Who would you like to see as the next US President?

[InfiniteNow]

When the phone rings at 3 AM at the White House, who do you want to answer? :) :) :)

 

Probably the receptionist.

 

If the person was important, they'd likely have my cell number anyway.

[Boerseun]

Probably the receptionist.

 

If the person was important, they'd likely have my cell number anyway.

But will the receptionist be safe with Bill around? After all, with Hillary running the show, he'll have a lot more free time to get to know the staff on a much more "personal" level than when he was running around saving the world.

 

Hmmmmm...

 

For all you know, a few weeks after HillBilly moves back into the White House, a tall, dark and mysteriously handsome male foreigner might be taking up garden duty, and the New President of the United States will walk the corridors of power with a slight smile on her face and a spring in her step.

[goku]

I’m curious, goku – what nation, allied nations, or other group do you believe is about to take over the US?

 

islam

[InfiniteNow]

Not only is that hateful, but it's ignorant too. Craig asked you what nation, not which religious ideology.

 

It's blatant and generalizing discrimination like that which makes people want to bomb us in the first place, don't you get this?

[goku]

i don't hate islam, or anyone for that matter.

 

have you seen islamic protests in europe? they are the haters.

[C1ay]

have you seen islamic protests in europe? they are the haters.

 

All of them? There are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, approximately 25% of the world's total population. Do you really think you can accuse all of them of hatred because of the actions of the very, very few? Would you label Christians as haters as well because of the actions of Fred Phelps? I wouldn't want to be labeled as a bigot like him, would you?

[Southtown]

The Weekly Standard article is well written and intriguing, if just for its mention of one of the more enigmatic characters in recent history, Abdul Rahman Yasin. I don’t, however, think it is accurate, or intended to be accurate.

Why is that I wonder?

I believe that Weekly Standard articles are intended primarily to promote neoconservative goals, specifically the kind promoted by an organization founded around the same time (1997 vs. 1995 for the Weekly Standard), Project for the New American Century, and like many publications intended to promote political agendas and ideologies, regards objective data and analysis as secondary, and in some situations, contrary, to this goal.

You claim they are deceitfully inaccurate, but you don't provide any examples? C'mon man, that's not like you. Surely you don't expect me to just take your word for it, do you?

 

IMHO, a better definition of terrorist is one who engages in acts, or acts in direct support of those who engage in acts intended to create fear of death or injury by their or their allies actions to further a political or ideological goal.

. . .

This definition is not, however, untroubled, because threats such as those by Bush and other US representatives to attack Iran if its government does not refrain from contact and support of Iraqi politicians and militants also meet [my] definition of terrorism, while most reasonable people would not term this terrorism, but something like “gunboat diplomacy”.

That example is funny because Iranian contact/support of Iraqi militants to hinder the US efforts is by your definition terrorism. So would a threat of defensive response against terrorism also qualify as terrorism? Also, Iran is not exactly receptive to non-gunboat diplomacy.

“Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? You should know that this slogan, this

goal

, can certainly be achieved.”

-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [

_*

]

 

As C1ay asserted, I believe that attacks by un-uniformed combatants against uniformed soldiers of an invading army, such as the French partisan resistance against occupying Germany soldiers in WWII, and even US soldiers in present day Iraq, are considered by most people more acceptable than present day attacks on civilians and soldiers in the US, Spain, England, the Philippians, etc.

I don't understand. What present day attacks are you talking about? I assume your referring to random attacks by extremists.

 

Bravery and honor are not, I believe, synonyms.

Oh! I see now. I misunderstood your post, sorry.

[goku]

All of them? There are nearly 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, approximately 25% of the world's total population. Do you really think you can accuse all of them of hatred because of the actions of the very, very few?

 

you're right, i'm sure there are many peacefull muslims.

i should have been more clear, when i said "they" i was refuring to the protesters.

 

i have some pictures on my e-mail inbox, but i don't know how to put them here :hihi:

[C1ay]

i have some pictures on my e-mail inbox, but i don't know how to put them here

 

Look below the the reply box when you reply to a message and you will see a button labeled "Manage Attachments". It allows you to attach files to a post.

[goku]

:hihi: i went to that, but i'm computer illiterate :(

[C1ay]

You have to save the pictures on to your computer and then you can attach them to a post. It might be easier to just find one on the web that makes your point and link to it instead. What kind of picture is in your mailbox that you want to share?

[goku]

protesters in europe

[C1ay]

Like these ... protesters in europe - Google Image Search

[goku]

yep, some are normal others are more threatning

[modest]

yep, some are normal others are more threatning

 

Can’t that be said about any bunch of people?

 

I’m curious, goku – what nation, allied nations, or other group do you believe is about to take over the US?

 

islam

 

You seem to be afraid Islamic militants are going to take over the U.S. You’ve stated that.

 

Islamic militants are afraid the U.S. is going to take over their land. They’ve stated that.

 

What’s the difference? Please tell me what the difference is.

 

I saw the video of militants cutting off Nick Berg's head. It was god-awful, immoral, disgusting, frightening, and repulsive in every way imaginable and more ways than I can describe. But, let’s be honest.

 

What is the difference between that and the five American soldiers who raped and killed a little 14 year-old girl in Iraq.

 

They killed her just as dead. They murdered her five-year-old sister just as sure as Berg was murdered. There’s no difference - we have to be honest.

 

There are bad and disgusting people in every religion. There are Muslims who want to take over the U.S. There are Christians who are actively taking over Islamic countries. There are acts of violence on both sides.

 

So, please tell me why you are morally superior to those Islamic protesters. Tell me why you are right and they are wrong. They are arguing the same thing you’re arguing. They are protesting the same thing you’re protesting.

 

They’re saying the U.S. is coming to get them.

You’re saying Islam is coming to get you.

 

What’s the difference?

 

-modest

[Southtown]

I saw the video of militants cutting of the head off Nick Berg. It was god-awful, immoral, disgusting, frightening, and repulsive in every way imaginable and more ways than I can describe. But, let’s be honest.

 

What is the difference between that and the five American soldiers who raped and killed a little 14 year-old girl in Iraq.

The difference is ridiculously obvious. One group's actions were ordered/allowed by their superiors, the other group's actions were not.

[REASON]

The difference is ridiculously obvious. One group's actions were ordered/allowed by their superiors, the other group's actions were not.

 

Ridiculously obvious? I fail to distinguish which was which?