New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#26 2006-09-12 12:27:33

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I wonder something though. Had the US not going into IRAQ alone would the Ayatollah still have been so confident as to reveal his plan for the third great Jihad. We have let radical Islam think we are divided and now they are over confident. Let us hope that the Ayatollah is wrong and we are in fact united and strong.

Offline

#27 2006-09-12 13:20:54

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Your assuming perfect knowledge on Bush's part. The Point is Saddam wasn't cooperating with the inspection regime, and since he was hiding something we had to assume the worst. Saddam's Iraq was after all a defeated power in the Persian Gulf War, it is also a no account third world country, and I can think of no unworthier reason for breaking the NATO alliance. Its not so terrible that Saddam is gone, that the Iraqis and the Arabs don't know how to deal with it without murdering each other is there problem. I'd say the problem with Iraq was the dictator, not what he had. If you can't trust Saddam, you must assume the worst.

Offline

#28 2006-09-12 18:44:39

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Assuming the worse is called paranoia and it always leads to Chaos and destruction. I never though Sadam Hussein was much of a threat prior to the war but a lot of people did so I can’t site that as an example of Bushes stupidity assuming he didn’t already know that Sadam wasn’t much of a threat. Anyway, I don’t shed a tear for Sadam but I’ll say this. An alliance works two ways. Unilateralism is one way. With bushes antics of you are either with us or against us and of course freedom fries is it Europe or the US that is being diplomatically divisive. Well, at least the US is acting with courage and principle so I give them the moral edge.

Offline

#29 2006-09-12 19:21:41

Commodore
Member
From: Upstate NY, USA
Registered: 2004-07-25
Posts: 1,021

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I think most of the Bush hatred comes from the disputed 2000 election. Not only did he "steal" election, but he's doing so many important things.

Saddam, regardless of what he was actually doing on the ground with WMDs or Al-quida, not only had it coming, but just as much part of the Middle Easts problem as Al-quida. Its like the difference between Nazis and Commies. Their both dicatorships, and for all their rhetoric, the practical difference is nil. In fact both sides, Sunni and Shiite, kill each each other more than they kill Westerners. As for WMDs, you'll never get me to believe that Saddam had sworn off them.

Bush, for all his faults, as the one thing we need most in this conflict, patients. If our enemys knew that we had even 10% of that compared to our technological advantage, they surrender right now. Unfortunatly every Democrat is convincing our enemys that we have none.


"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Offline

#30 2006-09-13 12:18:31

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Assuming the worse is called paranoia and it always leads to Chaos and destruction. I never though Sadam Hussein was much of a threat prior to the war but a lot of people did so I can’t site that as an example of Bushes stupidity assuming he didn’t already know that Sadam wasn’t much of a threat. Anyway, I don’t shed a tear for Sadam but I’ll say this. An alliance works two ways. Unilateralism is one way. With bushes antics of you are either with us or against us and of course freedom fries is it Europe or the US that is being diplomatically divisive. Well, at least the US is acting with courage and principle so I give them the moral edge.

It is a simple question, "are you with us or against us?" Don't you think it is wise to know the loyalties of your supposed allies? Would you want to go into combat with someone you didn't trust? How do you know the Muslim guy who's standing next to you isn't going to shoot you in the back? Betrayal is a common theme in the Middle East, they like to pretend to be your friend and to want to help you and then they stab you in the back and other arabs call them a hero for being so clever with this tactic of betrayal. Whereas in other places this is considered dishonorable, there is not such dishonor in such behavior in the Middle East. Treachery is part and parcel of everyday life, why else do you have so many people posing as pregnant women and blowing themselves up and then having crowd sing and dance their name afterwards. When your opporating in the Middle East, you want to know one thing, "are you with us or against us?" I think that's a reasonable question. I tend to think working with one's enemies who want you dead is not a good idea. What is this anyway with the prime minister of Iraq visiting the Iranian President? If he's going to fight terrorism, what business is it of his to go visit with one of its sponsors. I tend to think if you fight terrorism, you fight all terrorism and everyone who supports terrorism is the enemy. I don't know what the heck we are doing, having an embassy in Syria, a sponsor of terrorism.

I think with the French, we should make them choose sides, rather than let them play both sides. If France is going to deal with our enemies behind our backs, then we should push France over to the enemy's camp so at least we know who our enemy is, instead of having to deal with backstabbing and betrayal, it a very simple choice for France, pick a side, and if you pick the wrong side, your going to have to deal with us.

What use is their in dealing with backstabbing double dealers anyway, why don't you tell me that?

