• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

j-mac said:
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.

j-mac said:
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.

j-mac said:
"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.


j-mac said:
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

Plato said:
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.

j-mac said:
:slapme: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....:roll::cuckoo:

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...

j-mac said:
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! :doh

Which gets you to this kindergarten abuse.
 
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:
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:
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:

G2GVu.jpg


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.
 
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.:roll:

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.:rofl

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:
the smoking gun, awareness of which rather ominiously underlay all the sunday talks:

correspondences by awlaki foretelling a nigerian man on christmas, a bomb in his underwear

the cia, fbi and dhs were each briefed about briefs, says richard ben veniste, dem member of 9-11 commission, on cnn's state of the union

had our intel's done their jobs after fort hood and scrubbed hasan's guru, they'd have surely found the lead

instead, the administration characteristically worked to spin hasan in his most innocent, ie, "isolated" light

nothing will come of this rocking revelation, likely

but everyone saw it
 
Last edited:
the administration is working hard this morning to refute cheney's accusation that obama wants to "pretend" we're not at war

mr brennan talks about afghanistan, a strike against yemen

but he still can't bring himself to utter the t-word

how can you conduct a war without first acknowledging and recognizing your enemy?

who wages wars vs isolated extremists?

forced by uncooperative circumstance, media allies of the white house were compelled this morning to talk "terror"

it must've left a bad taste in their mouths
 
Your comment reminded me of this picture:

G2GVu.jpg


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.

And your picture reminded me of this one

poster85102396.jpg
 
And your picture reminded me of this one

poster85102396.jpg

Actually, the picture does not include Africa because Americans tend to ignore Africa, even when there are Genocides and Wars being waged there.
 
Actually, the picture does not include Africa because Americans tend to ignore Africa, even when there are Genocides and Wars being waged there.

The World according to America.

That was the title.

The world includes Africa.


Fail.
 
The World according to America.

That was the title.

The world includes Africa.


Fail.

Apparently according to America, Africa doesn't exist. If only our cars ran on elephant dung.
 
That must be why Bush pledged some $15 billion in aid to Africa.:roll:

I was speaking about the picture, not literally. There's the diamond and uranium mines. :mrgreen:
 
The good points number more than one and good or bad isn't defined by your inability to address or definition of stupid. Sorry.

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.:)

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?

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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

Supporting them quietly, not publicly?

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.

Human rights..fine. US Constitutional rights....sorry.

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?"

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.

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.:roll:

What is that proposal...exactly?

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.

And on Iran and Syria in the East. But, what of al-Qaeda? The Taliban? Iran?

Great idea. Their oil as well?

Something else Bush fought hard for. You sure you hate Bush, you're mirroring his policies.:rofl

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?

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?

You seem to be a bit confused. You say I hate Bush and yet you can't help pointing out where I agree with him. Could it be that is because I don't hate him but disagree with him on some things (like his appointment of Cheney and Rumsfeld) and agree with him on others (like his foreign policy in his second term under Condi Rice)? Did you consider that I don't fit your stereotype?

When you answer my arguments, other than posting drivel, we can have a debate. All that stuff about the US Constitution that totally get what i said wrong as well...

Where am I from? Why? Do you want to launch an attack on that country? Start a thread and I'll join you, should you have some good points (which wouldn't be hard). I'm from England, where your founding fathers got all their ideas from. It was probably our best achievement to spawn the USA. One of them anyway.

Try reading what I wrote. It wasn't what you responded to.
 
Ahem... there's only one 'p' in proper.

And what exactly was wrong with my grammar? Please do enlighten me.
 
Last edited:
Moderator's Warning:
That's enough of the trolling.
 
And, in turn, your picture reminded me of this one:

AhwnB.jpg

Keep shooting yourself in the foot if you like


poster53525782.jpg


BTW, the guy who actually did the poster modified it after it was pointed out that Africa was missing.

For you....

epicfail.jpg


Thats from the funniest pics ever thread in the Hard Forums

Better quit while you're behind sport. :rofl
 
Last edited:
Ahem... there's only one 'p' in proper.

And what exactly was wrong with my grammar? Please do enlighten me.

I think your map prompted another massive q.e.d.!

Clearly Africa was supposed to be missing, which prompted a comment on irony by someone who had missed the irony of that...and then there was some right proper gobbledegook.

And of course there are plenty of Americans in and outside the US borders who would take a good long self effacing laugh at themselves. There must be some self effacing British humour we could post to show the "irony free zone" here that we're only joking.

My comment was about the amazing insistence that there were not millions of Westerners living in and visiting the muslim world. I do really believe that there are some Americans (as there are some Britons too, but on a lesser scale) who really believe that islamic countries are all like Iran, Yemen or Afghanistan. They create this world in their heads where every muslim wants to kill them. It is a useful deception for a nationalist, xenophobic right - the extreme right in all countries use xenophobia - which galvanizes a frightened people behind them.

I think Msgt's post on the instructions given to US Marines is the highlight of this thread. This is professional, common sense, military analysis which summarizes very nicely the objectives of these wars and how to fight them. I am sure that it draws on the military lessons of counter insurgency warfare that have been learned over the years. It is a million miles away from the hate filled spew that so many on the American right seek to post on this subject.

I am waiting for the islamophobes to respond with how "pc" this is, how it is holding back real soldiers from doing their job, or how much it sells out to the "Obamunists" agenda; how soft it is on muslims because it fails to demonize them all and how actually the US Marines are led by a bunch of traitor liberals who should be drummed out of the Corps and replaced by real men. And then a long tedious exchange about whether these instructions emerged in the last year or when Bush was president.

Because this sort of vitriol would be the logical conclusion of their argument, should they ever deign to follow an argument through to a conclusion showing logic. Will they take on the official view of the US Marine Corps? I doubt it.

Which brings a wry smile to my face;).
 
Last edited:
Keep shooting yourself in the foot if you like
Your last poster was disappointingly poor. If a comedy picture is made to look deliberately stupid – because it is satirising or lampooning the perceived ignorance of others – it does not have to demonstrate the artists own erudition in order to be valid. Of course I could easily counter your latest poster with another and we could continue playing this silly game until the thread is completely derailed. But independent_thinker2002 has decided this round of motivational poster tit for tatting constitutes "trolling," so I will desist from continuing with the trend.

But look, it was just a joke. The original picture was also missing Greenland, and India, and Southeast Asia; and the shape of every landmass outside of North America was hopelessly inaccurate. But all of that is irrelevant, because it was intentionally so! The artist clearly wanted to portray how woefully ignorant and simplistically he thought the average American viewed the rest of the world. We can argue about whether that picture was funny, or stupid (for stereotyping, not for geographic inaccuracy), but in no way was it ironic, because it was not intended to illustrate the author's own view of the world's geography. I mean... if I was to say "You're so stupid, you stared at an OJ carton because it said 'Concentrate'!" would you turn around and say "Ha, 'concentrate' means something different in that context. So you're the stupid one and that makes your joke ironic!"? Clearly, there is some irony and stupidity to be found in this conversation, but I will leave it to others to decide where that really is.
 
Last edited:
And of course there are plenty of Americans in and outside the US borders who would take a good long self effacing laugh at themselves. There must be some self effacing British humour we could post to show the "irony free zone" here that we're only joking.
Andy Parsons nailed it...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNWP04p7Rig"]YouTube- HD Preview: Andy Parsons 'Only in Britain...' - Live at the Apollo - BBC One[/ame]
 
Your last poster was disappointingly poor. If a comedy picture is made to look deliberately stupid – because it is satirising or lampooning the perceived ignorance of others – it does not have to demonstrate the artists own erudition in order to be valid. Of course I could easily counter your latest poster with another and we could continue playing this silly game until the thread is completely derailed. But independent_thinker2002 has decided this round of motivational poster tit for tatting constitutes "trolling," so I will desist from continuing with the trend.

But look, it was just a joke. The original picture was also missing Greenland, and India, and Southeast Asia; and the shape of every landmass outside of North America was hopelessly inaccurate. But all of that is irrelevant, because it was intentionally so! The artist clearly wanted to portray how woefully ignorant and simplistically he thought the average American viewed the rest of the world. We can argue about whether that picture was funny, or stupid (for stereotyping, not for geographic inaccuracy), but in no way was it ironic, because it was not intended to illustrate the author's own view of the world's geography. I mean... if I was to say "You're so stupid, you stared at an OJ carton because it said 'Concentrate'!" would you turn around and say "Ha, 'concentrate' means something different in that context. So you're the stupid one and that makes your joke ironic!"? Clearly, there is some irony and stupidity to be found in this conversation, but I will leave it to others to decide where that really is.

LOL wow. I give you the author of the pic actually changing it when its pointed out and you still claim its deliberate.

Pretty sad.
 
You seem to be a bit confused. You say I hate Bush and yet you can't help pointing out where I agree with him. Could it be that is because I don't hate him but disagree with him on some things (like his appointment of Cheney and Rumsfeld) and agree with him on others (like his foreign policy in his second term under Condi Rice)? Did you consider that I don't fit your stereotype?

I am absolutely not confused. Now perhaps cncerning Bush I am a tad confised on your stance, but, calling Cheney and Rumsfeld thugs and talking of satisfying their 'armchair Gen's sexual desires', didn't strike me as a Bush supporter.

When you answer my arguments, other than posting drivel, we can have a debate. All that stuff about the US Constitution that totally get what i said wrong as well...

Nonsense. This pretend game where your argument is being taken wrong here isn't accurate. It's summed up rather easily in your previous post. "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."

I asked you for suggestions. And we began to debate those. Your initial suggestion was broad as have your follow up suggestions. And I think your alternatives here are unsound...and so I mention that. Again, you're clearly asking here what the alternatives are. You then answer your own question with demonizing 1.2 billion people and them some comment about no specific alternative from "Islamophobes"(that I'm certainly certain you'll point out one when one is exposed.)

And this is laughable. You're saying your proposals are "covert influence" and "vague", but then, any alternative is demonization. Please.

Where am I from? Why? Do you want to launch an attack on that country?

Start a thread and I'll join you, should you have some good points (which wouldn't be hard). I'm from England, where your founding fathers got all their ideas from. It was probably our best achievement to spawn the USA. One of them anyway.

Congratulations, England one of my favorites. Spent an entire year there in Wimbledon as a matter of fact. Dreadful weather. Depressing to an older teen, unable to handle us, our parents set my brother and I off to Europe for three months before Universities started. I almost didn't make it back.:shock:

We used my father's VW Bug, met 4 members of the opposite gender who were tired of the Eurail waits and stations. Two English chicks, two French. If VW bugs could talk...........anyway...

Try reading what I wrote. It wasn't what you responded to.

I did read what you wrote. And I'm going to start a new thread as well. Not to bash your nation, I'm interested in analogies and comparisons.
 
LOL wow. I give you the author of the pic actually changing it when its pointed out and you still claim its deliberate.

Pretty sad.

Yup, that post is sad. You think he changed it because he acknowledged he had screwed up or because it offered him an opportunity to be even more satirical and funny?
 
Back
Top Bottom