NationStates Jolt Archive

here we go again << on CNN rite now...


Bush saying: they are crazy, they attacked US because we are the beacon of Freedom and Justice
..they hate our freedom ..they cant stand our freedom..

:rolleyes:

If you post this every time Bush says this, you'll be making like, ninety threads a day.

Why bother?

If you post this every time Bush says this, you'll be making like, ninety threads a day.

Why bother?because its friday..

because its friday..

Pshah, Friday only means that I get to pass out on the floor tonight.

well 7th century theology can't abide other threats to it's theoaracy - just guess bush is right

here we go again << on CNN rite now...


Bush saying: they are crazy, they attacked US because we are the beacon of justice and Justice
they hate our freedom.. thay cant stand our freedom..

:rolleyes:

Well, you can bet Osama wouldn't have targeted the US if we were more like his taliban pals. If we stoned gays and women who were raped but couldn't find 4 Muslim male witnesses, if we censored all speech critical of his brand of Islam and if we used our power to spread his ideology he wouldn't have attacked the twin towers or the pentagon. To some extent it's true that they hate our freedom.

Pshah, Friday only means that I get to pass out on the floor tonight.same here..

and ..I want to post a couple of time before I pass out...

of course we veterans know that (in our secret forum languange) "a-couple-of-times" actually means "20-50 times" ;)

same here..

and ..I want to post a couple of time before I pass out...

of course we veterans know that (in our secret forum languange) "a-couple-of-times" actually means "20-50 times" ;)

Aye, aye indeed. :D

Yes, Bush is indeed a moron.

To some extent it's true that "they" hate freedom.there is a number of coutries in Europe that are more about freedom-and-Justice than US (they would never accept something like the Patriot-Act or Guantanamo)

and they are closer/easier targets for "them"..

Why would they not fly Airliners into those "freedom-and-Justice" Countries?

If you post this every time Bush says this, you'll be making like, ninety threads a day.

Why bother?

Because Karl Rove's strategy is to keep pushing this talking point. It's a good strategy - for a while. After a while it loses it's power. We should post it everytime he says it because the more often it's posted now the more ridiculous it sounds. We need people to think of Bush as ridiculous.

Because he is.

Pshah, Friday only means that I get to pass out on the floor tonight.

hehe

sigged!

there is a number of coutries in Europe that are more about freedom-and-Justice than US (they would never accept something like the Patriot-Act or Guantanamo)

and they are closer/easier targets for "them"..

Why would they not fly Airliners into those "freedom-and-Justice" Countries?

Because they don't export their culture. America, through movies, music and other means exports what the al qaedas see as decadent, satanic western values.

Because they don't export their culture. America, through movies, music and other means exports what the al qaedas see as decadent, satanic western values.

Other means being, invading countries and installing our own type of government and occupying the nation for an undefined amount of time. Now what could be wrong with that?

Other means being, invading countries and installing our own type of government and occupying the nation for an undefined amount of time. Now what could be wrong with that?

We never did that to a Muslim country prior to 9/11. Maybe to Latin American ones, but Al Qaeda isn't a Latin organization.

Who?
gw bu...?
Oh!
Still around.

Well, even if dead please do not tell us, it's too late

Other means being, invading countries and installing our own type of government and occupying the nation for an undefined amount of time. Now what could be wrong with that?good ole USA.. Installing puppet dictators.. for the last century.

we got the know-how by now.

Well, you can bet Osama wouldn't have targeted the US if we were more like his taliban pals. If we stoned gays and women who were raped but couldn't find 4 Muslim male witnesses, if we censored all speech critical of his brand of Islam and if we used our power to spread his ideology he wouldn't have attacked the twin towers or the pentagon. To some extent it's true that they hate our freedom.

But Bush was talking about Iraq. I mean, he was talking about Osama, but he was talking about Iraq. Well, he was talking about 9/11, I mean he wasn't he was talking about Iraq, but it's about 9/11. I mean he wasn't actually talking about 9/11, he was referring to Iraq about Osama. Okay, he was talking about Osama, but in relation to Iraq - not that Iraq is about Osama or 9/11, but it's about Iraq, not Osama except that its about 9/11...

Freedom is on the march! Smoke evildoers out of their freedom holes, I mean smoke them outof their holes for freedom! Osama hates freedom is on the march holes evildoers!

Other means being, invading countries and installing our own type of government and occupying the nation for an undefined amount of time. Now what could be wrong with that?

Nothing at all, so long as the leaders of the country you are invading are monsterous dictators. Frankly, Iraq would not have been my 1st target, but it is certainly on my list.

We never did that to a Muslim country prior to 9/11. Maybe to Latin American ones, but Al Qaeda isn't a Latin organization.

"Maybe" to Latin American ones? Definitely!

But that's beside the point. The situation in Iraq has nothing to do with our "freedom n justice" and everything to do with the fact that, maybe, our 'culture' IS decadent and we export it by force. We use any excuse to go rampaging around the world. Communism -> bombing Vietnam. Terrorism -> Iraq. It's hard to have sympathy for a nation that uses the deaths of 3000 to kill 30,000.

Sure, it's well to talk about stoning gays, but whats the other side of the spectrum? Legalizing pedophilia like so many in this and other Western countries are pushing for? I don't know which is worse.

Nothing at all, so long as the leaders of the country you are invading are monsterous dictators. Frankly, Iraq would not have been my 1st target, but it is certainly on my list.

So it's okay to punish an entire nation as long as they made the mistake of being oppressed by a dictator?

Invading Iraq is one thing. I'm no Saddam apologist. But occupying the nation afterwards, installing a "democratic" government in our own image, inspiring civil war? What does that have to do with getting rid of Saddam?

Nothing at all, so long as the leaders of the country you are invading are monsterous dictators. Frankly, Iraq would not have been my 1st target, but it is certainly on my list.

That's a long list. Hope we got a long list of young men to go die and a lot of money to fund their deaths.

"Maybe" to Latin American ones? Definitely!

But that's beside the point. The situation in Iraq has nothing to do with our "freedom n justice" and everything to do with the fact that, maybe, our 'culture' IS decadent and we export it by force. We use any excuse to go rampaging around the world. Communism -> bombing Vietnam. Terrorism -> Iraq. It's hard to have sympathy for a nation that uses the deaths of 3000 to kill 30,000.

Sure, it's well to talk about stoning gays, but whats the other side of the spectrum? Legalizing pedophilia like so many in this and other Western countries are pushing for? I don't know which is worse.

In Iran you can marry a nine year old. In Saudi the age is 12. Who's legalizing pedophilia? Our culture IS better. Our values promote greater freedom (though bush is putting an end to that) Our culture produces wealth, high standards of living, and allows people choices. Theirs rapes children and executes gays.

In Iran you can marry a nine year old. In Saudi the age is 12. Who's legalizing pedophilia? Our culture IS better. Our values promote greater freedom (though bush is putting an end to that) Our culture produces wealth, high standards of living, and allows people choices. Theirs rapes children and executes gays.

I agree. I also believe that we are headed to a showdown between the values of liberal democracy and theocratic dictatorship. The problem is that this conflict needs to be handled intelligently, not like a drunk, blind sailor who got hit from behind. Bush is like a boxer who jumped up at the bell and started swinging wildly at everything that moves, the other boxer, his trainer, the ref, people in the crowd - I know you're not defending him, I just jumped on your post to express a point.

Our culture IS better.because teens get laid more often?

Our culture is different.
Better? maybe, but I am not going to argue about the rampant teenage sex.. of any "cultures"

In Iran you can marry a nine year old. In Saudi the age is 12. Who's legalizing pedophilia? Our culture IS better.

Sorry, I don't buy into your cultural supremacist attitude. That kind of thinking is not going to endear anyone to 'our' culture either.

Our values promote greater freedom (though bush is putting an end to that)

Right, so doesn't it make you feel a tad hypocritical to pat yourself on the back for Our Freedom when you know full well that is ending (and frankly, barely existed at all)

Our culture produces wealth, high standards of living, and allows people choices. Theirs rapes children and executes gays.

No one rapes children in the West? Wow! No one curb-stomps gays in the UK?

Fuck your Islamophobic attitude. You want to rant against how evil, barbaric and inferior Muslims are. Go do it to someone who cares, like Ny Nordland, New Mitanni or the other forum nazis.

because teens get laid more often?

Our culture is different.
Better? maybe, but I am not going to argue about the rampant teenage sex.. of any "cultures"

Because they're not executed for getting laid.

Pshah, Friday only means that I get to pass out on the floor tonight.

You have safe friends. That would be a bad thing to do with my crowd! :D

Sorry, I don't buy into your cultural supremacist attitude. That kind of thinking is not going to endear anyone to 'our' culture either.
Yet they come in droves to reap the benefits and integrate themselves into our culture. You don't value what you have, but the immigrants want it so bad they're willing to risk life and limb to get it. You're an ungrateful spoiled child.


Right, so doesn't it make you feel a tad hypocritical to pat yourself on the back for Our Freedom when you know full well that is ending (and frankly, barely existed at all)
Politicians come and go and laws can be changed. You don't think the pendulum will swing the other way? The fact is the history of the US has been a constant struggle toward greater freedom and justice. Bush is a minor setback.


No one rapes children in the West? Wow! No one curb-stomps gays in the UK?
Yeah, because criminal behavior that occurs and is punished in my culture is the same as legal behavior that is celebrated in another.
Fuck your Islamophobic attitude. You want to rant against how evil, barbaric and inferior Muslims are. Go do it to someone who cares, like Ny Nordland, New Mitanni or the other forum nazis.Nice. Silence debate through allegations of bigotry. Sorry, won't work. I still love my culture and my country and will speak out in their defense.

Our culture IS better.because our teens get laid more often?

Our culture is different.
Better? maybe, but I am not going to argue about the rampant teenage sex.. of any "cultures"
I prefer not to argue abour teen sexual activity..

because Its very easy to get "Teen sex" in my side of the pond.. and apparently they (muslim women) "stay virgin" more often and until older.

I prefer not to argue abour teen sexual activity..

because Its very easy to get "Teen sex" in my side of the pond.. and apparently they (muslim women) "stay virgin" more often and until older.

So what? What difference does that make? If they choose to get laid they won't be killed for it over here. They have the right to make decisions about their own bodies. They're free over here. They're chattel in some of those barbaric countries.

Well, you can bet Osama wouldn't have targeted the US if we were more like his taliban pals. If we stoned gays and women who were raped but couldn't find 4 Muslim male witnesses, if we censored all speech critical of his brand of Islam and if we used our power to spread his ideology he wouldn't have attacked the twin towers or the pentagon. To some extent it's true that they hate our freedom.

I guess that explains why Osama also attacked Sweden, Germany, Chile, Canada, Australia, France, and all those other western democracies.

Osama attacked the US because the USA has a foreign policy of controlling other countries abroad for some of its own economic interests. Osama wants to curtail that power because he wants that power for himself and his allies.

He uses religion as a pretext for recruitment and morale. Hell, he may even believe that he's on a religious crusade, but he is probably not so stupid that he does not realise there are temporal gains to be made. Yes, I'm still discussing Bin Laden, not Bush.

here we go again << on CNN rite now...


Bush saying: they are crazy, they attacked US because we are the beacon of justice and Justice
they hate our freedom.. thay cant stand our freedom..

:rolleyes:

The irony of OcceanDrive of all people going on about someone saying something absurd makes me giggle.

A lot.

Yet they come in droves to reap the benefits and integrate themselves into our culture. You don't value what you have, but the immigrants want it so bad they're willing to risk life and limb to get it. You're an ungrateful spoiled child. Politicians come and go and laws can be changed. You don't think the pendulum will swing the other way? The fact is the history of the US has been a constant struggle toward greater freedom and justice. Bush is a minor setback. Yeah, because criminal behavior that occurs and is punished in my culture is the same as legal behavior that is celebrated in another. Nice. Silence debate through allegations of bigotry. Sorry, won't work. I still love my culture and my country and will speak out in their defense.

Again I agree with your sentiment except, minor? He may be setting in motion a series of conflicts that will challenge our ability to continue to ive the way we do.

I prefer not to argue abour teen sexual activity..

because Its very easy to get "Teen sex" in my side of the pond.. and apparently they (muslim women) "stay virgin" more often and until older.

Yes the fear of being killed does motivate that; especially when talking about certain countries.

Take Pakistan. A "man" slashed the throats of 4(or was it 5) daughters in an honor killing because one daughter was messing around with a boy.

I guess that explains why Osama also attacked Sweden, Germany, Chile, Canada, Australia, France, and all those other western democracies.

Osama attacked the US because the USA has a foreign policy of controlling other countries abroad for some of its own economic interests. Osama wants to curtail that power because he wants that power for himself and his allies.

He uses religion as a pretext for recruitment and morale. Hell, he may even believe that he's on a religious crusade, but he is probably not so stupid that he does not realise there are temporal gains to be made. Yes, I'm still discussing Bin Laden, not Bush.

Or he just attacked us first because we're the biggest boys on the block.

Or he just attacked us first because we're the biggest boys on the block.

No. The USA, rightly or wrongly, has a reputation across the developing world as an imperialist force. This reputation, alongside the desperate conditions these people live under, and the theocratic nature of many middle eastern states, makes it easy for people like Bin Laden to focus a young man's hatred on the USA.

I guess that explains why Osama also attacked Sweden, Germany, Chile, Canada, Australia, France, and all those other western democracies.

Osama attacked the US because the USA has a foreign policy of controlling other countries abroad for some of its own economic interests. Osama wants to curtail that power because he wants that power for himself and his allies.

He uses religion as a pretext for recruitment and morale. Hell, he may even believe that he's on a religious crusade, but he is probably not so stupid that he does not realise there are temporal gains to be made. Yes, I'm still discussing Bin Laden, not Bush.

Bullshit. Osama is concerned with US involvement in the middle east, but his goals are Islamic. Islam isn't just a religion to him, but also the divine plan for how every person should live. It includes a justice system and a government under a caliph. He wants to weaken the US to remove an ally and source of wealth and military strength from Muslim nations in order to facilitate an Islamic revolution that would unify all Muslim lands and from there expand Muslim control to the whole world.

So what? .So nothing.. someone started talking about teen sex.. and I responded..

What difference does that make? it invites more teen sex and pedophilia.
They're free over here.If we give our children the freedom to fuck around ..

#1 We should give them more support.. for teen pregnancy and Herpes and Gonorrea and AIDS..

#2 We should not be surprised by the rise of pedophilia.

and
#3 We should NOT claim Claim Cultural Superiority.

____________________
Our culture (USA) is different.. that is all I am willing to say
I am not going to say our culture is superior.. and I do think others are NOT superior to US..

they are different.

Again I agree with your sentiment except, minor? He may be setting in motion a series of conflicts that will challenge our ability to continue to ive the way we do.

Our nation and culture is strong enough to weather bush and his blunders. He's a setback, but we will resume making progress when he's gone.

No. The USA, rightly or wrongly, has a reputation across the developing world as an imperialist force. This reputation, alongside the desperate conditions these people live under, and the theocratic nature of many middle eastern states, makes it easy for people like Bin Laden to focus a young man's hatred on the USA.

We can argue this till we're blue in the face because neither one of us has any idea what he thinks, but I don't believe for a second that Europe isn't next on the list. Had 9/11 alone been enough to topple the U.S. and cripple us to teh point where we could not fight back in my opinion people would have been blowing themselves up all over the western world the next day.

here we go again << on CNN rite now...


Bush saying: they are crazy, they attacked US because we are the beacon of justice and Justice
they hate our freedom.. thay cant stand our freedom..

:rolleyes:

They did attack us, remember? Or is your memory failing faster than that of most others?

They are crazy, or do you think that the deliberate trageting of civilians is "sane?"

They can't stand our freedom. It's against Shria law.

Just thought a nice, cold dose of reality might cure your memory loss, but probably not. :rolleyes:

So nothing.. someone started talking about teen sex.. and I responded..
it invites more teen sex and pedophilia.
If we give our children the freedom to fuck around ..

#1 We should give them more support.. for teen pregnancy and Herpes and Gonorrea and AIDS..

#2 We should not be surprised by the rise of pedophilia.

and
#3 We should NOT claim Claim Cultural Superiority.

____________________
Our culture (USA) is different.. that is all I am willing to say
I am not going to say our culture is superior.. and I do think others are NOT superior to US..

they are different.
1) Correct.

2) Not killing kids for getting laid doesn't encourage pedophilia. Marrying off one's daughters at 9 years old does.

3) Yes we should. How many people move to Saudi Arabia or Iran looking for a better life? Now how many rush to Europe, Canada, or the USA? The people have voted with their feet. They've chosen our way of life over the inferior, barbaric cultures.

Yet they come in droves to reap the benefits and integrate themselves into our culture.

"Nationstate" is not a "culture." I really don't know how you can look at anywhere in the US and assume we have a monolithic "culture" that, of course, excludes anything bad and is responsible for anything positive about this place.

You don't value what you have, but the immigrants want it so bad they're willing to risk life and limb to get it. You're an ungrateful spoiled child.

The economic conditions in the US are far better than in Mexico. So what? That's not an argument for cultural supremacy. Or wait, are Mexicans inferior and barbaric and evil too?

Politicians come and go and laws can be changed. You don't think the pendulum will swing the other way?

We'll see about that if there is another 9/11. People like you will again be crying to nuke the entire Middle East, and you know it. How many will it take before Muslims are rounded up in internment camps?

The fact is the history of the US has been a constant struggle toward greater freedom and justice. Bush is a minor setback. Yeah, because criminal behavior that occurs and is punished in my culture is the same as legal behavior that is celebrated in another.

"Celebrated" by of course, 1 billion Muslims? I mean, not that you're bigoted on this issue.

Nice. Silence debate through allegations of bigotry. Sorry, won't work. I still love my culture and my country and will speak out in their defense.

Nowhere am I deluded to think that anything I say will "silence" your debate.

And you've spoken out against Islam and Muslims before. You've called them inferior because of their religion. You've made your position on all that clear. That's pretty much a fact of bigotry, not an allegation.

3) Yes we should. How many people move to Saudi Arabia or Iran looking for a better life? Now how many rush to Europe, Canada, or the USA? The people have voted with their feet. They've chosen our way of life over the inferior, barbaric cultures.

And the fact that the USA has a vast land with fuckloads of natural resources, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are small plots of desert, has nothing to do with it. Oh no, it's all about superiority/inferiority of "cultures."

Sigh. You know, one wonders why you are at all opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Killing inferior people shouldn't bother you, and hey, we brought Freedom N Justice to thos barbarians.

They did attack us, remember? Or is your memory failing faster than that of most others?

They are crazy, or do you think that the deliberate trageting of civilians is "sane?"

They can't stand our freedom. It's against Shria law.

Just thought a nice, cold dose of reality might cure your memory loss, but probably not. :rolleyes:

Nice strawmen. Are you really reading the same post as I am?

Oh and Osama is sunni..

Trilby63;11746859']Nice strawmen. Are you really reading the same post as I am?

Oh and Osama is sunni..

Shaira law doesn't refer to Shi'ites. It's universally Islamic. Both Sunni's and Shi'ites have their versions of it.

3) Yes we should (Claim Cultural Superiority).

How many people move to Saudi Arabia or Iran looking for a better life? Now how many rush to Europe, Canada, or the USA? The people have voted with their feet. They've chosen our way of life over the inferior, barbaric cultures.Canadian Health Professionals emigrate on a daily basis to the US..

do you actually think.. These doctors have chosen our way of life over the inferior, barbaric Candian culture.??

or maybe its because they get a larger paycheck here?

BTW those doctors do keep watching Hockey and drinking canadian beer.. they will even pay top dollars to keep a Canadian Satellite system
they will not abandon their Culture..

Shaira law doesn't refer to Shi'ites. It's universally Islamic. Both Sunni's and Shi'ites have their versions of it.

Indeed. So why attack America rather than the Shi'ites to promote there version?

Trilby63;11746889']Indeed. So why attack America rather than the Shi'ites to promote there version?

They do attack each other as can be seen plainly in Iraq right now and in the Iran Iraq war of the 80s. But I was just actually saying...

"Nationstate" is not a "culture." I really don't know how you can look at anywhere in the US and assume we have a monolithic "culture" that, of course, excludes anything bad and is responsible for anything positive about this place.
We do have a culture reflected in our political and legal institutions, in the fact that we value tolerance and those who are racists are looked down on as uncivilized barbarians, in our shared English language, in our literature that is taught in schools, and in the other values and traditions we share regardless of race or ethnic heritage. As for it being responsible for anything positive and excluding anythign bad, that's your strawman, not my argument.


The economic conditions in the US are far better than in Mexico. So what? That's not an argument for cultural supremacy. Or wait, are Mexicans inferior and barbaric and evil too? How about Cuban refugees? They've got free medical care and education, yet they come here. How about the various Pakistani, Arab and Indian folks who come to the US to be doctors, engineers, and entrepreneurs? I'm sure they could make similar money in Saudi Arabia, but they choose the USA. And I've made it clear in previous threads on this subject that our economic status is made possible in large part by our culture.





We'll see about that if there is another 9/11. People like you will again be crying to nuke the entire Middle East, and you know it. How many will it take before Muslims are rounded up in internment camps? And if it was during the cold war and a communist terrorist organization pulled off a 9/11 style attack I would call for nuking the whole Soviet Union. Blind rage is not the same as bigotry.



"Celebrated" by of course, 1 billion Muslims? I mean, not that you're bigoted on this issue. Not by all of them, but there are plenty who live in those barbaric nations who embrace the idea that if their daughter screws around they can kill her "for the family's honor" and that gays should be executed. I'm talking specifically about those who perpetuate that type of inferior culture, not those who oppose it or who suffer under it.



Nowhere am I deluded to think that anything I say will "silence" your debate.

And you've spoken out against Islam and Muslims before. You've called them inferior because of their religion. You've made your position on all that clear. That's pretty much a fact of bigotry, not an allegation. I've called Christians inferior because of their religion too. I'm against religion, but I'm for freedom of and from religion. Does that make me a bigot?

And the fact that the USA has a vast land with fuckloads of natural resources, and Saudi Arabia and Iran are small plots of desert, has nothing to do with it. Oh no, it's all about superiority/inferiority of "cultures."

Sigh. You know, one wonders why you are at all opposed to the invasion of Iraq. Killing inferior people shouldn't bother you, and hey, we brought Freedom N Justice to thos barbarians.

Saudi Arabia has the world's largest oil deposits. If their culture didn't promote religious studies instead of science and engineering in their universities, If their culture didn't adhere to monarchy and blind religious faith, maybe they could have used that wealth to build a first-rate economy.

Even so, there are plenty of well-paid jobs in Saudi Arabia. People from all over the world, even the USA go there to work for a while. While people go there to earn some cash, they don't try to settle down there. When they're looking for a place to live they choose Western nations.

Canadian Health Professionals emigrate on a daily basis to the US..

do you actually think.. These doctors have chosen our way of life over the inferior, barbaric Candian culture.??

or maybe its because they get a larger paycheck here?

BTW those doctors do keep watching Hockey and drinking canadian beer.. they will even pay top dollars to keep a Canadian Satellite system
they will not abandon their Culture..

It's almost the same culture. I drink Canadian beer and watch Hockey.

Trilby63;11746889']Indeed. So why attack America rather than the Shi'ites to promote there version?

Didn't you pay attention when Shiite mosques in Pakistan and in Iraq were being blown up by Sunni terrorists?

It's almost the same culture. I drink Canadian beer and watch Hockey.

I work for Canadians. One day before the Iraq war started my boss flew in from vancouver and we discussing the whole issue. She made one point where she said, "If we go to war in Iraq I don't think it will turn out the way we plan."

The point is that she said "we." Canadian and US culture is so intertwined that it's hard for people to tell the difference. Our economies, our societies and our values makes us more of one homogenous cultural block than our boundaries would let on. I deal with Canadians every single day and it's no different than dealing with the guy sitting next to me. So, again, I agree.

Didn't you pay attention when Shiite mosques in Pakistan and in Iraq were being blown up by Sunni terrorists?

No not really.

So.. did they attack the Shi'ites because they hate their freedom?

Trilby63;11746943']No not really.

So.. did they attack the Shi'ites because they hate their freedom?

Yes. They hate their exercise of religious freedom. They seek to impose their religious ideas on everyone.

Trilby63;11746943']No not really.

So.. did they attack the Shi'ites because they hate their freedom?

Not that I want to defend Bush's rhetoric because he's an idiot and that statement is a vast oversimplification of a complex situation, but just because they hate one thing about one group does not mean that they can't hate another thing about another group. I hate murderers and pedophiles. It's easy to hate two things at the same time.

It's almost the same culture. I drink Canadian beer and watch Hockey.aww.. good reply. 10/10 rating..

This reply is like from my copyrigthed "Occean's debating basics 101" manual.
There is nothing I can hang to it. :headbang:

Who are you.. and how did you get DCD password? :D

ah well.. you are getting smarter I guess.

We never did that to a Muslim country prior to 9/11. Maybe to Latin American ones, but Al Qaeda isn't a Latin organization.


Two things worthy of note:
Iran
Egypt

Our CIA had a little bit to do with "electioneering" in these two countries during the 70's. Is assasination and promoting a coup still grounds for hatred?

ah well.. you are getting smarter I guess.

Comming from you that's not a compliment.

Two things worthy of note:
Iran
Egypt

Our CIA had a little bit to do with "electioneering" in these two countries during the 70's. Is assasination and promoting a coup still grounds for hatred?

Iran. Good point. But Al Qaeda is a sunni organization. As for Egypt, when did we change their government to one that suited us?

It was intented as a compliment.
your reply was top of the class.

Yes. They hate their exercise of religious freedom. They seek to impose their religious ideas on everyone.

Of course. I mean becuase Iran with the largest population of Shi'ites is a beacon of freedom.

It's meaningless, bullshit rhetoric. Sure, they hate western values but seriously, are you an idiot? Because Bush, with this blatent simplification, is treating you like one. They attacked you because they hate. They attacked because it was good propaganda for their cause. They seek power and they know the best way to achieve it is through fear and through the hate that only the truely mediocre can bring to bear.

Trilby63;11747044']Of course. I mean becuase Iran with the largest population of Shi'ites is a beacon of freedom.

It's meaningless, bullshit rhetoric. Sure, they hate western values but seriously, are you an idiot? Because Bush, with this blatent simplification, is treating you like one. They attacked you because they hate. They attacked because it was good propaganda for their cause. They seek power and they know the best way to achieve it is through fear and through the hate that only the truely mediocre can bring to bear.

I thought we were talking about Pakistan and Iraq? You know, where the shi'ite mosqes were blown up by Sunni terrorists? Or are we just moving goalposts now? Those nations have some level of religious freedom. The terrorists want to eliminate even that small ammount of liberty.

Our CIA had a little bit to do with "electioneering" ..
Is assasination and promoting a coup still grounds for hatred?Absolutamente.

Coups/Assasination of their political leaders are grounds for hatred.
Supporting the Assasins/Dictators are grounds for hatred.

We never did that to a Muslim country prior to 9/11. Maybe to Latin American ones, but Al Qaeda isn't a Latin organization.


No, there was just the sponsored coups, and the follow up support.

Osama wants to expand Muslim control to the whole world.I dont think so.

I dont think so.

Of course you don't think so. You haven't done any research on the subject. You just want to be able to blame the USA and every Jew in the world.

You haven't done any research on the subject. if that is true, then you should be (easily) able to prove me wrong.

Osama wants to expand Muslim control to the whole world.I dont think so.

It's his stated goal.

(Osama wants to expand Muslim control to the whole world.)It's his stated goal.CNN/FOX/AP?

if that is true, then you should be (easily) able to prove me wrong.

Read some books on the subject. A good place to start is The Age of Sacred Terror (http://www.amazon.com/Age-Sacred-Terror-Daniel-Benjamin/dp/0375508597).

Here's a link to more evidence if you're too lazy to go to the library.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html?oneclick=true

CNN/FOX/AP?

Just do a google search for Osama Bin laden quotes but all you really need to do is use logic. Islam, like Christianity, is a religion of conversion. It is the duty of Muslims to try to get people to convert to Islam the same way it is teh duty of Christians to try to get people to convert to Christianity so there's no question he'd like to see everyone in the world turn Muslim because all Muslims would, even the moderate and nonviolent ones. With Osama he also believes that teh government should obey Shiara law so we're not just talking about religious conversion, we're talking about state control of religion. How could you possibly think he woudl want anything else?

Two things worthy of note:
Iran
Egypt

Our CIA had a little bit to do with "electioneering" in these two countries during the 70's. Is assasination and promoting a coup still grounds for hatred?Indeed. Arguably those two incidents were the final provocations for enabling the Muslim Brotherhood.

@ OcceanDrive if you hadn't realised Osama & that lot were on a mission to expell the US from the ME region so their dream for a united ME Caliphat could come true, you've seriously been sleeping soundly under your rock.

It's their stated agenda. Always has been, since before Osama had anything to do with the (more or less) ex-Muslim Brotherhood. Even before Osama, America, Egypt & Iran, it was the same damn crowd, with the same damn goals & ideology against the British in Egypt.

It has always been primarily about terrorising their own countries into submission, ans secondarily the rest of the planet. Neither the British, the Russians nor the Americans have ever been anything but obstacles for them. Not because either have some sort of "freedom" but because they enabled or enables their own regimes to stand up to them.

It's not some epic struggle to free themselves from American oppression. It's a struggle to replace their own governments & unite the ME under Islamofascist rule.

And DCD, right you are mate. Their culture is ass-backwards shite. It shouldn't even be a cultural issue, but one of governing. Laws that oppress, subjugate & exterminate parts of a population can never be tolerable & should never be respected. Calling it "culture" doesn't change the fact that it's just inhumane, totalitarian bollox.

Zero tolerance for intolerance. anything else is hypocritical as hell. If you don't want your gay neighbour hanged or stoned to death, then you shouldn't be defending people who do it to their neighbours.

We've let extremist, terrorist organizations hijack the foreign policy of Middle Eastern countries and run their economies into the ground for too long. We need to bring the entire Middle East, with the exception of Israel, under US control, whatever the cost. It may ruin those countries now, but they'll thank us in a couple of decades.

We've let extremist, terrorist organizations hijack the foreign policy of Middle Eastern countries and run their economies into the ground for too long. We need to bring the entire Middle East, with the exception of Israel, under US control, whatever the cost. It may ruin those countries now, but they'll thank us in a couple of decades.

It'll also ruin our country now.

We've let extremist, terrorist organizations hijack the foreign policy of Middle Eastern countries and run their economies into the ground for too long. We need to bring the entire Middle East, with the exception of Israel, under US control, whatever the cost. It may ruin those countries now, but they'll thank us in a couple of decades.People are never grateful for being forcefully subjected to someone's rule, even when it benefits them in the long run.
Cast a glance on the historical evidence. Even back in the days of Great Egypt, vasal states never developed any level of gratitude or even tolerance, despite the fact that they clearly benefitted.

And of course, the Psychotic one is right as usual. There's just no way in hell you could pull it off.

We've let extremist, terrorist organizations hijack the foreign policy of Middle Eastern countries and run their economies into the ground for too long. We need to bring the entire Middle East, with the exception of Israel, under US control, whatever the cost. It may ruin those countries now, but they'll thank us in a couple of decades.

Are you insane? Why would we want to take responsibility for that shithole?

People are never grateful for being forcefully subjected to someone's rule, even when it benefits them in the long run.

Well, they may not be grateful, but their country's economy sure will. Look what happened in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s in the US. Sure, the Native Americans "owned" the land, but their were senselessly mismanaging it. It may not have been "right" to drive them off the land, but it was progress. Similarly, it would be progress to drive the Muslims out of the Middle East unless they can conform to Western standards.

Well, they may not be grateful, but their country's economy sure will. Look what happened in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s in the US. Sure, the Native Americans "owned" the land, but their were senselessly mismanaging it. It may not have been "right" to drive them off the land, but it was progress. Similarly, it would be progress to drive the Muslims out of the Middle East unless they can conform to Western standards.

Yeah, good luck with that. Genocide would be easier and cheaper.

Well, they may not be grateful, but their country's economy sure will. Look what happened in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s in the US. Sure, the Native Americans "owned" the land, but their were senselessly mismanaging it. It may not have been "right" to drive them off the land, but it was progress. Similarly, it would be progress to drive the Muslims out of the Middle East unless they can conform to Western standards.

You'd be a better troll if you weren't so obvious.

Yeah, good luck with that. Genocide would be easier and cheaper.

Indeed. There is no country in the world that can stop us from conquering the Middle East. We should do so without heeding civilian casualties, for the greater good in the end. We should rebuild their country into something better than it was before, the same way the Europeans rebuilt the lands of the Native Americans and the Israelis turned a barren desert fruitful and built a highly successful state out of nothing.

You'd be a better troll if you weren't so obvious.