Offline

#31 2006-09-13 19:55:55

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I thought it would be obvious how insulting such a statement is to ones allies. For a nation to not support a war that the United States does not agree should not make them enemies. Each nation has it’s own right to self determination within reason. It is not only France that decided to not support the war and it was the United States that took the attitude that it can take on the world. You know when the United States first took Baghdad in the second Iraq war there was some talk in Canada about helping with the reconstruction.  The United States said they didn’t want any help. They wanted to do things their way. Outside some successes in the Middle East George bush is a terrible diplomat.

Offline

#32 2006-09-13 22:23:15

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I view the Iraq war as sort of parting of the curtains, we didn't so much make enemies as reveal who they were. There are various shades of neutrality in this. i wouldn't mind France being neutral in the Iraq War, I really wouldn't. If France would simply shrug its shoulders and say it wouldn't care to participate in the Iraq War, that would be fine with me. The problem I have with France is that it wasn't simply neutral and uninvolved, it actually campaigned against out plans to rid the World of the Saddam menance once and for all.

If France truly was neutral, it would stay out of our way, and let Americans take the casualities and the French can happily stay on the sidelines. The problem was France was trying to stop the American Invasion of Iraq and it really wasn't their business, they were doing everthing short of actually sending French troops into battle against American troops, it seems they really wanted to save this dictator for some reason, and I don't understand why. Iraqi contracts with France really weren't worth that much, and there was really no reason why they couldn't have new contracts with the new Iraqi government if they stayed neutral. Why did France have to deal only with a brutual dictator that murdered many millions of its own people?

What the French and many Europeans don't understand, is that the United States really doesn't get anything positive out of our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the contracts with Halibuton really aren't alot, and the money their getting is coming directly from US taxpayers in any case, not from the Iraqi people or their oil fields, as the MoveOn.Org people like to mythologize. If George Bush really wanted to make Haliburton rich, there was a more direct way to go about this than to start a war. The idea that we need to start wars to make our corporations rich is just nuts! The US Government is quite capable of appropriating money and simply giving it to Haliburton for no other reason than to enrich its stock holders, this would have been less costly than actually fighting a war, as in a war, you must produce material that gets wasted and used up, if we simply gave Haliburton the money directly there would be less waste, because then the shareholders would buy consumer goods vacation homes and most of that money would be plowed right back into the US economy without some of it being wasted to supply the soldiers with material, and munitions that get used up, consumed or destroyed by enemy action. Money that gets spend on bullets, and bombs is gone when those munitions are expended, much better for our economy if that money got spend on homes, cars, country clubs and Yauhts.

The fact is we are in Iraq for another reason, to prevent a dictator from becoming too powerful and threatening our oil supply and thus messing with our economy. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia, George Bush wanted to make sure this did not happen again, he probably figured that so long as we were mobilizing to fight terrorism, he might as well take care of the Saddam problem too. Who could have figured that Europeans and France were capable of showing such emotion and feeling for the "Butcher of Bagdad", and making a villian into a Matyr? I wouldn't. What about the terrorists and the radicalization of the Arabs? I feel that they were always there plotting against us, and all the Iraq War did was "raise the curtain" and reveal who and how many they were.
I think if we wanted a quick war, we would have had to be harsh and brutal with Iraq and Iran, this was not to be, and I find brutality to be distasteful amd unpleasant as do most Americans.

The only other option is to outlast the enemy while being careful to avoid causing too many civilian casualities on our part, liberals undermine this effort by complaining about this long unending war and lack of progress. I don't like killing large numbers of civilians to subjugate a Nation, but the liberals don't like this second strategy of seemingly unending conflict and lack of progress. I think the price of quick progress however is leveling cities and basically destroying Iraqi society and ruining it much like the way the Ancient Romans Ruined Carthage.

The third alternative is to admit defeat and retreat, we pretend that the Terrorists are our superiors and we act defeated, yet by doing this we give our enemies a sense of accomplishment and only encourge them to attack us further in hopes of making us retreat some more.

I'd much rather stay the course and fight this war for generations that to admit defeat or to use harsh and brutal tactics for a quick ending. Which would you prefer?

Offline

#33 2006-09-14 19:23:14

Commodore
Member
From: Upstate NY, USA
Registered: 2004-07-25
Posts: 1,021

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I thought it would be obvious how insulting such a statement is to ones allies. For a nation to not support a war that the United States does not agree should not make them enemies. Each nation has it’s own right to self determination within reason. It is not only France that decided to not support the war and it was the United States that took the attitude that it can take on the world. You know when the United States first took Baghdad in the second Iraq war there was some talk in Canada about helping with the reconstruction.  The United States said they didn’t want any help. They wanted to do things their way. Outside some successes in the Middle East George bush is a terrible diplomat.

