NationStates Jolt Archive

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo’s campaign stood by his assertion that bombing holy Muslim sites would serve as a good “deterrent” to prevent Islamic fundamentalists from attacking the United States, his spokeswoman said Friday.

“This shows that we mean business,” said Bay Buchanan, a senior Tancredo adviser. “There’s no more effective deterrent than that. But he is open-minded and willing to embrace other options. This is just a means to deter them from attacking us.”

On Tuesday, Tancredo warned a group of Iowans that another terrorist attack would “cause a worldwide economic collapse.” IowaPolitics.com recorded his comments.

“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said. “That is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. If I am wrong, fine, tell me, and I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent, or you will find an attack.”

Tom Casey, a deputy spokesman for the State Department, told CNN’s Elise Labott that the congressman’s comments were “reprehensible” and “absolutely crazy.” Tancredo was widely criticized in 2005 for making a similar suggestion.

I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.

Clearly the best way to stop them attacking you is to make them hate you more. It all seems so simple now..

You mean they could hate the west MORE than they do now? Some how I didn't think it was possible...

Clearly the best way to stop them attacking you is to make them hate you more. It all seems so simple now..

Colorado-6 should boot Tancredo out next year. Seriously.

http://www.knowmoremedia.com/uploads/Insanity%20Poster.jpg

(and OMFG I have a twin on teh interwebs!!!)

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)



I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.
Don't blame me. Blame the idiots in my district who love to elect only Republicans because they are Republicans and they won't vote for anyone else.

Also, they only pay attention to Tancredo when he's running for election, and when he's running for reelection he acts vaguely sensible. Believe me, I've been voting against him again and again, but he won't leave! :headbang:

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)



I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.

He's an idiot. The thing I've been keeping at the back of my brain is what a shitstorm it will open if some private loony decides to blow up Muslim holy sites -- much like THEIR private loonies...

Even Mr. Obama, who says he wants us out of Iraq, want's to expand the war by unilateral attacks on Pakistan. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama_dorningaug04,0,3031221.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_bloggers-utl

So much for his anti-war stance. Pissing off Pakistan is always a good idea I guess. :(

Even Mr. Obama, who says he wants us out of Iraq, want's to expand the war by unilateral attacks on Pakistan. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama_dorningaug04,0,3031221.story?coll=chi-ed_opinion_bloggers-utl

So much for his anti-war stance. Pissing off Pakistan is always a good idea I guess. :(

Quit being an idiot, Celt. He's talking about pursuing Al Queda and other terrorists across the border if they hide in Pakistan from the troops in Afghanistan, not attacking Pakistan unilaterally.

Bombing Islamic sites as a deterrent, brilliant :D

What would have happened if this guy had been president during the cold war?

Bomb the USSR as a reaction to Korea or Vietnam?

Bombing Islamic sites as a deterrent, brilliant :D

What would have happened if this guy had been president during the cold war?

Bomb the USSR as a reaction to Korea or Vietnam?

Probably. He's a complete and utter fucknut.

I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.

America's a kakistocracy. Those woho can't manage those who can.

Perhaps Tom Tancredo should ask himself if the attacks on US 'holy' sites served as a deterrent. Or is that too fucking obvious?

Quit being an idiot, Celt. He's talking about pursuing Al Queda and other terrorists across the border if they hide in Pakistan from the troops in Afghanistan, not attacking Pakistan unilaterally.

"a threat Obama made this week to launch unilateral American military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in a remote border region of the Muslim nation."

Ummm...looks like he is proposing a unilateral attack indeed. Although the attack would be against Al Queda, the people of Pakistan would not take kindly to Americans attacking their territory.

Although I might not disagree with what he wants to do, by coming out publicly stating he will do it shows a definite lack of diplomacy and understanding of foreign relations on his part.

All he has managed to do through his remarks is fuel the fire of the radical Muslims against us and help them win over more moderate people to their cause. You know they’ll turn that into “Look, Obama wants to invade the peace loving people of Pakistan.”

"a threat Obama made this week to launch unilateral American military strikes against Al Qaeda havens in a remote border region of the Muslim nation."

Ummm...looks like he is proposing a unilateral attack indeed. Although the attack would be against Al Queda, the people of Pakistan would not take kindly to Americans attacking their territory.

Although I might not disagree with what he wants to do, by coming out publicly stating he will do it shows a definite lack of diplomacy and understanding of foreign relations on his part.

All he has managed to do through his remarks is fuel the fire of the radical Muslims against us and help them win over more moderate people to their cause. You know they’ll turn that into “Look, Obama wants to invade the peach loving people of Pakistan.”
Could you quote specifically what Obama said, rather than what the article says?

(Also, peach-loving people of Pakistan? :D)

(Also, peach-loving people of Pakistan? :D)
Mmmmm peaches. *mouth waters*

Could you quote specifically what Obama said, rather than what the article says?

No, I tried google just for you but there are to many articles on the subject and I don't feel like sifting throught them all to find the quote. In any case he is being slammed for his remarks and they are a bit irresponsible in my opinion.

(Also, peach-loving people of Pakistan? :D)

Oh, I don't know anyone anywhere who doesn't love "peaches.":D

No, I tried google just for you but there are to many articles on the subject and I don't feel like sifting throught them all to find the quote. In any case he is being slammed for his remarks and they are a bit irresponsible in my opinion.



Well, I agree with the sentiment. I think he just phrased it incorrectly, and then there's the media misinterpreting, much like how people misinterpreted Al Gore's bit on taking the initiative to fund the internet to be "I invented the internet."

Let's get back to the subject in hand - Tancredo is one of the 3 who put his hand up as a believer in creationism - how he's been elected is beyond me and raises serious doubts as to the efficacy of democracy.

For example:

Question: Is democracy an effective system?

Rebuttal: Tom Tancredo

Reply: erm...err...damn.

as much as I hate politicians like Tancredo, I do see his point



it would be like if person A is planning to blow herself up on capitol hill, in protest of american politics, but then the government takes her child hostage and puts a gun to the child's head and says, "go ahead punk, make my day"


we would all hope person A would put down her bomb and walk away


HOWEVER


if person A decides to blow herself up, and then we kill her kid, well, all hell would break loose


but there's got to be SOME way that we can stop these terrorist attacks

personally, i have no problem with using unilateral military action against nations suspected of harboring and/or collaborating with terrorists


but whatever action the united states government decides to take, it must be in accordance to the rule of law

that's what makes the west better than the terrorists, our unwavering belief in the sanctity of human rights

as much as I hate politicians like Tancredo, I do see his point



it would be like if person A is planning to blow herself up on capitol hill, in protest of american politics, but then the government takes her child hostage and puts a gun to the child's head and says, "go ahead punk, make my day"


we would all hope person A would put down her bomb and walk away


HOWEVER


if person A decides to blow herself up, and then we kill her kid, well, all hell would break loose


but there's got to be SOME way that we can stop these terrorist attacks

personally, i have no problem with using unilateral military action against nations suspected of harboring and/or collaborating with terrorists


but whatever action the united states government decides to take, it must be in accordance to the rule of law

that's what makes the west better than the terrorists, our unwavering belief in the sanctity of human rights

Two main problems are :

Suspected is a bit light don't you think and terrorist is a political term that is ill defined.

Two main problems are :

Suspected is a bit light don't you think and terrorist is a political term that is ill defined.

i fully agree


the bush administration has used their completely broad definition of a terrorist to pursue ANYONE


yes, a "terrorist" should be better defined, and "suspected" should be a very strict process


i guess all in all i was assuming this would all be done with a democratic president :)

Let's get back to the subject in hand - Tancredo is one of the 3 who put his hand up as a believer in creationism - how he's been elected is beyond me

Ever been to Park County or anywhere else in his district?

No?

If you had, you wouldn't be asking that. It's not exactly the best of places when it comes to being science-friendly. It's a thoroughly Republican district...but of course it was gerrymandered to be that way.

Let's get back to the subject in hand - Tancredo is one of the 3 who put his hand up as a believer in creationism - how he's been elected is beyond me and raises serious doubts as to the efficacy of democracy.

For example:

Question: Is democracy an effective system?

Rebuttal: Tom Tancredo

Reply: erm...err...damn.

ROFL

I stand by my statement that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is far too delusional to be president.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.
guess he's using the same mentallity that those extremists use to justify blowing themselves up in marketplaces and buses as a viable religious doctrine.

guess he's using the same mentallity that those extremists use to justify blowing themselves up in marketplaces and buses as a viable religious doctrine.

sounds good to me


the National Republican Convention should adopt that as their official platform

sounds good to me


the National Republican Convention should adopt that as their official platform

...ok, whose puppet are you?

...ok, whose puppet are you?

lol, i was being facetious

I agree with the politician. Bomb their shit.

If they do that, I'm moving to northern Cananda. I don't want be any where near the USwhen they response comes.

Here's an idea: why don't we bomb Tom Tancredo instead?

I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people

How many Americans have you actually met?

How many Americans have you actually met?
:p

Look, you're supposed to say that they're nice because it's politically correct. Ironically, not being politically correct in this case will end up with all the "I hate PC" right-wingers beating your ass.

Don't panic, he won't win.

How many Americans have you actually met?

Well, a number of you folks here are American and seem decent. Would you rather I label you a bunch of fundie rednecks? :p

I mean, people can be nice and still manage to elect assholes because assholes can pretend to be nice to get what they want.

Here's an idea: why don't we bomb Tom Tancredo instead?

So, tie him to an office chair and strap a bomb onto him? :) Sounds like a plan! As long as we can roll the chair into the Westboro Batshit Church during their Sunday mass. ;)

Well, a number of you folks here are American and seem decent. Would you rather I label you a bunch of fundie rednecks? :p
The American population of this forum does not reflect America at all.
You want the average American?
It's probably a stupider, less tolerant Smunkee that thinks he/she is just as tolerant and smart as Smunkee.

America is made up of three main groups. One of those groups is horribly poor and may as well live in another county, and on the whole don't have much to say about politics.

As for the other two, you can get an impression on how they are by looking at the issue of gay marriage.
The first type of American thinks legalizing gay marriage is dangerous/wrong for a number of stupid reasons.
The other is willing to allow "civil unions" or even "marriage" (quotes theirs) but they'll still publicly think it's wrong and less valid than straight marriages.
All three groups don't care about anything foreign that isn't immediately in front of them at that moment in time, with the exception of whatever scapegoat the government is using.

I mean, people can be nice and still manage to elect assholes because assholes can pretend to be nice to get what they want.
You'd have a point, except that the assholes don't ever act nice. People didn't think Bush was any nicer than he is when they elected him.

Following up to the 'bomb Mecca' threat/suggestion, the US State Department denounced the statement by well-known GOP lunatic, Tancredo, as being "absolutely crazy".

So, it seems that not everyone in the US government is a total nut job. There is a ray of hope now...

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_lawmaker_s_threat_to_bomb_Mecca__08032007.html

Here's an idea: why don't we bomb Tom Tancredo instead?

If it ever truly becomes feasible for the Air Force to bomb a single person, I want to see this happen.

If it ever truly becomes feasible for the Air Force to bomb a single person, I want to see this happen.

Well... technically, it is possible.

Step 1 - fly the person out to nowhere
Step 2 - drop that person hogged tied into the middle of nowhere
Step 3 - drop a bomb on that person in the middle of nowhere

Well... technically, it is possible.

Step 1 - fly the person out to nowhere
Step 2 - drop that person hogged tied into the middle of nowhere
Step 3 - drop a bomb on that person in the middle of nowhere

I feel that this could be a very important phase in the Global War on Terror.

The American population of this forum does not reflect America at all.
You want the average American?
It's probably a stupider, less tolerant Smunkee that thinks he/she is just as tolerant and smart as Smunkee.

America is made up of three main groups. One of those groups is horribly poor and may as well live in another county, and on the whole don't have much to say about politics.



As a counterpoint, I would suggest that someone wanting an acurrate impression of the country *not* believe opinions as above. :p

The fringe who believe anyone who doesn't own a Kucinich bumper-sticker or live in L.A., Chicago or New York is an ignorant mouth-breather wanting to bomb things for fun probably know less about the actual character of the country than foreigners who've only seen movies and t.v. from here. ;)

Don't panic, he won't win.

Well, yeah. :p

The fringe who believe anyone who doesn't own a Kucinich bumper-sticker or live in L.A., Chicago or New York is an ignorant mouth-breather wanting to bomb things for fun probably know less about the actual character of the country than foreigners who've only seen movies and t.v. from here. ;)
I live in Texas, okay guy? I'm not some sheltered yuppie.

It's indicative of the poor state of the American populace that I would be considered on the "fringe" however.
In most Western democracies, I'd be a centrist.

As a counterpoint, I would suggest that someone wanting an acurrate impression of the country *not* believe opinions as above. :p

The fringe who believe anyone who doesn't own a Kucinich bumper-sticker or live in L.A., Chicago or New York is an ignorant mouth-breather wanting to bomb things for fun probably know less about the actual character of the country than foreigners who've only seen movies and t.v. from here. ;)

Let's be clear here. Show us any random American, and you've got an okay chance of finding a reasonable person. However, group enough of them together, and you got an American People. And peoples are, in fact, ignorant mouth-breathers.

Let's be clear here. Show us any random American, and you've got an okay chance of finding a reasonable person. However, group enough of them together, and you got an American People. And peoples are, in fact, ignorant mouth-breathers.

The Swedish People somehow manage not to be.

The Swedish People somehow manage not to be.

*shrug* They do a lot better, that's true. Still, though, they aren't the only people around, are they?

I live in Texas, okay guy? I'm not some sheltered yuppie.

It's indicative of the poor state of the American populace that I would be considered on the "fringe" however.
In most Western democracies, I'd be a centrist.

I can read your location for myself - I was making a generalization, of course. :p It's the same category of commentary, even if the details differ from person to person.

Let's be clear here. Show us any random American, and you've got an okay chance of finding a reasonable person. However, group enough of them together, and you got an American People. And peoples are, in fact, ignorant mouth-breathers.

Sure, any group operating under a mob mentality is a dangerous group, probably acting in ignorance of vital information. That's something a bit different, of course. :p

Sure, any group operating under a mob mentality is a dangerous group, probably acting in ignorance of vital information. That's something a bit different, of course. :p

Is it? Well, too bad, cuz that's our world.

Is it? Well, too bad, cuz that's our world.

That's all nice and sententious and everything, I'm sure, but I'd still rather not denounce half the population as hopelessly ignorant. :p My own experience doesn't support that conclusion, at least.

That's all nice and sententious and everything, I'm sure, but I'd still rather not denounce half the population as hopelessly ignorant. :p My own experience doesn't support that conclusion, at least.

I didn't say anything about half.

In Bizarro World, provocation means deterrence!

Seriously America, where do you find these nuts!?!

I didn't say anything about half.

I know. "Half" was in reference to the bit I was responding to last page, from which you were quoting me on earlier. But I know you weren't making that argument.

In Bizarro World, provocation means deterrence!

Seriously America, where do you find these nuts!?!

Congress? :p Although whether it's Congress itself that produces nuts, or just nuts who tend to seek power on occasion, I could only guess. ;)

I know. "Half" was in reference to the bit I was responding to last page, from which you were quoting me on earlier. But I know you weren't making that argument.

Then you failed to understand me. Those are the major groups in the country, meaning that other smaller groups exist. I'd say, in all, about eighty-five percent of people are in one of those camps. About half of the rest are better and about half are worse.

I know. "Half" was in reference to the bit I was responding to last page, from which you were quoting me on earlier. But I know you weren't making that argument.

Actually, he didn't say half either. He did divide into three groups, not necessarily equal though...

Actually, he didn't say half either. He did divide into three groups, not necessarily equal though...

"Average" tends to mean that half fall on either side, I would think. Although you're right, it read like considerably more than just half. :p

"Average" tends to mean that half fall on either side, I would think. Although you're right, it read like considerably more than just half. :p

Isn't that the median?

You mean they could hate the west MORE than they do now? Some how I didn't think it was possible...

More of them would hate the west enough to attack it. And more of those who currently hate the west, but not enough to jeopardize their lives over it will find themselves in positions where their livelihoods are destroyed and their families fragmented leaving them with nothing else to loose when offered paradise in exchange for suicide.

Tancredo is insane.

Here's an idea: why don't we bomb Tom Tancredo instead?

To listen to him I'd say he was already bombed.

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)



I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.

You mean they could hate the west MORE than they do now? Some how I didn't think it was possible...

Colorado-6 should boot Tancredo out next year. Seriously.

Don't blame me. Blame the idiots in my district who love to elect only Republicans because they are Republicans and they won't vote for anyone else.

Also, they only pay attention to Tancredo when he's running for election, and when he's running for reelection he acts vaguely sensible. Believe me, I've been voting against him again and again, but he won't leave! :headbang:

He's an idiot. The thing I've been keeping at the back of my brain is what a shitstorm it will open if some private loony decides to blow up Muslim holy sites -- much like THEIR private loonies...

Probably. He's a complete and utter fucknut.

Perhaps Tom Tancredo should ask himself if the attacks on US 'holy' sites served as a deterrent. Or is that too fucking obvious?

More of them would hate the west enough to attack it. And more of those who currently hate the west, but not enough to jeopardize their lives over it will find themselves in positions where their livelihoods are destroyed and their families fragmented leaving them with nothing else to loose when offered paradise in exchange for suicide.

Tancredo is insane.

What's obvious to me is that most of the people on this forum (or at least this thread) simply hate anybody and everybody who is even halfway conservative. Why is it OK for Muslims to attack us (and no, I'm not saying that ALL Muslims attack us or would if given the chance, so don't put words in my mouth to the contrary, you liberal bigots... speaking of which, I've got news for you - "liberal bigots" is NOT an oxymoron, and this thread proves it), but if we respond to their attacks then we as a nation are, as most of you spell it, "teh ebil"?! Or if not all of us as a nation, then at least those of us who believe America has a right to self-defense from terrorists (and NO, I am NOT saying, nor do I believe, that all Muslims are terrorists, so don't quote me as saying otherwise).

If nations attack us, then we should attack back, and those nations who attack us should not be (mis)led to believe otherwise.

Why do you liberals hate all conservatives? Why do you always name-call someone for not going along with your knee-jerk liberal madness? Why are you so intolerant of viewpoints that differ from your own? :mad:

What's obvious to me is that most of the people on this forum (or at least this thread) simply hate anybody and everybody who is even halfway conservative. Why is it OK for Muslims to attack us (and no, I'm not saying that ALL Muslims attack us or would if given the chance, so don't put words in my mouth to the contrary, you liberal bigots... speaking of which, I've got news for you - "liberal bigots" is NOT an oxymoron, and this thread proves it), but if we respond to their attacks then we as a nation are, as most of you spell it, "teh ebil"?!