Yeah, we should let unsuccessful rulers litter the world when we have the capacity to improve such countries. If it were up to you, would North America be dominated by Native Americans frolicking in the grass, hunting with bows and arrows, and using rattlesnake tails as a remedy for every affliction?

Indeed. There is no country in the world that can stop us from conquering the Middle East. We should do so without heeding civilian casualties, for the greater good in the end. We should rebuild their country into something better than it was before, the same way the Europeans rebuilt the lands of the Native Americans and the Israelis turned a barren desert fruitful and built a highly successful state out of nothing.

What part of more trouble than it's worth don't you understand? If anything we should find alternate sources of energy, more efficient technologies, and just leave the middle east alone. Why should we get involved in such a mess?

Yeah, we should let unsuccessful rulers litter the world when we have the capacity to improve such countries. If it were up to you, would North America be dominated by Native Americans frolicking in the grass, hunting with bows and arrows, and using rattlesnake tails as a remedy for every affliction?

No, you're missing my point. My point isn't that rattlesnake tails aren't cool, they are. My point is that you would be abetter troll if you sounded a little reasonable at first, lured a few people into a debate and then slowly started getting more and more stupid. If you did it that way you'd last longer and you'd get more people into your stupid argument and it woudl keep your mind off of the fact that you can't get laid for longer.

Why should we get involved in such a mess?

For the same reasons why we got involved in North America a couple centuries ago. They have resources which they are misusing and their government are grossly corrupt and failed. We need to bring them up to scratch, so to speak, like North America was brought up to scratch. I'm happy that the whole of the US isn't occupied by a people who are horribly under-civilized.

The US needs the oil!!

My point is that you would be abetter troll if you sounded a little reasonable at first, lured a few people into a debate and then slowly started getting more and more stupid.

Excellent potshot with that ad hominem argument -- real mature. How about actually arguing with my point? Are you for or against the European colonization of North America? If you are a proponent of it, how does it differ from a proposed American colonization of the Middle East?

Yeah, we should let unsuccessful rulers litter the world when we have the capacity to improve such countries. If it were up to you, would North America be dominated by Native Americans frolicking in the grass, hunting with bows and arrows, and using rattlesnake tails as a remedy for every affliction?Yups. No reason to force technological development down anyone's throats. Besides, that's hardly what happened. Settlers took over the country by murdering the rightful owners.

To use an analogy; you're making it sound like you're offering your neighbour to paint his flat, when what you actually intend to do, is to kill him, his family & whatever other living critters that might be living there.

Still, in relation to the ME, I suppose that isn't far off. You can't forcefully subjugate anything much in the ME, especially not for a prolonged period. There's no military force on Earth capable of pulling off as thing like that, even if we assume funding is a non-issue.

What you could do, is turn every square inch of the place into an ocean of black glass. It's possible. And it would kill every last person there. Of course, there's a very good chance the rest of the globe would feel compelled to launch WWIII at you for it, and there's the little issue of Israel, which would pretty hard to preserve in the face of the nuclear holocaust you'd have to let loose.

If you want my personal opinion, I think you're just past insane enough to need shock therapy & a padded cell - but that's just my opinion.

For the same reasons why we got involved in North America a couple centuries ago. They have resources which they are misusing and their government are grossly corrupt and failed. We need to bring them up to scratch, so to speak, like North America was brought up to scratch. I'm happy that the whole of the US isn't occupied by a people who are horribly under-civilized.

Hmm. I somehow doubt that the colonists sailing to America were going on a mission to destroy the fascist Native American dictatorships and install democracy, but thats an argument for another thread.

Anyway, the best way to bring down the tyrants of the Middle East is to stop buying their oil. By switching to renewable sources and nuclear power, you get to lessen the impact of peak oil, save us all from global warming, and topple the entire Middle East and Venezuela in one go. Then you help out the democratic ones and give the rest the finger. Not two, but four birds with one stone.

Hmm. I somehow doubt that the colonists sailing to America were going on a mission to destroy the fascist Native American dictatorships and install democracy, but thats an argument for another thread.

No, they conquered the Native American people because they were much more powerful. They had far more advanced technology and were far better allocators of resources. The same applies to the US and Middle East. We need to have an "evolution" of coutries -- if you fail at being able to defend yourself and fail at being a successful country, your government will be usurped by a more capable country (the USA in this case). We will be far more apt at managing the Middle East than the current governments are, the same way the colonists were much better at managing America than the Native Americans were.

For the same reasons why we got involved in North America a couple centuries ago. They have resources which they are misusing and their government are grossly corrupt and failed. We need to bring them up to scratch, so to speak, like North America was brought up to scratch. I'm happy that the whole of the US isn't occupied by a people who are horribly under-civilized.

So we prove we're more civilized by stealing their land and resources. Nice. I'm happy the US is a modern civilized nation too, but I recognize that it was born from an uncivilized act of armed robbery. We don't need the middle east if we can switch to other sources of energy. Then we can end our involvement and trade with that region and let 'em either modernize or learn to eat sand and drink oil.

Excellent potshot with that ad hominem argument -- real mature. How about actually arguing with my point? Are you for or against the European colonization of North America? If you are a proponent of it, how does it differ from a proposed American colonization of the Middle East?

Okay, I'll play.

I'm against the colonialization of North America. Personally, I think we should all start to migrate back to Europe and give it back. As for the Middle east I think we not only have no right to conquer it, in my opinion we should open our borders wide enough to let as many terrorist attacks as possible happen on US soil. The rest of the world has had to put up with it long enough, it's out turn to take our medicine. White people from America are responsible almost every problem the world has ever known and maybe if enough of us are killed teh world would be a better place.

I'm against the colonialization of North America.

Ah, so you are anti-progressive? You believe that even unsuccessful nations who are completely uncivilized should run the world because "they were there first"? Well, I, for one, am happy that the Europeans were able to colonize the Americas and bring a shred of rationality to the continents. Thank God we don't live in a world where failed regimes are in control of large tracts of land because the rest of the world is too hippy to do anything about it. We conquered the Native Americans and built a technologically advanced nation on their territory -- I personally do not want the world to devolve to a place in which neanderthal tribes dominate the territory. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs -- and I want the damn omelet!

Ah, so you are anti-progressive?

Progress sucks.

All of this has nothing to do with race. The US will get its oil!!

We've let extremist, terrorist organizations hijack the foreign policy of Middle Eastern countries and run their economies into the ground for too long. We need to bring the entire Middle East, with the exception of Israel, under US control, whatever the cost. It may ruin those countries now, but they'll thank us in a couple of decades.

Yeah, isn't that the reaction of all conquered people? That they will thank their conquerers in the future? After all, they know that they will be better off. So all you backward people, give up your sovereignty to your betters.

You'll thank us.

No, they conquered the Native American people because they were much more powerful. They had far more advanced technology and were far better allocators of resources. The same applies to the US and Middle East. We need to have an "evolution" of coutries -- if you fail at being able to defend yourself and fail at being a successful country, your government will be usurped by a more capable country (the USA in this case). We will be far more apt at managing the Middle East than the current governments are, the same way the colonists were much better at managing America than the Native Americans were.
Does this extend to an individual level as well?

For example, if I buy control of your resources, should I not just be allowed to, but encouraged to cease control over everything you depend on? If I can tear you limb from limb, should it not only be legal for me, should I be encouraged to do it?

Ultimately, non-aggro is self-preservation. For individuals as well as countries. It's the main purpose for laws, national & international.

Finally, the US lacks the capability to control the ME. You can meddle & reinforce various parties (just like you have for a generation). What you don't have, is the power to size control. Despite what the Shrub declares every five minutes, the "coalition" doesn't have anything resembling control of Iraq. they control tiny scattered areas, just like the other sides in the conflict do. The rest of the (former?) country is a warzone.

Of course, you can drop a fuckload of nukes on the various countries, but that won't enable you to take them over either. It'll just kill millions of people & create a global environmental & climate disaster - not to mention that kind of action would likely convince the rest of the world that you're too criminally insane to be suffered to live. And.. Well.. We would have a better chance of doing something about you than you have at doing something about the ME region.

Okay, I'll play.That was fun! Do it again!

All of this has nothing to do with race. The US will get its oil!!

Well considering we can bend the world over and fuck it anytime we want, don't you think it's prudent to make sure we have plenty of lube?

because its friday..

pah! saturday is better.

That was fun! Do it again!

He left. I think he probably got moded.

He left. I think he probably got moded.Oh.. It's against the rules to glorify the systematic genocide of an entire peoples?

... Who would've guessed...

Does this extend to an individual level as well? For example, if I buy control of your resources, should I not just be allowed to, but encouraged to cease control over everything you depend on? If I can tear you limb from limb, should it not only be legal for me, should I be encouraged to do it?

Of course you would not be encouraged to do so. After all, you do not gain anything if you tear someone limb from limb. However, if we subjugate the Middle East, we do gain something -- access to their resources and an increased standard of living for those who would proceed to colonize the Middle East in the future. At first, in North America, colonists had lower qualities of life than Native Americans. Now, however, our quality of life far exceeds theirs. The same is applicable to an expansion of our empire into the Middle East. As long as someone wins out in the long run, we should do it. And it will be for the greater good, in the end.

. Now, however, our quality of life far exceeds their.

Please repost that or edit it so that you are using the plural form of the word "their."

Please repost that or edit it so that you are using the plural form of the word "their."

Thank you for the correction. I similarly urge you to reconsider the following message, only using the correct word.

The rest of the world has had to put up with it long enough, it's out turn to take our medicine.

Well considering we can bend the world over and fuck it anytime we want, don't you think it's prudent to make sure we have plenty of lube?

Just do it slow.

Thank you for the correction. I similarly urge you to reconsider the following message, only using the correct word.

I meant exactly what I said there. It is out turn.

Just do it slow.

TENACIOUS D LYRICS

"Fuck Her Gently"

This is a song for the ladies
But fellas listen closely
You don't always have to fuck her hard
In fact sometimes that's not right to do
Sometimes you've got to make some love
And fuckin give her some smoochies too
Sometimes ya got to squeeze
Sometimes you've got to say please
Sometime you've got to say hey
I'm gonna Fuck you softly
I'm gonna screw you gently
I'm gonna hump you sweetly
I'm gonna ball you discreetly
And then you say hey I bought you flowers
And then you say wait a minute sally
I think I got somethin in my teeth
Could you get it out for me
That's fuckin teamwork
Whats your favorite posish?
That's cool with me
Its not my favorite
But I'll do it for you
Whats your favorite dish?
Im not gonna cook it
But ill order it from Zanzibar
And then I'm gonna love you completely
And then I'll fuckin fuck you discreetly
And then I'll fucking bone you completely
But then I'm gonna fuck you hard
Hard

The US will get the oil!! Sure, we paid for it last heating season. It will not happen much longer.

Progress sucks.

I got better things to do.....than chop wood.

Does this extend to an individual level as well?

For example, if I buy control of your resources, should I not just be allowed to, but encouraged to cease control over everything you depend on? If I can tear you limb from limb, should it not only be legal for me, should I be encouraged to do it?

Ultimately, non-aggro is self-preservation. For individuals as well as countries. It's the main purpose for laws, national & international.

