Insanity Test...

340 replies [Last post]
BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
BondGuy wrote:
A few years ago Hurricane Charley missed my west coast Florida house by thirty miles. That is, my house was 30 miles south from the ground zero U.S. Landfall of a cat three hurricane. Houses at ground zero were ripped off the planet. Houses 20 miles from GZ were total loses. My house? A ripped screen. My east coast Florida house sustained a direct hit from Hurricane Frances later that same summer, again with almost no damage. That's the advantage of not being directly on the water. Then in 2005 Wilma made landfall 30 miles south of the west coast house and again we escaped unscathed.
My point: Don't tell me stories about hurricanes.

Let me see if I have this right. 
You were almost affected by hurricanes three times and that makes you knowledgable about what happened in New Orleans?
One day I was almost hit by a Ford pickup truck, and on another occasion I was almost run over by a NYC cab, and one time in San Francisco I barely got out of the way of a cable car.
Does that make me an expert on the Department of Transportation?

You don't have it right. You answer my defense of Nagin with anecdotal stories about a waffle house that was up and running as soon as the wind died. So, I answered with an antecdotal story of my own. My point was and is, so what! That proves nothing.
Maybe in your world Mississippi was up and running the day after the Hurricane, but here on planet earth the Mississippi that the rest of us know and love was just as screwed as the big easy.
For an intellectually honest guy you're having trouble keeping up.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:
.......my defense of Nagin

Strutting stupidity like a peacock

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I like the way they say it better.
And as to the wild fire argument, well the same could and should be said about the Katrina issue. "Commuity" is a 4 dimensional construct, it includes the dimension of "Time".
But time is a most slippery character. I love playing with the concept of time. But in this case the issue is that the community of NOLA that needed help was a sliver of the 4D community. The need was far beyond what the "single community could fund".
Now I totally agree that NOLA had no business existing in the first place and it was through centuries of misplaced government funds that the place existed at all. The community could not and would not provide for itself, and so the country as a whole subsidized it's existence. But that is not this communities fault. This community is living in an area that has been declared habitable by all agencies that are paid to be expert in these matters.
Is it Bush's fault the levees gave way? Heck no. Is it Bush's fault that  "You're doin a heckuvajob Brownie" was in charge of FEMA?" Yes.
What was the worst thing about NOLA wasn't the idea that NOLA drowned, it was that we supposedly had spent billions of dollars on a disaster preparedness plan and implementation against the idea that there was an imminent threat of surprise terrorist attack, and then when there was a natural disaster that was well anticipated, we all saw the Keystone Kops bunking into each other slapping each other on the back and pointing fingers, and sending snarky e-mails to each other and generally not doing anything to help anyone.
Where did our money go? What are we ready for? BUPKISS! That's what we've done, that's what we're ready for. We keep hearing people tell us that attack is imminent, and yetwhat have they done to close the huge security gaps in this nation? And so the question is asked again...Where did our money go? When you send a cocaine abuser to the grocery store with a $100 and all he comes back with is a quart of milk, you ask, "Where's the rest of the money?"
That's all I'm asking, "What did you waste the money on? It's obvious you didn't spend it on preparedness!"

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
 
No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
 

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction.
Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.
Again, your burning desire to play down the fantical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.
As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.
That madmen have grabbed ahold of the Quran and are using it to murder people is no fault of Islam or any of its millions of followers. What's interesting is that the madmen leaders of the terrorist want their followers to believe it's about religion. As I've said, those followers are illiterate. Yet, as you continue to prove, the well educated have bought their propaganda as well.
If we accept their terms and make this a religious war, we will lose.  
Do I think these people exist? I know they exist. I'm just calling them what they are. The terrorist are madmen. Just as Hitler was a madman.

