Topics Topics Help/Instructions Help Edit Profile Profile Member List Register  
Search Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Visit The Brewery's sponsor!
Brews & Views Bulletin Board Service * World Expressions * Appeasement < Previous Next >

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Friday, December 09, 2005 - 03:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO, Axel Springer, AG)
A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.
Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.
Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.
Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.
Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance,"now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.
Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 300,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush.
And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?
I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists.
One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time".
What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.
It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and "accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.
Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush.
His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.
In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.
On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes.
Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.
For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.
While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation... Or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out to terrorists. To understand and forgive".
These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.
Appeasement?
Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

Döpfner, Mathias. "Europa — Dein Name Ist Feigheit."
Die Welt. 20 November 2004.

Snopes:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/dapfner.asp
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 869
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 05:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The only thing Bush had to do was say that we were going after him because of crimes against humanity, much the same way we did with the butchers in Kosovo.

Instead he had his minions fabricate "evidence" of WMD. Apparently his opinion of Americans is so dim that he didn't think we would be on board with trying to topple Saddam for humanitarian reasons. He insulted our intelligence, showed disdain for our morality, and LIED to us because of it.

That is what is ticking everyone off. How often does this need to be repeated before somebody gets it?

Americans HAVE been willing to go after these criminals, and the evidence is cited above. We nearly bankrupted ourselves winning the cold war (economically). We sacrificed thousands of soldiers in WWI, II, Korea. We sent troops to the Balkans and to Somalia. We will fight tyranny (most of the time). We already had a pretty anti-Saddam attitude before Gulf II.

So why didn't Bush just say we were going after a criminal? Because he has low opinion of his own people, that's why.

Everyone knows it was a grudge, but at least he could have picked a reason that was honest, even if it wasn't his real reason. The guy is a turd, plain and simple.
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 345
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 09:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joe,

I gotta say that you make sense. At the time, I thought we should have gone in in 1998 when the UN inspectors got kicked out.

Tim
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4144
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Does that mean the US should act unilaterally to "take out" the current regimes in Iran and North Korea?
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 871
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Monday, December 12, 2005 - 10:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Like I said, the US does not have a track record of shying away from this every single time. Neither do we fight every time. Sadly, politics definitely enter into it, as does ethnic discrimination.

It tends to work out better when we have a clear objective and the support of the people we are trying to help, as well as support from the rest of the world. Lacking any of those turns the exercise into a disaster. The current situation is just such a case, and in fact we lacked all three.

So, if it were up to me, the answer would be "no", because you used the word "unilaterally". Should it be put before the UN? Most certainly. But nobody's asking me.
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 346
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

What it means, Bill, is that when action is required, it does not matter what the wet-finger types say.

T
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4148
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 02:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Tim, where and when do you believe action is required?
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2234
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 03:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

It is one thing to follow the lead of a wet finger and another to become obsessed with doing something and not listening to things contrary to that obsession.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 960
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 04:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joseph, I have to ask. Why do you say it should be put before the UN? Why would we value anything from the UN any longer? They are the most crooked international organization in the world. For instance, OF COURSE they didn't want us to go in to Iraq as it would and did interfere with the income they were getting being on the take from Saddam via the oil for food program. They may have had legitimate reasons for opposing Iraq as well, but you know damn well that was the main reason for the opposition.

I don't understand why the same people who don't trust the administration because of Iraq still trust the UN to do what's right even though they've proven time and time again over the years that they won't.
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 873
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 04:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The UN is crooked? Sure. So, abandon the rule of law and just do whatever you want.

Cowboy Bush did just that. And when I find out that there are crooks in the US government (but everyone knows there are no crooks in the US gov't), does that mean I don't have to obey the law anymore? The very same law I voted into being?

Right, so just because I think prostitution should be legalized, and there *are* cops that associate with prostitutes, I am free to open a brothel and feel OK about it. And if anyone reminds me that it is illegal, I can just remind them that there is corruption elsewhere, and that two wrongs indeed make a right.

Guys, the USA was instrumental in creating the UN. But now they are an inconvenience and we should just arrogantly go about doing whatever we want, even if the vote is 180 'nay', and 4 'yea'. Now that's what I call a democracy!

Watch out Bank of America, I am coming to a local branch to make a "withdrawal"... After all, there are corrupt bankers out there too.
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2235
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 04:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do.

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 961
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 05:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I did not say anything anyone in the administration has done is justified because the UN is corrupt. I'm just saying you can't trust the UN either. They are as crooked as the rest of 'em, and probably more so.
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 962
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 05:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Dan, that's sounds about right, it could take three left brains to equal one right brain.
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 347
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 06:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The U.N. is like a justice system without cops, and has failed for the same reason.

You gotta have guys with guns that go in and kill or capture criminals and tyrants.

The tyrants could care less about U.N. resolutions. Just like a rapist and murderer would care less if he is convicted, if there were only courts, and no cops and jails.

Tim
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4157
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2005 - 08:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I understand the realities of geopolitics, but should (or can) one nation set itself up as world enforcer with no limits or judgment of its own power and behavior? The US seems to have taken that course in Iraq and also seems to be failing at it. Would it be any more successful elsewhere?
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 348
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 01:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The free people of the United States limit and judge its government.

As to whether our efforts in Iraq are in vain, well history will judge.

The people of Iraq have not given up, why have you?

Tim
 

Tim Wi
Intermediate Member
Username: Riverkeeper

Post Number: 349
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 02:04 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Case in point:

Crowds capture al-Qaida 'Butcher'
RAMADI, Iraq, Dec. 12 (UPI) -- Angry crowds in Iraq's violence-prone town of Ramadi captured a 30-year-old man known as "The Butcher" for the al-Qaida in Iraq terror group.

Amir Khalif was cornered by a vigilante mob who beat him before he was handed over to a passing patrol of U.S. Marines, Britain's Daily Mirror reported. The crowd apparently turned on Khalif after learning he was behind atrocities committed in his hometown.

His arrest has been hailed as a major victory in the war against the insurgents. Khalif earned the title of "The Butcher" because he would allegedly slice victims up while they were still alive, the report said.

Khalif was on a most wanted list drawn up by the U.S. troops. He is believed to have killed many Iraqis and has been linked to Iraq's most wanted terrorist, Jordanian born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
}
 

Publius
Unregistered guest
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 06:29 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Why would we put it to the UN before deciding to "take out" a distasteful regime? The answer lies in two simple facts.

Fact 1: The US is a member of the United Nations and as such has helped to formulate and has agreed to adhere to "international law" as set forth by this body.

Fact 2: Part of international law as set forth in the UN charter prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security.

So, why would we put it to the UN before we decide to invade another country? Simple. It's required of us by longstanding international treaty.
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2798
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 10:09 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Laws and rules can and will be broken, because they are by nature "soft constraints".

I can break rules, but tend not to, because it has a price, in several ways. i.e I don't want to break them.

However, the world I want to live in, and that *I want to support*, is were minimum amount of "hard force" is required to maintain the rules. If the amount of required "hard force" increases I think something is wrong with the strategy - don't you think?

If I need a gun for protection to visit the mall and buy food something is plain wrong. I also don't want to risk getting shoot dead by paranoid officers thinking I'm a terrorist because I'm out of faishon. At some point I will need a gun not only to protect myself from lunatics, but also to protect myself from paranoid law inforcment officers. That's not a world I want to live in, I know that much.

This is also the difference between a peace under "tension" which tend to be unstable, or a more relaxed peace. The cold war was an example of peace under tension.

Maybe there are times for surgical military force(it's hard to say never, so I wont, there are probably times for everything), but IMO, each use of military force is a failure! Firing a gun is an act of desperation, when you can't come up with something more clever.

Also IMO one problem, is that the big boys rarely have to face the consqeuences if their "misjudgements" like the little people have to each and every time. So taking chances is cheap. Who judges the judge?

