Well If you factor in the fact that the CIA and lots of other covert US government agencies have plotted to kill, overthrow, subvert, demonize and generally overthown many leaders from the Middle East since the 50s, yeah, its the U.S. fault terrorism exists.

There were no terrorists in the 50s who hated America. Where did they come from all of a sudden? Well, it wasnt all of a sudden. It was a slow build. We kept meddling over there, like putting Shah of Iran in power (while framing his successor), assisting Saddam to gain power (thx Rumsfeld!), trying to destablize Egypt over the canal, etc and the list goes on and on.

I just wish you 'patriots' would actually READ something something other than the Rush Limbaugh report. Please try and make an attempt to look up freely attainable documents of why the Middle East hates the US. You dont have to look very hard, its almost common knowledge anymore. Seriously, there is so little reading of plain government released material, its sad.

You people just listen to anything, and if they beat the drum twice as hard its that much more true.

Again, read up on your US/Middle Eastern history then come back here and type what youve been typing. I dare you.

Originally posted by popinjay

Well If you factor in the fact that the CIA and lots of other covert US government agencies have plotted to kill, overthrow, subvert, demonize and generally overthown many leaders from the Middle East since the 50s, yeah, its the U.S. fault terrorism exists.

There were no terrorists in the 50s who hated America. Where did they come from all of a sudden? Well, it wasnt all of a sudden. It was a slow build. We kept meddling over there, like putting Shah of Iran in power (while framing his successor), assisting Saddam to gain power (thx Rumsfeld!), trying to destablize Egypt over the canal, etc and the list goes on and on.

I just wish you 'patriots' would actually READ something something other than the Rush Limbaugh report. Please try and make an attempt to look up freely attainable documents of why the Middle East hates the US. You dont have to look very hard, its almost common knowledge anymore. Seriously, there is so little reading of plain government released material, its sad.

You people just listen to anything, and if they beat the drum twice as hard its that much more true.

Again, read up on your US/Middle Eastern history then come back here and type what youve been typing. I dare you.

The funny Part of this is YOUR the first one that they will kill if they win... There is a reason they hit New York over say Houston.
 

Originally posted by popinjay

Well If you factor in the fact that the CIA and lots of other covert US government agencies have plotted to kill, overthrow, subvert, demonize and generally overthown many leaders from the Middle East since the 50s, yeah, its the U.S. fault terrorism exists.

There were no terrorists in the 50s who hated America. Where did they come from all of a sudden? Well, it wasnt all of a sudden. It was a slow build. We kept meddling over there, like putting Shah of Iran in power (while framing his successor), assisting Saddam to gain power (thx Rumsfeld!), trying to destablize Egypt over the canal, etc and the list goes on and on.

I just wish you 'patriots' would actually READ something something other than the Rush Limbaugh report. Please try and make an attempt to look up freely attainable documents of why the Middle East hates the US. You dont have to look very hard, its almost common knowledge anymore. Seriously, there is so little reading of plain government released material, its sad.

You people just listen to anything, and if they beat the drum twice as hard its that much more true.

Again, read up on your US/Middle Eastern history then come back here and type what youve been typing. I dare you.

Who are you speaking with? I have been studying history, with religious history as a speciality, for over a decade now. I have studied the Jihad in all its forms and it has nothing to do with us.

The middle east doesn't hate us, they long for us to help them be free.

Wanna match Islamic History Libraries? any day, man.

I think a nice, user friendly place for you to start to understand the problem would be to read Irshad Manji's "The Trouble With Islam Today." After you read that, come back and I'll give you another assignment. I got about thirty more good books for you, right on my own shelves.

What's your favorite thing Bush did in office:

Opposes Kyoko Protocol
No Child Left Behind
Failing to prevent 9/11
Failing to capture Osama bin Laden
USA PATRIOT Act
Invasion of Afghanistan
"Axis of Evil" speech
Warrantless surveillance
Guantanamo Bay
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
False claims about WMD, et al
Invasion of Iraq
Tax cuts for the rich
Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice
Response to Hurricane Katrina
Military Commissions Act (suspension of habeas corpus, et al)
Vetos funding for stem-cell research
Scooter Libby/Plamegate
Department of Justice dismisses seven U.S. Attorneys for political reasons
Attempt to push U.S. toward war with Iran
Faith-based initiatives
Endorses Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
Tries to privatize Social Security
Blocks foreign aid to groups helping women in obtaining abortions
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier — just so long as I'm the dictator."
"Don't throw the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Originally posted by Ekibiogami

Originally posted by popinjay

Well If you factor in the fact that the CIA and lots of other covert US government agencies have plotted to kill, overthrow, subvert, demonize and generally overthown many leaders from the Middle East since the 50s, yeah, its the U.S. fault terrorism exists.

There were no terrorists in the 50s who hated America. Where did they come from all of a sudden? Well, it wasnt all of a sudden. It was a slow build. We kept meddling over there, like putting Shah of Iran in power (while framing his successor), assisting Saddam to gain power (thx Rumsfeld!), trying to destablize Egypt over the canal, etc and the list goes on and on.

I just wish you 'patriots' would actually READ something something other than the Rush Limbaugh report. Please try and make an attempt to look up freely attainable documents of why the Middle East hates the US. You dont have to look very hard, its almost common knowledge anymore. Seriously, there is so little reading of plain government released material, its sad.

You people just listen to anything, and if they beat the drum twice as hard its that much more true.

Again, read up on your US/Middle Eastern history then come back here and type what youve been typing. I dare you.

The funny Part of this is YOUR the first one that they will kill if they win... There is a reason they hit New York over say Houston.
 

I think it's classic American arrogance. They are so primitive, it HAS to be our fault. THEY couldn't be simply believing in an evil ideology -- they aren't smart enough for that. It must be due to OUR CIA.
 

He simply doesn't believe it could be these "primitive" people's fault.

He doesn't understand they are as sophisticated and as capable of believing in lunacy as we are. This was the arrogance that led us to ignore all the warnings before 9/11.

Originally posted by Thrakk

What's your favorite thing Bush did in office:

Opposes Kyoko Protocol
No Child Left Behind
Failing to prevent 9/11
Failing to capture Osama bin Laden
USA PATRIOT Act
Invasion of Afghanistan
"Axis of Evil" speech
Warrantless surveillance
Guantanamo Bay
Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
False claims about WMD, et al
Invasion of Iraq
Tax cuts for the rich
Nominates Roberts as Chief Justice
Response to Hurricane Katrina
Military Commissions Act (suspension of habeas corpus, et al)
Vetos funding for stem-cell research
Scooter Libby/Plamegate
Department of Justice dismisses seven U.S. Attorneys for political reasons
Attempt to push U.S. toward war with Iran
Faith-based initiatives
Endorses Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage
Tries to privatize Social Security
Blocks foreign aid to groups helping women in obtaining abortions
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier — just so long as I'm the dictator."
"Don't throw the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper."

Tax cuts for everyone, not just the rich.
 

Fisherman, I read James Bamford (Body of Secrets) recently. All I need ot know about this country and what goes on. I dont need 'theory". I like to deal in things that actually HAPPEN. Like Operation Northwoods. Read up on that sometime. Its a REAL operation that happened with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 60s. I doubt you ever even heard of it; cause theres no way youd be cheerleading so hard for the US in overseas actions knowing what we have tried to do barely 40 years ago.

Its how we got caught with our pants down against Russia with Gary Powers and the U2 spy plane. We kept flying over, flying over while denying we were doing it. Russia protested but since they couldnt shoot us down, no one believed them. Then oops! They got lucky. Then we deny some more, then they put the plane on display WITH the tapes playing in Gorky Park. We do that kind of stuff all the time. Whyd does Russia hate us?

Overthrow the rightly elected leader of Iran, and put in a puppet who robs the country blind. Why does Iran hate us?

Help Saddam to gain power so he can fight Iran (after we screw up) then he goes apenuts and gasses his own folks? Oops. Then set the people up there :go fight Saddam, we got your back". Leave em blind. Oops. Yeah, they REALLY want us to liberate them. Didnt even get into South Amercian, the Contras, Chile, etc etc.

Fisherman, I dont know if youre just reading the covers of them fancy books, but you gotta start cracking the pages of some REAL journalism. Not just theories all the time.

Originally posted by popinjay

Fisherman, I read James Bamford (Body of Secrets) recently. All I need ot know about this country and what goes on. I dont need 'theory". I like to deal in things that actually HAPPEN. Like Operation Northwoods. Read up on that sometime. Its a REAL operation that happened with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 60s. I doubt you ever even heard of it; cause theres no way youd be cheerleading so hard for the US in overseas actions knowing what we have tried to do barely 40 years ago.

Its how we got caught with our pants down against Russia with Gary Powers and the U2 spy plane. We kept flying over, flying over while denying we were doing it. Russia protested but since they couldnt shoot us down, no one believed them. Then oops! They got lucky. Then we deny some more, then they put the plane on display WITH the tapes playing in Gorky Park. We do that kind of stuff all the time. Whyd does Russia hate us?

Overthrow the rightly elected leader of Iran, and put in a puppet who robs the country blind. Why does Iran hate us?

Help Saddam to gain power so he can fight Iran (after we screw up) then he goes apenuts and gasses his own folks? Oops. Then set the people up there :go fight Saddam, we got your back". Leave em blind. Oops. Yeah, they REALLY want us to liberate them. Didnt even get into South Amercian, the Contras, Chile, etc etc.

Fisherman, I dont know if youre just reading the covers of them fancy books, but you gotta start cracking the pages of some REAL journalism. Not just theories all the time.

That's just the problem. You are reading journalism (which I too have read, for years -- although not that specific book), I have read history, from all sides.

Just because we have done bad things doesn't make the Jihad our fault. They are independent from one another in one sense, and synergistic in another. What you are doing is developing a VERY simlistic theory as opposed to looking at the total reality.

You are falling into the relevancy fallacy here out of your own arrogance. You hate America and yet you are arrogant about us.

Plus, just because we have done bad things is that a reason for us to continue to do bad things? If we weren't always on the side if liberty in every case, isn't that MORE of an argument for us to be so now?

I have read what you have and more. I used to feel much as you do, I was a pretty non-interventionist libertarian back in my 20s and 30s, but the more I studied the Jihad the more my position on this changed.

I know about all those covert action but none of those has anything to do with the Jihad. Read about it, then we'll talk. As I said, read Irshad's book -- this is a real woman dealing with Fundamentalism in her life.

Then read the Al Qaeda reader. This is the writings of one element of the Jihad. The Jihad is first and formost against their fellow muslims -- they are trying to impose fundamentalism on their own people, and then extend the lands until they rule the whole earth. That is the plan, and it has nothing to do with anything we have done. They will use anything to propogandize against us -- and yes, they will take every bad thing we have ever done and use it in their war -- the same way Hitler used Germany's abuse after WWI as justification for what HE did.

It doesn't change the fact that the Nazis wanted to rule the world. The Jihad is the same. Only this time, they feel that truly have God on their side, AND they are much beter funded than the Nazis.

This is NOT a question of intervening or not intervening -- this is World War III -- actually in many ways it is World War Zero, since there has been an element within Islam fighting this war since the 600s.

It is wonderful that we have this amazing ability for self criticism in the west, well, our enemy does not do this. I suggest you read more about THEM and less about US, now that you kow and have decided that we are the Devil, I suggest you read up a bit more.

I understand, I used to feel as you do. Then I learned some more, and I changed when my knowledge of the facts changed.

Plus you misread me, or maybe I am not being clear enough. I am NOT CHERLEADING the US: I don't care who fights this militant Jihad that worships death -- this is a fight we must fight so that future generations can LIVE. This is a fight for all our lives. It's not a game of he did we did whatever. This is World War III.

Will you be happy when the nukes go off in a major city? Will you sit there with silent satisfaction because you feel 'we brought this on ourselves?"

I know I won't be. I will be where I have always been fighting for our freedom.

Oh boy, you still keep going on.

What will your argument solve? Nothing. Keep fueling your egos on the INTERNET.

The pathetic stupidity one has witnessed by reading your post stuns me,  you don't deserve thoughts if you are going to commit them to utter pointlessness.

Americans are truly ignorant. You are at the short end of the stick when it comes to politics, mindless drones.

But hey, go on wasting your days on thinking what to write next on an internet forum in defense of your beloved politics, which have done so much for you in life! Wait a minute? What have it done for you other than fueled stupid discussions?

Fisher, of COURSE terrorism is not something we did.  And it is not something that is our fault.  But like any extremist ideology it has causes.  No one says that tracing Hitler's rise to power directly to the crippling war restitutions the allied powers laid on Germany makes the Holocaust the Allies fault.  And it certainly does not suggest that Hitler would have been a kind, decent human being if Germany had been a stable country.  

But searching for the root causes of his rise helps explain why his ideology was so attractive, what allowed it to sweep the country when its normally relegated to a few burrows of idiots, what made it such a force.

Similarly, tracing the root causes of terrorism does not excuse the terrorists.  They're responsible for the killing.  They're responsible for the murder.  And they need to die.  But what makes Osama attractive?  What gives him support?  These are questions worthy of study, and necessary to study to prevent another 9/11.

You say you care about the past.  But you can treat the past two ways.  You can pretend its a series of facts, of trivia, of interesting anecdotes.   Or you can understand that history is made up of situations, and learn how to avoid those situations.  

When people trace the attractiveness of Osama's ideology, the draw that radical Islam has, the power that can allow a lone lunatic to declare a guy who wrote a book a dead man, and leave that author in hiding fearing for his life, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to say that that study is worthless.  It is RECKLESS to say that such men are insane - for countrywide insanity has causes.  The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Fascism, these things do not evolve in a vacuum.  Can we blame the excesses of Stalin's Russia on the Tsars?  No.  Can we state that the Tsars were angels who did no wrong?  No.  

Understanding causes is what studying history is about.  It is an immature position that because an action has a cause, that cause justifies that action.  If you punch me in the face, you were probably wrong, but that doesn't excuse me pulling out a gun and shooting you.  Similarly, saying America's actions caused the hatred that we are plagued with does not excuse the monsters of the actions they have undertaken against us. 

Originally posted by Sharajat

Fisher, of COURSE terrorism is not something we did.  And it is not something that is our fault.  But like any extremist ideology it has causes.  No one says that tracing Hitler's rise to power directly to the crippling war restitutions the allied powers laid on Germany makes the Holocaust the Allies fault.  And it certainly does not suggest that Hitler would have been a kind, decent human being if Germany had been a stable country.  

But searching for the root causes of his rise helps explain why his ideology was so attractive, what allowed it to sweep the country when its normally relegated to a few burrows of idiots, what made it such a force.

Similarly, tracing the root causes of terrorism does not excuse the terrorists.  They're responsible for the killing.  They're responsible for the murder.  And they need to die.  But what makes Osama attractive?  What gives him support?  These are questions worthy of study, and necessary to study to prevent another 9/11.

You say you care about the past.  But you can treat the past two ways.  You can pretend its a series of facts, of trivia, of interesting anecdotes.   Or you can understand that history is made up of situations, and learn how to avoid those situations.  

When people trace the attractiveness of Osama's ideology, the draw that radical Islam has, the power that can allow a lone lunatic to declare a guy who wrote a book a dead man, and leave that author in hiding fearing for his life, it is IRRESPONSIBLE to say that that study is worthless.  It is RECKLESS to say that such men are insane - for countrywide insanity has causes.  The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, Fascism, these things do not evolve in a vacuum.  Can we blame the excesses of Stalin's Russia on the Tsars?  No.  Can we state that the Tsars were angels who did no wrong?  No.  

Understanding causes is what studying history is about.  It is an immature position that because an action has a cause, that cause justifies that action.  If you punch me in the face, you were probably wrong, but that doesn't excuse me pulling out a gun and shooting you.  Similarly, saying America's actions caused the hatred that we are plagued with does not excuse the monsters of the actions they have undertaken against us. 

You are completely missing my point. I am not ignoring the history. I have studied it all my life.

First, the enemy.

Terrorism is not the enemy. The Jihad is. The root cause is a certain interpretation of Islam, a political/imperial interpretation, that is the greatest, most persistent enemy the west has faced since the 600s.

Have our actions at times exacerbated it and at other times inhibited it? Of course.

Does that mean we should surrender in guilt and denial. as popinjay appears to want? Of course not.

Regardless of what got us here -- here we are. We are in world war three. We should not face world war three hating ourselves. that is what he is doing. That guarantees we lose the world.

i am ignoring nothing -- what i am saying is now we are at war. If we dickered and whined instead of fought, the Axis powers would now rule the world. This struggle we are in makes World War II look like a game. The stakes are MUCH higher, the enemy far more powerful, in terms of destructive potential.

We need to unite and win, lest we divide and die. The choice is yours. I've already made mine.

This is why I have advocating we unite behind the new president and for Republicans NOT to act like the Democrats have. What they did these last several years is reprehensible. It needs to stop now. Hopefully now that they have the power they lusted for, they will. Hopefully the Republicans will behave better.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

You are completely missing my point. I am not ignoring the history. I have studied it all my life.

First, the enemy.

Terrorism is not the enemy. The Jihad is. The root cause is a certain interpretation of Islam, a political/imperial interpretation, that is the greatest, most persistent enemy the west has faced since the 600s.

You completely missed the point here.  First, terrorism isn't an enemy.  It is a tool.  TERRORISTS are the enemy.  The Jihad first off, is not a monolith.  I have been to Arab countries.  I have spoken to them.  Do you know what the vast majority of Arabs want?  They want a quiet neighborhood.  A nice house.  Good food.  They like to watch soccer (or football as those crazy non-Americans call it). Sometimes they even play video games. 

Arabs, in short, are pretty much like us.  I was talking to an Israeli friend I knew in college, and asked him about that.  He said the best conversation he ever had was with an Arab he knew, and went like this (after some idiotic cleric made some remarks about how God would destroy Israel) "So, do you believe that?"  "Sure, I'm sure God will end the oppression of Palestine someday."  "So why are you working with us here?"  "Well God's all powerful, and up there and stuff.  I'm sure he's going to get around to it eventually.  I've got better things to do with my time." 

This ain't verbatum, even for how it was told to me, but the sentiment is pretty universal.

Have our actions at times exacerbated it and at other times inhibited it? Of course.

Does that mean we should surrender in guilt and denial. as popinjay appears to want? Of course not.

Does this mean we should NEVER consider the consequences of our actions?  Of course not.  Our actions, to a large part, have been reprehensible.  We should learn from the past, and not repeat our mistakes in the future.  We armed Osama Bin Laden.  We trained him.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  We armed Saddam Hussain.  We trained him.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  We supported Iran's leaders.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  

We have, in short, screwed up a lot in the region.  Does this mean we collapse in guilt?  No.  Does this mean we are so bullheaded, so stubborn, so stupid, so shortsightedly nationalistic we deny that men and women, good patriots of solid background who acted in with the best interests of the nation at heart, screwed the pooch?  

Regardless of what got us here -- here we are. We are in world war three. We should not face world war three hating ourselves. that is what he is doing. That guarantees we lose the world.

Oh dicks no mate.  The last world war ended with two cities disappearing.  Gone.  Like that.  World War 3 will start this way.  If less than 10 million are dead, it's a border conflict.  World War 2 killed more than 100, and we're far beyond THAT level of death dealing technology now. 

i am ignoring nothing -- what i am saying is now we are at war. If we dickered and whined instead of fought, the Axis powers would now rule the world. This struggle we are in makes World War II look like a game. The stakes are MUCH higher, the enemy far more powerful, in terms of destructive potential.

We need to unite and win, lest we divide and die. The choice is yours. I've already made mine.

Haha.  Mate, rule the world?  The Axis would have collapsed within a generation.  Other ideologies, other monstrosities that horrible have ruled.  The Inquisition once held all of Europe in thrall.  The Khans swept from sea to sea.   The Axis was rotting from the inside.  

Did we have to fight it?  Yes.  But lets not get histerical here.  To historians, a historical perspective is necessary.   Is 'the Jihad' a 10th as dangerous as Hitler?  No.  And it is far more unstable.  The people under them are far less devoted.  

If Hitler had not invaded, had not started his genocides, had not engaged in his World War, imagine dealing with Mussolini.  Mussolini is no different from the Jihadists.  Would it have made sense to invade Italy?  Kill him off?  No.  It would have made sense to address the problems that Mussolini was filling with the country.   We could have contained and eliminated his threat all without a single shot being fired.

The way to win the war on the Jihad is to build away the mentality that causes it.  When people have nothing except fear, hold nothing except broken promises, live with their back broken, a leader who promises strength, justice, rightousness, and victory has a promise they can listen to.  When people are running their own business, strong, and able to plan a future, well, certainly they might agree that God wants all that, but frankly, well... that man is all powerful.  I'm sure he'll get around to it. 

This is why I have advocating we unite behind the new president and for Republicans NOT to act like the Democrats have. What they did these last several years is reprehensible. It needs to stop now. Hopefully now that they have the power they lusted for, they will. Hopefully the Republicans will behave better.

Apparently you missed the Clinton years, mate.  Welcome to Clinton, 2.0.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

You are completely missing my point. I am not ignoring the history. I have studied it all my life.

First, the enemy.

Terrorism is not the enemy. The Jihad is. The root cause is a certain interpretation of Islam, a political/imperial interpretation, that is the greatest, most persistent enemy the west has faced since the 600s.

You completely missed the point here.  First, terrorism isn't an enemy.  It is a tool.  TERRORISTS are the enemy.  The Jihad first off, is not a monolith.  I have been to Arab countries.  I have spoken to them.  Do you know what the vast majority of Arabs want?  They want a quiet neighborhood.  A nice house.  Good food.  They like to watch soccer (or football as those crazy non-Americans call it). Sometimes they even play video games. 

Arabs, in short, are pretty much like us.  I was talking to an Israeli friend I knew in college, and asked him about that.  He said the best conversation he ever had was with an Arab he knew, and went like this (after some idiotic cleric made some remarks about how God would destroy Israel) "So, do you believe that?"  "Sure, I'm sure God will end the oppression of Palestine someday."  "So why are you working with us here?"  "Well God's all powerful, and up there and stuff.  I'm sure he's going to get around to it eventually.  I've got better things to do with my time." 

This ain't verbatum, even for how it was told to me, but the sentiment is pretty universal.

Have our actions at times exacerbated it and at other times inhibited it? Of course.

Does that mean we should surrender in guilt and denial. as popinjay appears to want? Of course not.

Does this mean we should NEVER consider the consequences of our actions?  Of course not.  Our actions, to a large part, have been reprehensible.  We should learn from the past, and not repeat our mistakes in the future.  We armed Osama Bin Laden.  We trained him.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  We armed Saddam Hussain.  We trained him.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  We supported Iran's leaders.  That was a mistake.  That was wrong.  

We have, in short, screwed up a lot in the region.  Does this mean we collapse in guilt?  No.  Does this mean we are so bullheaded, so stubborn, so stupid, so shortsightedly nationalistic we deny that men and women, good patriots of solid background who acted in with the best interests of the nation at heart, screwed the pooch?  

Regardless of what got us here -- here we are. We are in world war three. We should not face world war three hating ourselves. that is what he is doing. That guarantees we lose the world.

Oh dicks no mate.  The last world war ended with two cities disappearing.  Gone.  Like that.  World War 3 will start this way.  If less than 10 million are dead, it's a border conflict.  World War 2 killed more than 100, and we're far beyond THAT level of death dealing technology now. 

i am ignoring nothing -- what i am saying is now we are at war. If we dickered and whined instead of fought, the Axis powers would now rule the world. This struggle we are in makes World War II look like a game. The stakes are MUCH higher, the enemy far more powerful, in terms of destructive potential.

We need to unite and win, lest we divide and die. The choice is yours. I've already made mine.

Haha.  Mate, rule the world?  The Axis would have collapsed within a generation.  Other ideologies, other monstrosities that horrible have ruled.  The Inquisition once held all of Europe in thrall.  The Khans swept from sea to sea.   The Axis was rotting from the inside.  

Did we have to fight it?  Yes.  But lets not get histerical here.  To historians, a historical perspective is necessary.   Is 'the Jihad' a 10th as dangerous as Hitler?  No.  And it is far more unstable.  The people under them are far less devoted.  

If Hitler had not invaded, had not started his genocides, had not engaged in his World War, imagine dealing with Mussolini.  Mussolini is no different from the Jihadists.  Would it have made sense to invade Italy?  Kill him off?  No.  It would have made sense to address the problems that Mussolini was filling with the country.   We could have contained and eliminated his threat all without a single shot being fired.

The way to win the war on the Jihad is to build away the mentality that causes it.  When people have nothing except fear, hold nothing except broken promises, live with their back broken, a leader who promises strength, justice, rightousness, and victory has a promise they can listen to.  When people are running their own business, strong, and able to plan a future, well, certainly they might agree that God wants all that, but frankly, well... that man is all powerful.  I'm sure he'll get around to it. 

This is why I have advocating we unite behind the new president and for Republicans NOT to act like the Democrats have. What they did these last several years is reprehensible. It needs to stop now. Hopefully now that they have the power they lusted for, they will. Hopefully the Republicans will behave better.

Apparently you missed the Clinton years, mate.  Welcome to Clinton, 2.0.

 

 

Okay now that you are chopping it up and writing in different colors again. We're done. please stop this if you want to have a discussion. What you are doing is akin to interrupting someone in the middle of speaking, in writing. I consider doing what you are doing rude in that it destroys context within context. I've asked you not to do this before yet you persist.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

Okay now that you are chopping it up and writing in different colors again. We're done. please stop this if you want to have a discussion. What you are doing is akin to interrupting someone in the middle of speaking, in writing. I consider doing what you are doing rude in that it destroys context within context. I've asked you not to do this before yet you persist.

I am dissapointed, is what I wish I could say.  I rather expected this though.  Run away again, no one misses you   Your opinions are quite indefensible.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

Okay now that you are chopping it up and writing in different colors again. We're done. please stop this if you want to have a discussion. What you are doing is akin to interrupting someone in the middle of speaking, in writing. I consider doing what you are doing rude in that it destroys context within context. I've asked you not to do this before yet you persist.

I am dissapointed, is what I wish I could say.  I rather expected this though.  Run away again, no one misses you   Your opinions are quite indefensible.

I'm not running away. Restate what you are stating in a polite manner and we will resume our discussion. I consider my post unanswred.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

I'm not running away. Restate what you are stating in a polite manner and we will resume our discussion. I consider my post unanswred.

You may consider your post whatever you wish.  When you use rhetorical word games like:

We should not face world war three hating ourselves. that is what he is doing. That guarantees we lose the world.

And

This struggle we are in makes World War II look like a game. The stakes are MUCH higher, the enemy far more powerful, in terms of destructive potential.

We need to unite and win, lest we divide and die. The choice is yours. I've already made mine.

You have created a rhetorical argument.  It is powerful and moving, and stirs people to action.  And it is not factual.  It is not based on reason.  It is not logical.  It is rhetoric.  I parse it, and it becomes what it is - word games.

You may parse my posts any way you wish.  If you parse them deceptively, I will hilight your deception.  If you leave out critical parts, I will show you what parts you have left out, and why they were relevant. 

This is because my arguments are based on facts.  They are logical, they parse well, and they build to a conclusion.  And like any good proof, each step is reliable, and can be examined.

If, when we examine your paragraphs, they seem contentless and full of loaded phrases, if they seem hysterical and nonsensical, if minus the flow they don't read like anything meaningful at all, perhaps it is time to consider why they are this way. 

My purpose in a discussion is to present rational reasons for why I feel what I feel, examine other people's reasons, and discuss them.  Yours appears to be 'to win an argument with me.'   I post reason.  I will repost if I feel new points have been raised, or if someone is misrepresenting me, or if I feel a hole has been poked in my logic and wish to explore it.   

Can I write rhetoric equal to yours?  Yes.  Can I write more convincingly?  Yes.  Could I actually outdo you? Possibly (you have somewhat more practice, after all).  I do not wish to.  No matter how you cut it,  Joe the Plumber earns you more in speechwriting class than a rational real-world based analysis (P = 0.01) on the effects of Obama's tax changes on the general population.  And this is because people only retain what they hear for 30 seconds or so.   Before that, it's part of the tempo, unless something breaks it.

In writing, it is similar, except that I can pick and choose when to break your tempo.  If without your tempo your argument falls apart, it never had any substance to begin with. 

So, as I said in the beginning, you may consider of your post what you wish.   I consider it a non-response in the first place, useful only to show rhetorical games and how they are used to make a mockery of rational thought. 

If in responding to this post, you choose to try to break up my post in order to strawman me, to hilight some imaginary problem with what I have done, I will simply call your strawman for what they are.  If you choose to make a rational argument on why its so important that we don't examine each piece of your post, I will examine it rationally.  My honest bet is on neither.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

I'm not running away. Restate what you are stating in a polite manner and we will resume our discussion. I consider my post unanswred.

You may consider your post whatever you wish.  When you use rhetorical word games like:

We should not face world war three hating ourselves. that is what he is doing. That guarantees we lose the world.

And

This struggle we are in makes World War II look like a game. The stakes are MUCH higher, the enemy far more powerful, in terms of destructive potential.

We need to unite and win, lest we divide and die. The choice is yours. I've already made mine.

You have created a rhetorical argument.  It is powerful and moving, and stirs people to action.  And it is not factual.  It is not based on reason.  It is not logical.  It is rhetoric.  I parse it, and it becomes what it is - word games.

You may parse my posts any way you wish.  If you parse them deceptively, I will hilight your deception.  If you leave out critical parts, I will show you what parts you have left out, and why they were relevant. 

This is because my arguments are based on facts.  They are logical, they parse well, and they build to a conclusion.  And like any good proof, each step is reliable, and can be examined.

If, when we examine your paragraphs, they seem contentless and full of loaded phrases, if they seem hysterical and nonsensical, if minus the flow they don't read like anything meaningful at all, perhaps it is time to consider why they are this way. 

My purpose in a discussion is to present rational reasons for why I feel what I feel, examine other people's reasons, and discuss them.  Yours appears to be 'to win an argument with me.'   I post reason.  I will repost if I feel new points have been raised, or if someone is misrepresenting me, or if I feel a hole has been poked in my logic and wish to explore it.   

Can I write rhetoric equal to yours?  Yes.  Can I write more convincingly?  Yes.  Could I actually outdo you? Possibly (you have somewhat more practice, after all).  I do not wish to.  No matter how you cut it,  Joe the Plumber earns you more in speechwriting class than a rational real-world based analysis (P = 0.01) on the effects of Obama's tax changes on the general population.  And this is because people only retain what they hear for 30 seconds or so.   Before that, it's part of the tempo, unless something breaks it.

In writing, it is similar, except that I can pick and choose when to break your tempo.  If without your tempo your argument falls apart, it never had any substance to begin with. 

So, as I said in the beginning, you may consider of your post what you wish.   I consider it a non-response in the first place, useful only to show rhetorical games and how they are used to make a mockery of rational thought. 

If in responding to this post, you choose to try to break up my post in order to strawman me, to hilight some imaginary problem with what I have done, I will simply call your strawman for what they are.  If you choose to make a rational argument on why its so important that we don't examine each piece of your post, I will examine it rationally.  My honest bet is on neither.

When you actually make an argument, I'll answer it. If you are rude, I won't, because I don't believe rudeness deserves the respect of an answer. The part you parce is rhetoric, it wasn't part of my argument, although i daresay it is a reasobnable argument that hatred will not work well for us.

This is what this thread was about in the very first place. We need to learn to show each other respect, including our presidents, past and future. We ought to also encourage respect of one another. If you feel I need to make a "fact-based" argument as to why that is so, I'm sorry I'm simply not going to bother.

But to get back to my original point in this response. when you actually make an argument, I'll answer it, I'm waiting.

I'll check back later. For now, the Lich King awaits

Originally posted by Fishermage 

When you actually make an argument, I'll answer it. If you are rude, I won't, because I don't believe rudeness deserves the respect of an answer. The part you parce is rhetoric, it wasn't part of my argument, although i daresay it is a reasobnable argument that hatred will not work well for us.

This is what this thread was about in the very first place. We need to learn to show each other respect, including our presidents, past and future. We ought to also encourage respect of one another. If you feel I need to make a "fact-based" argument as to why that is so, I'm sorry I'm simply not going to bother.

But to get back to my original point in this response. when you actually make an argument, I'll answer it, I'm waiting.

I'll check back later. For now, the Lich King awaits

Your entire argument is word play.  As I clearly showed.  

Don't worry, I'm sure there's an offchance the AI will be more receptive.  Or at least it probably won't call you on it.  You have a bright future in Trade channel spam.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

When you actually make an argument, I'll answer it. If you are rude, I won't, because I don't believe rudeness deserves the respect of an answer. The part you parce is rhetoric, it wasn't part of my argument, although i daresay it is a reasobnable argument that hatred will not work well for us.

This is what this thread was about in the very first place. We need to learn to show each other respect, including our presidents, past and future. We ought to also encourage respect of one another. If you feel I need to make a "fact-based" argument as to why that is so, I'm sorry I'm simply not going to bother.

But to get back to my original point in this response. when you actually make an argument, I'll answer it, I'm waiting.

I'll check back later. For now, the Lich King awaits

Your entire argument is word play.  As I clearly showed.  

Don't worry, I'm sure there's an offchance the AI will be more receptive.  Or at least it probably won't call you on it.  You have a bright future in Trade channel spam.

You showed nothing. And now you have resorted to your usual personal attacks. I am still wating for you to actually make an argument.

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

You showed nothing. And now you have resorted to your usual personal attacks. I am still wating for you to actually make an argument.

How would you know?  You didn't read it.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

You showed nothing. And now you have resorted to your usual personal attacks. I am still wating for you to actually make an argument.

How would you know?  You didn't read it.

When you actually make an argument and not personal attacks, I'll read it. Still waiting.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

You showed nothing. And now you have resorted to your usual personal attacks. I am still wating for you to actually make an argument.

How would you know?  You didn't read it.

When you actually make an argument and not personal attacks, I'll read it. Still waiting.

Ah, you're like Sylvia Brown!  You don't even need to read my posts to know what they're going to say!  You could probably make millions on the stock market that way.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage 

 

You showed nothing. And now you have resorted to your usual personal attacks. I am still wating for you to actually make an argument.

How would you know?  You didn't read it.

When you actually make an argument and not personal attacks, I'll read it. Still waiting.

 

Ah, you're like Sylvia Brown!  You don't even need to read my posts to know what they're going to say!  You could probably make millions on the stock market that way.

Still waiting.

---

You are completely missing my point. I am not ignoring the history. I have studied it all my life.

---

You use so many semantical words and sentences its just not funny. Although no one says they hate the US, you print they do. Although no one says anything about giving up on some mythical 'World War 3', you print they suggest it.

First, I would have to admit we are in a ACTUAL World War3, which we are clearly are not. The rest of the world in not involved in the United States' 'World War', so how can you keep calling it that? Hell, I think the biggest ally we still have left over there at the "war" is... like 500 Italians or something? And 450 of those are behind the lines. We are alone in a poor fight that can bring about nothing but world instabily, which it has thus far. Stop confusing police actions of a state like ours in Iraq and try to liken that to some actual war. There will be no "peace treaty" or anything else resembling a war other than people dying, which by the way, happens all the time all over the world.

When someone who makes much better points about your faulty logic than I can, Sharajat, you decide all of a sudden that hes 'rude and mean',then all of a sudden you wanna go play WoW. Thats pretty.. um. "Well, if youre not gonna play by my rules, I'm taking the ball and going home."