I don`t care

[BC_chick]

When Christian do something that pisses me off...I mention Christians. For example, the Creation Museum was a stupid thing done by stupid Christians furthering a new generation of stupid Christians distrustful of science.

I see. So then I take it you find it perfectly acceptable then to interchange "Jew" with "Israeli" every time an Israeli commits a crime or does something you find ridiculously stupid.

[lictor616]

I see. So then I take it you find it perfectly acceptable then to interchange "Jew" with "Israeli" every time an Israeli commits a crime or does something you find ridiculously stupid.

no because as every educated person knowns, Jews are the chosen people and are above reproach... at least if you want to hold onto a job and not get sued by the ADL or other fraudulent defamation fronts.

Until muslims get a tightgrip on mass media and "human rights" leagues... they have to settle with the abuse ...

Edited September 6, 2009 by lictor616

[DogOnPorch]

I see. So then I take it you find it perfectly acceptable then to interchange "Jew" with "Israeli" every time an Israeli commits a crime or does something you find ridiculously stupid.

All religions are moronic knowing what we know now about the Universe. That would include Christianity and Judaism. What I do find interesting is so-called modern women supporting a faith that would immediately make them second-class citizens with limited rights after fighting for women's sufferage for centuries in the West.

How do y'all sleep at night?

[Guest American Woman]

Where did the assumption that only one side is innocent come from?

It came from you. Apparently all of our problems with terrorism have been because of our actions, and therefore we should learn to live graciously with the consequences. So I can only assume that we are the guilty ones -- that the other side is guilty only of responding to our actions, which in effect means that but for us they would be 'innocent;' that if it weren't for us, we would be living in peace and harmony with no terrorist acts directed at us.

If I misunderstood you, then I really don't know what you were saying.

[Argus]

I'm talking about a bigger issue, the power of language, which relates to Islamophobia in this particular issue, but could be used to marginalise any group of people.

I repeat, just because person X commits a crime, and person X is of a Y origin, saying things like 'people Y committed this crime' creates a false inference about the entire group of Y origin.

Most Germans were good, decent people who were not members of the Nazi party at all, and would have been horrified at many of the things their country did.

But for us, on the outside, that was really neither here nor there. Germany was what Germany was, regardless of whether "most Germans" were nice people and didn't want war.

The Islamic world, and the problems it presents, are what it is, regardless of whether there is some vast, somnolent, docile herd of decent people in it who do nothing one way or another to advance or detract from the goals of the fundamentalist wackos.

Iran's new defense minister is wanted by Argentina on terrorism charges for blowing up a Jewish community centre. Iran wants nuclear weapons. Iran sponsors terrorist groups.

Are most Iranians peaceful people who only want to raise their kids? I expect so. But it really doesn't affect how we have to deal with Iran.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Argus

[eyeball]

I realize Islam is like a pet project for you lefties...you can CHANGE "him"...lol. But guys like me don't have time for your pet projects at my culture's expense. Expect resistance.

Now THIS is hilarious. Diddling with the ME and surrounding region has been a left wing social engineering project?

Nothing will change Islam culture faster than leaving it to its own devices. Western diddling is the oxygen that its extremists need to keep burning. Take it away and watch the flames die down.

[DogOnPorch]

Now THIS is hilarious. Diddling with the ME and surrounding region has been a left wing social engineering project?

Nothing will change Islam culture faster than leaving it to its own devices. Western diddling is the oxygen that its extremists need to keep burning. Take it away and watch the flames die down.

What a nonsensical and uniformed thing to say. Nothing will change the Taliban quicker than leaving them to their own devices. More like let the good times role...bring out the women teachers for punishment.

[eyeball]

It came from you. Apparently all of our problems with terrorism have been because of our actions, and therefore we should learn to live graciously with the consequences.

Your worst problem with terrorism (9/11) was clearly the blowback from your government's foreign policies in the region.

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

.

This is common knowledge, yet many still persist in denying or downplaying it. That's not learning to live graciously with the consequences.

So I can only assume that we are the guilty ones -- that the other side is guilty only of responding to our actions, which in effect means that but for us they would be 'innocent;' that if it weren't for us, we would be living in peace and harmony with no terrorist acts directed at us.

If I misunderstood you, then I really don't know what you were saying.

You just can't accept the importance or implication of what I'm saying is all. Nobody likes to have their nose rubbed in it. For what its worth I acknowledge that Canada is "with you". I suspect when Canada is hit my fellow Canadians will be just as reluctant to accept blowback for what it is.

I certainly don't think the Taliban or Al Queda are innocent. They're monsters too.

[eyeball]

What a nonsensical and uniformed thing to say. Nothing will change the Taliban quicker than leaving them to their own devices. More like let the good times role...bring out the women teachers for punishment.

I'm quite certain that's what the military-industrial complex would also have us believe. Let the good times roll indeed.

To be accurate, I said nothing will cause people to rise up faster against the Taliban than if its forced to defend their policies on their own merits. Our interference is like mother's milk to the Taliban. Its the only thing that's keeping them alive.

Edited September 7, 2009 by eyeball

[Guest American Woman]

Your worst problem with terrorism (9/11) was clearly the blowback from your government's foreign policies in the region.

I'm not sure what relevance it being "the worst" as to do with it, or why that "problem with terrorism" would have a different cause than the other acts of terrorism just because it was the worst. (I also believe it was "worse" than what the terrorists themselves had thought it would be re: the Towers falling down). As for what it "clearly" was in response to, that doesn't make our foreign policies in the region wrong, just because a certain group of people don't like it. Unless you're saying terrorists should dictate our policy? Remember, Saudi Arabia itself revoked bin Laden's citizenship.

But what was the worst act of terrorism elsewhere? Spain, for example, when the trains were hit. What was that act ot terrorism "blowback" for?

Blowback is the espionage term for the violent, unintended consequences of a covert operation that are suffered by the civil population of the aggressor government. To the civilians suffering it, the blowback typically manifests itself as “random” acts of political violence without a discernible, direct cause; because the public—in whose name the intelligence agency acted—are ignorant of the effected secret attacks that provoked revenge (counter-attack) against them.

This is common knowledge, yet many still persist in denying or downplaying it. That's not learning to live graciously with the consequences.

While the effects of "blowback" may be common knowledge, it's more a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "covert operations...by the aggressor government." As I pointed out, Saudi Arabia wasn't happy with bin Laden either, so who's the aggressor here -- us? SA? bin Laden?

As for "learning to live graciously" with the consequences, you won't see that happening on my end. I won't "graciously" accept all the deaths by terrorism that have occurred on 9-11. By the same token, I won't "graciously accept" all the Kenyan lives that were lost in Nairobi when the U.S. Embassy was hit there. Nor the lives lost in Spain. Or Malaysia. And on and on. Do you graciously accept these deaths? If you do, then I have to question why you can't "graciously accept" the "collateral damage" deaths in Afghanistan. After all, that's "blowback" from 9-11.

You just can't accept the importance or implication of what I'm saying is all. Nobody likes to have their nose rubbed in it. For what its worth I acknowledge that Canada is "with you". I suspect when Canada is hit my fellow Canadians will be just as reluctant to accept blowback for what it is.

Maybe I just put different emphasis on what you see as most important; that doesn't mean I don't "accept" the importance, just that I place a different value on the importance as I divide up the "importance" of all that's involved on all sides. I'm well aware of what my government has done, but I'm also aware of what others have done. In the past, I was placing the most "importance" on what my government has done, but now I realize that's just part of the equation.

I certainly don't think the Taliban or Al Queda are innocent. They're monsters too.

"Monsters" who wouldn't be letting the world live in peace if only we would bow down to their dictates regarding policy in the Middle East; which I think is the point that's being made here.

[DogOnPorch]

I'm quite certain that's what the military-industrial complex would also have us believe. Let the good times roll indeed.

To be accurate, I said nothing will cause people to rise up faster against the Taliban than if its forced to defend their policies on their own merits. Our interference is like mother's milk to the Taliban. Its the only thing that's keeping them alive.

What garbage. Like that worked before 9-11...lol.

[BC_chick]

All religions are moronic knowing what we know now about the Universe. That would include Christianity and Judaism. What I do find interesting is so-called modern women supporting a faith that would immediately make them second-class citizens with limited rights after fighting for women's sufferage for centuries in the West.

How do y'all sleep at night?

You're pulling your infamous evasion AND a non-sequitur attack in one post? Wow, I'm impressed. No, not really, but anyway....

Regarding the non-sequitur attack... if you truly feel that someone who advocates not depicting all Muslims as religious fundamentalists, is actually defending the religious fundamentalists, then you are one of two things - ridiculously obtuse because of your own prejudices, or you're slinging mud and grasping at straws just to silence that person. Neither scenario merits a response.

As for your evasion - I did not ask what you think of the religions of the world. I asked if you find it appropriate to interchange the word "Jew" with the word "Israeli" when the latter commits a crime or does something offensive.

[DogOnPorch]

...and I told you "I don't care" in so many words. Call them what you'd like.

[eyeball]

I'm not sure what relevance it being "the worst" as to do with it, or why that "problem with terrorism" would have a different cause than the other acts of terrorism just because it was the worst. (I also believe it was "worse" than what the terrorists themselves had thought it would be re: the Towers falling down). As for what it "clearly" was in response to, that doesn't make our foreign policies in the region wrong, just because a certain group of people don't like it. Unless you're saying terrorists should dictate our policy? Remember, Saudi Arabia itself revoked bin Laden's citizenship.

I think 9/11 brought the worst effects of the Cold War home. More to the point, 9/11 brought home the effects of the way your government and its allies waged the Cold War. Like the WTC falling down I don't think anyone imagined these effects would blow up in the world's face the way they did. I don't know what SA and Bin Laden's citizenship has to do with blowback.

Your government's policy on how to wage the Cold War should have been dictated by the principles and values the American people enshrined in your constitution. Instead, the shining beacon basically morphed into the flaming eyeball of Mordor. It gave military, financial and worst of all, moral support to a variety of bloody dictators, the very anti-theses of your constitution. In my opinion this glaring contradiction is the very tap-root itself - the Mother-of-all root causes - to your country's problems with terrorists and its slide in global public opinion. The original sin in the region around the ME was the overthrow of Mossadegh in the 1953 coup in Iran and things have pretty much continued to go downhill from there. Why should it be so surprising that supporting monstrosities like the Shah, the House of Saud, Mushareff or Bin Laden wouldn't simply lead to more monsters like the Taliban and Al Queda? This is why I say the diddling with smaller weaker countries by bigger stronger nations is comparable to the way adults violate children. As we all know, diddlers usually beget more diddlers.

But what was the worst act of terrorism elsewhere? Spain, for example, when the trains were hit. What was that act ot terrorism "blowback" for?

Retaliation for Spain's interference, apparently.

While the effects of "blowback" may be common knowledge, it's more a matter of opinion as to what constitutes "covert operations...by the aggressor government."?

Perhaps, but in the context of the blowback we're talking about, the consequences of those covert operations, many westerners persist in thinking the one has nothing to do with the other. This leads to people saying "I don't care" which appears to be mirrored in the policies that are being developed to deal with those consequences.

As I pointed out, Saudi Arabia wasn't happy with bin Laden either, so who's the aggressor here -- us? SA? bin Laden

You're all pursuing your goals too aggressively, its not surprising no one's happy.

As for "learning to live graciously" with the consequences, you won't see that happening on my end. I won't "graciously" accept all the deaths by terrorism that have occurred on 9-11. By the same token, I won't "graciously accept" all the Kenyan lives that were lost in Nairobi when the U.S. Embassy was hit there. Nor the lives lost in Spain. Or Malaysia. And on and on. Do you graciously accept these deaths? If you do, then I have to question why you can't "graciously accept" the "collateral damage" deaths in Afghanistan. After all, that's "blowback" from 9-11.

I probably should have used a different word than graciously, I guess I used it in the context of what Argus wrote;

The US and other western nations set out to ensure the Arabs would not use oil as a weapon again, by "diddling" as you term it, and it worked. One can hardly blame them for this. Oil is the lifeblood of western economies. What were they supposed to do? Sit back and let a bunch of oil sheiks dictate terms to them?

Given that we got our lifeblood and were willing to accept the real blood that innocent people paid with in some of the dictatorships we diddled with to get it, it stands to reason we should be able to accept that a little blood of our own might be lost too. But no, its like 9/11 was a historical reset button that either undid or justified anything that might have provoked or otherwise casued it to occur and the west is the only victim now.

Maybe I just put different emphasis on what you see as most important; that doesn't mean I don't "accept" the importance, just that I place a different value on the importance as I divide up the "importance" of all that's involved on all sides. I'm well aware of what my government has done, but I'm also aware of what others have done. In the past, I was placing the most "importance" on what my government has done, but now I realize that's just part of the equation.

In terms of what was done I was simply trying to answer this question posed in the OP 'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?? and my answer is still no, Islamic people did not start this war. Some of them may have brought it home to you but that's a far cry from starting it.

"Monsters" who wouldn't be letting the world live in peace if only we would bow down to their dictates regarding policy in the Middle East; which I think is the point that's being made here.

I guess I just place a different emphasis on what constitutes a monster, that said I don't think the differences between the monsters are all that important.

[DogOnPorch]

In terms of what was done I was simply trying to answer this question posed in the OP 'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since?? and my answer is still no, Islamic people did not start this war. Some of them may have brought it home to you but that's a far cry from starting it.

That's nice. Wrong...but you can really feel da love you have for the enemy in Washinton DC.

Edited September 7, 2009 by DogOnPorch

[JB Globe]

By Canadian Woman from New Brunswick's letter to the editor, I'm going to assume you mean neo-con blowhard Doug Patton's 08/30/05 entry on American Daily.

BTW - Using misrepresented chain emails to validate your worldview is auto-Fail.

[DogOnPorch]

By Canadian Woman from New Brunswick's letter to the editor, I'm going to assume you mean neo-con blowhard Doug Patton's 08/30/05 entry on American Daily.

BTW - Using misrepresented chain emails to validate your worldview is auto-Fail.

And do we care?

[Bonam]

Your government's policy on how to wage the Cold War should have been dictated by the principles and values the American people enshrined in your constitution. Instead, the shining beacon basically morphed into the flaming eyeball of Mordor.

Lol, awesome line. America, the "flaming eyeball of Mordor".

Personally, if we must use Tolkien references, I'd liken it rather to Numenor.

[DogOnPorch]

Yes that was cute...maybe Cheney can be a Nazgul.

[JB Globe]

And do we care?

If you choose not to care that articles you get your views from are inaccurate and/or full of misinformation, than what can I do?

[DogOnPorch]

Someone has trouble getting jokes...bet you're fun at parties.

[Moonlight Graham]

Pffffttt....it t'was the Ancient Egyptians...everybody knows THAT.

Nah i think it was Lucy who started the whole thing.

[Moonlight Graham]

I like how the author of that article/chainmail crap (which a dim-witted friend emailed to me once) thinks Jesus Christ is so important, yet goes against most of his main teachings by being a totally intolerant, revengeful person obviously unwilling to "turn the other cheek" or extend "an olive branch" to Muslims.

Why do so many Christians not care to even comprehend or follow what his message was?

(edited for spelling mistake)

Edited September 12, 2009 by Moonlight Graham

[JB Globe]

Someone has trouble getting jokes...

Not when they're funny.

Usually that's the giveaway.

[DogOnPorch]