Americaphobia

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.

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

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.

What about a nice organza, then?

Cheers,

George W Russell
Bangalore

On Mar 30, 9:32 am, Mike O'Sullivan wrote:
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.

You both don't get it. The idea that "power comes from the
people" (democracy) is less than 300 years old. In most cultures for
millennia, power came from the gods and transmitted to kings, priests,
scribes etc. Democracy only recently triumphed in the West. Most
people in the world accepted the idea that they must be ruled over
since the dawn of civilization. Only recently has the revolutionary
idea, that rulers must be chosen by, and accountable to the people
gained currency. It's still a shaky concept, but most people seem to
like it IN THEORY. But it takes getting used to, for most.

In article .com,
says...

"Pajamas O'Donovan" wrote in message news:
...
snip
Back to Story - Help
Offbeat Travel Education
Animals' living conditions deplorable

By THOMAS WATKINS, Associated Press Writer
Mar 28, 2007

Five tattooed skulls stretch from Marine Cpl. Jeremy Slaton's right
elbow to his wrist, spelling out the word "Death." He planned to add a
tattoo spelling "Life" on his left arm, but that's on hold because of
a Marine policy taking effect Sunday.

The Marines are banning any new, extra-large tattoos below the elbow
or the knee, saying such body art is harmful to the Corps' spit-and-
polish image.

Slaton and other grunts are not pleased.

"I guess I'll get the other half later," grumbled the 24-year-old
leatherneck from Eden Prairie, Minn. "It's kind of messed up."

For many Marines, getting a tattoo is a rite of passage. They commonly
get their forearms inscribed to remember fallen comrades, combat tours
or loved ones, and often ask for exotic designs that incorporate the
Marine motto, Semper Fi, or "Always faithful."

Dozens of Marines from Camp Pendleton, the West Coast's biggest Marine
base, made last-minute trips to tattoo parlors in nearby Oceanside
before the ban kicked in.

"This is something I love to do," said Cpl. David Nadrchal, 20, of
Pomona, who made an appointment to get an Iraqi flag and his
deployment dates etched onto his lower leg. "The fact I can't put
something on my body that I want - it's a big thing to tell me I can't
do that."

Nadrchal said he is unsure whether he will re-enlist: "There's all
these little things. They are slowly chipping away at us."

Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway announced the policy
change last week.

"Some Marines have taken the liberty of tattooing themselves to a
point that is contrary to our professional demeanor and the high
standards America has come to expect from us," he said. "I believe
tattoos of an excessive nature do not represent our traditional
values."

The ban is aimed primarily at "sleeve" tattoos, the large and often
elaborate designs on the biceps and forearms of many Marines. Similar
designs on the lower legs will be forbidden as well. So will very
large tattoos on the upper arm, if they are visible when a Marine
wears his workout T-shirt. Small, individual tattoos will still be
allowed on the arms and legs. (The Marines already ban them on the
hands.)

Marines already tattooed are exempt from the ban but cannot add to
their designs; anyone caught with fresh ink in the wrong places could
be barred from re-enlistment or face disciplinary action. Getting a
prohibited tattoo could constitute a violation of a lawful order,
punishable by up to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge,
Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Brian Donnelly said.

Unit commanders must photograph and document sleeve tattoos to ensure
Marines do not add to their ink.

The Marines and the other branches of the military already ban tattoos
that could be offensive or disruptive, such as images that are sexist,
vulgar, gang-related or extremist.

The Army, which has been doing most of the fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan and is struggling to fill its ranks, actually relaxed its
tattoo restrictions last year. Soldiers can now get ink on the back of
their hands and the lower back of the neck.

The Navy last year decreed that tattoos visible while in short-sleeve
uniform cannot be larger than the wearer's hand. The Air Force says
tattoos should be covered up if they are bigger than one-quarter the
size of the exposed body part.

Tattoo artist Jerry Layton at the Body Temple Tattoo Studio in
Oceanside said he was booked up with Marines rushing to beat the
deadline.

"These are guys that are dying in the war," Layton said. "They can
fight, but they can't get a tattoo? It's ridiculous."

I wonder how the marines feel about the Edinburgh Tattoo?

In article ,
says...

"princeandy" wrote in message
...


You must be jewish, they also think they have a democracy there in israel.
Hey clever dick you're thinking of that israeli model again.
Either that or he thinks it's a democracy they have in israel.

If Israel disappeared tomorrow,

The entire world would be a better place and the US would have a heap of
spare cash.

Good suggestion, thanks.

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 19:57:12 GMT, Fred Bloggs
wrote:

If Israel disappeared tomorrow,

The entire world would be a better place and the US would have a heap of
spare cash.

But what would then be on the news?

Practically every day of my life the News have been filled with one or
other problem in the Middle East.

The chosen people of one God constantly in bitter fighting with the
chosen ones of some other God. And we all end up footing the bill to
some extent.


Lars
Stockholm

"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.

The way I see it. The Muslem way of looking at the world is always firstly,
"as a Muslem".
I do not know to what extent this religious fervor will go in a moderate
Muslem. For example: Would a moderate Muslem (what is a moderate??) honour
the laws of their 'adopted' country above their religion? I don't think so..
That worries me because there are a lot of Muslems in our Australian
society. If the extremist part of the religion is able to gain sufficeint
sympathy from the moderates in this religion. Then Howard may have bitten
off a lot more than he can possibly chew. (Good time to bow out.. Let the
next guy have the problem..)

Unfortunately, I can't help thinking that, the law of averages says their
will be a percentage of Muslems with extremist ideals as part of that
overall Australian Muslem population. I just wonder what extent those groups
would or could go to in this country.

The stupid thing is.. I don't think we had to worry about Muslem extremists
in this country prior to John Howard participating in the "War of the
Willing"

But now.. I fear we do.. We have closely aligned ourselves politically with
the US and Britain in our
response to a "War on Terror". The question remains.. Why did Howard do it?
Was it all just to stay in power? Howard knew that the war was very
unpopular with voters. Maybe "Honest John" realises that with Global Warming
and a US government in huge debt. Being Australian Prime Minister may not be
such a good job soon. If you can believe the incoming governments. They
always inherit huge depts from their outgoing conterparts. (We shall see..)

As far as all this religion stuff goes. I personaly don't have much of a
religious fervor. 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. Distributing fate where
I see fit. Participating my dribble at the appropriate moments. (But not too
much - like those top posters.. GRIN I don't want to leave a treasure
trail of data/ranting/swearing behind me.)

As for as the Iraq and Afganistan people being able to choose to return to
their prefered religious based form of government.

In my opinion, that is a foregone conclusion.

I can see the Muslem Clerics trying to impose a more restrictive religious
form of government. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) Which in my
opinion will happen.. Over time..

So.. I think I see a pattern..Don't you see the pattern? The US doesn't like
the way a leader or a government of a country is acting. So the US
destabilises the country. The US changes the leadership or government of the
country. The new leader or government of that country is pro US for a time.
(The US make sure of that..) Then eventually (over time) the circle repeats.

I think we may have seen enough data at this point in history to conclude
that the US will meddle in ANY other country on the whim of whatever
president happens to be power.

http://www.swnewsherald.com/online_c...r_meddling.php

If I were an American citizen I would be demanding ammedments to their
constitution (or whatever it takes) to limit the power of the president
after see'ing how it can/has been abused.

lazerzap wrote:
....

Women are just not treated as equals under Islam.


Tell it to the female Pope.


This has serious implications for westerners who have such ideals as "all
people being created equal" (Race/Creed/Color/Sex?)

As late as 1967 Australian Aboriginals could not vote or own property.

No woman has ever been Head of Government or Head of State in Australia.


Are you sure you really want to stand in that Glass House and hurl
yonnies?



They place their religion first. Their country second.

Americans have 'In God we trust' stamped on their coins.

Ask a Christian who has their allegience, God or Ceasar?


I do not know to what extent this religious fervor will go in a moderate
Muslem. For example: Would a moderate Muslem (what is a moderate??) honour
the laws of their 'adopted' country above their religion?


The answer is obvious. There has never been a Muslim terrorist attack
in Australia, the Hilton bombings and the racist attacks on Asian
resturants have all been by NON-Muslims ...when should we start coming
after you?

I don't think so..

Why not, you are attacking innocent, law abiding aussie citizens for
no reason, demonstrating the sort of religios intolerence which
characterises dangerous bigots and societies lacking freedom, and by
doing so excusing the real culprits of racist violence.


Unfortunately, I can't help thinking that, the law of averages says their
will be a percentage of Muslems with extremist ideals as part of that
overall Australian Muslem population.

Wow, the same law of averages that produced Guy Fawkes, Jack Von
Tongeren, the Hilton and Russell St bombings and the appalling slaughter
of WWII in Christian Europe!?


I just wonder what extent those groups
would or could go to in this country.

Those Europeans might even massacre aboriginals and Chinese.

Or bash Sikhs they mistake as Muslims, as recently as last year.


The stupid thing is.. I don't think we had to worry about Muslem extremists
in this country prior to John Howard participating in the "War of the
Willing"


Killing people does seem to make them dislike you.

The slaughter of Iraqis has turned their nation into a
breeding ground for terror and that has indeed made us all LESS safe.


But now.. I fear we do.. We have closely aligned ourselves politically with
the US and Britain in our response to a "War on Terror".

How was Iraq connected to a 'War on Terror'?

There were no Al Qaida in Iraq until AFTER the US invasion created
the chaos in which they infiltrated. Howard even traded with Saddam.

The question remains.. Why did Howard do it?


Another election run on 'National Security'.

When in history has it ever not worked?

Was it all just to stay in power? Howard knew that the war was very
unpopular with voters.

To Howard the voters are mere dupes to be manipulated and lied to
so he can deliver for his constitituency of tory plutocrats, and fossil
fuel merchants.

Maybe "Honest John" realises that with Global Warming
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.

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


"And argue not with the People of the Scripture
unless it be in ( a way) that is better,
save with such of them as do wrong;
and say: We believe in that which hath been revealed unto us
and revealed unto you;
our God and your God is One,
and unto Him we surrender."

- The Qur'an Sura 29 verse 46

Muslims worship the same God of peace as Christians,

Those that preach another message, be they Christians or Muslims,
are not true followers of their religion, but are the Wolves which
scripture warns us of.

The role of Muslims of Good Faith, Christians of Good Faith, and
Athiests of Good non-Faith is to stand together, and oppose ANY
who seek to deny rights from one group or another, or to commit
violence and break the law.


So.. I think I see a pattern..Don't you see the pattern? The US doesn't like
the way a leader or a government of a country is acting. So the US
destabilises the country. The US changes the leadership or government of the
country. The new leader or government of that country is pro US for a time.
(The US make sure of that..) Then eventually (over time) the circle repeats.

I think we may have seen enough data at this point in history to conclude
that the US will meddle in ANY other country on the whim of whatever
president happens to be power.


The problem then, is political, and politicians merely USE
religion for their purposes.


--

------------

"THE polls show John Howard is likely to be beaten
by Labor, now under its sharpest leader in a decade.
Facing defeat, the Prime Minister yesterday changed
not only his team but its tone." -Andrew Bolt 24/1/2007


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."

"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_ha...ame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_t...box/index.html


-----------

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, or did you pull it out of
your arse as usual?

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....

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.

or did you pull it out of your arse

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


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'.



---------


"Australian ministers, all the way
down from the Prime Minister, have been
party to the commission of grave crimes under the
Australian Criminal Code 1995, divisions 104
(Harming Australians Overseas) and 268D (denying
a fair trial), because they have been criminally
complicit under section 11.2."

- Robert Richter, Queens Council

http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/starchamber.htm

---------

"THE polls show John Howard is likely to be beaten
by Labor, now under its sharpest leader in a decade.
Facing defeat, the Prime Minister yesterday changed
not only his team but its tone." -Andrew Bolt 24/1/2007


Fraser accuses current PM of marginalising Muslims"

"I believe that this is divisive, dangerous and false."

"Mr Fraser said the Government was gearing up for
what he called a Muslim election next year.

- Malcolm Fraser ABC 2/11/2006

Every election, Howard creates DIVISION for a DIVERSION.



"We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other
and fight to defend our rights and liberties." - Eureka Oath

------------

The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html


The true-blue Homestead;

http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/


The true-blue Hall Of Fame;

http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_ha...ame/index.html


The Tuckerbox;

http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_t...box/index.html


-----------