Quick Question For The Capitalists

[Paradox]

Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

As long as they terrorize others, the US regime is fine with them. The Afghan war. They start *****ign when the Islamo-fascists guns turn around.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?
My basic belief is that we should work to dis-entangle ourselves from the Islamic world ASAP. The best way to do that is to develop our own energy resources, focusing on oil and natural gas exploration in the near-term and a balls-to-the-wall effort to develop renewable sources in the long-term.

Then, if the terrorists or despotic states threaten to cut off our oil, we can tell them to go fuck themselves. Additionally, as China, India and Russia demand more oil, the price for Middle Eastern oil will go up anyway - meaning it's better if we have our own sources.

Then we pull our military shit out of the Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan, Iraq, the former Soviet territories, and anywhere else in the Muslim world. That's because the current strain of fundamentalism is built on the idea that they are fighting a defensive jihad against the West and against the U.S. If our pulling out means they "win", I don't give a shit, because our cultures and interests are so different (Most muslims have no concept of a separation between church and state) that we're wasting people and resources trying to control them.

Then we focus on humanitarian aid and economic development. We let despotic regimes from Egypt to Indonesia fall.

Basically that means we need to start electing some Democrats, even though the idea makes me want to gag.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Last time I checked most americans dont have a good idea of seperation of church and state.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 05:07 PM
Last time I checked most americans dont have a good idea of seperation of church and state.
Would you like to compare it to what even average muslims believe?

[Paradox]

My basic belief is that we should work to dis-entangle ourselves from the Islamic world ASAP.

So then you're against being allies with Saudi Arabia? The type of fundamentalist Islam is called Wahhabiyyah, and it's extremely hostile to Christians, Jews, and Shi'ite Muslims. Saudi Arabia supported the Taliban, as did the u$. The u$ supported the Taliban because they needed a stable government in Afghanistan. Why would the u$ need a stable government in Afghanistan? To make a deal with. What kind of deal? A pipeline. Of course.


The best way to do that is to develop our own energy resources, focusing on oil and natural gas exploration in the near-term and a balls-to-the-wall effort to develop renewable sources in the long-term.

Exploration where? Alaska? Bush is using the "drug" war to gain access to oil reserves in Colombia. They tried to sabotage Chavez in Venezuela, but he won the election and the re-call. And of course, there's Iraq. Doesn't look like the u$ is going to be energy self-sufficient any time soon.


Most muslims have no concept of a separation between church and state

What are you basing this on? The Fundamentalists in power?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Feb 23 2005, 06:22 PM--> (t_wolves_fan @ Feb 23 2005, 06:22 PM)
Anarchist [email protected] 23 2005, 05:07 PM
Last time I checked most americans dont have a good idea of seperation of church and state.
Would you like to compare it to what even average muslims believe? [/b]
Conclusion?

Fuck religion?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 05:39 PM




So then you're against being allies with Saudi Arabia? The type of fundamentalist Islam is called Wahhabiyyah, and it's extremely hostile to Christians, Jews, and Shi'ite Muslims. Saudi Arabia supported the Taliban, as did the u$. The u$ supported the Taliban because they needed a stable government in Afghanistan.

Yes, I am opposed to our alliance with Saudi Arabia and would like nothing better than to see the kingdom go down in flames, which is inevitable.


Why would the u$ need a stable government in Afghanistan? To make a deal with. What kind of deal? A pipeline. Of course.

Your problem is that the pipeline deal has been dead since the mid-Clinton administration because it is way, way, waaaay to expensive to construct.



Exploration where? Alaska? Bush is using the "drug" war to gain access to oil reserves in Colombia. They tried to sabotage Chavez in Venezuela, but he won the election and the re-call. And of course, there's Iraq. Doesn't look like the u$ is going to be energy self-sufficient any time soon.

No, unfortunately it doesn't. Which is a big reason I don't support the war.

Oil in Alaska isn't even necessary. We have plenty of reserves in the Gulf of Mexico. We can also do short-term things like raising the CAFE standards and using tax policy to push consumers towards hybrids.




What are you basing this on? The Fundamentalists in power?

I'm basing it on the 4 or 5 books I've read on the subject out of about 1.5 million that say just that. Including Imperial Hubris, The Sepember 11th Commission Report, What Went Wrong by Bernard Lewis, and another book I read back in grad school, the title of which I cannot remember. They are Bin Laden and Zarqawi's own words: Their problem with the U.S. and with the middle eastern dictatorships is that they substitute man's law for God's law. Read their remarks sometime instead of the ANSWER talking points.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Do you lie on porpuse or has it become an uncontrollable habit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm Note the date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

[Commie Girl]

<_< I don&#39;t think the U&#036; is planning on leaving the Region soon....they would love to have a permanent military base in Afghanistan.....Source (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/2/B8D4E680-1B5F-4C27-AE81-DBBE7ACAC4D3.html)

U.S. Senator John McCain told reporters in Kabul on 22 February that America&#39;s strategic partnership with Afghanistan should include "permanent bases" for U.S. military forces. The Afghan government says it wants a long-term military, economic and political partnership with the United States. But a spokesman for the Afghan president says establishing permanent U.S. bases requires approval from the yet-to-be created Afghan parliament. McCain did not elaborate about what form &#39;permanent bases&#39; might take.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Airforce bases my guess would be. It&#39;s perfect to airstrike Iran, Russia and China.

[Paradox]

Your problem is that the pipeline deal has been dead since the mid-Clinton administration because it is way, way, waaaay to expensive to construct.

Really? The mid-Clinton administration? Then how do you explain this?


http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/12.30A.afgh.pipe.htm


From 1997 to as late as August 2001, the U.S. government continued to negotiate with the Taliban, trying to find a stabilizing factor that would allow American oil ventures to proceed with this project without interference.


The book "Bin Laden: the Forbidden Truth" by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasique claims that the U.S. tried to negotiate the pipeline deal with the Taliban as late as August, 2001. According to the authors, the Bush Administration attempted to get the Taliban on board and believed they could depend upon the regime to stabilize the country while the pipeline construction was underway.

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525

[Paradox]

Would you like to compare it to what even average muslims believe?


Enlighten me. What does the average Muslim think?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 23 2005, 07:27 PM
Do you lie on porpuse or has it become an uncontrollable habit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm Note the date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
Huh, I&#39;ll be damned. I stand corrected.

I had heard the pipeline had been scrapped.

Ooops.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 01:25 AM

Would you like to compare it to what even average muslims believe?


Enlighten me. What does the average Muslim think?
I&#39;ve already told you: Muslim society, in general, (http://www.islamuswest.org/IslamAndElections_06.html) has not yet adopted the western belief in a strict separation of church and state.

"Abdel-Monem Abul Futuh agreed with Mahmoud Al-Sartawi and with the view that secularism as practiced in the West cannot be applied to the Muslim world. The rules governing any society must reflect its value system and historical experience. All societies, whether Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu, have specificities. Muslims, for their part, believe that Islam is a religion that is not confined to matters of personal faith and worship. Rather it is an all-encompassing value system that regulates every aspect of human existence, including the political. For this reason, there can be no separation between religion and state. Indeed, as stipulated by classical Islamic legal and political thought, the state exists to manifest the will of God as reflected in the religion and is consequently accountable to the people in its accomplishment of this mission. Therefore, Abul Futuh continued, if the majority of the people are Muslims and accept Islamic rules and culture as their governance, then democracy itself dictates that this choice should be respected, including in the West—whether or not the Islamic government corresponds to particular Western ideas of democracy—since what matters is that this government reflects the will of the people."

Look at the regimes in power in the Muslim world: how many are purely secular?

Do you think Bin Laden and Zarqawi want to set up secular states?

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 23 2005, 07:58 PM
Airforce bases my guess would be. It&#39;s perfect to airstrike Iran, Russia and China.
You don&#39;t necessarily need airbases within striking distance of a potential target.

Would you like to know more? (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/1280741.html?page=2&c=y)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

What seperation? In the US the Church is trying and partly succeeding in solidifying with the state. Don&#39;t overgeneralize.

No, you don&#39;t need airbases within striking distance, but it shortens the time inwhich a plane can strike and simplifies the logistics operations. Sometimes quik action is needed. Furthermore this opens up a "new front". Many countries are now threatend from a side, against which they have very few defenses.

Edit: that&#39;s just sick. That reconaissance thing will be spreading nuclear radiation as it flies.

[Iepilei]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 24 2005, 01:25 PM
Edit: that&#39;s just sick. That reconaissance thing will be spreading nuclear radiation as it flies.
The half-life of the material it uses is 50 years. It&#39;s not exactly a "nuclear reaction" as no atoms are really exploded. Basically you just point an x-ray at this material and it produces heat energy which can suck air in, push air out.

The only thing you&#39;d really have to worry about is when they wreck.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 24 2005, 01:25 PM
What seperation? In the US the Church is trying and partly succeeding in solidifying with the state. Don&#39;t overgeneralize.