That line was uttered well before Iraq, so applying it to the Axis of Weasels really doesn't make much sense.

Each side of the Atlantic has a very different idea of how to fight the War on Terror, but the Europeans are fighting it. Take Afganistan for example, the forgotten backwater that serves to distract terrorists from focusing on Pakistan and its nukes. But NATO forces are slaughtering Taliban Rebels wholesale.

On Iraq, I think continental Europe has a problem understanding that brutal dictators like Saddam are just as much a part of the problem as Osama. They view the spread of extremist Islam, and the despots, both secular and theocratic, under which it grows to be an annoying rash that can be treated with kind words and welfare checks, instead of the lethal canser that it is that needs to be confronted. I really don't think France was all that attached to Saddam, they just lack the means to contribute to the kind of military opperation required. With no glory to be had, they had no reason risk attaching themselves to what turned out to be a protracted battle over the hearts and minds of Iraqis between the West and the terrorists. In order to be relevent at all, which pride requires, they had to be contrary. Eastern Europe one the other hand had no delusions that they would suddenly be counted among the great powers of Europe, and did what they could on principle, and maybe a little because the French were annoyed at them in general. If Saddam had died, and his regime crumbled on its own, I have no doubt that France, Germany, or even Russia would contribute to a peacekeeping force to deal with the situation we're dealing with now. But after the diplomatic hissy fit they threw, they can't turn back without eating some major humble pie, something pride won't let them do.

Europe needs to puts its history in its past and readjust to the 21st century. This isn't the Cold War were even their best efforts would be little more than speed bumps to the Soviets without our help. They can play vital role against this enemy, if only they would cease being afraid of their own shadow. Utlimately, thats why they are not overly fond of our foriegn policy, its not handicapped by fear.


"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Offline

#34 2006-09-15 11:20:05

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I think the Europeans were coddled too much during the Cold War, the US contributed too much to NATO and the Europeans contributed too little. Before World War II, the Europeans were the major powers of the World. The US was up and coming. After the US beat the Axis, and the Europeans were recovering from the war, they got lazy, only the Eastern Block countries built up to their military potential while the Western Europeans got lazy and let the Americans do everything. Great Britian stayed a respectable military power because it was one of the few countries that wasn't overrun by the Germans. France was conquered and liberated, Germany was occupied and split with the Soviets getting the Eastern Portion. The problem was the Europeans were willing to give Communism a fair hearing, and the United States didn't want Western Europe to fall into the Communist camp for its own security reasons, so it turned out that the Europeans were unwilling to defend themselves to their full capacity, some of them said, "Let the Russians come and run our countries." They were in the minority, but they were a significant enough minority to prevent the Western Europeans from spending what they needed to to defend themselves from the Soviets.

Basically, I'm tired of defending the ungrateful Europeans. Maybe the US should withdraw fron NATO and establish bilateral alliances with European countries like Poland, on the model of the US/Israeli alliance. I think countries such as France and Germany weigh down US foreign policy and prevent us from doing what we need to in order to defend ourselves from growing threats. Perhaps it is time that Germany and France learned to face those threats on their own, and they will drop the simplistic idea that Military might = War therefore Military bad, don't spend money on Military, instead let American Military defend us and then we can call them Imperialists and defy America by being uncooperative and contrary.

France and Germany should take the responsibility of defending themselves unto themselves, maybe if they had to worry about the growing threats out there they wouldn't criticise us so severely. If France and Germany falls and becomes part of the enemy camp, then I'm afraid they'll have to worry about us. But we can't be more concerned about France and Germany then the French and Germans are, if they want to stay free, they should bear the burdens of defending their countries.

Offline

#35 2006-09-17 20:57:02

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I’ve been bothered by a lack of sources on the internet about the “third great Jihad”. It seems most of the sources just rehash the same article of which I have found the following critique.

http://altahrir.blogspot.com/2006/02/mu … tique.html

I have not read the critique completely so I can’t comment on weather it is convincing or not. I also found something about the caliphate that appears to be from a Muslim website but I don’t think it refers to recent events.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/CALIPH.HTM

I am bothered by the lack of sources and I swear I remember hearing Glen Beck recently talk about the things for which I started this thread. Shouldn’t we be able to properly document what people actually said? The facts should come first the editorializing second. Are we worried about offending Islam or were these things not said? In another related event the Pope’s recent comment about violence in Islam sparked violence. Go figure. Yet he retracted it. Maybe he should of said while I should be more careful with what I say the Islamic reaction to my statements only exemplifies the intolerance and violence that exists within some fraction however small of people who claim to practice Islam.

