I like to check out Al-Jazeera sometimes (it's like CNN but without as much Bush bashing). It's interesting that almost every story that's about muslims is also about conflict. Hungary, Darfur, Thailand, Lebanon, Palestine and on and on.
The "Arab world" section is exclusively conflict related. I'm just saying...
18 comments:
hey, meek, right-on. The "or else" is sadistic butchery (in arabic it means: religion of peace.) We're all still waiting for the "peaceful muslims" to come out from under their rocks to condemn their hate-filled, lying, cowardly, murderous, fellow-practitioners.....not holding my breath.
If the Internet had existed in 1942, the results of a search for "Europe" would be similarly depressing.
hey, kaelri, (resident idiot, to you lefties out there) weep away, but it's the islamo-fascists you defend who are committing the genocide of ANYONE non-muslim, including the folks in Darfur! Fast if you want to (yeah, THAT'LL stop the slaughter), but make it last long enough to make it impossible for you and your moonbat friends to further undermine the war against the islamo-nazis. You're a waste of oxygen, anyway. Just like all the imams babbling about the phony "religion of peace.".....sheesh.
Lets follow the Chinese tactic, sic the Sunnis on the Shiites and then wipe out the winner of that conflict.
The savings in ammo alone would be considerable.
Bear:
- "it's the islamo-fascists you defend who are committing the genocide of ANYONE non-muslim"
Please cite a post of mine in which I have supported the beliefs or actions of Islamic extremists.
kaelri, you can prove me wrong very easily....support the mission of our troops, support President Bush, embrace the goals and ideals of Israel, and its right to exist and prosper. Condemn the islam-fascists and the cowardly (and still silent)imams. Acknowledge that the "religion of peace" isn't. State that cindy sheehan, chuck schumer, hilary clinton, tom harkin, john murtha, ted kennedy, turban durbin, john kerry, bill clinton, jimmy carter, harry belafonte, algore, the AP, nyt, la times, boston globe, washington post, cbs,abs,nbs,cnnbs,reuters,bbc are all anti-American and are all traitors. Call for the closure of our borders and the deportation of all illegal aliens, with no more goodies being handed to them. Support the Patriot Act, and the Real I.D.Act. Support the Minutemen. Support profiling. Support ENGLISH as the Official (and only) National Language....and support any other behavior actual Americans engage in such as Christianity, capitalism, and waving the American flag, or you can remain your loony, lefty self.
And unless I do all of those things, I'm a terrorist sympathizer?
kaelri, the fact that you even ask the question speaks volumes. War has been declared by our enemies, invasion from the south by aztlan, mecha, and la raza. You have chosen sides as clearly as the still silent imams. Grow up and be aware, at least, of what you are. Your cheap denials fool no one.
Now, hang on a second. You say that war has been declared by the Mexicans... therefore, I should embrace the goals and ideals of Israel? Bit of a non sequitur, don't you think?
I'm interested, though, in your characterization of the illegal immigration influx as a "war." It would pass as a metaphor, probably, like the war on drugs or the war on terror*, but in comparison to an actual, you know, war, it strikes me as a bit pretentious.
A war requires organization, for one thing. The American law enforcement is definitely organized (although the chains of command have become a bit murkier since the creation of the DHS). But the immigrating "soldiers" most certainly are not. Groups like MEChA and La Raza are reflexive projects that seek to retroactively create foundations for the language and culture that is already being transplanted here, independently, by the collective movement of individuals. (I do not, incidentally, support either organization.) The "invasion" is being driven not by any goal or directive, but by basic microeconomic conditions: the prize is worth the risk. This can theoretically be changed, and a gradual reversal of the influx would immediately follow. (Obviously, I'm simplifying here. The underlying factors and currents are much more complex. All I'm saying now is that this problem is, fundamentally, economic, not political.)
* Which, I do not deny, consists of multiple actual wars.
You quibble, as usual, but fail, as usual, to embrace the sovereignty of the U.S.A., or of Israel. Your feigned ignorance of the stated motives and actions of the illegal aliens, and your denial that this country is at war against islamo-butchers is clear evidence of your anti-American status. Any lame apology for those bent on the destruction of this great country, by whatever means, as you have so aptly displayed, is clear evidence that you, in deed and word, are an enemy of America. Take your sophistry and shove it.....I'm finished with your nonsense.
Well argued.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/world/middleeast/24terror.html?ex=1316750400&en=da252be85d1b39fa&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
"HATE IS IN THEIR BLOOD."
Would you like to provide any evidence to support your belief?
"HATE IS IN THEIR BLOOD."
And kaelri says:
Would you like to provide any evidence to support your belief?
How long will you sleep, little man?
Elaborate, please.
I'd say they were doing rather well shortly before the Crusades - which were, as I'm sure you know, initiated by the West. But Islamic civilization was responsible for advances in technology and the preservation of classical art and literature while Europe was holding its own head underwater in the Middle Ages. And even after they began to decline, the Ottoman Empire and its ilk remained relatively peaceful up to the point of World War I.
(I could go into further detail, if you want. I'd just need to dredge up some of my old papers and review books from my high school world history class.)
In comparison, I'd like you to note the military history of the United States: born in a revolutionary war, which had a sequel in 1812. Then we conquered half of Mexico. Then we had a civil war about whether or not banning torture and enslavement violated states' rights... then we decided to fight a war with Spain and picked up Puerto Rico and the Phillipines, just to prove that we could. (Throughout this time, of course, we were committing open genocide against the Plains Indians.) Then we fought in both world wars and came very very close to annihilating civilization itself, as late as the Reagan administration. Panama, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now quite possibly Iran.
Yet you wouldn't say that hate is in our blood.
Would you?
War is not a Muslim tradition, Amy. It is a human tradition. There's never been peace in the Middle East, you say? You, as I've already mentioned, are wrong. Islamic civilization - and yes, it truly was civilization; the Caliphates were the beacon of progress and prosperity at a time when most of Europe consisted of fickle, unions of feudal lords and their peasant slaves, constantly in flux and at war - probably had more outright peace between the Umayyad dynasty and the fall of the Ottoman Empire than any society you could name west of India.
I'm not saying they haven't had their fair share of warfare, atrocity and corruption. But can you really make the claim that European history is a garden stroll by comparison?
The Crusades may be been "initiated by the West", but contrary to "popular" (leftist) belief, the original intent was to stop the wholesale slaughter of Christians by Muslims who wanted to exterminate the "infidels". The Crusaders went there to help the inhabitants of the Holy Lands fight off their aggressors.
Amy's right ... there has never been peace with the descendants of Ishmael, and there never will be. It became so when Ishmael and his mother were cast out into the desert.
Oh ... but I recognize that it's entirely possible that you may not believe anythig in the Bible is actually history, and that to believe any of it as literal is stupid.
But I don't care. It's there.
Post a Comment