Finally, the US lacks the capability to control the ME. You can meddle & reinforce various parties (just like you have for a generation). What you don't have, is the power to size control. Despite what the Shrub declares every five minutes, the "coalition" doesn't have anything resembling control of Iraq. they control tiny scattered areas, just like the other sides in the conflict do. The rest of the (former?) country is a warzone.

Of course, you can drop a fuckload of nukes on the various countries, but that won't enable you to take them over either. It'll just kill millions of people & create a global environmental & climate disaster - not to mention that kind of action would likely convince the rest of the world that you're too criminally insane to be suffered to live. And.. Well.. We would have a better chance of doing something about you than you have at doing something about the ME region.

BLUH - BLUH - BLUH

Just give up the oil!! Then you guys can kill yourselfs!

I meant exactly what I said there. It is out turn.

In that case, please attend a course on the English language. In particular, you may want to pay attention to possessive adjectives.

In that case, please attend a course on the English language. In particular, you may want to pay attention to possessive adjectives.

It's slang. What I meant was that the islamic world would be justified in turning out your mother to prostitute in islamic brothels.

It's slang. What I meant was that the islamic world would be justified in turning out your mother to prostitute in islamic brothels.

Please don't resort to such crude, inflammatory language. My mother is completely tangent to this discussion. I shall report you to the moderators if you continue. Thank you.

Please don't resort to such crude, inflammatory language. My mother is completely tangent to this discussion. I shall report you to the moderators if you continue. Thank you.

Believe me. Were you to report this thread to the moderators you'd be banned. advocating genocide is against the rules here.

In anycase, you're the one who wants to troll. I'm just giving you stuff to play with. You should thank me. :)

advocating genocide is against the rules here.

It is? I'm afraid I was unaware of that. I apologize -- I will keep my political views on that subject to myself in the future.

In anycase, you're the one who wants to troll.

I would prefer an honest debate. :)

Don't you little nazi-brats get tired of advocating genocide, preaching your "cultural" superiority nonsense and waving the vicarious dick of the US military around like it's something you had any part in? No? Carry on then.

dp

@ OcceanDrive if you hadn't realised Osama & that lot were on a mission to expell the US from the ME region ..Osama and AQ do want to expell the US military from the region.

why do you say "@ OcceanDrive if you hadn't realised..." ???

here we go again << on CNN rite now...


Bush saying: they are crazy, they attacked US because we are the beacon of Freedom and Justice
..they hate our freedom ..they cant stand our freedom..

:rolleyes:

youre a dumbass:headbang: ... why else would they attack us????
:upyours:

Osama and AQ do want to expell the US military from the region.

why do you say "@ OcceanDrive if you hadn't realised..." ???Because it sounded like you hadn't.

Islam, like Christianity, is a religion of conversion. It is the duty of Muslims to try to get people to convert to Islam the same way it is teh duty of Christians to try to get people to convert to Christianity so there's no question he'd like to see everyone in the world turn Muslim because all Muslims would, even the moderate and nonviolent ones. With Osama he also believes that teh government should obey Shiara law so we're not just talking about religious conversion, we're talking about state control of religion. How could you possibly think he woudl want anything else?of course.. He would like for everyone to "see the ligth" and convert.. (like most religions want you to convert)

But that is not why they attacked US..
911 was not a religious campaign to convert New Yorkers.

Because it sounded like you hadn't.feel free to use the quote function to show us where "I sounded like I hadn't"

youre a dumbass:headbang: ... why else would they attack us????
:upyours:hahaha.. If I would get a dollar for everytime someone created a brand new Nation just to insult me... I would be millionare.

BTW.. Congrats on your very first Post.. Newcomer ;)

hahaha.. If I would get a dollar for everytime someone created a brand new Nation just to insult me... I would be millionare.

BTW.. Congrats on your very first Post.. Newcomer ;)

Please, OD, don't flatter yourself.

You would be a dozenare. :p

911 was not a religious campaign to convert New Yorkers.

Eh, it might have been. I doubt Osama knows too much about cause and effect. He might have thought that massacring thousands of New Yorkers would be an excellent marketing ploy.

of course.. He would like for everyone to "see the ligth" and convert.. (like most religions want you to convert)

But that is not why they attacked US..
911 was not a religious campaign to convert New Yorkers.

It's a strategy to isolate and weaken the governments of the middle east so an Islamic caliphate can be established that would use it's control of oil and it's military to spread it's control to the rest of the world. In Osama's Islam religion is politics. There is no way to separate them. Everything is, ultimately, run according to what he thinks god's will is.

youre a dumbass:headbang: ... why else would they attack us????
:upyours:

Maybe because they are simply jealous of our wealth and power? Or they do not care for our arrogance in the world and how they think we treat the people in the Middle East and take their resources for ourselves? That might be it...

Or they do not care for our arrogance in the world and how they think we treat the people in the Middle East and take their resources for ourselves? That might be it...

What wrongs have we committed against the Middle East (prior to 9/11, that is. I can see how the invasion of Iraq could be somehow construed as a "wrong")?

What wrongs have we committed against the Middle East (prior to 9/11, that is. I can see how the invasion of Iraq could be somehow construed as a "wrong")?

Our funding of the Iran-Iraq War wasn't enough? Our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out? Lebenon? Our occassional bombing campaign that kills civilans? Our support of Israel? Our taking of the oil from the region and the population not benefiting? Or maybe simply our sheer arrogance that our culture is best and that everyone there should do things the American way?

Our funding of the Iran-Iraq War wasn't enough?

The same thing applied to many European countries. It was a battleground for the Cold War -- we all had to pick sides, and we did. Nothing wrong with that.

Our abandonment of Afghanistan after the Soviets pulled out?

So we're getting punished for things we didn't do but should have done? They hate us because we don't pour funds so that they can rebuild the country that they royally fucked up? Tough luck.

Our occassional bombing campaign that kills civilans?

How many civilians have died in bombing campaigns prior to 9/11? Not very many at all.

Our support of Israel?

Yeah, too bad we didn't let the terrorists go all Final Solution on the Jews, right? Who's like Hitler now?

Our taking of the oil from the region and the population not benefiting?

We buy oil, we don't steal it. The population benefits depending on the type of government by which the country is run. If they have a problem with how oil funds help the population, then that's their government's problem, not ours.

Or maybe simply our sheer arrogance that our culture is best and that everyone there should do things the American way?

It is and they should.

It is and they should.

You wouldn't know the first thing about the American Way, you stupid little shit. You praise 1984. You think Hitler was swell. You advocate genocide. You hate freedom of speech, calling it "traitorous," except when it's a Republican who wants to fuck little kids.

People like you are an insult to humanity. You're no better than terrorists themselves. If you'd been born in Afghanistan, you would have blown yourself up already and the world would be better off for it. Too bad people like you, in this country, don't have the balls to do anything but spout trollish trash on internet forums, no doubt giggling girlishly when people rise to your baiting and give you the attention spoiled brats like you so obviously need.

The same thing applied to many European countries. It was a battleground for the Cold War -- we all had to pick sides, and we did. Nothing wrong with that.

Other countries gave Iraq chemical weapons?

So we're getting punished for things we didn't do but should have done? They hate us because we don't pour funds so that they can rebuild the country that they royally fucked up? Tough luck.

We left Afghanistan to be taken over by the Taliban. The extremism there is because we let it be so. We trained the very people to fight the Soviets who are now the "terrorists" who are fighting us.

How many civilians have died in bombing campaigns prior to 9/11? Not very many at all.

Yeah, the civilians dying in Iraq are more than enough.

Yeah, too bad we didn't let the terrorists go all Final Solution on the Jews, right? Who's like Hitler now?

It is why the don't like us. Doesn't mean our supporting them is wrong. Though I do think we should put our foot down on Israel using our weapons to indiscriminately kill civilians. Firing missiles in crowded areas is irresponsible at best.

We buy oil, we don't steal it. The population benefits depending on the type of government by which the country is run. If they have a problem with how oil funds help the population, then that's their government's problem, not ours.

The control of the oil is under a few oil companies and some Middle Eastern families. The people don't benefit at all. We are also the ones who took control of the oil to begin with. Then of course we overthrew the democratically elected government in Iran. I bet our love of freedom didn't extend to other countires like Iran when they wanted to control their own oil. A resource that we needed. Democracy was secondary. Let freedom ring in the Middle East. Or not in this case.

It is and they should.

Like I said, people having an attitude like that only pisses people off.

You praise 1984.

1984 was a novel depicting a horrible society. I do think it was a well-written book, but I doubt that's what you meant to say with that comment.

You think Hitler was swell.

I think he was a monster.

You advocate genocide.

I advocate the bombing of countries that support terrorism, yes. That's not genocide -- that's war.

You hate freedom of speech, calling it "traitorous,"

I never called freedom of speech traitorous. I called the employment of freedom of speech to call the US government a "terrorist" entity traitorous, and it is.

Too bad people like you, in this country, don't have the balls to do anything but spout trollish trash on internet forums, no doubt giggling girlishly when people rise to your baiting and give you the attention spoiled brats like you so obviously need.

Tee-hee. :)

Other countries gave Iraq chemical weapons?

Other countries gave Iraq or Iran weapons, although notchemical or biological weapons. I would also like to see a source claiming that the US provided Hussein with chemical weapons.

We left Afghanistan to be taken over by the Taliban. The extremism there is because we let it be so. We trained the very people to fight the Soviets who are now the "terrorists" who are fighting us.

So they're mad at us because they were able to gain power via our inaction? How does that work out? Damn you, America, you allowed me to rule this country, and so now I'll kill you!

Yeah, the civilians dying in Iraq are more than enough.

Are you talking about the sanctions? They were by no means unilateral. If you are talking about the war, I said prior to 9/11.

The control of the oil is under a few oil companies and some Middle Eastern families.

Not our fault.

1984 was a novel depicting a horrible society. I do think it was a well-written book, but I doubt that's what you meant to say with that comment.

Yeah, you praised the society. How quickly you forget. Oh well, lie when it makes you look more politically correct, right?


I think he was a monster.

You said he was right on a lot of issues, except in not crushing internal dissent. In other words, you don't think he was ENOUGH of a monster.

But hey - why stop lying now?

I advocate the bombing of countries that support terrorism, yes. That's not genocide -- that's war.

You advocated a "plan" involving killing all Muslims. You qualified that it "might" be a "little extreme right now."

Lie, lie, lie.

I never called freedom of speech traitorous. I called the employment of freedom of speech to call the US government a "terrorist" entity traitorous, and it is.

No, it isn't.

Tell you what - the US government is a barbaric, cruel, terrorist-supporting and terroristic agency bent on world domination at the expense of the American people, the West, and everyone else in the world just to benefit a few power-hungry elites.

I'll sit here and wait til I'm convicted of "treason." Until then your idiotic slander is just pointless fanboi wankery.


Tee-hee. :)

Faggot.

<snip>

Faggot.

Homophobe. How can you put people down for being bigots if you're a homophobe? Isn't that hypocritical?

Homophobe. How can you put people down for being bigots if you're a homophobe? Isn't that hypocritical?

Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with being homosexual or, specifically, him being one.

