In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
I mixed up one right wing moron with another, my bad as they say on your side of the pond. Aside from that little mix up there isn't anything else you can find in my argument to criticise? Why is America fighting Jihadists in iraq? If you knew the very first thing about world politics you'd surely know that Iraq was just about the last place you'd be looking for those folks, But hey, they're all the same aren't they? The whole of your post shows you to be an utter cretin. Nowhere have I stated that I hate America, just the opposite in fact, I love the place. Thankfully most of the people I meet have a couple of brain cells to rub against one another so I rarely have to encounter anyone as dumb as you assuredly are. I'll visit the USA anytime I please if it's all the same with you, it's not as if you are typical of the majority of the people I meet there so no real worries on that score. I wonder what your definition of a liberal is? Certainly it would be different to mine. I don't believe in invading countries just for the hell of it so if that makes me a liberal I'm proud to call myself one. I think most people with an iq higher than 50 would laugh at my being described as such, but let that pass for now, I don't want to overtax what passes for a brain in your thick plebian skull. You'll lose in Iraq for the same reason you lost in Vietnam, your cause is unjust and the people are against you. It's that simple. As to your assertion that you will need to bail us out...don't make me laugh. The last time that happened was in 1941 when your lot joined the war after it had already started. Not so keen to get involved then were you? It was left to us to stand ALONE against Hitler and we were doing a not bad job of it too. For a tiny island in the north atlantic we punch well above our weight on the world stage. It seems like it's us helping you out this time round. Look at Basra for a start, it was left to the Brits to sort that out after your lot had fucked it up. Perhaps if your tropps could see their way clear to stop killing our boys with friendly fire we might even be able to do more for you. Or is that another statistic you are proud of? Why don't you join up and get yourself out there anyway? I'm sure th earmy could use a few brave soldiers like yourself. It's just a pity that some good lads from our combined forces are sacrificing their lives so you can continue to live in ignorance. In an ideal world people like you would be shipped to the front and told to back up your words with actions. We'd see how fucking tough you were then.
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
I'm just throwing this out here, but today the President signed a bill that will interrogate and prosecute terror suspects. Now, I'm all for getting these extremists and putting them in prison where they belong.. HOWEVER..
The legislation also eliminates some of the rights defendants are usually guaranteed under U.S. law, and it authorizes continued harsh interrogations of terror suspects. In the bill, it says any 'alien' is not guaranteed a writ of Habeas Corpus during these interrogations or detentions. "Alien" is defined as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States"; however, "Unlawful enemy combatant" is defined as a "person"; not an "alien". So this DOES apply to U.S. citizens. Nice bait and switch right there. The framers of this bill intentionally left that 'open' so they can basically hold anyone, U.S. citizen or not without Habeas Corpus.
Under this legislation, the President or his tribunal can declare anybody, citizen or not, to be one of those giving aid and comfort etc., and thus subject to this. So it's basically up to the President and Congress to determine who's bad and who's not.. So if someone is being tortured and they throw out a name of a 'so-called' terrorist or enemy combatant, this person, even a U.S. citizen can be detained without the chance of Habeas Corpus. Once you are considered a detainee, you are fucked. Even if you are 100% innocent.
For those who aren't sure what Habeas Corpus is, here's a lil snip: Habeas Corpus - To have the body - is a very basic principle, but is, more importantly, one of the foundational principles put into the Constitution. It means that if you are detained by a federal, state or local police agent, that agent must announce that you have been taken captive within a limited period (usually three days), must announce why you have been taken captive, and if no crime is charged against you within that period you must be released. The principle exists for a very simple reason - without it, people can be arrested and made to disappear.
The War on Terror is NOT a war. There is no end. No one surrenders. We can't hold people forever; we don't even know what their crimes are! This is one big black stain on the face of American civil liberties.
I always liked this quote from Thomas Jefferson : "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
Extreme liberals AND conservatives are a danger to our society. That is why everyone of age needs to vote next month and get people into office who give a shit about our rights. What's this Constitution that people speak of? :rolleyes:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html - Link to news story.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/...sm/mca2006.pdf - Link to the actual bill that was passed.
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bong30
It was Liberals like you that made us Loose Viet Nam...we wont lose this one ...WE CANT........Look at londonstan.....over run by radical Muslims.
Actually Bong, we the reason we lost(in other words, the Communists won) the Vietnam War had a lot more to do with a disastrously misguided foreign policy than anything the Libs did. That, plus the fcat that we thought we knew what was better for them than they did. We really lost before a single troop set foot on the ground.
We should use the mistakes of the Vietnam War to help us win in Iraq. We just need to be sure we're looking at the right mistakes.
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Shhhhh LDN Kidd, he knows better.
He saw it on CNN or read it in a book so it must be true. I lived in London for many years before getting out to the country for a while. Wonderful city...I'll be back there next year and I can't wait. There are a lot of muslims in London for sure, but so what? Like you say, the vast majority of them are decent hard working people who just want to get on with their lives.
