NationStates Jolt Archive

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

You can be pro-troops and anti-war at the same time...

You can be pro-troops and anti-war at the same time...

I don't see the point. Most of the troops are for the war.

They hate us because we've been fucking with their nations for 50 years. Islam is just a convenient cover.

I don't see the point. Most of the troops are for the war.

good for them, but I'm not and can you get a source for that?

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason.

Pouring arms into the middle east, well, let's not get into that. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion.

Our religion? Hey, listen, not all American's are Christians, got it? Stick with our lifestyles.

Beyond that, your arguments seem to be that we should decrease our freedom and disobey one of the basic tenants of that religion you brought up.

This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


[QUOTE=Okielahoma;11652567]The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

In conclusion we have to kill first because our enemies want to kill first. We have to decrease freedoms to stop our enemies who hate freedom. We cannot protest a war without being labeled unpatriotic, on account of we're fighting that war. Yeah... why didn't I think of that?

So, what you're saying is, essentially, it's treasonous to speak out against the destruction of our founding constitutional principles and the dangerous strategic and diplomatic incompotence of our current administration just because they've decided to start a war based on misinformation and lies?

Sorry. I don't have much freedom left, and I'll be damned if I let them take the rest of it away without any objection.

So, what you're saying is, essentially, it's treasonous to speak out against the destruction of our founding constitutional principles and the dangerous strategic and diplomatic incompotence of our current administration just because they've decided to start a war based on misinformation and lies?

Sorry. I don't have much freedom left, and I'll be damned if I let them take the rest of it away without any objection.

Islamofascist sympatheizer! Shoot him before he lowers army morale!

Pouring arms into the middle east, well, let's not get into that.

Our religion? Hey, listen, not all American's are Christians, got it? Stick with our lifestyles.

Beyond that, your arguments seem to be that we should decrease our freedom and disobey one of the basic tenants of that religion you brought up.

[QUOTE=Okielahoma;11652567] This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html




In conclusion we have to kill first because our enemies want to kill first. We have to decrease freedoms to stop our enemies who hate freedom. We cannot protest a war without being labeled unpatriotic, on account of we're fighting that war. Yeah... why didn't I think of that?

protest quietly. what heppens when troops see protests on tv hmm? what of you freedoms do you have to give up? i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?

good for them, but I'm not and can you get a source for that?

I could, but I don't bother with sources here. Anyone who doesn't agree will just call it biased or otherwise inadequate. Look it up yourself.

I think the problem is that our War on Terror is overstretching our forces and preventing us from fighting in other places; no matter what way you cut it, Iraq had no ties to 9/11 and virtually no ties to Islamic terror groups. Other nations, like Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia all have much stronger and much more open ties to terror than Iraq and we are unable to do anything because our troops are tied down in Iraq. Even worse, we've replaced a secular dictatorship with a situation that is barely stable and which is beset by tribalist and extremist factions.

This is not a war that can be won by conventional forces; even if you destroy their governments and kill many of their fighters, these groups still fight back. In order to win, we are going to have to win the war of ideology; even in Afghanistan we've lost control of the southern provinces to Taliban resurgents, and these populations are becoming hostile to our occupation. It is simply not going in our favor, especially as the opium crop surges to new records and their funding is revitalized. We need to reclaim control in Afghanistan, get out of Iraq, and focus on taking the fight to terror; we can't allow ourselves to be distracted from the larger fight due to our mistakes in Iraq.

And in regard to laws regarding terror: I have no problem with laws meant to stop terror as long as they are Constitutional. If they are not, then it doesn't matter how effective they are and they have to be suspended. The Constitution is more important than our safety and any attempt to infringe upon our Constitutional rights is as dangerous an attack against what the United States stands for as any terror attack.

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

Wow... this is ridiculous from beginning to end:
1. They have no reason to hate us? The US (and the whole west for that matter) has been meddling in the Middle East for decades. From the Shah (Iran) to giving shitloads of weapons to Israel to kill Palestinians, and attacking 2 Muslim countries one after another (Afghanistan was justified, Iraq not so much) They have plenty of reason to hate us. They are wrong to kill innocents, but lets not pretend we haven't done anything.

2.Yes let's jettison diplomacy. That's an excellent. suggestion. Except that bare-handed agression is what we've done in Iraq, and we have seen an increase in terror (London and Madrid bombings, attempt on the London plane, etc.)

