Deport (from US) all Arab non-Citizens?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
Post Deleted.
Not worth the effort.
Not worth the effort.
Last edited:
Boota
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2003
- Posts
- 1,926
I forget the man's name now, but at the time of the invasion of Kuwait, this man was a part of the Bush Sr. administration. He literally told Saddam that if he invaded Kuwait that the U.S. wouldn't do anything. I wish I could remember his name. But, anyway, Saddam invaded Kuwait thinking that the world would allow it, mostly due to an official inside the White House. This story was only out briefly back when it happened and I haven't heard anything of it since. It was big news on all the major U.S. news channels for about a week and then it disappeared.
G
Guest
Guest
Yet again, more victims fall foul to an incitement to riot.
It's a good job I've merely been drinking tea tonight.
Maybe I should start a thread and post a poll. Hmmm... "What are your thoughts on Bagpuss, the soft furry catpuss?"
(Sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind, as I have a mini-Bagpuss soft toy sitting on top of my monitor.
)
*Hugs all round, and a sneaky little squeeze for Colly*
Lou
It's a good job I've merely been drinking tea tonight.
Maybe I should start a thread and post a poll. Hmmm... "What are your thoughts on Bagpuss, the soft furry catpuss?"
(Sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind, as I have a mini-Bagpuss soft toy sitting on top of my monitor.
)*Hugs all round, and a sneaky little squeeze for Colly*
Lou
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
View from the right. www.anncoulter.com
{On Ashcroft}
Taking Liberties
Ann Coulter
July 16, 2003
[start excerpts]
AFTER PEARL HARBOR, President Roosevelt rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens and threw them in internment camps. Indeed, both liberal deities of the 20th century, FDR and Earl Warren, supported the internment of Japanese-Americans. In the '20s, responding to the bombing of eight government officials' homes, a Democrat-appointed attorney general arrested about 6,000 people. The raids were conducted by A. Mitchell Palmer, appointed by still-revered Democrat segregationist Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1916 election based on lies about intelligence and war plans.
In response to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained fewer than a thousand Middle Eastern immigrants. Ashcroft faces a far more difficult task than FDR did: Pearl Harbor was launched by the imperial government of Japan, not by Japanese-Americans living in California. The 9-11 Muslim terrorists, by contrast, were not only in the United States but, until the attack, had broken hardly any laws at all (aside from a few immigration laws, which liberals don't care about anyway). And yet, Ashcroft's modest, carefully tailored policies have prevented another attack for almost two years since Sept. 11, 2001. No internment camps, no mass arrests. And no more massive terrorist attacks.
Naturally, therefore, the Democrats have focused like a laser beam on the perfidy of John Ashcroft. Rep. Dick Gephardt recently said, "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general." (In his first four seconds, he would establish the AFL-CIO wing of the White House.) Sen. John Kerry has vowed: "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." (Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service in Vietnam during that last statement.)
Let me be the first to predict that when John Kerry is president, pigs will fly. Sen. John Edwards said that "we must not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms." Apparently, we must, however, allow Janet Reno to run over our rights and our freedoms with a tank. As usual, the Democrats have come up with a lot of bloody adjectives, but are a little short in the way of particulars as to how Ashcroft is trampling on anyone's rights.
Their case-in-chief seems to be Tarek Albasti. Albasti's story has now run in more than 70 overwrought news stories. His tale of torment led a New York Times report on terrorism suspects whose lives have been uprooted and was the featured story on a PBS special this week about the civil-liberties crisis sweeping America. Tarek Albasti is an Egyptian immigrant who married an American woman, brought seven of his Egyptian friends to America and was enrolled in flight school when America was hit on 9-11.
Based on a tip from the ex-wife of one of the men that they were plotting a suicide mission, the eight Egyptian immigrants were held for one week in October 2001 - one week. The men were questioned and released. Since then, the government has issued copious apologies to the men and has expunged their records.
What are liberals claiming law enforcement was supposed to do with information like that? We're sorry for any Arabs whose dearest dream was to go into crop dusting, but this really isn't a good time. (Perhaps we could have a five-day waiting period for Muslims who apply to U.S. flight schools for a background check.)
Albasti told PBS - that's right, PBS, the television network owned, operated and funded by the very same federal government Albasti now claims is oppressing him - that during his one-week confinement he was worried he would be hanged without anyone ever knowing what happened to him. For that remark alone, he should be deported.
Is that what he thinks of America? But at least detained Arabs - and more to the point, their lawyers - have a monetary incentive to make absurd claims of persecution. What is the Democrats' excuse? Based on the wails from our stellar crop of Democratic presidential candidates, you would think every Muslim in the country is cowering in fear of a pogrom-oriented attorney general. [...]
But some day, small children will be reading somber historical accounts about the dark night of fascism under John Ashcroft. (Thanks to Ashcroft, at least they'll be reading them in English, rather than Arabic.) If liberals applied half as much energy to some business endeavor as they do to creating the Big Lie, they would all be multimillionaires. What are we to make of people who promote the idea that America is in the grip of a civil-liberties emergency based on 100 hazy stories of scowls and bumps and one-week detentions?
Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?
===========
{Islam}
Murder For Fun and Prophet
September 4 , 2002
[...]
In a little-noticed story almost exactly one year after Muslims staged the most horrific terrorist attack the world has ever seen, a Muslim en route from Germany to Kosovo emerged from the airplane bathroom and tried to strangle a stewardess with his shoelaces. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
That story was squirreled away in small box at the very bottom of Page A-9 of the Times. In the entire Lexis Nexis archives, only three newspapers reported the incident. Not one mentioned that the attacker was a Muslim. It was a rather captivating story, too. Earlier in the flight, the Muslim responded to the stewardess's offer of refreshments by saying, "I'd like to drink your blood." (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
Also last week, another practitioner of the Religion of Peace, this one with ties to al-Qaida, tried to board a plane in Sweden with a gun. This story did not merit front-page coverage at The New York Times.
On July 4 this year, an Egyptian living in California -- who had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, had a "Read the Koran" sticker on his front door, and expressed virulent hatred for Jews -- walked into an El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and started shooting Jews. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
The Times casually reported the possibility that his motive was a fare dispute. Four days after the shooting, the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (generally found around Page A-12 of the Times), Americans have been cowed into perseverating that Islam is a "religion of peace." Candid conversations about Islam are beyond the pale in a country that deems Screw magazine part of our precious constitutional freedoms.
If the 9/11 terrorists had been Christians, the shoelace strangler a Christian, the gun-toting Swedish Muslim a Christian, the Los Angeles airport killer a Christian and scores of suicide bombers Christians, I assure you we would not be pussyfooting around whether maybe there was something wrong with Christianity.
In a fascinating book written by two Arab Muslims who converted to Christianity, Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner give an eye-opening account of Islam's prophet in "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs."
Citing passages from the Hadith, the collected sayings of Muhammad, the Caners note that, by his own account, the founder of Islam was often possessed by Satan. The phrase "Satanic Verses" refers to words that Muhammad first claimed had come from God, but which he later concluded were spoken by Satan.
Muhammad married 11 women, kept two others as concubines and recommended wife-beating (but only as a last resort!). His third wife was 6 years old when he married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage.
To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. (And for the record, Timothy McVeigh is not the founder of Christianity. He wasn't even a Christian. He was an atheist who happened to be a gentile.)
Muslims argue against the Caners' book the way liberals argue against all incontrovertible facts. They deny the meaning of words, posit irrelevant counterpoints, and attack the Caners' motives.
[...]
Other Islamic scholars concede the facts but argue that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was an anomaly. Oh, OK, never mind. Still others explain that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was of great benefit to her education and served to reinforce political allegiances.
So was she really 16, or was it terrific that he had sex with a 9-year-old to improve her education? [...]
Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.
[end coulter excerpts]
{On Ashcroft}
Taking Liberties
Ann Coulter
July 16, 2003
[start excerpts]
AFTER PEARL HARBOR, President Roosevelt rounded up more than 100,000 Japanese residents and citizens and threw them in internment camps. Indeed, both liberal deities of the 20th century, FDR and Earl Warren, supported the internment of Japanese-Americans. In the '20s, responding to the bombing of eight government officials' homes, a Democrat-appointed attorney general arrested about 6,000 people. The raids were conducted by A. Mitchell Palmer, appointed by still-revered Democrat segregationist Woodrow Wilson, who won the 1916 election based on lies about intelligence and war plans.
In response to the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world right here on U.S. soil, Attorney General John Ashcroft has detained fewer than a thousand Middle Eastern immigrants. Ashcroft faces a far more difficult task than FDR did: Pearl Harbor was launched by the imperial government of Japan, not by Japanese-Americans living in California. The 9-11 Muslim terrorists, by contrast, were not only in the United States but, until the attack, had broken hardly any laws at all (aside from a few immigration laws, which liberals don't care about anyway). And yet, Ashcroft's modest, carefully tailored policies have prevented another attack for almost two years since Sept. 11, 2001. No internment camps, no mass arrests. And no more massive terrorist attacks.
Naturally, therefore, the Democrats have focused like a laser beam on the perfidy of John Ashcroft. Rep. Dick Gephardt recently said, "In my first five seconds as president, I would fire John Ashcroft as attorney general." (In his first four seconds, he would establish the AFL-CIO wing of the White House.) Sen. John Kerry has vowed: "When I am president of the United States, there will be no John Ashcroft trampling on the Bill of Rights." (Experts are still trying to figure out why Kerry didn't mention his service in Vietnam during that last statement.)
Let me be the first to predict that when John Kerry is president, pigs will fly. Sen. John Edwards said that "we must not allow people like John Ashcroft to take away our rights and our freedoms." Apparently, we must, however, allow Janet Reno to run over our rights and our freedoms with a tank. As usual, the Democrats have come up with a lot of bloody adjectives, but are a little short in the way of particulars as to how Ashcroft is trampling on anyone's rights.
Their case-in-chief seems to be Tarek Albasti. Albasti's story has now run in more than 70 overwrought news stories. His tale of torment led a New York Times report on terrorism suspects whose lives have been uprooted and was the featured story on a PBS special this week about the civil-liberties crisis sweeping America. Tarek Albasti is an Egyptian immigrant who married an American woman, brought seven of his Egyptian friends to America and was enrolled in flight school when America was hit on 9-11.
Based on a tip from the ex-wife of one of the men that they were plotting a suicide mission, the eight Egyptian immigrants were held for one week in October 2001 - one week. The men were questioned and released. Since then, the government has issued copious apologies to the men and has expunged their records.
What are liberals claiming law enforcement was supposed to do with information like that? We're sorry for any Arabs whose dearest dream was to go into crop dusting, but this really isn't a good time. (Perhaps we could have a five-day waiting period for Muslims who apply to U.S. flight schools for a background check.)
Albasti told PBS - that's right, PBS, the television network owned, operated and funded by the very same federal government Albasti now claims is oppressing him - that during his one-week confinement he was worried he would be hanged without anyone ever knowing what happened to him. For that remark alone, he should be deported.
Is that what he thinks of America? But at least detained Arabs - and more to the point, their lawyers - have a monetary incentive to make absurd claims of persecution. What is the Democrats' excuse? Based on the wails from our stellar crop of Democratic presidential candidates, you would think every Muslim in the country is cowering in fear of a pogrom-oriented attorney general. [...]
But some day, small children will be reading somber historical accounts about the dark night of fascism under John Ashcroft. (Thanks to Ashcroft, at least they'll be reading them in English, rather than Arabic.) If liberals applied half as much energy to some business endeavor as they do to creating the Big Lie, they would all be multimillionaires. What are we to make of people who promote the idea that America is in the grip of a civil-liberties emergency based on 100 hazy stories of scowls and bumps and one-week detentions?
Manifestly, there is no civil-liberties crisis in this country. Consequently, people who claim there is must have a different goal in mind. What else can you say of such people but that they are traitors?
===========
{Islam}
Murder For Fun and Prophet
September 4 , 2002
[...]
In a little-noticed story almost exactly one year after Muslims staged the most horrific terrorist attack the world has ever seen, a Muslim en route from Germany to Kosovo emerged from the airplane bathroom and tried to strangle a stewardess with his shoelaces. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
That story was squirreled away in small box at the very bottom of Page A-9 of the Times. In the entire Lexis Nexis archives, only three newspapers reported the incident. Not one mentioned that the attacker was a Muslim. It was a rather captivating story, too. Earlier in the flight, the Muslim responded to the stewardess's offer of refreshments by saying, "I'd like to drink your blood." (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
Also last week, another practitioner of the Religion of Peace, this one with ties to al-Qaida, tried to board a plane in Sweden with a gun. This story did not merit front-page coverage at The New York Times.
On July 4 this year, an Egyptian living in California -- who had complained about his neighbors flying a U.S. flag, had a "Read the Koran" sticker on his front door, and expressed virulent hatred for Jews -- walked into an El Al terminal at the Los Angeles airport and started shooting Jews. (Not that there's anything unpeaceful about that.)
The Times casually reported the possibility that his motive was a fare dispute. Four days after the shooting, the story vanished amid an embarrassed recognition of the fact that any Muslim could snap at any moment and start shooting.
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (generally found around Page A-12 of the Times), Americans have been cowed into perseverating that Islam is a "religion of peace." Candid conversations about Islam are beyond the pale in a country that deems Screw magazine part of our precious constitutional freedoms.
If the 9/11 terrorists had been Christians, the shoelace strangler a Christian, the gun-toting Swedish Muslim a Christian, the Los Angeles airport killer a Christian and scores of suicide bombers Christians, I assure you we would not be pussyfooting around whether maybe there was something wrong with Christianity.
In a fascinating book written by two Arab Muslims who converted to Christianity, Ergun Mehmet Caner and Emir Fethi Caner give an eye-opening account of Islam's prophet in "Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs."
Citing passages from the Hadith, the collected sayings of Muhammad, the Caners note that, by his own account, the founder of Islam was often possessed by Satan. The phrase "Satanic Verses" refers to words that Muhammad first claimed had come from God, but which he later concluded were spoken by Satan.
Muhammad married 11 women, kept two others as concubines and recommended wife-beating (but only as a last resort!). His third wife was 6 years old when he married her and 9 when he consummated the marriage.
To say that Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile is not an attack. It's a fact. (And for the record, Timothy McVeigh is not the founder of Christianity. He wasn't even a Christian. He was an atheist who happened to be a gentile.)
Muslims argue against the Caners' book the way liberals argue against all incontrovertible facts. They deny the meaning of words, posit irrelevant counterpoints, and attack the Caners' motives.
[...]
Other Islamic scholars concede the facts but argue that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was an anomaly. Oh, OK, never mind. Still others explain that Muhammad's marriage to a 6-year-old girl was of great benefit to her education and served to reinforce political allegiances.
So was she really 16, or was it terrific that he had sex with a 9-year-old to improve her education? [...]
Muhammad makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Jesus Christ. Most people think nothing of assuming every Scientologist is a crackpot. Why should Islam be subject to presumption of respect because it's a religion? Liberals bar the most benign expressions of religion by little America. Only a religion that is highly correlated with fascistic attacks on the U.S. demands their respect and protection.
[end coulter excerpts]
Last edited:
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
shereads said:
Lets ignore the fact that one of the reasons the USA became involved in WW2 was that the English intelligence service passed them intercepted transmissions describing a Nazi Germany offer to Mexico to help in the invasion of America in return for California. Germany was out to get you lot too, but let's leave that one alone.
Let's go to the point where you compare helping (and I do mean helping, without the Russians and the British, the USA wouldn't have won WW2) defeat Hitler to some of the almighty cock-ups the USA have made in foreign policy. Like starting the problems in the Middle East in the first place. By promising the Palestinians self-determination in return for fighting the Turks and Hungarians in WW1 and then reneging on that promise. Then doing it again in WW2 and then taking their land away and redrawing the map to create Israel. Then interfering constantly in the politics of that region, by switching from side-to-side - being best friends with the English and French and then screwing us over Suez when Nassar effectively declared war by buggering our currencies.
The USA does not have a past record to be proud of in foreign policy. They have a reputation for high-handedness, lack of knowledge and doing nothing without an ulterior motive. You may not be one of the blind faithful, but backing up your points with one of very few examples where the USA did the right thing (and even then, only after screwing the UK for every penny before entering), is a specious argument when it comes to the topic of 'the world's policeman.'
The Earl
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
Pure said:
This woman is incredible. She's managed to find her conclusion and then find the facts that fit that conclusion. It's nonsense.
She states that there are Muslims doing terrible things, bombing and killing. There are Christians doing terrible things too! Does she not realise this? For a long time, the Catholic IRA was bombing fuck out of British soldiers in Northern Ireland, cheerfully supported by some Americans.
The Omagh bombing. A Catholic man killed 16 people and wounded who knows how many more with a nail bomb for his religion. Religion of peace?
It's complete and utter mince.
What's more, the Koran actually contains all of the text from the Old and New Testaments, including that wonderful little coda - Thou shalt not kill. Religion of peace? "Thou shalt not kill." Sounds fairly peaceful to me.
I'm sorry, but people who do this drive me absolutely spare. They see 2+2 and make 5. Then they go out and find more 'evidence' to prove 5, rather than check and see whether they've made a mistake, or there's any conflicting evidence.
The Earl
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
Tatelou said:Yet again, more victims fall foul to an incitement to riot.
It's a good job I've merely been drinking tea tonight.
Maybe I should start a thread and post a poll. Hmmm... "What are your thoughts on Bagpuss, the soft furry catpuss?"
(Sorry, it was the first thing that came to mind, as I have a mini-Bagpuss soft toy sitting on top of my monitor.
*Hugs all round, and a sneaky little squeeze for Colly*
Lou
WTF is a Bagpuss???
(damnit, Lou! I wasn't going to post here!
)
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
TheEarl said:
She's having you on; it's how she sells books.
If you like twisted right-wing logic, you'd love Rush Limbaugh. Highest-rated radio program in the U.S. for years. Multi-kazillionaire posing, like our president, as One of the Little Guys. Famous for saying that anyone arrested for drug abuse should be jailed; recently busted when his housekeeper revealed she's been buyiing oxycontin illegally to feed his habit. Astonishingly, he didn't insist on going to jail; went to rich-white-guy rehab for a few weeks instead.
Now, insisting that his drug use was legitimate (they were prescription drugs, you see; not crack like poor people use, or pot which is favored by socialists) he has hired the Anti-Christ's own defense attorney: Roy Black, famous for defending drug lords and most ironically for poor Rush, even more famous for having defended one of the Kennedy cousins in a date-rape trial.
What's more, Rush and his attorney maintain that his medical records cannot be used to make a case against him, because medical records are private. If Rush has criticized the Bush administration for demanding the medical records of women who have had abortions, I haven't heard about it. Conservatives might implode under the weight of all this irony.
Ann Coulter is smart enough to know that the more outrageous she is, the more books she'll sell. It's an act. Nobody can be that smart and that stupid at the same time.
I hope.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
TheEarl said:
I'm not going to defend what I've never condoned. A little less self-righteousness from the Blair constituency would not be misplaced, however. You are as responsible for him and for Margaret Thatcher as the majority of Americans who voted for Al Gore are responsible for the Bushes. We didn't become The Great Satan without a little help from our disciples.
Dirt Man
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Posts
- 800
Svenskaflicka said:
Yes, if there was no America, think how grand the whole world would be. For instance: Hitler would still be dead, but only after having conquered the world to become Emporer of Planet Earth, and after having bred offspring to take his place as the ruling body for when he retired. There wouldn't be any more issues with Jews, but then that would be because there aren't any Jews left alive on the planet. There would never have been a cold war, because Hitler would have nuked most of the Russians out of existance too, once he had all of his toys operating properly. The allies wouldn't have to feel bad about owing the USA money that they could never pay back, because we weren't there to give it to them in the first place. There would no longer be any race issues, because anybody not of true arian stock would be eradicated by now. Which means that most of asia, the middle east, and the African continent would be emptied of it's indiginant population as well. Religion would no longer be a factor to war over, because Hitler would be deified after his death by his offspring, and the SS would see to it that everyone went to this church of worship only, and on pain of death. There would be no hunger, or homeless people as anybody not usefull to society would be used to fertilze state farms. Those who are alive after all of this will have lived in fear for their life for so long that the word FREEDOM will no longer even have meaning. There would be no fear of global warming either since there wouldn't be more than a few hundred million people left alive on the planet to contaminate it. But vast species that would have become extinct would now even thrive in their natural environment because no humans were around to crowd them out, or kill them off. The Brazilian rainforest would still be pristine, and its inhabitants safe until that time in the distant future when the Arian Race expanded enough to wipe them out as well.
Yes, life would be much simpler if there had never been a USA in the first place to show the world what real Freedom is all about. Everyone alive would be blond as a child for the most part, and everyone would speak the same language, German. We'd all be members of the same religion, but there would be no faith in a deity that lies rotting in a grave the same as anyone else would. There'd be no arguements, because everyone would have to think the same way. No wars because everwhere is now Germany. No more retarded, or handicaped people, so parking closer to our destination would be easier too. Except, that there would always be one parking spot for the only royal family left on the planet of course, those whose last names are Hitlor.
Yes, life would be much better if America had never existed in the first place.
As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man
G
Guest
Guest
I’m not as eloquent as “The Dirt Man”
If other countries would behave like we tell them to, we wouldn’t have to whup that ass.
Jmt
If other countries would behave like we tell them to, we wouldn’t have to whup that ass.
Jmt
minsue
Gosling
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 22,062
shereads said:Min, you're young yet. You'll develop the Irony Alert gene more thoroughly, with time.
After a few times here laughing at what I thought were wry jokes, but were in fact completely serious, I've lost all confidence in my Irony Alert system. It's on orange, but I stopped paying attention to the colors awhile ago.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
minsue said:After a few times here laughing at what I thought were wry jokes, but were in fact completely serious, I've lost all confidence in my Irony Alert system. It's on orange, but I stopped paying attention to the colors awhile ago.
You just relax and count on Homeland Security. They'll tell us when it's time to panic.
You do own some duct tape, right? H.S. recommends it for keeping irony from seeping in around the windows, etc.
G
Guest
Guest
When I'm cooking I like to stir the pot from time to time.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Boota, I think you're thinking of April Glaspie; see, e.g,
http://www.mideastfacts.com/saddam_glaspie.html
Essentially the US said it wouldn't do anything about kuwait; there was no 'caution' or even 'concern', not to say warning "if you do...".
J.
http://www.mideastfacts.com/saddam_glaspie.html
Essentially the US said it wouldn't do anything about kuwait; there was no 'caution' or even 'concern', not to say warning "if you do...".
J.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
{Christianity}
Will The 'True' Imperialist Religion Please Stand Up?
by ann coulter
April 23, 2003
[…]
Inarguably, anyone who views flying planes into the World Trade Center as a matter of religious devotion is going to have to get a new religion. Could we at least stop pretending that the British colonial office approach of pandering "true Islam" is any less "imperialistic" than Franklin Graham's missionaries showing videos on the life of Christ?
Throughout the history of empire-building, Christians were a constant thorn in the side of the conquerors and slave-traders. They quaintly insisted that, as Pagden puts it, the biblical command "'Love thy neighbor as thyself' should be a real deterrent against pillage and the unwarranted expropriation of the goods of others, even when, as was generally the case, those others were not Christians."
Though some colonialists used Christianity as a fig leaf for pillage, they were precisely as Christian as Cuba, China and North Korea are "democratic" today. Someday, liberals will denounce democracy, citing the atrocities of Red China as proof of what such a monstrous system of government can do.
Christians who are willing to leave the safety and comfort of America to go to barbarous lands, risking disease, pestilence and murder, simply because they so love their fellow man – these are the miscreants who inflame and enrage liberals more than Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms ever did.
======
Jan 7
The Jesus Thing
[...]
Then about a month ago, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a poll showing that people who regularly attend religious services supported Bush 63 percent to 37 percent, and those who never attend religious services opposed him 62 percent to 38 percent. When you exclude blacks (as they do in Vermont), who are overwhelmingly Baptist and overwhelmingly Democratic, and rerun the numbers, basically any white person who believes in God is a Republican.The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God.
Though Dean is pursuing the Jesus thing with a vengeance, the results so far have been mixed. In Iowa last week, Dean said, "Let's get into a little religion here," and then began denouncing Christian minister Jerry Falwell.[…]Rapping with reporters about God on the campaign plane, Dean said, "(I)f you know much about the Bible, which I do" -- and then proceeded to confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament.[...]
Will The 'True' Imperialist Religion Please Stand Up?
by ann coulter
April 23, 2003
[…]
Inarguably, anyone who views flying planes into the World Trade Center as a matter of religious devotion is going to have to get a new religion. Could we at least stop pretending that the British colonial office approach of pandering "true Islam" is any less "imperialistic" than Franklin Graham's missionaries showing videos on the life of Christ?
Throughout the history of empire-building, Christians were a constant thorn in the side of the conquerors and slave-traders. They quaintly insisted that, as Pagden puts it, the biblical command "'Love thy neighbor as thyself' should be a real deterrent against pillage and the unwarranted expropriation of the goods of others, even when, as was generally the case, those others were not Christians."
Though some colonialists used Christianity as a fig leaf for pillage, they were precisely as Christian as Cuba, China and North Korea are "democratic" today. Someday, liberals will denounce democracy, citing the atrocities of Red China as proof of what such a monstrous system of government can do.
Christians who are willing to leave the safety and comfort of America to go to barbarous lands, risking disease, pestilence and murder, simply because they so love their fellow man – these are the miscreants who inflame and enrage liberals more than Saddam Hussein and his rape rooms ever did.
======
Jan 7
The Jesus Thing
[...]
Then about a month ago, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a poll showing that people who regularly attend religious services supported Bush 63 percent to 37 percent, and those who never attend religious services opposed him 62 percent to 38 percent. When you exclude blacks (as they do in Vermont), who are overwhelmingly Baptist and overwhelmingly Democratic, and rerun the numbers, basically any white person who believes in God is a Republican.The only Democrats who go to church regularly are the ones who plan to run for president someday and are preparing in advance to fake a belief in God.
Though Dean is pursuing the Jesus thing with a vengeance, the results so far have been mixed. In Iowa last week, Dean said, "Let's get into a little religion here," and then began denouncing Christian minister Jerry Falwell.[…]Rapping with reporters about God on the campaign plane, Dean said, "(I)f you know much about the Bible, which I do" -- and then proceeded to confuse the Old Testament with the New Testament.[...]
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
I'd like to know whether Svenska or The Earl think the U.S. had ulterior motives in Bosnia and Somalia.
First, I have to say that I hope you're not including the Clinton and Carter presidnecies when you say the U.S. never does anything without an ulterior motive.l There are two instances I can thiik of during the clinton years, when we intervened militarily for no motive that I could see, beyone the need to stop torture and genocide.
To my knowledge, we had nothing to gain in Somalia and a lot to lose; we went in anyway, and sacrificed lives, in an ill-fated attempt to stop a slaughter of sickening propertions I may be wrong, and in Europe you might have another perspective on why Clinton sent troops to the balkans. l believe that President Clinton didn't want to send troops; he preferred to be a peace-time president.
But children were being hacked to death and pregnant women were having their bellies cut open so they could watch their babies die. A pacifist who hated war could no longer stay out of the war in Somalia, no matter the risk to his presidency. I think that the Clinton adminstraton tried to use the power of the U.S. military where it seemed necessary to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and in an ill-fated but well-meant attempt to end the slaughter in Somalia. If they had anything we wanted for ourselves - if Clinton had an ulterior motive - I'd like to know what it was.
I wish The Bill run again....There would have to be a court test to determine whether a two term president can run for a third, non-consecutive term.
.
First, I have to say that I hope you're not including the Clinton and Carter presidnecies when you say the U.S. never does anything without an ulterior motive.l There are two instances I can thiik of during the clinton years, when we intervened militarily for no motive that I could see, beyone the need to stop torture and genocide.
To my knowledge, we had nothing to gain in Somalia and a lot to lose; we went in anyway, and sacrificed lives, in an ill-fated attempt to stop a slaughter of sickening propertions I may be wrong, and in Europe you might have another perspective on why Clinton sent troops to the balkans. l believe that President Clinton didn't want to send troops; he preferred to be a peace-time president.
But children were being hacked to death and pregnant women were having their bellies cut open so they could watch their babies die. A pacifist who hated war could no longer stay out of the war in Somalia, no matter the risk to his presidency. I think that the Clinton adminstraton tried to use the power of the U.S. military where it seemed necessary to prevent genocide in Bosnia, and in an ill-fated but well-meant attempt to end the slaughter in Somalia. If they had anything we wanted for ourselves - if Clinton had an ulterior motive - I'd like to know what it was.
I wish The Bill run again....There would have to be a court test to determine whether a two term president can run for a third, non-consecutive term.
.
Last edited:
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
Sweden wasn't threatened by Nazi-Germany the way Denmark and Norway was, because at that time, we had rater nazi-friendly politicians who were very quick to make a deal with the nazis, allowing them to travel freely over Swedish land in order to get to Norway. Sweden also often kicked out Norwegian refugees right into the hand of the nazis. There were many nazism-friendly organisations, and in Uppsala, they started the world's first institue for racial-biological studies.
The nazis weren't a threat to us. We were. It's the most embarrassing part of Swedish history.
But I don't think that we needed "rescuing" from our big brothers from west.
Svenskaflicka
aka Young Lady
The nazis weren't a threat to us. We were. It's the most embarrassing part of Swedish history.
But I don't think that we needed "rescuing" from our big brothers from west.
Svenskaflicka
aka Young Lady
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Svenskaflicka,
Your posting about bombing, for example in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, and so on down to Iraq is excellent.
Something the physical distance between pilot and target sanitizes things, in the US mind.
We also hear endlessly that the bomb is 'smart' etc. and that only 'enemy' are targeted-- this being a difference from terrorists like the 9-11 folk. Yet US declaration of 'free fire' zones, targets *anything* a bomber or soldier thinks worth a shot.
The againstbombling.com site is good. Notice it's 'conservative libertarian' as opposed to GWB/Perl/Cheney neocon. It has a little headline and byline:
New Rules of War --U.S. wants change Geneva Convention to allow massive destruction of civilian infrastructure if purpose is to win wars quickly
The link won't work, but does anyone know about this?
Sounds a lot like a Hiroshima/Vietnam/Iraq rule. It indicates that the US HAS violated the standard international laws and laws of morality, in targeting 'infrastructure' like electricty, water supply.
(Else why is the change being proposed, assuming it is?)
The weak or sick or young who die, are then, "justifiable" not simply as 'collateral', but because (under US proposed rule)
WE'RE TARGETING YOUR MEANS OF LIFE, BUT IT'S OK 'CUZ WE JUST WANT TO WIN THIS WAR IN A HURRY.
It's plain that the *actual rule* being proposed is "We do what we damn well please to win, and since God founded the US and approves of our fight against evil, anything we do is basically OK, though 'mistakes will be made in isolated cases'"
Your posting about bombing, for example in Viet Nam, Cambodia, Laos, and so on down to Iraq is excellent.
Something the physical distance between pilot and target sanitizes things, in the US mind.
We also hear endlessly that the bomb is 'smart' etc. and that only 'enemy' are targeted-- this being a difference from terrorists like the 9-11 folk. Yet US declaration of 'free fire' zones, targets *anything* a bomber or soldier thinks worth a shot.
The againstbombling.com site is good. Notice it's 'conservative libertarian' as opposed to GWB/Perl/Cheney neocon. It has a little headline and byline:
New Rules of War --U.S. wants change Geneva Convention to allow massive destruction of civilian infrastructure if purpose is to win wars quickly
The link won't work, but does anyone know about this?
Sounds a lot like a Hiroshima/Vietnam/Iraq rule. It indicates that the US HAS violated the standard international laws and laws of morality, in targeting 'infrastructure' like electricty, water supply.
(Else why is the change being proposed, assuming it is?)
The weak or sick or young who die, are then, "justifiable" not simply as 'collateral', but because (under US proposed rule)
WE'RE TARGETING YOUR MEANS OF LIFE, BUT IT'S OK 'CUZ WE JUST WANT TO WIN THIS WAR IN A HURRY.
It's plain that the *actual rule* being proposed is "We do what we damn well please to win, and since God founded the US and approves of our fight against evil, anything we do is basically OK, though 'mistakes will be made in isolated cases'"
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Sher said,
There are two instances I can thiik of during the clinton years, when we intervened militarily for no motive that I could see, beyone the need to stop torture and genocide.
To my knowledge, we had nothing to gain in Somalia and a lot to lose; we went in anyway, and sacrificed lives, in an ill-fated attempt to stop a slaughter of sickening propertions I may be wrong,
I'm not sure how much mileage you're going to get out of *two instances. First, every big corporation does something nice occasionally. MacDonalds has McDonald House for dying children.
The US left the Ruanda slaughter to the Canadian, iirc, but went into Somalia. Ever looked at the map, Sher. Somalia has a strategic location.
Do you really think the so called "Department of Defense" sits in its planning rooms saying, "Gee, where is there suffering in the world that we can send some help to alleviate; some doctors we can protect with benevolent US soldiers on a mission of mercy?"
But it's true, that at the upper echelons of the gov--as in Microsoft, or Lockheed, or MacDonalds or IBM boardrooms-- in the 'spin' and PR departments someone says, "Here's a nasty situation. Let's send in help and photographers and embedded press." Voila, 200 ghetto children get spanking new PCs, and its on the front page.
The whole pattern must be looked at, Sher. Else it's like those serial killer trials where the landlady takes the stand at the sentencing hearing, and says, "You know, he always helped me carry my groceries up the stairs. A nice young man. "
The US pattern is not 'evil' per se, any more than the French or British. It's merely self interested, but with higher tech, better bombs, and infinitely more dangerous.
J.
PS. Dirt man. Don't know if you're serious, but Yes, the US played a big part in defeating Hitler in 1945 and Hitler was evil.
Many "points" are deserved in the morality department, though the allies did 'forget' to bomb the rail lines around Aushwitz and other death camps, and was intent to block Jewish refugees in the war period. But that's a small speck in the wedding cake.
Perhaps you'll continue the history of US benevolence past 1950?? Oh yeah, Somalia. Um.... incidentally what kind of shape is Somalia in, following that 'good deed'?
There are two instances I can thiik of during the clinton years, when we intervened militarily for no motive that I could see, beyone the need to stop torture and genocide.
To my knowledge, we had nothing to gain in Somalia and a lot to lose; we went in anyway, and sacrificed lives, in an ill-fated attempt to stop a slaughter of sickening propertions I may be wrong,
I'm not sure how much mileage you're going to get out of *two instances. First, every big corporation does something nice occasionally. MacDonalds has McDonald House for dying children.
The US left the Ruanda slaughter to the Canadian, iirc, but went into Somalia. Ever looked at the map, Sher. Somalia has a strategic location.
Do you really think the so called "Department of Defense" sits in its planning rooms saying, "Gee, where is there suffering in the world that we can send some help to alleviate; some doctors we can protect with benevolent US soldiers on a mission of mercy?"
But it's true, that at the upper echelons of the gov--as in Microsoft, or Lockheed, or MacDonalds or IBM boardrooms-- in the 'spin' and PR departments someone says, "Here's a nasty situation. Let's send in help and photographers and embedded press." Voila, 200 ghetto children get spanking new PCs, and its on the front page.
The whole pattern must be looked at, Sher. Else it's like those serial killer trials where the landlady takes the stand at the sentencing hearing, and says, "You know, he always helped me carry my groceries up the stairs. A nice young man. "
The US pattern is not 'evil' per se, any more than the French or British. It's merely self interested, but with higher tech, better bombs, and infinitely more dangerous.
J.
PS. Dirt man. Don't know if you're serious, but Yes, the US played a big part in defeating Hitler in 1945 and Hitler was evil.
Many "points" are deserved in the morality department, though the allies did 'forget' to bomb the rail lines around Aushwitz and other death camps, and was intent to block Jewish refugees in the war period. But that's a small speck in the wedding cake.
Perhaps you'll continue the history of US benevolence past 1950?? Oh yeah, Somalia. Um.... incidentally what kind of shape is Somalia in, following that 'good deed'?
Last edited:
TheEarl
Occasional visitor
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2002
- Posts
- 9,808
shereads said:
I'm not sufficiently well informed on Bosnia or Somalia I'm afraid, so I can't comment. Both were before I really understood that kind of thing and I haven't read much about them.
My point wasn't that America doesn't do anything good. However a lot of US foreign policy has been for their own self-interest alone and this has included right-royally screwing over both their allies and the countries they're 'helping.' If the USA went into Iraq to save the people from an oppressive dictatorship, then when are they invading Zimbabwe?
Incidentally on the note of WW2, did you know that more people died in the bombing of Cologne and the Ruhr area than in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? No point there, just thought it interesting.
Ann Coulter - Christianity is the religion of peace with 'love thy neighbour'? Ignoring the fact that those three words are also in the Koran, let's look at the huge swathes of people wiped out in the name of the Holy Catholic church. Or the cultures obliterated in the name of God by the British Empire? Or on a smaller level, the N.Ireland situation. If we stack up the number of people Christianity has killed against those taken out by Islam, then I think you'll find Jesus is still No1. However, I doubt most of the people killed by the Spanish conquistadores count to her. After all, they were just heathens and not worth worrying about.
Shereads - I think you're right; no-one can be that bigoted. Then again, have you ever spoken to Hans Schmidt on the General Board. Wonderful circumventions of logic to prove his cases.
The Earl