Offline

#36 2006-09-17 22:18:15

noosfractal
Member
From: Biosphere 1
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 824
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I’ve been bothered by a lack of sources on the internet about the “third great Jihad”. It seems most of the sources just rehash the same article

written by the bona fide fruitcake Hal Lindsey who has made no secret of the fact that he is actively working to bring about a religious apocalypse.  That's pretty much all the knowledge you need to decide whether to thoughtfully study the original article or to have it scheduled for internment at Yucca Mountain.


Fan of Red Oasis

Offline

#37 2006-09-17 23:10:37

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I’ve been bothered by a lack of sources on the internet about the “third great Jihad”. It seems most of the sources just rehash the same article

written by the bona fide fruitcake Hal Lindsey who has made no secret of the fact that he is actively working to bring about a religious apocalypse.  That's pretty much all the knowledge you need to decide whether to thoughtfully study the original article or to have it scheduled for internment at Yucca Mountain.

So say Lindsey popularized the idea. Any chance the Ayatollah or Osama picked it up and said, “hey that is not a bad idea”. Also does it have any basis in the Muslim text by some sort of skewed interpretation or another. So say I can discredit Lindsey. Can I discredit Glen Beck as well?

Offline

#38 2006-09-17 23:38:11

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

No one wants another crusade more than the Moslems, I looked very hard to find moderate Muslims in the News today, and I couldn't find any. Even the leaders of Turkey and Pakistan got into the act. I'm sick and tired of public officials having to walk on eggshells for the Moslems, and appologize for basically saying the truth about them. Moslems are very prone to violence, but you better not tell them that, because these violent people get violent when you call them violent.

What is a Christian likely to do if you say to them that Christianity is a violent and evil religion? Most Christians will say, "Your wrong!" and explain why that person's wrong, most Christians will not pick up a gun and start shooting people because he felt offended at somebody insinuating that Christianity is a violent religion. The more Muslim violence that is seen on television, the more people will say that Islam is a violent religion, and why shouldn't they? The evidence is shown before their very eyes everyday on the news thanks to these same radical Muslims who get offended by people saying their religion is violent. Palestinians burned churches in Gaza because the Pope said their religion is violent, these same Muslims that voted for terrorists, so what do they expect the world to think of them? I'm sick of the violence and the excuses for violence and the violence because somebody called them violent. If they want to stop being called violent they should stop being violent, stop supporting violence and stop voting for terrorists.

Offline

#39 2006-09-18 01:06:52

noosfractal
Member
From: Biosphere 1
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 824
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

So say Lindsey popularized the idea. Any chance the Ayatollah or Osama picked it up and said, “hey that is not a bad idea”. Also does it have any basis in the Muslim text by some sort of skewed interpretation or another. So say I can discredit Lindsey. Can I discredit Glen Beck as well?

I'm sure Lindsey got the idea from his equivalent in Islam.  No religion has a monopoly on fruitcakes. 

Islam is not a monolithic groupthink cult, just as Christianity is not a monolithic groupthink cult.  There are vicious fundamentalists on both sides that urgently need reeducation.  Islam is currently going through the same crisis that Christianity went through two or three generations ago.  Women want the vote, the kids want their MTV, people don't go to the mosque as much anymore.  Add to that a high proportion of young men in the population and a high youth unemployment rate and you've got the conditions for revolution.  The mullahs are fighting tooth and nail for the deal they've had for centuries, the government is looking to focus all that dissatisfaction on someone other than themselves - Israel and the US have been convenient scapegoats for a long time now.  This is not healthy, but Israel and the US haven't exactly been making their job difficult of late.  It is going to take a couple of generations for them to process the whole change, just like it did in the West.  Afterwards, the world will have billions of new consumers and everyone except the environmentalists will be happy.  In the meantime our goal should be to minimize the number of people that get killed or have their lives ruined to the extent that they embark on multi-generational vendettas.


Fan of Red Oasis

Offline

#40 2006-09-18 07:12:18

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Israel and the US have been convenient scapegoats for a long time now. This is not healthy, but Israel and the US haven't exactly been making their job difficult of late.

Maybe we should stop being convenient scape goats, for example, we could declare war on them the next time they attack us and we can thus deter them from using the United States as a scapegoat. Maybe we could have let Israel finish the job they started in Lebanon. Maybe we can tell them to their face what we think of them and their violence and if they react violently, we'll let violence beget violence, and this time we can let them make sacrifices for peace and not us! There used to be a flag in American history, it showed a snake with a caption under it saying "Do not tread on me!"