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
BondGuy wrote:
.......my defense of Nagin

Strutting stupidity like a peacock

DA, I really missed you while you were gone. But I gotta say, is the best you can do? Was the wait for stinging barbs and sharp jabs  that only DA could deliver for nothing?
Dig deep and give me something to bath me in that good old DA aura.
OK, enough. Welcome back. It's been fun sparing with you.
We disagree. Nothing new there right?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BTW, I would like to use Katrina to diffuse the "Terror Hysteria" that the powers that be use to distract the public from their other, more nefarious, objectives.
We are Russia in the historical perspective. By this I refer to the admonition that "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." which was reference to the folly of trying to defeat Russia by invading it. Russia is much too large to engage in a land war.
China is much too big in terms of geography and population to defeat in a land war (see Korea as an example, and then see Vietnam as another example).
There is nothing that the terrorists could probably do (which is to say that it is possible but the probability is that by the time they got to a size that would be effective, we would know about it. Which is to say, I'm not advocating dismantling the intelligence community.) that would be more than a disruption of our day. The forces of nature as much much more powerful than anything man has devised and those powers pound our nation annually (a hurricane here, an Earthquake there, a tornado the other place, a flood destroying more farmland than hundreds of crop dusters of anthrax, a drought shutting down entire regions of agriculture).
The point being that (under any president other than the one we have) the world is aware that the United States of America has the power to completely destroy the entire planet, and so an attack on the United States is a futile gesture in anticipation of one's own suicide.
With the US army in Afghanistan, what were the possibilities that Saddam would have even looked like he was going to launch an attack on the US (by our most aggressive estimates, he had enough firepower to destroy an are 8 time the areas of NYC, that's a bite, but it's not the knockout punch!)? ZERO! Why? Because then we'd have had justification to completely obliterate them, and Saddam didn't want to be obliterated. 
The terrorist threat is way overblown. It is being used in the way the Commie threat (and on their side, the Imperialist Capitalist schweinhund threat) is used to rally around a central, common enemy. It's an old trick, as old as religion, perhaps even older. ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnB3T00ZuU )

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.
Until the members of Islam show that they don't approve of or condone the actions of the jihadists/terrorists the religion of Islam is not hijacked and is complicit in the actions of the terrorists.   So far, except for a very few people, they have not shown any inclination to distance themselves from or denounce the terrorists.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...
Catholicism (needs to be capitalized) was just as complicit and as much of a terrorist organization during the Inquisition.  Trying to shuffle responsibility is a weak excuse  and a cover up for the real agenda of Islam as a religion.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
The terrorist threat is way overblown.

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?
Is that enough to fight about?
What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

coolshoos's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-20

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Despite years of work aimed at changing Saudi Arabia's public school curriculum, the country's latest textbooks continue to promote intolerance of other religions, a new study said.
 A first-grade student is taught that "every religion other than Islam is false" - the teacher is instructed to "give examples of false religions, like Judaism, Christianity, paganism, etc."
 
Fifth graders learn "it is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and his prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."
That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06, and it illustrates the real problem. Money rules. DA is on to something, all this liberal crap will be out the window when the ugly face of Islam on the march shows its face again, thanks to institutionalized radical Islam, led by our good Arab friends.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

coolshoos wrote:
That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06,

The reality is that Islam teaches three things when dealing with you and me.
1.  They are to convert us to Islam--that may appeal to you but not to me.
2.  They are to tax us--that too may appeal to you but not to me.
3.  They are to kill us--does that appeal to you?
That's it.  Nothing else is acceptable.
Now, they are out here wandering around.  They smile at you and you think that means that they like you.
Nazis smiled at Jews getting off the trains--but they were envisioning their skin being used as lamp shades.
The only sane thing to do is to fight them everywhere on earth--and to avoid fighting them on our soil as long as we possibly can.
We'll probably be in Iraq for years, decades, even longer.  Consider how long we have been in South Korea.  Why are you whiners not wailing and gnashing your teeth about that?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
 
No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.
 
 

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction.
Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.
Again, your burning desire to play down the fanatical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.
As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Neither, I’m being perfectly accurate.
BondGuy wrote:You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism.
Talk about out-of-the-blue silliness. I haven’t “attached a religion to terrorism”, I’ve accurately stated what  the terrorists THEMSELVES say their motivation is. Why you insist they you’re more accurate than they are about their own motivation remains a mystery.
 
 
 BondGuy wrote:  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist.
Again, why you refuse to acknowledge the Wahhabist strain of Islam, their lust for Shir’a law, the Taliban and Al Qaeda outgrowths of it is simply bizarre.
BTW, there are anti-abortion people who stand outside clinics, and there are anti-abortion people who bomb clinics. You figure there’s no difference there?
BondGuy wrote:That madmen have grabbed ahold of the Quran and are using it to murder people is no fault of Islam or any of its millions of followers.
I never said it was. You see, I’m the one saying there’s a difference between mainstream Islam and the Taliban/Al Qaeda. You’re the one denying it.
BondGuy wrote:If we accept their terms and make this a religious war, we will lose.  
If you refuse to see the religious underpinnings of their fight, you’re refusing to see the extreme from of fanaticism that can only come with religious fervor.  These aren’t common criminals motivated by greed or lust, these aren’t WWII era fascists driven solely by a thirst for power. These are followers of a perverted form of a religion that hold their agenda much, much deeper than the types of threats mentioned above.
They’ll happily die in the process of furthering their agenda, which includes killing you, because you’re a non-believer. Better still, they believe they get to jump to the head of the line to get to heaven, and they’ll get special favors there BECAUSE they killed you. They’ll happily kill your children. Is that a perversion of Islam? Well, I sure think so, but what you and I think doesn’t matter to them. They “see” the way and all your talk that they’re being used or that UBL isn’t “really” all about religion is pointless to them.
You refuse to acknowledge that, and that’s a serious error of judgment. It leads you to minimize the danger they present, to see them as nothing special in terms of the threat they pose, simply people who are misguided, misused, and whom we can find middle ground with, if only a Democrat were elected president and the magical “diplomacy” were instituted.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
There is nothing that the terrorists could probably do ...... that would be more than a disruption of our day.

Incredible, simply incredible....

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Dust Bunny wrote:
You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.
Until the members of Islam show that they don't approve of or condone the actions of the jihadists/terrorists the religion of Islam is not hijacked and is complicit in the actions of the terrorists.   So far, except for a very few people, they have not shown any inclination to distance themselves from or denounce the terrorists.
Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...
Catholicism (needs to be capitalized) was just as complicit and as much of a terrorist organization during the Inquisition.  Trying to shuffle responsibility is a weak excuse  and a cover up for the real agenda of Islam as a religion.

Gee i didn't capitalize Catholicism. At least i spelled it correctly. Ops i didn't capitalize I.
As for your thoughts, scary stuff!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote:
The terrorist threat is way overblown.

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?
Is that enough to fight about?
What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

 
It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

mikebutler222 wrote:
It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

One of the things that amuses me is the whiner's insistance that we're not fighting a war, we're fighting some sort of rogue crime.
From where I sit, if your opposition considers itself to be at war with you it's best to consider yourself to be at war.
It's going to take more than writing angry memos to the United Nations or asking Interpol for help.
We need to kill them faster than they're killing us--one of the major problems is they see dying as a reward.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:
It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

One of the things that amuses me is the whiner's insistance that we're not fighting a war, we're fighting some sort of rogue crime.

 
That's why they have to hold on to the fiction that there's no religious fervor involved. If they admit the reality of the enemy we face their entire world collapses and the "it's all because of Bush" mantra with it.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote:
The terrorist threat is way overblown.

