched to a warzone (Afghanistan) on a mission that associates and family members said was his "worst nightmare"?
Was the stress Major Hasan was under the sort that might lead an otherwise responsible individual to get lost in a swirl of religious ranting and fundamentalist fantasy?
Could such stress lead other individuals to embrace fundamentalisms, be they Muslim, Jewish or Christian?
Might it be a good idea to strengthen the wall of separation between church and state in what is supposed to be a secular fighting force?
And don't hestitate to ask questions about Muslims in the military?
Was Major Hasan a typical American Muslim? or an outlier far removed from the mainstream values and practices of a religion that has been practiced in the United States since the founding of the republic?
Was Major Hasan typical in any way of the thousands of Muslims who currently serve in the U.S. military?
Isn't it true that the overwhelming majority of Muslim soldiers serve with distinction and that, overall, Muslim soldiers -- like their Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu comrades -- have historically been seen as less likely to get involved with fights and violence on military bases?
Isn't it true that Muslim soldiers are seen by military commanders as essential players in a diverse Army that does not merely reflect the whole of America but that presents the best face of America in a world where it is vital to assure that this country's military missions are not dismissed as the "crusades" of a western nation that does not understand Islam or Islamic states?
Was Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey right when he warned against actions that could "heighten the backlash" against Muslims in the military and argued that Muslim soldiers provide diversity "gives us ALL strength"?
Was General Casey even more right when he declared after the shootings, and after he had reviewed detailed reports about Major Hasan's background, motivations and actions, that: "As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well"?
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
According to James Taranto of the WSJ, as a matter of simple definitions, this was not terrorism.
Terrorism targets civilians. To the extent this targeted military personell, it would appropriately be described as guerilla warfare.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 09:58am
From the public reports I've seen, I would speculate that he was motiviated by etremist religious beliefs.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 10:01am
I would rather listen to an american general rather than to a zionist jack ass who cares more about israel than the USA.lieberman wants to start a witch hunt in the american armed forces and by doing so create a serious headache for the military and the USA in general.this is all being considered and done by him in order to fortify israel,s interference in america,s domestic and foriegn affairs.
The US military apparatus has shown a very professional and proper manner regarding this case and i,m sure that based on their experiences they will be able to sort out this criminal case.
Posted by excalibur999 at 11/10/2009 @ 10:11am
Multifactorial. Identification with brutalized Muslims and their anger being part. No babe in his life also. Straight up 'secondary trauma' being another. Medical model another, physical data is real, emotional data is unscientific. Army ethos another, real men don't cry.
Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 10:12am
what a tangled web that's being woven....
WASHINGTON (REUTERS) - U.S. GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT ARMS SALES ARE ON TRACK TO TOTAL AS MUCH AS $40 BILLION IN FISCAL 2009, UP FROM A BUMPER $36.4 BILLION LAST YEAR, DESPITE A SHARP DROP IN OIL PRICES THAT TYPICALLY TRACKS WITH REDUCED DEMAND, THE PENTAGON'S TOP OFFICIAL FOR SUCH DEALS SAID ON MONDAY.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:22am
He was an Islamic fanatic!
His bloody jihadi action, along with a few prior such Islamic fanatics in uniforms, just may lead to some `friendly fire' deaths of American Muslims in the military engaged in fire fights. Nice Job, Hasan!
Posted by Happy at 11/10/2009 @ 10:26am
While Joe the Schmo is hunting snipe he might want to 'investigate' the systemic failure to identify troubled individuals within their ranks.
- Specialist Robert Marko aka "Black Raptor"
- Sexual assaults of female AirForce cadets and the Tailhook scandal
- The 5 "domestic homicides" at Ft. Bragg
Instead of asking pointless questions about his motivations...let's start asking some questions about why he wasn't stopped before he started pulling triggers.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 10:27am
"Was Major Hasan a cold, calculating Islamic extremist or a deeply troubled man who was about to be dispatched to a warzone (Afghanistan) on a mission that associates and family members said was his "worst nightmare"?"
1. the military appears to share some culpability in not recognizing his mental state - as in other cases like this. this is not the first case of a mentally ill american soldier going postal, after all.
2. traditional islam is enabling to folks in hasan's mental state. from some of the better documentaries i've seen, such a frontline on pbs, i was struck by how many of the jihadists fighting and ready to die, were indeed suffering from severe mental health issues. radical imams seem to view miserable, depressed, hopeless people as prime suicide killer recruiting ground.
at this point i doubt hasan was specifically recruited in the classic sense - but perhaps i'm wrong, and i'm positive the matter is currently being investigated in detail...
but i have little doubt he had contact with someone somewhere, whether at a mosque, within a fellowhip group, and/or online, who encouraged him to act as he did and assured him he would be rewarded in heaven by having 40 virgin love slaves and the love of allah for being evil to infidels...
we shall see...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 10:32am
JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another body was found Friday morning in the Covina, Calif., home that was the site of a Christmas Eve massacre, bringing the death toll to nine, a Los Angeles County coroner's official told the Associated Press today.
Investigators seeking further information about Pardo's motives have begun searching his home in the suburban Los Angeles community of Montrose. (ABC/AP Photo) Police say Bruce Jeffrey Pardo, 45, dressed in a Santa Claus costume, opened fire at a crowded Christmas Eve party before lighting a fire at the home of his former in-laws Wednesday.
The suspected "Santa shooter" took his own life hours later and had booby-trapped his rental car with explosives. Pardo was carrying $10,000 and a plane ticket out of the country when he died, police told ABC News.
SANTA IS A MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:36am
hey ibble,
why don't you go massacre a mosque?
it's the american way, after all.
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:39am
from the NYT
"Relatives and friends said in interviews that Major Hasan had become unhappy with his seven-year commitment to the Army, which had provided him with his medical training. They said he had grown more openly vocal in his opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and had also become more religiously observant, often praying five time a day at a local mosque. He began his rampages, according to witnesses, by bowing his head as if praying and saying, "Allahu akbar" -- "God is Great."
Former classmates in a master's program at a military college said that Major Hasan had expressed anti-American views, justified suicide bombings and contended that Islamic law took precedence over the Constitution, but that their complaints to faculty about his views did not result in any action against Major Hasan."
juxtapose this with the following video from the UK...
http://tinyurl.com/yk9wxsq
its from a uk investigative journalism show called dispatches, "undercover mosque" and involves several of the UK's supossedly moderate and tolerant mosques and shows what is REALLY going on, being said, away from the eyes and ears of infidels...
please watch it. judge for yourself.
if you do watch it and say "but that's england - its not like that here!!!"
i have to say...really? sure about that???
and also remember that the main mosque featured in the dispatches documentary is presented by ketman practicing muslims as moderate and tolerant...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 10:51am
While I appreciate this article in its critique of Lieberman - it's time to move beyond the idea is that this is either religious OR psychological.
Islamism is not a variant of Islam. It is a political movement that has its roots in post-colonial struggle. It is a variant of modern post-colonial politics - to call islamism a variant of Islam gives it too much credit. All wahabis are not islamists. 'Fundamentalist' muslims who pray 5x a day and refuse to participate in banking because of interest are not Islamists.
This man believed there was a war against muslims. He was not foolish for believing this. This is a belief that many people throughout the world have - its supported by american policies - and was further reinforced by his experience - oddly so as a psychiatrist. I'm sure that hearing the uncensored horrors of this war as a psychiatrist didn't help.
He was an idiot for joining the military in the first place. Getting an education by the military will never be free.
Posted by aziza at 11/10/2009 @ 10:52am
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
KILL!!!!
SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:54am
I think when all the facts come out, it will be clear that his deployment to Iraq was "punishment" for speaking out against the war.
Granted, Hasan probably should have kept his mouth shut about his anti-war views, but the Army made a mistake by reacting to these expressions by sending Hasan over the edge with the deployment.
This does NOT excuse Hasan's actions, which clearly were deplorable, but for the Army to now throw its hands up and say they didn't know or that "their" actions played no role in this tragedy is simply dishonest.
Any Muslim in the military who has honest religious reasons for not wanting to fight fellow Muslims should be allowed to serve in non-combat zone capacities (which are numerous) or given an honorable discharge to prevent future occurrences of this sort. This policy would not in any way jeopardize the military mission, as the number of practicing Muslims in the military is negligible.
Posted by Metteyya at 11/10/2009 @ 10:58am
The radical Muslim vs. the radical Jew. Joe Lieberman is about 65,000 times the terrorist that Hasan was. (is.... by my quick accounting of the death tolls.) He just happens to have the media and the military to do his dirty work. We've had our own little Holy-War on US soil ever since this racist slimebag started using every political dirty trick he could muster to drive us to war with every potential enemy of Israel he could think of.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
stupid humans.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:39am | ignore this person | warn this person
do you ever listen? have you looked at the video i post every time we have this discussion?
no - i suspect not. your response is limited to some pithy, silly, feelgood, non sequitur, cutesy bumper sticker slogan, dippy-left love and peace canard that seems an attempt to make me look like a frothy mouthed bigot-second rate david horowitz...
read some about islam and not just half assed outsiders imputing their own decency nor ketman practicing faithful hiding their and their faith's dark urges.
i understand, frosty...you re a very nice person who is quite fortunate to live in a wealthy, safe country, like me, and yes frosty...but unlike me i wonder if you fully appreciate the darker side of the human "soul" or psyche...
i'm quite aware that poverty and hopelessness and all the awful horrible things we blue eyed devils have done for centuries have results, blah blah blah blah...but i'm also quite aware that words have meaning and the words in the koran and hadithas lead naturally to some very ugly stuff too...
i know history, scored in the 99th percentile in social studies years ago when i took the national teacher's exam, have kept abreast since almost daily of world evens and never ceased reading about all sorts of social sciences and histories...furthermore i scrupulously check sources of material i peruse, especially when it agrees too closely with what i suspect.
our biggest difference beyond your passive aggressive refusal to seriously discuss this and readiness to smear all who disagree with your pollyanish impishness as monsters is that yes, i am indeed wicked to the core and therefore not shocked by wickedness, while you, a saint, are...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Lieberman, our latest Joe McCarthy.
Have you no sense of decency, Sen. Lieberman?
Hardly. No shame either.
Posted by sloper at 11/10/2009 @ 11:11am
No shame, no decency and no CONSCIENCE.
Posted by DejaVu at 11/10/2009 @ 11:15am
Well, two points-
1. Seems further proof that Lieberman is going to "retire" in 2012 and hopes his book sales will be helped by the "Anything Ann Coulter Writes I'll Buy" Crowd in 2013.
2. Same type of investigation into Scott Roeder or James von Brunn???
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 11:18am
You foks just cant stick to the point of the article.By all means lets have a look, let΄s start with why HIC memeber Hoekestra was denied info, why we seem to learn more from the UK Press about this than fromthe US MSM., why Pres. Obama is so slow to come to the realization that this was related to his religious beliefs and wants to keep it all nice and PC. FTLOG! Of course he was a few bricks shy of a load, that must be granted based on his actions. These questions remain: was he the "lone gunman" or were there outsiders invloved, why did the PC BS allow this man to even wear the uniform, not only should he been allowed to leave, he should have been booted out.
Posted by WBTravis at 11/10/2009 @ 11:20am
#
grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
KILL!!!!
SQUISH THE TOWELHEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
how can one argue with that?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:20am
Joe Lieberman should have been removed from this very powerful chairmanship when he jumped ship. That said this man has been shooting off his mouth without sufficient information for far too long.
This statement is dangerous because the listeners for the most part on Fox Noise are reactionary and live for these kinds of inflammatory rhetorical statements.
As this man's motivations are further scrutinized it has been revealed that his actions were a solo effort and NOT PART OF ANY TERRORIST PLOT.
Senator Lieberman needs to be much more careful in what and how he says things to the public. It seems to take much less to incite others to retaliate for others tragic actions. We need to decrease such actions not increase the violence.
It is time to grieve as nation and try to gain some understanding of what triggered this man to mass murder his follow soldiers. With this understanding the most strident and harshest of punishments must be imposed on this man for his heinous and murderous act.
Posted by diannesrave at 11/10/2009 @ 11:21am
MR.Lieberman , What is your opinion about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why you keep mum about more than 1.4 million people killed by that wars? They are humans too.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/10/2009 @ 11:25am
Posted by WBTravis at 11/10/2009 @ 11:20am | ignore this person | warn this person
i suspect we are not on the same side of the political fence domestically, but you made some valid, common sense points that unfortunately many on my side of the fence seem utterly oblivious to.
unfortunately many on my side of the fence think any criticism of islam is agreeing with neanderthal righties like horowitz and therefore is wrong and wrong headed...
most unfortunate self conceit, that...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:26am
if there were not some in depth investigation i would be troubled.
there is already an extensive criminal investigation underway, to be sure...
perhaps congressional hearings and investigations are not such a terrible idea...if lieberman is doing nothing more than maccarthyesque grandstanding, i have faith such will be apparent in any public spectacle.
but i assure you...things are said, preached, enabled, inside some american mosques which are indeed treasonous, seditious, and have resulted/are resulting/will result in future acts of violence similar to the fort hood incident...
if i'm wrong i'm wrong, but please...
let's DO debate it and look at it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:32am
Lieberman is not qualified to conduct any hearings on this subject being a supporter of terrorism himself. This guy is about as creepy as they come and should be deported to the state that he truly represents. The senate needs to be fumigated from this one.
Posted by jobbo at 11/10/2009 @ 11:37am
Joe Lieberman can present testimony to show that the Obamanation Pres.'s Cairo and his other apologist speeches addressing Islamist encouraged Major Hasan to commit his islamic terrorist autrocity against unarmed American citizen soldiers!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 11:50am
i detest that traitorous bastard, lieberman and need little convincing he is engaged in some cheezy, cynical, self aggrandizement...
no duh...
but what's the real harm, eh? what's the big threat here? that there will be some public hashing out of discomforting realities which disagree with many people's preconceived ideologies?
or are we more afraid that such will reveal a legitimate threat the implications of which are discomfiting and will unfortunately set off some crazy birchers to screw with moderate muslims who currently take their faith with a grain of salt and work to modernize it?
its an unfortunate catch 22, in that i firmly believe "undercover mosque" like ugliness will indeed be uncovered right here in the US, AND that such will result in jackass nativists doing some awful, horrible things to innocent muslims.
what an ugly mess this samsara is! but sometimes the courses of human events steers us unavoidably into interesting times and nastiness is unavoidable...
and it almost always gets ugly before it gets gruesome...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:52am
It is time to grieve as nation and try to gain some understanding of what triggered this man to mass murder his follow soldiers.
I do not understand why this is any different from any of the other recent mass shootings? did we grieve as a nation then? did we try to gain any understanding then?
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 11:59am
while you, a saint, are...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
seriously pissed off at the stupidity of all this.
and you, an intelligent human in a sea of dumbosity, caught up in "the your book is evil folly" is most disheartening.
look in the mirror before you go chasing shadows.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04pm
I do not understand why this is any different from any of the other recent mass shootings?
HE READ THE QU'RAN!
did we grieve as a nation then?
no, you went shopping. but that's done now, so......
did we try to gain any understanding then?
no, you sold more weapons, sent more soldiers off to war, made an innumerable quantity of violent pieces of "entertainment"......
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:06pm
not unlike certain literalist rightwing christian cults, certain muslim sects are currently working toward politically taking over an american state and instituting sharia...
i seriously doubt their ability to accomplish such, as do i their christian soulmates, but they do exist and control enough wealth and resources to at least lead to some kind of islamo-waco. i suspect these people are being closely watched by the feds, who are hoping to avoid something like that by waiting them out and hoping they are indeed more about bark than bite...
if one wishes to belong to a religion that prescribes death to those who leave it, believes in the subjection of women, the killing of homosexuals, the military conquest of the world, the enslavement of some non-muslims as well as the slaughter of others, rejects secular democracy in favor of totalitarian religious dictatorship...
that's their choice...but when they work to turn their dreams (and my nightmares) to reality on my country's soil...
we have a big problem.
guess what? we have a growing problem...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:06pm
i'm quite aware that poverty and hopelessness and all the awful horrible things we blue eyed devils have done for centuries have results, blah blah blah blah...
speak for yourself.
but i'm also quite aware that words have meaning and the words in the koran and hadithas lead naturally to some very ugly stuff too...
sure thing. people are stupid.
i know history,
nobody "knows" history.
scored in the 99th percentile in social studies years ago when i took the national teacher's exam,
toot! toot!
have kept abreast since almost daily of world evens and never ceased reading about all sorts of social sciences and histories...furthermore i scrupulously check sources of material i peruse, especially when it agrees too closely with what i suspect.
congratulations. hate is still hate.
our biggest difference beyond your passive aggressive refusal to seriously discuss this
you want serious? you've made your bed, now don't be surprised if people are really, really pissed off. old books are just excuses.
and readiness to smear all who disagree with your pollyanish impishness as monsters is that yes, i am indeed wicked to the core and therefore not shocked by wickedness, while you, a saint, are...
look, two generations ago my family fought in trenches. a generation ago they fought on beaches. they've taught me well. i write the way i do because someone's gotta wake up you stupid motherfuckers.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
do you ever listen?
it's my job.
have you looked at the video i post every time we have this discussion?
no. hate is every where. i need no proof.
no - i suspect not.
what, so i can hate, too? no thanks.
your response is limited to some pithy, silly, feelgood, non sequitur, cutesy bumper sticker slogan
a word is worth a thousand drivels.
, dippy-left love and peace
peace? how stupid.
canard
see? even ducks are smarter than humans.
that seems an attempt to make me look like a frothy mouthed bigot-second rate david horowitz...
you said it, not i.
read some about islam
and judaism, and christianity, and hiduism, and and and. books don't kill, people do. step on people long enough and they'll bite back.
and not just half assed outsiders imputing their own decency nor ketman practicing faithful hiding their and their faith's dark urges.
the <i>faith's</i> dark urges? how very profound.
i understand, frosty...you re a very nice person who is quite fortunate to live in a wealthy, safe country, like me, and yes frosty...but unlike me i wonder if you fully appreciate the darker side of the human "soul" or psyche...
oh, no i do. you're showing plenty.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:09am
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:21pm
seriously pissed off at the stupidity of all this.
and you, an intelligent human in a sea of dumbosity, caught up in "the your book is evil folly" is most disheartening.
look in the mirror before you go chasing shadows.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm as seriously pissed off as i allow myself to be by your refusal to seriously discuss.
have you watched "undercover mosque"? have you read the objectionable parts of the koran and hadithas about which i talk?
i really can't tell since all i get from you are bumper sticker slogans, feelgood canards and childish "nyah nyah" style hectoring.
if you believe that the words contained within books and writings which people hold sacred have no influence on their actions i know not what to say!
i agree that poverty and desperation drive desperate people into organizations which give them something to hold onto. i agree that the US made a terrible and stupid mistake by insisting upon relying on a filthy fuel source located largely in the backyards of dangerous barbarians who accept a belief system that by any objective analysis is damned near antithetical to our most cherished ideals and beliefs.
and no, frosty...i do not advocate killing a billion muslims, nor waging "holy" war against them, nor anything else offensive "like as such", as a former miss SC would say...
i do however, advocate nearly complete withdrawal from that sad part of the world, the building of good fences, limiting immigration from those places (except for refugees and apostates whose lives and liberties are endangered by their fanatic neighbors), the building of hordes of REAPERs and EATRs to assure our security without having to resort to attempting to outbreed them, and minding our own..
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:26pm
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 11:50am
Good thing Hasan wasn't saying anything crazy before January 20th, 2009....
or your brilliant theory might not hold water, Rio!
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 12:27pm
merry christmas, ibble.
http://www.daralhayat.com/portalarticlendah/74757
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:30pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well at least you are honest and admit to not even checking out my sources.
proud of your ignorance, congratulations.
you listen? really... to what? only that which meshes with your preconceived notions and beliefs.
how different ARE you from some of the righties here who post? at least some of them are capable of approximating an adult argument and although one hardly ever "wins" regardless of the argument presented, at least i can respect their attempts to back up what they say despite the spurious nature of some of their sources...
but not frosty! frosty swoops down from the great white north with a song of love and happiness in his warm heart and cutesy cut downs for all who dare attempt to argue a point in a post adolescent manner.
when asked to look at a source of information that might lead him to question core beliefs, not unlike those he mocks most impishly...
HE REFUSES TO EVEN LOOK!!!!
intellectual cowardice and p-nut gallery philosophizing do not become you.
now get really mad or simply ignore.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:38pm
The Zionist Lieberman is trying to milk this tragedy to the advantage of the Israeli propaganda. This man is more fundamentalist than Bin Laden when it comes to serving the Israeli interest. An Israeli dog is worth much more to Lieberman than all our soldiers
The Israeli-Firster, Rabbi Lieberman, went to the extreme to get us involved in Iraq because he felt that it was good for Israel. He should stand trial with his mentor George Bush for the ten of thousands of Americans who were killed or wounded in Iraq. Lieberman won't admit that the Iraq war is the root cause of the tragedy at Ft. Hood.
Lieberman ought to investigate The Israeli spy networks in Congress. According to the Ex FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, Congressman Dennis Hastert, The late Zionist Congressman Tom Lantos and others were passing sensitive classified information to Israel for years:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/tag/israel/
Lieberman is much more dangerous to America than Maj. Hasan.
Posted by CripThink at 11/10/2009 @ 12:41pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 12:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
merry xmas to you as well, frosty...
http://tinyurl.com/yk9wxsq
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:43pm
Terrorism targets civilians. To the extent this targeted military personell, it would appropriately be described as guerilla warfare.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 09:58am
It would only be considered guerrilla warfare if Major Hasan was the enemy. Are you saying that Major Hasan of the United States Army is the enemy, or are you just saying that all Muslims in our Armed Forces are the enemy and should therefore be suspect?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:51pm
Since being diverse is of the up most importance, Lets recruit new service members from Yemen. This will certainly strengthen our military.
Posted by gemshews at 11/10/2009 @ 1:03pm
perhaps congressional hearings and investigations are not such a terrible idea...if lieberman is doing nothing more than maccarthyesque grandstanding, i have faith such will be apparent in any public spectacle.
but i assure you...things are said, preached, enabled, inside some american mosques which are indeed treasonous, seditious, and have resulted/are resulting/will result in future acts of violence similar to the fort hood incident...
if i'm wrong i'm wrong, but please...
let's DO debate it and look at it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:32am
I think Congressional hearings are fine; I have no problem with it (except that I think Lieberman IS grandstanding). However, ALL religious speech in the United States (even hateful religious speech) is protected by the First Amendment, and I would hate to see our country slide down the road of saying that a specific religion's speech is somehow "treasonous" or "seditious." That is a VERY slippery slope that I am sure some of our more Christian fundamentalist fans would be more than happy to slide down; as long as it's only the Muslims who have to pay.
There is no solution to the problem of lone gunmen in America. Whether or not Major Hasan had "encouragement" from Muslim groups, or whether he was being watched by the FBI, it doesn't matter. He chose to do what he did for whatever bizarre and screwed up reasons he had; personally, I believe he just snapped. No legislation or Congressional hearings will ever stop a man (or woman for that matter) from snapping and killing people.
We should keep that in mind.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:11pm
How about "They removed me from my chairmanship because they wanted to stop my investigation into..."?
Could make a good threat if anyone tries to force his vote on Healthcare Reform.
Posted by !immutable at 11/10/2009 @ 1:13pm
if one wishes to belong to a religion that prescribes death to those who leave it, believes in the subjection of women, the killing of homosexuals, the military conquest of the world, the enslavement of some non-muslims as well as the slaughter of others, rejects secular democracy in favor of totalitarian religious dictatorship...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:06pm
No offense, but you just described Christianity...and almost every other religion on the face of the planet.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:14pm
Don't be afraid of an investigation John.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:30pm
This man was in the military for an education and to have a job... not unlike many other military personnel.
So, to me, there is a big question that presents itself when you ask whether or not this man was patriotic and concerned with the goals of 'America' in general. I don't believe it is wrong to say that.
He had a comfy job which presented a lot of conflicts to him. Then he was going to be sent to be part of a force whose mission was to kill muslims. Then we became the enemy.
The fog of war indeed.
Posted by ficheye at 11/10/2009 @ 1:33pm
We must be careful not to blame misogyny for the endemic of brutal rapes that has swept the DRC. Sure, it could be a factor, but it could also be tribalism, widespread PTSD, AIDS-cure myths, etc. If misogyny is blamed, it is likely that the evil, anti-male, feminine Congolese blogosphere will use the myth of an anti-feminine "jihad" as propaganda to fuel indiscriminate pogroms against Congolese men.
Instead of demonizing the men who commit these brutal rapes, we should try to understand them. What brought about this behavior? Were they taunted or rejected by women? Were they teased? Did their mothers say hurtful things to them?
Above all, we must remember not to confuse actual commission with actual evil. It is always the Christian middle american and the stinking Jew who are responsible for the majority of evildoing, regardless of actual involvement.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 1:51pm
"Are you saying that Major Hasan of the United States Army is the enemy, or are you just saying that all Muslims in our Armed Forces are the enemy and should therefore be suspect?"-----Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:51pm
DarinTT Two-step Shuffle...aka the "Dodge Dance" in 5...4...3...2..1....
LOL
Posted by Mask at 11/10/2009 @ 1:52pm
Terrorism is not unlike other things: We take out of it what we first put into it: Our own understanding of what it means.
That will never be resolved..."one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"...and we can be sure it will remain unresolved after the Fort Hood tragedy discussions are long gone from the front pages.
But if it is terror of dying or suffering of grievious wounds that is the focus, look no further than the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers who have succumbed to both as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of civilians terrorized when they or their loved ones became the victums of "collateral damage".
Nidal Hassan's part in all this is sadly just a drop in the bucket that encompass the unjust and unnecessary wars that sustain what Colin Powell calls "the terrorist industrial complex".
george walton
Posted by iambiguous at 11/10/2009 @ 1:53pm
It would only be considered guerrilla warfare if Major Hasan was the enemy. Are you saying that Major Hasan of the United States Army is the enemy, or are you just saying that all Muslims in our Armed Forces are the enemy and should therefore be suspect?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:51pm
Well, in the global war on terror (GWOT) the "enemy" are islamic fundamentalists who wage jihad against western countries through murder and violence.
Since this describes Major Hasan, the label, "guerrilla" is apt.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 11:32am
"let's DO debate it and look at it..."
Let's. Would you like to argue that what is going on is mosques in this country is significantly different than what it going on in our black churches, the Reverend Wright being a well-known example? It is so pervasive that anyone familiar with electronic or rap music would have had some examples at hand, e.g., Fight the Power.
Or, what about the Christian Identity movement? Or the Aryans? What about the Nation of Islam - which by most accounts is a divergent sect that should not be confused with mainstream Islam.
What about Dr. George Tiller's assassin? What about the Oklahoma City bombings?
If you looked at the scripture of Christians, many of the same arguments you make, particularly the bans in the Old Testament, would apply to Christians.
Obviously, there is a fanaticism in Islam that lends itself to acts of destruction. But, where your argument falls down and shows that your view is shaped by your historical moment is why you focus on Islam - when the history of Christianity or the Jews, at other periods of history and backed by scripture weren't noticeably different.
In other words, you are employing a double standard.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 1:51pm
Was Timothy McVeigh a Christian middle American? How about Baruch Goldstein in the Cave of the Patriarchs? Or are you conveniently forgetting the analogous examples so there doesn't seem to be any contradictions in your Islamophobia?
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm
You scumbag cowards would have rolled over for and fellated the Nazis had you lived in that time.
We were a more backwards country then. We had fucking apartheid in the South. But most americans realized there was something worse, except for Cockburn and his pals.
Now, we are far more advanced culturally. We are the only Christian nation to intervene on behalf of Muslims being targeted by Christian fascists. Our Marines stopped Charles Taylor's butchery in Liberia, a nation that haS NO "STRATEGIC" value.
Still you must hate your own country first. You must always obfuscate for every totalitarian and murderer.
Why didn't they get this guy out? Are you serious? Because you scumfucks would cry racist, just like you do now, EVEN AFTER it's proven that he was inspired by jihad! It will happen again. Congratulations, you are killing us.
I pray to God to hasten the day that you bitches are no longer protected by the people you hate. The fascists you drool over will tear you scrawny, effete little punks to pieces.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm |
Punk bitch, I have served wih Muslim people, I have risked my ass for Muslim people. I will not accept that label you fucking coward.
Take your obfuscation and... There are more Hassan's than McVeighs at THIS point in our history. Under your logic we couldn't say that racism was more prevalent in the South in 1964.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:18pm
the book made me do it!!!!!!!!
my lord, there are 15,000 murders in the u.s. every year.
why not a day of mourning for each of them?
of course there are asshole muslims.
there are assholes of every creed.
people don't need books to be assholes.
seems like gang is on a holy war......
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 2:20pm
gang,
the fascists you need to worry about are the ones who employed you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 2:22pm
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm
Feel better, gangpapist? You want to talk about all the fascist dictators we have supported in our time, such as the Shah of Iran or Saddam Hussein? Of course not because you're the kind of tool that people like Dick Cheney like to send off to do their fighting and dying for them while they laugh all the way to the bank.
Hey, I joined the military just in time to see Iraq v. 1.0. The difference between you and me is that I've had the time to learn from my mistake. Although, you must have learned something because I notice you don't talk about still being in the military. It took me a 1 or 2 years to get my head back on straight. Hopefully, the same will happen for you.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 2:24pm
On one of the other "Islamophobe" blogs, a poster who claimed to be Muslim/Arab extolled the patriotism of her veteran father. I was the only poster who supported her. The lefty hater attacked her and denigrated her family.
Fuck you punk. You're a coward.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:18pm
So have I, tough guy. You aren't the only one to serve in the military. So, toughen up a bit and stop being such a whiny douchebag.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 2:28pm
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:13pm
Lovely, if you run out of things to say, just spew anger and insults.
"You scumbag cowards would have rolled over for and fellated the Nazis had you lived in that time."
And you would be Hitler with the muslims as your jews.
Posted by Extraneous at 11/10/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:24pm
I fail to see the relevance. Are you trying to tell us that you really love Muslims, as individuals? I have heard that kind of thinking used to have a lot of currency in the South. Perhaps you should move down there.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 2:30pm
Well, in the global war on terror (GWOT) the "enemy" are islamic fundamentalists who wage jihad against western countries through murder and violence.
Since this describes Major Hasan, the label, "guerrilla" is apt.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm
So, Major Hasan is a guerrilla fighter for al qaeda? That's essentially what you're saying, you know that, right? You are now putting Muslim soldiers who freak out on the same level as OBL?
BTW, a global war on a tactic ("terrorism") is stupid (I've been saying that now for at least eight years). You cannot fight a war against a tactic.
Terrorism is used everyday around the world that has nothing to do with Islamic fundamentalists. Terrorism is used by fundamentalist Christians in this country every time they blow up an abortion clinic...should we start a global war with them too? You seem to be advocating that, since I know you believe in equality for all terrorists. I mean, after all, a terrorist is a terrorist regardless of what religion they fight for, right?
The GWOT (and what a term that is) is a complete joke which has allowed the Pentagon to continue using American tax dollars to fund their economy crushing so called defense industry. Even the soldiers haven't benefited from all the money they've used to fund these wars.
BTW, have we caught OBL "dead or alive" yet? How's that going, BTW? Other than using 9/11 as a jingoistic political slogan (see "Campaign of Rudy Guiliani for President - 2008" or "George W Bush Campaign - 2004"), has ANYTHING, started under the auspices of the GWOT, actually worked to destroy terrorism in the world, or even decrease radical Islam? Or has it all had the OPPOSITE effect?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 11/10/2009 @ 2:02pm |
A guerilla would know in advance what and who he's fighting for and received orders from say...AQ.
Try "insane jihadi sympathizer" on for size.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 2:42pm
scumbags, cowards, punks, bitches!
Yeah, I'm a tough guy!!!
Posted by gangrapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:45pm
ok - several folks to address here, so let me see if i can respond and sum up in a succinct and comprehensive manner...
good discussion/debate, by the way...
first of all i'm not a christian. i'm a heretical self proclaimed demon trained holy man, whose religious influences include christian science, presbyterianism, roman catholicism, gnostic christianity, zarathushtrianism, and various vedantic traditions, especially buddhism.
in terms of buddhism i adhere mostly to the tibetan doctrine of crazy wisdom, early pali canon style pre-schismatic buddhism and japanese rinzai style zen.
and let me say that indeed all faiths are vulnerable to wicked interpretation and corruption by wicked shaved apes, lay or mumbler...including myself.
guru type religion, for example is extremely vulnerable to delusions of god-like wisdom on the part of guru and disciple. pol pot was a good buddhist, or at least thought himself so...
but neither buddhism, "hinduism", taoism, zoroastrianism, or for that matter, judaism, are proselytizing religions. they all still do proselytize by simply existing, of course, but in none of these faiths is there an imperative to go out and force others to accept them.
with christianity and islam, of course, this is not the case at all. i find both obnoxious in this regard and actually find islam refreshingly honest i the way it urges its followers to disrespect others and harm them, while christianity is often slimily hypocritical and meely-mouthed its urge to wickedness...
but to not understand these differences to assume that all faiths, regardless of their content are just like the western traditions with which one is familiar is itself a sign of ethnocentric ignorance on the part of the westerner pithily assuming all faiths are identical to his.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 2:51pm
religious speech is protected?
sure, but what if an imam or reverend says to his congregation,
"kill the president of the united states and plant bombs to blow heathen infidels to the hell they deserve - GOD THUS PROCLAIMS!"
is that speech protected?
no...
yes we are on a slippery slope here. we live in interesting times. time and again in interesting times our government has resorted to policies about which we debate for centuries after. nothing new but the specifics...
if it comforts some kind of smarmy confidence in your worldview that "all religions are the same and equally depraved" i'm sorry but you are a half cocked ignoramus and know not what you say. believe me, as a reforming half cocked ignoramus, i know of what i speak.
but its just not true. different faiths are different faiths by definition because THEY SAY DIFFERENT THINGS. they therefore appeal to different people, sometimes because they are the only accepted option, sometimes because the person agrees with the imperatives and eschatology of the faith.
and if you, whoever you are, fancy yourself above it all, cannot comprehend how others could REALLY REALLY REALLY believe or follow that which you disparage or find repugnant...
what does that say about you?
i'll not answer that question. its not mine to answer and were i to answer it for you it would ruin any chance for you to answer it yourself...
which is the only answer, of course.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 3:07pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 2:51pm |
Then perhaps, if you've seen 'Jaws', you'd understand what I mean when I say, "We're gonna need a bigger boat" theory.
Agreed on the proselytization. What omnipotent deity would need a mortal marketing department?
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:15pm
Ibble -
Religious speech that is not directly threatening someone or some institution is protected. Yes, even the "kill the infidels" speech of Islam is protected, as is the "kill the heathens" language of Christianity. (There's a whole lot of killing in the Bible, you know...as Larry consistently points out to us.)
I did not say that all religions are equally horrible. Personally I find most organized religions pretty hypocritical because NONE of them actually practice what they preach. If they did, we'd live in a much better world.
Organized religion, in it's many forms, has been the cause of so much death and destruction throughout the world's history. I have nothing against faith; I consider myself a man with faith. But I want nothing to do with organized religion.
Organized religion in America has simply become another lobby for politics. Religious lobbyists go to Washington stating they have X number of believers behind them and therefore such and such policy should be made. We have a department of "Faith Based Initiatives" actually IN the government. I see something wrong with that, don't you?
The fathers were right when they insisted on the separation of church and state. The church simply cannot be allowed to interfere with matters of state or they become confused; like on abortion or gay marriage. They are civil matters, yet here we are discussing religious views about civil matters.
Why can't more people simply compartmentalize their religion and make it a truly personal issue? My relationship with god is mine and no one elses. I don't want to be saved by your god (or Larry's, or anybody's) because my god and I are on fine terms.
Your postings show a definite anti-Islamic bias. All I am saying is that Islam is not the only problem.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:31pm
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol...ok, yes, i think i see...
i also loved benchly's "the island", or at least the film version of it, when ray sharkey manned the .50 caliber on the coast guard cutter and sent the horrible pirates to hell...
not sure how that relates to anything, but...it was cool.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 3:44pm
scumbags, cowards, punks, bitches!
Yeah, I'm a tough guy!!!
Posted by gangrapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:45pm
gangrapist,
Excuse you asshole; you are longing for attention.
you are the Rambo who dealt with Zarqawi; then went on to bestow your mercy on those grateful Iraqis whom you liberated.
Ask yourself, asshole, what fucken business a bozo like you has in Iraq? You are the brain-washed who single-handedly tripled the value of Halliburton and Chevron stocks.
The Million Iraqi dead and four million refugees should thank you for your charitable deeds in Iraq. The depleted uranium you left in Iraq is laying the Iraqi kids to waste; they have the highest rate of leukemia in the world.
Hey Punk, what got you up so early, have you run out of booze last night?
Posted by CripThink at 11/10/2009 @ 3:44pm
A good congressional investigation is an excellent idea. Till then, we all might do well to remember that we DON'T KNOW whether Hasan acted primarilly from stress or out of religous or political motivations, or whether he acted alone, was inspired by, or was a part of an organization or network. There are a lot of assumptions flying around based on very sketchy information.
Posted by cka2nd at 11/10/2009 @ 3:50pm
Yeah, I'm a scumbag, coward, punk, bitch Posted by gangrapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
of course you are, Mary
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:51pm
Yeah, I'm a scumbag, coward, punk, bitch Posted by gangrapist at 11/10/2009 @ 2:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
of course you are, Mary
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:51pm
Your postings show a definite anti-Islamic bias. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no, hateful rants. don't give him a platform.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:54pm
It would only be considered guerrilla warfare if Major Hasan was the enemy. Are you saying that Major Hasan of the United States Army is the enemy, or are you just saying that all Muslims in our Armed Forces are the enemy and should therefore be suspect?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 12:51pm
I consider Major Hasan to be an Islamic jihadist, an enemy of the US, and a traitor.
I look forward to his trial and justice being administered.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:56pm
if one wishes to belong to a religion that prescribes death to those who leave it, believes in the subjection of women, the killing of homosexuals, the military conquest of the world, the enslavement of some non-muslims as well as the slaughter of others, rejects secular democracy in favor of totalitarian religious dictatorship...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 12:06pm
No offense, but you just described Christianity...and almost every other religion on the face of the planet.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 1:14pm
An absolute lie.
Not one of those things can be found in the NT.
Don't you and SRJ ever tire of lying about Christianity? I don't think you do. I think both of you enjoy lying about Christian doctrine.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
Your postings show a definite anti-Islamic bias. All I am saying is that Islam is not the only problem.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 3:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person
oh yes. i have a definite anti-islamic bias. i once kind of was attracted to certain forms of it.
but then i read it...
still my bias is a result of my investigation, not in spite of it.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
love is in the air...
Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm
Posted by urmygyro at 11/10/2009 @ 4:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
why do birds suddenly appear...?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 4:15pm
So Joe says it's "terrorism" if a Muslim religious nut shoots and kills soldiers on a military base.
My question: Is it "terrorism" if a Christian religious nut shoots a physician who happens to perform abortions?
Posted by wjwallberg at 11/10/2009 @ 4:17pm
no, hateful rants. don't give him a platform.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 3:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
don't trip over your self righteousness...
its dangling...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 4:21pm
An absolute lie.
Not one of those things can be found in the NT.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:00pm |
But they can certainly be found in the old Testmanent can't they Larry? That's why you refuse to talk about it.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:22pm
hateful rants? LMAO!!!!
when the truth is ugly - its a hateful rant!!!
fact check every statement i make other than the opinions i generate as a result and please, please show me i'm wrong, EMILE.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 4:23pm
Genocide Old Testament Style. The biblical history of the Israelite conquest of Canaan is one genocide after another. This fact is somehow overlooked by those who consider it the "good book" but it is in fact a mandate for genocide.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 4:25pm
Look, it is obvious that there are aberrant forms of Islam that sanction violence. The problem that antisocialist, ibbleblibble and others have is that they want to then generalize it to Islam as a whole.
It's no more correct than to say Christianity as a whole is evil because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Christian Identity or whatever. When you argue that there are problematic passages in the Koran, then you, if you are a Christian, need to lay out what the difference is between that and problematic passages in Christian scripture. Just one example, "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword." (Matthew 10:34).
Any interesting religious tradition is going to have these kinds of problems, whether it is Rama shooting the Monkey King in the back or Abraham and Isaac, every religious tradition has moral quandaries it presents to believers that suggest that human morality and divine morality might be different. It's part of the religious experience to grapple with these questions to the best of our abilities.
I'm Christian. But, I think being a Christian means you have to apply the same standards and understand that every evil we see in the world, we are capable of doing that same evil. The same goes for the good. And this moral choice doesn't vary by religion. Muslims aren't evil, at least not any more than I am. Their scripture is no more problematic than my religious tradition.
It's the moment that we forget that fact, and we decide to start describing it as fundamentally evil that we start to choose evil for ourselves.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ib - it's called Blowback.
Elemental - and from the gut.
Human nature more than Koran.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 4:49pm
It's the moment that we forget that fact, and we decide to start describing it as fundamentally evil that we start to choose evil for ourselves.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Hey! Moron! Who are you talking to, yourself?
Note that no Christians in this country or any other, are killing muslims while screaming "Jesus is Great!"
Take your stupid speech to the nearest mosque. They need to hear your moronic crap, not us. We're not the ones perpetrating the cowardly attacks, nor do we intend to.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm
Take your stupid speech to the nearest mosque. They need to hear your moronic crap, not us. We're not the ones perpetrating the cowardly attacks, nor do we intend to.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm
'Bush's willingness to identify religious intention in war planning is unprecedented. In July 2003, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz quoted him as telling the Palestinian prime minister that "God told me to strike at al-Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." A friendly Bush family chronicle by Peter and Rochelle Schweizer quoted one unnamed relative as saying that Bush sees the war on terrorism as a "religious war": "He doesn't have a p.c. view of this war. His view of this is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know" (New York Times, March 29).'
Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:05pm
Note that no Christians in this country or any other, are killing muslims while screaming "Jesus is Great!"
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 4:56pm
That's becasue the Christians are in Muslim countries killing Muslims by he hundreds of thousands while screaming "burn motherfucker, burn".
We have an ex president who told us he invaded Iraq because Gold told hm to, and generals who believe that we were going to win in Iraq because our God was superior to Saddam's.
"We're not the ones perpetrating the cowardly attacks, nor do we intend to."
What's more cowardly than dropping bombs and on a from 30,000 feet in the air?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:10pm
I consider Major Hasan to be an Islamic jihadist, an enemy of the US, and a traitor.
I look forward to his trial and justice being administered.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Lets just hope that sometime in the near future Peter Rothberg and the Nation don't take up his "victimhood" and the case for setting him free from the injustice of the American legal system, which conversely they argue that the Gitmo prisoners should be subject to rather than military tribunals!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
It IS a religious war, and if you want to "survive" it, you'd better lose your p.c., and recognize that fact.
Islam and Christianity are like water and oil. They cannot co-exist. I wish it were not true, because we are in for a great conflagration in the not too distant future, do to this fact. There is no question about this, because the alternative is the end of Christianity.
So which side do you wish to see prevail?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:14pm
'Following the 9/11 attack, a religiously focused Bush publicly called for a "crusade" in response, retreating from that term only after advisers cautioned against offending Muslims. In Bush at War, Bob Woodward observed that "the president was casting his vision and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan." Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives, confided to a Texas Baptist audience that God had made Bush president "to promote a biblical world-view."
To not a few Religious Right leaders, Islam itself is essentially evil. Jerry Falwell called the Prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," but later apologized. Pat Robertson called him a "wild-eyed fanatic," a "robber" and a "brigand." Franklin Graham, son of Billy, branded Islam "evil." Former Southern Baptist Convention President Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile." Press reports blamed Falwell's remarks for the gains by pro-al Qaeda radical parties in Pakistan's early 2003 provincial elections. Overall, postinvasion international surveys published by the Washington-based Pew Center reported that in countries from North Africa through the Middle East to Indonesia, Muslim regard for the United States had plummeted; in many nations, respondents preferred Osama bin Laden to George W. Bush.'
Religion Online by Ted and Winnie Brock
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:19pm
What's more cowardly than dropping bombs and on a from 30,000 feet in the air?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I would say blowing up innocent children and women in the market place.
Bombs dropped are intended for legitimate targets. Collateral damage is the last thing those pilots want as a result of their actions.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:19pm
"which conversely they argue that the Gitmo prisoners should be subject to rather than military tribunals!"
Posted by BigPasture at 11/10/2009 @ 5:12pm
Yeah, who needs evidence and habeaus corpus. That's so last century.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:22pm
Jerry Falwell called the Prophet Muhammad a "terrorist," but later apologized. Pat Robertson called him a "wild-eyed fanatic," a "robber" and a "brigand." Franklin Graham, son of Billy, branded Islam "evil." Former Southern Baptist Convention President Jerry Vines called Muhammad a "demon-possessed pedophile."
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well, Muhammad was all those things, for sure, and I'm sorry Falwell apologized for telling the truth.
While some Islamists are less sensitive to that issue, it is a truth that is universally ignored by the religion, and his "nutty" ideas are the mainstay, and the heart of the Quoran.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:25pm
Yeah, who needs evidence and habeaus corpus. That's so last century.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Shingo, you're an idiot, and apparently know nothing about Military Tribunals.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:28pm
I would say blowing up innocent children and women in the market place.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:19pm
So I take it you're OK with blowing up innocent children and women, so long as they are not in the market place? The US started a war in Iraq that killed 1.2 million people. The US military alone si responsible for 1 third o those deaths. How many innocent women and children do you think we blew up? I'm sure that a few market places were also taken out.
You say that bombs dropped are intended for legitimate targets? Since when did wedding parties become legitimate targets?
"Collateral damage is the last thing those pilots want as a result of their actions."
Funny how it's collateral damage when we're doing the killing, but innocent children and women when it's someone else.
Pilots don't give a crap. They get given a target and told to follow orders, like say a wedding party.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:28pm
So which side do you wish to see prevail?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ah......here we go. You appear to be in agreement that this is "religious war" then.
"Note that no Christians in this country or any other, are killing muslims while screaming "Jesus is Great!"
Say, what does Jesus say about lying????
You and your ilk are a menace to society.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:29pm
Shingo, you're an idiot, and apparently know nothing about Military Tribunals.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:28pm
Yeah I know all abotu Military Tribunals and how when the mil9tary investigates itself, it either let's the perpetrators off on technicalities, or whitewashes the leadership by scapegoating the grunts a la Abu Graib.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:30pm
So I take it you're OK with blowing up innocent children and women, so long as they are not in the market place? Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Once again, your an idiot. I didn't say that at all! I said that the pilots who drop those bombs are aiming for legitimate targets.
Does that sound to you like I'm saying I like the idea that women and children sometimes are caught up in the horror of war?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:30pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:14pm
"So which side do you wish to see prevail?"
If it is a choice between this version of Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, I'll choose neither. I can think of no better argument for atheism. Luckily, those aren't the only choices.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 5:34pm
Ah......here we go. You appear to be in agreement that this is "religious war" then.
Say, what does Jesus say about lying????
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:29pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes, it's obviously a religious war. Are you blind? Or just p.c. stupid?
I'm not sure what you mean. I NEVER lie. About anything. I'm not a Democrat or a Muslim.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:35pm
Once again, your an idiot. I didn't say that at all! I said that the pilots who drop those bombs are aiming for legitimate targets.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:30pm
Once again, you are getting entrapped by your own double standards.
So what makes a target a legitimate one? Our say so? And when we get it wrong, which apparently is most of the time, we put it down to collateral damage.
There's nothing like a win win argument is there?
In the end, your argument boils down to one standard for us and another for our enemies. So when a suicide attack takes place in a market, it's terorrism, and the victims are innocent civilians. When we get our intel wrong and bomb the same market, it's simply regrettable and the victims are collateral damage.
And before you bore us with your war is hell argument, perhaps you should consider the responsibility of those who decided to start this unecesary war of choice and why it is regarded as the ultimate war crime.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:37pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:25pm
Nutty ideas are in every religion. Ideas like this one:
The Greatest Commandment
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
All the Law and the Prophets, rests on that point. Perhaps you could bone up on that passage and the Sermon on Mount section and tell me how this war of Islam is indicated anywhere therein.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 5:39pm
Yes, it's obviously a religious war. Are you blind? Or just p.c. stupid?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:35pm
Hoe about you do some research before relying on Fox News as the basis of your education.
Robert Pape compiled a study of suicide attacks over 20 years adn concluded that in 90-95% of cases, religion has nothing to do with the attack, but territorial disputes or military occupation. The study was funded by the DOD, so don't waste your time with the left wing argument.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:42pm
Went to the local clinic for my annual blood tests (all free over here so not a bad way to fill in a lazy last Sunday morning (8am)). The 50+ yo nurse was not Anglo but spoke unaccented Aussie so I guessed she was born here. She said I hate this hot weather (was 30c then) but when I go home for a holiday it's even hotter.
"You are from the ME"? Pakistan, she answered. "I notice you are having a little trouble over there."
She said Pakistan used to be a lovely place but the religious extremists have made parts of it a terrible place for women. I trained in an English language University (that explained her faultless English if not the accent) as a physician but they won't let women be doctors because they don't want them to attend male patients or have contact with male staff. In fact they don't even let them go to school and pull them out if they are already at school.
She said she has been in Australia for 6 years. One of her daughters just married an Aussie Pakistani. In her country marriages used to be arranged but that is changing and if her daughter had wanted to marry an Australian (presumably non Pakistani) she would not object if they loved one another.
She is in contact with relatives in Bradford England and it is not uncommon for Muslim fathers to send theirs daughters, who get too friendly with non-Muslim boys for a holiday to Pakistan. They never come back. The father says," Oh she had a fatal accident whilst on holiday". The religious extremists are doing the same sort of thing in my country , she said.
"Are you Muslim"? I asked. Yes but I don't belong to the main group. "Shia"? I asked. My you are well read (for an Aussie, I guess and thank you The Nation for providing the stimulus for my education), she responded with obvious surprise.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 5:45pm
She said God is about love and none of these people love.
She then said, I have Christian friends who visit me and I did not know how much we believe in the same things. Jesus is a very important prophet for us.
Then out of the blue she said wasn't that a terrible thing that happened in America. He is a psychiatrist. How can such an educated man do such a thing?
I said I think he was mad. She said, "No, he is just like the people destroying my former country, he is a religious extremist."
Well that's socialised Aussie Medicare for you. A bit of free medicine and thirty minutes of first hand geopolitics with a very attractive Pakistani woman.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 5:45pm
"So which side do you wish to see prevail?"
If it is a choice between this version of Christianity or fundamentalist Islam, I'll choose neither. I can think of no better argument for atheism. Luckily, those aren't the only choices.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 5:34pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You're very wrong. Those ARE the only choices, and Atheism will probably not prevail against Islam.
First the Christians will be either slaughtered or converted. Athiests are not driven to die for their cause, so they will be forced to convert to Islam.
The first generation of converts will not be true believers. They will be acting out of self-preservation. But their children will be properly indoctrinated.
All bibles will be destroyed, worldwide, and all Christian artifacts also disposed of.
2100 should be an interesting year. No Christmas, ever again.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:46pm
I'm not sure what you mean. I NEVER lie. About anything. I'm not a Democrat or a Muslim.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before. Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe; Forward into battle see His banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war, With the cross of Jesus going on before.
So Republicans and Christians never lie?
Ted Haggard comes to mind.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:51pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:46pm
Alas, Elcobar's Islamophobia rears it's head.
Hey Elcobar, how many times has the US, the UK or Europe been invaded by Islam in the last century?
"First the Christians will be either slaughtered or converted. Athiests are not driven to die for their cause, so they will be forced to convert to Islam."
That's amazing, seeing as Christians are responsible for he greatest crimes in history, starting with the Holocaust. But hey, Muslims look funny, sound funny and have brown faces.
"The first generation of converts will not be true believers. They will be acting out of self-preservation. But their children will be properly indoctrinated."
And in which predominantly Christin country is this happening today?
"All bibles will be destroyed, worldwide, and all Christian artifacts also disposed of."
Why would someone who claim not to be a Christina care about Bibles being destroyed?
So you are a Christian, or a Christin supporter. You know, based on history, we're much more likely to be subjected to gas changer and ovens.
"2100 should be an interesting year. No Christmas, ever again."
Why would someone who claim not to be a Christina care about Christmas?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:53pm
And before you bore us with your war is hell argument, perhaps you should consider the responsibility of those who decided to start this unecesary war of choice and why it is regarded as the ultimate war crime.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Wow! It's hard to keep up with the stupidity on this forum.
Shingo, you have your statistics all skewed.
We "occassionally",(not frequently), miss our target. The suicide bombers "always" blow up the innocents. They're not even trying for a legitimate target.
By "who decided to start this unnecessary war", are you refering to Osama Bin Ladin, or the ninteen Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:55pm
2100 should be an interesting year. No Christmas, ever again.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Oh my gosh....arm the nukes immediately!
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:56pm
Wow! It's hard to keep up with the stupidity on this forum.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:55pm
Shingo, you have your statistics all skewed.
"We "occassionally",(not frequently), miss our target."
That's what the Pentagon says? And of course, why woudl the Pentagon lie when they are already pending a billion dollars a year on propaganda?
"The suicide bombers "always" blow up the innocents. They're not even trying for a legitimate target."
How do you know those innocents are not just collateral damage? Oh,. becasue they are not us, and onyl we get to call the innocents we blow up collateral damage. I forgot that rule.
"By "who decided to start this unnecessary war", are you refering to Osama Bin Ladin, or the ninteen Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11?"
And you call me stupid? What part of the 911 Commission report said anything about Iraq having anything to do with 911? Or are you from the flat earth society that think Saddam was behind the attacks?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:05pm
You're correct, (and I'm not sure when I revealed it), I'm not a Christian. But I was raised a Catholic, and have great respect for Christianity and Judaism.
I believe in a God who requires that I live a certain type of life, and both allow and if necessary, actively defend the right of others to do the same.
I think it's the same God our founders believed in, because the ideas seem similar.
So if my neighbor is a Muslim, I have no problem with his religion until it requires that he attack my Christian neighbor because of his religion.
Tell me how that can be wrong.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:07pm
Oh my gosh....arm the nukes immediately!
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Not sure what you mean. I certainly didn't say that (today).
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:09pm
You're correct, (and I'm not sure when I revealed it), I'm not a Christian. But I was raised a Catholic, and have great respect for Christianity and Judaism.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:07pm
How can you be an anesthetist and have respect for two religions that were founded on violence and genocide?
"I think it's the same God our founders believed in, because the ideas seem similar."
Do you agree with Ronald Regan then when he said that Bin Laden and his gang were freedom fighters who represented the same values as out founding fathers, when they were fighting the Soviets?
"So if my neighbor is a Muslim, I have no problem with his religion until it requires that he attack my Christian neighbor because of his religion."
How about if your Christian neighbor attacks your Muslim because of his religion?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:12pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
well when i say something is evil, that's my opinion. i don't bandy it about without careful consideration, though, however it may appear here.
verily there are many lovely passages and sage wisdom in the koran and the hadithas, as in the old and new testament...
but if you bake me a delicious cake made with all the finest, most expensive ingredients, sprinkle some gold dust on top, and then flick in a light sprinkling of arsenic...
its probably still quite yummy, but i'm not eating it and despite all its yumminess - its still poison...
i can cherry pick all the good stuff out of islam all i want and i have made an effort - but that poison is still in there and how many adherents of the faith will pick out and discard those poisonous seeds?
i consider the following things to be evil...
mistreatment of women
discrimination against people because they choose another faith
killing people because they leave their faith
executing homosexuals for being homosexuals
encouraging people to wage wars of conquest
support for totalitarian governments, secular or theocratic
and each of these is specifically condoned and encouraged in the holy writings of islam...
thus i come to the opinion i hold, and since i do not live in an islamic country or even in a secular country infested with a potentially violent islamic fifth column...(yet, i think...)
i can say this under the cover of anonymity with little fear of violent retribution...
and i'm grateful for that. does not mean i support stupid policies that stir that hornet's nest up, though. i'm pretty "live and let live".
are muslims?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:16pm
Not one of those things can be found in the NT.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
Larry, are you confirming once and for all that Christians should not and do not pay any attention to the OT? (Yes, I noticed how you left out a whole half of the Bible when condemning me and SRJ.)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
But I have said it in the past.
Saddam did not start the war, Al Queda did.
Saddam MAY have been involved in supporting the 9/11 terrorists, and was certainly a supporter of fanatical Islam, and suicide bombers around the world.
He was a primary participant in the move to attack the United States, and actually planned the death of one of our Presidents.
Don't blame GWB for doing what had to be done. He wasn't alone in that decision. He was just the one with the testicles to do it.
Many more people died in the effort to free Iraq from his tyranny than had to, and that fact can be credited to Iran and Syria, not America.
You people are apologists for those who would murder you and your family without a second thought. I feel sorry for you.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:19pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
unfortunately some belief systems appeal to darker sides of human nature than others.
perhaps if there were no islam some other set of beliefs called something else would fill the void and be called something else, but who knows?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:20pm
Larry, are you confirming once and for all that Christians should not and do not pay any attention to the OT? (Yes, I noticed how you left out a whole half of the Bible when condemning me and SRJ.)
