The disturbing view of Muslims in the US

[Davros]

FDR saved the Republic.

Yeah, whatever. The people on the bread lines appreciated him.

I expect that they'd have felt different if they had known that he was the guy that put them in that bread line.

He didn't.

 

[Unkotare]

FDR saved the Republic.

Yeah, whatever. The people on the bread lines appreciated him.

I expect that they'd have felt different if they had known that he was the guy that put them in that bread line.

He didn't.

He made the breadline a permanent address.

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

Care to elaborate on how ISIS was formed out of Iraq? Care to elaborate on how Iraq effects a civil war in Syria? Please tell us how Syria going into a civil war, supported by Obama, was caused by anything that happened in Iraq. Please. Please don't do a google because you should not need to since you made such a statement you must know why.

Let me ask, you do realize this is 2015 and not 2001? You do realize that Obama has been President for almost 7 years and the Syria civil war isn't that old? You do know those things don't you?

Begs the questions: Are you stupid on purpose? Or are you even aware of the problem?

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.

But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.

Iraq was a complete **** up from start to finish. Poorly planned and executed, no provision for occupation, and the crowning glory of stupidity......disbanding the Iraqi Army. The Bush Administration did more to undermine this nation's strategic position than the Soviet Union ever could have done. This country used to have a policy of always being able to fight two major campaigns at once, a strategic military policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The Bush Administration showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of successfully fighting even one campaign against rag tag insurgents. That cornerstone of US policy is no longer in effect.

Did you have a car accident where you head when through the windshield?

You are a very stupid, dishonest little man.

 

[frigidweirdo]

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

Have you read the intelligence reports?

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Bad intelligence?

You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.

""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""

Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.

"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""

Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.

"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""

I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.

Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....

You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).

Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?

Well... now let's see.

Bush followed Clinton, Right?

And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.

And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.

Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!

Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.

SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.

Well yes there was an issue with intelligence agencies having reduced funding and therefore not on top of everything.

However with Dubya there were TWO agencies giving him information, one was told to go make stuff up and Bush listened to the one who made stuff up and IGNORED the one that didn't. I don't see how what Clinton did affected this manipulation of "intel".

The point you're trying to make is to blame a smaller "intelligence" community for bad intel. My point is it wasn't bad intel. It was made up intel, and it was deliberately made up.


Iraq trying to play games is hardly anything to be surprised at. I don't get your point here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

 

[Flopper]

Who supported and sold arms to the Shah and propted up he evil regime?

ROFL... there was nothing evil about the Shah.

He crushed Leftist and Islamic uprisings. As we saw in the wake of his departure, there is no downside to crushing that evil. The only potential downside is in allowing it to fester, as we are witnessing, today.

Correct, Iran under the Shah was a modern successful country that was using its oil resources to better the lives of its people. Then the radical element of islam took over and it reverted to a 17th century shithole.

Yes and No, Iran has had a number of secular movements since 1906. Today, Iran has a serious problem in regard to secularism and government oppression of secular life styles particularly in regard to women. Women account for over half of university students in Iran and 70% of Iran's science and engineering students because men tend to favor trade schools, direct entrance into the workplace, or education and a career outside of Iran. When women graduate, they work but when they marry, they find themselves literally barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen. To make matters worse the government has been making moves to restrict women's access to higher education and clamping down on employment of women. All this comes at a time when Iran has a big shortage of highly trained workers. A shortage that is likely to grow with Iran's push to increase economic growth.

Sooner or later, The people of Iran will have a more secular government, however that doesn't mean the people will abandon, Islam. It just means the government won't be cramming it down their throat.

we said the exact same thing, you just used more words.

Not quite. In periods of secularism in Iran, Islam has remained strong and remained the predominate religious influence in the county.

Secularism in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.

I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.

Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.

Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.

Have you read the intelligence reports?

Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."

Bad intelligence?

You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.

""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""

Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.

"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""

Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.

"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""

I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.

Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....

You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).

Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?

Well... now let's see.

Bush followed Clinton, Right?

And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.

And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.

Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!

Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.

SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.

Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.

Well yes there was an issue with intelligence agencies having reduced funding and therefore not on top of everything.

However with Dubya there were TWO agencies giving him information, one was told to go make stuff up and Bush listened to the one who made stuff up and IGNORED the one that didn't.

So... then the US, the Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the Intelligence services in the free world just made up the Hundreds of tons of CBW stockpiles and secondary material used in the making of CBW, and the dozens of on going programs, facilities and personnel found in Iraq, by Kay and Dulfer, post invasion?

Well... not THAT is fascinatin'.

I guess in the Relativist world, ya just can't trust anyone.

But I agree that the US was mistaken to expect gratitude... and should have simply conquered the Middle East... subjugated the people and turned it into a massive Walmart.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So... then the US, the Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the Intelligence services in the free world just made up the Hundreds of tons of CBW stockpiles and secondary material used in the making of CBW, and the dozens of on going programs, facilities and personnel found in Iraq, by Kay and Dulfer, post invasion?

Well... not THAT is fascinatin'.

I guess in the Relativist world, ya just can't trust anyone.

But I agree that the US was mistaken to expect gratitude... and should have simply conquered the Middle East... subjugated the people and turned it into a massive Walmart.

If you really want to know what they made up/manipulated, then you can go read it in the Senate documents on this matter.

Iraq HAD certain weapons. They had programs for other weapons. No one is saying they didn't. In 2001 what they had was a lot less than what they had had before this.

They made up stuff about nuclear material coming in from Africa, for example.

I would go find this stuff out and post it, but I'm getting the feeling you'd just ignore it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So... then the US, the Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the Intelligence services in the free world just made up the Hundreds of tons of CBW stockpiles and secondary material used in the making of CBW, and the dozens of on going programs, facilities and personnel found in Iraq, by Kay and Dulfer, post invasion?

Well... not THAT is fascinatin'.

I guess in the Relativist world, ya just can't trust anyone.

But I agree that the US was mistaken to expect gratitude... and should have simply conquered the Middle East... subjugated the people and turned it into a massive Walmart.

If you really want to know what they made up/manipulated, then you can go read it in the Senate documents on this matter.

Iraq HAD certain weapons. They had programs for other weapons. No one is saying they didn't. In 2001 what they had was a lot less than what they had had before this.

They made up stuff about nuclear material coming in from Africa, for example.

I would go find this stuff out and post it, but I'm getting the feeling you'd just ignore it.

Um... I read the subjective report authored by THE PROBLEM... . And LAUGHED AND LAUGHED. It was hysterical.

Although I thought they bungled the title, which should have been: "BUSH DID IT AND WE TRIED TO STOP HIM!"

Here's the thing...

Iraq had a long history of utilizing Islamic terrorist proxies... what's more Iraq was in material breech of its international obligations and was hostile to the United States.

Those two issues, while problematic were tolerable within the Pre-9-11 paradigm.

Post 9-11, those two issues were intolerable.

Bush should have invaded Iraq, using the pincer which the plan called for... when Turkey refused to provide license for the use of their Airspace, Bush should have told Turkey that any military equipment and personnel within XXX miles of X, within a XX:xx time line would be destroyed... then sent US CAPs into Turkey's airspace to enforce the demand.

He should have then invaded Iraq from the North and South... eviscerated its Military, conquered its people and annexed Iraq as a spoil of war, setting US personnel to govern Iraq, with the first order of business being the eradication of Islam.

He should have then moved directly into Iran... Rinse and Repeat.

With Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq in the bag, he should have then set US Forces on the border of SA... requiring the King to publicly kiss his ass. Then sacked SA... .

Now... with SA, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan being good Christian provinces of the US... He could have offered free opium to anyone in the US who wanted it, as long as they went to Afghanistan to get it. And with California and a fair bit of the NE and Midwest empty... we could have closed the US Border, Nuked Afghanistan and PEACE would reign the world for 20 minutes.

But that's just one man's opinion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So... then the US, the Mossad, MI6 and the rest of the Intelligence services in the free world just made up the Hundreds of tons of CBW stockpiles and secondary material used in the making of CBW, and the dozens of on going programs, facilities and personnel found in Iraq, by Kay and Dulfer, post invasion?

Well... not THAT is fascinatin'.

I guess in the Relativist world, ya just can't trust anyone.

But I agree that the US was mistaken to expect gratitude... and should have simply conquered the Middle East... subjugated the people and turned it into a massive Walmart.

If you really want to know what they made up/manipulated, then you can go read it in the Senate documents on this matter.

Iraq HAD certain weapons. They had programs for other weapons. No one is saying they didn't. In 2001 what they had was a lot less than what they had had before this.

They made up stuff about nuclear material coming in from Africa, for example.

I would go find this stuff out and post it, but I'm getting the feeling you'd just ignore it.

Um... I read the subjective report authored by THE PROBLEM... . And LAUGHED AND LAUGHED. It was hysterical.

Although I thought they bungled the title, which should have been: "BUSH DID IT AND WE TRIED TO STOP HIM!"

Here's the thing...

Iraq had a long history of utilizing Islamic terrorist proxies... what's more Iraq was in material breech of its international obligations and was hostile to the United States.

Those two issues, while problematic were tolerable within the Pre-9-11 paradigm.

Post 9-11, those two issues were intolerable.

Bush should have invaded Iraq, using the pincer which the plan called for... when Turkey refused to provide license for the use of their Airspace, Bush should have told Turkey that any military equipment and personnel within XXX miles of X, within a XX:xx time line would be destroyed... then sent US CAPs into Turkey's airspace to enforce the demand.

He should have then invaded Iraq from the North and South... eviscerated its Military, conquered its people and annexed Iraq as a spoil of war, setting US personnel to govern Iraq, with the first order of business being the eradication of Islam.

He should have then moved directly into Iran... Rinse and Repeat.

With Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq in the bag, he should have then set US Forces on the border of SA... requiring the King to publicly kiss his ass. Then sacked SA... .

Now... with SA, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan being good Christian provinces of the US... He could have offered free opium to anyone in the US who wanted it, as long as they went to Afghanistan to get it. And with California and a fair bit of the NE and Midwest empty... we could have closed the US Border, Nuked Afghanistan and PEACE would reign the world for 20 minutes.

But that's just one man's opinion.

Iraq was an issue for the US. They didn't do things the US wanted them to do.

The issues weren't intolerable after 9/11, in fact after 9/11 Saddam was quite weak. He was in a place where he couldn't do too much.

As for the complete and utter crap you're talking after this, I get the feeling it makes no difference what I say. You want to eradicate Islam. What kind of planet are you on? Planet Nazi?

 

[Freewill]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

Care to elaborate on how ISIS was formed out of Iraq? Care to elaborate on how Iraq effects a civil war in Syria? Please tell us how Syria going into a civil war, supported by Obama, was caused by anything that happened in Iraq. Please. Please don't do a google because you should not need to since you made such a statement you must know why.

Let me ask, you do realize this is 2015 and not 2001? You do realize that Obama has been President for almost 7 years and the Syria civil war isn't that old? You do know those things don't you?

Begs the questions: Are you stupid on purpose? Or are you even aware of the problem?

Oh I am aware it appears that you are not. You posted NOTHING to support your contentions, just as I expected.

 

[Freewill]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

Some were thankful especially the Kurds and women who got to vote and no longer were residents of Saddams son's rape rooms. Only the left wishes to spin victory into defeat. I think because they are so used to defeat.

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

Some were thankful especially the Kurds and women who got to vote and no longer were residents of Saddams son's rape rooms. Only the left wishes to spin victory into defeat. I think because they are so used to defeat.

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

Of course some were thankful. I mean, some would be thankful if they took down the US govt and replaced it with Sharia Law. That doesn't mean everyone would be happy, does it?

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

Care to elaborate on how ISIS was formed out of Iraq? Care to elaborate on how Iraq effects a civil war in Syria? Please tell us how Syria going into a civil war, supported by Obama, was caused by anything that happened in Iraq. Please. Please don't do a google because you should not need to since you made such a statement you must know why.

Let me ask, you do realize this is 2015 and not 2001? You do realize that Obama has been President for almost 7 years and the Syria civil war isn't that old? You do know those things don't you?

Begs the questions: Are you stupid on purpose? Or are you even aware of the problem?

Oh I am aware it appears that you are not. You posted NOTHING to support your contentions, just as I expected.

Have you ever in your life been honest about anything? Would you even know what that looks like?

 

[Liminal]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

Some were thankful especially the Kurds and women who got to vote and no longer were residents of Saddams son's rape rooms. Only the left wishes to spin victory into defeat. I think because they are so used to defeat.

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

Who gives a **** what the Kurds think? They aren't our allies, we just happen to be fighting the same people. The Kurds are terrorists if you ask the Turks.

 

[Liminal]

Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims

Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim

"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."

Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school

"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."



Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.

In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.

And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.

Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).

If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.

Care to elaborate on how ISIS was formed out of Iraq? Care to elaborate on how Iraq effects a civil war in Syria? Please tell us how Syria going into a civil war, supported by Obama, was caused by anything that happened in Iraq. Please. Please don't do a google because you should not need to since you made such a statement you must know why.

Let me ask, you do realize this is 2015 and not 2001? You do realize that Obama has been President for almost 7 years and the Syria civil war isn't that old? You do know those things don't you?

Begs the questions: Are you stupid on purpose? Or are you even aware of the problem?

Oh I am aware it appears that you are not. You posted NOTHING to support your contentions, just as I expected.

I guess it's just unfortunate that you are too stupid to actually refute anything.

 

[Correll]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

1. You're the one that cares. YOu brought up the "West's" "Invasions" as a reason for terrorism. I am debunking that.

2. The Taliban did not even exist when we were aiding them against the Soviets. The Soviets committed genocide and oppression on the People of Afghanistan. That is quite "Badly" treatment by any sane standard.

3. We were not enemies of the Afghanistan People or nation, prior to 9-11. And yes, I do expect some measure of gratitude from people we help save themselves from genocide and oppression.

 

[Unkotare]

Muslims, like blacks, are responsible for the image the US has of them.
Not to say that's justified in all cases but that is reality.

Firstly. Your point

Secondly, Bush helped to make this image, he helped to spread this image.

Utterly untrue.

 

[Freewill]

1. You did not address that Osama was pissed off BECAUSE we were helping to protect his homeland from invasion.

2. "Them" was the Afghan people, who the Soviets were oppressing and committing genocide against.

3. The fact that the Soviets were our mutual enemy would not not normally be considered a reason to NOT appreciate help. NOr does it change the fact that prior to 9-11 our history with Afghanistan was one of HELPING them against invasion, not invading. Which makes any "invasion" excuse for the behavior of the Taliban nonsensical.

1) Who cares whether Osama Bin Laden was pissed off because the US and Saudi Arabia are allies or not? There is so much stuff that made him angry. The point you made just seems to be pointing out something kind of obvious. If you hated an invading force and then they put troops somewhere, would you like them? Chances are no.

2) "them" is the Afghan people? All of them? Some of them clearly like the Taliban. The US took sides in a Civil War. Simple as. I'm not defending the Taliban, not my sort of thing.
As for the USSR. They didn't actually treat the people that badly in Afghanistan. However they were an unwanted presence there. Genocide is not something unknown to countries like the USSR, Russia, the US either.

3) If you have two enemies, and one of those enemies decides to supply you with arms, what would you say? "Oh, wow, I love you so much" or "snigger snigger we're being helped by our enemies"

The right in the US has too much arrogance. To think that these people would be grateful. I mean, are you ******* serious? You really think they'd be grateful? The US supplied them arms, they accepted, but they didn't like the US.

Says more about the US than the Afghans.

Some were thankful especially the Kurds and women who got to vote and no longer were residents of Saddams son's rape rooms. Only the left wishes to spin victory into defeat. I think because they are so used to defeat.

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

Of course some were thankful. I mean, some would be thankful if they took down the US govt and replaced it with Sharia Law. That doesn't mean everyone would be happy, does it?

Of course not everyone is ever happen. Those on the side of Saddam, who profited from Saddam, were not happy. It is easily illustrated by observing how unhappy the left in America is that Bush removed the Butcher of Baghdad.

Those whom Saddam oppressed and killed with WMD were very happy as I have illustrated.

Funny thing about those saying that Iraqis are not happy having gotten rid of the Butcher of Baghdad is that they never quote Iraqis it always seem as if it is they who are not happy.

Iraq war, over faster then then the liberals predicted, less casualties then the left predicted and all objective met. Iraq has a democracy unlike many in the ME and it makes the left wing mad, real mad.