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?
Is that enough to fight about?
What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

Quien no sabe! You dont get it or you don't want to get it? Which is it?
If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Aside from this, what courage of yours is it that sends others off to a foreign land to shoot and be shot at?
Aside from that. Who is the coward, the one who strides through the darkness or the one who shouts at the darkness for someone else to turn on a light? I don't fear the darkness, you are afraid that your own shadow is involved in a terrorist plot. You are the coward, not me.
I take comfort in the fact that the United States of America will survive even if I have died (which, eventually, I will). I take comfort in the fact that we are a nation that will even survive this administration, which is by far the worst administration of all time (Including Hoover's which was pretty damned bad!).
 

coolshoos's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-20

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:coolshoos wrote:
That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06,

The reality is that Islam teaches three things when dealing with you and me.
1.  They are to convert us to Islam--that may appeal to you but not to me.
2.  They are to tax us--that too may appeal to you but not to me.
3.  They are to kill us--does that appeal to you?
That's it.  Nothing else is acceptable.
Now, they are out here wandering around.  They smile at you and you think that means that they like you.
Nazis smiled at Jews getting off the trains--but they were envisioning their skin being used as lamp shades.
The only sane thing to do is to fight them everywhere on earth--and to avoid fighting them on our soil as long as we possibly can.
We'll probably be in Iraq for years, decades, even longer.  Consider how long we have been in South Korea.  Why are you whiners not wailing and gnashing your teeth about that?

Truth is never complicated. Thinking about how money and power corrupt, the Saudi Wahhabist indoctrination of children into the socio political culture of hatred for outsiders is "logical" - how else can repressive dictatorships stay in power?
Your reference to South Korea, with regard to patience and the eventual "opening" of China, is spot-on.
Money can be liberal, but capitalists must never lose sight of basic economic truths, or lose their (economic) freedom. The next time the world is thrown into recession through an act of fear and terror, it will just be a reminder. Every single one of us still wakes up every day and checks the internet to see if we have another 9/11, if we were managing money back then. How quickly we forget how the sons of our Saudi friends blew up Wall Street, and how the resulting recession caused heightened economic suffering for millions of marginalized people all over the world.

coolshoos's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-20

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:
BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote:BondGuy wrote:mikebutler222 wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction.
Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.
Again, your burning desire to play down the fanatical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.
As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem?
Neither, I’m being perfectly accurate.
BondGuy wrote:You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism.
Talk about out-of-the-blue silliness. I haven’t “attached a religion to terrorism”, I’ve accurately stated what  the terrorists THEMSELVES say their motivation is. Why you insist they you’re more accurate than they are about their own motivation remains a mystery.

 BondGuy wrote:  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist.
Again, why you refuse to acknowledge the Wahhabist strain of Islam, their lust for Shir’a law, the Taliban and Al Qaeda outgrowths of it is simply bizarre.
BTW, there are anti-abortion people who stand outside clinics, and there are anti-abortion people who bomb clinics. You figure there’s no difference there?
Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between Muslims who are peaceful and Muslims who are bombers.
Most of the abortion clinic bombers are Catholic. Those who are not are at the least Christian. So if I'm to understand your thinking Muslims who are bomb in the name of their God are Radical Islamics while Catholics who bomb in the name of their faith are what? Anti- abortionist? Why wouldn't you call them radical Catholics. or, if it's the case , radical Christians? Only muslims get the stigma of the negative attachment? Why is that?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?
Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.
Raise your game or SYPH you!

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

coolshoos wrote:
If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

Big talk from the weak set.  If it happened they'd start screaming, "There is no country---we cannot retaliate against a country."
Witness the nonsensical blather about Iraq not having anything to do with September 11th, therefore being off limits in a retaliation for what happened.
It's like a Japanese whiner wailing, "We can't be angry with the United States because of the atom bomb.  Jimmy Doolittle was from California what happened had nothing to do with Texas."

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?
Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.
Raise your game or SYPH you!

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day.
I agree with you. Now if we just get the rest of the group to understand the simple concept that God is being used as a tool, nothing more.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Why not encourage them to self-deport themselves.
Start by firing every Muslim who holds a job and refusing to hire them.
A great many will finally give up and go back to where they came from.
Those who don't could get some visits from night riders.
There is no reason why the country has to accept the crap being dumped our way.
If the US was not welcoming they would not want to come here, and if they're already here they'd decide to leave.

pretzelhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-23

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
Ashland wrote:What does FEMA mean to you? QUOTE]
What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?
Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?
The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.
It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.
It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.
There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?
And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/
 

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Are you insane or have you been living under a rock for the last 10 years?   Which country would you suggest we bomb when the next Al Quaida (sp?) attack occurs comprised of Islamic Fundamentalists???   Should we bomb France, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chicago????
You are right.  Every terrorist organization does know this and this is why they keep themselves non National.  Terrorists without borders.  No country affiliation.  Just affiliation to their warped religious ideas.

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

Only muslims get the stigma of the negative attachment? Why is that?
The Catholic Church  along with other Christian sects have publicly and repeadity denounced the bombings of abortion clinics
"Most organized opponents of abortion, including the Christian Life Commission, the U.S. Catholic Conference and the National Right to Life Committee, have repeatedly denounced violence and distanced themselves from its advocates. But the 15.2-million-member SBC, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is the first to go to such lengths to reject antiabortion violence. "It is not enough just to denounce the violence," Land said. "It must be refuted as well.""
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n27_v111/ai_1 5805783
The Muslim community and the religious leaders have NOT denounced and refuted the terrorists.  On the other hand, they have embraced them, financed them, hidden them and helped to spread the ideology.
This is why the get the stigma.  They deserve it.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

pretzelhead wrote:
Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?

When Hurricane Katrina hit NOLA there were about 10,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard.
Approximately 3,000 were in Iraq--leaving about 7,000 in the state.
Governor Blanco did not call any of them up in a timely fashion.
The knee-jerk desire to deny realities does not paint you in a favorable light.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:Devil'sAdvocate wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote: <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The terrorist threat is way overblown.

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?
Is that enough to fight about?
What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Here’s a term for you “asymmetrical warfare”. Take a look into it.
You seem to miss a couple of points here;
1)     No country would have their fingerprints on it.
2)     No terrorist organization would care if you leveled “the country responsible”, since they’re not a country
3)     UBL wasn’t afraid of retribution, nor was the rest of Al Qaeda
4)      Religious fanatics who think they get to go to heaven early based on martyrdom won’t care
 

pretzelhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-03-23

pretzelhead wrote:Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
Ashland wrote:What does FEMA mean to you? QUOTE]
What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?
Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?
The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.
It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.
It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.
There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?
And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/
 

Sorry wrong link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9369937/
(I can admit my mistakes)  I will not sit back and argue that the first link was indeed the link that I meant to paste, as some would.  I will not "stay the course" and opine that the first quote was indeed the correct quote and proves a great point, when in reality it does not.  No, I am humble.  I can admit my wrong-doing.  That DOES NOT make me an "evildoer." 
At any rate the second link shows one example of the GREAT job that FEMA did in the wake of Katrina.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?
 
No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Dust Bunny wrote:
The Catholic Church  along with other Christian sects have publicly and repeadity denounced the bombings of abortion clinics

Add the FACT that there have been very few abortion clinic bombings.  I don't have the count, but I'd wager a month's pay that there have been fewer clinic bombers than there were hijackers on September 11th.
Additionally, abortion clinic bombing is a solitary crime while the attacks on the West by Islam are well organized and large conspiracies.
One wonders what genetic code is missing among the Americans who seek to blame America for what happened on September 11th and for what will happen again any day now.
 

coolshoos's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-20

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?
Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.
Raise your game or SYPH you!

I want you to clarify your comment about what happens to a country that " sponsors " a dirty bomb.
You seem to be trying to make some intellectual point about respect, but muddle ideology with behaviour. You and Bond Guy.
I get the impression you both think we are still at the data gathering phase of the 'planning process'.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

pretzelhead wrote:pretzelhead wrote:Devil'sAdvocate wrote:
Ashland wrote:What does FEMA mean to you? QUOTE]
What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?
Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?
The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.
It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.
It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.
There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?
And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/
 

Sorry wrong link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9369937/
(I can admit my mistakes)  I will not sit back and argue that the first link was indeed the link that I meant to paste, as some would.  I will not "stay the course" and opine that the first quote was indeed the correct quote and proves a great point, when in reality it does not.  No, I am humble.  I can admit my wrong-doing.  That DOES NOT make me an "evildoer." 
At any rate the second link shows one example of the GREAT job that FEMA did in the wake of Katrina.
 

So, in a massive natural disaster, in an attempt to mass resources, they wasted money. You think that's unique? Care to hear some stories about the work FEMA did after Hugo, or Bertha? Trucks stuck in mud, tents lost, generators showing up four days late? Do you figure FEMA has ice machines posted around the nation waiting for emergency use? We went without power for two weeks after our last big hurricane, and it wasn’t <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton’s fault, or Bush Sr’s fault or even FEMA’s fault. FEMA has yet to find that magic wand some people thing they have at their disposal. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Sorry, pal, if FEMA did anything wrong, it was showing up 24 hours later than they should have to rescue people from the twin disasters of Nagin and Blanco. All the BS about the LANG not being available, Nagin being "smart" to put thousands of people in the Superdome without food and water for 48 hours, etc., is just that BS. Had NOLA done ANY sort of reasonable planning, had Blanco activated the thousands of NG troops she had when Bush asked, people would not have suffered as they were forced to. Blaming all that misery on FEMA showing up 24 later than they should have is simple, mindless partisanship.
 

coolshoos's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-07-20

Devil'sAdvocate wrote:coolshoos wrote:
If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.
Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

Big talk from the weak set.  If it happened they'd start screaming, "There is no country---we cannot retaliate against a country."
Witness the nonsensical blather about Iraq not having anything to do with September 11th, therefore being off limits in a retaliation for what happened.
It's like a Japanese whiner wailing, "We can't be angry with the United States because of the atom bomb.  Jimmy Doolittle was from California what happened had nothing to do with Texas."

This comment about a dirty bomb and consequences is illuminating. If you want to understand the liberal mind, look no further. It has everything to do with taking freedom and responsibility for granted.
I learned a lot here today, thanks.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Coolshoos,
Naive? Not.
The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.
Knowledge of Russian nuclear bombs kept Americans in a ground war in VietNam.
Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).
Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.
When we determined that it was some guy hiding in Afghanistan that had mastermineded/financed the 9/11 attack, we sent forces into Afghanistan to find and destroy the terrorist network (and I'm all for such effort). While there is now serious doubt that our military could carry out a land war elsewhere there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have the technology to destroy anyplace on a massive scale. Further, any strategist will know that the very fact that we have overdeployed our ground troups makes us more willing to use "any means at our disposal" in retaliation.
Does that clear it up?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

mikebutler222 wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?
 
No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

Mikebutler222,
You equate all levels of authority when you say things like this.
You willingly ignore the difference between the soldier and the general.
It is convenient omissions like those that discredit your overall argument.

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

Whommit, 
What part of the terrorist organization not being an arm of or being affiliated with a Nationality/Country do you not get?   
When we are attacked again, we will still have no defined target nation upon which to retaliate because the enemy is a mutli national group based on a religious ideology not a country like Russia.  There is no comparison.  
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.

From where?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash!
If our intelligence agencies are so worthless as to not be able to determine the source of a dirty bomb then what are we paying for? (gee, for the liberal here, I seem to be the only one concerned with government spending waste here)
If we have been in aggressive combat in a "War on Terrorism" for these nearly 6 years (assuming that there was obliviousness the years prior, which is an erroneous assumption, but for the sake of the discussion...) and we have not even created the intel network to be able to read the "fingerprints, or absence thereof" then this is absolutely time for a dramatic change in the leadership of this confrontation.
So, please, stop with the backslapping and guffawing and "see what I mean"ing of your mutual admiration society and use your head for something other than a hatrack.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"
The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.
Both of those groups are working on the same damned nerve (of yours) they both want you to live in fear of what might happen, especially if the fear itself is their objective.
FDR famously said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This administration says "Be afraid, be very afraid!"

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
for the liberal here,

How you can be so lacking in self respect is amusing.
Tell us something.  What do you believe that you think somebody like me does not believe?

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

"... especially if the fear itself is their objective."
We know that this is their objective, because we know that they know that they can NOT beat us. The best they can do is give us a black eye and a bloody nose.
I don't look forward to either, nor do I look forward to the death and destruction that would come after it.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Devil's-Advocate,
Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

Dust Bunny's picture
Offline
Joined: 2007-05-07

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.
Possibly so.  We are more likely to be hit with a swarm of smaller, more widespread attacks similar to but on a much larger scale than those in Israel.   Or more likely a biologically based attack.  Smallpox anyone?  Poisoned water supply?   Food contamination?
The issue of terrorism is that a small group with a small amount of funds can cripple a larger country and cost us billions of dollars.  Their cost to return ratio is very low.
Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.
It was MAD (mutual assured destruction) that turned around the Soviet ships and missiles from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cuba.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The differences between THAT threat and THIS threat are obvious;
1)     The Soviets had a territory and population they didn’t want to see vaporized
2)     The Soviets believed we would do it
3)     Al Qaeda has no territory to defend, they have no population they care about
4)     Bin Laden’s been quite clear that based on the examples of Beirut and Somalia that we lack the stomach to do it, even IF they had a population and territory to care about.
 
Again, this goes back to your failure to see the religious fervor element of this. Krushev had a thirst for power, but he and his followers didn’t have a thirst for martyrdom.  They didn’t believe that their agenda would prevail if they killed themselves in the process of killing you and your kids.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Devil's-Advocate,
Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

Can't even handle a simple question such as citing something you believe that you think I don't.
You're a mental midget and I shall mock you till you cry like the sissy you are.

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"
Those nations that would consider harboring terrorists know they'd be held responsible for attacks that came from their territory because Bush told them, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Of course, you lot wet your pants when he said that.
 

troll's picture
Offline
Joined: 2004-11-29

Whomitmayconcer wrote:
As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash!
 
I don't recall anyone saying that. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
It took fifteen years to find the Unabomber, and he was here in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. No doubt we’ll find the individuals at the top of Al Qaeda (those that aren’t already dead), but that’s not the same as saying we’ll level that nation they represent, nor is it the same as acknowledging that a willing martyr expects us to find and kill him someday.  Neither of those two threats amount to a deterrent to a terrorist.
What people did say was they you clearly don't understand the asymmetrical situation we’re in.
 

BondGuy's picture
Offline
Joined: 2006-09-21

mikebutler222 wrote:Whomitmayconcer wrote:
Re: Religious Fervor.
Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?
Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?[/QUO
 
No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

 
Some people you just can't reach. The people who do the blood letting are the misled. So, yes they will, in their misguided way, murder you for their God. It's their leaders, who use God to get the followers to do their bidding, who are Godless. Like bin Laden himself they are the disenfranchised. They hate us for who we are. It ain't about God. Got it now?
As for the Muslims not denouncing terrorist, I've heard plenty of Muslims do just that. Unfortunately for the Muslims, the Muslim voice is weak in our country. No Muslim radio networks or television networks. They have only local leaders to carry their voice. How far does that carry? No further than the local weekly shopper paper. Meanwhile the racist, as this board demonstrates, are in full gear forwarding the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim hate machine.
If we accept their terms that this is a religious war, we lose.
This is a war about hate waged by madmen.

Please or Register to post comments.

Industry Newsletters
Investment Category Sponsor Links

 

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×