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fengzi
Actually Bong, we the reason we lost(in other words, the Communists won) the Vietnam War had a lot more to do with a disastrously misguided foreign policy than anything the Libs did. That, plus the fcat that we thought we knew what was better for them than they did. We really lost before a single troop set foot on the ground.
We should use the mistakes of the Vietnam War to help us win in Iraq. We just need to be sure we're looking at the right mistakes.
Strongly disagree......
Left wing pussies like walter chrokite, and Jane Fonda, along with Many others made it an Impossible war to win.
You cant fight a war with one arm tied behind your Back. Cambodia. in Vietnam to start.
You cannot win a Politicaly Correct war....like Now
THe Insurgents are killing Inocent people cause they know americans have no stomach for death.....any death. The President layed it out nicely last night.
The Libs Just think with their Harts...Killing is bad...yes it is, but Being run over by comunism and Islam is no day at the beach.
Peace Fengzi
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatius
I mixed up one right wing moron with another, my bad as they say on your side of the pond. Aside from that little mix up there isn't anything else you can find in my argument to criticise? Why is America fighting Jihadists in iraq? If you knew the very first thing about world politics you'd surely know that Iraq was just about the last place you'd be looking for those folks, But hey, they're all the same aren't they? The whole of your post shows you to be an utter cretin. Nowhere have I stated that I hate America, just the opposite in fact, I love the place. Thankfully most of the people I meet have a couple of brain cells to rub against one another so I rarely have to encounter anyone as dumb as you assuredly are. I'll visit the USA anytime I please if it's all the same with you, it's not as if you are typical of the majority of the people I meet there so no real worries on that score. I wonder what your definition of a liberal is? Certainly it would be different to mine. I don't believe in invading countries just for the hell of it so if that makes me a liberal I'm proud to call myself one. I think most people with an iq higher than 50 would laugh at my being described as such, but let that pass for now, I don't want to overtax what passes for a brain in your thick plebian skull. You'll lose in Iraq for the same reason you lost in Vietnam, your cause is unjust and the people are against you. It's that simple. As to your assertion that you will need to bail us out...don't make me laugh. The last time that happened was in 1941 when your lot joined the war after it had already started. Not so keen to get involved then were you? It was left to us to stand ALONE against Hitler and we were doing a not bad job of it too. For a tiny island in the north atlantic we punch well above our weight on the world stage. It seems like it's us helping you out this time round. Look at Basra for a start, it was left to the Brits to sort that out after your lot had fucked it up. Perhaps if your tropps could see their way clear to stop killing our boys with friendly fire we might even be able to do more for you. Or is that another statistic you are proud of? Why don't you join up and get yourself out there anyway? I'm sure th earmy could use a few brave soldiers like yourself. It's just a pity that some good lads from our combined forces are sacrificing their lives so you can continue to live in ignorance. In an ideal world people like you would be shipped to the front and told to back up your words with actions. We'd see how fucking tough you were then.
My Dad Died fighting for this counrty asshole, I have Givin enough.....
My Grandpa...fought In WW2....I had kind of a bad taste in My mouth about combat....growing up with no Dad and all.............
Sounds Like you Brits are getting ready to Cut and run......
Just stay in Londonstan, and when you are living under Muslim Law dont ask us to save your asses. Just tell you MOM and Sis to put there Berkas on and STFU.
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatius
Shhhhh LDN Kidd, he knows better.
He saw it on CNN or read it in a book so it must be true. I lived in London for many years before getting out to the country for a while. Wonderful city...I'll be back there next year and I can't wait. There are a lot of muslims in London for sure, but so what? Like you say, the vast majority of them are decent hard working people who just want to get on with their lives.
Let me tell you...
.There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim till they stand against the radicals <<<<<<read that a couple times.
Islam needs a reformation....Tell your Buddies to start it...Make your self useful
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
All this started because of the statement, that we went to Iraq for there oil, which is nonsense, unfortunately when this statement was changed and proved wrong. He got into changing the subject and name calling in an attempt to defend himself. Don't let it make you mad B30. You should be proud of your Father.:thumbsup:
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDN kidd
:( Actually many Muslims here do speak out against radicals. And Islam doesn't need a reformation, that is a very ignorant thing to say, it is a religion of peace. Maybe a few Muslims need to reform themselves but you can hardly blame the actions of the radicals directly on the religion of Islam, they are mislead.... Think how many crimes have been comitted and how many pointless wars started in Christianity's name throughout the ages. A few mislead individuals hardly warrants a reformation of an entire religion. Study the Koran fully and make an informed comment.:thumbsup:
I wouldnt wipe my ass with the koran Mohammed was a false prophet.
Look at how women are treated in Islam....
Christian learn from there mistakes....Bring better that the crusades
Apology of the POPE......
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1071456
Weekend Edition Sunday, March 12, 2000 ยท David Willy reports on the Pope John Paul II, who this morning in Rome apologized for the sins of Catholics going all the way back to the Crusades.
ALLAH WANTS YOU TO DIE FOR HIM, 72 VIRGINS BLAH BLAH......
Jesus Died, so we can Live.................. <<< way to deep for you, im sure kid
You are Ignorant......you dont have enough information to make an educated decision.....so you use all emotion= bleeding hart Liberal
In The War On Terror,Liberals Are More Dangerous Than Muslims
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDN kidd
oh so if some decrepid guy in a robe says sorry it's okay... I see. Have you read ephesians... something like wives submit to your husbands like you would to your God... now that's some male chauvinist shit right there if I've ever heard any.:p
Listen asshole, He is not a decreped old guy...He Is the POPE. Speaks for all christians.... He said Sorry and Ment it.
When have you herd of a Muslim Leader stand up and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
Never....Till the reformation
Im not the only one talking about it....
The Right Time for An Islamic Reformation
By Salman Rushdie
Sunday, August 7, 2005; Page B07
When Sir Iqbal Sacranie, head of the Muslim Council of Britain, admitted that "our own children" had perpetrated the July 7 London bombings, it was the first time in my memory that a British Muslim had accepted his community's responsibility for outrages committed by its members. Instead of blaming U.S. foreign policy or "Islamophobia," Sacranie described the bombings as a "profound challenge" for the Muslim community. However, this is the same Sacranie who, in 1989, said that "Death is perhaps too easy" for the author of "The Satanic Verses." Tony Blair's decision to knight him and treat him as the acceptable face of "moderate," "traditional" Islam is either a sign of his government's penchant for religious appeasement or a demonstration of how limited Blair's options really are.
Sacranie is a strong advocate of Blair's much-criticized new religious-hatred bill, which will make it harder to criticize religion, and he actually expects the new law to outlaw references to Islamic terrorism. He said as recently as Jan. 13, "There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist. This is deeply offensive. Saying Muslims are terrorists would be covered [i.e., banned] by this provision." Two weeks later his organization boycotted a Holocaust remembrance ceremony in London commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz 60 years ago. If Sir Iqbal Sacranie is the best Blair can offer in the way of a good Muslim, we have a problem.
The Sacranie case illustrates the weakness of the Blair government's strategy of relying on traditional, essentially orthodox Muslims to help eradicate Islamist radicalism. Traditional Islam is a broad church that certainly includes millions of tolerant, civilized men and women but also encompasses many whose views on women's rights are antediluvian, who think of homosexuality as ungodly, who have little time for real freedom of expression, who routinely express anti-Semitic views and who, in the case of the Muslim diaspora, are -- it has to be said -- in many ways at odds with the Christian, Hindu, non-believing or Jewish cultures among which they live.
In Leeds, from which several of the London bombers came, many traditional Muslims lead inward-turned lives of near-segregation from the wider population. From such defensive, separated worlds some youngsters have indefensibly stepped across a moral line and taken up their lethal rucksacks.
The deeper alienations that lead to terrorism may have their roots in these young men's objections to events in Iraq or elsewhere, but the closed communities of some traditional Western Muslims are places in which young men's alienations can easily deepen. What is needed is a move beyond tradition -- nothing less than a reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern age, a Muslim Reformation to combat not only the jihadist ideologues but also the dusty, stifling seminaries of the traditionalists, throwing open the windows to let in much-needed fresh air.
It would be good to see governments and community leaders inside the Muslim world as well as outside it throwing their weight behind this idea, because creating and sustaining such a reform movement will require above all a new educational impetus whose results may take a generation to be felt, a new scholarship to replace the literalist diktats and narrow dogmatisms that plague present-day Muslim thinking. It is high time, for starters, that Muslims were able to study the revelation of their religion as an event inside history, not supernaturally above it.
It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.
Muhammad was also a successful merchant and heard, on his travels, the Nestorian Christians' desert versions of Bible stories that the Koran mirrors closely (Christ, in the Koran, is born in an oasis, under a palm tree). It ought to be fascinating to Muslims everywhere to see how deeply their beloved book is a product of its place and time, and in how many ways it reflects the Prophet's own experiences.
However, few Muslims have been permitted to study their religious book in this way. The insistence that the Koranic text is the infallible, uncreated word of God renders analytical, scholarly discourse all but impossible. Why would God be influenced by the socioeconomics of seventh-century Arabia, after all? Why would the Messenger's personal circumstances have anything to do with the Message?
The traditionalists' refusal of history plays right into the hands of the literalist Islamofascists, allowing them to imprison Islam in their iron certainties and unchanging absolutes. If, however, the Koran were seen as a historical document, then it would be legitimate to reinterpret it to suit the new conditions of successive new ages. Laws made in the seventh century could finally give way to the needs of the 21st. The Islamic Reformation has to begin here, with an acceptance of the concept that all ideas, even sacred ones, must adapt to altered realities.
Broad-mindedness is related to tolerance; open-mindedness is the sibling of peace. This is how to take up the "profound challenge" of the bombers. Will Sir Iqbal Sacranie and his ilk agree that Islam must be modernized? That would make them part of the solution. Otherwise, they're just the "traditional" part of the problem.
Ring Ring schools in......... learn something kid