Yeah, you praised the society. How quickly you forget. Oh well, lie when it makes you look more politically correct, right?

What on Earth are you talking about? I never even mentioned that particular novel prior to my last post. You can rifle through all my posts, if that will satisfy you.

You said he was right on a lot of issues, except in not crushing internal dissent. In other words, you don't think he was ENOUGH of a monster.

No, I said that he was right on some issues except his quashing of dissent. I went on to say that dissent should never be crushed. But, hey, why let actual statements interfere with your deep-rooted prejudices?

You advocated a "plan" involving killing all Muslims. You qualified that it "might" be a "little extreme right now."

I said that it would solve the terrorism problem, not that it was an adequate solution. I never said that we should embark upon that course of action. Liar, liar, la, la, la.

I'll sit here and wait til I'm convicted of "treason." Until then your idiotic slander is just pointless fanboi wankery.

You won't be, because the US government is a beacon of freedom and human rights to the entire world. You should thank God that you live in a country where you can vilely bad-mouth the government without getting taken out into the street and shot. You disgust me.

Faggot.

My sexual orientation should not be a matter of discussion. Are you biased against gays? Do you persecute people based on whom they would like to have sex with? Open-minded, my ass.

So they're mad at us because they were able to gain power via our inaction? How does that work out? Damn you, America, you allowed me to rule this country, and so now I'll kill you!

The point is that we trained the Taliban fighters not to mention Osama bin Laden. Then instead of rebuilding Afghanistan we leave them to fend for themselves. And they fought us because we invaded the country.

I also noticed that you ignored my point of our overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran. Was that justified?

Hey, I didn't say there was anything wrong with being homosexual or, specifically, him being one.

You certainly implied it. If a someone gets angry with a black person and calls him a ****** can he then say he doesn't look down on blacks? That's the thing about slurs. They imply that the other person is inferior based on race, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

What on Earth are you talking about? I never even mentioned that particular novel prior to my last post. You can rifle through all my posts, if that will satisfy you.

I wonder if you think lying is actually a good way to set the record straight.

No, I said that he was right on some issues except his quashing of dissent. I went on to say that dissent should never be crushed. But, hey, why let actual statements interfere with your deep-rooted prejudices?

Yeah? So, specify which issues, nazi boy. Or are you playing "I'm politically correct now" and can't be bothered with anything more than lies?

I said that it would solve the terrorism problem, not that it was an adequate solution. I never said that we should embark upon that course of action.

You danced around it because you know it's against the forum rules. You do think you're pretty slick, don't you?

You won't be, because the US government is a beacon of freedom and human rights to the entire world. You should thank God that you live in a country where you can vilely bad-mouth the government without getting taken out into the street and shot. You disgust me.

Aha, but you said it was traitorous. If it truly was, I would be charged with and arrested with treason. But hey, "traitorous" is the kind of insult that makes you feel like a patriot, eh?

My sexual orientation should not be a matter of discussion. Are you biased against gays? Do you persecute people based on whom they would like to have sex with? Open-minded, my ass.

I never claimed to be "open-minded." Strawman. I'm not "persecuting" anyone. Strawman. I'm biased against people like you, who shit over everything America stands for and then claim you're the patriotic one. Your "moral fibre" leads you to defend people whose "sexual orientation" is towards underage children. You dismiss anyone who you don't like as "traitorous." You rant about "liberals." You lie. You troll. You flamebait.

And when you finally get the flame you want, you whine like a little bitch.

I also noticed that you ignored my point of our overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran. Was that justified?

So the only thing you've got is a 50-year-old greivance? Grow up, Iranians -- stop holding on to such long-standing grudges. We don't hate Britain anymore.

Maybe because they are simply jealous of our wealth and power? Or they do not care for our arrogance in the world and how they think we treat the people in the Middle East and take their resources for ourselves? That might be it...

No, they just hate our freedoms. ;)


(Yes, I'm being facetious. :p)

You certainly implied it. If a someone gets angry with a black person and calls him a ****** can he then say he doesn't look down on blacks? That's the thing about slurs. They imply that the other person is inferior based on race, sexual orientation or ethnicity.

In this case, the inferiority comes from his incredible stupidity. His sexual orientation is actually quite irrelevant. Any more 'implication' is what you are inferring and has little to do with my meaning.

But I suppose you'll pick this moment to martyr the poor thing in the name of Defense against Terrorist-Loving Liberal Traitors like me, yes?

So the only thing you've got is a 50-year-old greivance? Grow up, Iranians -- stop holding on to such long-standing grudges. We don't hate Britain anymore.

Its not 50 years ago when they got rid of him. There was also the blacklisting, the demonisation etc etc. Totally counterproductive, but thats the kind of thing arrogance gets you.

As for hating "Britain" - are you telling me Blairs smug smile that never reaches the eyes doesnt make you want to puke?

In this case, the inferiority comes from his incredible stupidity. His sexual orientation is actually quite irrelevant. Any more 'implication' is what you are inferring and has little to do with my meaning.

But I suppose you'll pick this moment to martyr the poor thing in the name of Defense against Terrorist-Loving Liberal Traitors like me, yes?

1) You decided to use a sexual orientation as a slur against a person. Faggot is agreed to be a demeaning term designed to insult homosexuals or to insult others by comparing them to homosexuals with the understanding that gays are somehow inferior. Either way you meant it, it's derogatory towards gays.

2) You're no liberal.

No, I said that he was right on some issues except his quashing of dissent. I went on to say that dissent should never be crushed. But, hey, why let actual statements interfere with your deep-rooted prejudices?


I said that it would solve the terrorism problem, not that it was an adequate solution. I never said that we should embark upon that course of action. Liar, liar, la, la, la.


You keep saying that you do not agree on his methods of crushing dessent but your views on civil rights would seem to dispute that. If you think people wanting to "coddle" terrorists are disgusting and are obvious traitors you really shouldn't try to speak of believing our country is a beacon of freedom. If your views were used to determine that, I hardly see how we can be considered a government to be admired.

The very fact that you would even suggest massacring Muslims seems to indicate volumes. Given your view that we should conquer the Middle East and turn the region into an American colony seems to suggest that perhaps you wouldn't mind genocide. All for the good of freedom and security of course.

I wonder if you think lying is actually a good way to set the record straight.

I see that you continue to insinuate that I mentioned the wonders of 1984 when, in reality, I never even mentioned that novel before this topic. Are you continuing to spout trash in the hope that no one will realize you were mistaken in your accusations?

Yeah? So, specify which issues, nazi boy.

Suppose it's the fact that he outlawed personal weapons -- liberals would sure love that one, right? And please do not use such derogatory language -- I am not a Nazi and am offended that you would call me one.

Aha, but you said it was traitorous. If it truly was, I would be charged with and arrested with treason. But hey, "traitorous" is the kind of insult that makes you feel like a patriot, eh?

Obviously, you need to read a dictionary. The first definition of traitorous is:

"having the character of a traitor; disloyal."

I'd hazard a guess that comparinig the US government to a terrorist entity isn't terribly loyal. But then again, you can't let facts get in the way of your argument, can you?

And when you finally get the flame you want, you whine like a little bitch.

My, my, my. This is supposed to be a family forum. Please do not resort to profanity -- it would be much appreciated if you kept a civil tongue (or fingers ;)).

:)

1) You decided to use a sexual orientation as a slur against a person. Faggot is agreed to be a demeaning term designed to insult homosexuals or to insult others by comparing them to homosexuals with the understanding that gays are somehow inferior. Either way you meant it, it's derogatory towards gays.

So if I was a black man and I called someone "******," I would be derogatory towards myself? Who "agreed" on these rules? Seems like it's mostly just someone's hyped-up sensibilities. Not yours, since you're willing enough to insult one billion people just for being members of their religion.

2) You're no liberal.

Well now, how could I not be a liberal, yet contradict something self-proclaimed conservatives say? That just doesn't compute. Everyone knows there are two kinds of people, liberal and conservative, and I haven't been called conservative so obviously, I'm liberal!

But, I suppose this is just your way of saying I hate freedom.

My, my, my. This is supposed to be a family forum. Please do not resort to profanity -- it would be much appreciated if you kept a civil tongue (or fingers ;)).

:)

Bollocks, theres no ban of 'language' here.

So the only thing you've got is a 50-year-old greivance? Grow up, Iranians -- stop holding on to such long-standing grudges. We don't hate Britain anymore.

Even if we ignore all the other points I made I think us overthrowing a democracy in the Middle East makes us just a little hypocritical now that we are trying to spread it. And now of course our encouraging democracy in Iran today. IRAN HAD A DEMOCRACY AND THE UNITED STATES AND BRITAIN OVERTHREW IT!!!!!!!

I am tired of Bush talking about how much America loves democracy. We love it in other countries when they do what we tell them and when it is in our own interest. Iran nationalizing its oil was a threat so who gives a damn about democracy when our precious oil is at risk?

Bollocks, theres no ban of 'language' here.

Yes there is, profanity is banned.

So if I was a black man and I called someone "******," I would be derogatory towards myself? Who "agreed" on these rules? Seems like it's mostly just someone's hyped-up sensibilities. Not yours, since you're willing enough to insult one billion people just for being members of their religion.
I didn't insult one billion people. I insulted certain cultures. Not all Muslims believe in stonings and honor killings, but I guess you think they're all alike.


Well now, how could I not be a liberal, yet contradict something self-proclaimed conservatives say? That just doesn't compute. Everyone knows there are two kinds of people, liberal and conservative, and I haven't been called conservative so obviously, I'm liberal!

But, I suppose this is just your way of saying I hate freedom.

I don't know if you hate freedom, but it seems you're opposed to people in repressive nations and cultures having it. I'm a liberal. I want to see every individual free to live the way he or she wants to so long as they don't hurt others without fear of violent persecution. I'm a liberal. What are you?

I see that you continue to insinuate that I mentioned the wonders of 1984 when, in reality, I never even mentioned that novel before this topic. Are you continuing to spout trash in the hope that no one will realize you were mistaken in your accusations?

Not being able to tell your IP, I can only base my assumption on your posting style. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're simply exactly like someone else. Or perhaps you're lying.

Frankly, your honesty isn't something I put much stock in.

Suppose it's the fact that he outlawed personal weapons -- liberals would sure love that one, right?

Suppose you just tell what it is about him you think he was correct on, and not on what you think "liberals" would love.

Obviously, you need to read a dictionary. The first definition of traitorous is:

"having the character of a traitor; disloyal."

I'd hazard a guess that comparinig the US government to a terrorist entity isn't terribly loyal. But then again, you can't let facts get in the way of your argument, can you?

Comparing the US government to a terrorist entity is a comparison, not "disloyalty." I guess reasoning isn't your strong suit when you want to call other people traitors... but oh, you're offended when you get called a nazi. Hypocrisy.

My, my, my. This is supposed to be a family forum. Please do not resort to profanity -- it would be much appreciated if you kept a civil tongue (or fingers ;)).

:)

Your happy emoticons show you're a troll because you revel in, and love this kind of attention. So why should I not indulge you?

Yes there is, profanity is banned.

Says who? As long as you aren't reducing yourself to profanity spam it is perfectly fine.

MeansToAnEnd is getting pretty close to trolling however with some of the post he's made.

Yes there is, profanity is banned.

Since when?

I am tired of Bush talking about how much America loves democracy.

We do. That was 50 years ago, during the Cold War. Iran was led by a socialist. End of story.

We do. That was 50 years ago, during the Cold War. Iran was led by a socialist. End of story.

O, so you're only free to democratically choose who the poxy US choose....thats great, that is.


So now you know the real reason they hate you......

I didn't insult one billion people. I insulted certain cultures. Not all Muslims believe in stonings and honor killings, but I guess you think they're all alike.

Really, people like you think you can get away with your bigotry by saying "culture." It's the latest euphemism by racists. I don't hate Muslims - I hate Muslim "culture." I don't hate black people, I hate black "culture." Well gosh, I have nothing against homosexuals, I just hate homosexual "culture!" There now, neither of us is a bigot, right? ;)

I don't know if you hate freedom, but it seems you're opposed to people in repressive nations and cultures having it.

Actually, I'm opposed to killing tens of thousands of people and saying that we're giving them "freedom." Yeah, freedom from life. How generous.

I'm a liberal. I want to see every individual free to live the way he or she wants to so long as they don't hurt others without fear of violent persecution. What are you?

I don't confine myself to "liberal" or "conservative" since those terms have basically no universally agreed upon meaning and indeed, completely contradictory definitions depending on who you ask.

Since when?

Excessive fucking profanity is against god-damn forum rules. The mods decide what's fucking excessive.

We do. That was 50 years ago, during the Cold War. Iran was led by a socialist. End of story.

So when an election is held in another country the U.S. has to approve it? If we don't care for who is elected by its people or we don't care for its actions it has every right to make we should overthrow them?

You can not escape the fact that we overthrew a Middle Eastern democracy. There was no excuse. That we now are trying to force democracy in the region now is the height of hypocracy.

Excessive fucking profanity is against god-damn forum rules. The mods decide what's fucking excessive.

Right then, so as long as nobody starts a thread called "Fuck you, fuckhead" we're ok.

Grand then so.

Says who? As long as you aren't reducing yourself to profanity spam it is perfectly fine.

MeansToAnEnd is getting pretty close to trolling however with some of the post he's made.

Start a thread with profanity in the title or use it in you signature and see what happens. Use in post is ok up to a point that the mods will make a decision on.

Not being able to tell your IP, I can only base my assumption on your posting style. Perhaps I'm wrong and you're simply exactly like someone else. Or perhaps you're lying.

Frankly, your honesty isn't something I put much stock in.

Ah, so your are basing your argument on the assumption that I am just another manifestation of RealAmerica or UNA? You know that old adage about assumptions? When you assume, you make an ass of you and me. Get it? I find it quite clever. :)

Suppose you just tell what it is about him you think he was correct on, and not on what you think "liberals" would love.

I shall not indulge you. I shall simply say that even an extreme liberal may agree with some of Hitler's policies, and that would certainly not make that particlar liberal a Nazi. Thus, you should refrain from drawing large generalizations based on scant information.

Comparing the US government to a terrorist entity is a comparison, not "disloyalty."

If you call the US government a terrorist entity (unless you love terrorist entities) that means that you dislike the US government. If you dislike the US government, you tend to be disloyal towards it.

Your happy emoticons show you're a troll because you revel in, and love this kind of attention. So why should I not indulge you?

I was trying to get you to calm down, man, so you'd stop using vulgar language. I'm sorry if the smileys were infuriating, but I must admit that I love them. They look so cool. :)

There was no excuse.

I agree. It was a mistake, but it's time to move on.

We do. That was 50 years ago, during the Cold War. Iran was led by a socialist. End of story.

Mossadegh was a total ass and a dipshit, but we still shouldn't have overthrown him. Nor should we have overthrown Arbenz. If a country wants to elect a douchebag, that's their choice, not ours. At any rate, in both cases, their overthrows came back to haunt us.

Really, people like you think you can get away with your bigotry by saying "culture." It's the latest euphemism by racists. I don't hate Muslims - I hate Muslim "culture." I don't hate black people, I hate black "culture." Well gosh, I have nothing against homosexuals, I just hate homosexual "culture!" There now, neither of us is a bigot, right? ;)

Bullshit. Your remark is an insult to gay people. My remarks were insults to ideas and traditions. I don't call Muslims ragheads or sand niggers and I never would. Individual Muslims can be great people or they can be scum just like any other group. You're a homophobe plain and simple. Probably why you don't seem to mind the execution of gays in some backward cultures.

Actually, I'm opposed to killing tens of thousands of people and saying that we're giving them "freedom." Yeah, freedom from life. How generous. I'm in favor of war for retribution and defense. Not for changing cultures. Cultures are best changed through political and economic pressure combined with commerce and trade.

Bullshit. Your remark is an insult to gay people. My remarks were insults to ideas and traditions.

Not at all. My remark was a direct response to the cultural tradition of giggling girlishly. Which, you have to admit, is an idea which is pervasive enough in Our Culture.

I don't call Muslims ragheads or sand niggers and I never would. Individual Muslims can be great people or they can be scum just like any other group. You're a homophobe plain and simple.

Hey, individual homosexuals can be great people or scum, too.

You advocate bombing Muslims and "imply" repressing their religion... that sounds like Islamophobia to me.

And of course advocating violence, as you so often do, is far worse than me merely saying one word in an incredibly context-free statement. I mean it's not like I suggested gay people are barbaric, "backwards" or inferior. On the other hand, you *routinely* proclaim "cultural superiority.

Typical of you to get hung up on the words people use and not the meanings behind them.

Mossadegh was a total ass and a dipshit, but we still shouldn't have overthrown him. Nor should we have overthrown Arbenz. If a country wants to elect a douchebag, that's their choice, not ours. At any rate, in both cases, their overthrows came back to haunt us.

Exactly! And now he is trying to say "move on" like it doesn't show what the United States is really like in its foreign affairs, where democracy is only good when it suits our own interests. Perhaps if we didn't force a coup there the Middle East would be a different place today.

Exactly! And now he is trying to say "move on" like it doesn't show what the United States is really like in its foreign affairs, where democracy is only good when it suits our own interests. Perhaps if we didn't force a coup there the Middle East would be a different place today.

To the U.S. government, any country that answers our beck and call is a "democracy," whether it is or not. A country that does not, is at risk of being labeled an abuser of human rights, whether it is or not.

Ah, so your are basing your argument on the assumption that I am just another manifestation of RealAmerica or UNA?

Either that, or close enough to share the same hive-mind that "pro american" trolls seem to possess. If it walks like a duck...

I shall not indulge you. I shall simply say that even an extreme liberal may agree with some of Hitler's policies, and that would certainly not make that particlar liberal a Nazi. Thus, you should refrain from drawing large generalizations based on scant information.

Of course you won't indulge me. You'd be proving me right if you said what you really thought about Hitler's policies. The ONLY policy of his you said you didn't agree with was how ineffective he was at crushing internal dissent. An interesting choice - how many millions were killed in that laudable goal? It wasn't enough for you, I guess.

If you call the US government a terrorist entity (unless you love terrorist entities) that means that you dislike the US government. If you dislike the US government, you tend to be disloyal towards it.

Not at all. I vote, I pay taxes, and I'm registered for the selective service. You won't find a "tendency" to be disloyal and you won't find true disloyalty.

And if everyone who merely dislikes the government is "traitorous," then I suppose you must use that word a lot, seeing how it's fairly routine for about half the country to dislike the government depending on who is in power.

I was trying to get you to calm down, man, so you'd stop using vulgar language.

So vulgar language offends you? But not a senator seducing children online.

Not at all. My remark was a direct response to the cultural tradition of giggling girlishly. Which, you have to admit, is an idea which is pervasive enough in Our Culture.



Hey, individual homosexuals can be great people or scum, too.

You advocate bombing Muslims and "imply" repressing their religion... that sounds like Islamophobia to me.

And of course advocating violence, as you so often do, is far worse than me merely saying one word in an incredibly context-free statement. I mean it's not like I suggested gay people are barbaric, "backwards" or inferior. On the other hand, you *routinely* proclaim "cultural superiority.

Typical of you to get hung up on the words people use and not the meanings behind them.
You're accusing me of not paying attention to the meaning of words? The word faggot has two uses only. To degrade homosexuals or to degrade a heterosexual by saying he's gay with the understanding that being gay is a negative thing. Both possible uses are insults to gays. You used the word, you know it's meaning. You're a homophobe.

Advocating violence against those who attack my nation or allies doesn't strike me as wrong at all. Denigrating an entire group of people because of their sexual orientation seems worse to me. What have gays ever done to you?

Yeah I claim cultural superiority and I back it up. When one set of cultures is superior to another set of cultures what's wrong with saying it? It might encourage the backward cultures to make progress.

Yeah I claim cultural superiority and I back it up. When one set of cultures is superior to another set of cultures what's wrong with saying it? It might encourage the backward cultures to make progress.

Or provoke resentment within the "backward" culture and cause a backlash against those who see themselves as betters. Pretty much the same as when parents tell their kids to do something. The kid has a habit of doing the opposite

Start a thread with profanity in the title or use it in you signature and see what happens. Use in post is ok up to a point that the mods will make a decision on.

You can not have profanity in the thread title but inside the thread you can let loose as long as you stay away from trolling.

To the U.S. government, any country that answers our beck and call is a "democracy," whether it is or not. A country that does not, is at risk of being labeled an abuser of human rights, whether it is or not.

I love how Bush keeps praising Pakistan. It is not as if it is truly a democracy after all but who needs those kinds of details? It is like listing who exactly is in our "coalition of the willing". I'm sure countries like Poland or Togo will be a great help.

You're accusing me of not paying attention to the meaning of words? The word faggot has two uses only. To degrade homosexuals or to degrade a heterosexual by saying he's gay with the understanding that being gay is a negative thing. Both possible uses are insults to gays. You used the word, you know it's meaning. You're a homophobe.


Actually, the word has many uses. For example, it also means a bundle of wood, the sort used in campfires. It also can simply refer to homosexuals without a negative connotation, in much the same way "******" can without making its user a KKK member.

Homophobia is about a serious aversion to and/or hatred of homosexuals. You're assuming I am because I said "faggot." No, you aren't - you're assuming I am because it makes you feel better about your bigotry to be able to call me a bigot. Whether I actually am or not is irrelevant from your POV and you know it.

Advocating violence against those who attack my nation or allies doesn't strike me as wrong at all.

Of course, and it's even better if you get to choose who is attacking. I declare Islam is attacking my nation. Bomb Islam!

Right? You agree with New Mitanni on this far too often for you to deny it.

Denigrating an entire group of people because of their sexual orientation seems worse to me. What have gays ever done to you?

Let's see... which is worse. Denigration, or denigration plus bombing? That's a tough one.

Yeah I claim cultural superiority and I back it up. When one set of cultures is superior to another set of cultures what's wrong with saying it? It might encourage the backward cultures to make progress.

Hey oh yeah, and when one race is superior to another race what's wrong with saying it? It might incourage the lower races to make progress.

Of course you won't indulge me. You'd be proving me right if you said what you really thought about Hitler's policies. The ONLY policy of his you said you didn't agree with was how ineffective he was at crushing internal dissent. An interesting choice - how many millions were killed in that laudable goal? It wasn't enough for you, I guess.

I never said anything like that at all. Please do not put words in my mouth, else you will be simply arguing with yourself. My exact quote was: "however, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen." Did you get that? I called a system of government which quashed dissent terrible, a failure, and said that it should never happen. Did that permeate your thick skull? I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

You won't find a "tendency" to be disloyal and you won't find true disloyalty.

Contrary to what you believe, the world does not revolve around you. Not every quote is about you. In this case, I was not talking about you.

So vulgar language offends you? But not a senator seducing children online.

Yup, now you get it! :)

I never said anything like that at all. Please do not put words in my mouth, else you will be simply arguing with yourself. My exact quote was: "however, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen." Did you get that? I called a system of government which quashed dissent terrible, a failure, and said that it should never happen. Did that permeate your thick skull? I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

I stand corrected on that minor issue.

However, you're still a nazi troll. You're too afraid to say how much of his policies you *did* agree with. Just enough to say you agreed with many of them -- just enough, in other words, to piss people off while still being vague enough to claim you're not a nazi.

Contrary to what you believe, the world does not revolve around you. Not every quote is about you. In this case, I was not talking about you.

Now whose reading comprehension is in need of work?

You said, TO ME, "Obviously, you need to read a dictionary. The first definition of traitorous is:

"having the character of a traitor; disloyal."

I'd hazard a guess that comparinig the US government to a terrorist entity isn't terribly loyal. But then again, you can't let facts get in the way of your argument, can you?"

Since I did indeed compare the US government to a terrorist entity, you're saying I'm disloyal and traitorous.

Well, said. I guess you're backing off of that one now.


Yup, now you get it! :)

Vulgar language is nothing. Pedophilia is far worse. But you defend the latter and whine - yes, like a fucking little bitch - about the former.

Your priorities are clear - you want to piss people off. Nothing else.

I never said anything like that at all. Please do not put words in my mouth, else you will be simply arguing with yourself. My exact quote was: "however, his failure was a terrible system of government at home that quashed dissent -- that should never happen." Did you get that? I called a system of government which quashed dissent terrible, a failure, and said that it should never happen. Did that permeate your thick skull? I suggest that you brush up on your reading comprehension skills.

No, what you said is that people should not speak out against what we "have" to do with the terrorists and that speaking out is equal with treason. I suppose that is better then agreeing with Hitler in squashing dissent but hardly noble or moral either.

Actually, the word has many uses. For example, it also means a bundle of wood, the sort used in campfires. It also can simply refer to homosexuals without a negative connotation, in much the same way "******" can without making its user a KKK member.

Homophobia is about a serious aversion to and/or hatred of homosexuals. You're assuming I am because I said "faggot." No, you aren't - you're assuming I am because it makes you feel better about your bigotry to be able to call me a bigot. Whether I actually am or not is irrelevant from your POV and you know it.
Show me where I said all Muslims are inferior or worthless and I'll agree that I'm a bigot. Until then it's a baseless accusation on your part. It's an ad hominem attack. You know how you used the word faggot, and now you're trying to weasle out because your hypocrisy is exposed.


Of course, and it's even better if you get to choose who is attacking. I declare Islam is attacking my nation. Bomb Islam!

Right? You agree with New Mitanni on this far too often for you to deny it.

We're not at war with Islam. Islam isn't one huge monolithic entity. We were attacked by Islamist groups using the Wahhabi and Deobandi interpretations of Sunni Islam to justify their attacks.


Let's see... which is worse. Denigration, or denigration plus bombing? That's a tough one.
Your statement is incomplete. Denigration of a group of people who haven't attacked you is wrong. Bombing a group of people who've attacked you is a good thing.



Hey oh yeah, and when one race is superior to another race what's wrong with saying it? It might incourage the lower races to make progress.

Some populations of humans may well have the edge over other populations in one or more ways. For example, look at how many Kenyans win marathons. If studies confirm that one group does something on average better than another what's wrong with saying it? So what? People are to be judged as individuals. A genius is a genius, an athlete is an athlete, and a good man is a good man regardless of race.

dp

What does double penetration have to do with this debate?:confused:

Show me where I said all Muslims are inferior or worthless and I'll agree that I'm a bigot. Until then it's a baseless accusation on your part. It's an ad hominem attack.

I'll have to do some forum searching. Could take a while to get them all. Though I don't think you specifically said "worthless."

You know how you used the word faggot, and now you're trying to weasle out because your hypocrisy is exposed.

Not really. I used the word faggot - I didn't say, "we should bomb faggots," or "faggots are inferior." You're reading a whole lot into nothing and it pales in comparison to your well-known "cultural superiority" complex.

We're not at war with Islam. Islam isn't one huge monolithic entity.

Now I know I'll have to do a forum search, since I know you've referred to it as if it were a monolithic entity. Just as you've referred to "our culture" as if *it* were as well. (Though you've tried to hide that in your last post by saying "sets of cultures." Ha.)

Your statement is incomplete. Denigration of a group of people who haven't attacked you is wrong. Bombing a group of people who've attacked you is a good thing.

So, you're willing to stand by that everyone who has died as a result of ours, or Israel's, bombing have attacked the USA? Prove it. Or is it enough just to be in the same "group."


Some populations of humans may well have the edge over other populations in one or more ways. For example, look at how many Kenyans win marathons. If studies confirm that one group does something on average better than another what's wrong with saying it?

Sorry hon, you don't specify things even that much. You say "we are superior." Period. You don't say - at creating the internet. Or in gassing Jews. Just - superior. Versus inferior.

Not bigotry, my fat ass.

So what? People are to be judged as individuals. A genius is a genius, an athlete is an athlete, and a good man is a good man regardless of race.

People are to be judged as individuals, unless they happen to belong to an "inferior culture" and share a "group" with people "who attacked us." Then it's okay to kill them. How convinient.

I'll have to do some forum searching. Could take a while to get them all. Though I don't think you specifically said "worthless."



Not really. I used the word faggot - I didn't say, "we should bomb faggots," or "faggots are inferior." You're reading a whole lot into nothing and it pales in comparison to your well-known "cultural superiority" complex.



Now I know I'll have to do a forum search, since I know you've referred to it as if it were a monolithic entity. Just as you've referred to "our culture" as if *it* were as well. (Though you've tried to hide that in your last post by saying "sets of cultures." Ha.)



So, you're willing to stand by that everyone who has died as a result of ours, or Israel's, bombing have attacked the USA? Prove it. Or is it enough just to be in the same "group."



Sorry hon, you don't specify things even that much. You say "we are superior." Period. You don't say - at creating the internet. Or in gassing Jews. Just - superior. Versus inferior.

Not bigotry, my fat ass.



People are to be judged as individuals, unless they happen to belong to an "inferior culture" and share a "group" with people "who attacked us." Then it's okay to kill them. How convinient.
You're confusing people with cultures again. Good luck searching. I'm sure you'll find something you can warp to fit your needs and claim victory in this argument, but I think I've made my point clear and I'm done with you. While most Muslims are decent ordinary people, most Muslim cultures are inferior. By contrast you and I probably share the same culture, but I consider you personally to be inferior. I'm done. Bye.

You're confusing people with cultures again.

That's almost sig-worthy.

Good luck searching. I'm sure you'll find something you can warp to fit your needs and claim victory in this argument, but I think I've made my point clear and I'm done with you.

Ah yes, your point's pretty clear. It just tends to be morally wrong. I will indeed be searching, though I have to admit it's not a high priority since you've been willing enough to contradict yourself just within the space of a single thread.

I'm done. Bye.

See you on the next Muslim bashing thread.

You're confusing people with cultures again. Good luck searching. I'm sure you'll find something you can warp to fit your needs and claim victory in this argument, but I think I've made my point clear and I'm done with you. While most Muslims are decent ordinary people, most Muslim cultures are inferior. By contrast you and I probably share the same culture, but I consider you personally to be inferior. I'm done. Bye.

You're such an asshat sometimes.

You're such an asshat sometimes.

Thanks!:)

No, what you said is that people should not speak out against what we "have" to do with the terrorists and that speaking out is equal with treason.

I never said anything like that. I said calling the government a terrorist entity was "traitorous" but that was the extent of my admonishment.

I never said anything like that. I said calling the government a terrorist entity was "traitorous" but that was the extent of my admonishment.

That isn't treason. Treason is aiding an enemy in their objectives, not speaking out against the Government. Thats what our 1st Amendment Right is all about: The Ability to speak against our Government without fear of Retribution.

That isn't treason. Treason is aiding an enemy in their objectives, not speaking out against the Government. Thats what our 1st Amendment Right is all about: The Ability to speak against our Government without fear of Retribution.

Further, you can make an argument that the first amendment does not protect porn because the framers could not forsee that when they were writing the constitution in the same way that no one seriously thinks the right to bear arms includes being able to have a Sherman tank in your garage. What you cannot make an argument about is whether the first amendment protects your right to criticize the government because that's EXACTLY the type of speech the first amendment was designed to protect.

I never said anything like that. I said calling the government a terrorist entity was "traitorous" but that was the extent of my admonishment.

Our government isn't a terrorist entity. We are bullies and murderers but so are other nations. We simply don't have the right to claim some moral high ground on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in our "war" on terror. We just don't. We had it once, but have since lost it.

What you cannot make an argument about is whether the first amendment protects your right to criticize the government because that's EXACTLY the type of speech the first amendment was designed to protect.


What? The point of that amendment was to allow us to speak out against the government without retribution!!!

Yes, Bush is indeed a moron.

fixed:

"Yes, Bush is in deed a moron."

http://i10.tinypic.com/3yyuoif.jpg
I never get tired of the David Lo Pan "indeed".

Well, they may not be grateful, but their country's economy sure will. Look what happened in the 1600s, 1700s, and 1800s in the US. Sure, the Native Americans "owned" the land, but their were senselessly mismanaging it. It may not have been "right" to drive them off the land, but it was progress. Similarly, it would be progress to drive the Muslims out of the Middle East unless they can conform to Western standards.

Your ignorance of Native American history is only surpassed by your ignorance of what the word freedom actually means.
Exactly how was living in relative harmony with nature as part of a hunter gatherer/agricultural society "mismanaging" the land?
Europeans lived in exactly the same manner for thousands of years!

The Native Americans were not "driven off their land" they were slaughtered.
When Europeans "colonized" North America they were, for the most part, welcomed and aided by the Native American population.
The natives traded with them and helped them survive.
And how were they repaid?
When the colonists wanted more land and more resources they killed to get them.
The only reason that the colonists were able to steal the Native Americans resources was the fact that diseases carried by the colonists wiped out hundreds of thousands of Natives and the fact that the colonist had superior technologies for killing, perfected by the near constant warfare in the "Old World".

Is this how you would spread "freedom" to the "savages" in the Middle East?
By slaughtering 90% of their population and subjugating the remaining 10%?
It is no wonder that the people of the Middle East are not throwing flowers at the feet of their "liberators"!