3. WHAT HAPPENED TO BEING PATRIOTIC!?!?! During Kososvo, Republicans had an unrelenting attack on Clinton's policices. Furthermore silently acquiesing to whatever the prez says to do is unpatriotic. Tearing down laws that have done effectively nothing is not unpatriotic. The Patriot Act (for example) hasn't done squat to help us against terrorists. It just infringes on rights (which is unpatriotic!). Ignoring the Constitution (wiretapping which was ruled unconstitutional by the SC) is not patriotic.

4. Protesting. Protesting a war isn't protesting troops. Protestors do not hate the troops. Protesting against war is not the same as protesting the troops.

5. Terrorists are not able to destroy us. There is a better chance of being murdered than being killed by a terrorist. Thye do not have WMD, can't get them, and can't use them if they had them. You are overblowing the threat.

protest quietly. what heppens when troops see protests on tv hmm? what of you freedoms do you have to give up? i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?

Protest... quietly....


Wow...

You...

IDIOT! Do you have any idea what they whole point of protesting is? It's to get something changed! Which doesn't work if no one know's you're protesting!

Second, just keep on believing that it's only international. Besides, let's say, hypothetically, I have a girlfriend/boyfriend/eunuchfriend in another country. I write him/her/whatever the proper adjective for a eunuch is gushing sappy e-mails. Do I want someone to read them? No.

Besides, we shouldn't protest on TV, because we have to hide the fact that we're protesting from the troops. But we shouldn't have to hide details about our private life?

Yeesh.

Not to mention the freedom of speech you're espousing throwing away.

i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?
Damn right I something to hide: My private thoughts and feelings that I want to share with only a few trusted people. Said people do not include some faceless anonymous bureacrat in the damn government who gets to decide what it is that my friends and family can read of mine, thank you very much.

Wow... this is ridiculous from beginning to end:
3. WHAT HAPPENED TO BEING PATRIOTIC!?!?! During Kososvo, Republicans had an unrelenting attack on Clinton's policices. Furthermore silently acquiesing to whatever the prez says to do is unpatriotic. Tearing down laws that have done effectively nothing is not unpatriotic. The Patriot Act (for example) hasn't done squat to help us against terrorists. It just infringes on rights (which is unpatriotic!). Ignoring the Constitution (wiretapping which was ruled unconstitutional by the SC) is not patriotic.

Look, it's the PATRIOT act, for Bush's sake! How can it not be patriotic? I mean, who do I believe, you or the United States Government who named it? I think I believe Fido, the wonder dog.

protest quietly. what heppens when troops see protests on tv hmm? what of you freedoms do you have to give up? i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?

They say: "People have a right to an opinion."

Not: "Great, now I cant fight correctly because people dont support me."

@ Okielahoma



You sound like a fox news propaganda programme.

"omg they hate our freedom”, seriously I doubt anyone hates Americas so called freedom. They might hate the hypocrisy of the words and actions of the U.S state though. Maybe if the U.S. stopped interfering in middle eastern politics going back generations they wouldn't hate you so much. Don't simplify the matter with such ridiculous statements such as "they hate our freedom". In reality they hate American support for Israel, general oil grabbing and attempts to dictate American will on Arab populations.

As for people protesting not being patriotic I think they are the real patriots. They are brave enough to do some self analysis and not get fooled by the extreme blind nationalism which keeps the population from questioning their government’s actions for fear of being labeled "un-American".

I do agree however that the soldiers themselves should not be demonised as they are only doing their duty and following orders in what many of them believe is defending their country. It is however admirable for Americans to challenge their political leaders, the ones who send those soldiers to war for false reasons. When people fail to challenge political leaders for fear of being labeled a traitor, that is when democracy has died and a nationalist dictatorship has control of people and their opinions.

A great patriot will always seek to ask questions and speak out when he sees something wrong with his/her country. I applaud those Americans who are brave enough to speak out, especially seen as government propaganda and extreme nationalism seeks to label any opposition as "un-American".

Militant Islam is an insult name. Islam does not preach killing. I am Cathlic and I know this. Of course the terrorists are a threat, a new enemy to be dealt with, and we are learning how to do this. We will defeat the terrorists, not without losing innocent lives first, unfortunately.

