PDA

View Full Version : Suicide bomber targets Danish embassy in Pakistan



Saxe
06-02-2008, 07:35 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/06/02/pakistan.blast/index.html

I feel sorry that this has gone so far, that six, maybe eight, people have to loose their lives just because of some lame drawings.

Also, does anyone see the irony in bombing an embassy because they feel like this is picturing Islam the wrong way: http://isaacschrodinger.typepad.com/isaacschrodinger/images/muhammed.jpg ?

But then again, religion and reason is like oil and water.

SpikedRocker
06-02-2008, 07:43 AM
But does bombing an embassy actually do anything for their cause? I guess its like directing their hatred towards the country, but it shows they can't afford (or just too lazy) to go the country to actually kill some of that countries citizens instead of its own. I love Walter(Jeff Dunham) view suicide bombers,http://youtube.com/watch?v=u-As9xTv28g

Weasel
06-02-2008, 07:51 AM
And I thought I had a bad sense of humor.

juku
06-02-2008, 08:04 AM
However, many in the Muslim world interpreted the drawing as depicting their prophet as a terrorist.

See this one of the main reasons hatred would escalate as many sides of our world do not hear the whole story till later. Hearing news later can result in many deaths such as in this one. Also how can they miss count of the dead people saying 8 first then 6.

Saxe
06-02-2008, 08:07 AM
See this one of the main reasons hatred would escalate as many sides of our world do not hear the whole story till later. Hearing news later can result in many deaths such as in this one.

I'm not quite sure I get your point?

juku
06-02-2008, 08:19 AM
I'm not quite sure I get your point?

To put it simple they just saw it as an insult to their phophet and saw that they needed to defend it with force without asking the true reasons.

LitKey
06-02-2008, 08:20 AM
The attacks in response prove the artist's original point.

LegalSmash
06-02-2008, 08:29 AM
See this one of the main reasons hatred would escalate as many sides of our world do not hear the whole story till later. Hearing news later can result in many deaths such as in this one. Also how can they miss count of the dead people saying 8 first then 6.

LoL. What? I'm not sure what you are saying. Please clarify

For the record, a 6 can look a LOT like an 8 on a rapidly jotted note.

Lastly, this happens because those lovely fundie Muslims can deal with criticism a lot better than they can take it. They are turning Europe into Eurabia.

juku
06-02-2008, 08:41 AM
Yeah not much to clarify now because you just said what I wanted to say, that they just can't take the criticism. also that they don't take the time to hear both side of the stories too well before acting.

thxs for showing a new word(Eurabia)

Saxe
06-02-2008, 08:43 AM
To put it simple they just saw it as an insult to their phophet and saw that they needed to defend it with force without asking the true reasons.

Oh, well I'm sure a lot of the general population felt this way, but I'm pretty sure that it's because of two different ways of life. I was in London with my class some months ago, and we went to visit the biggest mosque in central London. The lecturer there told us that we might have some problems understanding how important Muhammad is to Muslims. He explained that a lot of Muslims felt that Muhammad is like a family member, or maybe even higher.

So I think on one hand we have the western civilisation, who doesn't realize or maybe even don't care to realize how important Muhammad is for the Muslims.

On the other hand we have all these Muslim people, whom btw. mostly are like you and me, but some of these people can't handle the fact that we have freedom of speech as well as a free press. Therefore they can't accept the fact that the Danish government can't prevent the newspapers from printing and even reprinting the 12 Muhammad cartoons, were the one I posted is one of the most infamous of the 12. They simply think that the Danish government is able to prevent and punish these newspapers from printing the drawings, since that's what their own governments do.

So I think it's dangerous to just blame the Muslims. We have to look at how we handle the freedom of speech, so it doesn't just turn into a thing about humiliating other people.

Saxe
06-02-2008, 08:49 AM
Lastly, this happens because those lovely fundie Muslims can deal with criticism a lot better than they can take it. They are turning Europe into Eurabia.

I think we have to be really careful when saying things like that.

I agree that the few Muslims who are fundamentalists can't handle criticism, since they're mostly poor, uneducated and brainwashed people, who got into terrorism and alike because of propaganda.

But I disagree that Europe is turning into Eurabia, actually that word is just plain stupid. All the Muslims I know, and probably 99% of every Muslim in the western countries agree with you and me in many cases and even share our hatred to fundamentalists like the ones who bombed the embassy today.

LegalSmash
06-02-2008, 09:02 AM
I think we have to be really careful when saying things like that.

I agree that the few Muslims who are fundamentalists can't handle criticism, since they're mostly poor, uneducated and brainwashed people, who got into terrorism and alike because of propaganda.

But I disagree that Europe is turning into Eurabia, actually that word is just plain stupid. All the Muslims I know, and probably 99% of every Muslim in the western countries agree with you and me in many cases and even share our hatred to fundamentalists like the ones who bombed the embassy today.

They say it in hushed circles when near nonmuslims, but wont openly, adamantly complain about it. Europe particularly france, germany, and england have granted far too many concessions to the groups of muslims entering its borders, france and germany more than most. A judge was recently dismissed for a ridiculously incorrect statement of law, where he applied to Quranic law regarding physically disciplining a spouse as opposed to the German statute preventing spousal beating. From what I understand he was dismissed from the bench and rightly so. Rioting in France, Riots in Denmark last year in a rather patently offensive effort to staunch free speech that doesnt make them feel tickled pink.

The feeling seems to be "respect is a one way street, you give us respect for our beliefs, opinions and criticisms of your ways, inshallah, but dont expect me to respect your beliefs, opinions, or criticisms of our ways or we shall of apeshit"

The majority of Muslims I know, predominantly law students and attorneys, agree with the preceding statement, public dissent to the hyper religious, fundamental arm of the culture is inviting death and injury and shame upon yourself.

So was advocating for American Freedom in the presence of the british, fighting for the union as a black man in the american civil war, and housing and hiding jews during the holocaust, and people still did it: because they had balls to be righteous.

Something that has lacked in Europe since the end of 1945

Omar
06-02-2008, 09:08 AM
im a muslim, and i think its offensive (the drawing) but i wont be sychotic, every religion have its maniacs. But i mean blowin up an embassy doesnt change anything, but niether is drawing a stupid drawing.
just like at the cult leaders nowadays. many of them are mentally sick. like the guy who said he was jesus. or like the guy who said " lets blow some stuff becouse we have a stupid reason.

phatman76
06-02-2008, 08:24 PM
im a muslim, and i think its offensive (the drawing) but i wont be sychotic, every religion have its maniacs. But i mean blowin up an embassy doesnt change anything, but niether is drawing a stupid drawing.
just like at the cult leaders nowadays. many of them are mentally sick. like the guy who said he was jesus. or like the guy who said " lets blow some stuff becouse we have a stupid reason.

Wow, extremists in every religion eh? Well, I am sure that there are no other countries on this planet that endorse anti-west terrorism that aren't run or almost entirely controlled by Muslims. I believe that there are muslims who are adamantly opposed to terrorism and fundamentalism, but that you guys also have to admit that the fundamentalists aren't a SMALL fringe, but a rabidly endorsed and supported group in many Middle-Eastern Nations. While only a few percent of people in Syria will blow themselves up or kill in the name of Allah, a very large percentage of the people in Syria would approve of said action. The same goes for many other countries in that area.

As for the Islamification of Europe, total agree with Legal. The massive influx of Arabs and Muslims there is similar to that of Hispanics in the USA, except that the people over there aren't almost all passive, democratic catholics, but immigrants from theocratic or totalitarian nations that believe that violence is a legitimate form of political partisanship (take the riots in Paris). A massive threat for Europe indeed, too bad the nations of the EU are too paralyzed with political correctness, liberality and fear of action to do anything about it...

Misanthrope
06-02-2008, 08:33 PM
But then again, religion and reason is like oil and water.

omg saxe u mad a jok bout religion! u shud be baned fur insenstninsitivity omg stop parsicuting us omfg

mayb ill go pray 4 u, u blind

Slavic
06-02-2008, 09:43 PM
Wow, extremists in every religion eh? Well, I am sure that there are no other countries on this planet that endorse anti-west terrorism that aren't run or almost entirely controlled by Muslims. I believe that there are muslims who are adamantly opposed to terrorism and fundamentalism, but that you guys also have to admit that the fundamentalists aren't a SMALL fringe, but a rabidly endorsed and supported group in many Middle-Eastern Nations. While only a few percent of people in Syria will blow themselves up or kill in the name of Allah, a very large percentage of the people in Syria would approve of said action. The same goes for many other countries in that area.


North Korea? Russia?

You've got to understand why there are such a large amount of people in the middle east doing actions like this. There region is a shit hole. Most of the suicide bombers are extremely poor and uneducated. Being poor and uneducated in the Middle East is completely different from being poor and uneducated in the West. To most of these people the Qur'an and what ever sick interpretation is placed on it is all that they know. They grow up learning only the Qur'an and that is all.

The reason the West isn't full of nutjobs is because we have a relatively decent system of commerce and learning built. What is going on in the Middle East can be compared to what happened during Middle Ages Europe. Large blocks of people are uneducated, have no future, and are only versed in the Bible and what ever interpretation is thrown on it. The major difference between the two is that Middle Ages European Christians didn't have Muslims broadcasting things offensive to Christians across global media outlets.

LegalSmash
06-02-2008, 11:53 PM
North Korea? Russia?

You've got to understand why there are such a large amount of people in the middle east doing actions like this. There region is a shit hole. Most of the suicide bombers are extremely poor and uneducated. Being poor and uneducated in the Middle East is completely different from being poor and uneducated in the West. To most of these people the Qur'an and what ever sick interpretation is placed on it is all that they know. They grow up learning only the Qur'an and that is all.

The reason the West isn't full of nutjobs is because we have a relatively decent system of commerce and learning built. What is going on in the Middle East can be compared to what happened during Middle Ages Europe. Large blocks of people are uneducated, have no future, and are only versed in the Bible and what ever interpretation is thrown on it. The major difference between the two is that Middle Ages European Christians didn't have Muslims broadcasting things offensive to Christians across global media outlets.


Actually, they did, it was called an opposing religious view point... see spain and the reconquista, and the inquisition for further details. The difference is, the West learned to be bigger men about it (see religious tolerance), but that should not degrade into "religious submissiveness" which is what Eurabia has become.

As for the suicide bombers being uneducated and poor, Islam requires every faithful muslim give a zakat, a tithe, to the poor, so they may be poor, but there are poorer people in other places. This argument also attempts to make an excuse for their behavior... Violence is not excused because you are poor, because you still make a conscious, individual choice to listen, and act upon what you are told.

That is killing with intent. "because they are poor and uneducated" is like saying autistic kids scream and flail because they cant speak... in the latter example it is true, but with suicide bombers, there is something more at work there than economic angst, its called conscious, intentful hatred, whatever the source.

Saxe
06-03-2008, 12:37 AM
omg saxe u mad a jok bout religion! u shud be baned fur insenstninsitivity omg stop parsicuting us omfg

mayb ill go pray 4 u, u blind

I'm sorry I offended your religious spirit mis. I'm gonna pray the rest of the day, just to prevent my future blindness. Thanks.

