Obama Haters

[Mister Moobs]

no, the KKK was not as large or as organized and neither was i global.

]

Thats because American red necks are f*cking retarded!

another concise yet intelligent statement from world geopolitical expert of the year beejoir...

and somehow Neo is going to find a way to twist that around and say that I started it...lol :wink:

[Stramash]

no, the KKK was not as large or as organized and neither was i global.

]

Thats because American red necks are f*cking retarded!

another concise yet intelligent statement from world geopolitical expert of the year beejoir...

and somehow Neo is going to find a way to twist that around and say that I started it...lol :wink:

no...my bad; after all...I am a *****!!!

[Mister Moobs]

[Mister Moobs]

5 pages of pretty good discussion until Neo and beejoir shows up.

Hey beej, how do you like the Banke display in London. Dude is pretty famous now.

[zeusbheld]

I'll say it again: the ONLY reason this guy got into office with a slight majority is because a particular, gullible voting block that hadn't been a presidential election deciding factor in a generation plus showed up en mass. The 18-35 block are going to soon discover what a potential train wreck this administration is as he spends this country into oblivion and destroys their financial future.

if that's true then whomever Coulter, Rush et al anoint should have *no* problem giving him the shove in 3 or so years... if not, you'll admit you're talking ****, right? i mean, couldn't it at least be plausible that Coulter, Rush et al and their blatant disregard for inconvenient, neutral things like facts alienated a great people in the middle who had been voting republican since Reagan?

[zeusbheld]

With muslim people, the problem is that Coran text is pushin people to kill non-muslims, to destroy them and let them suffer...

If anybody writes now such sentences in any book, the book will be immediately banned, and maybe the author put into jail for religious racism en crime promotion..

And because this is "holy coran" we can say nothing???

Well, very very strange...

Anyway we never see budhist or christian driving a plane into a building, or suicide bombing in streets...

So, i think they really have a problem... And the origin of the problem is agressive and racist holy texts against "non muslim" people, this means against you and me.....

See the film "Fitna", just forget the way it is buid, but read the text references into Coran book... than go and see into Coran text: all he says is true...

http://www.themoviefitna.com/?page_id=47

Ok, they are many "moderate" muslims, among them many good people: the problem is that they spread the coran text, which can promote the "bad" side...

It is easy to found among internet and newspaper islam leaders asking their people to kill non-muslims...

It is impossible to found such talks among Budhist, christians and other religion leaders... Maybe a few psychopaths from time to time, no more...

So, i think, any books promoting hate, racism, encouragement to kill should be banned from our countries, as well as any people promoting these books...

This is the only solution, i think...

so your solution is to ban books. ******* brilliant. :roll:

the problem with this kind of argument about Islamic extremism being an inevitable consequence of the Q'ran, is that... pretty much everyone who espouses these views has never actually read the damned thing. do you read arabic fluently by any chance? because there ARE no official translations. based on your post i think you're talking out of your posterior. there may be some things you actually think through, but this is not one of them.

as for *why* islamic extremism is so goddamned trendy these days---i'm inclined to agree with JackDaniels at least in broad strokes--the key ingredients for islamic extremism are ignorance and illiteracy. oh wait there's one more. the susceptible people are not only ignorant and illiterate, they're ******* POOR, and really have no clearly visible path out of poverty.

it's pretty straightforward, as a method of indoctrination, for some religious nutter to make them all kinds of promises about their next life while saying whatever they want about a book most of those people will never be able to read.

[Neo]

am actually surprised at your comments here Neo, giving that you say you have actually studied Christianity and the Nazis.

Well to be fair, I did study Christianity a lot more than the Third Reich. But I still think that the Christian aspect has been a little downplayed in the history books. There was quite a bit of denial going down in the rest of Europe at the time that the Nazi's could be Christians, and in the last few years there's been a bit of revisionist research putting Christianity more centre stage in the dealings. It's true though that there was a lot of screwy interpretation of Christianity going around, and the Fuhrer cult doesn't really fit with scripture.

I guess the point, if something so substantial could arise from this thread, is that there's been some pretty horrific action taken by Christians in recent history, and we don't need to go back to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition to find it. Although I'm not sure I'd put the KKK in there :wink:

[zeusbheld]

5 pages of pretty good discussion until Neo and beejoir shows up.

Hey beej, how do you like the Banke display in London. Dude is pretty famous now.

i don't know.... while i was glad to see you getting back into doing something besides trying to wind up Ciaran, that guy who wants to ban the q'ran is kinda out there... and vbroker's posting an Ann Coulter rant didn't exactly raise the bar.

but vbroker's real gem was, shortly after accusing people of not thinking, making a shameless appeal to authority (an informal logical fallacy) which was really more of a non sequitir (another informal fallacy), he sure seems to be claiming that the validity of opinion is closely related to what one has made of oneself. ironic on so many levels... for example, by that "logic" maybe i should listen to Beej before i listen to vbroker. after all, beej is certainly more well known in his field, and there's a very good chance he makes more money on average than vbroker. if beej is in fact more famous and makes more money, by his own logic, vbroker has given beej's opinions more weight than his own. brilliant. there just aren't enough clownshoes to go around on this site.

[Mister Moobs]

5 pages of pretty good discussion until Neo and beejoir shows up.

Hey beej, how do you like the Banke display in London. Dude is pretty famous now.

i don't know.... while i was glad to see you getting back into doing something besides trying to wind up Ciaran, that guy who wants to ban the q'ran is kinda out there... and vbroker's posting an Ann Coulter rant didn't exactly raise the bar.

but vbroker's real gem was, shortly after accusing people of not thinking, making a shameless appeal to authority (an informal logical fallacy) which was really more of a non sequitir (another informal fallacy), he sure seems to be claiming that the validity of opinion is closely related to what one has made of oneself. ironic on so many levels... for example, by that "logic" maybe i should listen to Beej before i listen to vbroker. after all, beej is certainly more well known in his field, and there's a very good chance he makes more money on average than vbroker. if beej is in fact more famous and makes more money, by his own logic, vbroker has given beej's opinions more weight than his own. brilliant. there just aren't enough clownshoes to go around on this site.

lol

[Mister Moobs]

am actually surprised at your comments here Neo, giving that you say you have actually studied Christianity and the Nazis.

Well to be fair, I did study Christianity a lot more than the Third Reich. But I still think that the Christian aspect has been a little downplayed in the history books. There was quite a bit of denial going down in the rest of Europe at the time that the Nazi's could be Christians, and in the last few years there's been a bit of revisionist research putting Christianity more centre stage in the dealings. It's true though that there was a lot of screwy interpretation of Christianity going around, and the Fuhrer cult doesn't really fit with scripture.

I guess the point, if something so substantial could arise from this thread, is that there's been some pretty horrific action taken by Christians in recent history, and we don't need to go back to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition to find it. Although I'm not sure I'd put the KKK in there :wink:

hmmm...so you agree with me but would rather snipe at me in a thread that was actually going quite well....simply because I disagrred with you AND, of course, your well documented dislike of me.

perhaps, it's time to take a step back. :roll:

[Mister Moobs]

the problem with this kind of argument about Islamic extremism being an inevitable consequence of the Q'ran, is that... pretty much everyone who espouses these views has never actually read the damned thing. do you read arabic fluently by any chance? because there ARE no official translations. based on your post i think you're talking out of your posterior. there may be some things you actually think through, but this is not one of them.

disagree a bit here. My bro is an Arabic linguist, plus intel analyst specializing in the Middle East and CentralAsia. I've read english translations of the Qu'ran and discussed it with him and others including Muslims that find certain portions of the Qu'ran unfortunate. Much like portions of the Bible are unfortunate.

as for *why* islamic extremism is so goddamned trendy these days---i'm inclined to agree with JackDaniels at least in broad strokes--the key ingredients for islamic extremism are ignorance and illiteracy. oh wait there's one more. the susceptible people are not only ignorant and illiterate, they're f*cking POOR, and really have no clearly visible path out of poverty.

it's pretty straightforward, as a method of indoctrination, for some religious nutter to make them all kinds of promises about their next life while saying whatever they want about a book most of those people will never be able to read.

Agree with the rest 100%.

[eagle]

Zeus wrote:

as for *why* islamic extremism is so goddamned trendy these days---i'm inclined to agree with JackDaniels at least in broad strokes--the key ingredients for islamic extremism are ignorance and illiteracy. oh wait there's one more. the susceptible people are not only ignorant and illiterate, they're f*cking POOR, and really have no clearly visible path out of poverty.

Christianity has made good use of poverty in spreading its doctrine also. I don't hate christians but I don't like people taken advantage of even Jesus. Lack of education for people in the east especially afghanistan is fueling muslim extremists ability to spread which leads me to believe that the more education the less power. How long that will take is beyond me.

[zeusbheld]

the problem with this kind of argument about Islamic extremism being an inevitable consequence of the Q'ran, is that... pretty much everyone who espouses these views has never actually read the damned thing. do you read arabic fluently by any chance? because there ARE no official translations. based on your post i think you're talking out of your posterior. there may be some things you actually think through, but this is not one of them.

disagree a bit here. My bro is an Arabic linguist, plus intel analyst specializing in the Middle East and CentralAsia. I've read english translations of the Qu'ran and discussed it with him and others including Muslims that find certain portions of the Qu'ran unfortunate. Much like portions of the Bible are unfortunate.

Agree with the rest 100%.

yumpin yesu i wish you'd figure out that handy quote box feature. edit: i wish *i* would too.

didn't comment on whether the Q'ran has some unfortunate passages or passages that can be interpreted in unfortunate ways. merely commented that i have never heard of anyone who singles out the Q'ran as a violent book in the media or on a interwebs forum who has actually read the damned thing in arabic. it's an important thing to bear in mind that, while much of Christianity recognizes the KJV as officially endorsed by a committee including God, Jesus, and a few other notables and dignitaries, no branch of Islam recognizes any translation of the Q'ran at this stage of Islam.

as you yourself say, the bible has quite a few passages that could be interpreted in unfortunate ways. bit odd to advocate banning a book one has never read and give the other a free pass, don't you think? to my eye, the bible *could* lend itself to militant extremism. and yeh i actually read it. however, as you say, at this point in time such movements are relatively rare and isolated compared to militant islam.

but ultimately the point i was making is not one having to do with whether the Q'ran does (or doesn't) have passages that could be interpreted as advocate all sorts of mayhem. the point is that it's a BOOK. books by their very nature are open to interpretation. ffs lawyers make a living interpreting very narrowly defined stories (they call 'em 'precedents' if i'm not mistaken).

even if one were to take the bible or the q'ran as the legit word of God, who is to say any one human being's understanding[/] of that book isn't skewed? then with the Q'ran it's compounded by the fact that Bill Maher and the interwebs forum Bill Maher wannabes haven't read the damned thing in Arabic and so, basically haven't even read the book they are saying is the root cause.

to my eye banning the Q'ran appeals to the same mongs who sincerely believe we can stop gang violence by banning hip hop, stop organized crime by banning the Sopranos and Godfather, etc.

[Mister Moobs]

the problem with this kind of argument about Islamic extremism being an inevitable consequence of the Q'ran, is that... pretty much everyone who espouses these views has never actually read the damned thing. do you read arabic fluently by any chance? because there ARE no official translations. based on your post i think you're talking out of your posterior. there may be some things you actually think through, but this is not one of them.

disagree a bit here. My bro is an Arabic linguist, plus intel analyst specializing in the Middle East and CentralAsia. I've read english translations of the Qu'ran and discussed it with him and others including Muslims that find certain portions of the Qu'ran unfortunate. Much like portions of the Bible are unfortunate.

Agree with the rest 100%.

yumpin yesu i wish you'd figure out that handy quote box feature.

didn't comment on whether the Q'ran has some unfortunate passages or passages that can be interpreted in unfortunate ways. merely commented that i have never heard of anyone who singles out the Q'ran as a violent book in the media or on a interwebs forum who has actually read the damned thing in arabic. it's an important thing to bear in mind that, while much of Christianity recognizes the KJV as officially endorsed by a committee including God, Jesus, and a few other notables and dignitaries, no branch of Islam recognizes any translation of the Q'ran at this stage of Islam.

as you yourself say, the bible has quite a few passages that could be interpreted in unfortunate ways. bit odd to advocate banning a book one has never read and give the other a free pass, don't you think? to my eye, the bible *could* lend itself to militant extremism. and yeh i actually read it. however, as you say, at this point in time such movements are relatively rare and isolated compared to militant islam.

but ultimately the point i was making is not one having to do with whether the Q'ran does (or doesn't) have passages that could be interpreted as advocate all sorts of mayhem. the point is that it's a BOOK. books by their very nature are open to interpretation. ffs lawyers make a living interpreting very narrowly defined stories (they call 'em 'precedents' if i'm not mistaken).

even if one were to take the bible or the q'ran as the legit word of God, who is to say any one human being's understanding[/] of that book isn't skewed? then with the Q'ran it's compounded by the fact that Bill Maher and the interwebs forum Bill Maher wannabes haven't read the damned thing in Arabic and so, basically haven't even read the book they are saying is the root cause.

to my eye banning the Q'ran appeals to the same mongs who sincerely believe we can stop gang violence by banning hip hop, stop organized crime by banning the Sopranos and Godfather, etc.

focus Zeus, focus...and the quote box looks fine to me. Over the top of the box containing your words there is a Zeus wrote statement. I simply deleted the other guys stuff. Easy to follow, I'd say. I placed my comments inside your comments in bold. Bolding them so that most anyone would understand that they are my comments. I mean I can go back and make it more obvious by making a statement that says that THESE ARE MY COMMENTS IN BOLD. But I gave folks the benefit of the doubt that they could figure it out for themselves. Sue me for thinking folks are smart enough to figure it out.

