i never said they come "out of the blue". just that your assumption, that there would be no terrorism without western influence is simply not true, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of middle eastern politics.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i never said they come "out of the blue". just that your assumption, that there would be no terrorism without western influence is simply not true, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of middle eastern politics.

Please, then enlighten my understanding.

I'm not the only one holding that view.

___________________

you want a whole treatise on the history of the middle east? how much spare time do you think i have!?

i think the tendency to ignore antagonism between middle eastern states (and actors) in favour of hating the great satan to be a little short-sighted. for instance, what do you think Osama's goal in the middle east is? if you answered "the defeat of the US" then you're failing to understand the longterm goals of the islamists- that of creating state(s) ruled by islamic law in the middle east. whilst the US is a useful bumper sticker to garner support, these problems would remain with or without foreign intervention.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I'm honored to be your sig.

no youre not.

you honor madmen with no country to speak for sovereign governments that cast them out.

you validate their violent religious psychosis.

you are with the worst of Americans.

you've been duped.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo no youre not. you honor madmen with no country to speak for sovereign governments that cast them out. you validate their violent religious psychosis. you are with the worst of Americans. you've been duped.

This message has been brought to you by the Republican National Committee. All rights reserved.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN you want a whole treatise on the history of the middle east? how much spare time do you think i have!? i think the tendency to ignore antagonism between middle eastern states (and actors) in favour of hating the great satan to be a little short-sighted. for instance, what do you think Osama's goal in the middle east is? if you answered "the defeat of the US" then you're failing to understand the longterm goals of the islamists- that of creating state(s) ruled by islamic law in the middle east. whilst the US is a useful bumper sticker to garner support, these problems would remain with or without foreign intervention.

Agreed.

quote:

Originally posted by CHORE BOY Ha you r so lost.You don't know what your talking about at all!!!! No terrorism without western support. How much pot have you smoked today?Why do you hate America? Out of all your pointless rambling on this forum this one takes the cake. No amount of help will save you. Just give up.

lol so what you think they hate you because of your freedom?

sorry to burst your bubble but they dont give a fuck about your so called freedom whatsoever.I bet you think terrorists are just borned to hate the west.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 This message has been brought to you by the Republican National Committee. All rights reserved.

there are many Donks, Libs, Indies that feel the same way about people that rationalize and validate religious murderers posing as the voice of the Arab people or Arab governments.

"Soveriegn" Arab governments, as he so frequently likes to remind us, have enjoyed the relationship they've had with America for decades, BUT HE LETS MURDERERS THAT RELISH KILLING HIS FELLOW COUNTRYMEN SPEAK FOR THEM! it's f**king insane.

Krypton and many others on this board (not you) have been duped into thinking that benevolent Arab governments not violent jihadis are the ones who have been "wronged by the West" and it should be understood that whatever we get we deserve. he's dead wrong.

and if you're stuck in this myopic philosophy that calling out people that regergitate this crap is somehow a partisaned issue then you're no better than he is IMO. you become an enabler to this garbage.

Owned.

___________________
Dont expect profoundness so much as relentless and pathological destruction.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo there are many Donks, Libs, Indies that feel the same way about people that rationalize and validate religious murderers posing as the voice of the Arab people or Arab governments. "Soveriegn" Arab governments, as he so frequently likes to remind us, have enjoyed the relationship they've had with America for decades, BUT HE LETS MURDERERS THAT RELISH KILLING HIS FELLOW COUNTRYMEN SPEAK FOR THEM! it's f**king insane. Krypton and many others on this board (not you) have been duped into thinking that benevolent Arab governments not violent jihadis are the ones who have been "wronged by the West" and it should be understood that whatever we get we deserve. he's dead wrong. and if you're stuck in this myopic philosophy that calling out people that regergitate this crap is somehow a partisaned issue then you're no better than he is IMO. you become an enabler to this garbage.

I know what you were sayin' - no need to go into it. I won't speak for Krypton, but I think your argument holds up only to a certain degree. If you are going to hold this position, then I think you have to be logically consistent and hold that position for ALL islamofascists and ruthless dictators in the Middle East and elsewhere, and not just the Hitler-branded flavor of the month.

Does the Iranian douche deserve his outright criticism from the school President and everyone else? Damn straight he does. He comes into our land and walks on our turf, then he'd better face the fucking music that not too many people like the things that he does. But in the same token, should we not be holding ALL dictators in the same light, rather than do business with them, hold their hands as we walk side by side, and rarely bring up their names when we refer to big meanie dictators?

That's the part that gets me. Either we hold EVERYONE in the same light and the same principles, or we don't. And it's obvious that we simply do not. We decide who is the eeeeevil dictator for the short term goal, and discard the logically inconsistent as if it never existed. I'm sorry but it doesn't hold water. The truly scary thing to me is I'm becoming more and more convinced that the true neoconservatives left out there have never even bothered to examine their inconsistencies. I used to think they willfully ignored it, but nowadays I'm more convinced that they've truly convinced themselves of the doublespeak.

Finally, one quick word about the Iranian president speaking in our country on college ground. I was initially against this idea without actually examining the situation in detail. But now that I've thought about it more I think it would have been absolutely wrong of us to deny his voice. The academic institution is the pinnacle of voicing all viewpoints as well as being prepared to support those viewpoints when confronted. Our country was founded on these principles of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and though it applies to American citizens I think it would be highly hypocritical at best if we not demonstrate those same principles to others around the world, no matter how disgusting or how much we may disagree with those views. Our country was not created to quell such voices, but rather for those who hear it to decide on their own what is right or wrong (provided it doesn't incite a riot, of course).

We cannot simply decide when and where that free speech principle applies arbitrarily to those voices that we merely like most, can we? If that were the case, we wouldn't be hearing all those lovely voices from, say the KKK or even my Topeka "God Hates $%^#" Phelps neighbors. Now wouldn't that be a tragedy?

Seriously, these disgusting voices are guaranteed because the principle of free speech is not arbitrarily applied to whoever we choose. Most people can listen to the Phelps (well, try to at least) and realize within a few seconds that they are plain batshit crazy. In the same token, most folks can listen (and should listen) to the entire event yesterday, hear the Columbia U. President take the little shit to the woodshed, and see how he steadfastly refused to answer any of those critical points made against him, and come to the conclusion that the little turd is a chickenshit coward in a true spotlight.

That's a basic conclusion that is difficult for anyone to miss, and I think THAT is worth giving him a voice. And I would take that situation any day of the week versus refusing to allow him to speak because I just don't like him much. Have some faith in the people. It's what our country was founded on - hearing ALL voices and letting the people decide what's best for themselves. We simply can't take that principle away on any grounds.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by CHORE BOY Ha you r so lost.You don't know what your talking about at all!!!! No terrorism without western support. How much pot have you smoked today?Why do you hate America? Out of all your pointless rambling on this forum this one takes the cake. No amount of help will save you. Just give up.

This message brought to you by Bush-Cheney.

Not a single point made. Congrats, you suck at debate. Go fuck youself

quote:

no youre not. you honor madmen with no country to speak for sovereign governments that cast them out. you validate their violent religious psychosis. you are with the worst of Americans. you've been duped.

I love how quickly you idiots resort to calling us terrorist lovers, anti-american, and whatnot. Great intellectual argument.

I'm against American foreign policy AND domestic policy. Sorry if that makes me anti-american dipshit

I never ever said I supported terrorism or OBL, something you guys assume for some reason. But I find it pathetic that here we are going goo-goo-gah-gah over Iran, which has no military capability of striking our country, AND had NOTHING TO DO WITH 911!! Again, Bush's agenda is securing the energy supply. I would not be surprised that OBL has taken the back seat, and we're picking fights with any regime that doesn't bow down to our holy ways.

quote:

you want a whole treatise on the history of the middle east? how much spare time do you think i have!? i think the tendency to ignore antagonism between middle eastern states (and actors) in favour of hating the great satan to be a little short-sighted. for instance, what do you think Osama's goal in the middle east is? if you answered "the defeat of the US" then you're failing to understand the longterm goals of the islamists- that of creating state(s) ruled by islamic law in the middle east. whilst the US is a useful bumper sticker to garner support, these problems would remain with or without foreign intervention.

So you are essentially validating foreign intervention. Why don't you just say that? Terrorism would not be here as it is today if...

1. No Palestinian Exodus
2. No UK/US interference in Egypt (1950's), Iran (1901-1979), Iraq (ww1, ww2, 2003)

You people talk about rights in Iran. Well what about the rights of American allies, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Ethiopia? Were'nt the 911 hijackers SAUDI? Stop watching Fox News, the most conservatively biased channel on air. They make an abomination of journalism, which is SUPPOSED to be non-biased. But hey, they are owned by Rupert Murdoch and his News Corporation, which owns HUNDREDS OF NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINES, AND TV CHANNELS. ALL OWNED BY ONE MAN. RUPERT MURDOCH. But keep believing the garbage they spew for Mr. Bush's agenda, which is to save face, and continue our war-mongering.

___________________