Italian Jew
06-03-2008, 01:43 AM
Don't forget the dumb, ignorant, firebrand preachers who say you should fight the demons that believe in other religions...

Those people don't get off the couch to do anything about it, but at least the fundamentalist muslims do (even though the religion is not the main cause but the people who say they know what the religion was saying). Fundamentalist christianity has been around longer, so their efforts have waned because it lost its flair.

Keep in mind there are more sects of Islam and the fundie version just as there are Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. for christianity, so you really cannot judge any rituals for the entire religion. It all depends on whose telling who what. If you are poor you are going to want some answers and guidance, and your local religious leader (whether he be crazy loon or an actual follower of the religion that doesn't bastardize it) provides that. Their effect on the people is increased more when there are less educated, so in some degree, their economic status and education play large roles in determining their futures. They suffer the same pressures as others in christian settings, but you cannot blame it all on those two things nor ignore them.

The west never really learned to be bigger men about anything. They just realized they couldn't conquer the whole fucking desert so they just weight on the defensive (for no real reason).

The ironic thing about how the western education system is better is that the western academia that led to the rise of education was preserved by the east.

Lux
06-03-2008, 08:08 AM
From what I have gathered from places I have lived where Muslims are quite a big percentage of the population, they hate us. At the highschool I attended there was a massive gang of people, all made up of Muslims. A lot were the sort of people you don't get mixed with. They pulled a knife on my friend outside of school and generally it was obvious they just hated white people, the reason why I don't know, we paid for taxes for them to live here, we even gave them free homes and benefits so it doesn't seem very grateful of them to hate us.

One group of them even made a presentation for RE and the teachers voted it the winner of the competition. The thing most of us were disgusted with was that their title was "Why does war start" and all they talked about was Muslim Jihad's and Muhammed and have all war is in the name of God.

I'm don't hate Muslims as a whole, infact one of my best friends back then was Muslim and he was kind, polite, intelligent, and had similiar interests to me..he was a perfect guy. But to me I don't see many like him, I know most aren't potential suicide bombers and criminals but I really do see so many and think that they will.


I don't think we need to change our laws and stuff just because they take religion so seriously that they blow people up for it. Why would we take that on as our reponsibility to manage laws around it, that is sucking up to them and eventually they will take over. So you need to stand up to these people, we need to target people who are brainwashing people into suicide bombing and teach children to put society over religion, because if you don't things like this happen.

LegalSmash
06-03-2008, 08:42 AM
From what I have gathered from places I have lived where Muslims are quite a big percentage of the population, they hate us. At the highschool I attended there was a massive gang of people, all made up of Muslims. A lot were the sort of people you don't get mixed with. They pulled a knife on my friend outside of school and generally it was obvious they just hated white people, the reason why I don't know, we paid for taxes for them to live here, we even gave them free homes and benefits so it doesn't seem very grateful of them to hate us.

One group of them even made a presentation for RE and the teachers voted it the winner of the competition. The thing most of us were disgusted with was that their title was "Why does war start" and all they talked about was Muslim Jihad's and Muhammed and have all war is in the name of God.

I'm don't hate Muslims as a whole, infact one of my best friends back then was Muslim and he was kind, polite, intelligent, and had similiar interests to me..he was a perfect guy. But to me I don't see many like him, I know most aren't potential suicide bombers and criminals but I really do see so many and think that they will.


I don't think we need to change our laws and stuff just because they take religion so seriously that they blow people up for it. Why would we take that on as our reponsibility to manage laws around it, that is sucking up to them and eventually they will take over. So you need to stand up to these people, we need to target people who are brainwashing people into suicide bombing and teach children to put society over religion, because if you don't things like this happen.

again, Eurabia.

Italian Jew
06-03-2008, 12:24 PM
Some are like that because of the conditions that they live in and the way they are treated. A lot of places, like the suburbs of France, where foreigners are placed are not great places to live. The authority figures usually treat foreigners like shit and the areas are usually slummy with few exceptions. It is the same thing that happens in the US where you have inner city gangs. They have very little to begin with and get treated like shit mostly.

phatman76
06-03-2008, 05:34 PM
Some are like that because of the conditions that they live in and the way they are treated. A lot of places, like the suburbs of France, where foreigners are placed are not great places to live. The authority figures usually treat foreigners like shit and the areas are usually slummy with few exceptions. It is the same thing that happens in the US where you have inner city gangs. They have very little to begin with and get treated like shit mostly.

This is BS, people in the projects of Los Angeles (trust me, I have been there) are exposed to incredible violence, crime and discrimination every day. Very few of them (actually none) will grow up to firebomb clubs and busses or crash planes into buildings, especially in other countries that have nothing to do with the USA. Foreigners aren't "placed" into the suburbs of France, they move their voluntarily. Most foreigners in the LA ghettos crossed a gigantic desert illegally to get there, they certainly weren't placed there, and they still like it better than the shithole country they came from. Not so with immigrants in France. They are treated better than they could have ever hoped to be treated in their countries of origin, but choose to riot and terrorize their new hosts because of their beliefs.

This isn't about economics or jealousy, this is about a religion that not only condones violence, but has many active and radical leaders who plan and organize large scale acts of violence. Surely, had they the tools, many radical Muslims would pursue an agenda of racial and religious extermination much as the Nazi's did in WWII. The Nordic-Aryan "master race" was subjugated by the combined will and arms of the free world, so too must this new Muslim-Arab "servant-hood of Allah". Surely, not every German in 1942 agreed with the Nazi agenda, and surely neither does every Muslim agree with the fundamentalist agenda of the Middle East. However, that does not make this any less than a fight for our very lives and freedom on a global scale.