I haven't advocated banning any book. Nor would I.

I simply wish that humanity would move away from organized religion.

It matters not what Islam recognizes. Sit down with a group of folks who translate and analyze for a living and you can get a pretty good idea what something is stating. It ain't rocket science.

Whether folks have read the Qu'ran or not is moot. The Islamic Terrorists themselves state that Mohammad and the word of God are the reasons that they have taken the path of jihad against the West and assorted other infidels within their own religious family.

Call me crazy, and I know you will, but I'm going to take the terrorists at their word. The founder of the Muslim Bro'hood. Qutb. He stated that Muslims should reject the West and the temptations of the West. He stated that the West is the enemy and that all "good" Muslims should take up Jihad against the West. All subsequent Muslim violence traces it's roots to Qutb and his brothers of Islam.

I'm thinking that the Qu'ran or their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the root of the problems. The book was written in a time of Muslim conquest. The Islamic Empire was rolling through lands that they were taking primarily from Christians.

We not only have the Qu'ran to go on in deciding the motives of Muslims both extremist and "moderate." We have history. A history of conquest when in power. A history of siding with the Soviet Union, Hitler, The Axis powers, etc.

And they wonder why Christians and the West do not like 'em. lol But it's our fault that they don't like us because in the end, the West came out on top and retook lands that were stolen by Muslims in the first place.

One person mentioned the Crusades as a crime or an affront to Islam earlier in this thread. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic invasion. Not the other way around. I know the liberal revisionists love to claim that the Crusaders were the bad guy. They were defending Europe from Islamic Invasion. But it's ok that the Muzzies invaded Europe and conquered lands that were Christian kingdoms. But it's bad that the people who were conquered wanted to re-take those lands.

Take that to today.

Israel fought for and captured lands in the area known as Palestine. Now the Palestinians/Arabs want that land back. Why is it ok for the Palestinians to re-take their lands, but, it's not ok for Christians and Jews to want their lands back. Technically speaking, Christians pre-date the Muslims in Palestine and the whole of the Middle East by some 700 odd years. Go back to Alexander and the Muzzies have less claim. They should probably quit while they are ahead.

The Arabs/Muslims were the original usurpers in this instance. Those lands were Christian lands. Taken sometime after the Islamic Empire roared out of the deserts of Arabia in the 700s to 1300s conquering and raping and pillaging at the point of bloody swords.

But that was ok.

lol

I love it. Some folks make me laugh so damn hard that I can't breath sometimes.

The Muslims are not innocent victims as they are often painted here and elsewhere. Neither in history or in the present.

And no, Zeus, that whole thing wasn't directed at you.

[CiaranM]

I love it. Some folks make me laugh so damn hard that I can't breath sometimes.

try laughing more often .... a lot more often !! :roll:

[Mister Moobs]

Zeus, having problems with that submit button. lol

And come on guys. Let's keep this a discussion and not a personality conflict.

It's interesting to have a "discussion" on TF.

[LakeGeneve]

If this is still a thread about Obama haters, there is an interesting yet scary Op Ed on point in yesterdays NYTs;

The Obama Haters? Silent Enablers Sign in to Recommend By FRANK RICH

WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network?s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, ?amped up? Americans who are ?taking the extra step and getting the gun out,? maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.

The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday?s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Unlike the bloviators at his network and elsewhere on cable, Smith is famous for his highly caffeinated news-reading, not any political agenda.

What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had ?become more and more frightening? in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he ?could read a hundred? messages spewing ?hate that?s not based in fact,? much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman?s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans ?out there in a scary place,? Smith said.

Full art: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

[Mister Moobs]

I love it. Some folks make me laugh so damn hard that I can't breath sometimes.

try laughing more often .... a lot more often !! :roll:

ciaran, I'm tired of ya. Bored actually.

If you knew me or talked to anyone who knew me, you'd know how ill-informed you were.

Try your own advice. :roll:

[Mister Moobs]

If this is still a thread about Obama haters, there is an interesting yet scary Op Ed on point in yesterdays NYTs;

The Obama Haters? Silent Enablers Sign in to Recommend By FRANK RICH

WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network?s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, ?amped up? Americans who are ?taking the extra step and getting the gun out,? maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.

The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday?s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Unlike the bloviators at his network and elsewhere on cable, Smith is famous for his highly caffeinated news-reading, not any political agenda.

What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had ?become more and more frightening? in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he ?could read a hundred? messages spewing ?hate that?s not based in fact,? much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman?s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans ?out there in a scary place,? Smith said.

Full art: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

This is a problem, I agree.

All of the idiots doing this nonsense need to be thrown in jail. Period. Obama stands or falls based upon his accomplishments or failures not his race.

[zeusbheld]

focus Zeus, focus...and the quote box looks fine to me. Over the top of the box containing your words there is a Zeus wrote statement. I simply deleted the other guys stuff. Easy to follow, I'd say. I placed my comments inside your comments in bold. Bolding them so that most anyone would understand that they are my comments. I mean I can go back and make it more obvious by making a statement that says that THESE ARE MY COMMENTS IN BOLD. But I gave folks the benefit of the doubt that they could figure it out for themselves. Sue me for thinking folks are smart enough to figure it out.

nah it's easy to figure out just.... inconvenient.

I simply wish that humanity would move away from organized religion.

i wasn't raised religious so i don't get the whole religious thing. i suspect that the hypothesis that there was an evolutionary advantage to religion may have some truth to it.

It matters not what Islam recognizes. Sit down with a group of folks who translate and analyze for a living and you can get a pretty good idea what something is stating. It ain't rocket science.

it's exegesis, and people get Ph.Ds in it. there's a reason for that. texts are not unequivocal. rocket science, while complicated, is a lot more straightforward in that it's hard to twist an equation around to say what you want it to say.

Whether folks have read the Qu'ran or not is moot. The Islamic Terrorists themselves state that Mohammad and the word of God are the reasons that they have taken the path of jihad against the West and assorted other infidels within their own religious family.

my comments regarding the Koran were intended as a response to the guy who was going to solve everything by banning the Q'ran.

Call me crazy, and I know you will,

ok, you're crazy.

but I'm going to take the terrorists at their word. The founder of the Muslim Bro'hood. Qutb. He stated that Muslims should reject the West and the temptations of the West. He stated that the West is the enemy and that all "good" Muslims should take up Jihad against the West. All subsequent Muslim violence traces it's roots to Qutb and his brothers of Islam.

I'm thinking that the Qu'ran or their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the root of the problems. The book was written in a time of Muslim conquest. The Islamic Empire was rolling through lands that they were taking primarily from Christians.

key word: interpretation. books aren't generally problems. the people who interpret them generally are. the bible can be interpreted as advocating conquest, if the crusades are anything to go by.

We not only have the Qu'ran to go on in deciding the motives of Muslims both extremist and "moderate." We have history. A history of conquest when in power.

a case could be made that all of H. sapiens share that history of conquest when in power, save for a few rather isolated anomalies.

And they wonder why Christians and the West do not like 'em. lol But it's our fault that they don't like us because in the end, the West came out on top and retook lands that were stolen by Muslims in the first place.

well actually that whole crusade thing was a war of conquest. so muslims could say the same thing more or less.

One person mentioned the Crusades as a crime or an affront to Islam earlier in this thread. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic invasion. Not the other way around. I know the liberal revisionists love to claim that the Crusaders were the bad guy. They were defending Europe from Islamic Invasion. But it's ok that the Muzzies invaded Europe and conquered lands that were Christian kingdoms. But it's bad that the people who were conquered wanted to re-take those lands.

very skewed interpretation. you're being every bit as revisionist as any liberal. the crusades were only a just war if you believed the recruiting pamphlets. it was a land grab pure and simple. like most wars. or... i suppose the romans (who later became the Christians) didn't grab the land from the jews, zoroastrians, etc?

Israel fought for and captured lands in the area known as Palestine. Now the Palestinians/Arabs want that land back. Why is it ok for the Palestinians to re-take their lands, but, it's not ok for Christians and Jews to want their lands back. Technically speaking, Christians pre-date the Muslims in Palestine and the whole of the Middle East by some 700 odd years. Go back to Alexander and the Muzzies have less claim. They should probably quit while they are ahead.

technically speaking, islam is seen by muslims (not by christians) as extending on the christian prophets the way that christianity was seen by christians (not by jews) as extending the jewish prophets. so technically speaking, "pre-dating" could just as likely be an indication of obsolescence as entitlement.

The Arabs/Muslims were the original usurpers in this instance. Those lands were Christian lands. Taken sometime after the Islamic Empire roared out of the deserts of Arabia in the 700s to 1300s conquering and raping and pillaging at the point of bloody swords.

by your logic we should all give it back to the zoroastrians. genius plan that.

The Muslims are not innocent victims as they are often painted here and elsewhere. Neither in history or in the present.

nor are the christians the innocent victims fighting just war after just war you try to paint them as. trying to make one side out to be the victim or fighting a just war will just perpetuate the conflict indefinitely.

the 'moderate' types on all sides need to at some point get bored of killing each other and decide once and for all what the borders are, where they'll stay, who can do what where, and who can't. then kill anyone that doesn't stick to that plan. but first you need a plan that all sides can agree to otherwise it's just killing. all stick and no carrot doesn't tend to work.

And no, Zeus, that whole thing wasn't directed at you.

oh yeah? well who else is gonna read all that?

[caioacido]

NO WAR

The World's Oil Reserves by Country (billion barrels)

"[Middle East oil is] a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." U.S. State Department, 1945

1 Saudi Arabia - 260

2 Iraq - 110

3 Kuwait - 95

4 United Arab Emirates - 95

5 Iran - 92

6 Venezuela - 66

7 Russia - 49

8 Mexico - 27

9 China - 24

10 United States - 23

Is it about Oil? [bBC]

List of countries the USA has bombed since the end of World War II

"This is our calling. This is the calling of the United States of America. The most free nation in the world. A nation built on fundamental values that reject hate, reject violence, rejects murderers and rejects evil. We will not tire."

President George W Bush

"Gee, looks a bit dark" "Mr President Sir, you have to take the caps off"

China 1945-46

Korea 1950-53

China 1950-53

Guatemala 1954

Indonesia 1958

Cuba 1959-60

Guatemala 1960

Belgian Congo 1964

Guatemala 1964

Dominican Republic 1965-66

Peru 1965

Laos 1964-73

Vietnam 1961-73

Cambodia 1969-70

Guatemala 1967-69

Lebanon 1982-84

Grenada 1983-84

Libya 1986

El Salvador 1981-92

Nicaragua 1981-90

Libya 1986

Iran 1987-88

Libya 1989

Panama 1989-90

Iraq 1991-2002

Kuwait 1991

Somalia 1992-94

Croatia 1994 (of Serbs at Krajina)

Bosnia 1995

Iran 1998 (airliner)

Sudan 1998

Afghanistan 1998

Yugoslavia 1999

Afghanistan 2001-02

Not including military recklessness like Italy 1998 "20 killed by US warplane in cable car" or China 2001 "Chinese military pilot killed by spy plane collision" and not including 'proxy' bombings of Iraq by Israel in 1981 using sixteen US made F15 bombers and brand new F16 fighter bombers

See also "A century of U.S. military interventions"

"Why The U.S.A. Dropped The A-Bomb on Japan"

Amazing but true Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President

NEW "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" - Bush

Who has Nuclear Weapons

USA

Russia

UK

France

Israel

Pakistan

(a dictatorship since Musharraf's military coup in 1999)

India

South Africa (now disarmed)

Belarus (now disarmed)

Kazakhstan (now disarmed)

Ukraine (now disarmed)

North Korea (now admits)

Who else

(has them as components to be assembled or is likely to get them soon, in order)

1 Japan

On 17 June 1974, Japanese Prime Minister Tsutomu Hata told reporters that "it's certainly the case that Japan has the capability to possess nuclear weapons but has not made them." Japan could possibly produce functional nuclear weapons in as little as a year's time.

2 Brazil

3 Taiwan

By 1974 the US Central Intelligence Agency concluded that "Taiwan conducts its small nuclear program with a weapon option clearly in mind, and it will be in a position to fabricate a nuclear device after five years or so."

Iran

Argentina

Iraq (least likely)

Source Federation of American Scientists

Countries in breach of UN resolutions

"The world cannot stand by and allow Iraq to be in flagrant breach of all [Actually both] the United Nations resolutions" Tony Blair 31st August 2002

The 64 UN resolutions Israel is in breach of since 1955

US War crimes in Iraq

Operation Northwoods

USA the World's Greatest Jailer

"We are by far the most violent nation on earth. We have the highest numbers of rape and murder in the world and incarcerate the greatest percentage of our citizens. We are the largest producer and exporter of weapons of mass destruction and have the world's biggest military budget comprising 36 percent of the total world military spending and gobbling up more than 50 percent of our own national budget" Yellow Times

The USA has the most number of people in prison in the world, at 1.725 million. Next is China with 1.4 million. However China's total population is 4.6 times that of the USA, so the number of people in prison per 100,000 of population is very different: 645 people per 100,000 in the USA, 115 per 100,000 in China. 'Unlawful combatants' held on a military base in someone else's country are not included.

Bush reading upside down

Posted www.rogerlyons.com on 6th April 2002

Demonstration Information

Lies, Damned Lies and Terror Warnings by John Pilger

Nelson Mandela condemns Bush and Blair [bBC]

US Senator Byrd on war against Iraq

[zeusbheld]

If this is still a thread about Obama haters, there is an interesting yet scary Op Ed on point in yesterdays NYTs;

The Obama Haters? Silent Enablers Sign in to Recommend By FRANK RICH

WHEN a Fox News anchor, reacting to his own network?s surging e-mail traffic, warns urgently on-camera of a rise in hate-filled, ?amped up? Americans who are ?taking the extra step and getting the gun out,? maybe we should listen. He has better sources in that underground than most.

The anchor was Shepard Smith, speaking after Wednesday?s mayhem at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. Unlike the bloviators at his network and elsewhere on cable, Smith is famous for his highly caffeinated news-reading, not any political agenda.

What he reported was this: his e-mail from viewers had ?become more and more frightening? in recent months, dating back to the election season. From Wednesday alone, he ?could read a hundred? messages spewing ?hate that?s not based in fact,? much of it about Barack Obama and some of it sharing the museum gunman?s canard that the president was not a naturally born citizen. These are Americans ?out there in a scary place,? Smith said.

Full art: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html?em

i'm not a fan of Rupert Murdoch and can't stand a lot of the gasbags that populate his TV channel, but i'm a Shep Smith fan for sure. there's a divide, programming-wise, on fox between plain unadorned news and commentary. like most news stations, almost all the dipshits work on the 'commentary' side. Shep has had some pithy, memorable comments, and can even be funny when the situation warrants it. (no i don't watch that much action mcnews on any channel but Shep deserves a shout-out).

[Mister Moobs]

focus Zeus, focus...and the quote box looks fine to me. Over the top of the box containing your words there is a Zeus wrote statement. I simply deleted the other guys stuff. Easy to follow, I'd say. I placed my comments inside your comments in bold. Bolding them so that most anyone would understand that they are my comments. I mean I can go back and make it more obvious by making a statement that says that THESE ARE MY COMMENTS IN BOLD. But I gave folks the benefit of the doubt that they could figure it out for themselves. Sue me for thinking folks are smart enough to figure it out.

nah it's easy to figure out just.... inconvenient.

OK. My Bad Dawg.

I simply wish that humanity would move away from organized religion.

i wasn't raised religious so i don't get the whole religious thing. i suspect that the hypothesis that there was an evolutionary advantage to religion may have some truth to it.

It matters not what Islam recognizes. Sit down with a group of folks who translate and analyze for a living and you can get a pretty good idea what something is stating. It ain't rocket science.

it's exegesis, and people get Ph.Ds in it. there's a reason for that. texts are not unequivocal. rocket science, while complicated, is a lot more straightforward in that it's hard to twist an equation around to say what you want it to say.

I agree.

Whether folks have read the Qu'ran or not is moot. The Islamic Terrorists themselves state that Mohammad and the word of God are the reasons that they have taken the path of jihad against the West and assorted other infidels within their own religious family.

my comments regarding the Koran were intended as a response to the guy who was going to solve everything by banning the Q'ran.

OK.

Call me crazy, and I know you will,

ok, you're crazy.

DAMN YOU!!!

but I'm going to take the terrorists at their word. The founder of the Muslim Bro'hood. Qutb. He stated that Muslims should reject the West and the temptations of the West. He stated that the West is the enemy and that all "good" Muslims should take up Jihad against the West. All subsequent Muslim violence traces it's roots to Qutb and his brothers of Islam.

I'm thinking that the Qu'ran or their interpretation of the Qu'ran is the root of the problems. The book was written in a time of Muslim conquest. The Islamic Empire was rolling through lands that they were taking primarily from Christians.

key word: interpretation. books aren't generally problems. the people who interpret them generally are. the bible can be interpreted as advocating conquest, if the crusades are anything to go by.

I agree

We not only have the Qu'ran to go on in deciding the motives of Muslims both extremist and "moderate." We have history. A history of conquest when in power.

a case could be made that all of H. sapiens share that history of conquest when in power, save for a few rather isolated anomalies.

I agree.

And they wonder why Christians and the West do not like 'em. lol But it's our fault that they don't like us because in the end, the West came out on top and retook lands that were stolen by Muslims in the first place.

well actually that whole crusade thing was a war of conquest. so muslims could say the same thing more or less.

Agree, sort of...it was and is and always will be about economics.

One person mentioned the Crusades as a crime or an affront to Islam earlier in this thread. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamic invasion. Not the other way around. I know the liberal revisionists love to claim that the Crusaders were the bad guy. They were defending Europe from Islamic Invasion. But it's ok that the Muzzies invaded Europe and conquered lands that were Christian kingdoms. But it's bad that the people who were conquered wanted to re-take those lands.

very skewed interpretation. you're being every bit as revisionist as any liberal. the crusades were only a just war if you believed the recruiting pamphlets. it was a land grab pure and simple. like most wars. or... i suppose the romans (who later became the Christians) didn't grab the land from the jews, zoroastrians, etc?

Does Zoroaster pre-date Greece? Maybe we should give it all back to Greece. Or Pharoanic Egypt. I don't think it's revisionist. It is historical fact that the Islamic Empire attacked a weakened Byzantine Empire without provocation but because they saw weakness and opportunity. Islam was born in the fires of war. By the blood of it's victims and converted via extortion. Now Christians weren't much better. I agree. But Islam attacked. Conquered. Now they cry foul because the same was done to them 5 or 6 centures later. And they have the audacity to cry foul about the Crusades when those Crusades would never have occurred if the Muslim Armies hadn't taken those lands over which the crusades were fought by force of arms. They have a very weak argument for victimhood.

Israel fought for and captured lands in the area known as Palestine. Now the Palestinians/Arabs want that land back. Why is it ok for the Palestinians to re-take their lands, but, it's not ok for Christians and Jews to want their lands back. Technically speaking, Christians pre-date the Muslims in Palestine and the whole of the Middle East by some 700 odd years. Go back to Alexander and the Muzzies have less claim. They should probably quit while they are ahead.

technically speaking, islam is seen by muslims (not by christians) as extending on the christian prophets the way that christianity was seen by christians (not by jews) as extending the jewish prophets. so technically speaking, "pre-dating" could just as likely be an indication of obsolescence as entitlement.

I can see that. But **** 'em all and their Goddamned religions. I'm with Genghis Khan on the question of religion.

The Arabs/Muslims were the original usurpers in this instance. Those lands were Christian lands. Taken sometime after the Islamic Empire roared out of the deserts of Arabia in the 700s to 1300s conquering and raping and pillaging at the point of bloody swords.

by your logic we should all give it back to the zoroastrians. genius plan that.

Ur...give it back to the Chaldeaens.

The Muslims are not innocent victims as they are often painted here and elsewhere. Neither in history or in the present.

nor are the christians the innocent victims fighting just war after just war you try to paint them as. trying to make one side out to be the victim or fighting a just war will just perpetuate the conflict indefinitely.

the 'moderate' types on all sides need to at some point get bored of killing each other and decide once and for all what the borders are, where they'll stay, who can do what where, and who can't. then kill anyone that doesn't stick to that plan. but first you need a plan that all sides can agree to otherwise it's just killing. all stick and no carrot doesn't tend to work.

Agree. But Christianity has adapted to Democracy. For now. I'd rather live in a Christian tainted society than Muslim. And, yes, I meant "tainted."

And no, Zeus, that whole thing wasn't directed at you.

oh yeah? well who else is gonna read all that?

Now that made me laugh so hard that I pooted. lol Forced it right out. I know. TMI. lol

[Mister Moobs]

Hate speech or opinion?

This is a poster from.....Israel.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526222,00.html#

[Stramash]

am actually surprised at your comments here Neo, giving that you say you have actually studied Christianity and the Nazis.

Well to be fair, I did study Christianity a lot more than the Third Reich. But I still think that the Christian aspect has been a little downplayed in the history books. There was quite a bit of denial going down in the rest of Europe at the time that the Nazi's could be Christians, and in the last few years there's been a bit of revisionist research putting Christianity more centre stage in the dealings. It's true though that there was a lot of screwy interpretation of Christianity going around, and the Fuhrer cult doesn't really fit with scripture.

I guess the point, if something so substantial could arise from this thread, is that there's been some pretty horrific action taken by Christians in recent history, and we don't need to go back to the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition to find it. Although I'm not sure I'd put the KKK in there :wink:

Can agree with this a lot more. The links between Christianity and Nazism are interesting, and certainly there are parallels with what is going on in Islam today.

But the main church body that supported Hitler was in itself a construct of the times, and reflected much of the ideology and stance of the Nazi Party.

But Hitler had no real belief in Christianity per se; he was nominally a Catholic, but used the extreme facets of the philosophy and much of the symbolism to his own ends, and imho, certainly learned lessons from how Christianity enticed the masses 1500 years previously.

But to say the Nazis WERE Christians is a still a step too far.