Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[smoke20 0]

Some people learn to think for themselves, instead of just following what is cool and popular. Although the war is only popular with a small group of people.

so when are you going to learn to think for yourself? all i hear from you is rehashed BS from your 2 VJ heros...number 6 & fancypants.

[Heracles 417]

Some people learn to think for themselves, instead of just following what is cool and popular. Although the war is only popular with a small group of people.

Life and the world is a lot more complicated than watching american idol, will and grace or whether an individuals rights have been violated. While nobody likes war, it is inevitable. What is clear is that many on the left are seriously in denial and refuse to comprehend that their views on rights, gay rights and freedoms are despised by other overseas; who feel they are being forced onto them. Halliburton, foreign policy and oil is not the sole reason Osama hates America.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This might be interpreted as a personal attack by admin, and its duly noted that these labels are tossed around to a point where they aren't really very meaningful; but thinking about the views Boo-Yah has expressed in this and other threads - I think he's as close to being a true, bona-fide fascist as I've seen.

Think about it...

1) The extreme and authoritarian ideas he has: such as suggesting that entire cities be destroyed as a deterrent to terrorists. That corporal punishment should be meted out publicly (to children too - though there was some contention about that).

2) His fondness for idealized Grand Narratives, about how much 'better' things were prior to 1960 (a utopian era before he was born and of which he has no actual experience), how children today are badly brought up and how parenting is generally poor and negligent. Oh and how the poor deserve to be in poverty.

3) His wholesale support and unquestioning endorsement of controversial policies like National ID cards, Warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act.

4) He believes that the constitution is a 'nice to have' to be repealed if the national need dictates or when its stipulations are otherwise 'inconvenient'.

5) His continuous statements that all of the problems that affect this country are the result of alleged "Liberals".

He calls himself a Social Conservative and a Federalist. If he means half of this stuff... Well... he ain't what he thinks...

Edited September 13, 2007 by Number 6

[Heracles 417]

This might be interpreted as a personal attack by admin, and its duly noted that these labels are tossed around to a point where they aren't really very meaningful; but thinking about the views Boo-Yah has expressed in this and other threads - I think he's as close to being a true, bona-fide fascist as I've seen.

Think about it...

1) The extreme and authoritarian ideas he has: such as suggesting that entire cities be destroyed as a deterrent to terrorists. That corporal punishment should be meted out publicly (to children too - though there was some contention about that).

2) His fondness for idealized Grand Narratives, about how much 'better' things were prior to 1960 (a utopian era before he was born and of which he has no actual experience), how children today are badly brought up and how parenting is generally poor and negligent. Oh and how the poor deserve to be in poverty.

3) His wholesale support and unquestioning endorsement of controversial policies like National ID cards, Warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act.

4) He believes that the constitution is a 'nice to have' to be repealed if the national need dictates or when its stipulations are otherwise 'inconvenient'.

5) His continuous statements that all of the problems that affect this country are the result of alleged "Liberals".

He calls himself a Social Conservative and a Federalist. If he means half of this stuff... Well... he ain't what he thinks...

At least I stand by my principals. Give me a problem and I will at the very least attempt to solve it. Whereas much like keith Olbermann, all you and certain other like-minded morons in the forum do is insult and dis anyone with opposing views. The OT forum is filled with it. How many people have you guys attacked because of their views? Just the other day you guys drove CarolsMarc away and took what he said out of context.

PS did you forget the I call for his banning #######.. LMAO idiots!!

Edited September 13, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

At least I stand by my principals. Give me a problem and I will at the very least attempt to solve it. Whereas much like keith Olbermann, all you and certain other like-minded morons in the forum do is insult and dis anyone with opposing views. The OT forum is filled with it. How many people have you guys attacked because of their views? Just the other day you guys drove CarolsMarc away and took what he said out of context.

PS did you forget the I call for his banning #######.. LMAO idiots!!

That would be where the guy busted into a 9/11 memorial thread and told a person who was at Ground Zero saw the carnage up close to "#### off".

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

CM was taken out of context like Imus was taken out of context.

That is, they weren't.

[Dan J 277]

Using the dictionary definition, pretty much everyone in politics is a liberal. A liberal is just someone who favors change. But what makes the difference is what kind of change.

A conservative wants to change things to keep with traditional values. Which in the case of the US means, nationalism, Christian based moral values, strong support of the military.

A progressive is someone who wants to move forward. Even if it means throwing aside the tradtional values that are important to the conservatives.

So every time we make a change in favor of the progressives, we have conservatives who try to change it back. In some ways this is a good thing. It prevents drastic changes that the society isn't ready for.

But progression is inevitable. It will happen. At some point even conservatives have to accept it. And they do. What progressive and conservative is today, is nothing like it once was. As progression takes hold, even conservatives stop opposing it. Of course there will always be a few who hang on, but the majority has moved on.

Take the war in Iraq, Many conservatives see it has a military problem with a military solution. The progressives see the purpose of the military to be more of a force that keeps the peace, rather than goes out to start wars. And if its used in that context, it should only be done with full support of the international community, not with an aggressive imperialistic approach.

With terrorism, the conservative approach is to aggressively go after and kill the terrorists, no matter the cost. Even if the methods encourage more to join or support the terrorist groups. The progressive way is to focus on disrupting attacks at home, and use public diplomacy( Everything from providing aid in a natural disaster to keeping out of other countries politics, even if the government is not a type favorable to us) to pull public support away from the terrorists.

[smoke20 0]

thanks dan i needed that.

Edited September 14, 2007 by smoke20

[DeadPoolX 9]

Hmmm... I always imagined the point of discussions like this one were to debate the topic, not the person, but then again, I could be wrong.

[Dan J 277]

thanks dan i needed that.

Whats so funny? I should have added, militarizing politics by making the other side an enemy and attacking them rather than discussing the merits of an idea, is bad for everybody.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Why is it only "Total Destruction" Vs. Rolling over like a pansy with you.

You really don't understand the concept of "middle ground" do you.?

I think you fail to accept that there are people out there who do not want to negotiate with you. How do you personally recommend we deal with people like that?

That wasn't the point that was made, thanks for confounding it yet again.

Again - to point out to you (once again) noone is advocating pacifism. The original point that was made was about people's perceptions of war and the value judgements they ascribe to those perceptions.

BTW - what was so objectionable about the idea of a 'targetted' and 'proportional' response? I never figured out how why you apparently think that this is any less of a solution than a unilateral and indiscriminate one.. Like suggesting the Chechnya be wiped off the map.

So ####### are you guys advocating then? I have tried to ascertain this from day one..

We tried targeted and proportional and that has failed due to the insurgents and terrorists hiding amongst civilians. Now what? The insurgents know the rules we follow. They just work around them and use those exact principals against us.

The insurgents you keep talking about are IRAQI's fighting the occupation of their country. The coalition have recognised there is only 1% foreign fighters. So you can keep flying the flag in the defence of nothing. You can be there 100 years they will still keep fighting. Iraqi people are intolerant of americans thats the bottom line. Even if the intentions were good by the US and not for financial reasons the truth is whether you like it or not they want you out! and before you call me a lefty I definitly am not that Im a conservetive and I say hang those trying to occupy your country. They are doing nothing more than what you would do if your country was occupied or what I would do or any person who has pride in his country. Its a swamp and the US are stuck.

[Dan J 277]

Why is it only "Total Destruction" Vs. Rolling over like a pansy with you.

You really don't understand the concept of "middle ground" do you.?

I think you fail to accept that there are people out there who do not want to negotiate with you. How do you personally recommend we deal with people like that?

That wasn't the point that was made, thanks for confounding it yet again.

Again - to point out to you (once again) noone is advocating pacifism. The original point that was made was about people's perceptions of war and the value judgements they ascribe to those perceptions.

BTW - what was so objectionable about the idea of a 'targetted' and 'proportional' response? I never figured out how why you apparently think that this is any less of a solution than a unilateral and indiscriminate one.. Like suggesting the Chechnya be wiped off the map.

So ####### are you guys advocating then? I have tried to ascertain this from day one..

We tried targeted and proportional and that has failed due to the insurgents and terrorists hiding amongst civilians. Now what? The insurgents know the rules we follow. They just work around them and use those exact principals against us.

The insurgents you keep talking about are IRAQI's fighting the occupation of their country. The coalition have recognised there is only 1% foreign fighters. So you can keep flying the flag in the defence of nothing. You can be there 100 years they will still keep fighting. Iraqi people are intolerant of americans thats the bottom line. Even if the intentions were good by the US and not for financial reasons the truth is whether you like it or not they want you out! and before you call me a lefty I definitly am not that Im a conservetive and I say hang those trying to occupy your country. They are doing nothing more than what you would do if your country was occupied or what I would do or any person who has pride in his country. Its a swamp and the US are stuck.

There was quite a bit of support for the American invasion by Iraqis at the beginning. But do to mistakes on our side, with not having a plan, and our complete ignorance of public diplomacy, we blew most of chances of getting out of this situation quickly. So now we are stuck with two options, continue staying there for a very long time, until hopefully the resistance in the country just tires out, at a cost that will likely reach the billions for us. Or just leave, and let those who are fighting with each other settle their scores on their own. Eventually, they will return to democracy, or someone will take over as a dictator.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Why is it only "Total Destruction" Vs. Rolling over like a pansy with you.

You really don't understand the concept of "middle ground" do you.?

I think you fail to accept that there are people out there who do not want to negotiate with you. How do you personally recommend we deal with people like that?

That wasn't the point that was made, thanks for confounding it yet again.

Again - to point out to you (once again) noone is advocating pacifism. The original point that was made was about people's perceptions of war and the value judgements they ascribe to those perceptions.

BTW - what was so objectionable about the idea of a 'targetted' and 'proportional' response? I never figured out how why you apparently think that this is any less of a solution than a unilateral and indiscriminate one.. Like suggesting the Chechnya be wiped off the map.

So ####### are you guys advocating then? I have tried to ascertain this from day one..

We tried targeted and proportional and that has failed due to the insurgents and terrorists hiding amongst civilians. Now what? The insurgents know the rules we follow. They just work around them and use those exact principals against us.

The insurgents you keep talking about are IRAQI's fighting the occupation of their country. The coalition have recognised there is only 1% foreign fighters. So you can keep flying the flag in the defence of nothing. You can be there 100 years they will still keep fighting. Iraqi people are intolerant of americans thats the bottom line. Even if the intentions were good by the US and not for financial reasons the truth is whether you like it or not they want you out! and before you call me a lefty I definitly am not that Im a conservetive and I say hang those trying to occupy your country. They are doing nothing more than what you would do if your country was occupied or what I would do or any person who has pride in his country. Its a swamp and the US are stuck.

There was quite a bit of support for the American invasion by Iraqis at the beginning. But do to mistakes on our side, with not having a plan, and our complete ignorance of public diplomacy, we blew most of chances of getting out of this situation quickly. So now we are stuck with two options, continue staying there for a very long time, until hopefully the resistance in the country just tires out, at a cost that will likely reach the billions for us. Or just leave, and let those who are fighting with each other settle their scores on their own. Eventually, they will return to democracy, or someone will take over as a dictator.

You are absolutely right, I remember seeing scenes of Iraqis showering the soldiers with flowers, it was a great moment for them to be free from sadam but the problem is the US overstayed they should have left and than the heavy handed policies such as Falujah, abu gharaib etc just pissed them off and all hell broke loose. It is beyond repair just like the propaganda we get about muslims believe me Ive seen arab channels the US gets exactly the same, they are demons that kill babies and not to be truted in their media. The world has gone mad and humanity is on a dangerous step.

[The_dip_sticks 0]

Why is it only "Total Destruction" Vs. Rolling over like a pansy with you.

You really don't understand the concept of "middle ground" do you.?

I think you fail to accept that there are people out there who do not want to negotiate with you. How do you personally recommend we deal with people like that?

That wasn't the point that was made, thanks for confounding it yet again.

Again - to point out to you (once again) noone is advocating pacifism. The original point that was made was about people's perceptions of war and the value judgements they ascribe to those perceptions.

BTW - what was so objectionable about the idea of a 'targetted' and 'proportional' response? I never figured out how why you apparently think that this is any less of a solution than a unilateral and indiscriminate one.. Like suggesting the Chechnya be wiped off the map.

So ####### are you guys advocating then? I have tried to ascertain this from day one..

We tried targeted and proportional and that has failed due to the insurgents and terrorists hiding amongst civilians. Now what? The insurgents know the rules we follow. They just work around them and use those exact principals against us.

The insurgents you keep talking about are IRAQI's fighting the occupation of their country. The coalition have recognised there is only 1% foreign fighters. So you can keep flying the flag in the defence of nothing. You can be there 100 years they will still keep fighting. Iraqi people are intolerant of americans thats the bottom line. Even if the intentions were good by the US and not for financial reasons the truth is whether you like it or not they want you out! and before you call me a lefty I definitly am not that Im a conservetive and I say hang those trying to occupy your country. They are doing nothing more than what you would do if your country was occupied or what I would do or any person who has pride in his country. Its a swamp and the US are stuck.

There was quite a bit of support for the American invasion by Iraqis at the beginning. But do to mistakes on our side, with not having a plan, and our complete ignorance of public diplomacy, we blew most of chances of getting out of this situation quickly. So now we are stuck with two options, continue staying there for a very long time, until hopefully the resistance in the country just tires out, at a cost that will likely reach the billions for us. Or just leave, and let those who are fighting with each other settle their scores on their own. Eventually, they will return to democracy, or someone will take over as a dictator.

Actualy the US also misjudged the tension within the sections of community and the only way it will get back in shape is with a strong man dictator like sadam The irony is just too funny.

[almaty 19]

This might be interpreted as a personal attack by admin, and its duly noted that these labels are tossed around to a point where they aren't really very meaningful; but thinking about the views Boo-Yah has expressed in this and other threads - I think he's as close to being a true, bona-fide fascist as I've seen.

Think about it...

1) The extreme and authoritarian ideas he has: such as suggesting that entire cities be destroyed as a deterrent to terrorists. That corporal punishment should be meted out publicly (to children too - though there was some contention about that).

2) His fondness for idealized Grand Narratives, about how much 'better' things were prior to 1960 (a utopian era before he was born and of which he has no actual experience), how children today are badly brought up and how parenting is generally poor and negligent. Oh and how the poor deserve to be in poverty.

3) His wholesale support and unquestioning endorsement of controversial policies like National ID cards, Warrantless wiretaps and the Patriot Act.

4) He believes that the constitution is a 'nice to have' to be repealed if the national need dictates or when its stipulations are otherwise 'inconvenient'.

5) His continuous statements that all of the problems that affect this country are the result of alleged "Liberals".

He calls himself a Social Conservative and a Federalist. If he means half of this stuff... Well... he ain't what he thinks...

At least I stand by my principals. Give me a problem and I will at the very least attempt to solve it. Whereas much like keith Olbermann, all you and certain other like-minded morons in the forum do is insult and dis anyone with opposing views. The OT forum is filled with it. How many people have you guys attacked because of their views? Just the other day you guys drove CarolsMarc away and took what he said out of context.

PS did you forget the I call for his banning #######.. LMAO idiots!!

i read what CM wrote..and it was not taken out of context....