NationStates Jolt Archive

The kiss of death has been given to the plan, by that I mean it will happen. Why and how can I say something so ludicrous with such unshakable definity? Bush has said there are no plans to attack Iran. That's it folks, show's over, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

WASHINGTON -
President Bush dismissed as "wild speculation" reports that the administration was planning for a military strike against Iran.

Bush did not rule out the use of force, but he said he would continue to use diplomatic pressure to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon or the know-how and technology to make one.

"I know here in Washington prevention means force," Bush said at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. "It doesn't mean force, necessarily. In this case, it means diplomacy."

Several weekend news reports said the administration was studying options for military strikes. The New Yorker magazine raised the possibility of using nuclear bombs against Iran's underground nuclear sites.

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said. "It was just wild speculation."

Taking questions from the audience, Bush also said he declassified part of a prewar intelligence report on Iraq in 2003 to show Americans the basis for his statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"I wanted people to see the truth," he told a questioner who said there was evidence of a concerted effort by the White House to punish war critic Joseph Wilson. Bush said he could not comment on the
CIA leak case because it is under investigation.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., sent a letter to Bush on Monday asking him for details about how the document was declassified. "There are many questions that the president must answer so that the American people can understand that this declassification was done for national security purposes, not for immediate political gain."

In Tehran, officials said the media reports about a possible U.S. strike against Iran amounted to psychological warfare from the West.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Iranians not to be intimidated by other nations' attempts to stifle the country's nuclear ambitions.

"Unfortunately, today some bullying powers are unable to give up their bullying nature," Ahmadinejad said. "The future will prove that our path was a right way."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend all enrichment of uranium — a key process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a nuclear warhead. The security council gave Tehran until April 28 to comply before the International Atomic Energy Agency reports back to the council on its inspection progress.

Iran has rejected the demand, saying the small-scale enrichment it began in February was strictly for research and was within its rights under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Bush and other administration officials have said repeatedly that the military option is on the table, and White House officials acknowledge normal military planning is under way.

Defense experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated, and could aggravate U.S. problems in the Muslim world.

To pressure Iran, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana on Monday recommended that the 25-nation bloc consider sanctions against Iran, including a visa ban on some officials, because of Iran's rejection of U.N. demands that it end uranium enrichment.

Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States of any other country in the world. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," Bush said last month in Cleveland. "That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally."
Of course this seems like shaky logic, but think about it. Bush suggests we should support x more, funding for x gets decreased. Bush says we won't do x, plans to do x have already been put on the table.

The kiss of death has been given to the plan, by that I mean it will happen. Why and how can I say something so ludicrous with such unshakable definity? Bush has said there are no plans to attack Iran. That's it folks, show's over, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.


Of course this seems like shaky logic, but think about it. Bush suggests we should support x more, funding for x gets decreased. Bush says we won't do x, plans to do x have already been put on the table.
Well, I for one, don't think that a war with Iran is worth anything. If we do attack them, chances are they will completely sabotage the whole Iraq War for us. Besides, the premise that once they have nukes, they will get bolder is a theoritical threat that we shouldn't base a war on.

Plus, think of all the Iranian babies that would die!!!!!

nah, just kidding, I hate babies.

Well, I for one, don't think that a war with Iran is worth anything. If we do attack them, chances are they will completely sabotage the whole Iraq War for us. Besides, the premise that once they have nukes, they will get bolder is a theoritical threat that we shouldn't base a war on.
That's a stronger case than we had against Iraq.

That's a stronger case than we had against Iraq.
We had a pretty strong case against Iraq too. (Although it turned out to be mostly lies). The point I'm trying to make here is, one war at a time. Or better yet, no war.

We had a pretty strong case against Iraq too. (Although it turned out to be mostly lies). The point I'm trying to make here is, one war at a time. Or better yet, no war.

We won't attack anyone bigger than Afganistanian tribes with old recomissioned AKs until whatever is going to happen to Iraq happens. One war at a time is exactly right. The Bush administration is just afraid to show even the slightest military weakness. Will we ever fight them? I dunno. But attacking now would be foolishness.

We won't attack anyone bigger than Afganistanian tribes with old recomissioned AKs until whatever is going to happen to Iraq happens. One war at a time is exactly right. The Bush administration is just afraid to show even the slightest military weakness. Will we ever fight them? I dunno. But attacking now would be foolishness.
Or we could just let the Israelis at em. And then deny any involvement.

Or we could just let the Israelis at em. And then deny any involvement.

Haha true. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Or we could just let the Israelis at em. And then deny any involvement.

Which wouldn't result in the US being wiped out by an angry global Muslim horde, but will result in more insurgent activities in Iraq and terrorist uprisings in Israel which are still pretty damaging.

Haha true. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
They did it to Saddam back in the 80s when he had some nuclear plants.

Which wouldn't result in the US being wiped out by an angry global Muslim horde, but will result in more insurgent activities in Iraq and terrorist uprisings in Israel which are still pretty damaging.
First of all, the US will never be wiped off the Earth by Muslims. Most of them are respectable people, and the worst the few loonies that there are could do is set of a bomb in New York, which would greatly damage our country, but it would'nt wipe us off the map. The insurgent activities probably would increase, but it wouldn't be anything like an all out war.

They did it to Saddam back in the 80s when he had some nuclear plants.

Thanks for explaining my joke.

First of all, the US will never be wiped off the Earth by Muslims. Most of them are respectable people, and the worst the few loonies that there are could do is set of a bomb in New York, which would greatly damage our country, but it would'nt wipe us off the map. The insurgent activities probably would increase, but it wouldn't be anything like an all out war.

Exactly. And as long as Bush doesn't make an extremely stupid move like using nukes on Iran or -God or Allah forbid, Mecca like some posters on General have honestly recommended- then we won't see those respectable Muslims join the loonies to form the angry global horde.

Exactly. And as long as Bush doesn't make an extremely stupid move like using nukes on Iran or -God or Allah forbid, Mecca like some posters on General have honestly recommended- then we won't see those respectable Muslims join the loonies to form the angry global horde.

It would not only be a muslim horde.

If you have nuclear capability and you are not in the US stable, you may indeed ' kiss your ass goodbye '......Iran's days are numbered unless they fall into line.

Who cares, Bush is an absolute wanker :D
It willl just be another Vietnam and what Iraw seems to be becoming... good luck americans... i feel for u guys

Exactly. And as long as Bush doesn't make an extremely stupid move like using nukes on Iran or -God or Allah forbid, Mecca like some posters on General have honestly recommended- then we won't see those respectable Muslims join the loonies to form the angry global horde.

If he did that then I'd quite merrily help anyone out who wanted to sort his government out (indescriminately killing people in the USA would be extremely regretable, that's what I'd try and avoid). And I'm not a Muslim, and I only speak 5 words of Arabic (which are - Hello, I'm called Joe, and you?).

Making the obvious statement: I really don't like the prospects of a pissing contest with nukes.

Yeah, exactly. The least that they'd do is tear Jarusalem apart as payback, which would be utterly justified.

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said.

:rolleyes:

No, he didn't.

...out of curiosity, what's the source here?

"we", kemosabi? I'm just going to stay home and watch it on TV. Maybe I'll tivo the good parts. All I wish is that Iran has someone as good as Comical Ali. The US already has Rumsfeld.

Yeah, exactly. The least that they'd do is tear Jarusalem apart as payback, which would be utterly justified.
um...do you hate Jews or something?

Thanks for explaining my joke.
You'll have to forgive my tactlessness.

:rolleyes:

No, he didn't.

...out of curiosity, what's the source here?
Yahoo, and my default settings are the Associated Press.

um...do you hate Jews or something?

If you noticed, he said they would go after Israel if they or the US used nukes on Iran.

If you noticed, he said they would go after Israel if they or the US used nukes on Iran.


He implied that it was justified.

Yeah, exactly. The least that they'd do is tear Jarusalem apart as payback, which would be utterly justified.

They'd go after Israel, but Jerusalem has too much religious significance for Muslims for them to "tear it apart" as payback.

He implied that it was justified.

If Israel uses nukes on Iran, of course payback is justified. If any country uses nuclear weapons on another country, I'd expect swift retaliation from the victim country.

The kiss of death has been given to the plan, by that I mean it will happen. Why and how can I say something so ludicrous with such unshakable definity? Bush has said there are no plans to attack Iran. That's it folks, show's over, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.
1. You're vastly overstating the entire issue by implying "we're all gonna die!"

2. One more time ( repeat after me ): We ... are ... not ... going ... to ... invade ... Iraq!

They'd go after Israel, but Jerusalem has too much religious significance for Muslims for them to "tear it apart" as payback.


Define: Muslim.

After all the mutual blowing up of various holy places between various islamic sects, I'm not putting too much confidence in islamic religious restraint.

Do you remember that the Wahhabi sect at one time prided itself at having destroyed the tomb of Muhammed?

If Israel uses nukes on Iran, of course payback is justified. If any country uses nuclear weapons on another country, I'd expect swift retaliation from the victim country.


The implication in the thread was ( and forgive me if I'm mistaken ) if the USA bombs IRAN, then IRAN is justified to bomb ISRAEL.

You and I have an altercation. You shoot at me. In retaliation, I shoot at the niece of your neighbor. Immediately. Swift and retaliatory, but I don't think it's particularly justified.

If Iran wishes to avoid war they will avoid attacking Israel and they will give up uranium enrichment.

If it weren't for the oil prices I wouldn't really care if we attack Iran.

If we do attack them, chances are they will completely sabotage the whole Iraq War for us.
Exit strategy. Duh. :p

1. You're vastly overstating the entire issue by implying "we're all gonna die!"

2. One more time ( repeat after me ): We ... are ... not ... going ... to ... invade ... Iraq!
Erm. We did. Three years ago. :confused:

Erm. We did. Three years ago. :confused:
No we didn't. You can't prove it. All that video is fake. Shot on a sound stage.

No we didn't. You can't prove it. All that video is fake. Shot on a sound stage.


Oh, end this bickering, and repeat after me...

*gets into Orc-gear and waves scimitar at Iran*

Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD
Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD
Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD
Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD
Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD
Let's go MOR-DOR! tud-tud-TUD-TUD-TUD

Well, looks like I have to get the military coup into motion...

No we didn't. You can't prove it. All that video is fake. Shot on a sound stage.

You can tell because the US Flag is rippled as if there was a slight gust of wind.

*Nods sagely*

"I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend," Bush said.


:rolleyes:

No, he didn't...

Well of course he didn't read the articles. Cheney and Rice act out his briefings with sock-puppets. It's much faster.

2. One more time ( repeat after me ): We ... are ... not ... going ... to ... invade ... Iraq!
Ha ha ha! I think you made the same mistake Bush did!

"What do you mean I said we were going to invade the wrong country?"
"Sir, you said Iraq, with a q, instead of Iran with an n"
"Oh, fuck. Well, I guess now we'll just have to invade Iraq"

Well of course he didn't read the articles. Cheney and Rice act out his briefings with sock-puppets. It's much faster.
Bush: "Tell that one again! The one with the French President and the mob of angry students! I wanna hear that one again!"

Rice (smiles): "OK, just once more, but after that it's lights off and you get some sleep..."

Well, looks like I have to get the military coup into motion...

get the cubans on your side. Let Castro take over the US or something...with the aid of Americans!

get the cubans on your side. Let Castro take over the US or something...with the aid of Americans!

Naw, Castro is too Cuban.

We need someone who is really good at throwing Coups...

I know! We can spring Pinochet out of Prison.

Naw, Castro is too Cuban.

We need someone who is really good at throwing Coups...

I know! We can spring Pinochet out of Prison.

You do that. I'm just going to stick with living the peaceful Canada and hope the Americans won't annex us.

Naw, Castro is too Cuban.

We need someone who is really good at throwing Coups...

I know! We can spring Pinochet out of Prison.
That won't work. The US public isn't too fond of uninvited hispanics at the moment. Hey, Australians always seem to be popular. Let's get that crocodile guy from the nature programs or maybe Paul Hogan. No, wait, let's get Mel Gibson! The Christian Right will love him!

That won't work. The US public isn't too fond of uninvited hispanics at the moment. Hey, Australians always seem to be popular. Let's get that crocodile guy from the nature programs or maybe Paul Hogan. No, wait, let's get Mel Gibson! The Christian Right will love him!
I suggest the Gubernator, Ahnold.

Nobody ever came out of Austria that wasn't 100% trustworthy, after all.;)

Nuke their ass, take the lack of gas.

That won't work. The US public isn't too fond of uninvited hispanics at the moment. Hey, Australians always seem to be popular. Let's get that crocodile guy from the nature programs or maybe Paul Hogan. No, wait, let's get Mel Gibson! The Christian Right will love him!

Mel Gibson is Australian? Oy...I always thought him a Scot thanks to that stupid movie he did.

If Israel uses nukes on Iran, of course payback is justified. If any country uses nuclear weapons on another country, I'd expect swift retaliation from the victim country.
I wouldn't. What would be the point, other than completely ruining two countries. What I would expect is some kind of limited missile strike and an overthrow of the government, supported by the international community.

Mel Gibson is Australian? Oy...I always thought him a Scot thanks to that stupid movie he did.
Mad Max?

I suggest the Gubernator, Ahnold.

Nobody ever came out of Austria that wasn't 100% trustworthy, after all.;)

NO ONE WHO SPEAKS GERMAN CAN BE EVIL!

That won't work. The US public isn't too fond of uninvited hispanics at the moment. Hey, Australians always seem to be popular. Let's get that crocodile guy from the nature programs or maybe Paul Hogan. No, wait, let's get Mel Gibson! The Christian Right will love him!

Or if we want to win the Sensitivity Vote from women, we can always send in Hugh Jackman.

First of all, the US will never be wiped off the Earth by Muslims. Most of them are respectable people,

A supposed Mohammedan who claims to reject violence only does so to the extent that he rejects Islam. A good Mohammedan is a trigger-happy Mohammedan.

Islam is inherently a violent religion.

Mad Max?

No, What Women Want.

Where he plays a Scottish noble after the apocalypse who can read the minds of crimefighting LAPD women who fight bravely for the American Revolution.

No, What Women Want.

Where he plays a Scottish noble after the apocalypse who can read the minds of crimefighting LAPD women who fight bravely for the American Revolution.

That sounds like a pretty hardcore movie.

But you forgot the part with watching Jesus get crucified for 2 hours.

Anyone in any way related to someone who can riot and kill and destroy because a cartoon made in another continent offends them does not have the right to the most powerful weapon on the planet.

Man, can't we wait till we're done with Iraq and Afghanistan first? I thought women were supposed to do all the multitasking but G W Bush is a professional.

A supposed Mohammedan who claims to reject violence only does so to the extent that he rejects Islam. A good Mohammedan is a trigger-happy Mohammedan.

Islam is inherently a violent religion.
The Koran has many more pleas for peace than incitements to violence. The loonies take it out of context to suit their own political needs.

What you need is systematic desentization-exposure to something will abolish your fear of it. You need to be exposed to more Muslims.

Man, can't we wait till we're done with Iraq and Afghanistan first? I thought women were supposed to do all the multitasking but G W Bush is a professional.

Yeah, but Bush thinks all the wars were over by Christmas. And that anything that isn't the USA can get pwnd by the Army in five minutes.

Perhaps it's a compeition, instead of 'how many marshmallows you can fit in your mouth', it's how many countries you can liberate with extreme prejudice.

A supposed Mohammedan who claims to reject violence only does so to the extent that he rejects Islam. A good Mohammedan is a trigger-happy Mohammedan.

Islam is inherently a violent religion.

I like how you use "Mohammedan" instead of "sand ******." People like you are improving every day!

The term "sand ******" is incorrect. They don't all live in the desert.

And fyi, Mel Gibson is an American who just happens to be living in Australia.

We had a pretty strong case against Iraq too. (Although it turned out to be mostly lies). The point I'm trying to make here is, one war at a time. Or better yet, no war.


Well, that are almost the same words before A. Hitler occupied whole Europe.

If Bush likes to make a score, go chase some students like Clinton.

Other words. Bush: take your "gun":fluffle: out of your pocket and your riffle in.

The term "sand ******" is incorrect. They don't all live in the desert.

The term "Mohammedan" is also incorrect. Why don't you just try having a nice glass of shut the fuck up instead?

The term "Mohammedan" is also incorrect.

No, it's not.

They follow the teachings of the supposed prophet Mohammed; thus, they are Mohammedans.

The Koran has many more pleas for peace than incitements to violence. The loonies take it out of context to suit their own political needs.

Wrong.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran?

Just because the far-left socialist-collectivest GWB says something is true doesn't make it so.

Perform your own investigations in the future, Moore-lover.

No, it's not.

They follow the teachings of the supposed prophet Mohammed; thus, they are Mohammedans.

No, they are MUSLIMS.

For fuck's sake. Do you also say "Jesusans?" Stupid little punk.

No, they are MUSLIMS.

For fuck's sake. Do you also say "Jesusans?" Stupid little punk.

No, but that's just because the end of it is something of a tongue-twister. It's still a correct term, just one that I don't use for reasons of ease of speaking.

No, they are MUSLIMS.

For fuck's sake. Do you also say "Jesusans?" Stupid little punk.
I think the proper term is Xtians.

I think the proper term is Xtians.

along with USians.

I think the proper term is Xtians.

Does that mean we follow "X"? I knew I should've paid more attention in algebra. :)

Does that mean we follow "X"? I knew I should've paid more attention in algebra. :)

Become one with 'X'!

Wrong.

Have you ever read the Qu'ran?

Just because the far-left socialist-collectivest GWB says something is true doesn't make it so.

Perform your own investigations in the future, Moore-lover.
Right.

No, I haven't read the Koran. But I've read about it.

Go spew your hatred somewhere else, Coulter-lover.

The term "Mohammedan" is also incorrect. Why don't you just try having a nice glass of shut the fuck up instead?

:D You just made my "cool list"

If the US attacks, you'll see a dead administration...didn't I say this already?

Right.

No, I haven't read the Koran. But I've read about it.

Go spew your hatred somewhere else, Coulter-lover.

Coulter is as much of a worthless far-left socialist-collectivist as the President GWB that you admire so much and whose statements that Mohammedans are "peaceful" you so earnestly believe.

Coulter is as much of a worthless far-left socialist-collectivist as the President GWB that you admire so much and whose statements that Mohammedans are "peaceful" you so earnestly believe.

What the...?

Coulter is as much of a worthless far-left socialist-collectivist as the President GWB that you admire so much and whose statements that Mohammedans are "peaceful" you so earnestly believe.

Funny. Coulter's express opinions on Muslims or "Mohammedans" as you like to marginalize them is this:

Kill them all, and convert them to Christianity.

Not to mention she's constantly labelling liberals as "traitors" with a frequency that suggests she'd be happy to murder a liberal if it was legal to do so.

And you call her a Far Left Socialist?

I wouldn't be surprised if you're UN abassadorship really.

:rolleyes:

Coulter is as much of a worthless far-left socialist-collectivist as the President GWB that you admire so much and whose statements that Mohammedans are "peaceful" you so earnestly believe.
Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I don't believe that Muslims (not mohemmedans, you idiot) are all peaceful, and I concede that a much higher percentage of them are in fact, violent, than in the general population. However, we don't have that problem here in the US, as we don't function on an outdated socialist economy that tells people what they deserve instead of having people decide for themselves, but I digress.

Yeah, because the republican party is so keen on going into the mid-term or 2008 elections with 3.50$+/gallon gas. :rolleyes:

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I don't believe that Muslims (not mohemmedans, you idiot) are all peaceful, and I concede that a much higher percentage of them are in fact, violent, than in the general population. However, we don't have that problem here in the US, as we don't function on an outdated socialist economy that tells people what they deserve instead of having people decide for themselves, but I digress.

The only thing that's 'outdated' is basing one's views on an entire religion, over a billion people, on a relatively small minority, and then saying something as far-feched as the reason the USA doesn't have a militant muslim population is because of it's right-wing economy.

No, they are MUSLIMS.

For fuck's sake. Do you also say "Jesusans?" Stupid little punk.

not to nit pick..but i do here usains,or something along those lines...

Muslims (not mohemmedans, you idiot)
Well, in German "Mohammedaner" is a legitimate name for Muslims. But I've never heard it in English before.

Well, in German "Mohammedaner" is a legitimate name for Muslims. But I've never heard it in English before.
Mahometano is also legitimate in Spanish. Mohammedan is legitimate in English, just like Lutheran or Calvinist. I frankly have never understood why it seems that people in the USA give so much power to words and designations. There's nothing behind words but what you choose to put there, but instead of changing the perception they prefer to get rid of the word altogether, like that's going to make a difference.

The term "Mohammedan" is also incorrect.

Depending on the dictionary you consult, it may or may not be insulting. However, it is a proper English word for the followers of Islam, and thus is correct (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correct).

Mo·ham·med·an adj. & n.


Variant of Muhammadan.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Mohammedan

Mo·ham·med·an Audio pronunciation of "Mohammedan" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-hm-dn)
adj. & n.

Variant of Muhammadan.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Mu·ham·mad·an adj.

1. Of or relating to Muhammad.
2. Offensive. Of or relating to Islam; Muslim.


n. Offensive

A Muslim.


Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Mohammedan

adj : of or relating to the Arabian prophet Muhammad or to the religion he founded [syn: Muhammadan, Mohammedan] n : a believer or follower of Islam [syn: Muslim, Moslem, Mohammedan, Muhammedan, Muhammadan, Islamist]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Muhammadan

(If you can find a reliable English language reference source saying that the above definitions are incorreect, I'll look at it. Otherwise, feel free to argue with the Houghton Mifflin Company, Princeton University, and Lexico Publishing Group, LLC, the sources of the above definitions, all you want.)

Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

I don't believe that Muslims (not mohemmedans, you idiot) are all peaceful, and I concede that a much higher percentage of them are in fact, violent, than in the general population. However, we don't have that problem here in the US, as we don't function on an outdated socialist economy that tells people what they deserve instead of having people decide for themselves, but I digress.

BULLSHIT

You have the same social problems, that's why religion has such a large influence in the lives of both the USA and most of the Middle East. Religion keeps the poor distracted and the rich put funds into it to keep the workers happy.

Islam is only percieved as violent because you've invaded several countries where the general population is muslim, and suprise to end all surprises, they've killed your troops a bit. I'd gladly stick a knife into an invader's neck and I'm a fairly peaceful atheist, simply because they're trying to take what's mine.

Also, doesn't the USA have its own brand of dickheads who burn down abortion clinics, which give people freedom of choice and can even save lives, simply on religious grounds?

Haven't they actually lynched some of the doctors in these clinics. And what of the KKK? They shelter under a banner of religion too, a christian one, does that make "more than the general population" of Christians violent?

BULLSHIT

You have the same social problems, that's why religion has such a large influence in the lives of both the USA and most of the Middle East. Religion keeps the poor distracted and the rich put funds into it to keep the workers happy.

Islam is only percieved as violent because you've invaded several countries where the general population is muslim, and suprise to end all surprises, they've killed your troops a bit. I'd gladly stick a knife into an invader's neck and I'm a fairly peaceful atheist, simply because they're trying to take what's mine.

Also, doesn't the USA have its own brand of dickheads who burn down abortion clinics, which give people freedom of choice and can even save lives, simply on religious grounds?

Haven't they actually lynched some of the doctors in these clinics. And what of the KKK? They shelter under a banner of religion too, a christian one, does that make "more than the general population" of Christians violent?

So, to cut a long story short:

- Pakistani aggression against India
- Arab invasion of Spain
- Arabic genocides ( plural ) against the Black population of places like Darfur,

all are the result of American Invasions of countries with lots of muslems in 'em
Is that what you're saying?

You guys are arguing over what to call people.:rolleyes:

You guys are arguing over what to call people.:rolleyes:

Yup. Getting into idiomatic ( not even grammatical ) technicalities is the halmark of those who fear a more substantive debate.

Coulter is as much of a worthless far-left socialist-collectivist as the President GWB that you admire so much and whose statements that Mohammedans are "peaceful" you so earnestly believe.

I always get the shivers when I see Coulter and Bush be described as far-left. It's a bit like someone saying Hitler was too humanitarian. Scary.

So, to cut a long story short:

- Pakistani aggression against India
- Arab invasion of Spain
- Arabic genocides ( plural ) against the Black population of places like Darfur,

all are the result of American Invasions of countries with lots of muslems in 'em
Is that what you're saying?

The Arab invasion of Spain and the aggression against India are for the same kind of reasons, namely that people segregated them and they were not best pleased about this. They are also political disputes, and not anything really to do with religion. 'Christian' countries are the cause of those wars, by splitting countries up (Britain and Spain).

I have no idea what's going on in Darfur, and it worries me, but just remember that these people are acting out their own racist beliefs on a thin veneer of religious superiority. Saying that Arab genocides in Darfur sums up the responses and views of the general Muslim population of the world is incredibly small-minded.

How would you feel if I said, towards the killing of the Jews by the Nazis, that the general Catholic population of the world didn't care?

The Arab invasion of Spain and the aggression against India are for the same kind of reasons, namely that people segregated them and they were not best pleased about this. They are also political disputes, and not anything really to do with religion. 'Christian' countries are the cause of those wars, by splitting countries up (Britain and Spain).

I have no idea what's going on in Darfur, and it worries me, but just remember that these people are acting out their own racist beliefs on a thin veneer of religious superiority. Saying that Arab genocides in Darfur sums up the responses and views of the general Muslim population of the world is incredibly small-minded.

How would you feel if I said, towards the killing of the Jews by the Nazis, that the general Catholic population of the world didn't care?

That's the whole thing, isn't it?

The crimes ( real or imagined ) of christians, jews, buddhists, hindus and whatever are a matter of no significance whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is how to render the Islamic Republic of Iran comletely, totally, and unconditionally submissive. Oh, and it would be really nice if we could achieve that without having to kill off half the population of that country ( A dark wish which I fear may be clouding the judgement of the Bushites, whose judgement leaves a lot to be desired in the best of circumstances ).

Attempts to divert atention from pressing matters equates deviationism.
Deviationism equates treason.

Depending on the dictionary you consult, it may or may not be insulting. However, it is a proper English word for the followers of Islam, and thus is correct (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correct).


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Mohammedan


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Muhammadan

(If you can find a reliable English language reference source saying that the above definitions are incorreect, I'll look at it. Otherwise, feel free to argue with the Houghton Mifflin Company, Princeton University, and Lexico Publishing Group, LLC, the sources of the above definitions, all you want.)

Sure, it's "correct" in the same way that "queynt" is a correct term for "vagina."

You guys are arguing over what to call people.:rolleyes:

Aw, poor baby. Next thing you know, we'll be having our own thoughts and opinions.

That's the whole thing, isn't it?

The crimes ( real or imagined ) of christians, jews, buddhists, hindus and whatever are a matter of no significance whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is how to render the Islamic Republic of Iran comletely, totally, and unconditionally submissive. Oh, and it would be really nice if we could achieve that without having to kill off half the population of that country ( A dark wish which I fear may be clouding the judgement of the Bushites, whose judgement leaves a lot to be desired in the best of circumstances ).

Attempts to divert atention from pressing matters equates deviationism.
Deviationism equates treason.

Why not just leave them alone instead?

What you need is systematic desentization-exposure to something will abolish your fear of it. You need to be exposed to more Muslims.
I wouldn't count on that working. I lived in a town with a very high muslim population. I was probably more exposed to muslims than the vast majority of posters on this forum. Having lived around around them is what makes me hate them all.

I wouldn't count on that working. I lived in a town with a very high muslim population. I was probably more exposed to muslims than the vast majority of posters on this forum. Having lived around around them is what makes me hate them all.

What, because they were different? Oh no!

Why not just leave them alone instead?

A country with the worst track record of breaking international treaties willy nilly, with even less scruples than Rummy, and pursuing nuclear weapons?
I'm afraid that would not constitute sound judgement.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling here that your entire ramble was indeed exactly what it looked like: an attempt to change the subject. Deviationism.

I wouldn't count on that working. I lived in a town with a very high muslim population. I was probably more exposed to muslims than the vast majority of posters on this forum. Having lived around around them is what makes me hate them all.

Bradford or Leicester? Just a guess

Bradford or Leicester? Just a guess
Burnley

OHHHH, how I long for the Clinton years when the only invasion worthy of discussion was Monica.

A country with the worst track record of breaking international treaties willy nilly, with even less scruples than Rummy, and pursuing nuclear weapons?
I'm afraid that would not constitute sound judgement.

Anyway, I'm getting the feeling here that your entire ramble was indeed exactly what it looked like: an attempt to change the subject. Deviationism.

No, America now has the worst track of breaking international everything, and you've got thousands of the bastards.

What wouldn't constitute sound judgement is pissing them off so that they'll use their peacetime nuclear reactors that they're building to make bombs.

So I gather you support the BNP?
I'm not a die-hard ally of any political party, but I would consider voting BNP as a protest vote because of the way the mainstream parties just like to smile and pretend we're living in some tolerant multicultural paradise.

I'm not a die-hard ally of any political party, but I would consider voting BNP as a protest vote because of the way the mainstream parties just like to smile and pretend we're living in some tolerant multicultural paradise.

Please don't, the BNP are dickheads the likes of which Britain has thankfully not had to put up with yet.

What do you think to UKIP?

What do you think to UKIP?
Irrelevant old fogies. That would be a waste of a vote, the party is only destined for obscurity.

No, America now has the worst track of breaking international everything, and you've got thousands of the bastards.

What wouldn't constitute sound judgement is pissing them off so that they'll use their peacetime nuclear reactors that they're building to make bombs.

What constitutes sound judgement is totally disabling their capacity to apply their own will.

Once again, the misdeeds of others are not of operational significance.
Deviationism equates treason.

What do you think to UKIP?

They're a bunch of guttersnipes, and the sooner they get removed, the better. Their presence in the European Parliament digusts me, to be honest.

*edits*

And what would be bad about not letting the US have their way with things? It's done the world no favours in the last few years at all.

Deviationism equates treason.

Is that your motto or something, is that why you keep repeating it like some kind of mantra?

Is that your motto or something, is that why you keep repeating it like some kind of mantra?

Nah. My motto is: send Santa Barbara to Gitmo.

So... I'd just like to ask one thing... what makes Christains better than them? They both have killed for their beliefs in the past. Many have died in defiance of them.

Religion isn't the problem. All religions have their good sides and their bad sides. It is the people who are in the wrong. It is the PEOPLE who twist things into something that is evil and morally wrong.

Don't hate the Religion, hate the people who twist the religion.

Nah. My motto is: send Santa Barbara to Gitmo.

Tee-hee.

"Gitmo" is the stupidest term I've ever heard. It's like some new Muppet.

Tee-hee.

"Gitmo" is the stupidest term I've ever heard. It's like some new Muppet.


Yeah. I picked the term up from Yootopia. :fluffle:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476732&page=11