I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.
[quote]jawara wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.[/quote]
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American right.
Link’s broken.
Again…
These are truly brave people…
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again…
These are truly brave people…
Mufasa[/quote]
Or misinformed…
Reason why I said that is because I’ve seen this lady on Fox News which by most lefty’s is considered far right media.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
jawara wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American right.[/quote]
Here is the story from Fox news: TERRORISM | Fox News
So you would be quite wrong!
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
jawara wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American right.
Here is the story from Fox news: TERRORISM | Fox News
So you would be quite wrong!
[/quote]
Since when does reporting = supporting?
And regardless, you could just as easily find Muslim women who have quite the different opinion. Iraqi women who want us the fuck out of there. Where’s THEIR support huh?
Stop trying to act like this woman is incredibly special in everything she says. Yes, she has opinions and she speaks them, that alone is brave. But the opinions themselves?
She’s part of the propaganda, which is equal on both sides.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
jawara wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American right.
Here is the story from Fox news: TERRORISM | Fox News
So you would be quite wrong!
Since when does reporting = supporting?
And regardless, you could just as easily find Muslim women who have quite the different opinion. Iraqi women who want us the fuck out of there. Where’s THEIR support huh?
Stop trying to act like this woman is incredibly special in everything she says. Yes, she has opinions and she speaks them, that alone is brave. But the opinions themselves?
She’s part of the propaganda, which is equal on both sides.[/quote]
So 911 was propaganda? Muslim terrorists have not repeatedly killed innocent people to support their cause? What about these facts is propaganda?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
jawara wrote:
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American left.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen any women with this point of view get any support from the American right.
Here is the story from Fox news: TERRORISM | Fox News
So you would be quite wrong!
Since when does reporting = supporting?
And regardless, you could just as easily find Muslim women who have quite the different opinion. Iraqi women who want us the fuck out of there. Where’s THEIR support huh?
Stop trying to act like this woman is incredibly special in everything she says. Yes, she has opinions and she speaks them, that alone is brave. But the opinions themselves?
She’s part of the propaganda, which is equal on both sides.
So 911 was propaganda? Muslim terrorists have not repeatedly killed innocent people to support their cause? What about these facts is propaganda?
[/quote]
The facts aren’t. The opinions are.
To question the war is un-American? To be anti-Israeli is to be un-American?
Anytime the word ‘unamerican’ is used on any thing that is not strictly not American, propaganda classifies it nicely.
Beo,
What policies should the US give up to stop the terrorists? Or creation of more?
Look what Israel has done: Pulled out of Lebanon, and is constantly under rocket fire attack from there. Pulled out of Gaza, and is threatened by enemies there.
In Europe, we stopped Serbian genocide against muslims, and now we have a greater terrorist problem there.
They blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I was unaware that having embassies was angering muslims. Should we close all of our embassies?
It’s like one poster has stated: when caving to terrorists, exactly where do we draw the line?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Beo,
What policies should the US give up to stop the terrorists? Or creation of more?
Look what Israel has done: Pulled out of Lebanon, and is constantly under rocket fire attack from there. Pulled out of Gaza, and is threatened by enemies there.
In Europe, we stopped Serbian genocide against muslims, and now we have a greater terrorist problem there.
They blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. I was unaware that having embassies was angering muslims. Should we close all of our embassies?
It’s like one poster has stated: when caving to terrorists, exactly where do we draw the line?[/quote]
Does no one listen to me?
Israel is NEXT TO THEM. Israel KICKED THEM OUT. They have a REASON to hate Israel.
Is it justified? Fuck no. BUt the reason is there.
If we don’t give them a reason to hate us, they won’t be able to recruit people to kill us.
If you want to make a stand for the world, then make that argument. But stop acting like the war in Iraq and our continued interference in the Middle East is for our defense, or our security. It would be in our better interests to just leave it all alone, and stop giving them reasons to hate America.
Imagine we never invaded Iraq. Mr. Osama goes to Iraq, and saya "WHo here wants to blow themselves up to kill a few Americans?’
The Iraqis would look at him like he was crazy.
But now? Now a few of them have hurt pride. They see their invaded and occupied homeland, and they’re pissed. Now, a few of them might take Osama’s offer. A few more will be willing to take an AK to fight the ‘Evil Empire’. The propaganda is more effective now more than ever.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
(text)[/quote]
You continue to traffic in this nonsense.
Look at the thousands of Muslims calling for Rushdie’s head - should we stop writing critical books? After all, that makes many Muslims very, very angry, even to the point of calling for murder.
Well, we don’t want to “inflame” them and give them reason to hate us - should we stop writing critical books?
Should we not publish irreverent cartoons? Look at all the Muslims who were beside themselves with violent rage over the cartoons - should we stop that artistic expression so we don’t give them reasons to be angry at us?
Appease, appease, appease - where do you draw your line, Beowolf?
The war in Afghanistan made legions of Muslims angry at the West - should we have not gone in?
All three situations I mentioned have made Muslims very angry at the West - and you are hell-bent on making sure we tiptoe around their sensibilities. So of the three situations above, which ones should we change? And if we shouldn’t change our behavior, why not?
The appeasers seem to view Muslims as incapable of rational thought. They seem to think all contact with Muslims must be done very carefully so as to not offend their precious sensibilities.
Face the facts, this is a world with the internet and jet airplanes. We are too interconnected to play these games.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
(text)
You continue to traffic in this nonsense.
Look at the thousands of Muslims calling for Rushdie’s head - should we stop writing critical books? After all, that makes many Muslims very, very angry, even to the point of calling for murder.
Well, we don’t want to “inflame” them and give them reason to hate us - should we stop writing critical books?
Should we not publish irreverent cartoons? Look at all the Muslims who were beside themselves with violent rage over the cartoons - should we stop that artistic expression so we don’t give them reasons to be angry at us?
Appease, appease, appease - where do you draw your line, Beowolf?
The war in Afghanistan made legions of Muslims angry at the West - should we have not gone in?
All three situations I mentioned have made Muslims very angry at the West - and you are hell-bent on making sure we tiptoe around their sensibilities. So of the three situations above, which ones should we change? And if we shouldn’t change our behavior, why not?[/quote]
How many Islamists moved to Denmark from the Middle East to kill people after the cartoon? How many went to go do some terror?
I see your argument. But you askedme to draw a line.
Direct interference.
Theirs your line.
Critical books, cartoons, speeches. They can all stay.
Once again, if you want to claim we need to protect the world from Islamic extremism, you can argue that. I just don’t think it’s possible to argue that our interference is for our SAFETY, as non-interference, or better-selected interference would have left us much safer.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
(everything minus the war in Afghanistan)
[/quote]
Conveniently, you failed to give an answer to the war in Afghanistan.
No doubt that war created many new Islamists - should we have gone in? Or not?
I can name plenty of reasons to hate islamic extremists. More than not, we intervene to help these people and they still hate us.
case in point:
Lebanon civil war. We went in to stop the Israelis from destroying the PLO, to stop the various factions from fighting and they all turned on us. Iran did what it could to stir the locals up against what was a UN peacekeeping mission.
Somalia, we went in to feed these people, again with UN authority. The main warlord takes out some Pakistani soldiers, and next we are out to get him. See “Black Hawk Down” movie or documentary.
In these 2 cases we did not intend to go in to take these people over or to kill anyone. (Hell, the reason the Marines barracks got blown to hell in 84 was because the Marines weren’t allowed to have bullets in their guns…didn’t want to accidently shoot anyone who was firing on us with LIVE AMMUNITION on a daily basis.)