Why do you liberals hate all conservatives? Why do you always name-call someone for disagreeing with you? Why are you so intolerant of viewpoints that differ from your own? :mad:

Heehee. You're a funny nooblet. :p

...Isn't someone who's halfway conservative a centrist?

Heehee. You're a funny nooblet. :p

...Isn't someone who's halfway conservative a centrist?

What do you mean, I'm a funny nooblet? :confused:

All I know is I keep seeing these hateful posts about this "Tancredo" guy. Evidently he said something about bombing Muslim "holy cities" or "holy sites" or something and then these intolerant liberals call him every name in the book and even some that aren't in the book.

I get the impression from these people on this thread that the US should just "lie down and play dead", i.e. just let the terrorists attack us and respond to it by cheerfully saying "Thank you, sir; may I have another?" and not retaliate or threaten to do so, or even voice even a slight objection to being attacked and bombed by these religious bigots.

Kyronea called Tancredo "a complete and utter f***nut"; if the liberals actually BELIEVE what I said above about cheerfully saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?", then THEY, and not Tancredo, are the complete and utter f***nuts.

If you ask me, I believe Tancredo should not only not be railed on so vulgarly, but should in fact be commended for his courage and willingness to stand up, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-American knee-jerk political correctness that is prevalent in the media today. And in this thread.

And if anyone has a problem with me saying so, then they need to grow up and learn to tolerate conservatives and not be so thin-skinned and hypersensitive. :D

What do you mean, I'm a funny nooblet? :confused:

All I know is I keep seeing these hateful posts about this "Tancredo" guy. Evidently he said something about bombing Muslim "holy cities" or "holy sites" or something and then these intolerant liberals call him every name in the book and even some that aren't in the book.

I get the impression from these people on this thread that the US should just "lie down and play dead", i.e. just let the terrorists attack us and respond to it by cheerfully saying "Thank you, sir; may I have another?" and not retaliate or threaten to do so, or even voice even a slight objection to being attacked and bombed by these religious bigots.

Kyronea called Tancredo "a complete and utter f***nut"; if the liberals actually BELIEVE what I said above about cheerfully saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?", then THEY, and not Tancredo, are the complete and utter f***nuts.

If you ask me, I believe Tancredo should not only not be railed on so vulgarly, but should in fact be commended for his courage and willingness to stand up, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-American knee-jerk political correctness that is prevalent in the media today. And in this thread.

And if anyone has a problem with me saying so, then they need to grow up and learn to tolerate conservatives and not be so thin-skinned and hypersensitive. :D

Go read up on Tom Tancredo before you defend him - he's a nut and nuts on both sides of the political spectrum should be labeled as such.

What do you mean, I'm a funny nooblet? :confused:

What do I mean? This is what I mean:

All I know is I keep seeing these hateful posts about this "Tancredo" guy. Evidently he said something about bombing Muslim "holy cities" or "holy sites" or something and then these intolerant liberals call him every name in the book and even some that aren't in the book.

I get the impression from these people on this thread that the US should just "lie down and play dead", i.e. just let the terrorists attack us and respond to it by cheerfully saying "Thank you, sir; may I have another?" and not retaliate or threaten to do so, or even voice even a slight objection to being attacked and bombed by these religious bigots.

Kyronea called Tancredo "a complete and utter f***nut"; if the liberals actually BELIEVE what I said above about cheerfully saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?", then THEY, and not Tancredo, are the complete and utter f***nuts.

If you ask me, I believe Tancredo should not only not be railed on so vulgarly, but should in fact be commended for his courage and willingness to stand up, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-American knee-jerk political correctness that is prevalent in the media today. And in this thread.

And if anyone has a problem with me saying so, then they need to grow up and learn to tolerate conservatives and not be so thin-skinned and hypersensitive. :D

Go read up on Tom Tancredo before you defend him - he's a nut and nuts on both sides of the political spectrum should be labeled as such.

Well, fine, but don't go calling all conservatives "nuts".

(*five-minute pause while I do a Google search on Tancredo*)

http://www.slate.com/id/2171667/ calls Tancredo "an imbecilic bigot" with "an inability to distinguish the relatively small group of active Islamist terrorists (numbering at best in the thousands) from the significantly larger group of people who are Muslims but do not intend to attack the United States (approximately 1 billion, representing about one-sixth of the world population, a few million of whom live here in the United States)."

I don't think I believe that part about active Islamic terrorists numbering "at best in the thousands". I believe it is more that mere thousands. Probably in the tens of thousands, maybe a hundred thousand or more. Those than intend to attack, or have tried/are trying to attack the USA may only number in the thousands, but ALL the ACTIVE Islamic terrorists WORLDWIDE? I don't THINK SO.

None of this, however, nor anything I said in any previous posts on this thread, is meant to condone bombing Mecca or Medina, because THAT is nutty, nor to commend Tancredo for suggesting that we should do so; I just wish liberals would learn to tolerate people who hold viewpoints different from their own.

What do I mean? This is what I mean:

You didn't answer my question. what is a "nooblet", and what did I say that qualifies me as being one? :confused:

I just wish liberals would learn to tolerate people who hold viewpoints different from their own.

*snicker* :D

I get the impression from these people on this thread that the US should just "lie down and play dead", i.e. just let the terrorists attack us and respond to it by cheerfully saying "Thank you, sir; may I have another?" and not retaliate or threaten to do so, or even voice even a slight objection to being attacked and bombed by these religious bigots.

Of course not. We should respond if we are attacked. What we are mocking is his choice of targets, which would inflame everyone NOT angry at us to be angry at us and it would justify every claim the various Islamic terrorist groups make against us, that we're trying to eliminate Islam and the like.

Kyronea called Tancredo "a complete and utter f***nut"; if the liberals actually BELIEVE what I said above about cheerfully saying "Thank you sir, may I have another?", then THEY, and not Tancredo, are the complete and utter f***nuts.
I called Tancredo a complete and utter fucknut because he IS a complete and utter fucknut. I've had to deal with him in my district for seven years now. I have to live with everything he has done while in Congress. He is a racist, homophobic bigot who harps on about issues like illegal immigration in a way that makes it clear he's against darkies coming into the country rather than actually stemming the illegal part of the immigration issue. He also would have us make many critical mistakes.