Those who are blessed with power, should also to a larger extent be damned with some real responsibility to prevent abuse. Send an army to kill, and you shold be prepared to bungy jump in your balls. Or that you will be hunted down by terrorists the rest of your life. If you still it's worth the chances, ok, be my guest. It's your choice, noone elses. As for me I would think of this as the last resort, when I am absolutely out of better ideas.

It's true that there is the time aspects. We can't spend forever "thinking". If we are under attack, you need to take immediate decisions. But OTOH, how much money is spent on weapon development throughout history? How much money is spent on understanding our enemies? All the conflicts in the world can't be surprises? I don't buy that attack argument for a second.

If our leaders really can't come up with any other solution than force, and on with the next.

/Fredrik
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 965
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 01:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If I need a gun for protection to visit the mall and buy food something is plain wrong. I also don't want to risk getting shoot dead by paranoid officers thinking I'm a terrorist because I'm out of faishon. At some point I will need a gun not only to protect myself from lunatics, but also to protect myself from paranoid law inforcment officers. That's not a world I want to live in, I know that much.

Ironic you should say that Fredrik, I just read something that showed how the gun death rate in Washington D.C. is higher than the death rate of our military in Iraq. So, in theory, you are more likely to be shot and killed in Washington D.C. than any one of our troops are in the battlezone "quagmire" of Iraq. And just so you know, D.C. has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation.

As the saying goes, when you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns.
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2799
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 02:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I want to know why anyone becomes outlaws. Why does people become terrorists. Why is there so much violence in this world. That's where I want the focus should be. We need to make the right things to make this infection stop.

I don't believe in military force. It is the least intelligent ways of all to solve problems. It is the brute force of problem solving. That tend to come with lots of damage.

It does work indeed though, in the short run. Bomb your enemy and they will die, sure. Quick and efficient. But, seconds thoughts? anyone? no? What if the bombs miss. Seconds thoughts? Anyone willing to pay for that? how much?

/Fredrik
 

Dan Listermann
Senior Member
Username: Listermann

Post Number: 2240
Registered: 03-2004
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 02:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am starting to think that the influence of organized violence as a diplomatic tool is about over. It used to be that you could just conquer a country and that was that until you, yourself, were conquered.

Col. Sam Colt invented the "great equalizer." It looks like IEDs are the latest in the category of "great equalizers."

Dan

--This space is again being left intentionally blank.-


 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2800
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 02:55 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Mike of course it's not just about the guns themselves cause the problem, no more than guns will solve any problems.

I think it's all about "peace, love and understanding" to make it short and brief. I know it's sounds pretty lame, but it's the closest to truth you get in a couple of lines :-)

Sometimes this world tends to be too much "business". Since when did life become business, did I miss something?

/Fredrik
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2801
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 03:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> I am starting to think that the influence of
> organized violence as a diplomatic tool is
> about over.

I think it's about time :-) Military logic belongs to history. People are going to read of these things in school books in the future and chuckle how boneheaded people were 500 years go.

/Fredrik
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 966
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 03:41 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Simply put, "peace love and understanding" doesn't work with radical Islam. They want ALL "infidels" dead and want the world run under Islamic law. You can't just give those "people" a hug and make everything better.

Regarding guns, as most of you could probably imagine I'm in favor of concealed carry. It's been proven time and time again that if ordinary citizens (that are trained and are responsible enough to carry guns) are able to carry weapons crime goes down. Try to think as a mugger or robber. Are you going to feel more comfortable attacking someone who has no way of fighting back other than their fists or a swinging purse or attacking someone who might have the ability to defend themselves with force? I disagree, guns CAN solve problems.

Criminals will always have guns, why should we neglect ourselves the ability to defend ourselves with an equal amount of force (not to mention it is stated quite plainly in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). And don't give me this crap about the wild west coming back, states that allow concealed carry have lower crime rates than those that don't. It works.
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2802
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 04:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> They want ALL "infidels" dead and want the
> world run under Islamic law. You can't just
> give those "people" a hug and make everything
> better.

