Ah yes the master troll shows his head praising his little troll follower for posting lying flamebait. How cute...
CkG[/quote]
Ah yes, gotta love how the Bush Borg call everyone not A$$imulated, "trolls".
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So conjur - again - where is your basis for claiming that they are suppressing the news?
He has no basis because he's a troll.
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
nvm too
Good choice nutxo
CkG
WHATTTT????? This is utter CRAP.These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
nvm too
Good choice nutxo
CkG
Yes, I saw the pre-edited version.
Wise choice, indeed.
Originally posted by: conjur
And to those who would label me, I laugh in your face. Go ahead, try and pin a political party label on me. It won't work as my stance on issues more than proves that.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
WHATTTT????? This is utter CRAP.These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
basic english 101:
the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority
mil·len·ni·a (-ln-) or mil·len·ni·ums
A span of one thousand years.
please point out ANY link ANYWHERE that supports your contention that Iraqi's have lived under a theocracy for 1000 years (much less several thousand years). No AP World History points for you!!
632 CE: Early Islam - With the death of Muhammad, his father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, and Umar devise a system in which Islam can sustain religious and political stability. Accepting the name of caliph ("deputy of the Prophet"), Abu-Bakr begins a military exhibition to enforce the caliph's authority over Arabian followers of Muhammad. He thereafter moves northward overtaking Byzantine and Persian forces. Abu-Bakr dies two years following his succession of Muhammad. Umar succeeds him as the second caliph and begins a campaign against the neighboring empires.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
And to those who would label me, I laugh in your face. Go ahead, try and pin a political party label on me. It won't work as my stance on issues more than proves that.
I would safely make bet from that given your foreign policy views and this:
What am I ? from an old
thread that you did not participate in that;;;;
You are not an isolationist.
You are not a realist.
You are not a neoconservative.
You are *currently* displaying all of the criteria ,in this quiz, that would define you as a liberal.
An "I voted for Bush" liberal, at that.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news..
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
WHATTTT????? This is utter CRAP.These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
basic english 101:
the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority
mil·len·ni·a (-ln-) or mil·len·ni·ums
A span of one thousand years.
please point out ANY link ANYWHERE that supports your contention that Iraqi's have lived under a theocracy for 1000 years (much less several thousand years). No AP World History points for you!!
Well, considering by 632 Muslims had overtaken the Byzantine and Persian empires and by 641 CE Muslims controlled Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, I'd say >1,300 years is sufficient.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/ispage.htm
632 CE: Early Islam - With the death of Muhammad, his father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, and Umar devise a system in which Islam can sustain religious and political stability. Accepting the name of caliph ("deputy of the Prophet"), Abu-Bakr begins a military exhibition to enforce the caliph's authority over Arabian followers of Muhammad. He thereafter moves northward overtaking Byzantine and Persian forces. Abu-Bakr dies two years following his succession of Muhammad. Umar succeeds him as the second caliph and begins a campaign against the neighboring empires.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
As I was out a bit today running errands, I happened to tune in to the likes of Medved (sp?) and Hannity and Limbaugh.
Much of their shows while I was listening to them was b!tching about all we hear from Iraq is bad news, nothing of the good coming out of it. While I agree I'd like to hear some of that good news, today is certainly not the day to be trying to do that. We have lost 13 of our own this weekend and numerous others injured. This is a serious situation and it's happening in various places in Iraq. Of course, seeing this uprising in the news is scaring the Bush fanboys as they're afraid their puppet will drop further in polls so they're trying to spin away the news and show the "Sunny side of Iraq."
Just face it, Bush is going to win the election.
The world is becoming a better place because of his willingness to confront centers of evil. The weak allow themselves to be emotionally affected by the daily news instead of envisioning the end goal. I'm not trying to trivialize the loss of life we've endured in Iraq and and the pain felt by the families affected, but these numbers are nothing compared to past wars. If your mindset endured throughout our history as a nation, we would never have broken away from Britain.
Hmm...terrorist activity is still going strong. Not only by Al Qaeda but also between Palestine and Israel. Al Qaeda has splintered and is growing...now present on five continents. How is the world a better place now?
Also, what is the end goal? Bush still has no freakin' clue who will take over in Iraq a mere 12 weeks from now. That's pretty damn scary, imo.
Your view of this world is just plain wrong. There has not been another terrorist attack in this country. The attacks that have occurred overseas were of very low sophistication and planning. Al Qaeda is on the run, but they are empowered by the weak that give in to fear (Spain, for example).
Iraq will eventually be a democratic nation. It may take 10 or 15 years to even begin to resemble a democracy, but it will happen. Would that be possible under Saddam and his crazy sons? Of course not. How important is it that democracy exists in the Middle East? Extremely important. Will democracy be contagious? Hopefully... probably. The future stability and security of this planet requires a stable Middle East.
Appeasement caused how many millions of dead in WW2? We all want peace and freedom for all, but it requires sacrifice. The MTV frame of mind generation is unable to grasp this.
Whose world view is just plain wrong?
Where did I mention the attacks had to occur hear? Where has it been defined that terrorist acts have to be complex (like hijacking planes en masse and slamming them into buildings?) Simple methods have killed thousands (car bombs, suicide bombers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid.) You're really rather clueless, aren't you?
You're also naive if you think democracy will last in Iraq once our military presence is nothing but a token one. These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
And to those who would label me, I laugh in your face. Go ahead, try and pin a political party label on me. It won't work as my stance on issues more than proves that.
I would safely make bet from that given your foreign policy views and this:
What am I ? from an old
thread that you did not participate in that;;;;
You are not an isolationist.
You are not a realist.
You are not a neoconservative.
You are *currently* displaying all of the criteria ,in this quiz, that would define you as a liberal.
An "I voted for Bush" liberal, at that.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news..
Thing is, that site only considers some aspects of foreign policy.
That's a horrible quiz for determining one's political views. I was on the cusp between liberal and realist.
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
WHATTTT????? This is utter CRAP.These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
basic english 101:
the·oc·ra·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
A government ruled by or subject to religious authority
mil·len·ni·a (-ln-) or mil·len·ni·ums
A span of one thousand years.
please point out ANY link ANYWHERE that supports your contention that Iraqi's have lived under a theocracy for 1000 years (much less several thousand years). No AP World History points for you!!
Well, considering by 632 Muslims had overtaken the Byzantine and Persian empires and by 641 CE Muslims controlled Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, I'd say >1,300 years is sufficient.
http://eawc.evansville.edu/chronology/ispage.htm
632 CE: Early Islam - With the death of Muhammad, his father-in-law, Abu-Bakr, and Umar devise a system in which Islam can sustain religious and political stability. Accepting the name of caliph ("deputy of the Prophet"), Abu-Bakr begins a military exhibition to enforce the caliph's authority over Arabian followers of Muhammad. He thereafter moves northward overtaking Byzantine and Persian forces. Abu-Bakr dies two years following his succession of Muhammad. Umar succeeds him as the second caliph and begins a campaign against the neighboring empires.
So, the party of Sadam was a theocracy??
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Your view of this world is just plain wrong. There has not been another terrorist attack in this country. The attacks that have occurred overseas were of very low sophistication and planning. Al Qaeda is on the run, but they are empowered by the weak that give in to fear (Spain, for example).
Iraq will eventually be a democratic nation. It may take 10 or 15 years to even begin to resemble a democracy, but it will happen. Would that be possible under Saddam and his crazy sons? Of course not. How important is it that democracy exists in the Middle East? Extremely important. Will democracy be contagious? Hopefully... probably. The future stability and security of this planet requires a stable Middle East.
Appeasement caused how many millions of dead in WW2? We all want peace and freedom for all, but it requires sacrifice. The MTV frame of mind generation is unable to grasp this.
Whose world view is just plain wrong?
Where did I mention the attacks had to occur here? Where has it been defined that terrorist acts have to be complex (like hijacking planes en masse and slamming them into buildings?) Simple methods have killed thousands (car bombs, suicide bombers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid.) You're really rather clueless, aren't you?
You're also naive if you think democracy will last in Iraq once our military presence is nothing but a token one. These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
Prove that Al Qaeda is still going strong. You can't. Every indication is that they are being wiped out. Simple attacks do not point to a strong terrorist network. Simple criminals can pull off similar stunts. A strong Al Qaeda network would have struck us since 9/11. You are taking the pessimistic view of the world. You have a very racist view of Iraqis. Your statement is complete bullsh*t. First, Saddam's regime was NOT a theocracy. Secondly, our own European roots are very religious, and yet we still managed to form a democracy.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
And to those who would label me, I laugh in your face. Go ahead, try and pin a political party label on me. It won't work as my stance on issues more than proves that.
I would safely make bet from that given your foreign policy views and this:
What am I ? from an old
thread that you did not participate in that;;;;
You are not an isolationist.
You are not a realist.
You are not a neoconservative.
You are *currently* displaying all of the criteria ,in this quiz, that would define you as a liberal.
An "I voted for Bush" liberal, at that.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news..
Thing is, that site only considers some aspects of foreign policy.
That's a horrible quiz for determining one's political views. I was on the cusp between liberal and realist.
Originally posted by: conjur
hmmm....25 years of secular rule vs. ~1,400....hmmm
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Your view of this world is just plain wrong. There has not been another terrorist attack in this country. The attacks that have occurred overseas were of very low sophistication and planning. Al Qaeda is on the run, but they are empowered by the weak that give in to fear (Spain, for example).
Iraq will eventually be a democratic nation. It may take 10 or 15 years to even begin to resemble a democracy, but it will happen. Would that be possible under Saddam and his crazy sons? Of course not. How important is it that democracy exists in the Middle East? Extremely important. Will democracy be contagious? Hopefully... probably. The future stability and security of this planet requires a stable Middle East.
Appeasement caused how many millions of dead in WW2? We all want peace and freedom for all, but it requires sacrifice. The MTV frame of mind generation is unable to grasp this.
Whose world view is just plain wrong?
Where did I mention the attacks had to occur here? Where has it been defined that terrorist acts have to be complex (like hijacking planes en masse and slamming them into buildings?) Simple methods have killed thousands (car bombs, suicide bombers, the bombs on the trains in Madrid.) You're really rather clueless, aren't you?
You're also naive if you think democracy will last in Iraq once our military presence is nothing but a token one. These people have lived under theocracies for millennia!
Prove that Al Qaeda is still going strong. You can't. Every indication is that they are being wiped out. Simple attacks do not point to a strong terrorist network. Simple criminals can pull off similar stunts. A strong Al Qaeda network would have struck us since 9/11. You are taking the pessimistic view of the world. You have a very racist view of Iraqis. Your statement is complete bullsh*t. First, Saddam's regime was NOT a theocracy. Secondly, our own European roots are very religious, and yet we still managed to form a democracy.
I'm sorry...did you say something? I just read some babble.
Let me see...
Bali - 200 dead
Madrid - 200 dead.
Pakistan - 5 policeman killed today by Al Qaeda
London - Al Qaeda plot uncovered
Madrid - Bomb on rail discovered
Paris - Apparent Al Qaeda members rounded up for questioning
Iraq - Al Qaeda training has been credited for success of some of the insurgent attacks on U.S. forces
Phillipines - Al Qaeda plot uncovered
All but Bali have been in the last MONTH!
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: Ozoned
Originally posted by: conjur
And to those who would label me, I laugh in your face. Go ahead, try and pin a political party label on me. It won't work as my stance on issues more than proves that.
I would safely make bet from that given your foreign policy views and this:
What am I ? from an old
thread that you did not participate in that;;;;
You are not an isolationist.
You are not a realist.
You are not a neoconservative.
You are *currently* displaying all of the criteria ,in this quiz, that would define you as a liberal.
An "I voted for Bush" liberal, at that.
Sorry to be the bearer of such bad news..
Thing is, that site only considers some aspects of foreign policy.
That's a horrible quiz for determining one's political views. I was on the cusp between liberal and realist.
A realist would surely not embrace the emotion you post with.
Pinning the label on you would be easy and only take using selective quotes of conjur
over the last 3 months.
Maybe the reason you can't accept the label is that you have no defined set of core values..(yet)
But if you are ok with other peoples thoughts and opinions (issues) defining you, who am I to argue?
As for the post topic, I scanned all the media outlets today and I saw the whole picture.
I saw the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm filled with hate and bullsh*t? I'm not the one throwing around insults now, am I?
Calling me a racist? By what stretch of your incredibly active and fvcked up imagination do you come up with that?
And, yes, plots are being foiled. Attacks do not have to be complex in order for Al Qaeda to be a strong terrorist organization. Do you think Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were a strong organization? They managed to level a building, eh?
You're a complete and utter fool.
You have the intellect of a peanut. The "Rulers" of Iraq may have had Muslim beliefs, but that does not mean that there was a theocracy. Quite the contrary under Ottoman Rule for example, where the religious leaders where kept on a short leash, and the Sultan, not the mullahs ran the show.Well, considering by 632 Muslims had overtaken the Byzantine and Persian empires and by 641 CE Muslims controlled Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, I'd say >1,300 years is sufficient
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm filled with hate and bullsh*t? I'm not the one throwing around insults now, am I?
Calling me a racist? By what stretch of your incredibly active and fvcked up imagination do you come up with that?
And, yes, plots are being foiled. Attacks do not have to be complex in order for Al Qaeda to be a strong terrorist organization. Do you think Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were a strong organization? They managed to level a building, eh?
You're a complete and utter fool.
You are a racist. You claimed that Iraqis are incapable of democracy. That's a very racist statement.
You STILL haven't proved that Al Qaeda is a strong terrorist organization. Creating havoc in low security locations is hardly a sign that they are who they were before 9/11. They no longer have the ability to launch an attack as coordinated and deadly as 9/11. Using Tim McVeigh as an example is pathetic.
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
You have the intellect of a peanut. The "Rulers" of Iraq may have had Muslim beliefs, but that does not mean that there was a theocracy. Quite the contrary under Ottoman Rule for example, where the religious leaders where kept on a short leash, and the Sultan, not the mullahs ran the show.Well, considering by 632 Muslims had overtaken the Byzantine and Persian empires and by 641 CE Muslims controlled Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, I'd say >1,300 years is sufficient
You have pathetic reading and comprehension skills.
Using your example, the United States would be classified a theocracy because all the presidents have been Christians....
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
I'm filled with hate and bullsh*t? I'm not the one throwing around insults now, am I?
Calling me a racist? By what stretch of your incredibly active and fvcked up imagination do you come up with that?
And, yes, plots are being foiled. Attacks do not have to be complex in order for Al Qaeda to be a strong terrorist organization. Do you think Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols were a strong organization? They managed to level a building, eh?
You're a complete and utter fool.
You are a racist. You claimed that Iraqis are incapable of democracy. That's a very racist statement.
You STILL haven't proved that Al Qaeda is a strong terrorist organization. Creating havoc in low security locations is hardly a sign that they are who they were before 9/11. They no longer have the ability to launch an attack as coordinated and deadly as 9/11. Using Tim McVeigh as an example is pathetic.
You're an idiot.
I never claimed Iraqis are incapable of democracy and I am FAR from being a racist. The Iraqis are certainly capable of democracy but not at this time. It cannot be rammed down their throats. It has to come from within. The political climate is too splintered in Iraq at this point and civil war is a definite danger.
Al Qaeda is still thriving, otherwise, the war on terror (re:Al Qaeda) would be over. If we had destroyed it in Afghanistan, then the Madrid bombing would not have occurred; the plots in London and the Phillipines would not have been underway. If you think Al Qaeda is concentrated in Iraq and northern Pakistan, you are an ignorant fool.
I believe you just agreed with me that the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Iraq up until "recently" was not a Theocracy, but a Sultanate.The Sultans also assumed the title of Caliph (Deputy of the Prophet). A large part of their job was protecting the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. Much of the military expansion done was in the name of Islam (protecting the pilgrimage and rooting out Islamic heretics). There was no separate of church and state. The laws were based upon the Qu'ran, the Shari'ah. That's a far cry different from the U.S.
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: FrodoB
You are a racist. You claimed that Iraqis are incapable of democracy. That's a very racist statement.
You STILL haven't proved that Al Qaeda is a strong terrorist organization. Creating havoc in low security locations is hardly a sign that they are who they were before 9/11. They no longer have the ability to launch an attack as coordinated and deadly as 9/11. Using Tim McVeigh as an example is pathetic.
You're an idiot.
I never claimed Iraqis are incapable of democracy and I am FAR from being a racist. The Iraqis are certainly capable of democracy but not at this time. It cannot be rammed down their throats. It has to come from within. The political climate is too splintered in Iraq at this point and civil war is a definite danger.
Al Qaeda is still thriving, otherwise, the war on terror (re:Al Qaeda) would be over. If we had destroyed it in Afghanistan, then the Madrid bombing would not have occurred; the plots in London and the Phillipines would not have been underway. If you think Al Qaeda is concentrated in Iraq and northern Pakistan, you are an ignorant fool.
If you think Al Qaeda is still concentrated in Afghanistan, you are an ignorant fool. Madrid wasn't planned from Afghanistan. Afghanistan is no longer the main base of operations. Wiping them out in Afghanistan is very helpful, but it does nothing about their bases of operations in nothern Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.
Are you on drugs or are you just that dense?
Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
I believe you just agreed with me that the Ottoman Empire, which ruled Iraq up until "recently" was not a Theocracy, but a Sultanate.The Sultans also assumed the title of Caliph (Deputy of the Prophet). A large part of their job was protecting the Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. Much of the military expansion done was in the name of Islam (protecting the pilgrimage and rooting out Islamic heretics). There was no separate of church and state. The laws were based upon the Qu'ran, the Shari'ah. That's a far cry different from the U.S.
As I recall, King Henry VIII declared himself head of the Church of England to overcome the influence of Pope Clement VII. English law certainly reflected Christian values. If I recall, the English troops used to rally around the cry "God and Country" There was NO SEPARATION of Church and State, heck, King Henry was the English Pope! Are you going to claim that England was a "Theocracy" under Henry VII - I don't believe ANY historian would say that.
Your statement that much of the expansion of the Ottoman Empire was to root out Islamic hertics is laughable. The Ottomans invited the Jews from Spain to emmigrate to Constantinople during the Inquisition!
your completely wrong about this entire topic.