JerrySeinfeld

Sure! Try taking your wife into Aulnay-sous-Bois or Chlichy Sou Bois outside Paris without wearing a Hijab and see what happens to her.

FRANCE has never been a friend to muslims? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! BTW you need to get off the idea that foreign policy is complex. Every second word I hear coming out of Bill Graham's mouth is "nuance". It's a veiled attempt to blame the USA (again) for every problem on the planet. In fact, there is a Palestinian state: it's called Jordan, whose population has always been majority Palestinian. It's not as big a state as it used to be, but that's because King Hussein, in the worst miscalculation of his long bravura highwire act, made the mistake of joining Nasser's 1967 war to destroy Israel. Hence, the 'occupied territories': they're occupied because the Arabs attacked Israel and lost.

Chill guys - it's CONNETICUT!!! About as liberal as you can get - hardly a bellwether for the country although the left media is all over this one, praying we don't have another 4 repub years in the whitehouse. Just like the new england dems - snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and scurry home.

A sidebar: ever notice that it's OK to make broad sweeping generalizations, as long as they are POSITIVE? "The Chinese are a very intelligent people" "The Japanese have a great work ethic" "Italians are a passionate bunch" HOORAY for multiculturalism - let's all have a festival! (we're not prejudiced) But if you make the sweeping generalizations negative... "Muslims blow themselves up more than other cultures" "Russians aren't very bright" "The French are snots" Then it's frowned upon. Strange though - alkl of the above statements are accurate lol JOKING!!!!

Western foreign poliecs vis a vis the Middle East are behind the rising tide of radical Islam. Now, radical Muslim organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood existed before those policies really took hold in the post-colonial era, but western policies (open-ended support for Israel, supression of nominally secular natuionalist movements, support for brutal dictatorships etc etc) threw gas on the fire. Ahistorical attempts to de-link the two are, frankly, stupid. Uh...if the past 60 years of pissing of the radical Muslims is "doing something right" why are you running around squawking about "World War III"? Western democracies have been anything but squeamish in executing their policies. Through their proxy regimes they are responsible for the deaths or hundreds of thousands, the torture of dissidents, coups, massacres and all manner of atrocities committed in the name of stability (in and of itself, not a bad goal) and for the benefit of western democracies in mind. Ignoring 60 years of that and laying blame at the door of multicultral policies that have been around for all of 25 years is missing the forest for the trees. Ahmedinejad isn't stupid. He realizes that in a long race, the "strong horse" is the one with the support of his people. Squeemish low-committment liberals in the US, Canada and abroad are tiring of the war. Lack of support for this fight - BTW I didn't say I wasn't in favor of WWIII to stop the fascists - is our week link and the Pan Islamists know it. THAT is what is behind the rise of Islamofascism. That coupled with the multiculti-post-modernest-post-christian identity-bereft society the Euros and Canadians have tried to build. The empty shell nations of the multiculti left are prime breeding grounds for fellows like the 17 arrested in Toronto ot the 20 arrested in London, or the 10,000 waving Hezbollah flags in Dearborn, or John Allen Mohammed (Washington Sniper), or Marc Lepine (Montreal Massacre - son of a Muslim wife-beater woman hater), or ...or...or... Face it. Mutliculturalism is one fo the prime root causes of the Islamofascist movement in the west. Self-centereds who can't think outside the box and keep relying on the journalist drivel about "western foreign policy" need to re think their tired expressions and realize there is a movement that has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with religion and the hating of jews and infidels. Face it: if Howard Dean or Black Dog were to swing by the cave for a visit with Osama, he'd shoot you in the head before you had a chance to say "but I'm on your side". Why? Not because of your "foriegn policy" but because you are an infidel. The "western foreign policy" argument doesn't really explain the slaughtered schoolchilderen in Chechnya or the Muslim massacring nations in africa does it? Or the assasination of Theo Van Gogh, Dutch filmmaker. Or firebombings of Danish embassies and 9 killed over CARTOONS does it? When a French oil tanker was attacked off the coast of Yemen. Back then, you'll recall, the French foreign minister was deploring American "simplisme" on a daily basis, and M. Chirac was the principal obstructionist of the neo-con-Zionist-Halliburton plan to remake the Middle East. If you were to pick only one Western nation not to blow up the oil tankers of, France would surely be it. But they got blown up anyway. And afterwards a spokesman for the Islamic Army of Aden said, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels."

The problem with Iraq isn't the Islamists, its the sectarian rivalires that have been brewing for centuries. Otherwise, though you're on the right track. And of course, since inading Iraq and continuing to suport Israel unconditionally have arguably strengthened the hand of the Islamist movement (such as it is: according to our resident comedian, the threat is Shia, not Sunni), then the kind of policies Jerry is calling for will be self-defeating. It's such a typical and wrgonheaded argument - that Islamofascists only exist and are strengthened by Western foreign policy. It's pure BS. This is a movement that's been brewing and will continue to brew regardless of western foreign policy. The old saying "if you're pissing people off you must be doing something right" applies here. Pan Islamism has been creeping for decades. Think of the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie - basically multinational bountry placed on the head of a writer by the leader of the global Islamic republic - ie IRAN. Just a strong an argument could be made that what has REALLY been strengthening the pan islamic position is not western foreign policy, but rather western squeemishness in the face of war or casualties. Squeemishness and a failed multicultural policy that favours tolerance above all else - even tolerance of those groups that are INTOLERANT of us - namely the Islamofascists who see tolerance and sensitivity in western democracies as a sign of weakness and an opportunity to move in.

Jerry, from the tone of your posts it seems that we're already defeated. Do you not think there are moderate Muslims among us that are every bit a part of our community as we are ? Yes I do think there are "moderate" muslims. But even they are far too defensive of the militant Muslim posture. Example: after the arrests in London recently, saw an interview with a Muslim MP in england. She was ranting about how this potenial tragedy was another good example of why Brtain's foreign policy must be changed. Regardless of what you think of Britain's foreign policy, that's a ridiculous proposition. She's basically saying "terrorim works". And what good are moderates if they acquiesce (sp?) to the more militant factions? I don't see a massive division in the Islamic faith between moderates and militants. Why? Perhaps fear? I'm not sure but the "moderates" often come off as unapologetic and accusatory (intolerance) rather than publically questioning those in their faith that are hot for jihad. Think about it. Shouldn't the moderates be doing everything they can to distance themselves from the militants? Everything they can to speak out at every turn against terrorism? That's not what I am seeing. What I am seeing is 10,000 Arabs in dearborn michigan waving HEZBOLLAH flags. What I am seeing is Danish cartoon protesters in Toronto stating "we will not stop until the world obey's Islamic Law". Remember the holocaust (I know the pres. of Iran denies itm but most don't). Sure, not all germans were Nazi war criminals, most were basic, normal MODERATE people. But alot of good that did the jews. If the moderates don't avidly fight against the militants within, then they are part of the proble - just like the Germans.

Fallacy. Nope. The only thing "stability" does is provide a docile environment for Iran and co. to continue moving forward with their plans. So it wil take Iran 20 years to get nukes? I thought they were an imediate and grave danger to the US. Or at least that is what I am being told. I want to preemtively attack the US for they have nukes too. I am afraid they will use them on me or someone else I know. (laughable right?). Sure go ahead and blow up Irans nuke sites. At the same time the US should be charged with cleaning up all the depleted uranium rounds from the A-10s. And all those small tactical (possibly nukes) weapons. Bomb them back into the stone age again then. That will win friends and solve this issue? Win friends? what is this a popularity contest? It's about good versus evil. Kill those whose intention it is to kill us....before they kill us.

Then they will never stop. Such statements by Islamic radicals cannot be taken seriously. The most successful "attack" to date killed a mere 3000 people - more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorist attacks. The Islamic radicals are mosquitoes that can never do anything more than annoy the billions of non-muslims and moderate muslims that control the societies they live in. Even a nuclear blast that killed millions would never bring about Islamic law, however, it would likely trigger a genocide that would result in a world with a lot fewer Muslims. Keep telling yourself that. Meanwhile the Muslim suburbs in Paris and Copenhagen and Britain swell. Euro-descent birthrates are miniscule and Europe's been importing un-integrated Muslim populations en masse. Why blow up parlaiments when they're gonna own them in 50 years. They've already eliminated free speech (danish cartoons) - what is next?

Yeah, forget about keeping the oil flowing, or, keeping markets open to Western capital... not to mention the fact that Iran itself can hardly be called "stable", what with all the different factions competing for control and the growing calls for liberalization. Western threats or, god forbid, an actual attack, play right into the Islamoninjaspacerobotzombies' hands.. Yes - you're right. Let's wait till Iran has a nuke, annihalates Israel and starts look at the USA as a target - I'm sure we'll be better off then. Stability in the middle east is like frozen ice on a river: the top looks placid but there are seriouis currents underneath.

It would have to be a simultaneous nuclear stirke at Syria, Iran, India, China, Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Yemen and several other countries by the U.S. And just to be done with it Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there will be peace in our time. Iran is the snake's head - it would be a good start.

The "Islamic" world consists of a huge number of diverse cultures that have no interest in a political union. When you look at the near civil war in Iraq it is clear that even Arab Muslims could never get together and create a larger state. Calls for an "Islamic Republic" are empty gesters intended to shore up political support among their populations. They will never be more that that. Taking them seriously is a waste of time and energy. So old fashioned are your comments. "Larger state"? They have no interest. Flags and olympic teams are such a distraction and mundane when you can hijack governments internally. DId you know the English flag is no longer flown over prisons in England - too offensive for muslims. Or as the Danish cartoon protester in Toronto said "we won't stop until the world obeys Islamic law"

Fallacy. Nope. The only thing "stability" does is provide a docile environment for Iran and co. to continue moving forward with their plans.