Why are we aways the first to forgive, the first to understand, they first to help our enemy back up on his feet and to help him rebuild? Maybe the problem with the Iraq War is that, we've been too generous with our enemies? All the trouble we've had in Iraq has come during the rebuilding phase, perhaps we'd be better off if we just attacked them when they threaten us, and let the stew in their rubble, let them sit in the dark and haul water in buckets from the same river that they use as a sewer, maybe then it would finally penetrate their thick skulls that messing with us is not a good idea. I'll probably think the better of this statement later, but I'm tired of us always being the victims of our own generosity.

Islam is not a monolithic groupthink cult, just as Christianity is not a monolithic groupthink cult.

All the evidence I see on telivision seems to suggest that it is. Everywhere on the news I see Muslims who are eager to fight us and are just looking for the slightest excuse to do so. Nowhere do I see peace protestors who want to give peace a chance. I do not see the Muslim equivalent of peaceniks that seem so prevalent in our society. In fact the peaceniks in ouw own society seem to defend the warmongers in theirs, I do not see an equivalent peace movement in Muslim society, they keep their heads down if they exist, and they are very quiet and not vocal like ours.

There is no equivalent to fundamentalist Islam in Christianity, nothing in christiandom approaches the scale and violence of fundamentalist Islam, nothing, there may be a few cults here and there, but nothing that has seized control of entire societies and has enforced religious blue laws with violence and harshness that approaches the Muslim Shaira.

Offline

#41 2006-09-18 09:36:55

noosfractal
Member
From: Biosphere 1
Registered: 2005-10-04
Posts: 824
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Why are we aways the first to forgive, the first to understand, they first to help our enemy back up on his feet and to help him rebuild?

Because we absolutely dominate the world.  We won.  The US can vaporize any other nation on Earth.  At will.  Economically, militarily, technologically, in every possible area of power, no one can possibly rival the US for 50 years, minimum.  It is a situation unprecedented historically.  Such a nation automatically has enemies, but our enemies are so powerless they are forced to resort to ignoble asymmetric warfare.  They can never win and they can't even really damage us unless we damage ourselves by overreacting.  We are generous because we can afford to be and because it is harder to recruit suicide bombers from among those who have hope for a better future for themselves and their families.

Islam is not a monolithic groupthink cult, just as Christianity is not a monolithic groupthink cult.

All the evidence I see on telivision seems to suggest that it is.

Stop watching tabloid television?

I do not see the Muslim equivalent of peaceniks that seem so prevalent in our society.

I'll see what I can do to get them more air time.

There is no equivalent to fundamentalist Islam in Christianity, nothing in christiandom approaches the scale and violence of fundamentalist Islam, nothing, there may be a few cults here and there, but nothing that has seized control of entire societies and has enforced religious blue laws with violence and harshness that approaches the Muslim Shaira.

"We have enough votes to run the country. And when the people say, "We've had enough," we are going to take over."
-- Pat Robertson, speech given to the April, 1980 "Washington for Jesus" rally

"If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious."
-- Pat Robertson, Pat Robertson's Perspective Oct-Nov 1992

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore."
-- Pat Robertson, address to his American Center for Law and Justice, November, 1993.

"Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us.
     We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown, and I think what's going on in Corbin, Kentucky, boy, those people like to live free. And I think the time has come that we do that..."
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

"Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him."
-- Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program

etc

etc

etc


Fan of Red Oasis

Offline

#42 2006-09-18 12:27:51

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I agree that Christianity has it’s fruitcakes as well. Fortunately they don’t have as much power. Anyway, the violence goes on.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.


The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."


Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.


In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s … ?hub=World

Offline

#43 2006-09-18 12:48:30

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

So much hot air, that Pat Robertson, the difference between the West and the Islamic world is that in the middle east such people are actually taken seriously.Pat Robertson is not quite the same caliber as Bin Lauden either, if he uttered the sort of stuff that Bin Lauden said, Pat would alienate what followers he does have. The West is a very materialistic society, maybe not so much as Europe, but enough so that religious leaders often complain about it. Alot of Muslims are slaves to their religion, they wear certain clothes, they pray at proscribed intervals each day an they face a certain direction when they pray, this whole sort of thing tends to suppress individuality in Islamic culture, and look at all the Moslem fashions, they are basically changeless. People wear the same style of clothes that their grand fathers wore and great grandfathers and great great grandfathers going back many centuries, If Marco Polo encountered Arabs in his journey, they wore the same clothes that many Arabs wear today, this speaks of an inmobility and an unchanging inflexible quality to Islamic society whereas the clothes Marco Polo wore looks quite a bit different from what westerners wear today. Western culture is dynamic and adaptable while Islamic culture is static, intollerant and inflexible. Everybody must fit the mold set forth by the leaders of this religion and people who don't fit into this mold are hammered down brutally, and this is all stuff the Pope can't say for fear of triggering riots and indirectly causing death through them.

Because we absolutely dominate the world. We won. The US can vaporize any other nation on Earth. At will.

The Muslims do seem pretty eager to tangle with an 800 pound gorilla, don't they. Because we don't varporize them, they think we are weak. I just wonder if their is a middle ground we could take were we don't vaporize them but we vaporize something else instead just to remind them of what we are capable to doing. Why does a rattlesnake rattle? If we were a rattlesnake, we have not been making it obvious that we have a poisonous bite, perhaps we should give them a warnming of some kind just to give them an idea of what we are capable of if pushed too far. They keep on pushing us and pushing us to see how far they can go. Alot of people seem to have forgotten their is something called a shot across the bow.
You know a tiger that doesn't bite is just a pussy cat.

Offline

#44 2006-09-20 21:06:19

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I just herd the word Caliphate today on the news. Apparently spoken by some member of alkida. So I guess these people are actually calling for a Caliphate and it is not some religious right accusation.

Offline

#45 2006-09-20 21:46:20

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Okay, I found a source saying when Bush made the speach
http://www.joelstrumpet.com/?p=119

WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush vowed on Tuesday to prevent al Qaeda from setting up a violent, radical Islamic empire based in Iraq, which he said was Osama bin Laden’s ultimate goal.

Bush said al Qaeda’s vision was to create a “unified totalitarian Islamic state that can confront and eventually destroy the free world.”
Bin Laden has declared Iraq “the capital of the caliphate,” said Bush, who has often faced criticism for trying to tie Iraq into the broader “war on terrorism.”

Here is bushes speechs for setember:
I found Bush's speaches for Setember:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/

Her is his September 5th speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 905-4.html

The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience -- but they're not madmen. They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil, but not insane. These al Qaeda terrorists and those who share their ideology are violent Sunni extremists. They're driven by a radical and perverted vision of Islam that rejects tolerance, crushes all dissent, and justifies the murder of innocent men, women and children in the pursuit of political power. They hope to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East, which they call a "Caliphate" -- where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks -- in his words -- "a great step towards the unity of Muslims and establishing the Righteous… [Caliphate]."
This caliphate would be a totalitarian Islamic empire encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. We know this because al Qaeda has told us. About two months ago, the terrorist Zawahiri -- he's al Qaeda's second in command -- declared that al Qaeda intends to impose its rule in "every land that was a home for Islam, from [Spain] to Iraq. He went on to say, "The whole world is an open field for us."
We know what this radical empire would look like in practice, because we saw how the radicals imposed their ideology on the people of Afghanistan. Under the rule of the Taliban and al Qaeda, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where women were imprisoned in their homes, men were beaten for missing prayer meetings, girls could not go to school, and children were forbidden the smallest pleasures like flying kites. Religious police roamed the streets, beating and detaining civilians for perceived offenses. Women were publicly whipped. Summary executions were held in Kabul's soccer stadium in front of cheering mobs. And Afghanistan was turned into a launching pad for horrific attacks against America and other parts of the civilized world -- including many Muslim nations.
The goal of these Sunni extremists is to remake the entire Muslim world in their radical image. In pursuit of their imperial aims, these extremists say there can be no compromise or dialogue with those they call "infidels" -- a category that includes America, the world's free nations, Jews, and all Muslims who reject their extreme vision of Islam. They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year: "Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us."

Offline

#46 2006-09-20 23:20:14

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

The conservatives don’t like big government but this will only lead to more spending on the prison system. I don’t know what his love affair is with America. Perhaps he should move there. Wasn’t he the one that said, “I stood up for Canada”. The second sad thing is I might vote for him anyway because there might not be a good alternative.

I just herd the word Caliphate today on the news. Apparently spoken by some member of alkida. So I guess these people are actually calling for a Caliphate and it is not some religious right accusation.

Why do you think he is obliged to not like America? Is it just because we're a different country? I think it is just good economics to get along with your neighbor to the south. The Iranian Government is composed of right-wing religious conservatives, Al Quada is composed of Right Wing religious conservatives, the Insurgents in Iraq are mostly right wing religious conservatives. As a liberal, I would think you would be opposed to so much right-wing religious conservatism in the Middle East, and thus firmly on the side of George Bush in fighting it. After all, it you want liberal reforms in the Middle East, it would work best if the United States would defeat the forces of violent right-wing religious conservatism. If it is just because you oppose George Bush, then you only have to wait too more years and he won't be in office, in the meantime you can swallow the bitter pill of being on the same side as George W. Bush in fighting the forces of violent right wing religious conservatism in the middle east, because in two years, the left-wing anti-bush crowd will be without a compass. If the United States is defeated by liberal opposition at home and thus a victory for the violent right-wing religious conservatives in the middle east, then the cause of world wide liberalism will be set back substantially. If the name of the game is always making sure that a Democrat is always in the White House no matter what, I think you would be doing the World and the liberal cause a disservice world-wide.

Offline

#47 2006-09-20 23:41:15

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

The conservatives don’t like big government but this will only lead to more spending on the prison system. I don’t know what his love affair is with America. Perhaps he should move there. Wasn’t he the one that said, “I stood up for Canada”. The second sad thing is I might vote for him anyway because there might not be a good alternative.

I just herd the word Caliphate today on the news. Apparently spoken by some member of alkida. So I guess these people are actually calling for a Caliphate and it is not some religious right accusation.

Why do you think he is obliged to not like America? Is it just because we're a different country? I think it is just good economics to get along with your neighbor to the south. The Iranian Government is composed of right-wing religious conservatives, Al Quada is composed of Right Wing religious conservatives, the Insurgents in Iraq are mostly right wing religious conservatives. As a liberal, I would think you would be opposed to so much right-wing religious conservatism in the Middle East, and thus firmly on the side of George Bush in fighting it. After all, it you want liberal reforms in the Middle East, it would work best if the United States would defeat the forces of violent right-wing religious conservatism. If it is just because you oppose George Bush, then you only have to wait too more years and he won't be in office, in the meantime you can swallow the bitter pill of being on the same side as George W. Bush in fighting the forces of violent right wing religious conservatism in the middle east, because in two years, the left-wing anti-bush crowd will be without a compass. If the United States is defeated by liberal opposition at home and thus a victory for the violent right-wing religious conservatives in the middle east, then the cause of world wide liberalism will be set back substantially. If the name of the game is always making sure that a Democrat is always in the White House no matter what, I think you would be doing the World and the liberal cause a disservice world-wide.

I agree with you. As I said, why is it the conservatives that defend the liberal way of life. Other people have made that point to at the forum which I meant to post the first paragraph of what you quoted.

The first paragraph I meant to post here.
http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/ … IC_ID=7273
I was writing two things at the same time:


Anyway, just because we are on the same team as Bush doesn’t mean we have to do everything the “American Way”. As a Canadian we have our own culture, political system and legal system. Our crime rate is much lower. What is the need for change.

Offline

#48 2006-09-20 23:44:57

John Creighton
Member
From: Nova Scotia, Canada
Registered: 2001-09-04
Posts: 2,401
Website

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

Here is a for instance of another person who shares my observation:

kwlafayette
Posted - 19/09/2006 :  12:07:23 PM 

I find it amazing that people who call themselevs feminsists, will march at the same protests as supporters of Iran. I find it amazing that people who claim to support gay rights demonize the West. I find it amazing that more people do not see things like this. The guy may be right, without resolve and a serious commitment, we will lose. I wonder if equal marriage will be adopted into Sharia?

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-forum/ … hichpage=1

Offline

#49 2006-09-21 08:46:35

Tom Kalbfus
Banned
Registered: 2006-08-16
Posts: 4,401

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I heard of the standing ovation Hugo Chavez got at the General Assembly. Sometimes, I would just love to evict the UN that does nothing but cause traffic jams and bash Amerca. I see no use in hosting a forum for terrorist lovers in New York City. I also think we should make note of all the countries whose diplomats applauded this America bashing and break off relations with them. Maybe we should reconsider nuclear arms reductions as well. It seems that if the World wants to bash us, then it doesn't want peace. I also read some of those Canadian posts, seems they don't like us very much, I never thought that they would be suckers for such slick terrorist propaganda or murderers. America bashing is probably the reason the Iraq War has gone on for so long. Perhaps Chavez would like to call it "Bush bashing", fine, but he doesn't have a right to choose our President, we do, and he accused George Bush of Genocide and terrorism, I don't know who he thinks we exterminated, maybe his own people in the future?

I think that if the World doesn't not want peace with us, then the World is going to suffer from the lack of it, they'd better increase their defense spending. I think we may have a new Cold War on our hands if this keeps up, and for what? We aren't trying to conquer the World, but if Bashing America becomes popular, then we are going to have to mistrust the countries where it occurs. One result maybe fortifying the US/Canada border, the US/Mexico border for sure, then there is the United States evicting the UN and quiting the Organization, the US withdrawing from NATO, and maybe setting up a few bilateral alliances with our good allies such as Poland, modeled after our alliance with Israel. It would matter if the criticism of our President were fair, but this mixes in with false entirely made up accusations of the US being involved in Genocide, it all sounds like Soviet era propaganda to me, and their doing a fair bit of Jew-bashing besides. All in all, I'd say that Adolf Hitler's spirit was alive and well in the Halls of that General Assembly building I don't know why we continue with that organization, I guess George Bush is stubborn, he believes in engaging that world body, he believes that their is such a thing as a Muslim moderate despite all the evidence the Media shows to the contrary, but George Bush still believes democracy will work in Iraq, and it is up to the Iraqi people to prove him either right or wrong. If the Iraqi people prove him wrong, that says more about the Iraqi people than it does about George Bush. In the wake of a failed Iraq War, I wonder if we should let any Iraqi refugees become US citizens? I think perhaps not, if they are not ready for democracy in their own country, why should they be ready in ours? We're giving Iraq a more than fair chance, we're putting the might of our army in support of Iraqi freedom, but if the Iraqis would rather kill each other, then I think they do not belong in our country. Our patience is not unlimited, George Bush is very stubborn, but he will not always be in office.

If the US goes isolationist, then my fall back position would be to support a heavily armed isolationism, not the disarmed surrender that the Democrats seem to want. If the world is filled with enemies of the US, then we must be armed against them. I don't see any profound ideological difference between the United States and those who hate us, its more a case of them needing someone to hate in Europe for instance. I can understand the Cold War between the US and the USSR for instance, the goal then was to contain the USSR and prevent them from spreading their revolution with a balance of power. Now that the USSR is down and the Cold War has ended, all those people we have defended now want a new Cold War with us, their ideology is nothing but America bashing, and if it continues America will have to respond to it, we'll have to put our nuclear forces back on hair trigger alert, especially if Iran gets nukes with the rest of the World's help, and then millions of lives will be at stake once more, and it isn't even for a good cause, no freedoms are threatened, nobody's way of life is at stake, it is just that some people have a need for an enemy, someone to draw blame away from themselves and their own failings. I can imagine a future World where their are military bases along the US/Canada frontier much like their once were in Western Germany with the United States on one side and Canadian forces on the other with alot of help from the French, the Germans, the Russians, maybe even the British, and their all saying the President ___(fill in the blank)___ is an ogre, that he commits genocide and terrorism and that the US must be stopped and contained at all costs, and the ranks of the Armies will be led by generals that hate the United States, and calling for more short range nuclear weapons to be deployed on Canadian soil along the US border to prevent any sudden US invasions. I wonder how the local Canadians would feel about hosting French nuclear missile bases aimed at the United States, all with the professed aim of securing Canadian freedom against the Massive US military whom everybody automatically assumes is evil. This is the most pointless future Cold War I can possibly think of, and all because of the slick terrorist propaganda in the wake of 9/11. Sounds fantastic? well everything is always done in increments, never all at once. The Palestinians have successfully gotten many Europeans to hate Jews, first by presenting themselves as victims of the Israelis, and then saying their are two sides to the conflict and accusing the ISraelis of oppressing them, and now we've reached the point where the Arab terrorists can attack the Israelis and then immediately blame the Israelis for the War and the Europeans swallow the whole thing hook, line, and sinker, and this all is 60 years after the holocaust against the Jews. Sometimes I wonder if it was really us that won World War II, or was it the Germans.

I'd like to hold a mirror up to those anti-US Canadians and show them exactly what I see that the future has in store if they continue what they're doing. Maybe I am just projecting my fears, but who would have thought we'd reach this present situation, people make stuff up about us and then condemn us for it, all while receiving appause in the UN for it. I am in one of my dark moods as I write this, perhaps I exagerate the danger, I'm afraid this might not be the case, I used to buy the line about Islam being a mostly peaceful religion too, and then 9/11 happened.

Offline

#50 2006-09-21 14:08:53

cIclops
Member
Registered: 2005-06-16
Posts: 3,230

Re: Bow Down Before Iran?

I heard of the standing ovation Hugo Chavez got at the General Assembly. Sometimes, I would just love to evict the UN that does nothing but cause traffic jams and bash Amerca. I see no use in hosting a forum for terrorist lovers in New York City.

You heard wrong. There was no standing ovation at the UN General assembly. If you want to hear his "speech" it's currently archived at CSPAN . BTW Chavuz offered to host the UN in Venezuela.


Let's go to Mars and far beyond -  triple NASA's budget !   #space channel !!    - videos !!!

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB