A threat to US military from the Dems

chcr said:
As far as he is concerned (me too, as far as it goes) there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Jeez, wake up and smell the coffee. The muslim extremists hate us (the west, not just the US, we're simply the most obvious target) regardless of who is in power or why.
Click to expand...

Do you have an opinion as to why Muslim extremists 'hate the west?'
356074.1768771.jpg


An infidel is an infidel, party affiliation aside. But it's the Left that seems to think that if Bush wasn't such a damn Cowboy, fights war for the oil, out to avenge the threats on his daddy's life, is a stupid liar, is just such an idiot, is a mean ol' bully, the Muslim extremists would leave us alone.

And it's AQ that takes advantage of that line of thinking. It's not "propaganda" as much as it is "DNC talking points." Rangel, Dean, Clinton, Pelosi and Kennedy have said the exact same words: "...why don't you tell them how many million citizens of America and it's allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in breathless pursuit of the mirage towards which you are driving your people’s sons in order to increase your profits? Can't you be honest at least once in your life, and admit that you are a deceitful liar who intentionally deceived your nation when you drove them to war in Iraq?"

It's all they have. The Dems say it because they hate Bush, and AQ says it because they fear Bush. Hate is what unites the Left with the terrorists, when instead we should be united as a country against them. It may take the loss of a major US city at the hands of our enemy for the Left to get on board. That's just foolish.

But trust me, I have never thought "if only a Democrat were president we would never be in this situation."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=244423511626964

I have thought "thank God that George Bush is our president at this time in history."

However, it's not just that Muslim extremists "Hate the West." It's "They hate everyone Else."

The Hindus and Buddhists and Sudanese, the Pakistani and Indonesian and Saudi Arabian and the Lebanese Christians, the Egyptian Copts, the Moroccans, and Somalis, to name just a few, have all suffered the wrath of Muslim extremists.
 
If hell froze over every time I had no idea what chic was on about, it'd be called Siberia.
 
Gonz said:
Correct. Yet, when our leftists decide to assist the enemy, they are fighitng the wrong group & are fully unaware of it. Cutting their own throats.
Click to expand...

When, the republicans decide to kill a bunch of people in Iraq after being ttacked by Al Queada they are fighting the wrong group.

It's so obvious but they are unaware of it.
 
You smell like a hypocrit.

When the republiclicans are sqandering our tax dollars, soldiers lives, and Iragi lives fighting a country that was not responsible for the terrorist attacks and it is making us less safe it is they who are fighting the wrong group.

Of course somebody needs to fight against this plan.
 
Cerise said:
Do you have an opinion as to why Muslim extremists 'hate the west?'

However, it's not just that Muslim extremists "Hate the West." It's "They hate everyone Else."
Click to expand...

1. Why yes, yes I do. Our freer society, what they likely see as licentiousness much as the religious right in this country does, threatens their control over their adherents. Of course the religious right here doesn't blow things up quite as often...

2. Sure they do but they attack the most obvious target.

Typically, in my experience, fanatics of any stripe hate those who disagree with them. Murder and fear mongering are generally the accepted tools of the muslim extremists. That's the main difference (and it is a big one). This is why I keep saying that changing our lifestyle in response to them and overstating the threat they pose is tantamount to giving them exactly what they want. We seem, as a society, bent on doing exactly that, regardless of which interchangeable party wins the next election.
 
chcr said:
1. Why yes, yes I do. Our freer society, what they likely see as licentiousness much as the religious right in this country does, threatens their control over their adherents. Of course the religious right here doesn't blow things up quite as often...
Click to expand...

Licentiousness is what prompted UBL's '02 "Letter to America":

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6537.htm

"(b)It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i)You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"



2. Sure they do but they attack the most obvious target.

Typically, in my experience, fanatics of any stripe hate those who disagree with them. Murder and fear mongering are generally the accepted tools of the muslim extremists. That's the main difference (and it is a big one). This is why I keep saying that changing our lifestyle in response to them and overstating the threat they pose is tantamount to giving them exactly what they want. We seem, as a society, bent on doing exactly that, regardless of which interchangeable party wins the next election.
Click to expand...

What about the view that a faction of extremists have twisted the teachings of Islam? The theory that they recruit their adherents to embrace the distortions and commit violence in the name of Allah against all people that don't worship the same, in an effort to re-establish a caliphate state by state.

Many observers, Muslim included, specify this point:

http://www.islamreview.com/articles/fastdemise.shtml

More and more Muslims are discovering that the violence evinced by some of their coreligionists is not an aberration but is inspired by the teachings of the Quran and the examples set by its author.
Click to expand...

I wonder if scary stuff like this: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018
has any purpose other than to make us think that the end is near?

:eek:
 
Cerise said:
However, it's not just that Muslim extremists "Hate the West." It's "They hate everyone Else."

The Hindus and Buddhists and Sudanese, the Pakistani and Indonesian and Saudi Arabian and the Lebanese Christians, the Egyptian Copts, the Moroccans, and Somalis, to name just a few, have all suffered the wrath of Muslim extremists.
Click to expand...


Geez, do they not teach history any more in schools? Look up the Crusades. Now, read it again. What actually happened was that the west was busy blowing itself to bits when someone realized that you really want to keep agression and warfare off your own soil, and looked about for someone to send all these waring factions against. And luckily enough found Saladin.

Well the muslims have been beating themselves up for centuries too, and someone clicked to the idea that if you gave them a target other than each other .....

And isn't it lucky that that target just happens to be the same people that threw a beating down on Saladin.
 
I don't know about the extent of history taught in schools nowadays---but I did look at a few sites re: the crusades.

Is this one any good?

http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Click to expand...

I'm just askin'
 
On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east. The violence against the Orthodox Christians culminated in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, in which most of the Crusading armies took part.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

In 1099, they took Jerusalem by assault and massacred the population.
Click to expand...

That sounds defensive.
 
Wikipedia is a not a reliable source. That has already been established, so I'm not picking on you.

That sounds defensive.
Click to expand...
In war, the original defender often turns the tide & becomes the aggressor, not only beating, but beating back, the invasion.
 
Cerise said:
What about the view that a faction of extremists have twisted the teachings of Islam?
Click to expand...

Just as non-muslim extremists twist their own teachings to justify their own insanity. It's called "rationaliziation" and it's the same thing you use to justify a meaningless war in Iraq. It isn't the religion that's the important point. If these clowns weren't doing it for religious reasons they'd sure as shit find another reason. In their society, this kind of behavior gets things done. Always has. It's tacitly accepted by the leaders of their society. Some people think this is a justification to destroy their society. I'm not so sure.
 
Gonz said:
Wikipedia is a not a reliable source. That has already been established, so I'm not picking on you.
Click to expand...

Gotta be way more reliable than "Crisis Magazine" so why don't you say something about that source?

Thought so.
 
I have no idea what Crisis Magazine is, never heard of it. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. That would entail incorrect information.

Wiki can be edited by any peon with net access.
 
Gonz said:
The single biggest reason to choose sides in politics. Somebody has to decide something.
Click to expand...

So then you're in favor of destroying their society?

Oh, and I do take sides in politics. My problem is that both of the sides currently in ascendency are really the same side if you look closely.

Edit: ...and I don't think they have the best interest of my country in mind. I don't think they even care.
 
Destroying? That's loaded.

I'm in favor of changing their society. The same society that has given rise to factions who target innocent civilians. The same society that isn't appalled by suicide bombers. The same society that preaches, through their media, to hate Jews. The same society that has failed to leave the 12th century.

We'll give 'em a hand up. It's time somebody does.
 
And it's 1-2-3-4, what are we fightin for????


(The rest of the song and then)


Whoppeee... we all going to die!

When you are the O5C with the rifle, you really don't have the right to argue policy, but it's your life that the folks in DC will be sacrificing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top