Yes...Muslims want all non-Muslims dead

I very much wish Muslim countries would pick themselves up and look forward rather than back.

CSM, you never answered my question. Why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia? Why are we so scared to go after the place 9/11 actually came from? There's a huge Wahhabi movement in that country that we could be attacking (directly, or indirectly through the Saudi Gov'g) right now--it's one of the most dangerous strains of fundamentalism. Actually, you did answer my question--we chose to pick on the easy, feel-good target, like the guy who looks for his lost wallet under the street lamp, because that's where he can see. Of course, it's not feeling so good right now. Front page of today's Times: the Red Cross accuses us of activities "tantamount to torture" at Guantanamo.

Right Wing--"diplomacy"?? Mr. "appeasement" has suddenly developed a taste for diplomacy? Amazing. Next time you accuse me of being a commie-pacificist-appeaser, I'm going to rename myself diplomatic, just like Right Wing Avenger himself. What did you say about contradictory positions? Come on, you have to have a better answer: why aren't we taking a 10 times harder line with Saudi Arabia?

(By the way, where was I contradictory? I've said from the beginning that you can't mollify committed terrorists, and have to attack them. The people I've argued we should be gentle with are moderate Muslims, "insurgents" who are simply defending their own homes, and suspects whom we've picked up without definite crimes, because mistreating these peope might make things worse for us, not better.)

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
I very much wish Muslim countries would pick themselves up and look forward rather than back.

CSM, you never answered my question. Why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia? Why are we so scared to go after the place 9/11 actually came from? There's a huge Wahhabi movement in that country that we could be attacking (directly, or indirectly through the Saudi Gov'g) right now--it's one of the most dangerous strains of fundamentalism. Actually, you did answer my question--we chose to pick on the easy, feel-good target, like the guy who looks for his lost wallet under the street lamp, because that's where he can see. Of course, it's not feeling so good right now. Front page of today's Times: the Red Cross accuses us of activities "tantamount to torture" at Guantanamo.

Right Wing--"diplomacy"?? Mr. "appeasement" has suddenly developed a taste for diplomacy? Amazing. Next time you accuse me of being a commie-pacificist-appeaser, I'm going to rename myself diplomatic, just like Right Wing Avenger himself. What did you say about contradictory positions? Come on, you have to have a better answer: why aren't we taking a 10 times harder line with Saudi Arabia?

(By the way, where was I contradictory? I've said from the beginning that you can't mollify committed terrorists, and have to attack them. The people I've argued we should be gentle with are moderate Muslims, "insurgents" who are simply defending their own homes, and suspects whom we've picked up without definite crimes, because mistreating these peope might make things worse for us, not better.)

Mariner.

Of course we would like to accomplish change without having to use force. So we'll do one at time and see who changes their mind after each. Libya did. And we tried diplomacy with Iraq; it failed. I encourage diplomacy and then force when diplomacy fails. Can you say the same? Do you think we should have invaded Saudi Arabia immediately? Do you think we should invade it now, or are you just saying things you don't believe?
 
Mariner said:
I very much wish Muslim countries would pick themselves up and look forward rather than back.

CSM, you never answered my question. Why are we ignoring Saudi Arabia? Why are we so scared to go after the place 9/11 actually came from? There's a huge Wahhabi movement in that country that we could be attacking (directly, or indirectly through the Saudi Gov'g) right now--it's one of the most dangerous strains of fundamentalism. Actually, you did answer my question--we chose to pick on the easy, feel-good target, like the guy who looks for his lost wallet under the street lamp, because that's where he can see. Of course, it's not feeling so good right now. Front page of today's Times: the Red Cross accuses us of activities "tantamount to torture" at Guantanamo.

Right Wing--"diplomacy"?? Mr. "appeasement" has suddenly developed a taste for diplomacy? Amazing. Next time you accuse me of being a commie-pacificist-appeaser, I'm going to rename myself diplomatic, just like Right Wing Avenger himself. What did you say about contradictory positions? Come on, you have to have a better answer: why aren't we taking a 10 times harder line with Saudi Arabia?

(By the way, where was I contradictory? I've said from the beginning that you can't mollify committed terrorists, and have to attack them. The people I've argued we should be gentle with are moderate Muslims, "insurgents" who are simply defending their own homes, and suspects whom we've picked up without definite crimes, because mistreating these peope might make things worse for us, not better.)

Mariner.

Actually, we did do something about Saudi Arabia. We started pulling our troops out left and right when the Saudi's decided that maybe they could crack down a bit on some of the extremeists in their country. In fact, we have no more than a token force in Saudi now. we also did a few other things such as stop military officer exchange programs and the like. The Saudis have since tried to do some things to mollify the US, but we are refusing to send troops back into that country.

As for the Red Cross, I'll seriously consider getting upset over what they think just as soon as they send out and publicize the report on the treatment of kidnapped victims of the terrorists. I mean they are inspecting them regularly right?

I just have to ask, why are you in this country? You mentioned that you are from India; from your posts, you dislike Americans and this country, so why the heck are you here?
 
on what you're saying we did in Saudi Arabia. Osama bin Laden wanted U.S. troop withdrawals from the country because he thought our presence defiled Muslim holy sites. If we then withdrew troops, his terrorism was successful. What we didn't do was turn up the heat on the royal family to deliver Osama to us, to release financial information about funding to Osama from his family and other sources, to freeze bin Laden assets that might go to him, to investigate the families of the hijackers, and all that. I've not been able to figure out why the hunt for Al Qaeda in S.A. has not been a continuous news item since 9/11/2001.

CSM, I love this country, and that's why I live here. I chose not to have dual citizenship, but instead to be wholly American. America has enormous strengths, most of all its people's natural tolerance, open-mindedness, and good spirits. Being critical of your country doesn't mean you don't love it--in fact, not being critical might be construed as neglect. Conversely, it's not obvious that every nationalist truly loves the country--some might just be rooting for their home team. Blind, unthinking nationalism is a negative force, in my opinion, not a positive one. (I'm not accusing you of that, but I think some people here take the view that if you live here you have to agree with everything President Bush says and does.)

Mariner.
 
Mariner, you say we should go after SA because the terrorists "came from there". So, should we charge parents for the crimes of their children? In effect, that is what you are proffering.

There is a huge Wahhabi movement in the USA (especially in the prisons), but we can't do anything about it - freedom of religion. Sure, SA doesn't allow for the free worship of all religions, but when it comes to Islam, they do.

I know that we are working with SA to curb terrorism and it is working. Just because YOU (or the average American) don't know about it, that does not mean it is not occuring.

SA's oil is critical to this country as well as the rest of the world - including your homeland India and so, we work within the boundaries that we can. Instead of offering only criticism, offer a solution. Since you and your buddies don't want us to drill for oil here in the USA, we have to get our oil from some place. Where else would you recommend? Iran? I mean, it is not as if they aren't behind terrorism - and in a direct, state sponsored kind of way....

You and your ilk keep your head buried in the sand and only take it out to complain. Frankly, you make me ill with all your bullshit.
 
Mariner said:
America has enormous strengths, most of all its people's natural tolerance, open-mindedness, and good spirits. Being critical of your country doesn't mean you don't love it--in fact, not being critical might be construed as neglect.

I can agree with that. Others are expected to look a their countries weaknesses, myself included.


Edit** Too much coffee, jumpy fingers.
 
key word, Free & Fun, which was "oil." You didn't say the other key word, which is "deficit." I believe we can't go after the Saudis properly because 1. we rely on their oil and 2. we rely on them to reinvest that oil money in our Treasury so that we can continue our profligate ways.

I'm not advocating punishing anyone's children, F&F. I'm advocating doing the basic police work to locate Osama, tackling the Wahabbi movement at its source, and cutting off the terrorists' networks funding. All of a sudden you're for religious freedom--even for terrorist-supporting "faiths"?! That didn't stop us from bombing the Taliban, did it?

Saudi Arabia is one of the most dysfunctional states on earth, and our collusion with their dysfunction could be seen as the true source of 9/11. Why the heck did we fly Osama's relatives to safety within 2 days of the attack? How did we know there weren't going to be more attacks that week, or that one of the relatives might not have known exactly where Osama was? How did we know that they weren't actively funneling him money? 2 days certainly wasn't enough to verify that they were all innocent.

When it comes to an Iraqi insurgent who had nothing to do with 9/11, we'll put him in jail without 6th Amendment protection for months, in the name of "national security." We'll waive the Geneva convention. We'll use harsh interrogation tactics. But we let the most valuable potential witnesses and informants on 9/11 go free--on FBI planes, on a day the nation's air traffic was grounded.

Instead, we should be massively funding alternative energy, killing the SUV loophole, making tax breaks for conservation of energy, increasing the CAFE restrictions on gas economy for vehicles (where 2/3 of our 850,000,000 gallons of daily oil is burned), and erasing rather than running up the deficit, so we don't need the Saudis and the Chinese to pay our bills any more.

Mariner.
 
Patriot said:
http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/iran.asp


”Islam is a religion that wants to run the world.”
… Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini, chairman, Assembly of Experts, Iran
Excerpt from a Friday sermon in Qom, Iran (Friday 2 July 2004):

Crowd: Death to America.

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: Allah willing.

Crowd: Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Death to America.

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: It is currently under complete American control. You should know: Wherever America set foot, it brought corruption, forgery, plundering, massacre, and looting. Allah willing, I hope our people will examine the Koran carefully to see what it tells the Muslims about the infidels, how God mentions the hostility and hatred of every single one of them, and what the Koran recommends the Muslims [to do] about the infidels. Allah willing, you will study and know.

Crowd: America, Israel, shame on your deceit. America, Israel, shame on your plot.

Ayatollah 'Ali Meshkini: May God curse them. May God humiliate you.

Crowd: America, Israel, shame on your deceit.


:chains: What a bunch of morons.....
 
The transporting of Saudis out of the country was reported in the New York Times at the time.

I personally think F9/11 was a terrible movie. Moore introduces large amounts of completely unnecessary speculation. He would have done better to present facts. I'd rather hear Paul Wolfowitz explain why he's been advocating that we take over Iraq for two decades than see how he spits on his finger to slick back his hair. Nevertheless, a few of the facts do stand out. Letting those Saudis go could only mean that we chose to value our (sick) friendship with them more than reacting to 9/11.

Mariner.
 
Mariner said:
The transporting of Saudis out of the country was reported in the New York Times at the time.

I personally think F9/11 was a terrible movie. Moore introduces large amounts of completely unnecessary speculation. He would have done better to present facts. I'd rather hear Paul Wolfowitz explain why he's been advocating that we take over Iraq for two decades than see how he spits on his finger to slick back his hair. Nevertheless, a few of the facts do stand out. Letting those Saudis go could only mean that we chose to value our (sick) friendship with them more than reacting to 9/11.

Mariner.

Yeah, and the fact that they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and that Arab-looking people were being beaten and murdered had nothing to do at all with their leaving. Nothing.

I mean, if your family member commits a crime that means you are guilty too, right? Isn't that how it goes? Didn't OJ's entire family almost go to prison? That is how it goes, right? Or am I misunderstaning something?
 
Mariner said:
key word, Free & Fun, which was "oil." You didn't say the other key word, which is "deficit." I believe we can't go after the Saudis properly because 1. we rely on their oil and 2. we rely on them to reinvest that oil money in our Treasury so that we can continue our profligate ways.

First off, the Saudis are not big investors in our debt. Most investors in our debt are from Asia and Europe.

You have obviously never run a business, much less a country. Deficits come and go. You work with them as you can and they are not always bad for a business. My company ran in the red from 2000 - 2002 due to the economic downturn that started in late 1998. My deficit at one time was almost 20% of our revenue (akin to our "GDP"). We stayed with it, borrowed money, restructured and sweat it out. Since 2002 we have been profitable again and 2004 is a banner year (best since 1999) and 2005 is looking even better based on blanket orders we have received with deliveries scheduled in 2005. And you know who we are taking business from? French, German and UK companies!

I'm not advocating punishing anyone's children, F&F. I'm advocating doing the basic police work to locate Osama

Well, you made a comment about how we shoulda went after the Saudis for what a few of their citizens did. So regardless of what you profess, you were advocating punishing the "parent" for the deeds of the "children". And as I told you, we are doing the basic police work. Just because the president isn't briefing you or me personally every day, that does not mean it is not happening.

Furthermore, if you would read anything other than leftist liberal books and magazines, etc., or watched anything other than CNN or CNN International, you would discover that OBL has said that he used Saudi Citizens just for the purpose of driving a wedge between the US and SA.

tackling the Wahabbi movement at its source, and cutting off the terrorists' networks funding. All of a sudden you're for religious freedom--even for terrorist-supporting "faiths"?! That didn't stop us from bombing the Taliban, did it?

First off, I have always been for religious freedom. If you want to quote me otherwise, find a quote from and I will eat my words. This is a typical liberal trick - you imply I have stated something previously that I haven't to provide support to your position. You ain't gonna get away with that with me.

As for the Taliban, we didn't go to war with the Taliban because of their religious views. Again your ignorance (stupidity?) glares through all your bullshit. We went to war with the Taliban only after giving them several edicts to turn over OBL or we are coming. If you didn't have such a short memory (so convenient for liberals) span, you would recall that they refused to turn over OBL and that is why we went to war. The Taliban was in Afganistan for years and we did nothing about it as their religion is their choice. It was only after they refused to turn over OBL that we went to war with them. Sure, relaxing their religious views is an added benefit, but if you go to Afganistan today one will see that many still practice Islam exactly as they did under the Taliban. The difference now is that people have a choice. It is not being forced upon them. Just as Wahhabism is not being forced on Saudis - many are just following it of their own choice which I agree, is not good, but neither is fundamentalism Christianity that teaches one to play with Rattlesnakes, but we can't stop that from happening here in the Appalachians, so how can we stop Wahhabism in a country that is not ours?

Saudi Arabia is one of the most dysfunctional states on earth, and our collusion with their dysfunction could be seen as the true source of 9/11. Why the heck did we fly Osama's relatives to safety within 2 days of the attack? How did we know there weren't going to be more attacks that week, or that one of the relatives might not have known exactly where Osama was? How did we know that they weren't actively funneling him money? 2 days certainly wasn't enough to verify that they were all innocent.

Ask Clark why we let them go. He admitted under oath that it was HIS decision.

When it comes to an Iraqi insurgent who had nothing to do with 9/11, we'll put him in jail without 6th Amendment protection for months, in the name of "national security." We'll waive the Geneva convention. We'll use harsh interrogation tactics. But we let the most valuable potential witnesses and informants on 9/11 go free--on FBI planes, on a day the nation's air traffic was grounded.

Which Iraqi insurgent? Name him. Sure there are some insurgents we have captured in Iraq that we are holding, but we are holding them because they are NOT Iraqi and they are trying to kill US soldiers. They can't say they are defending THEIR country, so what are they doing? They are there only to kill and so therefore, we hold them. So fucking what?

Instead, we should be massively funding alternative energy, killing the SUV loophole, making tax breaks for conservation of energy, increasing the CAFE restrictions on gas economy for vehicles (where 2/3 of our 850,000,000 gallons of daily oil is burned), and erasing rather than running up the deficit, so we don't need the Saudis and the Chinese to pay our bills any more.

Mariner.

Bush is funding alternative energey programs, something Clinton DID NOT do. The SUV loophole is GONE as of the end of September of this year (you didn't know that? I did, cuz I bought and SUV in September right before the loophole disappeared - :moon4: )

As for the Chinese paying our bills, the same was said in the 80's about the Japanese. Are you being racist? The Europeans own more of the US debt than anybody. So why not mention them?

The deficit will go down. Plus, as I mentioned before and which ou continue to ignore, the deficit is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being a record based on it as a % of GDP. And, as I said before, economists will tell you that deficits are not always bad. They only are bad when you can't pay on them and when they go on for too long. It hasn't even been 4 years yet. Hell, we ran deficits for 20 years under the democrats.

Get a life and get an education.
 
SUV loophole is gone. It was being discussed as alive and well in this week's papers. Did I miss something?

You guys are making me laugh with how you're bending over backwards to defend our inaction on Saudi Arabia. Let's see, a couple of Al Qaeda people happened to stop over in Iraq. Therefore we should bomb the place to smithereens, replace its dictator, and start a democracy there, all in the name of "War on Terror." On the other hand, a country where the average person is uneducated and gets only a fraction of his/her rightful share of oil profits, where women are discriminated against badly, where Osama bin Laden's home sect is based, where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from, where public beheadings are routine, and where the royal family functions as a dictatorship--and which actually obstructs our investigation of 9/11--this country should have its citizens sent home for their own safety, and should be politely asked to help out if it doesn't mind? That's baloney. The only reason we can't get tough with them is that we are married to them: they own a trillion dollars of our debt, and buy more every day--or we sink.

Mariner.
 

Forum List

Back
Top