So my suggestion, Soviet Houston, is that you try looking up and understanding who you are defending before defending him.

If you ask me, I believe Tancredo should not only not be railed on so vulgarly, but should in fact be commended for his courage and willingness to stand up, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-American knee-jerk political correctness that is prevalent in the media today. And in this thread.

Tancredo is not courageous. He is a blustering oaf who would start crying on bended knee if he was ever threatened by someone with the able to do him physical harm.

And if anyone has a problem with me saying so, then they need to grow up and learn to tolerate conservatives and not be so thin-skinned and hypersensitive. :D
Perhaps you might take that advice to heart before bleeding it out on everyone else.

If you ask me, I believe Tancredo should not only not be railed on so vulgarly, but should in fact be commended for his courage and willingness to stand up, not only to the terrorists, but to the anti-American knee-jerk political correctness that is prevalent in the media today. And in this thread.

None of this, however, nor anything I said in any previous posts on this thread, is meant to condone bombing Mecca or Medina, because THAT is nutty, nor to commend Tancredo for suggesting that we should do so; I just wish liberals would learn to tolerate people who hold viewpoints different from their own.

So you're basically saying that, yes, Tancredo is a moron, but you support him anyway because he's standing up to the America-hating liberals?

All I know is I keep seeing these hateful posts about this "Tancredo" guy. Evidently he said something about bombing Muslim "holy cities" or "holy sites" or something and then these intolerant liberals call him every name in the book and even some that aren't in the book.


Here's a mental exercise for you. Lets say we're back a couple of years to oh, say, Clinton's bombing of Iraq.

Lets say Iraq retaliated with their magic plot exposition gun. Mount Rushmore, the Pentagon, and Washington DC are turned into craters.

Would America stop its subsequent aggression against Iraq?

Apply the same reasoning towards this Tancredo's proposal. Reverse the roles. Expand to include all Muslims.

To listen to him I'd say he was already bombed.

Yeah, but I prefer the other way.

If it ever truly becomes feasible for the Air Force to bomb a single person, I want to see this happen.

So do I.

So, tie him to an office chair and strap a bomb onto him? :) Sounds like a plan! As long as we can roll the chair into the Westboro Batshit Church during their Sunday mass. ;)

Agreed. You really have a head for these kind of plans.

(*five-minute pause while I do a Google search on Tancredo*)

http://www.slate.com/id/2171667/ calls Tancredo "an imbecilic bigot" with "an inability to distinguish the relatively small group of active Islamist terrorists (numbering at best in the thousands) from the significantly larger group of people who are Muslims but do not intend to attack the United States (approximately 1 billion, representing about one-sixth of the world population, a few million of whom live here in the United States)."

I don't think I believe that part about active Islamic terrorists numbering "at best in the thousands". I believe it is more that mere thousands. Probably in the tens of thousands, maybe a hundred thousand or more. Those than intend to attack, or have tried/are trying to attack the USA may only number in the thousands, but ALL the ACTIVE Islamic terrorists WORLDWIDE? I don't THINK SO.

None of this, however, nor anything I said in any previous posts on this thread, is meant to condone bombing Mecca or Medina, because THAT is nutty, nor to commend Tancredo for suggesting that we should do so; I just wish liberals would learn to tolerate people who hold viewpoints different from their own.
OK, let's take stock of the situation :

- Some 'liberals' said that Tancredo is a complete nutter for saying that bombing Mecca and Medina would be a good idea

- You said this it was out of order because he's a conservative and hence we lefties shouldn't be intolerant of his views

- For some reason, after discovering for yourself that he's a psycho and agreeing with us on the issue, you then say that we should tolerate people with different viewpoints. All I can say to this is 'eh?'



Oh and incidentally, if thousands of extremists were, as you so eloquently put it, trying to attack the US, you would have thought that perhaps the US would have no major landmarks left, no?

What's obvious to me is that most of the people on this forum (or at least this thread) simply hate anybody and everybody who is even halfway conservative. Why is it OK for Muslims to attack us (and no, I'm not saying that ALL Muslims attack us or would if given the chance, so don't put words in my mouth to the contrary, you liberal bigots... speaking of which, I've got news for you - "liberal bigots" is NOT an oxymoron, and this thread proves it), but if we respond to their attacks then we as a nation are, as most of you spell it, "teh ebil"?! Or if not all of us as a nation, then at least those of us who believe America has a right to self-defense from terrorists (and NO, I am NOT saying, nor do I believe, that all Muslims are terrorists, so don't quote me as saying otherwise).

If nations attack us, then we should attack back, and those nations who attack us should not be (mis)led to believe otherwise.

Why do you liberals hate all conservatives? Why do you always name-call someone for not going along with your knee-jerk liberal madness? Why are you so intolerant of viewpoints that differ from your own? :mad:

I never said it was ok for anyone to attack anyone.

My stance is that Tancredo is a moron because he seems to think that by bombing a Muslim holy site that the terrorists will miraculously back down. Not only is this an asinine idea on the grounds that it achieves nothing, it would also fail to effectively deter the terrorists from counter-attacking.

By targeting something sacred to the Muslims one is simply fuelling passions against the west and increasing the likelihood that more terrorists will be born to take up the cause versus the west.

The cycle of hatred and violence would perpetuate itself rather than taper off with such action.

This is not an assault on conservative views, this is an assault on views that are just plain illogical and would make a bad situation worse than it is and it doesn't take a "liberal" to realise it.

Terrorists are not members of one nation; they span many nations.

Muslims span many nations and many of them are just ordinary Americans who support the war on terror. But they wouldn't, like many non-Muslims support an attack on holy sites.

When people are already ready to fight and die for their cause, threatening to destroy something sacred to them will not deter them. It will only hurt relations with those who were supporting your cause because they will view it as an assault on their beliefs.

The Pentagon, the symbol of American militaristic might and authority was attacked on 9/11. America did NOT stand down. It may not be a holy site, but it is a site of importance; a symbol of American heritage. People were outraged when it was attacked and went to war because of it.

If the same thing was done to Mecca or Medina, there would be a massive retaliation; a full scale response.

You attract bees with honey, not vinegar.

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)



I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians? I mean, most of you seem like relatively decent, nice people; you don't seem like a bunch of bellicose maniacs hell bent on going to war with everything that moves, yet some of you elect these politicians who... let's just say perpetrate the myth that Americans are a few fries short a happy meal.

And does Tancredo honestly think it'll make the terrorists back down? It'll only fuel their cause. The moderates will not take well to this and would turn, joining their more extremist, fundamentalist cousins.

:rolleyes:'

Bombing muslim holy sites is one of the best ideas I have heard yet. Those people need to learn that their religion is all made up, and this is a good way to demonstrate it to them.

Also, there is no such thing as islamic 'moderates'.

:rolleyes:

Bombing muslim holy sites is one of the best ideas I have heard yet. Those people need to learn that their religion is all made up, and this is a good way to demonstrate it to them.

Also, there is no such thing as islamic 'moderates'.

Their religion is all made up, but it is very real to them, and bombing the WTC didn't stop American aggression, did it, Mr. Lack-A-Day Man?

Their religion is all made up, but it is very real to them, and bombing the WTC didn't stop American aggression, did it, Mr. Lack-A-Day Man?

Why would the WTC stop american aggression? It held no particular significance.

Leveling mecca on the other hand.....

Why would the WTC stop american aggression? It held no particular significance.

Leveling mecca on the other hand.....

would cause each of about 1billion moslems to start planning how to get revenge.

Tancredo: Threaten to bomb Muslim holy sites in retaliation (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/04/tancredo-bomb-muslim-holy-sites-first/)

I just have one question - where the hell do you Americans find these politicians?


From the wealthy families, from the people who's lives have been served to them and have never really had to work in thier life; from 14th generation rich families, and from the stupidest people we can find. Generally.. those are sononimous.

would cause each of about 1billion moslems to start planning how to get revenge.

And that would be different to now how exactly?

Anyway, it would prove their god is fake.

*blah blah blah crap*
Every religion is made up, but I don't think antagonising people just for believing in them is a particularly excellent idea.
Also, there is no such thing as islamic 'moderates'.
...

Do you actually have to take lessons in how to be quite this retarded?

And that would be different to now how exactly?
Because there seemingly isn't an army of people attacking the US, or if they're doing so, they're being quite subdued about it?

Do you actually have to take lessons in how to be quite this retarded?

You say that, but I am not the one living in a fantasy world. If these moderates exist, where are they?

Because there seemingly isn't an army of people attacking the US, or if they're doing so, they're being quite subdued about it?

Only 'cos they are cowards. If they thought they could get away with it they would. Like in the UK. Some nice moderates there tried to attack and airport full of school kids. Real winners those people.

Why would the WTC stop american aggression? It held no particular significance.

Leveling mecca on the other hand.....

To use another example, the Pentagon. That holds a lot of significance. It's the fucking American command center. Did the government stand down? Nope.

You say that, but I am not the one living in a fantasy world. If these moderates exist, where are they?
Erm quietly living their lives out like everyone else, instead of on the news or in the Daily Mail?
Only 'cos they are cowards. If they thought they could get away with it they would. Like in the UK. Some nice moderates there tried to attack and airport full of school kids. Real winners those people.
...

No, some stupid extremists tried to attack an airport, which happened to be full of children. I don't really see how the actions of 2 particularly moronic people and some of their chums involved in the planning of it all really sums up how the entire Muslim community of the UK, or anywhere at all.

To use another example, the Pentagon. That holds a lot of significance. It's the fucking American command center. Did the government stand down? Nope.

It's just a building. Only retards would invest that emotional significance in a symbol.

Mind you, we're not the ones burning salman rushdie books in the street either.

Erm quietly living their lives out like everyone else, instead of on the news or in the Daily Mail?

I don't think so. Teh so called moderates are always demanding apologies for shit like salman rushdie's knighthood. They all tacitly support the notion of establishing an world wide islamic theocracy. It's part of their religion.

...

No, some stupid extremists tried to attack an airport, which happened to be full of children. I don't really see how the actions of 2 particularly moronic people and some of their chums involved in the planning of it all really sums up how the entire Muslim community of the UK, or anywhere at all.

Dude, they planned it to be full of kids. First day of the school holidays. And they were only extremists after the fact. I'll bet a week before the attacks if anyone had called them nutters, you would have been exactly the type of person telling them to shut up and stop stereotyping &c.

When muslims start turning people in, I reconsider my no moderates position. But until I see some actual evidence I remain skeptical.

Also, no bacon or booze. What the fuck kind of stupid crap is that?

Shouldn't even give that nonsense the time of day.

It's just a building. Only retards would invest that emotional significance in a symbol.

Mind you, we're not the ones burning salman rushdie books in the street either.

It's not just emotionally significant, it's physically significant. It's the fucking command center. :rolleyes:

It's not just emotionally significant, it's physically significant. It's the fucking command center. :rolleyes:

No it isn't. And it wasn't taken out. So the attack was largely symbolic.

No it isn't. And it wasn't taken out. So the attack was largely symbolic.

Tell that to the people whose relatives were killed or injured in the attack.

I don't think so. Teh so called moderates are always demanding apologies for shit like salman rushdie's knighthood.
Not really. The biggest groups like the Muslim Council of Britain aren't really about demanding anything from people other than a chance to live their lives in peace, and quite a lot of they say is taken wildly out of context by people like the Telegraph and the Mail to try and further their anti-Islamic stance.

The actual moderates are people who simply believe, and don't make a point of it. There are far, far more people like that in the UK than there are people who are demanding special privaliges etc.
They all tacitly support the notion of establishing an world wide islamic theocracy. It's part of their religion.
That's like saying that Christians all support killing Jews up because it's in the Bible. Simply not true at all.

It's not like anyone agrees with 100% of any text, especially not when it comes to religion. Generally people focus on one element of their faith and study that element of that text.

There are completely bat-shit insane Muslim sects, just as there are utterly mental Christians, Jews, etc. etc.
Dude, they planned it to be full of kids. First day of the school holidays. And they were only extremists after the fact. I'll bet a week before the attacks if anyone had called them nutters, you would have been exactly the type of person telling them to shut up and stop stereotyping &c.
I disagree.
When muslims start turning people in, I reconsider my no moderates position. But until I see some actual evidence I remain skeptical.
The problem with this is that the only people usually involved in terrorist cells are the people actually in them, and people involved are quite capable of keeping a low profile, otherwise our various security services would be able to take them out fairly sharpish, no?

:rolleyes:'

Bombing muslim holy sites is one of the best ideas I have heard yet. Those people need to learn that their religion is all made up, and this is a good way to demonstrate it to them.

Also, there is no such thing as islamic 'moderates'.

I'd much prefer to bomb Christian holy sites. After all, Christianity is just another fake, made up religion. It's not a real religion. It's just a bunch of arbitrary rules put together by Constantine during the 4th century AD. No doctrine for the religion existed before then...

See, it's easily applied to any religion. For that matter, all religion is fake, put together by someone who sought to exert moral authority over other people.

Further, you don't hear about "moderates" because they don't go out of their way to make the news. They are just like us in that they live their lives and don't seek to antagonise other people on purpose.

Also, no bacon or booze. What the fuck kind of stupid crap is that?

Shouldn't even give that nonsense the time of day.

Judaism has dietary restrictions, which includes no eating bacon. So, is that some stupid crap too?

Kosher rules say no shell fish, and you can't have meat with dairy products. More conservative/orthodox Jews keep separate dishes for meat and dairy foods.

Mormons can't drink alcohol.

I'd much prefer to bomb Christian holy sites. After all, Christianity is just another fake, made up religion. It's not a real religion. It's just a bunch of arbitrary rules put together by Constantine during the 4th century AD. No doctrine for the religion existed before then...

See, it's easily applied to any religion. For that matter, all religion is fake, put together by someone who sought to exert moral authority over other people.

Further, you don't hear about "moderates" because they don't go out of their way to make the news. They are just like us in that they live their lives and don't seek to antagonise other people on purpose.



Judaism has dietary restrictions, which includes no eating bacon. So, is that some stupid crap too?

Kosher rules say no shell fish, and you can't have meat with dairy products. More conservative/orthodox Jews keep separate dishes for meat and dairy foods.

Mormons can't drink alcohol.


See, it always comes down to "well other religions too....". Because deep down, you know I am right: they are a bunch of trouble making nutters whose absence would materially improve the world.

Persecute christians if you wish. I don't care.

And yes, all religious dietary restrictions are crap.

See, it always comes down to "well other religions too....". Because deep down, you know I am right: they are a bunch of trouble making nutters whose absence would materially improve the world.

Persecute christians if you wish. I don't care.

And yes, all religious dietary restrictions are crap.

Then why pick specifically on one group when they all have similar fucked uo quirks?

See, it always comes down to "well other religions too....". Because deep down, you know I am right: they are a bunch of trouble making nutters whose absence would materially improve the world.

Persecute christians if you wish. I don't care.

And yes, all religious dietary restrictions are crap.

Way to be tolerant, guy.

Then why pick specifically on one group when they all have similar fucked uo quirks?

Because they are the worst. By far. And actually there is no effort within their community to reform it. The moderate wing is always too busy demanding apologies for salman rushdie and stuff. At least christianity has the Church of England, or Church of sweden. Go try and find a mosque that will perform gay marriages, or bless same sex couples. I bet you can't.

And there is simply no effort on the part of the muslim community to seriously move towards a more liberal stance. They are too busy beating their women and trying to blow up nightclubs because british women are slags in short skirts. (Or engaging in mass homophobia, like the MCB).

I'll stop picking when they improve. Until then I advocate treating muslims the same way saudi arabia treats christians.

Because they are the worst. By far. And actually there is no effort within their community to reform it. The moderate wing is always too busy demanding apologies for salman rushdie and stuff.
It seems to me that all you have in your arsenal is Salman Rushdie. Try harder.
At least christianity has the Church of England, or Church of sweden. Go try and find a mosque that will perform gay marriages, or bless same sex couples. I bet you can't.
See also Christianity.
And there is simply no effort on the part of the muslim community to seriously move towards a more liberal stance.
Incorrect. There's no effort that you hear about, because you're probably too busy reading the Daily Express or whatever, which doesn't like to show up the good elements of Islam.
They are too busy beating their women and trying to blow up nightclubs because british women are slags in short skirts. (Or engaging in mass homophobia, like the MCB).
Yes... obviously...
I'll stop picking when they improve. Until then I advocate treating muslims the same way saudi arabia treats christians.
Yeah, nice one. Because things are really going to change for the better then, eh?

It seems to me that all you have in your arsenal is Salman Rushdie. Try harder.


I could talk about Iqbal Sacranie or danish cartoons if you like.

Nutters, the lot of them. And you saying otherwise won't change it.

I'll stop picking when they improve. Until then I advocate treating muslims the same way saudi arabia treats christians.

Were there more like you I'd advocate treating all Americans the way I used treat Brits. Thats a whole can of shit best left the fuck closed.

I'm not debating with Lacadaemon anymore, seeing as he's a intolerant knuckle-dragger and just won't get the point. (I hate Ferrous Cranus) Mr. Lack-A-Day Man, you're on my ignore list.

And there is simply no effort on the part of the muslim community to seriously move towards a more liberal stance.They're too busy trying to form national identities, trying to cope with increased cultural exchange without loosing their identity, and most of all, trying to fend off persecution. Unfortunately the sort of attitude you're displaying makes this all the harder, and helps make sure than moderates and progressives are seen as subversives who need to be put to death - as they are and have been since the British, French and American fiascoes in the ME.I'll stop picking when they improve. Until then I advocate treating muslims the same way saudi arabia treats christians.And as long as you're picking on them, they won't improve. If you want progress, extend your help. It's always welcome and desperately needed.

We radicalized the Muslim communities, and we just keep throwing fuel on the fucking fire. Stop convincing them we're trying to eradicate them. It's the only way moderates and progressives will ever get a chance to be heard. Trust me, I'm married to one.

I live in Texas, okay guy? I'm not some sheltered yuppie.

It's indicative of the poor state of the American populace that I would be considered on the "fringe" however.
In most Western democracies, I'd be a centrist.

yeah, i wouldn't advertise the fact that you live in texas too much cowboy

yeah, i wouldn't advertise the fact that you live in texas too much cowboy

Its not like its something I'm proud of. Just telling the guy that I'm not from some "liberal" stronghold.

Its not like its something I'm proud of. Just telling the guy that I'm not from some "liberal" stronghold.

lol, i know


i just meant that most people here may think less of you or attack you because of where you live


texas is not exactly a popular destination these days, at least not on ns


mostly though, i was just being light hearted :D

Because they are the worst. By far. And actually there is no effort within their community to reform it. The moderate wing is always too busy demanding apologies for salman rushdie and stuff. At least christianity has the Church of England, or Church of sweden. Go try and find a mosque that will perform gay marriages, or bless same sex couples. I bet you can't.

Find me Catholic churches that will; find me Protestant churches that will. Yes a VERY tiny minority of the Protestants may perform it, but the greater majority will refuse to much the same as the mosques and synagogues. when was the last time you heard of a JEWISH gay wedding?

And there is simply no effort on the part of the muslim community to seriously move towards a more liberal stance. They are too busy beating their women and trying to blow up nightclubs because british women are slags in short skirts. (Or engaging in mass homophobia, like the MCB).

There are plenty of Christian churches that refuse to take a more liberal stance. They're joined the anti-stem cell research and anti-abortion bandwagon by the dozen. Hardly progressive.

There are still Christian nutters who think it's fine to blow up abortion clinics.

There are some crazy orthodox Jews who treat their women like total dog shit.

Of course, there are many non-crazy, non-religious fuckwits that abuse women, so...

I'll stop picking when they improve. Until then I advocate treating muslims the same way saudi arabia treats christians.

Christians and Jews need to improve too. They have just as many faults.

Personally though, I think we should treat all religious people the way they treat homosexuals, atheists and homosexual atheists. *nods*

Find me Catholic churches that will; find me Protestant churches that will. Yes a VERY tiny minority of the Protestants may perform it, but the greater majority will refuse to much the same as the mosques and synagogues. when was the last time you heard of a JEWISH gay wedding?



There are plenty of Christian churches that refuse to take a more liberal stance. They're joined the anti-stem cell research and anti-abortion bandwagon by the dozen. Hardly progressive.

There are still Christian nutters who think it's fine to blow up abortion clinics.

There are some crazy orthodox Jews who treat their women like total dog shit.

Of course, there are many non-crazy, non-religious fuckwits that abuse women, so...



Christians and Jews need to improve too. They have just as many faults.

Personally though, I think we should treat all religious people the way they treat homosexuals, atheists and homosexual atheists. *nods*


i think the point is that christian nations and jewish nations are now reformed and progressive, at least in the sense of how they treat women

and that they don't put to death atheists or homosexuals

yet arab nations, more specifically muslim nations do

there's an inherit evil in islam, and that evil can be enumerated

INTOLERANCE

but not just any normal regular christian intolerance

no ma'am

fueled, impassioned, nonwavering, archaic intolerance

the kind of intolerance that says "hey, see that guy over there? He's different from you. punish him"


to me, that's incredibly sickening and I don't think the west should accept it anymore

i think ............. that's incredibly sickening and I don't think the west should accept it anymore

See the thing is....if you lived in Latin America for the last 40 years, you wouldnt have been worrying about the muslims coming to get you.
Or Tibet for that matter. The East Timorese were royally fucked over for a few decades and religon didnt seem to play much of a factor. The Burmese have been fucking over tribes in their country for decades and again, being 'muslim' hasnt been a factor. So really, your nice long hysterical rant has very very little to do with reality.

See the thing is....if you lived in Latin America for the last 40 years, you wouldnt have been worrying about the muslims coming to get you.
Or Tibet for that matter. The East Timorese were royally fucked over for a few decades and religon didnt seem to play much of a factor. The Burmese have been fucking over tribes in their country for decades and again, being 'muslim' hasnt been a factor. So really, your nice long hysterical rant has very very little to do with reality.


you've missed the point entirely

i wasn't saying that ONLY muslim nations impede upon civil liberties



HOWEVER

the majority of nations whose governments are considered muslim theocracies do

and they do so ruthlessly


and they do it all in the name of their religion

They use the religion as justification. The real reason is their culture. Their culture should have advanced with us into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, but they were stonewalled by the Ottoman Empire, then when it collapsed after World War One the bloody Brits and everyone else in the West jumped in and screwed the entire region all to hell.

From there they weren't able to advance culturally all that much. Some have in ways...Iran...Iraq before Hussein was taken out...but on the whole they're still kinda stuck in the past.

you've missed the point entirely

i wasn't saying that ONLY muslim nations impede upon civil liberties
HOWEVER
the majority of nations whose governments are considered muslim theocracies do
and they do so ruthlessly
and they do it all in the name of their religion

Well, how many muslim theocracies are there? One - Iran. Saudi is monarchy, as is Jordan and the Gulf states. Syria and Egypt are secular dictatorships.

And if we want to talk about treatment of women, theres a few places a lot closer to the US with a very bad record. Its hype, hysteria and nonsense, all because a few yahoos blew up a load of yanks.

Well, how many muslim theocracies are there? One - Iran. Saudi is monarchy, as is Jordan and the Gulf states. Syria and Egypt are secular dictatorships.

And if we want to talk about treatment of women, theres a few places a lot closer to the US with a very bad record. Its hype, hysteria and nonsense, all because a few yahoos blew up a load of yanks.
Anyone ever told you you've got a knack for perception?

Well, how many muslim theocracies are there? One - Iran. Saudi is monarchy, as is Jordan and the Gulf states. Syria and Egypt are secular dictatorships.

And if we want to talk about treatment of women, theres a few places a lot closer to the US with a very bad record. Its hype, hysteria and nonsense, all because a few yahoos blew up a load of yanks.

it doesn't have to be an official theocracy


but even the monarchies are controlled by a very religious, or at least seemingly religious entity

and i say entity because the monarchial government is not just one person, it's a large organization of different administrations and departments and such

and they are all openly and brazenly muslim

as well as ruthless and tyrannical

and AGAIN

as i said before

YES, there's a lot of other nations that AREN'T muslim that impede upon civil liberties and treat women bad and such

but we're not talking about that

and they are all openly and brazenly muslim



O Noes!!!!11!!!!

You see when you make statements like the following
there's an inherit evil in islam, and that evil can be enumerated
it sort of means your efforts to then appear "fair and balanced" come a cropper.

there's an inherit evil in islamyes. it's called allah. or elohim or yhvh or god or whatever you wish to name it.