LegalSmash
06-03-2008, 08:18 PM
Some are like that because of the conditions that they live in and the way they are treated. A lot of places, like the suburbs of France, where foreigners are placed are not great places to live. The authority figures usually treat foreigners like shit and the areas are usually slummy with few exceptions. It is the same thing that happens in the US where you have inner city gangs. They have very little to begin with and get treated like shit mostly.

ROFL, jesus christ man, would you like to volunteer for their next beheading? I can smell the liberal white guilt from here...

Italian Jew
06-03-2008, 11:12 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/03/france.riots/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France

I also suggest watching the movie La Haine (or Haine, La)

These are only the 2005 riots in the suburbs of France, but as you will see, earlier conflicts in France will lead to this and are caused by the same reasons. They were not caused by Islam (which does not condone violence, only self defense), but by the immediate conflict from the deaths of two teenagers and the ever present problems of poverty, unemployment, and many instances of police brutality. I see it is so much better there than in other places in the world...:001_rolleyes: If you go from point A (you get treated like shit) to point B (you still get treated like shit, but the gov't hands you a piece of toilet paper), you are still going to be mistreated, so I think the riots have some logical reasoning to them. Hell, it is truly American and French to rebel when you feel mistreated because that is how we got to where we are today.

The gangbangers of LA are not mislead by political and religious leaders who bastardize a religion to suit their own ideas. They conduct violent acts within their city because of turf wars or public conflicts (like the Rodney King debacle) in similar ways to violence in the middle east except that the gangbangers have to worry about the authority whereas the violence in the middle east is allowed because like I said, the leaders use a bastardized version of Islam to back their actions. If they used the true words of the Qu'ran, then none of this would be happening, but then again, Christianity has managed to allow morons to fuck around too so eventually this fad will cease to be. The leaders are the reasons why the shit happens, not the religion.

I am willing to bet that many Muslims viewed Christianity as a violent religion during the crusades. They probably made the same folly you made and thought they could understand the true nature of the religion from some idiot on a power trip delivering a broken version of it.

phatman76
06-03-2008, 11:43 PM
the leaders use a bastardized version of Islam to back their actions. If they used the true words of the Qu'ran, then none of this would be happening, but then again, Christianity has managed to allow morons to fuck around too so eventually this fad will cease to be. The leaders are the reasons why the shit happens, not the religion.

I am willing to bet that many Muslims viewed Christianity as a violent religion during the crusades. They probably made the same folly you made and thought they could understand the true nature of the religion from some idiot on a power trip delivering a broken version of it.

Sorry, but the Muslims of the 12th and 13th century couldn't really do anything about the fact that the crusaders were violent but push them out, we can do a lot more. If the religious leaders of Islamic fundamentalism are elected and supported by the people of countries like Iran, Syria, Palestine and the like, we can do something about it. I would say let the Israelis fight them as our proxy, lets just give them some B-52's and a lot of bombs and say "go for it."

It is a fucked up age we live in when "tolerance" extends even to those who would see our freedoms taken away, along with our lives and land. My "tolerance" for those Islamic nations, their terror-supportive populations, and their theocratic leaders extends as far as a single American citizen killed by fundamentalism. After that, the only thing that should be "tolerated" by anyone who values their religious and political liberty should be the destruction of these radical leaders, the dismantling of these antagonistic and terror-supportive governments, and their total submission to the orders and directives of the NATO and the free world. If they refuse to comply, it is not a crime to invade them to protect our children's freedom, not to mention to seize the vast oil wealth which they have locked away under the desert sands and securely distribute it.

And lets remember, the Crusades were over 700 years ago, this is here and now.

LegalSmash
06-03-2008, 11:49 PM
Sorry, but the Muslims of the 12th and 13th century couldn't really do anything about the fact that the crusaders were violent but push them out, we can do a lot more. If the religious leaders of Islamic fundamentalism are elected and supported by the people of countries like Iran, Syria, Palestine and the like, we can do something about it. I would say let the Israelis fight them as our proxy, lets just give them some B-52's and a lot of bombs and say "go for it."

It is a fucked up age we live in when "tolerance" extends even to those who would see our freedoms taken away, along with our lives and land. My "tolerance" for those Islamic nations, their terror-supportive populations, and their theocratic leaders extends as far as a single American citizen killed by fundamentalism. After that, the only thing that should be "tolerated" by anyone who values their religious and political liberty should be the destruction of these radical leaders, the dismantling of these antagonistic and terror-supportive governments, and their total submission to the orders and directives of the NATO and the free world. If they refuse to comply, it is not a crime to invade them to protect our children's freedom, not to mention to seize the vast oil wealth which they have locked away under the desert sands and securely distribute it.

And lets remember, the Crusades were over 700 years ago, this is here and now.
agreed, but phatman, Jew has so much islamic hearts and flowers (read knives and semtex) in his ear, he cant hear reason re this subject.

Italian Jew
06-04-2008, 06:45 PM
All I hear is someone wanting to invade a country on the other side of the world because terrorists did something to us and you want their oil. It's their oil, and much to everyone's dismay, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. I don't see any true American ideals in invading a country because they have a resource that we don't have (or maybe we do in Alaska). The countries themselves have not done anything remotely hostile towards us unless we started something first. The terrorists are the ones you want, but seeing as how the US can't find them all, they must fight somebody they can find so they can attempt to look good.

I don't see Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, or any other middle eastern country go into open war with the US, so we are not defending anything. Those americans that died were in somebody else's country, so it is not really defending America by retaliating against that (especially sense those people really have no business trying to be there in the first place, unless you are greedy bastard after some oil, but they took it away). You might get away with calling that defense by some stretch of a definition, but by saying you want to seize THEIR wealth, it sounds like you are attacking them.

And the bullshit uber conservative is really showing in Legal. He has his own opinion and refuses to listen to others because he was born right and everyone else wrong...:blink: A true whore to ignorance

phatman76
06-04-2008, 08:01 PM
Had a great thread and accidentally quit browser, it was epic fail...

Anyways, Quit the flaming, both Italian and Legal please...

I said last time (more eloquently of course) that Iraq and Afghanistan did have a right to their Oil and freedom, but ceded it by supporting or directly funding attacks against us or any other free nation. I don't want to help build Iraq into a nation, but want to finish the job now that we have started. I would have been content to just kill Saddam and pump every last drop of their oil out of the ground as reparations for their stupidity and antagonism towards us. That would have been justice for us, the countless Kurds Saddam murdered, and the numerous other crimes against humanity he has committed. Same goes for Afghanistan. These nations were sovereign, but supporting terror revokes all claims to said sovereignty.

Iran will soon be in the same position. They and Syria have directly opposed freedom and supported/funded hizbollah and hamas terror attacks against Israel. I believe the only thing holding back devastating Israeli retaliation is the fact that Europe refuses to support the only free nation in the middle east any longer, preferring to let it swim alone among the sharks of fundamentalism and terror.

Tolerance of those who would destroy us and our freedoms if they could is the same as tolerance for those who have actually tried to do so. Tolerance for the nations that harbor and fund those who would do this is just as bad as tolerating the attackers and terrorists themselves. That kind of "tolerance" is suicide.

None of this actually matters though, what with Hydrogen energy, fusion, biofuels and energy independence all coming into fashion. Soon every country between Turkey and India excluding Israel and Pakistan will be so unimportant that it will be funny. The "middle east dilemma" will not end with a bang, but with the bankruptcy of the Oil Producing and Exporting Countries. Then, with no economic knife to hold on to, nothing will stop swift justice being done on all those who would do us harm, instead of the self-defeating policy of appeasement and fear we have harbored due to our dependence on oil. Again though, until that happens, I am content and would not feel guilty pumping all their oil out of the ground as payment for their crimes. Think the Iraq war is expensive? We should just recoup our losses with black gold.

LegalSmash
06-04-2008, 08:18 PM
All I hear is someone wanting to invade a country on the other side of the world because terrorists did something to us and you want their oil. It's their oil, and much to everyone's dismay, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it. I don't see any true American ideals in invading a country because they have a resource that we don't have (or maybe we do in Alaska). The countries themselves have not done anything remotely hostile towards us unless we started something first. The terrorists are the ones you want, but seeing as how the US can't find them all, they must fight somebody they can find so they can attempt to look good.

I don't see Iran, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, or any other middle eastern country go into open war with the US, so we are not defending anything. Those americans that died were in somebody else's country, so it is not really defending America by retaliating against that (especially sense those people really have no business trying to be there in the first place, unless you are greedy bastard after some oil, but they took it away). You might get away with calling that defense by some stretch of a definition, but by saying you want to seize THEIR wealth, it sounds like you are attacking them.

And the bullshit uber conservative is really showing in Legal. He has his own opinion and refuses to listen to others because he was born right and everyone else wrong...:blink: A true whore to ignorance


Rofl.

Ok,

First:
Aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime, here and throughout most of the civilized world. The countries you have mentioned off bat: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, here Ill add a few: Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Lebanon have at one point or another harbored, aided, funded, assisted, provided for, sheltered, etc. groups which have threatened the interests of the United States Federal Government, its associated entities, the citizens of the United States, and the real property of the United State. In of itself, such action, or failure to act in the case of many of the countries, create a presumption of association and encouragement of these groups.

At ANY point from the Tehran Hostage crisis, the Munich attack, the several wars the collective middle east have launched at Israel throughout the past 50 years, we had all right and privilege as a nation to protect our interests. Surprisingly many of these events have occurred during weak foreign policy democratic administrations, because these groups within the countries, and the same countries that harbor them know that since Truman there has not been a democrat president worth the semen that created him, and would not do more than hem and haw at their rampantly offensive, destructive, and malicious actions.

Enter Bush. We have forcibly removed two regimes that harbored islamic extremists, and have only lost 4000 men or so. There have been no further terrorist attacks on the United States itself, and our people are acting like themselves again, even if that means they are signing stupid mortgages and acting like uneducated imbeciles. The point is, they are not cowering in their rooms, begging the government to make the national religion islam to placate the islamic extremists who hate this place so much. If you look at it as the objective was "lets stop the terrorists from blowing up our expensive nonmilitary buildings" we've been quite successful, as has his administration, in that vein. If you are looking at it, however, as "lets redistribute the wealth so BoQueesha can have a shiny new Koran with her Government subsidized lace front wig and Air Jordans... then no... there's been an epic Fail... and one that I welcome.

The Terrorists had home countries, just like the pilots that sank the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor HAD countries, when that happened we didnt say "a rogue group of Asian Pilots, possibly based in Japan, a belligerent nation taking over manchuria and possibly committing crimes against humanity in Burma and the Philippines. No, we said: Japan started shit, and we made their cities have a lovely radioactive glow. The worst we did up to know was get rid of regimes that were executing people at random (qussai hussein and his brother anyone) and harboring terrorists in their borders, allowing them to set up training camps, and have weekend parties... on the upside, we are teaching them that women are humans too and that you dont kill them without fair trials.

Second: You bluster on and on about what WE do, OUR offensive this, OUR offensive that, we dont understaaaand, baaawwww.... They have an ON and an OFF button on their televisions, radios, computers, etc. They CAN turn off their media if they do not appreciate the Western humor, film, culture, or ideals. If an orthodox Jew can go to Yankee stadium and NOT eat a pork product, I am pretty sure another human being of a different faith can choose NOT to engage in what he may find objectionable personally while others are allowed to do the same act which is not religiously sensitive to them, its called TOLERANCE. We do plenty of it, because their way of life hasnt gone the way of the American Indians. America was and is a melting pot, in the past 25 years however, liberal white guilt and baby boomer imbeciles have robbed the country of that which made everybody "american" whether they be muslim, jew, buddhist, christian, black, white, crippled, or midget, rather, now we have a bunch of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Blacks Whites, cripples, and midgets that are those things first and "americans" when it is convenient to them. Like you. We live in a small planet, with the ability to contact each other fairly regularly, and in some cases unintentionally, the same way WE can deal with their lovely displays of tolerance and peaceful rioting in Eurabia, They can deal with that lovely freedom of expression we have over here.

Notice I mentioned OUR countrymen. If it is conservative to gladly have 1.5 Billion foreigners die rather than 1 of our own, then I am fine with that.

Third: Why are you screaming like a mimi about the oil and it being theirs... no shit its theirs, we BUY it, even if we beat their sandy asses into the ground, we still justly compensate them, just like we did in the 30s and 40s when they were running around in rags hitting a goat head around with a croquet mallet and had no running water or electricity. No one is saying "go take their oil" who are actually in charge, just like we didnt go to Africa and "take their diamonds", we PAY them for it, and pay them well. This is WHY the Saudi princes, Ruling parties of the countries with oil can live off HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS A MONTH and pay for palaces and Islands in Dubai. We finance their splendor, as does everyone else. They are the same assholes that don't share it with their people, because well... that would be... socialist.

This "take their oil" tripe, its been a refrain of the liberal left, liberal arts majors, and imbeciles who are getting their news from MoveOn.org, people who know they "Got a furst ameynedmunt royt maaaahn" but dont know dick about how it applies or who's died to protect that right.

fourth: Jew, you've never made a direct attack on me before and I find this both humerous and sad. I've never said I was NOT a political conservative, why is your "insult" supposed to bother me here? As for being a whore for ignorance, last I checked, you are the one making wild accusations, using circular logic, and acting like an apologist Dhimmi weakling regarding this group of people while railing on about the lack of "American ideals" you see in this alleged "taking of their wealth". Who is the whore here, truly? From what it looks like, my "learned colleague", its you who is allowing yourself to get double anal/double vaginal penetrated by a fleet of idealism that hits many suburban tards as soon as they reach college and want to show how "progressive" they are, and bukkakking badly strung together rhetoric at every chance you can... THAT my friend, is case and point, whore-like behavior. With all due respect.

Very respectfully,

BOOWY
06-04-2008, 08:49 PM
When will they learn that they are the ones making Islam look bad and not the rest of the world?

LegalSmash
06-04-2008, 09:06 PM
That requires common sense and a willingness to understand that other viewpoints exist.

Italian Jew
06-04-2008, 09:21 PM
:001_rolleyes:

phatman76
06-04-2008, 11:49 PM
Notice I mentioned OUR countrymen. If it is conservative to gladly have 1.5 Billion foreigners die rather than 1 of our own, then I am fine with that.



Hehe, yup. the Constitution's right to "life, liberty, etc." only applies to people who aren't committing crimes. Again, by killing or abetting the murder of any U.S. citizen, a foreign government or citizen immediately loses all right to life, liberty and property. There is a reason Locke called it the "social contract," not the "perpetual social right." If someone or some group breaks their end, we no longer have to oblige to our end. The fact that we stop ourselves from killing civilians, firebombing cities, and poisoning people (which we did in WWII btw) is not some recognition of those civilian's right to live, but an act of mercy. We are going to let them live until we come in and rebuild a faithful, democratic government or let them build their own.

Somewhere in the hustle and bustle of the 1960's, most democrats (and even a lot of Republicans too) lost this grasp of the social contract. I assure you, FDR and Truman felt no (or very little) guilt bombing and destroying purely civilian targets in Europe and Japan during WWII. Being a citizen goes both ways, your gov't is responsible for you and you for your government. Therefore, unless you are actively working with us and against them when your nation abandons freedom and attacks the USA, you are just as responsible as those who are in charge.

That is why it is okay. When they attack one of us, they attack all of us. When their gov't harbors the criminal, the entire nation is responsible. Without such logic, any concept or standard of Justice is lost.

Lux
06-05-2008, 02:49 AM
Very nice post and I think that is the way I feel but it would lead to declaring wars on several countries every year? If you attack a nation because of one person it leads to you losing more lives, doesn't seem worth while to me.

Omar
06-05-2008, 05:06 AM
[QUOTE=phatman76;54864] While only a few percent of people in Syria will blow themselves up or kill in the name of AllahQUOTE]

those ppl are either brainwashed or had a bad life, or mentally sick, they want 2 suicide no matter what, putting it in gods name, is becouse they want 2 go 2 heaven, its a stupid reason, saw a girl on youtube, said allah and somethin else i cant spell, then pushed the detonation buttom, after that the bomb couldnt blow up, she said that she had a bad life, like a said its a stupid reason/excuse. and those going 2 war blowing them selves up is becouse they think u will go 2 heaven, they are brainwashed.

this thread may flame middle easterns on this forum, but since im the only one then just continue. i dont give a crap rly. i think its ok u guys have ur opinions.

but if u BD or AOs can do me a favor then please close this thread.

Omar
06-05-2008, 05:11 AM
Don't forget the dumb, ignorant, firebrand preachers who say you should fight the demons that believe in other religions...

Those people don't get off the couch to do anything about it, but at least the fundamentalist muslims do (even though the religion is not the main cause but the people who say they know what the religion was saying). Fundamentalist christianity has been around longer, so their efforts have waned because it lost its flair.

Keep in mind there are more sects of Islam and the fundie version just as there are Baptists, Catholics, Lutherans, etc. for christianity, so you really cannot judge any rituals for the entire religion. It all depends on whose telling who what. If you are poor you are going to want some answers and guidance, and your local religious leader (whether he be crazy loon or an actual follower of the religion that doesn't bastardize it) provides that. Their effect on the people is increased more when there are less educated, so in some degree, their economic status and education play large roles in determining their futures. They suffer the same pressures as others in christian settings, but you cannot blame it all on those two things nor ignore them.

The west never really learned to be bigger men about anything. They just realized they couldn't conquer the whole fucking desert so they just weight on the defensive (for no real reason).

The ironic thing about how the western education system is better is that the western academia that led to the rise of education was preserved by the east.

AMEN!!

Saxe
06-05-2008, 05:44 AM
[QUOTE=phatman76;54864] While only a few percent of people in Syria will blow themselves up or kill in the name of AllahQUOTE]

those ppl are either brainwashed or had a bad life, or mentally sick, they want 2 suicide no matter what, putting it in gods name, is becouse they want 2 go 2 heaven, its a stupid reason, saw a girl on youtube, said allah and somethin else i cant spell, then pushed the detonation buttom, after that the bomb couldnt blow up, she said that she had a bad life, like a said its a stupid reason/excuse. and those going 2 war blowing them selves up is becouse they think u will go 2 heaven, they are brainwashed.

this thread may flame middle easterns on this forum, but since im the only one then just continue. i dont give a crap rly. i think its ok u guys have ur opinions.

but if u BD or AOs can do me a favor then please close this thread.

Yeah, I agree with omar here.

You can't be serious when you say that these middle eastern populations support their governments. They might say so in TV, but what would you do if you and your familiy gets killed if you say that you dislike the government?

It really seems like the american media doesn't provide the background info on middle eastern countries.

Also, I can't belive you'd rather kill the entire population of the middle east instead of working out solutions. That makes you guys just as bad as the terrorists.

LegalSmash
06-05-2008, 09:09 AM
[QUOTE=SGT. Omar;55747]

Yeah, I agree with omar here.

You can't be serious when you say that these middle eastern populations support their governments. They might say so in TV, but what would you do if you and your familiy gets killed if you say that you dislike the government?

It really seems like the american media doesn't provide the background info on middle eastern countries.

Also, I can't belive you'd rather kill the entire population of the middle east instead of working out solutions. That makes you guys just as bad as the terrorists.


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:SASS_Radmus.jpg

No, it lowers the total amount of aid we have to give foreign countries.

Saxe
06-05-2008, 10:11 AM
[QUOTE=Saxe;55749]


http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Image:SASS_Radmus.jpg

No, it lowers the total amount of aid we have to give foreign countries.

I hope you're not serious.. ;/

Omar
06-05-2008, 10:14 AM
its still some real bull shit, the US invaded Irak becouse of oil (the truth)
The reason that was on paper was becouse some trator said that Irak had chemical weapons, the US gave him gold, so he would say that, and yet there isnt any chemical weapons of what it its called "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" wich they dont. its all a excuse 2 come in country and steal the oil, and rape the woman and children, and fuck it up in general.

Omar
06-05-2008, 10:15 AM
PLEASE!!! close this thread, legal and italian is getting flamy. so please close it. lets all be peace full

Dracula
06-05-2008, 02:09 PM
Im reading a book about the Middle East/Terroist problem its called "They Just Don't Get It" by Retired General David Hunt what he ses sorta reminds me of what legal is saying.

phatman76
06-05-2008, 07:15 PM
Yeah, I agree with omar here.

You can't be serious when you say that these middle eastern populations support their governments. They might say so in TV, but what would you do if you and your familiy gets killed if you say that you dislike the government?

It really seems like the american media doesn't provide the background info on middle eastern countries.

Also, I can't belive you'd rather kill the entire population of the middle east instead of working out solutions. That makes you guys just as bad as the terrorists.


If the Iranian Ayatollahs did not have popular support, or at least popular acquiescence, then they would not be in power. If Iranian people do not support they government that endorses terror on their behalf, they should leave (my grandparents did that, they left behind all their possessions except for some rugs to come here).

I remember a similar situation, Germany in WWII. While I am sure few there actually wanted to murder 6 million Jews (even in the German military I doubt few were entirely comfortable with the idea), no one spoke up or even bothered to resist. Their approval by inaction was just as damning as the crimes of the true architects of the Holocaust. That is why those on trial at Nuremberg who said "I was just following orders, or else I would have been killed," hung right next to those who had actively supported such actions.

This isn't just an "Islam thing" or a "middle east thing," this is a justice thing. Everyone is accountable for their actions or lack thereof. Your final comment is the true reason for the middle east problem. You think that punishing the perpetrators of a crime, even with their own methods, is as bad as committing the original crime itself. Remember that this is not true. Leveling out justice and protecting others from repeated attack and murder is different than indiscriminate and unprovoked attack and antagonism. I would be ashamed to live in a country whose government is afraid to avenge and level out justice over the premeditated death and murder of its own citizens. Such a nation has forgotten the first reason for rule by government: to protect the people. To forfeit such a duty is to forfeit all claim to the belief that a government must be accountable to its people.

Italian Jew
06-05-2008, 11:28 PM
The governments of those two examples came about because of the situation the people were in prior to the rise of their power. It is no excuse to say our country was shit so it isn't our fault at all, but they aren't really saying that. They aren't saying anything because of their leader ship. Post WWI Germany and cold war era Middle East were both shit storms. Germany had to deal with reparations after WWI and their country disintegrated until one party led by a charismatic fellow promised them a lot of things, which at the time seemed like a good idea, but we all know what happened next.

For the middle east, the countries there were part of the frontlines for the cold war. They were being harassed by either the Soviets or the Americans for support. Our American government would go to great lengths to make sure things swung our way by helping certain leaders get elected, and the Soviets would try and do the same. The problem was that occasionally a leader would be selected who may have been unqualified or had questionable motives and ethics, but as long as they were against your enemy, they were your friend. All of this as well as the already hostile area obviously led to a more dangerous region. You have desperate people, like in Germany, that are looking for any way to get out of a bad situation with very little options given to them. If any of use were in the same situation as them, we would make the same choices they made because you either believed it or you would rather live than to die as a "traitor".

Without either Soviet or American intervention, would that area be as dangerous today? This may seem like an unfair question because it was act and counteract amongst the Soviets and Americans with both making the first move in different parts of the middle east, but I only ask because it seems a lot of our problems are brought on by our own doing.

I would think it would be prudent to try and prevent anymore future problems arising because of our foreign intervention of a crisis, but at the same time it would be hard to know when to back down from a situation because in some ways, yes, America should go after those who do us harm, but at some time, you have to realize when to stop. The upfront blow everything thing that may harm us method really doesn't prevent any threat from hurting America, it just makes a new one appear.

If ,for instance, Iran was developing nuclear weapons and prevented anyone from verifying such, would it be better to A) invade Iran because they are disagreeing or B) use covert means to destroy or disable any abilities to make nuclear weapons. I think option B would be better because you would avoid the immediate consequences of a conventional war with a fairly well off Middle Eastern country and you would destroy any threat to you. They couldn't publicly acknowledge the stuff that was destroyed because that would make them at fault for having them in the first place and prove that they were lying. Iran might have a grudge against the US afterwards if they found out it was them, but they would not go into an open war which they would most likely lose because they would not have as much support as they would have gotten if America invaded them.

In short, if America is threatened directly by the Middle East, then a full frontal war is necessary. However, if America only feels threatened and no Middle Eastern country has established an open war policy, don't start shit unless A) you know with a reasonable amount of info that a country means to harm you and B) do it in a covert way that would prevent any immediate hostilities resulting in more shit happening in the future.

Food for thought...anyways, this certainly may not explain or discuss every circumstance in the past or right now, so no crazy bullshit saying I support the terrorists or whatnot. Just add what you feel is necessary...in a way that is dignified and logical. None of that "Fuck that you unamerican shit! That's not what this country was founded on..." flaming bullshit

phatman76
06-05-2008, 11:57 PM
If ,for instance, Iran was developing nuclear weapons and prevented anyone from verifying such, would it be better to A) invade Iran because they are disagreeing or B) use covert means to destroy or disable any abilities to make nuclear weapons. I think option B would be better because you would avoid the immediate consequences of a conventional war with a fairly well off Middle Eastern country and you would destroy any threat to you. They couldn't publicly acknowledge the stuff that was destroyed because that would make them at fault for having them in the first place and prove that they were lying. Iran might have a grudge against the US afterwards if they found out it was them, but they would not go into an open war which they would most likely lose because they would not have as much support as they would have gotten if America invaded them.



Israel did covert strikes like this on Iraq 20-30 years ago and on Syria just a couple years ago. I can agree with this type of policy, surgical strikes that get the job done are always better than a down and dirty ground war...

I don't think the USA and USSR are solely to blame for the mideast problems either. Their fantastic oil wealth and theocratic/secular conflict/coup/antiwestern problems are enough to throw the area off kilter. The cold war just sent it over the edge sorta.

Italian Jew
06-06-2008, 12:25 AM
Yeah, I was trying to say that those weren't the only problems, but it might have gotten lost somewhere in my wall of text. Some of those problems are those Europe experienced in the dark ages and the anti-western thinking is understandable in a way but at the same time it goes a bit too far. The proper way of saying it would probably be throwing gasoline on a fire or something to that effect.

I would bet that once oil is no longer the great resource it is today (once it either runs dry or we find an alternate fuel source) most of the conflicts we know within the region will cease. All it is now is a gigantic power struggle for control of the oil, so once that is gone, the West will back off and so will the Middle East. (all of this takes into account that the new fuel is not some form of sand or rock found only in their region). The religious differences in the area do help to make conflict, but once you are just fighting for land and the scarce amount of basic resources, it becomes a conflict of survival. I would hope that the west would try and avoid any intervention in this scenario, which they should unless the Middle Eastern countries decide upon invading other countries outside of their region making it a whole new ballgame resembling WWII. Man, humanity just finds easier ways to start shit...:bored:

Unless the new fuel is readily available all over the world, the country with the most means of producing it will be the new cluster fuck arena of the world. Yay for them! :laugh:

broncoty
06-06-2008, 03:11 PM
That requires common sense and a willingness to understand that other viewpoints exist.

Legal

*gets on one knee*

will you marry me?

LegalSmash
06-06-2008, 05:31 PM
LOL