Page 43 of 48 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 472

Thread: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

  1. #421
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    And if that same person wants to hate black people and discriminate against them, they can, because they're a private person.

    Our government is held to to a higher standard.
    Well, that's the illusion anyway. Our government has dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, supported dictators, and crawled through the gutter when it has had to. If there's profiling that needs to be done, they will do it. This "higher standard" for a government in our position is mostly an illusion.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-02-10 at 06:13 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  2. #422
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well, that's the illusion anyway. Our government has dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, supported dictators, and crawled through the gutter when it has had to. If there's profiling that needs to be done, they will do it. This "higher standard" for a government in our position is mostly an illusion.
    The difference from my perspective is that there's nothing in the Constitution about bombing civilians or supporting dictators, while there are plenty of things dealing with racial and religious discrimination. Many of the occasions where we have justified discrimination in the name of national security have later been regretted.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  3. #423
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,013

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    The difference from my perspective is that there's nothing in the Constitution about bombing civilians or supporting dictators, while there are plenty of things dealing with racial and religious discrimination. Many of the occasions where we have justified discrimination in the name of national security have later been regretted.
    Well, certainly. But the reality exists and so does the necessity of all those nasty little secrets and obvious offenses towards others to create that security. We can regret them all day. But there will always be more to regret in the future. This sense of "higher standard" is largely an illusion, but still more real than those across the pond.
    Last edited by MSgt; 01-02-10 at 06:54 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #424
    Educator
    ScummyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    06-09-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,130

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    What ever is vaguely referenced here in "discrimination in the name of national security" is only lamented from within the bubble of comfort and convenience now enjoyed by its critics. Only after the enjoyment of that safety and ease of living is it regretted.
    Last edited by ScummyD; 01-02-10 at 07:03 PM.

  5. #425
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by ScummyD View Post
    What ever is vaguely referenced here in "discrimination in the name of national security" is only lamented from within the bubble of comfort and convenience now enjoyed by its critics. Only after the enjoyment of that safety and ease of living is it regretted.
    So you're saying that people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf?

    Very interesting.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #426
    Advisor Plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    317

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Hello Plato, Long time no banter. I believe that in our recent history we have taken steps to engage the Iranian dissent, however, we haven't ever done enough to stand behind them and offer much more than lip service. Obama is no better in this regard, and in fact may be worse, because he displays that he doesn't have the fortitude to do much more than straddle the fence, or display weakness.
    So what does this mean? Seems like a gratuitous bashing of Obama to me. It's tiresome that discussions about Iran immediately degenerate into US partisan nonsense. What did Bush do? Well, I don't know because most of it would have been covert and possibly very good stuff, but his Axis of Evil speech was a kick in the bollocks for the reformists as it galvanized the nation against a foreign threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Christians didn't start this round. This came from Muslim radicals. It does no good to bash Christianity as some kind of willingness offering when your enemy could care less. Muslim radicals are running with free will, and the majority of so called 'peaceful' Muslims are keeping their mouths shut about it. You know what we call that when it concerns a crime committed? Compliancy and it also is a crime.
    "This round"? What is this, a re-run of the crusades? So you agree with the Al Q propaganda on this? Who started what? Well a proper historical analysis would take a long time, but it seems clear that what is happening in the Middle East isn't "this round" but the outcome of a complex set of historic events. After imperialism, which made a mess of the whole place with power struggles between the Great Powers, probably the most significant was the Cold War, when secular anti-imperialists were opposed by Western governments because we were afraid of their Soviet sympathies. So we empowered feudal relics and mass murderers to succeed imperialism. Then there was Afghanistan, when it would have been a lot better to leave Stalinism in place there over the barbarity of our erstwhile allies (Osama being one). Then the Palestine/Israel mess, where we just fashioned a stalemate. Western poers have been in control of world politics for a long time. At the end of the day, if you want to analyze where the cause lies, it may not be easy, and it certainly wasn't foreseeable, but the ball of blame is firmly with the Western democracies for the whole quagmire that has spawned this evil. It's our world after all. Or it was.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    "Reformist Muslims"??? Who might they be? Have we identified any that haven't been killed by the radicals? Who among Islam today is going to stick their neck out in order to bridge an Islamic appeasement toward the Western Infedels? Not one that I can see. So all you have really is Obama sitting at a table begging. Good plan.
    This is just twaddle. More abusive Obama bashing. Just sad really that so much ju ju doll piercing is going on on the American Right. And an amazing projection of islam as a simple homogenous mass of people. If you want to see people sticking their necks out, just watvch what is happening in Iran when people are dying on the streets.


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Really, do you have figures to back this up? What has been the trend since 2001? I think you pulled that one out of thin air.
    was your refutation to this

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato
    What I do know is that millions of Westerners travel and live in muslim countries every day without hostility.
    Your response is very interesting. My reply here is without research. I pulled it out of my experience and knowledge of the world. I have in my life time traveled to four muslim countries: Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia and Malaysia. Not many actually, but with no hostility at all and I never felt in the slightest danger. In my opinion I am as safe in these countries (in some safer) than in London or on an airliner bound for the USA. Hundreds of thousands continue to travel to these destinations (and of course expats live in these places every day) all the time. Where else? My experience is very small. Well: Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Abu Dubai, these are all countries which I know people personally who in the last year have been to these countries on holiday. The whole Middle East is full of Western expats. My statement seems so self evident that I wonder at the mindset that can airily dismiss it as an invention.

    That must be the bomb 'em and get back home in time for dinner mindset. Is yours a perspective of a world where there is America, maybe a couple of othe rnations that you will begrudgingly call civilized, and then behind a big wall there is where the dragons live? When I reflect on terrorism, which as a frequent international traveller I often do, I am actually amazed at how few attacks there are. I mean how easy would it be for a fundmantalist in Morrocco to commit murder and get away with it? Or in Jordan? Or in Malaysia? Well it doesn't happen, despite the opportunity. Either because the terrorists are tiny in number, or the government in these islamic countries protects the foreigner according to the law. (It's clearly both). News j-mac. There are no dragons any more beyond the borders of the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Fail! A prime example of how self loathing liberals just have to blame America itself for being attacked by radical Muslims on 9/11. What a crock of shi'ite! Tell me Plato, while we are prostrating ourselves in front of our enemy, shall we bare our necks as well to offer them unfettered access? Because after all we are the problem right? I mean if we hadn't forced them to attack us and all....
    This is why it's long time no banter. Because of this puerile horsecrap. It's difficult if you see the world as cowboys and injuns isn't it? Simple good versus evil. Nuance - what's that? If you leave your house unlocked in a big bad city and there is a burglary are you part of the reason? Of course you are. And you should be advised to learn from that. Does this exonerate the burgalr? Of course not. He should go to prison. See if you can get your head around that analogy. The only people who argue that American deserved it are left wing extremists like Chomsky and the supporters of Chavez. You should know from our WS history how much venom they have poiured on me when I have taken them to task. So this is just an easy, lazy abusive flamebait isn't it j-mac. As is your persistent blockheaded good versus evil paradeigm on life, where everything is two dimensional. there are people like you...and their are liberals, which are the same as commies, which are the same a atheists...

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac
    Ah yes, so your enemy in this struggle, is not with those that killed 3,000 innocents on 9/11 but rather, from within against those that don't believe as you do that you need to appease. Ain't that just great!
    Which gets you to this kindergarten abuse.
    There is a way to gain the whole world. It is to gain the people, and having gained them, one gains the whole world. There is a way to gain the people. Gain their hearts and minds and then you gain them. Mencius

  7. #427
    Advisor Plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    317

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Martel View Post
    Suggestions of this engagement? As if we don't have decades of engaging, as if the Europeans haven't tried. Please, in detail, what are your suggestions, what does it mean to engage

    Would you suggest their lead by example temperate understanding of Christian scripture...or the Declaration of Independence?

    Ok, I'll run with this...we get a lil more temperate and understanding...go on.

    1) Who exactly are the more reformist Muslims? Exactly? Aren't these the people Obama is afraid to "engage" in Iran on the excuse that he'll offend the less reformist Muslims?

    2) Even though I see Islamic relations initiatives internationally. And I do see and note reformist Muslims....neither you nor any of those strong in their secular democratic values, can deny the much less reformist Muslim is trying to engage us...on a daily basis. I would hope your suggestion here that we engage reformists, comes with the realization that the non-reformists very much are reaching out to touch us. today.

    Quit with the Obama answers, do what exactly? What do we do to face down "Islamophobia?" And where do you see hate politics? Your generalizations tough to debate, are they on purpose?
    It's a pretty stupid post, disappointingly. But let's try and salvage some points to discuss from it. There is one good point which I will come to at the end.

    "A temperate understanding of Christian scripture or the Declaration of Independence". Stupid, but interesting to link these to each other for one, and then to islam.

    Of course Christian scripture needs a temperate understanding. Do Christians anywhere seriously support stoning adultresses or living our the penal code of Deuteronomy? Christian scripture is full of barbarity but even Christian doctrine tempers that by the succession of the New Testament to repudiate much of the Old.

    But there is the implication of literalism in this post. As if scriptures, islamic and Christian should be taken literally. It is strange that such a point of view does not celebrate the barbaric punishments that are inflcited under the Taliban legal code as many of these are prescribed in Christian scripture. But then that's all religious fundamentalism together and it does not take a genius to see the similarity between islamofascism and Christian fundamentalism with their love of vengeance, their preference for theocracy, their homophobia and their mindshare over the role of women.

    What is new to me as a non American is this view of the Declaration of Independence as a sort of bible, some sort of infallible tract that needs no interpretation and is somehow a divine document, unpoluted by human fallacy. It would seem to me though that only a cursory knowledge of the views of Franklin, Paine and Jefferson, would lead one to imagine these three splitting their sides laughing at such an absurdity.

    I love the "quit the Obama answers" (where?) and the "you are difficult to argue with" because I don't succomb to the set piece battles that Obama haters love to engage in. Sorry to show such haughty disinterest in your little tea party but I will be difficult to argue with if you want to see my arguments through the warped prism of the "Obamunist" debate. I am not interested in that childishness, except as a bit of a sport on other threads. Sorry.

    But you omit Bush (who I am not wholly against on everything, as you will see if you read). What Bush did is not mentioned. Apart from setting back European engagement with Iranian moderates for years with his axis of evil speech. I am amazed that right wing Americans think that if their nation is attacked, it galvanizes them in unity. But that if another nation is attacked by America, then everyone just surrenders. This is realpolitik, not a game of Risk.

    I am sure that Bush has initiated and continued covert operations in support of Iranian oppositionists, as has Britain, and that this is being continued and intensified by Obama. Not that it proves that much, but that is what the Iranian government is saying. What is the point, except to satisfy the sexual needs of some armchair generals in America who get off on that sort of stuff, of telling everyone about it? This will just weaken the opposition. We're not talking about the Iraqi Marsh arabs here, sold out by Republican and Democrat administrations repeatedly, set up and then left to Saddam's mercy. We are talking about a country that has very wide internet access, has a broad level of education, a very large middle class, a relatively high awareness of the West, and is overwhelmingly young and discontented with the status quo. Supporting these pople quietly over a number of years, may not make headlines of shock and awe, but it is the best way of producing a regime change in Iran, with the most long lasting benefits.

    Then there is the suggestion that I think we should ignore "the non reformist muslims". The extremists are regarded as unislamic by most moderate muslims. There is no cost to their support in dealing firmly with Al Q. If when we fight our wars we fight them to win hearts and minds, then wars we should fight. If on the other hand we think that human rights are only for the West, then we will lose the support of the reformists. That has been our problem. Not fighting the wars, which in my view is now being conducted effectively - since Bush's second term actually. The problem was the thugs Cheney and Rumsfeld, who's agenda was not liberation but the projection of raw American power. I think it is perfectly viable to engage with reformists as you kill the thugs. It's not just viable but the only way that will deliver your objectives.

    The one point I did have to reflect on was the accusation of vagueness of my proposal. Fair enough. I realized that my proposal was one of covert influence. I think that is fair enough and would have to ask what the alternative is. That we demonize the 1.2 billion muslims in the world. Actually I never hear a specific program from the islamophobes. they are very vagie too. What do they want? Extermination? Concentration camps? Apartheid? Sterilization? Forced Conversion? Take muslim children away from their parents? Actually there is equal vagueness. Let me ask - do you want two lines at the airport determined by who you think looks like a muslim and who doesn't?

    At the end of the day my proposal is about the values that will underpin a thousand detailed policy initiatives, not a simplistic that'll solve everything program.

    But if you want sonmething beefier, a strategy if you like, then I am very much shoulder to shoulder with that dangeorus liberal Bush hating islam lover Tony Blair. There needs to be an effecive two state solution in Palestine/Israel which will require significant pressure on Israel from the West. Additionally (now I go more neocon than even Blair) the West should disengage with Saudi Arabia. The EU should accept Turkey as a member (something the US wants but which US-style islamophobia in Europe is impeding). The US policy in Pakistan should be stepped up and supported by other NATO allies to support the significant pro Western forces in that islamic country (remember the popularity of Benazir Bhutto?). And the West should consider a thousand soft power initiatives to challenge the evil ideologies that are now on the ascendancy in too many places.

    But each one of these proposals is a debate in itself. What we need to do first is to ground ourselves in our own liberal democratic values, that come from our own Enlightenment and political revolutions. These are of a firm projection of universal rights and those ideas, alongside tolerance of people's freedoms, backed up by military force where necessary to safeguard the world from tyranny and protect our values.
    Last edited by Plato; 01-03-10 at 04:26 AM.
    There is a way to gain the whole world. It is to gain the people, and having gained them, one gains the whole world. There is a way to gain the people. Gain their hearts and minds and then you gain them. Mencius

  8. #428
    Advisor Plato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    317

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well, that's the illusion anyway. Our government has dropped nuclear bombs on civilians, supported dictators, and crawled through the gutter when it has had to. If there's profiling that needs to be done, they will do it. This "higher standard" for a government in our position is mostly an illusion.
    Despite the fact that MSgt accused me of spewing "bumper sticker wisdom and reporter influenced opinion" which I think is a little unfair, and despite the sick militarism of a big gun in my face every time I read his posts, I suppose he's one of the "rough men standing ready to do violence on my behalf" (that quotes from a socialist you know). And I find myself agreeing with him.

    The briefing to the US Marines seems eminently sensible, and a sound counter insurgency strategy. On profiling my problem is not only with the fairness of it - it's with its effectiveness. The fairness is a relative issue, important but secondary, the effectiveness is not - one bomb's too many. It seems to me that when there is an incident the islamophobes (sorry for the bumper sticker wisdom but what else do you call the knee jerk bigots?) immediately call for racial profiling as some sort of revenge against muslims, as a quid pro quo for the attack. Because of course - contrary to the instructions given to the US Marines - they think all muslims are the problem and they deserve it. And those who oppose this nonsense then nicely become "traitors", "appeasers" etc. and hey presto here we are...

    Now I try to look at it calmly. When I see a woman in a hijab at an airport I hope that someone is profiling her - and I'm someone who opposes Sarkozy's draconian measures against islamoic dress in France (what business is it of the State?). And then when I stand behind an Orthodox Jew with beard and ringlets and traditional dress, I feel safe as houses. But who am I fooling? Only myself. Let's look at the issues:

    1. Why is profiling even necessary? Surely we need security that prevents ANYONE with a bomb getting on an aircraft. Relying on profiling, even the most effective of profiling, whatever that is, is Russian roulette isn't it?

    2. OK let's accept that it is Russian Roulette (I suppose in the end it is). How can we make the odds better? Well I would have thought the least effective method would be to practice something that is predictable. So if you always search the woman with the hijab and let the Rabbi through, guess what, the terrorist (semites nealry all of them) will dress as a bloody Rabbi won't he?

    For me the profiling should be (a) secret and (b) done by profesionals only conerned with outcome and free of the bigotry and prejudice that so many "profile them now" people have. Two reasons. Firstly to avoid radicalizing muslims by persecuting them (as the Marine guidance says). Secondly, because bigotry and prejudice are always predictable and our enemies are not stupid. I sat on a London tube train the other day, looking at my fellow passengers and thinking about 7/7. The ten nearest people to me could be stereotyped as looking like terrorists. All non white, or radical student looking. What exactly are the "profiling"proposals from the conservative right? That we strip search all the people who look funny? I'll leave it to the cold professional militarists, who seem to be able to cope with the dialectic that the politicians can't master, that distinguishes between mulsims, radical muslims and terrorists, and how people move across the boundaries of those groups. I think these professionals know more about who is a threat than armchair generals spewing vengeance and hate against muslims. Let's leave it to them and check in with them from time to time to make sure a Rumsfeld's not been let loose amongst them.

    So leave us sleeping and support the rough men...so long as they appear to be as professional as Msgt with his horrible big gun...even if he thinks I'm an effete liberal regurgitating predictable commentary...
    Last edited by Plato; 01-03-10 at 04:58 AM.
    There is a way to gain the whole world. It is to gain the people, and having gained them, one gains the whole world. There is a way to gain the people. Gain their hearts and minds and then you gain them. Mencius

  9. #429
    Student Antagony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern England
    Last Seen
    09-13-11 @ 04:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    278

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    Is yours a perspective of a world where there is America, maybe a couple of othe rnations that you will begrudgingly call civilized, and then behind a big wall there is where the dragons live?
    Your comment reminded me of this picture:



    Okay, it's an amusing generalisation based on perceived American ignorance of world geography, but that simplistic crude view--or something akin to it--does often seem to be prevalent when one sees the comments of certain right wing Americans.

    Great set of posts by the way, Plato.
    -Ant

    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
    -Voltaire

  10. #430
    Professor Charles Martel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    03-21-10 @ 08:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,668

    Re: Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

    Quote Originally Posted by Plato View Post
    It's a pretty stupid post, disappointingly. But let's try and salvage some points to discuss from it. There is one good point which I will come to at the end.
    The good points number more than one and good or bad isn't defined by your inability to address or definition of stupid. Sorry.

    "A temperate understanding of Christian scripture or the Declaration of Independence". Stupid, but interesting to link these to each other for one, and then to islam.
    Speak to the Founding Fathers about the stupidity of the Declaration, they're the ones that claimed "endowed rights" from "Our Creator". Unalienable rights not given or taken by man. My link appropriate and interesting.

    Christian scripture is full of barbarity
    Interesting you bring this up. It is true of course, Christianity with an historic ability for savage violence. Much of it shaped culture, Christians and their armies shaping the planet. So what?

    it does not take a genius to see the similarity between islamofascism and Christian fundamentalism with their love of vengeance, their preference for theocracy, their homophobia and their mindshare over the role of women.
    Doesn't take a genius to see the differences either. There will be similarities in every religion, Christians say Jewish prayers, Muslims honor a prophet as Christians do. But, no serious theologian makes similarities to Jesus and Mohammed, Jesus was a serious man of peace who died for mankind, his message never one of violence. Sorry for your misunderstanding.

    What is new to me as a non American is this view of the Declaration of Independence as a sort of bible, some sort of infallible tract that needs no interpretation and is somehow a divine document, unpoluted by human fallacy......
    "All men are created equal" quite revolutionary for the time though...don't you think? I mean, you're using much of these men's spoken "endowed rights"...you're engaged in the freedom of speech and association for example...while typing on this board...correct? Should Hamilton or Jefferson enjoyed the internet under English rule, would words of criticism you speak here concerning religion or state be even permitted? Tighten that chin strap Chief, try to respect those that sacrificed everything so you could chortle off about endeavors you know nothing about. No need to inform me you're a non-american either, I figured that out some posts ago.

    It would seem to me though that only a cursory knowledge of the views of Franklin, Paine and Jefferson,
    That is why we wrote a Constitution years after that declaration that separate state from church making those personal views irrelevant. This nation founded on Christian principles, endowed rights, and a government governed by the consent of the governed. One of their first priorities was to separate chruch from state but make a law making sure the State never encroach on a citizens right to practice their religion.

    but I will be difficult to argue with if you want to see my arguments through the warped prism of the "Obamunist" debate.
    I couldn't care less if you're an Obama sheeple, you are what you are. I'll note you've a serious issue with being called an Obamunist, but then, you feel free to rant about many "Obama haters" even making sure to add a "tea party" comment exposing your own warped prism of perspective. In other words, profiling on your dime is permitted, but, you're gonna be difficult if anyone tries doing it to you?

    Please, no one cares if you're difficult and to be perfectly frank, I'd find you much more difficult if the content of your posts came remotely close to proving you knew what you're talking about.

    But you omit Bush
    Then omit him, give me policy that would succeed where you're argument is concerned.

    Supporting these pople quietly over a number of years, may not make headlines of shock and awe, but it is the best way of producing a regime change in Iran, with the most long lasting benefits.
    Supporting them quietly, not publicly?

    Then there is the suggestion that I think we should ignore "the non reformist muslims". The extremists are regarded as unislamic by most moderate muslims.
    But...those "most moderates" aren't in power in Iran, Syria, Palestine, within the Taliban or al-Qaeda. And when you say most.....a clear 30%+ feel terror attacks are sometimes warranted. There is much sympathy for these jihadists, they receive international backing and facilitation.

    If on the other hand we think that human rights are only for the West, then we will lose the support of the reformists. That has been our problem.
    Human rights..fine. US Constitutional rights....sorry.

    Not fighting the wars, which in my view is now being conducted effectively - since Bush's second term actually.
    I'm sorry, "not fighting the wars" is being done effectively....like Obama's recent 50,000 man surge in Afghanistan...that what you mean by "not fighting the wars?"
    The problem was the thugs Cheney and Rumsfeld,
    Let me ask you something Plato..is this going to continue? You seem to think comments like this are a valid argument, the clear hatred for Bush...and then you're previously asking me...a possible "Obama hater" not to be difficult. I now find this laughable, I think we should both be able to call it as we see it, the critical jabs not just limited to your text. Furthermore, I find you calling others out on it while you engage in it, a tad hypocritical.

    Let me ask - do you want two lines at the airport determined by who you think looks like a muslim and who doesn't?
    My turn to be difficult. You claimed to have a solution, and you were admittingly vague doing it. Continue on with your detail first, give your answers based on your "how to engage" post. We can then answer your questions that seem to pretend there is but two solutions, yours....or the policies built from the absolute hatred for 1.2 billion Muslims.

    At the end of the day my proposal is about the values that will underpin a thousand detailed policy initiatives, not a simplistic that'll solve everything program.
    What is that proposal...exactly?

    But if you want sonmething beefier, a strategy if you like, then I am very much shoulder to shoulder with that dangeorus liberal Bush hating islam lover Tony Blair.
    I did want something beefier and it was nearly 8 years ago that President George W. Bush delivered the speech that outlined his "vision" for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. June 24, 2002 I believe was the exact date of the speech.

    There needs to be an effecive two state solution in Palestine/Israel which will require significant pressure on Israel from the West.
    And on Iran and Syria in the East. But, what of al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Iran?

    Additionally (now I go more neocon than even Blair) the West should disengage with Saudi Arabia.
    Great idea. Their oil as well?

    The EU should accept Turkey as a member (something the US wants but which US-style islamophobia in Europe is impeding).
    Something else Bush fought hard for. You sure you hate Bush, you're mirroring his policies.

    And the West should consider a thousand soft power initiatives to challenge the evil ideologies that are now on the ascendancy in too many places.
    The policy in Pakistan is still Bush's and "soft power" initiatives? What like...actually supporting with soft power the voices of freedom that from Iran that Obama refused to support?

    What we need to do first is to ground ourselves in our own liberal democratic values, that come from our own Enlightenment and political revolutions.
    Like to democratic values that have precedence oh like say...not giving our enemies captured aborad rights within our own laws. For example, let's take your nation, Plato, where are you from?
    Last edited by Charles Martel; 01-03-10 at 11:13 AM.
    It was the Austrasians, that hewed on bravely through the thick of the fight, it was they who found and cut down the Saracen King.

Page 43 of 48 FirstFirst ... 334142434445 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •