Americaphobia

On Apr 2, 3:41 pm, fasgnadh wrote:
wrote:
On Apr 2, 12:21 pm, fasgnadh wrote:

and a US government in huge debt. Being Australian Prime Minister may not be
such a good job soon.
As far as all this religion stuff goes. I personaly don't have much of a
religious fervor.
Just like 99.99% of the worlds Billion+ Muslims.

You have some evidence for that statistic,

Yes.

So, where is it?


or did you pull it out of your arse

No, but I am puzzled by your belief that is where evidence comes from.

It's where most of your 'facts' come from

It explains a lot about your pointless, incoherent posts.

as usual?

Well I see no improvement in the inarticulate, moronic and juvenile
****dribble you continue to robo-post.. does anyone else?

Well, I see you're still manipulating text instead of answering
questions which are too difficult for you. No surprise there.

I was raised in a Christian society and given Christian

ideals, So I guesss I have a Christian bias.. (But I'm working on it..) I
tend to believe that if God exists. It's beyond what I could understand. So
therefore I will try and live in a civilised manner.
You could have got that notion from the Koran which commands that
Muslims must not only refrain from killing Christians and Jews, but from
even arguing with them in a rude manner

Guess you forgot all the parts about killing the infidels....

Nope, ...guess while you were looking for evidence up your arse you
failed to learn that Christians and Jews are not 'infidels'.

Oh yes they are. Helps explain why islam is the most intolertant of
all religions

BTW, perhaps you can explain why 'tolerant' islam advocates imposition
of jizya on non-muslims.

On 30 mar, 13:24, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:
Americaphobia: Final Thoughts

Published March29, 2007

"It's very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in
general, or anyone who considers themselves "liberal" or "progressive"
or "humanist," who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and
then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over
the last four years.

Yes the "At least we tried" line is not convincing. If a clock does
not show the right time you fix it, you do not smash it with a
sledgehammer hoping that all the small parts will come back together
as if by magic....

The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren't really striving for
liberation. We were. They claimed we'd install a new puppet dictator.
We did not. They claimed that we wouldn't really try to set up a
democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate
elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all
certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting
the local elections that were held before that.

False claims :
911 links with al qaida : False
WMD : False
Bringing democracy : False (I explain this one : Why central asian
governments that torture people by literally boiling their skin off
from the waist down still hold american bases, Is Nursultan better
than Saddam?)


They claimed we'd do everything possible to get out of the country
"before the next elections"--they claimed that before the 2004
elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn't happen. Now
these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that's
trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters
consistently say "no, that would be morally and strategically wrong."

Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and
intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection
to acknowledge this.

NO they are perfectly coherent. The message is that you do not mess
with people's business unless they mess with yours. You can try to
help by pushing in the right direction.

Furthermore, anyone calling himself a "liberal" or a "humanist"--
Muslim or not--is in my view faced with a stark choice:

You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist
"insurgency" that routinely cuts people's heads off and shoots
children in the face is the "legitimate voice of the Iraqi people," or
you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi
people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that
recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world.

Who opened Pandora box ignoring all the absolutely wonderful scholars
in the USA that predicted a ****ty outcome? Who paid attention to the
US intelligence agencies that warned that 150 k soldiers were not
enough to occupy the country (500k should have been the figure.) Who
decided to cut off the Iraki administration and military, a mistake
that is not done since the Romans learned how to use the local cadres
to manage their conquests?


No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how
imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in
that ratified Constitution.

If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself
a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter
position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone
named George Bush, whom you don't like and maybe think is incompetent,
was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported.

But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing
illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the
world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage,
backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human
rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.

So you put yourselfs in a position where you have to choose between
bad and worst. And it is not as if nobody warned you. As a French I
remember the stupid vilification we went through when ou senior
statesmen expressed their doubts on how feasible was the Great Middle
East Project and tried to talk the US out of such a folly.

It's high time someone told you people this, whether you're Muslims or
not.

The progressive, humanist position is not, and never has been, the
"anti-war" position. "

Well as Clausewitz put it war is the continuation of politics by other
means. When your policies are unreadable, unclear and self deserving,
the corresponding war can only lead to chaos.

There was simply no urgency to act. US citizens are perfectly happy
while the chinese labor-slave millions in their Lao Gai, while the
Myanmar Junta develops its paranoid governance across the country. And
what about Pakistan, a nuclear state infested with Taliban, many of
them very influent in the ISI secret service, with uncontrolled areas
and restive minorities such as the Baluchs, led by a pseudo elected
general. A State is no charity business, and you cannot con the NG
readers into believing that oil is not a the heart of this stupid
move.

See on the reverse how the chinese (4000 years of geopolitics) are
playing a Go game of grabbing the oil reserves from asia, africa to
south america (US back yard) without firing a single shot. And they
even get trade in return! So I urge you to turn your patriotism
towards defending the real goals of your country instead of attempting
(with little success but how could you?) to justify what everybody
sees (and now even in the US) as a blunder of gigantic proportion.

"lazerzap" wrote in message
...

"Mike O'Sullivan" wrote in message
...
lazerzap wrote:

You dont get it do you....
The people in Iraq and Afganistan wanted to live in an Islamic state.
They didnot/do not want democracy.
They want (rightly or wrongly) their religious based government.


I don't think you "get it". The point about democracy is that they are free
to CHOOSE a Muslin state, if that's what they want.

Before 9/11 I knew very little about Isalm. After 9/11 I made it a point to
find out what makes a Muslem. I read a fair bit of information on the web.
While I was acting as a staff member for an unnamed chat program, I sometimes
used my spare time to voice chat to Muslem people about how Islam works.
.
I have one or two (possibly more) Muslem friends as a result of that chat
program. But no matter how open these people were to discussing Islam with me,
(and I sometimes asked questions that I knew would be hard for them to
answer.) Not one of them was able to give me proper logical answers to most of
my questions about Islam. It all comes back to doctrine for the Muslems. Only
the Clerics are able to 'interpret' the readings. To even question Islam is
taboo for normal Muslems.

Even the moderate (almost non practising) Muslems still became extremely
defensive when trying to justify the laws of their religion. Now some of the
people I spoke to were professional people who worked with modern computer
equipment etc.. They fully partaking in the modern worlds inventions in all
other respects except for religion being the divider between us. One admitted
to having the very occasional drink of alcohol. But even he defended Islam
with such fervor. That when he found himself not able to sufficeintly justify
his religion. He agitatedly suggested I read certain websites that may explain
it better to me. I received a similar response from most Muslems I spoke to.

Women are just not treated as equals under Islam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam

This has serious implications for westerners who have such ideals as "all
people being created equal" (Race/Creed/Color/Sex?) The obvious question is
that if Women are not equal that what is a Man from another country? Doesn't
this system seem to invite Human Rights violations by it's very nature?

They place their religion first. Their country second.


Thank you. It needed to be said. See --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/Islam.html

clipped rest


Planet Visitor II
Official publisher of AADP Official dictionary
http://www.planetvisitor.name/dictionary.html

On Mar 30, 7:24 am, "PJ O'Donovan" wrote:
Americaphobia: Final Thoughts

Published March29, 2007

"It's very hard for me to look at American Muslims, or Muslims in
general, or anyone who considers themselves "liberal" or "progressive"
or "humanist," who claim to stand for freedom and human rights and
then attack everything America has done and tried to do in Iraq over
the last four years.

The fact is that the naysayers claimed we weren't really striving for
liberation. We were. They claimed we'd install a new puppet dictator.
We did not. They claimed that we wouldn't really try to set up a
democracy. We did. They claimed there would be no legitimate
elections. The Iraqis had three national elections in a row, all
certified as legitimate by international observers, not even counting
the local elections that were held before that.

They claimed we'd do everything possible to get out of the country
"before the next elections"--they claimed that before the 2004
elections and again before the 2006 elections. It didn't happen. Now
these same people in many cases are cheering for a Congress that's
trying to force us out of Iraq even though the war supporters
consistently say "no, that would be morally and strategically wrong."

Time after time the naysayers have proven themselves both morally and
intellectually incoherent, and yet they never have the introspection
to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, anyone calling himself a "liberal" or a "humanist"--
Muslim or not--is in my view faced with a stark choice:

You either sit around pretending that a vicious, murderous, fascist
"insurgency" that routinely cuts people's heads off and shoots
children in the face is the "legitimate voice of the Iraqi people," or
you recognize that there is in Iraq a government elected by the Iraqi
people working under a Constitution written entirely by Iraqis that
recognizes human rights better than any in the Arab world.

No matter how many reservations you have about how it was done or how
imperfectly that elected government implements the ideals expressed in
that ratified Constitution.

If you take the former position you have no business calling yourself
a liberal or a progressive or a humanist. If you take the latter
position, then maybe you have to swallow the bitter pill that someone
named George Bush, whom you don't like and maybe think is incompetent,
was the instigator of something that damn well needs to be supported.

But you can't have it both ways. Indeed, by declaring the whole thing
illegitimate, all you're doing is siding with the Islamophobes of the
world who claim the Muslims and the Arabs are far too savage,
backward, and primitive to respect things like democracy and human
rights. Indeed, you're implicitly siding the the Jihadwatch crowd.

It's high time someone told you people this, whether you're Muslims or
not.

The progressive, humanist position is not, and never has been, the
"anti-war" position. "


Funniest thing I've read all day. You only hear one side of the Iraq
story (the Pentagon side via our news media), so you are delusional--
thinking you have all of the answers. That arrogant "it's high time
someone told you this" line is a total laugh.

And being anti-killing people is the ultimate humanist position,
genius.