Look, it's the PATRIOT act, for Bush's sake! How can it not be patriotic? I mean, who do I believe, you or the United States Government who named it? I think I believe Fido, the wonder dog.

It's actually called the USA PATRIOT Act. Washingtonian acronyms are getting rather absurd, no?

It's actually called the USA PATRIOT Act. Washingtonian acronyms are getting rather absurd, no?

See, it's in the name. It's patriotic for the USA! Come on!

Protest... quietly....


Wow...

You...

IDIOT! .
If thats not flaming...:rolleyes:
Do you have any idea what they whole point of protesting is? It's to get something changed! Which doesn't work if no one know's you're protesting!

Second, just keep on believing that it's only international. Besides, let's say, hypothetically, I have a girlfriend/boyfriend/eunuchfriend in another country. I write him/her/whatever the proper adjective for a eunuch is gushing sappy e-mails. Do I want someone to read them? No.

Its a big difference if you dont know that person

Look, it's the PATRIOT act, for Bush's sake! How can it not be patriotic? I mean, who do I believe, you or the United States Government who named it? I think I believe Fido, the wonder dog.

You mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001

Our government is so fucking lame.

[QUOTE=Lroon;11652607]
protest quietly. what heppens when troops see protests on tv hmm? what of you freedoms do you have to give up? i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?

Wow that defies the purpose of a protest for one and also the troops are carefully screened in what they see. Only right-wing radio and TV is allowed. so no worries. :rolleyes: That's what everyone who wants to strip rights says. "If you aren't hiding anything why can't we put video cameras everywhere" anything that involves possible criminal activity can have that argument. It's the slippery slope theory.

If thats not flaming...:rolleyes:
Which is isnt.

If you think that is flaming, you aint seen nothing yet.

And thanks for responding.

Which is isnt.

If you think that is flaming, you aint seen nothing yet.

I was JKing
and trust me i know flaming:p
i got a 5 day ban for it w/New-lexington

You mean the Uniting and Strengthening America by

Providing
Appropriate
Tools
Required to
Intercept and
Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001

Our government is so fucking lame.

rly.

I think the 3rd American Revolution is overdue by about 60 years.

rly.

I think the 3rd American Revolution is overdue by about 60 years.

you have the tear gas?
wait your a lefty
*maims South Islands

Militant Islam is an insult name. Islam does not preach killing. I am Cathlic and I know this. Of course the terrorists are a threat, a new enemy to be dealt with, and we are learning how to do this. We will defeat the terrorists, not without losing innocent lives first, unfortunately.

Yes.. yes it is. It implies the MILITANT wing of Islam. You know the ones who want to kill us. Those guys ae the people being referred to in this. It would only be insulting to Islam aas a whole if we didn't clarify. If i accused Islam as a whole of beign terrorists. That's insulting. Accusing Militant (the terrorists) Islamists of being terrorists that is accurate.

rly.

I think the 3rd American Revolution is overdue by about 60 years.

3rd? Are you counting the Civil War? Ewww....

If thats not flaming...:rolleyes:


Fine. That statement is entirely idiotic. Better? Are your delicate sensibilities less offended?

Its a big difference if you dont know that person

Right... Look, if, hypothetically speaking, I wanted my personal corrospondence to be read by random strangers I would post it on the internet. I see no difference between Barry the Beauracrat reading my e-mail than I would Harry the Hacker.

I think the 3rd American Revolution is overdue by about 60 years.
I think thats a revolution most of the world would like to see.
Perhaps "practice what we preach" could be the motto of the revolution.

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.htmlGet real. The can't be that free, I can't even by alcohol after midnight where I'm at and the only reason I'm restricted by that is because I'm over 21 and am actually allowed to buy it. I'm not allowed to bring "obscene objects" into the country either and I receive more scrutiny by my fellow American citizens from the DHS than I do when traveling in Europe. Also, most states wouldn't let me marry if I chose to marry a guy, and I'm pretty sure I'd get in trouble if I chose to go skinnydipping in or sunbathing at a local lake that get's frequented by other people. If freedom was what they hated so badly, then they would be burning Dutch flags and not American ones.

It's also rather ironic that you use 1979 as a date from which these things happened, because Iranians had a pretty legitimate and logical reason to be pissed at us.
The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: You know, that could be exactly how a lot of people view the US, especially considering that under Bush we haven't really been all that diplomatic until the Iraq fiasco became evident.
We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? You're kidding, right?
Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Hehe. The Berlin Wall was built to keep the evil westerners out, not keep the East Germans in. But somehow it was always us going to visit our friends in the East and not the other way around.
Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic.Fascism isn't patriotic. Dissenting is.
Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. You know, for some reason I get the feeling that American service men and women getting shot at in Iraq has done precious little to keep me safe(r). Besides, if the troops feel that me disagreeing with the war and protesting about it is a form of "taking it out on them", maybe they shouldn't be in the military in the first place. At least I hope we have toughter people than that serving.
This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!
Fascism from within has been the challenge of every American generation since McCarthyism, if not even earlier. Why should we defend our Freedom from the outside if we're too willing to give it up in the process?

Yes.. yes it is. It implies the MILITANT wing of Islam. You know the ones who want to kill us. Those guys ae the people being referred to in this. It would only be insulting to Islam aas a whole if we didn't clarify. If i accused Islam as a whole of beign terrorists. That's insulting. Accusing Militant (the terrorists) Islamists of being terrorists that is accurate.


Do you think the term Islamofascist is a good use of language by Mr. Bush? Personally I see it as a deliberate attempt to fudge the reality and paint the whole Islamic religion as the enemy. He desperately wants a tangible enemy to identify and Islam is a handy bogeyman. In the very least it's a very poor use of language which does nothing to differentiate between a whole religion and a small number of extremists.

Also, did you ever think they want to kill you because the west are killing Muslims on a massive scale in the middle east, except we don't call western murder terrorism, we call it collateral damage or unfortunate mistakes.

3rd? Are you counting the Civil War? Ewww....

Yes, I am counting the Civil War.

Do you think the term Islamofascist is a good use of language by Mr. Bush?Has he said that? I've only heard him use the term "islamic fascists" so far.

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

Protesting government policy is not the same thing as spitting on troops, and no matter how many times you say it, it still won't be so. How dare you question anyone's patriotism? And how dare you suggest that anyone who thinks secret phone-tapping of American citizens is a bad idea must be in league with terrorists and have something to hide. Since when is it a crime to disagree? Did you support all of Clinton's policies when he was President? If not, then by your own definition, you comitted treason. The truth of the matter is, you don't think it should be considered treason to disagree with the President, you think it should be considered treason to disagree with you. Boo-freakin'-hoo. Well, guess what? People are finally getting tired of those of you who would destroy our freedoms from within. I think you all just might be in for a rude awakening come November.

i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?
Yes, I do. I call my wife in the States every weekend and email her everyday. Normally the emails and calls are about daily life and such, but they do contain some personal stuff that, you know what, is between my wife and myself and no one else.

Do you think the term Islamofascist is a good use of language by Mr. Bush? Personally I see it as a deliberate attempt to fudge the reality and paint the whole Islamic religion as the enemy. He desperately wants a tangible enemy to identify and Islam is a handy bogeyman. In the very least it's a very poor use of language which does nothing to differentiate between a whole religion and a small number of extremists.

Also, did you ever think they want to kill you because the west are killing Muslims on a massive scale in the middle east, except we don't call western murder terrorism, we call it collateral damage or unfortunate mistakes.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

one thing that I agree, whole-heartedly with Bush...

Yes, I am counting the Civil War.

Does anyone else find it ironic that anyone who sees the Civil War as anything short of insurrection is lecturing others about patriotism?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html

one thing that I agree, whole-heartedly with Bush...



So do I. Now if Bush only believed it...

do you have something to hide?

I got something to hide - it's at the end of my metaphorical leg, and you're the owner and operator of the body cavity I want to hide it in.

Yes, I am counting the Civil War.

:D Don't hold your breath.

So what was the "2nd Revolution" about? Keeping the Slaves....

What's the third about and what was wrong with the 40s?

Does anyone else find it ironic that anyone who sees the Civil War as anything short of insurrection is lecturing others about patriotism?


Was the first American Revolution anything but insurrection?

I got something to hide - it's at the end of my metaphorical leg, and you're the owner and operator of the body cavity I want to hide it in.

ROFLMAO, can i sig that??

[calender]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html[/url]

one thing that I agree, whole-heartedly with Bush...

*Looks at the calender*

Oh yea it's getting close to elections.

:D Don't hold your breath.

So what was the "2nd Revolution" about? Keeping the Slaves....

What's the third about and what was wrong with the 40s?

Slavery was the catalyst, but it was more about the opposing viewpoints of state sovereignty and a strong federal government. IMHO.

Slavery was the catalyst, but it was more about the opposing viewpoints of state sovereignty and a strong federal government. IMHO.

Yes. State sovereignty over the right to be a slave state.

Was the first American Revolution anything but insurrection?

Touché.

*Looks at the calender*

Oh yea it's getting close to elections.

He made that speech sept. 17 2001, 6 days afte 9/11, try again.

Yes. State sovereignty over the right to be a slave state.

Eh, I think it was more than just slavery. It was about what southerners saw as the Federal government, run by the Northerners, telling them how to run their lives.

Slavery was a siginificant cause of the civil war, but to say that the Civil War was only about slavery is rather shortsighted and modernistic.

Eh, I think it was more than just slavery. It was about what southerners saw as the Federal government, run by the Northerners, telling them how to run their lives.

Slavery was a siginificant cause of the civil war, but to say that the Civil War was only about slavery is rather shortsighted and modernistic.

Ironic, considering that fundamentalist Christians from the South are the ones who want to tell people how to live their lives nowadays.

He made that speech sept. 17 2001, 6 days afte 9/11, try again.

Oops.

Well I tend to ignore him so I assumed. ;)

I will have to change my comment to

"If only he believed it also"

Has he said that? I've only heard him use the term "islamic fascists" so far.

Is that term deemed acceptable? It looks to me like an incitement to religious hatred, and I'm an atheist speaking. I realise there is a great debate as to what to call them but I think any term linking Islam and fascism is a poor use of language. Some neo-cons use the term islamofascist, others Islamic fascists. what is the difference here, or more to the point could the difference be better illustrated with better language? surely both terms have the same purpose, that is to associate fascism with Islam.

The IRA were never labeled catholic terrorists by the British state. Would it be fair to call the republican party Christian fascists or would that be deemed as insulting to Christians and a false image of their religion. The republican party spread their ideology throughout the world, a lot of the time through force and they support dictatorships and other regimes which limit freedom and democracy. If it is fair to use the term Islamic fascists then surely Christian fascists is acceptable for the republican party.

I personally see the terms Islamic-fascism and Islamofascism as having a polarizing affect on people. You’re either with us or against us and Islam is implied as being against because it is used to describe the “enemy”. I just think better language could be used and I think that the terms in question are deliberate attempts to create an enemy people can easily identify when the truth is the enemy is much more complex than a religious war.

Ironic, considering that fundamentalist Christians from the South are the ones who want to tell people how to live their lives nowadays.

Very. It is also ironic that the very people devoted to the destruction of the "particular institution" would now be considered fundamentalist Christians.

Islamofascist sympatheizer! Shoot him before he lowers army morale!

Meh. I've been called worse and threatened with worse.

protest quietly. what heppens when troops see protests on tv hmm? what of you freedoms do you have to give up? i have nothing to hide in my international calls and emails so search me away! do you have something to hide?

Incidentally, not protesting publicly is giving up the right to free expression, one of many guarentees written in the constitution allowing people to actively voice their displeasure with the actions of their government.

As for the phone calls, yes, I've got something to hide. You probably do to but just don't know it yet.

Regardless, you need to remember that you don't have to be a criminal to want your personal information kept private. Identity theft is the least of your worries when people with an agenda can find out if you've been saying things against the government and just happen to suggest that the IRS should audit your taxes for the last three years or convince a judge to put you on one of those "civil registries" that don't require a trial or conviction. Or maybe you just end up in one of those secret CIA prisons you love so much.

Of course you're happy with the government now, a happy, polite little slave so they won't target you. Yet. When the time comes and you and the government DO have a disagreement, will you be able to protest then?

I could, but I don't bother with sources here. Anyone who doesn't agree will just call it biased or otherwise inadequate. Look it up yourself.

I wish I'd learned that lesson when I first joined. Too many exchanges with people questioning my evidence, claiming I never presented evidence, and outright lying about what my evidence said.

Was the first American Revolution anything but insurrection?

The difference was the first one succeeded. Failed revolutions might go down in the history books, but they seldom get to claim legitimacy.

(And incidentally, I'd like to see that new revolution. Just don't be surprised when the extreme left ends up in control.)

I personally see the terms Islamic-fascism and Islamofascism as having a polarizing affect on people. You’re either with us or against us and Islam is implied as being against because it is used to describe the “enemy”. I just think better language could be used and I think that the terms in question are deliberate attempts to create an enemy people can easily identify when the truth is the enemy is much more complex than a religious war.Islamic fascist and islamofascist are two rather different words. Bush was referring to fascists that are islamic in an effort to differentiate between people who are islamic, but not fascist. Theocracies and the like are very similar to fascist states, so he does have a point. Islamofascist, on the other hand, has become the typical insult of the right-wing pundit. Bush hasn't said that one yet.

Oops.

Well I tend to ignore him so I assumed. ;)

I will have to change my comment to

"If only he believed it also"

No problem, with all the "Terra, 9/11, Iraq, Terra" speeches he makes, I have trouble believing him too.

At least he said it, probably cured some blind-follower republicans of their islamophobia regardless if he believed it or not. But dedicated anti-semites would just shrug it off as bush appeasing the "moozies" so they don't kill us all, like they want to.:rolleyes:

Islamic fascist and islamofascist are two rather different words. Bush was referring to fascists that are islamic in an effort to differentiate between people who are islamic, but not fascist. Theocracies and the like are very similar to fascist states, so he does have a point. Islamofascist, on the other hand, has become the typical insult of the right-wing pundit. Bush hasn't said that one yet.



I still think it's a deliberate attempt to imply that Islam and fascism are linked in the minds of ordinary people. He doesn't have to say it out right, other people will say it for him by taking his lead. He just has to imply it and let other people jump to the false conclusion. The difference between the two terms is merely semantics, a difference that a lot of people don’t recognize. I just hate seeing things simplified and mis represented and Mr.Bush is definetly blurring reality and fudging the issue with his use of language. It's not the only time neo-cons fudge the truth, WMD in Iraq, calling Hugo Chavez a dictator dispite him winning repeated elections, impling that he was like Hitler because hitler was also elected.

Language is an important political tool and used right leaders can imply something is true in the minds of citizens which infact isn't true at all.

The difference was the first one succeeded. Failed revolutions might go down in the history books, but they seldom get to claim legitimacy.

(And incidentally, I'd like to see that new revolution. Just don't be surprised when the extreme left ends up in control.)

That's true. But, had the south somehow pulled off a stunner, would their rebellion go down as a revolution? I think so.

As for the extreme left being in control, I can only say four words. God, I hope not.

That's true. But, had the south somehow pulled off a stunner, would their rebellion go down as a revolution? I think so.


If the south had won, they'd get to call it a revolution. As it stands, it only gets the title of insurrection. Just the way these things work.


As for the extreme left being in control, I can only say four words. God, I hope not.

Hope. Pray. Do whatever you think you have to to make yourself feel better. The right wing has been in control so long that the democrats are conservative by international standards. The pendulum swings first one way, then the other. I intend to be around to help nudge it back where it belongs, on the liberal side.

If the south had won, they'd get to call it a revolution. As it stands, it only gets the title of insurrection. Just the way these things work.

We're looking at it from a modern historical viewpoint. How do the actions of an insurrection, such as that by the south during the Civil War, differ from the actions of the Continentals during the 1st American Revolution?



Hope. Pray. Do whatever you think you have to to make yourself feel better. The right wing has been in control so long that the democrats are conservative by international standards. The pendulum swings first one way, then the other. I intend to be around to help nudge it back where it belongs, on the liberal side.

Well, I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. For that, I apologize. But, exactly what variety of "Extreme Left" are you talking about?

The right wing has been in control so long that the democrats are conservative by international standards. The pendulum swings first one way, then the other. I intend to be around to help nudge it back where it belongs, on the liberal side.



I tend to think the same. American politics to me seems to consist of those on the right and then those further to the right. What Americans would call left wing most in Europe would call centre or moderate right. What exactly is "Left wing" in America? I view the left / right divide in America as simply being a divide between right wing and far right wing. Would there be much left wing activity in America in the sense that left wing represents socialism or does left wing in America simply mean not extreme enough to the right?

I'm not having a go, it's a genuine question. It just seems like there is no left wing to speak of in America in the international understanding of the term "left wing". Is socialism an evil word in the states?

We're looking at it from a modern historical viewpoint. How do the actions of an insurrection, such as that by the south during the Civil War, differ from the actions of the Continentals during the 1st American Revolution?


Modernistic? Interesting way to claim revisionism.

He already answered it. If they won, it probably would have been called a revolution. Since they lost, it's an insurrection.


Well, I suppose I jumped the gun on that one. For that, I apologize. But, exactly what variety of "Extreme Left" are you talking about?

Why don't you define it?

The funny thing about American politics is that it's like a pendulum. You swing it to far to the right, guess what happens.

The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans.

Whoa! We got Osama on NSG! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go away if we ignore it. It will simply increase as seen above. Those attacks have grown in violence and casualties. So you say we must be diplomatic in this situation? No. How can we be diplomatic with groups who’s first point is to kill is? :confused: We must take the initiative and go on the offensive. (Iraq, Afghanistan.) Some of you may not agree with the Iraq war in particular. What ever happened to being patriotic? Tearing down laws designed to keep terrorists out of the nation is not patriotic. Protesting and undermining the morale of the troops overseas is not patriotic. Even if you may not agree with the decisions of the government, do nto take it out on the troops who pt their lives on the line to save your ass from terrorism. This is the great challenge of our generation. We have survived the Civil War, two world wars and the Soviets. Who is to say we cannot survive this. If we don’t put our effort into winning this war we may not!

I've been to the sites of the two major terrorist attacks that have occured in my lifetime in the US. The World Trade Center Site and the memorial for those who died in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. One of those attacks was carried out by a pasty white dude, who probably had a thing against muslims.

I've been to the sites of the two major terrorist attacks that have occured in my lifetime in the US. The World Trade Center Site and the memorial for those who died in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building. One of those attacks was carried out by a pasty white dude, who probably had a thing against muslims.

ever been to Tokyo? Another terrorist attack site, this one was to purify the world for christ's return(something both pat robertson amd jerry falwell have talked about i think). In 1995 the Aum Shinrikyo cult released deady sarin gs into the packed tokyo subway system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

Modernistic? Interesting way to claim revisionism.

He already answered it. If they won, it probably would have been called a revolution. Since they lost, it's an insurrection.


Well, in a way, all history about warfare and politics is revisionist. The victors, and the people in power, write history. As you say, had the south won, it would be told as a revolution by modern textbooks. They lost, so they didn't. But again, its from a historical prospecive. What about from the people that actually fought? How would their views, even after defeat, differ from the modern historical prospective? IMHO, we, the modern generation, cannot interpret the actions of the past due to our modernity.


Why don't you define it?

The funny thing about American politics is that it's like a pendulum. You swing it to far to the right, guess what happens.

Well, he's the one that brought it up. I don't want to put words in his mouth. Besides, all people have different interpretations of what the "Extreme Left" is. Mine is different than yours is different than his.

ever been to Tokyo? Another terrorist attack site, this one was to purify the world for christ's return(something both pat robertson amd jerry falwell have talked about i think). In 1995 the Aum Shinrikyo cult released deady sarin gs into the packed tokyo subway system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

No, never been to Tokyo, but I'm acquainted with the incident. Anyone interested in the field that I'm looking at going into has to be. And they had even crazier plans than the subway attack.

But I thought they were a bizarre branch-off from Buddhism, not Christianity.

They hate us because we've been fucking with their nations for 50 years. Islam is just a convenient cover.
You win the thread.....we can call it a wrap!! :D

Whoa! We got Osama on NSG! :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Well, he is worth a cool $25 Mil. Where are all those brave bounty hunters? Hmmmm?

But I thought they were a bizarre branch-off from Buddhism, not Christianity.

had elements of both, they believed the apocalypse was coming and jesus would take all the righteous believers to heaven(rapture) to speed it up they gassed the subway
._.

had elements of both, they believed the apocalypse was coming and jesus would take all the righteous believers to heaven(rapture) to speed it up they gassed the subway
._.

So they're just batshit insane then?

So they're just batshit insane then?

They carried, by hand, leaky one-litre bags of a chemical agent that is lethal at .001 milligrams.

yup...

How far did you get in this rambling pointless obsolete talking point before it all just turned into a hum in your head?


We as a nation are facing Islamic militants who hate us not because of any logical reason. They hate us because of our position, our freedom and mainly our religion. This is not a threat that has decreased, but increased since 1979 http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/terrorism/101/timeline.html


The majority of those attacks were carried out my Islamic extremists bent on killing us as Americans. This threat will not go

I got this far until I could hear George the First's voice in Ministry's "NWO" being channeled through my monitor.

They carried, by hand, leaky one-litre bags of a chemical agent that is lethal at .001 milligrams.

yup...

There's not many people I say this about, but they clearly deserve it:

"The sooner they're out of the genepool, the better."

You win the thread.....we can call it a wrap!! :D

*is totally honored*

ever been to Tokyo? Another terrorist attack site, this one was to purify the world for christ's return(something both pat robertson amd jerry falwell have talked about i think). In 1995 the Aum Shinrikyo cult released deady sarin gs into the packed tokyo subway system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

I have just a few nits to pick with that:

1) AUM Shinrikyo was Buddhist, not Xian.

2) The "official" purpose of the attack was to initiate Armageddon by starting World War III.

3) The real underlying reasons for the attack are still not entierly clear, but the leading theory is that AUM was seeking to escape a legal crackdown via causing distraction and attacking the government. This was not the first time they did so, and was not the first time they used sarin. Also, the Kasumigaseki and Nagatacho (the main ones attacked) run directly through the government center of Tokyo. [1 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aums.html#beliefs)]

4) AUM and it's successor organizations remain under a draconian government persecution (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/aum_019.htm) that makes the US's Patriot Act look meek and mild.

I have just a few nits to pick with that:

1) AUM Shinrikyo was Buddhist, not Xian.

2) The "official" purpose of the attack was to initiate Armageddon by starting World War III.

3) The real underlying reasons for the attack are still not entierly clear, but the leading theory is that AUM was seeking to escape a legal crackdown via causing distraction and attacking the government. This was not the first time they did so, and was not the first time they used sarin. Also, the Kasumigaseki and Nagatacho (the main ones attacked) run directly through the government center of Tokyo. [1 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/aums.html#beliefs)]

4) AUM and it's successor organizations remain under a draconian government persecution (http://www.cesnur.org/testi/aum_019.htm) that makes the US's Patriot Act look meek and mild.


I remember seeing a video by AUM showing jesus flying around, gathering up people to go to heaven... I don't know and seeing as how your in japan....meh

I remember seeing a video by AUM showing jesus flying around, gathering up people to go to heaven... I don't know and seeing as how your in japan....meh

I don't remember that, but it's quite possible. Japan is full of Shinshukyo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinshukyo) ("new religions") which are wierldy syncretic.

I remember seeing a video by AUM showing jesus flying around, gathering up people to go to heaven... I don't know and seeing as how your in japan....meh
I think you may be slightly off. The leader of that particular cult claimed he WAS Jesus and that he could fly.

No, I don't know what Jesus was doing in a Buddhist sect (especially when he and his brother are supposed to be burried in Northern Japan), but as Daistallia 2104 said, a lot of these little cults are very strange in their beliefs.

IMHO, we, the modern generation, cannot interpret the actions of the past due to our modernity.


Moral codes can't be judged due to modernity.

Actions and intent can.

Take for instance the wife of my cousin of the time. He was Angus McDonald III (He organized the 7th Virginia Cavalry and was on staff to Jefferson Davis). Cornela wrote a diary that is still published today.

People have argued the war was not about slavery. You check Cornela and you read Angus and several friends were excited at the prospects of getting the slave trade going again. Mind you it's only one perspective but the point is diaries, etc are very powerful for getting ideas of peoples attitudes during those times.

I think you may be slightly off. The leader of that particular cult claimed he WAS Jesus and that he could fly.

No, I don't know what Jesus was doing in a Buddhist sect (especially when he and his brother are supposed to be burried in Northern Japan), but as Daistallia 2104 said, a lot of these little cults are very strange in their beliefs.

AAAHHH now i see....thanks for clearing that one up....come to think of it he sort of looks like jesus(asian jesus anyway)

http://www.irdial.com/german/aum1.gif
http://www.njoproject.com/files/dcon/Jesus%20Christ.jpg