If that is your conclusion. Let's nuke them. Nuke them all, soldiers, women and children. What are we waiting for?

I'm not too impressed by that attitude though. But what do I do.

> Try to think as a mugger or robber.

Sure you wouldn't walk up to someone that is armed that say "this is a stickup". If I know my victim is armed, or that the probability that he is, is high, I will to the extent possible use armour, shoot him from the back first, and say "this is a stickup" later. Why would the robber take chances, when noone else does.

If I knew that every other person out there was armed, I would not feel comfortable with that. It's not the way I want the world to be, it's sick.

I doubt there is a way to get on top of this spiral.

/Fredrik
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2803
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 04:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

We see criminals using all the available technology now as well. High tech explosives, military automatic weapons that who knows from where they stole them.

I think nor the problem nor the cure is violence.

This only leads to extremes. Terrorism.

What if a robber walks up to any says, this is a stickup, if you shoot me my friend will terminate all your friends withing the next hour. What good is your gun going to make? Eventually we all need to lock up in bomb proof cages pointing suprt missiles against each other. Again, that's not the world I want to live in.

Terrorism isn't going away because of guns - on the contrary, it feeds it.

/Fredrik
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 967
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 04:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

If that is your conclusion. Let's nuke them. Nuke them all, soldiers, women and children. What are we waiting for?

Because I still give them the benefit of the doubt and I believe that most of Islam is peaceful. But there are always the bad apples, and in radical Islam the bad apples are really rotten.

I guess I don't understand the frame of thought of not being comfortable knowing that everyone is armed since the bad guys already are? What does it matter to you if the good guys are as well?

I do agree with your question Fredrik as to why are there bad people in the world. We wouldn't need any of this if they didn't exist, but that's a pipe dream. Power corrupts. Whether it's the power of a pedophile raping young children or a dictator ruling a country, power corrupts. And because of that, unfortunately, there will always be bad people.
 

Bill Pierce
Moderator
Username: Billpierce

Post Number: 4162
Registered: 01-2002
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

As the world's remaining superpower, the US is not immune from the consequences of corruption, either. I seldom question the motives of the American people in general, but I can't say the same about some individuals who have significant roles of power and influence at the present time.
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 875
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

I am growing so incredibly weary of the BIGOTRY surrounding Islam.

Do you actually even know any Muslims? Have you spoken to one single Muslim, ever? I have my doubts.

Please, from now on, replace that word with "fundamentalist". Fundamentalism is the issue, not Islam. And no, "fundamentalist Muslim" doesn't work either. The religion of the fundamentalist is entirely irrelevant, and using it in the same sentence just makes the not-so-sublte association and implies that the entire religion is fundamentalist.

Fundamentalist CHRISTIANS are using terrorism right here in the US against abortion clinics. They use IEDs and terror tactics. The Murrah building was brought down by a "Christian" with an IED and a closed mind. Why isn't Eric Rudolph in Gitmo?

Keep feeding the hate and bigotry Mike, and you will fight this "war" forever. These tactics and logic are precisely the same as the fundamentalists Muslims. Fuel hate with bigotry, prejudice and xenophobia. The media does it all the time.

Oh, wait, never mind... Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong. I almost forgot.

You all want to kill each other? Be my guest. You can all go find a deserted island and kill the out of each other for eternity as far as I am concerned (and take your dumbass cowboy president with you, please). Just keep it away from those of us who get it. Then whenever somebody wins, we can dump our entire nuclear arsenal on the place and wipe this plague of ignorance and hate off the earth once and for all. That's the best use of nukes I can think of...

You don't even need love or understanding to have peace. All you really need is respect. That's it, just plain, simple respect for life, which is not even 10% of Jesus' message, but it would be enough.
 

Fredrik
Senior Member
Username: Fredrik

Post Number: 2804
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 05:29 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

> I guess I don't understand the frame of thought
> of not being comfortable knowing that everyone
> is armed since the bad guys already are? What
> does it matter to you if the good guys are
> as well?

