So is America finally getting wiser? Who still believes this nonsense?

by Jourles 76 Replies latest social current

  • james_woods

    OK, Hillary_Step - you seem to have a real pantie-wad about my level of education. Obviously, if I do not agree with you, then I must be uneducated. Lets analyze some of your last personalized attack (in which I am casually called an idiot): "I did not say the West is the ROOT of the problem, we all know that RELIGION is the root of the problem. What I have said, repeatedly I might add, is the the evidence is quite plain that the invasion of Iraq has been responsible for the growth of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and its export around the world can be laid at the feet of the invading forces." "If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be very interested in seeing it."

    "Please read my posts carefully before responding to them James, then you would not make such an idiot of yourself when you reply to them."

    HS I have highlighted four arguments in red. I respond as follows: a. we all know Religion is the root of the problem. I am not so sure that we all "know" that, nor that Religion {in general, as implied here} is at all such a thing. I stated that radical Islam is the root of the problem, and its radical roots go back literally hundreds of years. Other viewpoints might argue that there are also political factors, economic factors, dissonance with Israel and its right to exist, and so on. My argument is that radical Islam and its crazed leadership is the root cause. And yours is that "Religion" is the root of the problem? All religion, including the Witnesses, Methodists, Mormons, Catholics, Quakers??? Or, did you want to say radical Islam, but didn't want to be quite that politically incorrect? b. the evidence is quite plain that the invasion of Iraq has been responsible for the growth of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East Well, if we look all through your post, we are not treated to any such statement of evidence. In fact, by far the most damaging terror attacks in the U.S. were done before the Iraq war, as a clear point of evidence. c. the export of global terrorism can be laid at the feet of the invading forces - If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it... This is intellectual dishonesty of argument in the extreme. You are making your own statement of opinion, then expecting me to go to the trouble of disproving it - right after you make a statement of "all evidence shows..." without quoting such evidence yourself. Look at statement B - no evidence presented. Now, you contradict yourself by saying that first, "Religion is the root of the problem"...then, follow that with "export...can be laid at the feet of the invading forces". So which is it - religion or the invaders? There is also a chronology problem. Is it possible that you kind of forgot the basement bombing of the WTC, followed by the aircraft attacks, followed by the anthrax scare, the Maxwell Smart-like shoe bomb, all pre-Iraq invasion? Sure the terrorists are trying to fight back - that's what your enemy always does in time of war. It is our job to defeat him in detail, preferably in a place of our own choosing. d. "then you would not make such an idiot of yourself when you reply to them". I am rather new here on this forum, but I did read and agree to the wise advise to avoid making personalized slurs in the course of interesting debate topics. As I am obviously a minority thinker here, and of the opposite opinion of the founder, I have generally been careful to keep my word in that area. However, if I were to do so, it does occur that perhaps "idiot" might not be the most expressive and useful mental terminology. There are also available, of course, moron, cretin, or imbecile...I understand that the French (who apparantly know a lot about such things) at one time had a classification system of such terms relating them to the IQ of the subject and his deficiency to that of the normal public. I must register a slight offense that you did not make a more careful choice of a suitable derisive term. I regret the expenditure of yet one more of my precious thread replies as I approach commencement. I am hoarding them like a miser so as to be able say something nice on #1000 - but after all, they are mine to use as I see fit, aren't they? James (of the at least I was dead right about 607BCE and John Karr class).

  • TopHat

    I see nothing wrong with getting rid of Saddam in Iraq.....He was a BAD man...a very BAD man. Osama and his band of Idiots don't want to see peace in Iraq....They want to take's as simple as that. Peace can happen in Iraq if the terrorist will stop killing people and making trouble in the region. Bush didn't go to Iraq to cause trouble. But to help the people living there from a manic gone mad. .. GET REAL will you!

    Personally though....I think Bush should have minded his own business here in the good old USA!

  • heathen

    Yah it is kinda strange that the US has in the past watched as soviets invaded other countries and people in africa kill each other off everyday but somehow Iraq was an imminent threat to our national security . They say the uranium can be found in africa but I bet nobody is watching that , things can only get worse in the mid east since Iran is planning nuclear bombs and they hate the west just as much as Iraq did . The way I see 911 was that it was planned by a small fanatical faction of Islam not by Bin Laden but by some religious cleric and they just wanted to justify invading afghanistan by saying it was Bin Laden . Things over there are pretty screwy , there are many groups that hate the US and they hate each other as well so when something bad happens to the US they all jump for joy . Osama Bin Laden is known for blowing up US embassies he just had nothing to do with 911 .

  • searcher
    You do know that's how polls work right? To get to know how everyone thinks quite accurately you only need to get the opinions of a representative sample ...

    I believe that polls should be taken with a pinch of salt as they could so easily be influenced by the agenda of the pollsters.

    For example, if I poll this board with the question 'Is the WTBTS a good thing' I would get one result.

    If I poll the local KH with the same question, I would get another result.

    Then I can publish the percentage that backs the position I wish to convey, I am sure you see how that works.

    Disclaimer This is a comment on polls, not the war.

  • free2beme

    The name "War on terror" is a very open ended title that could easily be applied to anything. It does not say "war on this country" or "war on this religion", and so on. I think the Iraq war is just something that Bush wanted to do, and he had the power to do it. Personally, I think that everyone in the world likes to put down our country, as we are the richest and most successful kid on the block and face it, you always hate them. They like our money, when we spend it on things they make though.

  • heathen

    I think alot of it has to do with the religion and the influence that the US wants in the world , these people are brainwashed because they are bullied by evil also the fact that the US supports Israel who they believe is stealing land from arabs . If we just baught their oil and quit telling them they can't be a super power like the US or Russia then it would be better all around , the US does play some sick little political games such as showing support for hussein when he was at war with Iran and also supporting bin laden when he was at war with Russia , it's like why not create an enemy WTF it's only good for the defense industry .

  • Jringe01

    For the record the Desert Fox was out to cut off British access to the Suez canal. Then he was looking to sweep into Iraq where the muslims would have hailed them as liberators and from there it's just a short hop into the Caucasas where the Germans were desperately trying to cut off Stalin's flow of oil.

    The loss of Egypt would have been a terrible blow to British prestige and would have strengthened the pro independance movements in the European colonies in the area.

    Rommel actually had the right idea...cut off Britian's supply of natural resources and you hamper her ability to wage war. Hitler couldn't see that and that's why the Germans lost the war

Share this