Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

You assume wrong, as usual. What I said was that you are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be a rapist because you are a man and men carry out 99% of all rapes. In the same way, individual Muslims are entitled to the respect of not being assumed to be backwards savages merely because they are Muslim.

No, what you said is I want to trample people's rights, and when I asked what rights, the only thing you came back with was I didn't respect Muslims.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

  • Replies 510
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

The question is not, "why would the resources be assigned differently depending on the gender of the attacker?", but rather, should the resources be assigned based on assumptions about the attacker?

No, of course not. We should, as we do now, carefully select 89 year old grandmothers for extra careful pat-downs at airports rather than targeting young Muslim men.

Because that makes sooo much sense.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

No, of course not. We should, as we do now, carefully select 89 year old grandmothers for extra careful pat-downs at airports rather than targeting young Muslim men.

Because that makes sooo much sense.

The TSA does that already.

Posted

Yes, a lot of them were probably killed by their own countrymen. The blame for the situation however lies firmly at the feet of George Bush. Some people are better off than if Bush never invaded, but far more people are worse off and dead because he did. I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio is 1:1000 or more (better off compared to worse off or dead).

Lol....he made me do it.

Iraqis are proving that they cannot act in a peaceful manner to create a non violent society. Create a vacuum bullahit..,they had a chance to live in peace and this what they chose, and you can blame no one but them, so lease.

Posted

Partly I guess. There is a difference between intolerance for ideas and actions but the line has become awfully blurred these last few years. It used to be that conservatives were willing to admit (barely) that the west's behaviour in the ME has been a factor in the metastization of Islamic conservatism into something more intractably sinister. It's pretty clear that western conservatism is metastasizing in the same direction which suggests it's the conservatism that's the problem.

I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical,
a liberal, oh fanatical criminal

Posted

Lol....he made me do it.

Iraqis are proving that they cannot act in a peaceful manner to create a non violent society. Create a vacuum bullahit..,they had a chance to live in peace and this what they chose, and you can blame no one but them, so lease.

LOL, making excuses for the mass murderer George Bush. What kind of chance is it to kill hundred of thousands and then say you can't live peacefully.

Posted

LOL, making excuses for the mass murderer George Bush. What kind of chance is it to kill hundred of thousands and then say you can't live peacefully.

I'm not sure what you guys are getting at but it seems that since western foreign policy sometimes is mistaken then it's okay to commit vicious acts of terrorism against westerners. Or if it's not okay well, at least it's not their fault. It's our fault because sometimes western foreign policy initiatives fail. Have I got that right?

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted (edited)

I'm not sure what you guys are getting at but it seems that since western foreign policy sometimes is mistaken then it's okay to commit vicious acts of terrorism against westerners. Or if it's not okay well, at least it's not their fault. It's our fault because sometimes western foreign policy initiatives fail. Have I got that right?

Acknowledgement equals taking responsibility for our actions, something conservatives whinge about constantly.

Acknowledgement of our mistakes does not mean excusing, supporting or approving terrorism.

Edited by dialamah
Posted

If the actions of many ME nations are an example of the repercussions of western foreign policy, how do we explain Japan or Germany or India, etc?

Posted

Acknowledgement equals taking responsibility for our actions, something conservatives whinge about constantly.

Acknowledgement of our mistakes does not mean excusing, supporting or approving terrorism.

It seems to whenever the topic of Islamic terrorism arises.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

If you would actually listen, you might get it.

Terrorism bad, regardless who commits it. The acts of George Bush are terrorism.

No, they're actually not.

"A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley

Posted

If you were an innocent child, and George Bush rained down bombs in your neighbourhood murdering your family and maiming you for life you would consider him a terrorist. There are thousands of such examples. George Bush is a terrorist - period.

Posted

If you were an innocent child, and George Bush rained down bombs in your neighbourhood murdering your family and maiming you for life you would consider him a terrorist. There are thousands of such examples. George Bush is a terrorist - period.

The Japanese loved MacArthur.

Posted

The Japanese loved MacArthur.

The Japanese government attacked the US, the Iraqi government didn't.

Japan emerged from the war with a lot of support, stability, and rebuilding into a strong nation. Iraq emerged from peace into a disaster zone.

Lots of other differences, but if you can't see those two big ones then you are lost.

Posted

The Japanese government attacked the US, the Iraqi government didn't.

Japan emerged from the war with a lot of support, stability, and rebuilding into a strong nation. Iraq emerged from peace into a disaster zone.

Lots of other differences, but if you can't see those two big ones then you are lost.

What is the difference?

Japanese wanted to build a peaceful society.

Iraqis have proven over and over they do not.

Posted

If you were an innocent child, and George Bush rained down bombs in your neighbourhood murdering your family and maiming you for life you would consider him a terrorist. There are thousands of such examples. George Bush is a terrorist - period.

JT is a terrorist.

If you ain't against them, you're for them.

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/09/12/trudeau-visits-mosque-with-terror-connections

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,015
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    agackibal
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...