"Good" and "bad" is somewhat relative. I do not believe it's that simple. What is good to you, may not be good to someone else.

Also the simple fact that there is a gun at hand, makes me worried, because there are alot of potheads out there. It would make me paranoid, and that's pretty wasteful. Increasing the probability for me having a defensive response and nail someone because "he made a move at me", and I thought he was going to shoot or whatever. Look how paranoid we all get on terrorism. Desperation and paranoia increase the error rate.

I understand your logic, that you want to protect yourself. It's completely natural. But that's also IMO exactly the danger since the core problem. We tend to take no responsibility for how the world develops!! Just think, oh well, this is how it is and I have to fact facts and protect myself. I don't think it's not that simple. You have a choice to me! I think we should stop the trend, not move along. It's hard but I think it's the only decent thing to do.

I do not belive in perfection, but I always believe in improvement.

Your choices today, will be part of forming tomorrows reality. This should IMO be a part of decision making.

Choose to carry a gun today, and this will affect our tomorrow.

/Fredrik
 

Mike Huss
Advanced Member
Username: Mikhu

Post Number: 969
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 06:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Joseph, you are slipping into the same mode as he/she who shall not be named, as in you are putting words in my mouth. Not once did I say Muslims are bad people. I SAID Simply put, "peace love and understanding" doesn't work with radical Islam. They want ALL "infidels" dead and want the world run under Islamic law. How is that not true? Do you not believe groups like Al Qaeda et al believe that? Face the facts, they do.

Then I also said Because I still give them the benefit of the doubt and I believe that most of Islam is peaceful. Which is more than I can say about the prevailing attitude towards Christianity in your post.
 

Joseph Listan
Advanced Member
Username: Poonstab

Post Number: 876
Registered: 03-2003
Posted on Wednesday, December 14, 2005 - 07:37 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

You are correct Mike. Please forgive the ad hominem attack. It's the attitude I spoke of that bothers me; you may or may not have that attitude. I do not know you personally, but you have made many arguments that these people make, so I lumped you in with the rest of them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I stand by my point, but I retract any implication that you are one of those bigots.

I didn't attack all of Christianity or all Christians, I simply denounced *fundamentalist* "Christians", and the facetious "we're right and everyone else is wrong" was directed at the fundamentalist attitude only. I know plenty of tolerant, open-minded Christians.

Again, it is fundamentalists and evangelists that are the problem. Their actual religion is irrelevant.
 

tobias magan
Junior Member
Username: Magan

Post Number: 89
Registered: 07-2003
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 04:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Sorry to come into this so late.

On the WMD's - Hussein used poison gas, more than once, in documented events. He had WMDs. We just haven't found them yet. Does this make any of you nervous? It makes me nervous. One of the IEDs, during the first year after the war, was a Sarin gas artillery shell. (I read about this on CNN online, or the NY Times, or some open source. It was a regular news report.) Just because we have not found them does not mean they do not exist.

What if they gave a war, and only one side came? Nonviolence is a nice idea, but it doesn't work very well.

Joseph - Educate us on Islam. You started your post saying that Islam is not the problem, then diverged into saying that fundamentalist Christians are just as big a problem. Tell us what the Muslims believe. I'm willing to learn.

And the "Fuel hate with bigotry, prejudice and xenophobia." - I agree, it's a cheap way to do business and isn't befitting a civilized country, but the Democrats in Congress just won't use any other tactics.

"those of us who get it." -- get what? Sounds like a pretty fundamentalist, evangelical attitude.
 

Joakim Ruud
Junior Member
Username: Joques

Post Number: 78
Registered: 10-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 18, 2005 - 11:19 am:   Edit Post Delete Post View Post/Check IP    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

>What if they gave a war, and only one side
>came? Nonviolence is a nice idea, but it
>doesn't work very well.

Absolutely, sometimes force is necessary in the short term. But in the long term, it is far better to work at the _causes_ of these conflicts. Unfair trade regimes, for instance. Poverty breeds extremism, well fed people don't become terrorists/religious extremists in any significant numbers.

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action: