The Next Stage of Denial: Dems Ban Use of "Global War on Terror" - AppleInside

The winner gets to define the terms of the debate. That's just the way it is.

GWOT no more.

Political Correctness now extends to foreign policy as well. (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/)

There was no political intent in doing this, said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. We were just trying to avoid catch phrases. :lol:

God forbid people actually hear that there are those in this world that mean us harm. And God forbid we be cast as the one that will stand up and be willing to fight for our Western civilization.

Never mind, we're not at war. There is no enemy. The enemy is Bush and conservatism. More Kool-aid, please. Man, denial SUCKS.

I'm so glad we are seeing who the congressional leadership really are deep down. Sad. :no:

Ok so you used the term " Western Civilization ". Well that inplies something civilized.

What we've been doing in Iraq and elsewhere in the name of the WOT ain't civilized at all!

You may not relaize it yet but the old way is gone for neocons and Bush supporters. They're being chucked into the dustbin of history and good riddance!

This whole thing has smacked of 1984 and has no place in a free america.

Get with the program, wake up and smell the coffee, get up to speed. The american people have had enough and things are changing.

Right. 'Cause if there's one thing we can't do without in government, it's Orwellian buzz words and catch phrases.

Don't kid yourself. This just means the Dems will be substituting their own Orwellian buzz words and catch phrases.

Acceptable phrases... acceptable thought... unacceptable phrases = thought crime.

That's a little much... :p

Don't kid yourself. This just means the Dems will be substituting their own Orwellian buzz words and catch phrases.

"War on Poverty"
"the Great Society"
"the New Deal"
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
"Outcome-based education"

Political correctness is intellectual fascism.- there's a catch phrase for you.

Let's break this down:

Global- it's happening everywhere. CHECK
War- A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. CHECK
on
Terrorism- The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. CHECK

So someone somewhere in the Democratic party has either been in a coma for fifteen years OR they are in prolonged denial of the enemy and threat that face our country. What the hell is wrong with calling something what it really is? Well, if that happens to support your political enemy, we'll just change the words. Just like how someone waved a magic wand and ILLEGAL ALIENS became UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS. Its as if we take the word "war" out of "war" we could have an old-fashioned, limited Democratic "police action." Cut, run, and surrender now applies to language as well. "War," what "War?" I assure you that the people that have attacked us for 20 years have no problem using terms like "war" and "jihad."

For whatever reason (I'm sure OUR fault) people want to kill Americans by way of terror. They are doing it all over the world. Thus, we fight it where it is, all over the world.

I don't care much for PATRIOT and PATRIOT II, they gutted our Bill of Rights. I don't like the pegging of one thing after another as "well, its for terrorism." Going to the airport is no fun anymore. I think Bush and crew have overplayed things badly. Its time to get out of Iraq, and should never have gone there to begin with. But, to deny that there is a global conflict emerging with radical Islam is silly.

That's a little much... :p

I'm sorry, but "that's a bit much" has been banished as an unacceptable phrase.

Please report to the Ministry of Dogma for thought reorientation.;)

Also well said Jubelum.

Nick

War- A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. CHECK

The "terrorists" aren't a "nation, state or party".

No, they are a belief and their belief is Islam and violent Jihad against the Jews, the West and anyone or anything that they consider to be infidels, or who refuses to submit to their version of "Allah" under Shariah Law.

:err:
:err:

:err: :err:

And your problem is......?

Aquafire

I guess there just isn't the right smiley to express it.... a head with a nuclear mushroom cloud might do it but even that doesn't quite hit it...

do me a favour...play the ball and not the man...

Well, in this case - the Islamophobic glee-club - they are the same thing.

The 'men' do not know the slightest thing about the 'ball' - they just redefine everything they want to 'market', it matters not whether it is true or whether they even have the smallest amount of knowledge that which they insist on frothing about.

So really one cannot 'play the ball' because the ball is not a ball at all....and to say it is really is just to take your early morning Stepford pill and this I cannot do...

Also it is impossible to use reason and logic for the same reasons so the choice is to 'play the man' or shut up.

For 'old times sake' I will do my best to shut up - you will be ecstatic to hear - but if comments are inane enough, ridiculous enough or elevate stupidity to record-breaking heights then I reserve the right to snipe.

To be fair your comment was one of the lamest here in a long while - and the bar is set very high. If you take it down a few notches - NaplesX level say - then we should be ok.

The "terrorists" aren't a "nation, state or party".

Actually they are a party...

Nick

No, they aren't. They're a large number of mostly mutually unassociated groups (such as Al Quaeda), which is the crucial point here. Beyond some particularly well-known leaders (such as Bin Laden), there is no defined target.

Even if you were to redefine the War on Terror as the War on Al Quaeda (thus singling out one such group), you'd still have a hard time defining targets.

OK, then, how would YOU solve this problem with these non-parties? I guess you are of the Clinton mind that this is a law enforcement issue with individuals? :err:

No, they aren't. They're a large number of mostly mutually unassociated groups (such as Al Quaeda), which is the crucial point here. Beyond some particularly well-known leaders (such as Bin Laden), there is no defined target.

Even if you were to redefine the War on Terror as the War on Al Quaeda (thus singling out one such group), you'd still have a hard time defining targets.

Wake up call. Al Quaeda (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9213554821937648649&hl=en) does not exist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI8q5EjpIng).

Two clips from "The Power of Nightmares". Watch them (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the+power+of+nightmares).

The Cold War has become the Christian/Muslim War. The terrorism is real, it's just the definition and labeling that is so wrong.

Doesn't Hezbollah mean "PARTY of God" ? :err:

So - every terrorist that presently exists is a member of Hezbollah.

Ok. Right. Got that.

Carry on.

Don't be so foolish as to think that the Surveillance State and violation of the Bill of Rights is going to stop JUST BECAUSE some "D"s got elected. The goals are all the same, they just violate different freedoms. The net of control over our lives has been shrinking for years, regardless of Bush or Clinton, or Reagan.

Isn't it about time for you to make a crack about age? It's been at least a day or two.

Well I get that you don't get it.

Things are changing and people out there want results ( not just insults ).

The democrats are also under pressure also to perform.

It's just that the republicans have had their turn at bat so it's alot more than just some democrats getting elected.

Well I get that you don't get it.

Things are changing and people out there want results ( not just insults ).

The democrats are also under pressure also to perform.

It's just that the republicans have had their turn at bat so it's alot more than just some democrats getting elected.

I'm glad our democracy, what is left of it, actually works. But I'd advise you about falling into the trap that "things are gonna change" just because Democrats are in power. Maybe on the surface, but not overall. I'm asking you to take a sec to look beyond party loyalty and see where BOTH parties are taking us... nowhere good. The D and R road ends in virtually the same place. If you don't think that Democrats want to run people's lives just as much as Republicans, you are wrong. And there are just as many questionable uses of the armed forces. (Somalia, Bosnia, Vietnam).

The partisan game itself is the scam. We're fighting it here instead of looking at the real issues.

No, they aren't. They're a large number of mostly mutually unassociated groups (such as Al Quaeda), which is the crucial point here. Beyond some particularly well-known leaders (such as Bin Laden), there is no defined target.

Even if you were to redefine the War on Terror as the War on Al Quaeda (thus singling out one such group), you'd still have a hard time defining targets.

Each group is a party. No one said the groups had to be associated. The definition of war does not preclude it being waged against more than one party.

'Terrorists' is a catch-all applied to many different groups, many with conflicting agendas.

As-Sadr's group for example is fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq (ie Zarqawi's old group not the 'al Qaeda' writ large) and is not on the US list of terror groups.

The MEK oth, is on that list and is blowing people and things up in Iran - yet is funded by the US. This group is fighting the Sunni groups AND the Shi'i.

Then there are the Ba'athists who are not religious in any way but want a return to power (the last thing THEY want is a Caliphate).

Of course there are several other ragtag Sunni groups and then there are Kurdish groups also - these latter are nominally sectarian but their main rationale is Kurdish identity.

And then there is the classic 'al Qaeda/Taleban' jihadis which form only a small fraction of the insurgency in Iraq as a whole.

All these groups are lumped together as 'the terrorists' and presented to an unquestioning public as a cohesive unison with unified aims. This is a lie.

The picture worldwide is, if anything, even worse.

The two main incidents: Spain and the UK were put down to 'al Qaeda' but again this is not ture in the sense of them being a product of al-Qaeda as led by OBL.

In London's case the bombings were carried out by a bunch of jihadi wannabes who were floating on the periphery of Pakistani jihadi camps and the Spain issue seems to be an independent Moroccan terror grouping sympathetic to Sunni Islamism of the OBL variety but not necessarily affiliated.

And then - sickest of all - there are the genuine freedom-fighters who fight for democracy and reform in places like Saudi but who are arrested by the Saudi fascists and labeled 'al Qaeda' so they can be tortured and killed with impunity.

The US knows and tacitly supports this.

See above.

By definition a party can be a group or even a single person. No one has claimed that just because we are fighting two groups, that the groups have to be in agreement with each other or support each other. They might even be fighting each other.

I really don't get the point of all this nonsense being tossed up. Global War on Terror is and was a proper description of what is occurring. The fact that some of the groups or persons we decide are harmful have conflicts with each other, are more or less religious compared to each other, have different agendas with their terrorist actions or a loosely affiliated does not mean we the labels we use to describe our interactions and relations with them are wrong. Pointing these items out is just hand waving to distract.

Nick

Each group is a party.

But the label "War on Terror" suggests that "The Terrorists" are one party, not a complex network of many, many parties that just happen to emit similar behaviors. It is a very loosely defined catch phrase. And, worst of all, it cannot be won. Or lost, for that matter.

So what?

Are we at war with Hezbollah? No. We're not. Besides, Hezbollah is a political party. Your problem is one of definition. We are not at war with the political party called 'Hezbollah'.

The point was made that terrorists are not a "party"
I was pointing out that the terrorists at Hezbollah consider themselves a "party."

I did not say we were at war with them specifically. I did not say that all terrorists are part of Hezbollah. I said what I said and nothing more. :\

The point was made that terrorists are not a "party"
I was pointing out that the terrorists at Hezbollah consider themselves a "party."

The point was that terrorists are not one party, or even an manageable small group of parties. They're a huge, cluttered, unorganized, loosely associated (if at all) web of parties. This makes them rather unsuitable for a traditional definition of a war.

Nope. The war is on people, whoever the hell they are, that use terrorist tactics against Americans and coalition nations. This is being made much more complicated than it really is. People use terror against us. We declare war on those people. Thus, WAR on TERROR. :smokey:

Appendix A: except if those that attack or fail to warn of attacks come from Saudi, Israel, Pakistan or anywhere within the 'coalition'.

Appendix B: terror attacks or tactics utilized by any member of 'the coalition' shall be deemed legitimate, moral and just before never being referred to again.

Appendix C: those that 'we' are are at war with shall be deemed terrorist by definition - especially if they are an innocent member of the public wearing a funny black hood and having electrodes attached to their testicles during a bout of character-building 'hazing'.

Appendix A: except if those that attack or fail to warn of attacks come from Saudi, Israel, Pakistan or anywhere within the 'coalition'.

Appendix B: terror attacks or tactics utilized by any member of 'the coalition' shall be deemed legitimate, moral and just before never being referred to again.

Appendix C: those that 'we' are are at war with shall be deemed terrorist by definition - especially if they are an innocent member of the public wearing a funny black hood and having electrodes attached to their testicles during a bout of character-building 'hazing'.

I would guess that you mean your appendix, not mine. The members of the coalition should not get a pass on their terrorism either. And we are at WAR with a lot of things, not just terror.

"Innocent member of the public" - there's a lop-sided generalization. Strawman again.

It was a monumental screwup of the first order ever use 'TWOT' to describe was is going on. Bush should have never, ever, said 'Islam is a religion of peace -- we're now in a totally unrelated war with 'terrorists''.

Honesty would have been nice: "Hey, about 8% of Muslims think terrorism against America and it's interests is okay, and we're going to have to deal with them." End of story.

It would be like Churchill telling Britain it was in a war 'against bombs and airplanes.'

Edit: being honest about the Saudis would have been nice, too.

Who would you suggest we kill next?

Well seeing as the subtext here is that the terrorists are genuine representations of Islam it would perhaps (given Hitler's Christian beliefs) have been more appropriate for Churchill to tell the British people they were in a war 'against Christianity'.

ANd yes, any form of honesty would have been nice, about the Saudis or anything else. Unfortunately the leaders are incapable and the followers don't know what it means anyway.
It's not so much true/untrue/genuine Islam -- think of it Islam's defect rate. (Every ideology has one.)

As for the Saudis, I'm still waiting for the speech that goes:

'Well, you'll just have to live with CAIR and the gang -- we can't really get to the root of the problem until we get ourselves off Saudi oil, 'cause well, they've got us by the huevos until we do.

So, we'll just cutting off those heads of the Hydra for now. While you're waiting, learn to locate the Tigris and Euphrates on a map.

It's not so much true/untrue/genuine Islam -- think of it Islam's defect rate. (Every ideology has one.)

True, but in this case there is unfortunately a further agenda....

Imo, there is actually a war on religion in toto - it's not portrayed as that of course but if you look closely you will see it well enough.

When it comes to Christianity the war is waged in classrooms, courts and by 'academic wiseacres' amongst others.

With Islam, well, it's in the tradition that you can fight back so that front needs real weapons but it is the same war and the same attack on both fronts, both with the same aim; the triumph of 'secularism'.

It was a monumental screwup of the first order ever use 'TWOT' to describe was is going on. Bush should have never, ever, said 'Islam is a religion of peace -- we're now in a totally unrelated war with 'terrorists''.

Honesty would have been nice: "Hey, about 8% of Muslims think terrorism against America and it's interests is okay, and we're going to have to deal with them." End of story.

It would be like Churchill telling Britain it was in a war 'against bombs and airplanes.'

Edit: being honest about the Saudis would have been nice, too. I agree. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology. It's a conflict with radical Islamists. I think it's fine to say "Islam is a religion of peace," because the entire key to this conflict is separating radical Islamist Islam from the other 95%. Sadly, I think the war in Iraq has done the opposite.

But wait...where's the 'civilization' then?

:?:

Certainly not with those who are beheading journalists on TV and blowing themselves up to kill innocent civilians. That is not "civilized" behaviour. It's barbaric. The US has done some screwed up things as well, but nothing on the order of the aforementioned. War sucks, and sometimes troops do barbaric things, and usually end up in Leavenworth for them. It's the exception, not the rule of how we conduct war. It's the exception for terrorists to "leave that man's head attached." We are talking about a small minority of both Muslims and US military members.

As far as Hitler, he was not a Christian. He and his gang were buried so deep in the occult and archaic Odinism that it's a fantasy that they were in any way "Christian."

He and his gang were buried so deep in the occult and archaic Odinism that it's a fantasy that they were in any way "Christian."

You could say that about the Catholic Church too...

Odinism? Really? :err:

Top-down quasi-fascist proto-occult dogmatic pedagogy, maybe, but Odinist? :smokey:

I can't be bothered to explain - say these magic words I invoke the powers of the unborn one; Marcus Ukicus.... three times facing east in a darkened room and the answer will be revealed to you.....

http://www.vault-co.com/wp-images/images/wargames_chess_request.jpg
Busted by the Vice!

My wife duct-taped me to a chair and forced me to watch that last week. Eeeeeeeegaaaaad!

(actually it wasn't that bad)

Certainly not with those who are beheading journalists on TV and blowing themselves up to kill innocent civilians. That is not "civilized" behaviour. It's barbaric. The US has done some screwed up things as well, but nothing on the order of the aforementioned. War sucks, and sometimes troops do barbaric things, and usually end up in Leavenworth for them. It's the exception, not the rule of how we conduct war. It's the exception for terrorists to "leave that man's head attached." We are talking about a small minority of both Muslims and US military members.

As far as Hitler, he was not a Christian. He and his gang were buried so deep in the occult and archaic Odinism that it's a fantasy that they were in any way "Christian."

Again, who do you suggest we kill next?

I'm not asking facetiously, I'm asking because making this a "war" necessitates asking the question. If we are at war with terror, then we must identify the combatants and capture or kill them.

So leaving aside the philosophical distinctions, how does that work?

"Not very well", obviously, in the case of invading Iraq. "Better until you stand down, in which case things revert to as they were", in the case of Afghanistan.

So, what? We invade everybody (global, remember), and leave an occupying army in every case?

Adopt some kind of "zero tolerance" policy wherein if we detect a terrorist somewhere we just kill everybody in the vicinity, as a warning to one and all that America is an angry motherfucker that you'd best not cross? And if we start doing that, how long before pretty much everybody thinks it's a good idea to attack America by any means at hand?

At which point, do we just kill everybody?

The problem with brain dead slogans and belligerent posturing about "taking off the gloves" and "with us or against us" is that at the end of the day you have to try and figure out how to do something that actually forwards your interests, and in the real world that invariably involves complexity, using every tool available, and the capacity to respond to changing circumstances with changing strategies.

Unfortunately, the right has made a little fetish out of bashing complexity as sure sign of weakness and lack of resolve and possibly homosexuality. Anybody who stands up and says "terrorism is a complex problem with complex solutions" will most assuredly be attacked and shouted down as a fool, because the results of terror can be so immediate and visceral.

But confusing the clarity of the damage done with how straight forward the reaction ought to be is, in a word, stupid, much as it would be stupid for medical science to decide that because cancer plainly causes suffering we should dispense with all the pussy "tailored treatment" shit and all the hand-wringing about whether the patient lives or dies and just fucking go in there and get those tumors.

We go after people who are building IEDs. We go after people making suicide bomb belts and terror training videos. We go after people who are trying to kill Americans. WE GO AFTER TERRORISTS.

I'll be the first to say- terror is a complex problem with complex solutions, but what the fsck do we do with people you cannot negotiate with that want to kill you regardless of agreement? You kill them first, before even more innocent people die because of YOUR fear at "making them more mad."

This ought to be a productive dialogue:
"OK, we'll leave the Mideast." - response: DIE IMPERIALIST INFIDEL!
"OK, we'll stop supporting Israel" - response: DIE IMPERIALIST INFIDEL!
"OK, we'll give you millions in free aid"- response: DIE IMPERIALIST INFIDEL!
"OK, we'll become a Muslim nation and those who don't will be executed." - DEAL!

There is no satisfying a fanatic willing to die and reach eternal paradise for "killing in the name." They are sworn to either die fighting, or such cowards that they booby-trap roads and use mothers as walking bombs. They will defeat you and your culture because you refuse to see that there is no negotiation, short of your death or full conversion, that will satisfy the truly committed.

Just think Pat Robertson without the decapitations, for a frame of reference. ;)

OK, but isn't that exactly what we've been doing in Iraq? Are you under the impression that we haven't been "going after" people who make IEDs and suicide bombers? Or by "go after" do you mean "send in the helicopter gun ships to any neighborhood we believe to be harboring those people?"

And then we're back to slaughtering civilians, which guarantees that the survivors will be much more likely to want to have vengeance on America, even if they had no such feelings before. And then we're back to killing everybody.

And don't forget: by invading Iraq we basically created "terrorists" by giving the population motivation to attack American forces. Do you really think all the Iraqis that are willing to inflict harm on the American occupation forces are or were "terrorists" in the sense of "the kind of radical Islamist that perpetrated 9/11"? How many Americans would be doing something similar if invaded and occupied? And do you think we would be deterred if we were told that the occupiers were "liberators" and that they had come for our own good and that their puppet government would soon set an example to the rest of the world? The fact is that many of the people attacking us in Iraq today would never have had any reason to do so had we not invaded their country.

But "global war on terror" rhetoric distills that all down to "terrorists". That we are at war with. So we must kill them. Even though many of them are the same people we are "saving". Pretty complex.

It's all in the execution, isn't it? See, "going after", "taking off the gloves", "doing whatever is necessary" don't mean anything at all, until you start talking about exactly what that means. And unless it means something pragmatic and achievable, then it would be better not to talk at all, because then you appear belligerent and feckless, not a good combination by anyone's light.

And if it just means "kill all bad men" then you're not really talking about "winning" at all, but merely some kind of blood lust or revenge fantasy or terminally naivety about the limits of that kind of power.

'box ... and let me take a minute to thank you for your thoughtful and well-reasoned responses in this discussion. We do disagree fundamentally on many levels, but I appreciate the exchange. :smokey:

Our policy may have been misguided. Taking on Iraq was wrong. No bones about that. But we have made incredible progress.

Then we should get the fuck out now. ALL our soldiers and leave the 14 military bases as "gifts" to the Iraqi Army & government. I guarantee the insurgency would diminish quicker than if we would stay.

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." - Peter Ustinov

The President's Global War of Terror (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15)

And Pakistan. When is anyone going to mention the Disneyland of Terrorism? Taliban, "Al Qaeda" hiding and training in the hills, local terrorists Lashkar-e-Omar, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and even their own government Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) are bedfellows for them all. The reasons again are religious and political. But the hatred is pointed directly at us.

Then we should get the fuck out now. ALL our soldiers and leave the 14 military bases as "gifts" to the Iraqi Army & government. I guarantee the insurgency would diminish quicker than if we would stay.

Then call your congressperson, demand surrender, defunding, etc. Get this done right, and without pork bribes this time to get those few votes. If that is the will, let's do it.

The American people dislike this war, but they hate defeat (by any name) worse. We should finish our job, make the Iraqi people responsible for their own shit ASAP, and leave with all apologies to everyone, never to neocon into this again. But we MUST FINISH.

We have thousands of Iraqi citizens who have allied with us, who, if we cut and run, will be killed for having been associated with the USA. So we need to finish our job, let them have a democratic government if they can maintain it, and catch the next C130 out. But not a day before.

FINISH what we started. And next time only start what is worth American lives and tax dollars. We have an investment to maintain, good or bad. I'm just not willing to call it all a loss and walk off. Many on this board are. We can still make a positive difference in the METHOD in which we leave, and I don't mean the way we ditched S. Vietnam.

Furthermore, I acknowledge that there is something of a minor attack on Islam by such intellectuals, but you know very well that it is limited and timid and all very often timidly apologetic.

Depends what you call minor - the UK and Australia (NOT the US for once) are the leaders in this and are without a shadow of doubt in the grip of a sick and virulent contagion: racism, the European disease.

I suppose to you it is minor because the prosecutors of this war share your right-wing mindset and after all, you are not the one being beaten up in dark allies by 'Muslims' whereas Muslims and Jews are suffering hate-crime, racism and violence every single day and it is on the increase.

So maybe it seems 'minor' to a BNP fanatic or a rabid right-winger, maybe it really IS minor compared toi what they would lke it to be but at the end of the day it is ethnic minorities who are getting their heads kicked in and while you bleat inanely about the 'Muslim threat' you can still live year after year in safety and luxury.

You also know that the attacks on both faiths are unequal. Attacking the church isn't likely to have you ending up with you lying in the gutter of some Dutch street with your throat cut, but attacking "Islam" is. Or have you forgotten Van Gogh ? or the fiasco over the pathetic Mohomet cartoons.

Who could forget Van Gogh? A bigger right-wing Nazi would be difficult to imagine. And the 'cartoons' yay - freedom of speech!

Denmark is a bastion of racism and right-wing bs - yes, they wanted to stir up trouble and yes, they got it.

You know what...when I was a teenager in London, there were these assholes called the National Front who used to march around with Union Jacks, skinhead haircuts and liked to beat up black people who were walking around alone - always in packs of about 20 neanderthals of course.

I was hanging out with the ANL then and you know what we used to do when these dickwads started their silly little marches? Yep[ - we started a riot. A real one. ANd we kicked their butt.

Now it needs to start happening again - particularly in Denmark.

Racists are scum so excuse me if I don't quite share your support of that Van Gogh or some Nazi in a Danish newspaper office.

All in all, too many secular intellectuals (most especially those with leftist sympathies) are all too often lily~livered hypocrites who seek to deflect criticism by citing examples of their having attacked all dogma's equally. It is of course palpable nonsense on their behalf, and the PC issue in question in this topic is an example of their disingenuous NewSpeak.

Yeah - good one. An Orwell reference...

Only when I see surveillance cameras going up everywhere, lie detectors being installed on phones for benefit claimants, people being disappeared and police putting bullets in people's heads for nbo particular reason it is always the right doing it...and the left opposing it.

Still....bloody lefties eh?

Like it or not, the Islamic fundamentalists are at war with those they call "Crusaders" and those they call "Zionists"

Good. I like it. I am 'at war' with them too. More people need to get on board and we might have a chance of cleaning up their crap.

the latter of which in their broad terms mean any Jewish person living in Israel or parts of Palestine.

Which is why many Rabbis support the Palestinians and vice versa and why Rabbis from Israel visited Iran for the anti-Zionist conference and met with the Iranian Jewish MPs.

Nor do I recall the likes of OBL standing up and giving an interview where he shouted lets have a Jihad against the secularists.

You don't recall any of OBLs speeches because you haven't studied any, are not provided with them by your 'free media' and do not presumably have the Arabic to understand them.

From Al qaedas' perspective, such terms are deliberately used to invoke the claim of 'defending;' Islam and regardless of the paucity of their claims, it rings true with many self~dis~enfranchised islamic youths who are caught in a torturous balancing act between the past and the future,

References please...failing that, expand and argue the point.

The fact that you keep avoiding (or ignoring) OBL's desire to re~establish a Shariah based political Caliphate as one of the most basic of their Islamic Jihadist ideological aims is utterly beyond me.

Again - reference.

Please explain how you came to this view.

Was it:

a) reading - if so name source please
b) travel/talk - where, who with?
c) other source - what?

You take cheap pokes at Christians and the Catholic church, decry anyone who questions the agenda of Fundamentalist Islamists

Wrong - I take cheap pokes (at least here - elsewhere they are more expensive) at right-wingers, fundies, Nazis and racists - as well as hapless sheep. The fact that it is almost exclusively these characters that gibber on about 'Islamic extremists' is merely a coincidence that adds to my passion in attacking them because it is my main area of interest.

If anyone wishes to critique Islamism from an informed balance viewpoint they will soon enough find out my true views and we will have a great discussion which will raise the level of the discourse on this topic immeasurably.

Unfortunately I strongly suspect this person will not be you.

You even expressing crocodile tears over the secularists attacking christianity etc. And like so many of those on the Left, your obsessed with the idea that we Westerners should hate ourselves and apologize for being descendants of European Christians who evolved democratic and pluralist societies.

Except that your 'democracy' is a sick sham and really is just a very, very long menu of things so disparate it confuses you because you are so greedy that you do not realize there is no freedom and no choice at all.

You never choose what goes on the menu, you never have an option to change it - but you're too busy eating too notice.

PS: the idea of a 'pluralist' society was originated in Europe in Islamic Spain not the West. You should know that I would have thought.

It's interesting that so many Christians and Jews chose to live under Islamic rule - seems that they were being murdered and tortured elsewhere by a sinister group called 'the Church' and they sought sanctuary in Spain.

So much for inventing 'pluralism'.

But be aware your supping with the devil, and do it at your own peril. It is not for the fun of it that Europe is increasingly being called Eurostan and cities like London Londinistan.

Well, the only people I know of who use words like Eurostan are racist assholes.

Dearee me...having a little tantrum are we...

Nope :D

This shows the myopia your suffering from. Racism is European only ? Do us all a favour ... cut the Bullshit..

Read it again. Then we'll talk

.Oh I see,....anyone who doesn't share your point of view is a racist. And how very neat to suggest Jews are being beaten up in dark alleys...Really cute especially since "Jews" are not a visble race any more than Muslims are. Both are virtually invisible unless you think they (most especially the Jews) must some how look degenerately subhuman ...you know...like those Nazi propaganda movies you have so obviously absorbed. And since we're on the topic, I happen to condemn all racism from any quarter...unlike you who pretends it is only a "European" phenomena...

Maybe read it another two times. Get back to me when it is clearer.

Gee, he was attacked for questioning the violence endemic against women and gays...so that makes him a Nazi... good one Segovious..

Or the other way round - he questioned because he WAS a Nazi.

You say tomato...

Yep..just like the French and the Spanish..we all know how racist they are...derr...

Hmmm, generalizing?

But so what? Why not cite the National Socialists in WW2?

Hyperbole and flatulent rhetoric is no substitute for real argument.... Gee thanks for the vote of confidence. Just to refresh your cobweb ridden memory, I studied middle eastern history at University, specializing in Syrian and Assyrian history..and you ?.

University of Life dear boy, University of Life....

Ha...shows how much you know..

Pluralism effectively existed in the time of the Romans..so get over yourself..

ok

Its also interesting how so many christian communities were 'absorbed' or coerced into changing their faith. Cleary your ignorant of the Coptic christian history of Egypt..

I am ignorant of your understanding of it that is true...

Actually, a Hindu Doctor friend of mine who lives in London used it..that was the first time I have ever heard of the term..

So your right..I suppose he must be a racist...

The Hindus invented apartheid didn't they? Or perhaps to you the Caste system is something that we could usefully adopt?

Err...but wait...he's from India so he can't be a racist..

Gee...no there is a conundrum...

It's easily solved; learn more.

Ah that explains your passionate misguidedness.

Actually no. The Hindus evolved a system based on earlier Vedic teachings that came to them from Arian invaders that originated from the Turkistan region of Asia. ie proto~europeans..go figure..

Good idea..I hope you take you own advice.

Aquafire

Ok - I'll catch you a bit later....

There's some paint drying here that needs watching for an hour or so....

Get out now. Let Allah sort it out.

Brief theological point; from the pov of Qur'anic jurisprudence nothing can happen that is not the will of Allah as, by definition, only Allah truly exists and He has no equal.

Therefore what is happening in Iraq IS the will of Allah and thus He has nothing to 'sort out'.

;)

"Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein's
Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_pentagon_intelligence_3)

:wow: :mad: :grumble: :mad: :no:

I feel that this insanity is never going to end...:no:

Yeah...it's like a bad dream year after friggin year....

And it isn;t getting any better.

:no:

Wait. There's more...

U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html?section=cnn_latest)

"An Iranian opposition group based in Iraq, labeled a terrorist organization by the United States, gets protection from the U.S. military despite Iraqi pressure to leave the country.

The U.S. considers the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, or MEK, a source of valuable intelligence on Iran.

The group also is credited with helping expose Iran's secret nuclear program through spying on Tehran for decades.

Iranian officials tied the MEK to an explosion in February at a girls school in Zahedan, Iran. (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/02/17/iran.bombing/index.html)

Oh, and this just in...

Al-Qaeda Targets the Dalai Lama (http://www.aina.org/news/2007040392651.htm)

"Security surrounding the Dalai Lama has been tightened after reports of an attempt by the al-Qa'ida-linked terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba to assassinate the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader. A three-tier security ring has been thrown around the 72-year-old Buddhist head, who lives at Dharamsala, in the Himalayan foothills, Indian police spokesman Prem Lal said."

As I have done and will continue to do, I will use "al-Qa'ida" to describe the Clown Car these various terrorist groups come out of. There is no "al-Qa'ida".

http://newdeal.feri.org/images/t24.gif

The Dalai Lama :lol:

They had to do it - they wouldn't let it lie! He's the biggest CIA asset they've ever had...!

I'm glad our democracy, what is left of it, actually works. But I'd advise you about falling into the trap that "things are gonna change" just because Democrats are in power. Maybe on the surface, but not overall. I'm asking you to take a sec to look beyond party loyalty and see where BOTH parties are taking us... nowhere good. The D and R road ends in virtually the same place. If you don't think that Democrats want to run people's lives just as much as Republicans, you are wrong. And there are just as many questionable uses of the armed forces. (Somalia, Bosnia, Vietnam).

The partisan game itself is the scam. We're fighting it here instead of looking at the real issues.

Well