I agree with the initial post - someone's gotta take out the whole region hardcore style. Simlpe fact: take out Iran now or wait 20 years and take 'em on when they have nukes. One of Ahmedinejad's favourite lines: "America is risk averse: that is to our advantage". The anti war people are losing this war for us. We must as nations be on side with "the fight".

Your argument might have been a little more compelling if you could have submitted it before the ceasefire. Personally, I find it a little too coincidental that the leader of Hamas was making overtures towards peace before this whole thing flared up again. If Hamas and Fatah both acknowledge the right of Israel to exist, then that's one less hot button for a lot of governments in the region to use to fire up their people when they want to distract them from other issues. It's just a theory, though. Ceasefire - oh you mean pause before a bigger storm? Did anyone catch Ahmedinejad on 60 minutes? Besides the way he rolled the unprepared Wallace, couldn't u see the purest of evil on those eyes? This guy is wacked. He, nor most of his shia followers are not afraid to die in the name of destroying the west and creating a worldwide domination by Islamofascism. 58,000 suicide bombers waiting for the go signal worldwide. When these guys say "Islamic Republic" they mean it. And the creepiest part is how "gentle" and "peaceful" they try to come off ass. It's scary sh*t.

6 months ago last time I was on this thing I was railroaded and shunned for stating the obvious: We were headed for WWIII: Islamofascists and their "friends" versus Democratic states that have balls enough to stand up to them. Now, 6 months later it's unfolding. I hate to say I told u so, but who can dispute this now?

Jerry, I see you are more than willing to embrace some pretty eloborate conspirasy theories as long as they fit into your belief system - maybe I should send you a tinfoil hat. no theories here. just plain old in-the-flesh confessions. bah. P Eye has also ran such jems as the 'fake moon landing'. don't blame the messenger - all P. eye did was put these guys on screen - they did the talking for themselves

You need to take a remedial course in logic: stating that right wing types tend to self centered well off types does not in any way mean that all people who are well off are right wing and that all people who are not well off are left wing.What I stated was the type of people who take the more self-centered right wing positions are also the type of people who will demand gov't help the second their personal circumstances take a turn for the worse. Since when are right wing positions more self-centered?

I'm sure Ezra will enjoy a big fat steak thanks to your convictions. Sucker. I hope so. I hope his magazine is wildly successful. A fitting reward for a brave soul.

I completely agree with you. Everyone's looking out for #1 at the end of the day. But remember in saying that, the flip side of your coin is that lefties are generally those with shitty jobs, low income or bad prospects. This is a point I tried to make about lefties previously as was crucified for trolling. Fact is, its merely the truth. You said it,not me

Right wingers put their money where there mouth is, i'll give you that. Notice all the people on this post willing to support the right of free speech with their pocketbooks - something lefties only dream of doing.

Jerry, I see you are more than willing to embrace some pretty eloborate conspirasy theories as long as they fit into your belief system - maybe I should send you a tinfoil hat. no theories here. just plain old in-the-flesh confessions.

Are you cruising? He did say that he can't wait to see some gay reality TV. that WOULD be hilarious. hey BD you should know this: when gays go out for dinner, who picks up the tab?

Well said Sami. However, I would emphasize that cold blooded murder can never be justified in the name of god, freedom or any other cause and what the terrorists are doing is cold blooded murder. Furthermore, if the hatred directed at the US was directed at the puppet dictators in the ME, these ME dictators would fall fairly quickly (just look at what public protect accomplished in most of the former SSRs - places with no history of democracy). A big part of the 'root' causes in the ME is the culture of victimization which has infested the Islamic world for the last 500 years. 100% true. I am never justifying the terrorism. It is a virus. But like all virus you can not cure it until you fully understand it. I am looking at the cause. I partially agree with you. However, there are some important facts that must be highlighted. For one, more Muslims die from Islamic extremism then any one else. Would it be fair to say that 95% percent of all terrorist acts take place in Muslim countries and target fellow Muslims? i.e ) Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. I feel the extremist intentions are to overthrow their own governments. The US is more a target of opportunity to wane support for these governments and deflect public attention away from their true goal which is conservative Islamic rule over secular rule. As for victimization, with two Muslim countries currently under US occupation, it feeds that fear and paranoia. Sami while you're intentions sound genuine I don't think you totall get the whole terrorist thing. I saw a Passionate Eye hidden camera documentary Inside Al Qaeda where a muslim man posed as a potential Al Qaeda recruit and went right into their offices and taped secrety conversations. These were offices in UK, france and other parts of europe. It was very clear the long term intention was to conquer western countries and create new muslim states, and that terrorism was a means toward this goal.

Are you cruising? whoa. easy buddy it was a joke.