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
This is a sore point for poor Larry. He's find of citing the OT when it suits him, but confront him on the calls for violence recorded in the OT, and it doesn't count.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:22pm
I consider Major Hasan to be an Islamic jihadist, an enemy of the US, and a traitor.
I look forward to his trial and justice being administered.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 3:56pm
So you would also consider a Christian abortion clinic bomber (who killed someone) to be a Christian jihadist, an enemy of the US (abortion is legal in the United States), and a traitor, right, Larry?
You don't even have all the facts yet, yet you are condemning this man simply because of his religion. If he had done the exact same thing, except yelled, "god is great" in English instead of Arabic and was a Christian, I highly doubt you would be condemning him like you are now because he's Muslim.
Just admit it, Larry, you hate Muslims. It's OK to say it: we live in a country in which that is an OK thing to say. No one will hurt you if you say it.
You want a holy war with the Muslims because you believe it will lead to the second coming of Christ. I know that and you know that. Why don't you just be honest with yourself and admit it? Isn't lying to yourself about your inner feelings also a sin before the lord?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:25pm
"How can you be an anesthetist and have respect for two religions that were founded on violence and genocide?"
I'm not involved in the medical field at all, although I have no idea what anesthia and religion have to do with one another.
"Do you agree with Ronald Regan then when he said that Bin Laden and his gang were freedom fighters who represented the same values as out founding fathers, when they were fighting the Soviets?"
Politics does make strange bedfellows, doesn't it? No, I don't agree with Mr. Reagan on that, and I'm sure were he alive, he would also repudiate that overly generous remark.
How about if your Christian neighbor attacks your Muslim because of his religion?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Christians don't attack their neighbors because of their religion.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
Not sure what you mean. I certainly didn't say that (today).
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You wouldn't use nuclear arms to save Christianity?
What is significant about the year 2100?
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
It's the moment that we forget that fact, and we decide to start describing it as fundamentally evil that we start to choose evil for ourselves.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm
Larry is incapable of doing evil: he doesn't have the insurance to cover it, except for the socialist government healthcare that covers all veterans.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:28pm
Saddam MAY have been involved in supporting the 9/11 terrorists, and was certainly a supporter of fanatical Islam, and suicide bombers around the world.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
it seems kind of far fetched to me - in fact the attempt to link secular bad guy saddam with theocratic baddies like al qaeda is what alerted me very early on that the bush administration were lying incompetants in this regard.
for years anyone who knew anything about the middle east understood that sadam was one of radical islam's biggest enemies. he hated al qaeda and the feeling was reciprocated.
were there any contacts between the two? probably. did that indicate collusion? probably not.
but after it became apparant to hussein that we were going to invade regardless of the truth and the american people were far too ignorant to realize as a whole...
hey, maybe he did decide near the end that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, sort of like how we buddied up with stalin in ww2...
but the comic booky nature of the way bushies painted their enemies, like a pack of dick tracey villains plotting the destruction of all good and decent from some smoky bad guy conference room...
was absurd. and bought hook line and sinker by all too many american ignoramuses.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:30pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 4:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
unfortunately some belief systems appeal to darker sides of human nature than others.
perhaps if there were no islam some other set of beliefs called something else would fill the void and be called something else, but who knows?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes - human nature is susceptible to appeal from both light and dark, hope and fear. However, there are variants within belief systems - see LRJONES post above.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:32pm
Christians don't attack their neighbors because of their religion.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm
Evidently history has no relevance to you.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:32pm
You wouldn't use nuclear arms to save Christianity?
What is significant about the year 2100?
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No, but I would advocate the use of nuclear arms to eradicate an enemy who was intent on the destruction of America.
What is significant about 2100?
That depends. Nothing for me. I'll be dust.
I do hope my great-great grandchildren will be free to live as they please, enjoying religious freedom. And I hope my great-great grandaughters are not subjected to sharia law. It seems a little restrictive for women.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:37pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 5:46pm
Wow. All I can say is wow.
In my short time on the Nation, I have not put anyone, even Big Posture (and OH, how he tempts me), on ignore. You have the dubious distinction of being the first.
I don't know your background (nor do I care to), but your words prove you to be either: a moron; or such a right wing religious nutcase that you make LARRY look like an atheist.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:40pm
Is it "terrorism" if a Christian religious nut shoots a physician who happens to perform abortions? Posted by wjwallberg at 11/10/2009 @ 4:17pm |
Does it induce terror? Check.
Does it have coercion as its goal? Check.
Yup.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:41pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
agreed, but in my experience some belief systems are nonetheless more likely to attract or bring out the dark side than others as a result of...
what they say. no duhism, i know.
LR is an interesting bloke.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
Evidently history has no relevance to you.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:32pm | ignore this person | warn this person
No, Shingo. What happened nine hundred years ago seems unimportant to me today.
Sorry for the short memory, but you see, the fact is that the rest of the world has moved on, while Islam is still living in the tenth century B.C.
Apparently you are, too.
But since you bring it up, I'm angry that my ancestors didn't finish the job, and now it's come back to haunt us.
Also, a previous poster was right - we DO have other options. If Islam could be converted to a benign religion co-existence might be an option.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
I do hope my great-great grandchildren will be free to live as they please, enjoying religious freedom. And I hope my great-great grandaughters are not subjected to sharia law. It seems a little restrictive for women.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Please extend religious tolerance to all in this Country, mind your own business abroad, support restoration of church and state in this Country, and you won't have anything to worry about except our own dear leaders, who are a bigger threat to our survival and freedom than all of Islam.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:47pm
Wow. All I can say is wow.
In my short time on the Nation, I have not put anyone, even Big Posture (and OH, how he tempts me), on ignore. You have the dubious distinction of being the first.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:40pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I'm deeply wounded, Carver. Bye.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:48pm
mistreatment of women
discrimination against people because they choose another faith
killing people because they leave their faith
executing homosexuals for being homosexuals
encouraging people to wage wars of conquest
support for totalitarian governments, secular or theocratic
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:16pm
Ibble, you defeat yourself every time you use a list - ALL of those things, at one time or another, organized Christianity has supported and taught. I don't deny that Islam has also done and supported those things.
Islam also saved Western civilization after the fall of Rome by continuing to build upon Greek mathematics and culture and sharing their advances (including albegra and higher level mathematics) with Christians and Jews as the medieval societies intermingled.
Who is to say that Islam cannot be changed again and driven away from your list of atrocities? Who is to say that Christianity cannot also be driven away from those atrocities? That is my most fervent wish: that religions will stop justifying war against the "others" or "non-believers."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:49pm
LR is an interesting bloke.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Indeed.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:50pm
Please extend religious tolerance to all in this Country, mind your own business abroad, support restoration of church and state in this Country, and you won't have anything to worry about except our own dear leaders, who are a bigger threat to our survival and freedom than all of Islam.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:47pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You're probably right about that last contention. The recent passage of health care reform goes a long way to proving the truth in what you say.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:50pm
You obviously support the invasion of Iraq, an illegal and unnecessary war against someone who never attacked or threatened us. And as all wars do kill civilians what makes the decision to attack Iraq any other than any other terrorist attack?
So Saddam had nothing to do with 911. I knew you were a delusional ideologue. A 2006 Senate Report confirmed there was no connection. NONE!!
Furthermore, Saddam was not a supporter of fanatical Islam. In fact, he was an enemy of fanatical Islam. and no, he was not a supporter of suicide bombers around the world. He gave financial support to the surviving families of suicide bombers.
"He was a primary participant in the move to attack the United States, and actually planned the death of one of our Presidents."
What is it with you right wing lunatics? Do facts and reality mean nothing to you? This is debunked rubbish. He never made any move to attack the United States and as we found out after invading him, he was in no position to participate in any attack in the US. There was no plot to atatck any of our presidents either. This is a fairy tale.
So given that Saddam had no connection to 911, was not a threat to us and had no weapons to threaten us, what did GWB do that needed to be done? He WAS alone in that decision and had to twist Blair's arm to support him
Iran and Syria had nothing to do with the invasion. The disaster that unfolded was because we invaded another country and the locals fought back. Iran were in favor of the invasion you fool. It got rid of their enemy.
You're a delusional flat earther who if impervious to any facts and reality and will believe any BS the government tells him to believe. Little wonder you and your ilk have become so irrelevant to the political discussion.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 6:52pm
Yes, when that abortion doctor was murdered, it was indeed an act of terrorism. I even ran into at least one guy on a firearms forum who praised that shooting exactly for the chilling effect it would have on other abortion doctors. He and I locked horns over this, until one of the forum administrators threatened to boot him off if he didn't stop advocating illegal activities.
But why is it or is it not important to dwell on whether or not Hasan was sufferring from pre-post traumatic stress disorder or if he was a man-caused disaster causing man? I've been deployed twice to overseas contingency operations and had no inclination towards pre-post traumatic stress disorder or becoming a man caused disaster causing man.
And I sure as heck wouldn't get pre-post traumatic stress disorder if I was going to spend my entire deployment sitting at a desk in the Green Zone or tucked away somewhere in Camp Victory. This guy was never going outside the wire.
It is important, or it should be to some here, because they place a lot of importance on prosecuting "hate crimes". Therefore, if you believe in hate crimes legislation, you should be very interested in this man's motivations. Under hate crimes, you cannot simply punish a man for his crime. The punishment must be stiffer if we can devine he was harboring non-politically correct thoughts while pulling the trigger.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 6:54pm
Islam also saved Western civilization after the fall of Rome by continuing to build upon Greek mathematics and culture and sharing their advances (including albegra and higher level mathematics) with Christians and Jews as the medieval societies intermingled.
Islam was also the conduit of Chinese science and achievement to the west. China was at that time the most advanced nation on the planet.
in addition we got many of our musical instruments from the moslems.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:55pm
the guitar for one. early guitars were called gitarra moresca. a nod to Froz.
Posted by emile duBois at 11/10/2009 @ 6:56pm
You're probably right about that last contention. The recent passage of health care reform goes a long way to proving the truth in what you say.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Lord knows we have enough crap to deal with at home. Religious ideology is better left out of it. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs should be common cause enough to bring all of us together.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 6:59pm
Larry, this one's for you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33835635
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 7:00pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 4:41pm Boy, how can one argue with such wisdom? It would be difficult if it weren't all untrue.
The Koran is filled with passages of hate, commands to kill unbelievers, subject them to enslavement, and to forcibly subject the world to Islam.
Srj, thinks he can misquote one verse (which he does knowing he is misquoting it) and think that produces a logical argument. It is fallacious and he knows it.
I will continue to repeat the truth to counter those like Srj who defend the indefensible-the history of Islam and it's Koran and Hadithas which have produced a virtual state of war between Islam and the rest of mankind for nearly 1400 years. Only when Islam had been demoralized from military defeats did they stop trying to invade the world, settling for local controls. That was true until oil gave them the revenue to reinstate their jihad of global conquest.
Nor despite his statement is Srj a Christian. He does not claim Jesus as His Lord. He does not believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father. He does not believe he is compelled to follow all the words of Christ as He commanded in John 14:23-24.
<Jesus replied, "All who love me will do what I say. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with each of them. 24 Anyone who doesn't love me will not obey me. And remember, my words are not my own. What I am telling you is from the Father who sent me.>
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:01pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
not really in disagreement, honestly. with the exception of certain american ayatollahs in recent years (yes, and their influence on the republican party) though...
christian shortcomings have proven more a joke, a marginalized side current of a religion. certainly in the past... different indeed.
but looking at recent (last 20 years+/-) events, i'm seeing islam as having a hell of a hard time moving beyond. if anything its the regressive aspect of the faith that seems to have flourished and how!
remember - i'm not a christian apologist...
and yes i am an islamophobe. i'm also a gunaphobe (if one is pointed in my direction) and a murderphobe and possess healthy fear of many other dangerous things - not that that fear dominates my life, mind you...but a fear of danger is not such a bad thing...
and courage is not a lack of fear, not that i claim bravery...
i am hiding behind a pseudonym, after all, and thats how i like it.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 7:02pm
So Republicans and Christians never lie?
Ted Haggard comes to mind.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 5:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
OV, I never said either Republicans or Christians never lie. You sound like a Democrat when you try to distort my words like that.
I said,"I NEVER lie". I never do. ever. When I say something to you, it's straight from my heart. It could be untrue, but it's what I believe to be true.
Democrats and Islamists do lie. That's what I believe from the evidence I have seen. I'm sure Republicans probably lie too as do used car salesmen and waitresses who forgot to turn in your order.
If you can't respect that we have nothing to discuss.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:02pm
All the Law and the Prophets, rests on that point. Perhaps you could bone up on that passage and the Sermon on Mount section and tell me how this war of Islam is indicated anywhere therein.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 5:39pm
"Which cup is the nut under"
A little sleight of written misdirection.
It is Islam warring on civilization, not we on Islam. Keep distorting the facts, it suits your methodology.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:04pm
Yep, wonderful civilization...over 500 years ago.
These days, Greece--with a population of about 11 million people--publishes and translates more books and novels for it's population to read than does the entire world Arab population of about 1.3 billion.
They've become the Mos Eisley space port of human civilizations. You'd have to look real hard to find a worse hive of scum and villainy.
But I do not say this mockingly or with enjoyment. At some point they abandoned intellectualism.
Islam is a revealed religion. As such, it's adherents are loathe to adopt anything new that increases the distance between them and the time of the prophet. By this I don't mean technology. They embrace that.
But other things. A couple years ago, bakeries were targets of fundamentalist terrorism in Iraq because they were baking types of pastries that were not available during the time of the Prophet. So, just like men who don't wear beards, they were considered apostates. Whatever they once were, they are that no longer.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:06pm
Very well put Citizen_Carrier.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:07pm
It is Islam warring on civilization, not we on Islam. Keep distorting the facts, it suits your methodology.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/10/2009 @ 7:04pm
Really? So who is occupying and attacking whom?
Which Islamic army has invaded us and occupied us?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:09pm
"You obviously support the invasion of Iraq, "
Yes.
"So Saddam had nothing to do with 911. I knew you were a delusional ideologue. A 2006 Senate Report confirmed there was no connection. NONE!!"
P.c., by a hostile senate. His connection was not confirmed, but suspected.
"Furthermore, Saddam was not a supporter of fanatical Islam. In fact, he was an enemy of fanatical Islam. and no, he was not a supporter of suicide bombers around the world. He gave financial support to the surviving families of suicide bombers."
Semantics. you're playing games, Shingo.
"So given that Saddam had no connection to 911, was not a threat to us and had no weapons to threaten us, what did GWB do that needed to be done? He WAS alone in that decision and had to twist Blair's arm to support him."
Nothing is a "given". He was an enemy of the United States.
"Iran and Syria had nothing to do with the invasion. The disaster that unfolded was because we invaded another country and the locals fought back. Iran were in favor of the invasion you fool. It got rid of their enemy. "
You are the fool, Shingo. Iranians and Syrians are not "locals" in Iraq.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
Hassan didn't have a beard. And by the way, can anyone say 'friendly fire'? That had to be pure obliterated hell.
Posted by winyahn at 11/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sometimes the way we phrase things, infers things - such as:
'Democrats and Muslims lie'
as a general statement in the context of you supporting Christianity and ostensibly Mr. Bush's wars on Islam, would lead to an inference that you don't believe that Republicans and Christians lie.
We can agree that there are enough lies to go around.
And, a deliberate lie may be different from a untruth uttered from belief or ignorance - I'll grant you the distinction here in the spirit of Christian goodwill.
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 7:15pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:12pm
So you sported a war based on lies. That tell su all we need to know about you Elcobar.
"P.c., by a hostile senate. His connection was not confirmed, but suspected."
Rubbish. The Senate report confirmed what the CIA was telling us before the invasion, but which the Bush Administration refused to accept.
"Semantics. you're playing games, Shingo."
Not games at all. After all, the US does support terrorist groups linked to al Qaeda and who have killed Americans.
"Nothing is a "given". He was an enemy of the United States."
No, he was a former puppet who didn't do as we told him,
"You are the fool, Shingo. Iranians and Syrians are not "locals" in Iraq."
Neither are we, though at least, they have an excuse seeing as they have borders with Iraq. As Colin POwell said, we created the mess and we are responsible for the consequences. There's no point acting like children and blaming our disaster on everyone else.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:19pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/10/2009 @ 7:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Fair enough.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:20pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 6:16pm
1. mistreatment of women
Practically endemic to any society you care to mention. It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it unique.
2. discrimination against people because they choose another faith
Do we want to review Christianity's treatment of Jews as Christ killers or Catholics as agents of the Pope in the United States?
3. killing people because they leave their faith
Deuteronomy 13:6-10, excommunication/Inquisition by the Catholic church, the Emperor Justinian I instituted the punishment of death for apostasy in the very first law of the Corpus Juris Civilis, or even the idea of the Great Apostasy where the churches themselves have turned from the teachings of Christ which could be argued are part of the ongoing Catholic vs. Protestant conflicts.
4. executing homosexuals for being homosexuals
Most societies you'd care to mention, even now Christians like antisocialist argue about it is like being a circus freak, no doubt citing passages like Romans 1:26-27. Oscar Wilde's time in prison comes to mind. It's not death, but it isn't much better.
5. encouraging people to wage wars of conquest support for totalitarian governments, secular or theocratic
And who has ideas of sending their young people to war for "God & Country"? No doubt The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) has been used to justify this kind of thing, a la the Crusades.
"and each of these is specifically condoned and encouraged in the holy writings of islam..."
It's all in the interpretation.
"i can say this under the cover of anonymity with little fear of violent retribution..."
In a truly tolerant world, you wouldn't need anonymity. The fact you need the cover says volumes.
"i'm pretty "live and let live". are muslims?"
Most? Yes.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:28pm
Shingo, I don't think of Iraq as a disaster, but rather a tragedy.
I'm not sure where you were when it all started, but the consensus was as I said.
That the road was rough is regrettable, but Iraq is, hopefully, a free country now.
I know a few Iraqi's here in Colorado. They don't seem to have the same view you do. Do you resent their new freedom from repression? Did they not pay a heavy enough price to suit you?
I have a Jordanian acquaintence who tells me that his countrymen are delighted with the new, more secure situation in Iraq.
I feel great sorrow for the American servicemen who gave their lives to accomplish this end, and I hope it's not for nothing.
You should join me in that, if nothing else.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:30pm
Dwelling on the past glories of Islamic civilization is about as pointless as dwelling on the past atrocities committed in the name of Christianity.
As Janet Jackson once asked, "What have you done for me lately?"
Adherents to the Islamic faith comprise about 2 out of every 10 people living on the planet. In other words, about 20% of the world population.
Since the Nobel Prize committee started awarding various Nobels in 1901, exactly SIX muslims have been awarded a Nobel Prize.
One for literature, in 1988. Three for peace, one of which was lifelong terror advocate Yasser Arafat. One for chemistry. And finally, one for physics. No muslim has ever been awarded a Nobel for economics or medicine.
Jews, by comparison, comprise about two tenths of one percent of the world's population. Or 2 out of every 1000 people.
Since 1901, eleven of them have won a Nobel for literature. Nine for peace. Twenty seven for chemistry. Twenty two for economics--including everyone's favorite, Milton Friedman. Fifty two for medicine. Forty six for physics.
I do not say this to praise the Jews, although I suspect nobody here will ever praise their contributions to the world as a race in the last 100 years the way people wax poetic about the muslim world's contributions 700 years ago.Whatever the muslim world once was (and I think that is often overstated), they aren't that any more. Nor will they ever go back.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:33pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:30pm
"That the road was rough is regrettable, but Iraq is, hopefully, a free country now."
If by "free country" you mean satellite of Iran, then this would be true. Prior to our involvement, Iraq had the 4th largest military on the planet. We destroyed it in two weeks, handing it to Iran on a silver platter, primarily because most people in the United States did not know enough to recognize that Saddam was the enemy of Iran and al-Qaeda, the former is why we supported him in the 80s.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:36pm
Since the Nobel Prize committee started awarding various Nobels in 1901, exactly SIX muslims have been awarded a Nobel Prize. ....
Jews, by comparison, comprise about two tenths of one percent of the world's population. Or 2 out of every 1000 people.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:33pm
You might not want to go there Citizen_Carrier. Nazi Germany played host to eh greatest minds in the world, but as they demonstrated, academic achievements and exellence are no guarantee of a civilized society.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:40pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:28pm
srjenkins, you have any criticism of Christianity more recent than Emperor Justinian or the Spanish Inquistion--which nobody still expects?
Say, just in the 20th and 21st Centuries?
I've always found it a bit silly when people sanctimoniously declare, "How dare you be judgemental! Just look what the Christians did 200 years ago!"
Um, yeah. But what about, you know...now? This time we're living in now. I can forgive or understand a lot of barbaric behavior in history.
But this isn't history. The Taliban throws acid into the eyes of girls and women for trying to learn how to read. Beats women if they make too much noise with their feet when they walk in public. Topples walls onto homosexuals. NOW, today, right here in River City.
So what's their excuse? They get caught in a time warp or something?
Quit talking about Christianity as if it is one step away from bringhing back witch trials and Torquemada. Today's Christianity is in NO WAY morally equivalent to Wahabbism. Wahabbism is somewhat akin to the worst aspects of ancient Christianity...but without all the intellectualism.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
You might not want to go there Citizen_Carrier. Nazi Germany played host to eh greatest minds in the world, but as they demonstrated, academic achievements and exellence are no guarantee of a civilized society.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:40pm
Actually, the Germans weren't all that hot intellectually. They chased out their best minds. Many of whom came over to us to work on the Manhatten Project.
But you missed my point, focusing instead upon the longer list of achievements of Jewish scientists, writers, and statesmen.
The point was the ridiculously short list of muslim awardees. 1.4 billion people and 6 whole Nobel Prizes. Forget about their past civilization, focus instead on what the hell went wrong and how and if what is broken can ever be fixed.
I'm skeptical, but I don't want to be. I do not enjoy people having to live the way they do under the Assads, Sauds, Husseins, or Arafats of the world. It obviously kills something unique and vital to the human condidtion.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:51pm
If by "free country" you mean satellite of Iran, then this would be true. Prior to our involvement, Iraq had the 4th largest military on the planet. We destroyed it in two weeks, handing it to Iran on a silver platter, primarily because most people in the United States did not know enough to recognize that Saddam was the enemy of Iran and al-Qaeda, the former is why we supported him in the 80s.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Religiously speaking, you're right that we eliminated a primary enemy of Iran, but don't expect gratitude, since Iran is in no position to capitalize on their "good fortune".
Unless Iraqi leaders are really Iranian leaders, I doubt that Iraq will wish to remain a "satellite" of Iran, and short of military confrontation, I don't think Iran can do anything about that.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:59pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person
no, elcobar. research, guy. saddam was a secular arab nationalist. i'm not making excuses for the man - he was monstrous...
but do rethink your assumptions concerning his collusion with islamic fundamentalists - its just not true, according to reliable sources, experts, and observable evidence.
in fact i suspect that old tricky dicky nixon would have co-opted him and used him to get al qaeda...
you seem possessed of some sense. stop supporting the bushies - those guys were ignorant and incompetent.
read...read some more and don't be afraid to read a-political experts.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 7:59pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i think the muslim world need be isolated and left alone, so they can experience an ugly and violent reformation process and be left with nobody to blame but themselves and the uglier aspects of their religion currently so much en vogue.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 8:02pm
in fact i suspect that old tricky dicky nixon would have co-opted him and used him to get al qaeda...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Damn! I really liked Nixon, too. ;)
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 8:07pm
If Islam could be converted to a benign religion co-existence might be an option.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
then stop squishing their kids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:10pm
The Germans were very hot intellectually. How can you deny that they were otherwise, while admitting that they were the keys minds behind the Manhatten Project.
They gave us the booster and multi stage rocket.
You might find that for 2 countries with of over 1 billion people, both China and India are also under represented by Nobel prizes.
I agree that no one should have to live under the conditions from the likes of those you mentioned, though I can't say I have much respect for the human condition of million of Americans, who are supposed to be enjoying freedom.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:11pm
I do not enjoy people having to live the way they do under the Assads, Sauds, Husseins, or Arafats of the world. It obviously kills something unique and vital to the human condidtion.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:51pm
then stop supporting them!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:12pm
i think the muslim world need be isolated and left alone, so they can experience an ugly and violent reformation process and be left with nobody to blame but themselves and the uglier aspects of their religion currently so much en vogue.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 8:02pm
I couldn't agree more though given that we can't take the oil with us, I don't see it happening. Hell, they might even surprise you and turn out to be not so ugly and violent.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:14pm
Say, just in the 20th and 21st Centuries? I've always found it a bit silly when people sanctimoniously declare, "How dare you be judgemental! Just look what the Christians did 200 years ago!"
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
Tuesday 27 October 2009 18.50 GMT
Human Rights Watch accused members of the presidential guard of carrying out a premeditated massacre of at least 150 people at the rally and raping dozens of women.
"Security forces surrounded and blockaded the stadium, then stormed in and fired at protesters in cold blood until they ran out of bullets," said Georgette Gagnon, the group's Africa director. "They carried out grisly gang rapes and murders of women in full sight of the commanders. That's no accident."
MOST OF THE VICTIMS WERE FROM THE PEUHL ETHNIC GROUP, WHICH IS MAINLY MUSLIM, WHILE MOST OF THE COMMANDERS AT THE STADIUM AND KEY JUNTA MEMBERS, INCLUDING CAMARA, BELONG TO ETHNIC GROUPS THAT ARE LARGELY CHRISTIAN OR ANIMIST.
A 42-year-old woman told Human Rights Watch of her ordeal: "One of them had a little container of white powder. He dipped his finger in it and forced it into my nose. Then all three of them used me. They used me again the next day, but after a while others came in, two by two. I didn't know how many or who. I felt my vagina was burning and bruised. I was so tired and out of my head. The first three of them were watching each other as they raped me."
This week Amnestry International said the troops used British-supplied armoured cars during the massacre.
and the band played on.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:19pm
and the uglier aspects of their religion currently so much en vogue.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 8:02pm
it's reactionary...
if these people had jobs and freedom instead of the oppression of u.s. supported thugs....
look, 100 years ago a woman couldn't vote and a black man would have been hung for looking at a white lady.
our arrogance reeks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:21pm
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 7:36pm
Stop making a complete fool of yourself SR. You carry on with your moral posturing on religion and here you are implying Saddam was OK because he attacked America's enemy, Iran. America's support for Saddam was a very morally dark period in its history and one that it atoned for only by removing that bloody tyrant and his vile regime from office.
I got the impression a long time ago that you are really just an argumentative old bugger. That is why your principals and morals blow about in the wind as you seek a point scoring advantage.
Shingo with his often childish logic is not much better. Check out this mindless response: by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 7:40pm. The point Elcobar is making should be obvious to a child viz Israel has contributed way above its numerical size for the betterment of the world in medicine and in science to name but two areas that help us all. One very positive reason to appreciate its existence.
Elcobar I'm assuming you are an American so it's nice to know there are still some Americans who can clearly distinguish between things that differ.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm
I said,"I NEVER lie". I never do. ever.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:02pm
now, that is funny.
"honey, that dress makes you look super fat!"
uh, huh....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:28pm
You might find that for 2 countries with of over 1 billion people, both China and India are also under represented by Nobel prizes.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:11pm
Because both of those cultures labor under the same self-imposed handicaps historically endemic to Eastern cultures.
These are cultures that do not reward individual achievment or innovation that upsets the existing social hierarchy. In India, this persists today with the caste system. In China, communism and authoritarianism.
People like to point out the Chinese invention of paper or gunpowder or any other number of innovations. That's fine, but their culture did not allow for an Andrew Carnegie or Thomas Edison to take those innovations and build upon them. That would've been culturally "disturbing".
Contrast that with the American system of patenting inventions. Walk in, pay a fee, demonstrate the idea, and you can get rich off the idea for 14 years. Western civilizations, since the Greeks, have more readily accepted the new.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
AH, THE CHRISTIAN TREATMENT.......
Sunday 8 November 2009 18.56 GMT Article history
A Brazilian university has publicly expelled a woman who was heckled by hundreds of fellow students for wearing a short, pink skirt to class, taking out newspaper ads today to publicly accuse her of immorality.
The private Bandeirante University in Sγo Bernardo do Campo, outside of Sγo Paulo, said 20-year-old Geisy Arruda disrespected "ethical principles and academic dignity and morality".
Arruda made headlines last month when she had to be escorted away by police after she tried to go to class wearing the mini-dress. She put on a professor's white coat and left amid a hail of insults and curses.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:30pm
Western civilizations, since the Greeks, have more readily accepted the new.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
WE ARE THE CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:31pm
Western, since the Greeks, have more readily accepted the new.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
There were no Western civilizations since the Greeks, though it's true we have accepted new ways of doing things, like say using gas chambers on 6 million Jews and dropping nukes on Japanese cities.
Yep, true evolution.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:34pm
The point Elcobar is making should be obvious to a child viz Israel has contributed way above its numerical size for the betterment of the world in medicine and in science to name but two areas that help us all. One very positive reason to appreciate its existence.
Elcobar I'm assuming you are an American so it's nice to know there are still some Americans who can clearly distinguish between things that differ.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm
elcobar is an ignorant fool.
"Voice of America News, Israeli officials have confirmed that the United Nations is investigating the alleged sale of Israeli arms to Ivory Coast - a possible violation of a U.N. arms embargo against the West African country. "
Here's another theory. Israel's economy isn't booming despite the political chaos that devours the headlines but because of it. This phase of development dates back to the mid-90s, when the country was in the vanguard of the information revolution - the most tech-dependent economy in the world. After the dotcom bubble burst in 2000, Israel's economy was devastated, facing its worst year since 1953. Then came 9/11, and suddenly new profit vistas opened up for any company that claimed it could spot terrorists in crowds, seal borders from attack, and extract confessions from closed-mouthed prisoners.
Within three years, large parts of Israel's tech economy had been radically repurposed. Put in Friedmanesque terms, Israel went from inventing the networking tools of the "flat world" to selling fences to an apartheid planet. Many of the country's most successful entrepreneurs are using Israel's status as a fortressed state, surrounded by furious enemies, as a kind of 24-hour-a-day showroom, a living example of how to enjoy relative safety amid constant war. And
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:40pm
FUCKING MUSLIMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gunman attacks center for gay teens in Israel, killing three
The assailant, reportedly masked and armed with an automatic rifle, opened fire on a weekly support group for gay teens in Tel Aviv. Ten others were wounded, one critically.
By Richard Boudreaux|August 02, 2009 Reporting from Jerusalem -- A gunman entered a community center for gay teenagers in Tel Aviv late Saturday and sprayed the room with automatic-rifle fire, killing three people and wounding at least 10 others in what activists called Israel's deadliest crime against homosexuals.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:43pm
JIHAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
" For US Army soldiers entering basic training at Fort Jackson Army base in Columbia, South Carolina, accepting Jesus Christ as their personal savior appears to be as much a part of the nine-week regimen as the vigorous physical and mental exercises the troops must endure. That's the message directed at Fort Jackson soldiers, some of whom appear in photographs in government issued fatigues, holding rifles in one hand, and Bibles in their other hand.
Frank Bussey, director of Military Ministry at Fort Jackson, has been telling soldiers at Fort Jackson that "government authorities, police and the military = God's Ministers,"
Bussey's teachings from the "God's Basic Training" Bible study guide he authored says US troops have "two primary responsibilities": "to praise those who do right" and "to punish those who do evil - "God's servant, an angel of wrath."
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:45pm
Damn! I really liked Nixon, too. ;)
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 8:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person
last liberal president...lol...
always reminded me of my old man. funny, i hated him until i saw oliver stone's "nixon". brilliant, tragic figure...just couldn't get over all that crazy hippy shit, it seems...lol...
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i'm glad you hold no grudges, frosty. always liked you.
merry xmas.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the older i get the more of an isolationist i become. if we'd followed carter's energy initiatives who knows how much we'd need that filthy crap them crazy towelheads is sittin on! lol
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
jeez croc - i paid you a nice compliment up there - i called you an interesting bloke. you got me on ignore?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 8:50pm
no, elcobar. research, guy. saddam was a secular arab nationalist. i'm not making excuses for the man - he was monstrous...
but do rethink your assumptions concerning his collusion with islamic fundamentalists - its just not true, according to reliable sources, experts, and observable evidence.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 7:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Ib, take issue with this site, then.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
I think their evidence is clear enough to assume that, in addition to his support of palestinian suicide bombers, he was very much in collusion with al Qaeda, and had more than obvious connections to the 9/11 hijackers.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 8:57pm
The point Elcobar is making should be obvious to a child viz Israel has contributed way above its numerical size for the betterment of the world in medicine and in science to name but two areas that help us all. One very positive reason to appreciate its existence.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm
Actually that is false or at least, greatly exagerated. Most of the contributions came from Jews yes, but nearly all of them were Jews not living in Israel.
In fact, Israel is undergoing a brain drain with Israelis leaving at the same rate they are arriving. The problem is that the ones leaving are the skilled workers and those arriving are not.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:01pm
Western, since the Greeks, have more readily accepted the new.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 8:29pm
There were no Western civilizations since the Greeks, though it's true we have accepted new ways of doing things, like say using gas chambers on 6 million Jews and dropping nukes on Japanese cities.
Yep, true evolution.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 8:34pm
Oh, I'm not saying Western Civilization is comprised of saints.
Still, democratically elected governments, women's rights, religious tolerance, unfettered scientific inquiry, habeas corpus, free media...these are all Western ideas.
And yes, our way of waging war is far more efficient and destructive than Eastern cultures. Horrific, even. Again, war is something we've done differently than the East since the time of the Greeks.
The Western characteristics of political freedom, capitalism, individualism, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate make an unparalleled lethal combination when applied to warfare.
This is not bragging. This is merely the way life on this planet has developed.
I certainly would not want to live in any culture that lacked any of those 6 characterisitics though...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 9:01pm
The point Elcobar is making should be obvious to a child viz Israel has contributed way above its numerical size for the betterment of the world in medicine and in science to name but two areas that help us all. One very positive reason to appreciate its existence.
Elcobar I'm assuming you are an American so it's nice to know there are still some Americans who can clearly distinguish between things that differ.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm
elcobar is an ignorant fool.
You're both idiots. I didn't even comment on that thread, Clowns.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:02pm
I think their evidence is clear enough to assume that, in addition to his support of palestinian suicide bombers, he was very much in collusion with al Qaeda, and had more than obvious connections to the 9/11 hijackers.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 8:57pm
Seriously, is that a joke?
You're citing some fringe right wing blog with no credibility over the 2006 Senate Report and numerous CIA Reports, which refuted any connection to Al Qaeda?
You continue to demonstrate how out of touch you are with reality.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:04pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
mmmmm...let me digest that a bit.
you know, in june of 01, condi stated flatly and in no uncertain terms that saddam had been neutralized and that they were no longer very concerned about him....
it was on youtube, probably still is, a vid of her saying so...look for it. i'm at a local watering hole currently and my source providing energy is beginning to burn low...lol
perhaps also explains my friendly overtures to LR and my maudlin comment to frosty, who i viciously attacked earlier. not that he didn't deserve it nor couldn't handle it.
anyhoos...i ain't drivin!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 9:08pm
"honey, that dress makes you look super fat!"
uh, huh....
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 8:28pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes, in those situations it's important to be able to state the truth in a gentle and diplomatic way.
It takes a lot of practice.
Try, "Honey, you do look great in red, but you look far more sleek in that little black dress you wore to Jennifers party last month."
This 'compliment' makes her re-examine herself. She'll change the dress.
If a woman asks you if a dress makes her look fat, she doesn't want to hear that it does. On the other hand, if she weighs 310 lbs, there is nothing else to say. Say nothing.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:14pm
Actually ibbleblibble,
Colin Powell said the same thing in January of that year.
Amazing how Saddam suddenly acquired WMD between June of 01 and 911 isn't it?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:17pm
Seriously, is that a joke?
You're citing some fringe right wing blog with no credibility over the 2006 Senate Report and numerous CIA Reports, which refuted any connection to Al Qaeda?
You continue to demonstrate how out of touch you are with reality.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So I guess you're not going to visit the site and view the evidence. Okay.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:18pm
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i specifically remembered that stuff when it occurred. i was going to give ol mushmouth some benefit of the doubt until he started trying to tie in hussein.
then i knew they were up to something awful and stupid.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 9:23pm
Actually I stand corrected. Saddam did support a terrorist group, called, the Mujahideen-i-Khalq, which have killed Americans and which is outlawed as a terrorist organization by the United States. The MEK are rabbid anti Iranians.
The sad fact is that the US also has been supporting the MEK as it conducts terrorist attacks inside Tehran. So to summarize, the US and Saddam supported the same terrorist group.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:30pm
Ib suggested I do some research - I did.
I see sites that hate Bush. Are these the ones I should spend time on?
Is it untrue that Abu Musab al Zarqawi was treated at the Olympic Hospital in Baghdad after being wounded in Afghanistan?
Is it untrue that Abdul Rahman Yasin, the bomb maker for the 1993 WTC attack moved to Iraq and was on the government payroll there?
What about Ahmad Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi diplomat posted in Malaysia who met with Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, the "pilots" of flight 77, only days before the 9/11 attack?
Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, a diplomat at the Iraqs Czech embassy may have actually held a meeting with Mohamed Atta on Sept. 8, 2008.
I guess we all believe what we want to believe. I like this site.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:31pm
Actually I stand corrected.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Right. Keep working on that, Shingo.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:35pm
So I guess you're not going to visit the site and view the evidence. Okay.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:18pm
I did view the site, and found no evidence. What I fond was a lot of quote from political leaders, which have since been debunked and also theories about links to terrorists that have also been debunked.
You need to update your talking points. They're a decade out of date.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:35pm
I did view the site, and found no evidence. What I fond was a lot of quote from political leaders, which have since been debunked and also theories about links to terrorists that have also been debunked.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Would you mind supplying a link to the debunking site?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:38pm
Right. Keep working on that, Shingo.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:35pm
Wow, I just took a look at the sources your ahemm, link provided, and they are pretty sad to say the least. The links are either to other fringe blogs and the reputable links are simply quotes from unnamed sources or officials from the...Phillipines.
This really does explain a lot about you Elcobar. Forgive me for being so obtuse in earlier, I woudl have been far more gently with you had I realized then what a lost cause you were.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 9:40pm
The site has a great deal of well supported information. I spent almost an hour there.
Did you notice I was missing, Shingo?
You spent less than five minutes there. (Look at the time on your posts.) The site has many pages of information. You really read fast.
So I guess you can't supply anything but your own opinion?
That's what I thought.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:45pm
Exit Shingo, the fool. Blown away by his own timeline.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:51pm
Ib, I did that little bit of research out of respect for your opinion.
If you have solid information to refute this site, please let me know. I will be happy to listen to it.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:56pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 11/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
The point, Citizen_Carrier, is that if you are going to make historical and scriptural arguments you need to be able to address the problem that these same arguments also apply to Christianity.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm
The problem is in your reading comprehension. I'm talking about simple facts. The United States supported Saddam in the 80s because he was a secular Arab that was fighting Iran - which we didn't like.
I am not my expressing my opinion about whether it was appropriate to support Hussein. You're inability to differentiate between the two, in addition to a whole host of other problems, is why I typically ignore your commentary.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 10:00pm
You spent less than five minutes there. (Look at the time on your posts.) The site has many pages of information. You really read fast.
So I guess you can't supply anything but your own opinion?
That's what I thought.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 9:45pm
Five minutes is all it took to look through the list of sources it provides and the quotes it uses.
Some of us are actually pretty quick Elcobar, especially when we recognize debunked propaganda. The sad part is that it never occurred o you that if any of this has any credibility, the CIA et all woudl be onto it.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:04pm
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 7:59pm
"Unless Iraqi leaders are really Iranian leaders, I doubt that Iraq will wish to remain a "satellite" of Iran, and short of military confrontation, I don't think Iran can do anything about that."
Iran already runs Basra, and many Iraqi politicians are in Iran's pocket. Perhaps you should read, The Devil We Know by Robert Baer for a good explanation of the argument.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 10:06pm
ibble,
your "attack" wasn't vicious.
it kinda made me laugh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/10/2009 @ 10:16pm
Iran already runs Basra, and many Iraqi politicians are in Iran's pocket. Perhaps you should read, The Devil We Know by Robert Baer for a good explanation of the argument.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 10:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I know that Basra is solidly in the hands of Shiite cleric with solid Iranian ties, but I wouldn't bet on Iraq giving up it's political sovereignty to Iran. I'll read the book, because I like that kind of information, but it's all just an opinion.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:18pm
Perhaps you should read, The Devil We Know by Robert Baer for a good explanation of the argument.
Posted by srjenkins at 11/10/2009 @ 10:06pm
Time and time again, we come across these right wing nuts who don't know the most basic details of the region, like the fact that Iraq's leaders were Iraqi exiles living in Iran before the invasion.
Then again if you look at what passes for their reading material, you soon understand why.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:20pm
I know that Basra is solidly in the hands of Shiite cleric with solid Iranian ties, but I wouldn't bet on Iraq giving up it's political sovereignty to Iran. I'll read the book, because I like that kind of information, but it's all just an opinion.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:18pm
There's informed opinion based on research and then there's ignorance.
Every political party in Baghdad was formed by Shiite Iraqi exiles who were living in Iran. When the Iranian leader travels to Baghdad, he gets a red carpet state welcome, When Bush arrived, he had to secretly fly in unannounced int eh dead of night.
Now tell us that Iran doesn't pull the string in Baghdad as well as the South.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:23pm
There's informed opinion based on research and then there's ignorance.
Now tell us that Iran doesn't pull the string in Baghdad as well as the South.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Yes. Say, aren't you supposed to be doing some research yourself on my previously recommended site?
What are you doing back here so quickly?
Get back to school, Kid.
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:31pm
Gotta like that Boy. He occassionally does as told. ;)
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:44pm
Yes. Say, aren't you supposed to be doing some research yourself on my previously recommended site?
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:31pm
it took me 5 minutes. It doesn't take long to speed read 10 year old propaganda and peruse through discredited links. We're not all as slow as you are Elcobar.
Not only did go to school, but I have 2 degrees to show for it.
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:57pm
I have not said one thing on these posts that would reveal me as an "Islamophobe," yet you Stalinists must affix your labels. I repeated five or so times that I was the ONLY person to reach out to the Muslim/Arab-American woman whose father served our country. Why? Because I not only do not hate Muslims, but I do believe that they are an asset to the military.
That is not the feeling of the Stalinists on this blog. For the Left, Hasan's actions are the ONLY choice that he has. Why? Because the Leftist crackers are the vilest racists on the earth. You do not view non-white non-christian people as fully formed human beings and individuals. You only respect them if they want to kill your uncool parents.
Q: Why did your ideological forebears, Ayers and Dohrn idolize Manson? Manson is the bridge between the Weathermen and the Aryan Nations. AN sees blacks as the subhuman army of the Jews, while Manson saw them as the subhuman army of himself.
That is why the Ayers wing of effete dandies can never criticize the culture of cartoonish hyper-machismo in the ghettoes. The thousands of dead mean nothing as long as they can be considered test runs.
When Eldridge Cleaver wrote in Soul On Ice about the black women he raped as test runs, the Left's attitude was "fuck those bitches." Black women are literally worth less than dogs to you people.
The unwashed darkies of the world are only valuable to the Left if they hate the same way. The Kurds? Fuck 'em. Ayaan Ali? Put that cunt in her place. Darfur? Fuck 'em.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 10:58pm
Gotta like that Boy. He occassionally does as told. ;)
Posted by Elcobar at 11/10/2009 @ 10:44pm
Poor Elcobar. Do you really think the world revolves around you and your tiny right wing brain?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 10:59pm
No less an intellectual than the great Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf has recently said that the Iranian people should APOLOGIZE to "the noble American people" for the hostage takings of 1979, and condemned the anti-Americanism of the Khamenei regime.
The Nation will never report this. The Stalinists have no use for him. They will bury this great man in obscurity while they celebrate this scumbag hasan, and suggest that any criticism of him is "Islamophobia."
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 11:14pm
wow. there are some dogs here who really, really love chasing their own tails. woof woof!
Posted by canaro71 at 11/10/2009 @ 11:34pm
The Nation will never report this.
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 11:14pm
Probably becasue it's of no relevance, but right wing fascists like yourself will jump at every opportunity to demonize countries that have never attacked us.
I wonder what Makhmalbaf has to say about:
1. the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953
2. the brutal and murderous 25 year reign of the US puppet, the Shah
3. US support of the decade long war with Iraq that Iraq started, which killed a million people
4. the shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane in Iranian air space by the US navy that killed 290 on board
5. the US rejection of the peace offer Iran made in 2003
6. supporter the US givers to terrorist groups like the MEK and Jundulla and they set off bombs in Tehran?
What do you think he'd say to those my fascist Islamophobe?
Posted by Shingo at 11/10/2009 @ 11:37pm
I'm sure he has something to say about it. Will you listen?
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 11:54pm
In the end, wasn't Hasan a product of American culture?
Born and raised here, trained and educated by the US Army.
Stressed out, pissed off, crazy or trying to carry out his own jihad...whatever the reasons, he sure chose form of violence that's all to common in America.
Posted by koroviev at 11/10/2009 @ 11:58pm
change! hope!
COLOMBIA, U.S. SIGN MILITARY COOPERATION DEAL
Fri Oct 30, 2009 11:04am
30 Oct 2009 By Hugh Bronstein
BOGOTA (Reuters) - Colombia and the United States signed a pact on Friday increasing U.S. access to military bases in the South American country, deepening its standing as Washington's main ally in the region.
hope! change!
Uribe may run for a third four-year term in office if his supporters manage to amend the constitution to allow him to stand in the May election.
yeah!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/11/2009 @ 12:04am
I'm sure he has something to say about it. Will you listen?
Posted by gangpapist at 11/10/2009 @ 11:54pm
I listened the first time. I'll listen to anything else he has to say about the 6 points I raised.
Posted by Shingo at 11/11/2009 @ 12:16am
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 11/10/2009 @ 6:18pm
Perhaps you've never read Acts 15 and the Council of Jerusalem?
Some of the Jewish converts complained that Paul, Barnabas and others were not requiring the Gentile converts to follow the law of Moses. The Council determined that the Lord had not required that.
Acts 15:6-14, 19-20
Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,from things strangled, and from blood.
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:42am
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/10/2009 @ 8:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
jeez croc - i paid you a nice compliment up there - i called you an interesting bloke. you got me on ignore?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/10/2009 @ 8:50pm
Don't worry Ibbie I've been following your career generally approvingly. Not so much worried about your head but you've got heart and that's all that matters.
Unlike you indolent Americans who can camp out at this site then, as I read somewhere here, retire to the pisser, we have to slave our guts out just to keep bread on the table. Was having a bread and water break at work so thought I would mention my intercourse with that lovely lady from Pakistan. Then I noticed those two boring bullshitters and thought this thread needs a bit of spicing up.
Had I read your stuff then (reading it at home now) I would have posted along the lines, Ibbie you got heart. FZ you need a transplant (heart). Noticed you beat me to it re FZ.
Ever your interesting, a-rand, neo fascist, admirer.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 01:30am
"As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well"?
get the quote right and you will see how stupid it was.
"As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a GREATER TRAGEDY if our diversity became a casualty as well"?
GREATER TRAGEDY? How stupid
Posted by sabrina62 at 11/11/2009 @ 04:24am
Far too much is being said about the potential threat of Muslim radicalism in the U.S. military, and little is being said about the real threat of Christian fundamentalist radicalism in the military. HARPERS MAGAZINE reported on this frightening devlopment in a recent issue. Check it out.
Posted by Bill Walters at 11/11/2009 @ 05:47am
Far too much is being said about the potential threat of Muslim radicalism in the U.S. military, and little is being said about the real threat of Christian fundamentalist radicalism in the military. HARPERS MAGAZINE reported on this frightening devlopment in a recent issue. Check it out.
Posted by Bill Walters at 11/11/2009 @ 05:47am
Far too much is being said about the potential threat of Muslim radicalism in the U.S. military, and little is being said about the real threat of Christian fundamentalist radicalism in the military. HARPERS MAGAZINE reported on this frightening devlopment in a recent issue. Check it out.
Posted by Bill Walters at 11/11/2009 @ 05:47am
Lieberman is part of a group called "The Committee On the Present Danger". I received an e-mail from another COPD member after the Ft. Hood incident. It was a list of so-called "Islamic Terror Attacks On American Soil". It was filled with disinformation. What was more disturbing than the obvious was the repeated mention of Nation of Islam. I wrote back to the source and asked, based on the material they'd put together, if they were priming the propaganda pump for a fake Nation of Islam attack on an African-American liberal/moderate (an assassination attempt on President Obama, for example)after the Ft. Hood attack and execution of the DC sniper. I know this source. I should have gotten my head bitten off, if for no other reason than I dared to give their propaganda a failing grade. Instead: eerie silence. Translation: Lieberman and his merry friends are up to something and it isn't good. So yes, by all means, call his "bluff", but do so with the understanding that propaganda of this sort is generally not an end unto itself.
Posted by Infokronea at 11/11/2009 @ 06:16am
My god's greater than your god, blahblahblah...
It never ceases to amaze me how one person's brutal act can unleash so much ignorance and hatred on the part of others.
Fuck H1N1. We all seem to be infected, at least to some degree, with a much more insidious virus.
Posted by drhammer at 11/11/2009 @ 07:15am
Posted by antisocialist at 11/11/2009 @ 12:42am
Good stuff Liberty but you are confronting some who have a problem with religion generally and they hide from that by rabbitting on about fundamentalism as though that, without definition and explanation, gives us an understanding of what is occurring.
One cannot help feeling that many on the Left could also aptly be described as fundamentalists because of their "group think" and consequent real lack of intellectual curiosity. That is certainly one form of fundamentalism but it neither describes what is happening in Christianity nor Islam today in the West.
As far as Islam goes it is apparent that radicalization of young Muslims is the challenge that is more likely to be faced. I know it is in Australia.
That takes various forms and we are experiencing all of them. Surprisingly second generation Aussie Muslim youth whatever their social and economic background, will be tempted and some have been enticed by a violent Islamist radicalization. There are more than a few already serving long sentences for planning terrorist activities.
Then a larger number of the young who are jobless, often school dropouts get involved in petty crime and the drug economy, and engage in confrontations with the police but with no religious dimension.
Others seem to have retreated into conservative religio/ethnic ghettos.
Lastly there are many middle and upper class, if you please, Muslims who have integrated into Australian Society and are involved in tertiary education in both supply and demand, hold professional jobs, live in the better locations and share Australian values, which includes male and female dress. This group is generally religious but more like Protestant "faith communities" within the mainstream.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 07:27am
Ibbie, don't in anyway disagree with the validity of your misgivings about Islam.
I don't agree with those that want to say that the bible and the Q'ran equally excite to violence. I remember reading a short article by a liberal Muslim a few years ago (can't find it on Google right now) who was comparing the holy books and he commented to the effect that the bible was a theologically fuller and richer document.
He commented, as I remember, on the biblical idea that in his attributes God is love and how God in the Q'ran is impersonal and transcendent so that that concept of God is impossible in the Q'ran. That is a fundamental difference between the religions which in the end has given us in the West a different perspective on how society should function than those nations solely influenced by the Q'ran.
My own initial response to the news of the Muslim major in the US military, who killed his fellow soldiers, was that he was suffering from mental illness. I mentioned the Muslim nurse who took my blood sample vigorously disagreeing with me. So you are in good company about your misgivings.
All that said you are an empathetic person on my wavelength generally and on this one which is more than I can say for all those who use this tragic event as a chance to hit out at their irrelevant pet hates.
Our army responded in much the same way as yours about not limiting diversity in the military forces by restricting a Muslim's right to serve.
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 08:22am
Painting this as an isolated mental health case seems unreasonable for two reasons:
1) It does not appear to be isolated, in light of the planned attack on Fort Dix and other barely foiled recent plots. The fact that the number of American Muslims who espouse this kind of philsophy are a very small percentage of the overall whole should be MORE of an incentive to deal with them, rather than less.
2) It does not appear to be a mental health case. Hasan did not simply "snap", he seems to have given away all his possessions and planned the thing out rather calmly.
Whether Lieberman is bluffing, I couldn't say (I doubt it, as there would be nothing particularly damaging in discovering that Hasan really was a mental case). But The Nation's willingness to go ahead with the hearings seems a good idea to me. Whether Hasan is a terrorist or a mental case seems much less important than the apparent fact that the warning signs were all there but were ignored for reasons of race and political correctness. Whatever kind of villain Hasan was, he's been caught, but there are other villains here who have not been.
I can't speak for Muslim soldiers in general, but the kind of diversity Hasan offered provided us no strength, only weakness. The first duty of any soldier, Muslim, Christian, or atheist, must be to his own country. One whose rather than to its enemies.
Posted by Graeme at 11/11/2009 @ 10:01am
Painting this as an isolated mental health case seems unreasonable for two reasons:
1) It does not appear to be isolated, in light of the planned attack on Fort Dix and other barely foiled recent plots. The fact that the number of American Muslims who espouse this kind of philsophy are a very small percentage of the overall whole should be MORE of an incentive to deal with them, rather than less.
2) It does not appear to be a mental health case. Hasan did not simply "snap", he seems to have given away all his possessions and planned the thing out rather calmly.
Whether Lieberman is bluffing, I couldn't say (I doubt it, as there would be nothing particularly damaging in discovering that Hasan really was a mental case). But The Nation's willingness to go ahead with the hearings seems a good idea to me. Whether Hasan is a terrorist or a mental case seems much less important than the apparent fact that the warning signs were all there but were ignored for reasons of race and political correctness. Whatever kind of villain Hasan was, he's been caught, but there are other villains here who have not been.
I can't speak for Muslim soldiers in general, but the kind of diversity Hasan offered provided us no strength, only weakness. The first duty of any soldier, Muslim, Christian, or atheist, must be to his own country rather than to its enemies.
Posted by Graeme at 11/11/2009 @ 10:02am
Posted by lrjones4 at 11/11/2009 @ 08:22am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah...i've known many presbyluthamethaterian style laid back muslims.
fine people who are disgusted with their less tolerant co-religionists. it WOULD be sinful and wicked to make them pay or hold them responsible for the actions of their less tolerant fellows...
but responsibility demands that those who are responsible for snooping and poking and dangerously skirting privacy rights keep an eye on those in positions of power and be vigilant when such people are found to have frequent contact with sketchy, violence preaching islamists - like what major hasan was up to...
ketman practicing fifth columner islamists WILL hide behind the religious freedom aspects of a constitution they wish to destroy and replace with sharia, and then use the very words of the prophet himself to incite folks like major hasan to violent attacks on american citizens and property. they are doing so even now as i type.
it is happening behind the closed doors of mosques and in muslim fellowship groups across the country all the time.
all of them? i doubt it, but how many, what percentage? i haven't the slightest idea, but thanks to the disciplined practice of ketman, which morally excuses lies and deceit to us kuffar, i unfortunately am forced to trust none completely. especially after watching the "undercover mosque" piece on dispatches.
to those whorefuse to watch it, i don't know what to say.
its not propaganda!!!! its GREAT AND HEROIC JOURNALISM!!!
it catches a supposedly moderate and tolerant mosque with its ketman pants down and what is said, preached, encouraged when they think we are not watching and listening...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/11/2009 @ 10:30am
is vile, hatred and violence enabling, seditious to the liberal and tolerant government that protects the rights of its would be destroyers to exist, and if anyone who does not belong to that religion and watches it...
they will be shocked, disgusted, and yes, fearful - danger is, after all, something to be feared, friends, not ignored...
how many more islamic human ticking time bombs remain out there, suffering from serious mood disorders as well as profound personality issues and psychoses, being egged on by hate filled islamic clergy to explode in infidel murdering glee like major hasan?
does al qaeda REALLY need an official presence ANYWHERE ENOUGH ISLAMIC MOSQUES AND POPULATIONS EXIST???
of course i'm an islamophobe - i'd be stupid to not be...i'm not a "person of the book" and would rather be dead than a slave to those emmer effers even were i...
which is precisely, according to their religion, my sentence should they get their way...
of course i'd rather live well, the best revenge, and unfortunately in this sad world of rage and anger and death, living well is contingent upon lots of REAPERs, EATRs, good video gaming warriors, and our government not blundering stupidly and arrogantly in a hornet's nest of dangerous and violent barbarians...
renewable energy, science, dignity, and cold calculation when fighting and slaying monsters, compassion when affordable and non-self-destructive.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/11/2009 @ 10:45am
PLEASE USE DECENT LANGUAGE IN THE POSTINGS.Most of the writers don't have enough knowledge of Middle East. Some of them are just using this , as a propaganda machinery in support of their loved nations or ideology.Remember, it is not going to be night,just by closing their eyes.
Posted by Dastu11 at 11/11/2009 @ 11:35am
as the poor quality of my last post attests, this thread is dead...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/11/2009 @ 1:50pm
Ain't gonna study war no more.
Posted by massimopodrecca at 11/11/2009 @ 4:42pm
HE SEEMS TO BE PAID BY HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY THESE DAYS....
HERE ARE HIS PHONE NUMBERS IF YOU WANT TO LET HIM KNOW HOW MUCH YOU DESPISE SELF-ENRICHING TURNCOATS:
(Senator Joseph Lieberman, Hartford (860) 549-8463 Washington (202) 224-4041)
Posted by call-lieberman! at 11/13/2009 @ 10:31am