How am I overgeneralizing? I&#39;m stating fact.

Yes, the church in the US has gotten a few federal grant dollars and the ten commandments put up in a couple of courthouses.

That really comes very, very close to matching the religious involvement that muslims, in general, would have in their government.

:rolleyes:

Would you be happy or upset, or even care if the Muslim world installed another Caliphate?


Our involvement in a pipeline through Afghanistan will be a major mistake. If we are building air bases to take on Russia or China, that would be a huge mistake. I don&#39;t doubt this President is dumb enough to do it.

:angry:

[seraphim]

I think the president is dumb enough to do anything

[dakewlguy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?
Equally as bad as the fundamentalism in the USA right now. Both in my opinion are reactions against modern progressive society. God&#39;s will and divine rights were one of the main things challenged by the enlightenment and move from Feudalism to Modern Society. These fundamentalist activists are romanticists looking for a return to traditional society.

If these fundamentalists in Iraq, etc., are motivated only by American foreign policy, you would expect some Atheists to be among guerillas/terrorists/fighters in the region. However that isn&#39;t the case.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+Feb 24 2005, 02:45 PM--> (t_wolves_fan &#064; Feb 24 2005, 02:45 PM)
Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 24 2005, 01:25 PM
What seperation? In the US the Church is trying and partly succeeding in solidifying with the state. Don&#39;t overgeneralize.


How am I overgeneralizing? I&#39;m stating fact.

Yes, the church in the US has gotten a few federal grant dollars and the ten commandments put up in a couple of courthouses.

That really comes very, very close to matching the religious involvement that muslims, in general, would have in their government.

:rolleyes:

Would you be happy or upset, or even care if the Muslim world installed another Caliphate?


Our involvement in a pipeline through Afghanistan will be a major mistake. If we are building air bases to take on Russia or China, that would be a huge mistake. I don&#39;t doubt this President is dumb enough to do it.

:angry: [/b]
I wouldn&#39;t underestimate the role of religion on American society in general and government. There is a lot of "unofficial" influence. Furthermore people are forced daily to swear allegiance to the state and God.

Interesting, a lot of those governments are supported by the US.

Quit, your stereotyping. Oww - I oppose the US regime. I must be supporting islamo-fascists&#33;

Why would it be a mistake to build an oilpipeline through Afghanistan? It has a "democratic" government right? And the people are all cheerfully about American presence.

And why would it be a mistake to threaten your competing empires? The US already has an airforce base in I believe Azerbeidjan or one of those former Soviet republics, from which they threaten Russia. There was even a small diplomatique riot over it, it was I believe during the "liberation" of Afghanistan.

Interesting info on that nuclear plane, tnx for the info.

Edit: You are overgeneralizing about muslims. Give me proof.

[Paradox]

Edit: that&#39;s just sick. That reconaissance thing will be spreading nuclear radiation as it flies.

Well, it&#39;s not like they haven&#39;t already been spreading radiation. Remember, they&#39;ve got depleted uranium in munitions, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION YEARS.

http://www.cadu.org.uk/

I doubt they&#39;d care if one of these nuclear reconaissance UAVs crashed near people or something.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 04:35 PM
Well, it&#39;s not like they haven&#39;t already been spreading radiation. Remember, they&#39;ve got depleted uranium in munitions, and depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 BILLION YEARS.
Depleted uranium&#39;s radioactivity is barely above background level. Hence : "depleted".

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I never understood this; do you lie out of ignorance or lie to cover up for you empire?

I challenge you; eat depleted uranium, spread it around your house. If you come through unharmed, which you won&#39;t, I will believe you.

Meanwhile for the entertainment of our carefree middleclassers:

An Iraqi who whines about the effects of Depleted Uranium. "Harmless"

http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/immagini/Depleted%20uranium%20photos/DU2.jpg

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 24 2005, 04:32 PM



I wouldn&#39;t underestimate the role of religion on American society in general and government. There is a lot of "unofficial" influence. Furthermore people are forced daily to swear allegiance to the state and God.

Interesting, a lot of those governments are supported by the US.

Quit, your stereotyping. Oww - I oppose the US regime. I must be supporting islamo-fascists&#33;

I&#39;m not accusing you of supporting islamo-fascists, I&#39;m just curious why the topic of this thread is about islamic fundamentalism and yet all you can talk about is christian fundamentalism in the United States.

My guess, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you&#39;re trying to say that islamic fundamentalism in Muslim countries is no worse nor no better than christian fundamentalism in the United States, with the ultimate goal of saying the United States is no better than Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Moral relativism, in other words.

I&#39;ll agree that religious fundamentalism that ignores a separation between religion and state is wrong in and of itself.

I won&#39;t agree that fundamentalism in the United States is anywhere near as big a threat, even to us Americans, as islamic fundamentalism is. That is because religious fundamentalists in the United States hold very little power and make up a small percentage of the population. Islamic fundamentalists however hold a great deal of power in many countries and make up, or at least appeal to, a very large percentage of the muslim population.


Why would it be a mistake to build an oilpipeline through Afghanistan? It has a "democratic" government right? And the people are all cheerfully about American presence.

If it&#39;s the Afghani government that is doing it, with the blessing of its people, it&#39;s not a mistake. However if it&#39;s done in a way that tells muslims and Afghans that it&#39;s the U.S. running the show, and it most likely will be, it&#39;s going to piss off a lot of people.


Edit: You are overgeneralizing about muslims. Give me proof.

I don&#39;t have proof, but I have evidence. Please read the quote I posted or the books I mentioned.

Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please note I didn&#39;t say that muslims reject the separation of church and state, my point is that muslims in general view religion and politics as much more integrated than we would here in the states. That is what Zarqawi and Bin Laden are preaching, and it is resonating.

[Freidenker]

There is actually a plant (a weed) in South America that constantly reproduces. It can be turned into oil and runs better and cleaner in cars. Also vegetable oil is good for diesel engines. First off I think we should avoid not only Middle Eastern oil, but ALL oil that limited and harmful to the enviroment.

It should be cheap too. Or free. Fuck money. :D

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

My guess, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you&#39;re trying to say that islamic fundamentalism in Muslim countries is no worse nor no better than christian fundamentalism in the United States, with the ultimate goal of saying the United States is no better than Bin Laden or Zarqawi. Moral relativism, in other words.

I wouldn&#39;t know per se which of the two is the lesser one. But I am not planning on taking either one as an ally, so yeah they would count as two equal enemies.


I won&#39;t agree that fundamentalism in the United States is anywhere near as big a threat, even to us Americans, as islamic fundamentalism is. That is because religious fundamentalists in the United States hold very little power and make up a small percentage of the population. Islamic fundamentalists however hold a great deal of power in many countries and make up, or at least appeal to, a very large percentage of the muslim population.

I wouldn&#39;t know. I rather freaked out by the nationalistic and religious tendencies both within the muslim and US society, but in general I feel that many Westerners are counting Muslim fundamentalism for more then it&#39;s. Maybe it has to do that I have am from a muslim background. The problem with these things is that there is no real data on it. Furthermore it&#39;s hard to trace how big really the influence is of religionists on society and state.

In a sick way, ironic Christian and Muslim fundamentalism feed each other. If you catch my grasp, otherwise tell and i&#39;ll explain.


If it&#39;s the Afghani government that is doing it, with the blessing of its people, it&#39;s not a mistake. However if it&#39;s done in a way that tells muslims and Afghans that it&#39;s the U.S. running the show, and it most likely will be, it&#39;s going to piss off a lot of people.

That&#39;s the point. The government is a puppet, the same as every government that has been installed by the US. Karzai thanks his little bit of authority to the international troop force. Democracy and liberty by force ha?


Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please note I didn&#39;t say that muslims reject the separation of church and state, my point is that muslims in general view religion and politics as much more integrated than we would here in the states. That is what Zarqawi and Bin Laden are preaching, and it is resonating.

No I don&#39;t. But again there are no trusty stats on this. If I may ask you, how many muslims do you know actually know?

[t_wolves_fan]

I wouldn&#39;t know per se which of the two is the lesser one. But I am not planning on taking either one as an ally, so yeah they would count as two equal enemies.

Hell I almost agree with you on this.


I wouldn&#39;t know. I rather freaked out by the nationalistic and religious tendencies both within the muslim and US society, but in general I feel that many Westerners are counting Muslim fundamentalism for more then it&#39;s. Maybe it has to do that I have am from a muslim background. The problem with these things is that there is no real data on it. Furthermore it&#39;s hard to trace how big really the influence is of religionists on society and state.

And I for one think the west, especially Europe, is not taking fundamentalist islam serious enough, especially the strain prevalent in Iran, which advocates the destruction of the "decadent and godless" lifestyle of the West.

Europe has a much larger population of muslims than we do, many of them extremists. They live in Germany and Holland and France and advocate those states&#39; ultimate destruction. One of my favorite professors in grad school, who is by no means a conservative, says the threat of a future WMD attack in a US or European city is much greater than the public realizes; and I&#39;ve heard this sentiment from a few others as well.


In a sick way, ironic Christian and Muslim fundamentalism feed each other. If you catch my grasp, otherwise tell and i&#39;ll explain.

If your point is that they would push us towards the ultimate clash of civilizations, I agree with you.


That&#39;s the point. The government is a puppet, the same as every government that has been installed by the US. Karzai thanks his little bit of authority to the international troop force. Democracy and liberty by force ha?

Exactly what I said in my first post of this thread.



Do you have evidence to the contrary? Please note I didn&#39;t say that muslims reject the separation of church and state, my point is that muslims in general view religion and politics as much more integrated than we would here in the states. That is what Zarqawi and Bin Laden are preaching, and it is resonating.

No I don&#39;t. But again there are no trusty stats on this. If I may ask you, how many muslims do you know actually know?

I&#39;ve known a few throughout my life, all of them great people. I don&#39;t think this generally applies to muslims who migrate to the United States though, since this is obviously the wrong country to immigrate to if one is looking for sharia-based laws. I have read in several books though that muslims in muslim countries generally don&#39;t accept such a secular form of government. Look at the results in Iraq, for instance (assuming you accept them as legit, which I realize is a long shot), the shia islamist won big time.

[Paradox]

And I for one think the west, especially Europe, is not taking fundamentalist islam serious enough, especially the strain prevalent in Iran, which advocates the destruction of the "decadent and godless" lifestyle of the West.


It&#39;s pretty obvious that the west can&#39;t take Islamic fundamentalism seriously, seeing that it&#39;s allied with Fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.


Alcohol and pork are illegal, and so are theatres and cinemas. At prayer times all shops must close, with the exception of restaurants and a few five star hotels. Saudi Arabians are very rigid and strict about religious practices and it is mandatory for a visitor to observe them too. The public practice of any religion other than Islam is not allowed. Non-Muslims ("kaffirs") may not enter mosques in Saudi Arabia and the area surrounding Mecca (about 25 km radius from the city). So if you are traveling by bus or taxi do find out about your route beforehand, in case you cross the line barring non-Muslims from going near Mecca inadvertently. Public observance of Ramadan (a month of fasting observed twice a year) by both Muslims and non Muslims is mandatory. If you are caught smoking, drinking or eating in public- and that includes office, hotel lobbies, and even moving vehicles on the highway - you can be sent to prison till Ramadan is over.

http://www.journeymart.com/DExplorer/Middl...iPeople_Inc.htm (http://www.journeymart.com/DExplorer/MiddleEast/SaudiArabia/default.asp?SubLink=DExplorer%2FMiddleEast%2FSaudi Arabia%2FciPeople_Inc.htm)

The Taliban were fundamentalist, but they&#39;re gone. Still, in their place is just another puppet, Karzai. And of course, the u&#036; trained bin Laden, but now that he&#39;s turned against them, he&#39;s a terrorist.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:39 AM

And I for one think the west, especially Europe, is not taking fundamentalist islam serious enough, especially the strain prevalent in Iran, which advocates the destruction of the "decadent and godless" lifestyle of the West.


It&#39;s pretty obvious that the west can&#39;t take Islamic fundamentalism seriously, seeing that it&#39;s allied with Fundamentalist countries like Saudi Arabia.


Alcohol and pork are illegal, and so are theatres and cinemas. At prayer times all shops must close, with the exception of restaurants and a few five star hotels. Saudi Arabians are very rigid and strict about religious practices and it is mandatory for a visitor to observe them too. The public practice of any religion other than Islam is not allowed. Non-Muslims ("kaffirs") may not enter mosques in Saudi Arabia and the area surrounding Mecca (about 25 km radius from the city). So if you are traveling by bus or taxi do find out about your route beforehand, in case you cross the line barring non-Muslims from going near Mecca inadvertently. Public observance of Ramadan (a month of fasting observed twice a year) by both Muslims and non Muslims is mandatory. If you are caught smoking, drinking or eating in public- and that includes office, hotel lobbies, and even moving vehicles on the highway - you can be sent to prison till Ramadan is over.

http://www.journeymart.com/DExplorer/Middl...iPeople_Inc.htm (http://www.journeymart.com/DExplorer/MiddleEast/SaudiArabia/default.asp?SubLink=DExplorer%2FMiddleEast%2FSaudi Arabia%2FciPeople_Inc.htm)

The Taliban were fundamentalist, but they&#39;re gone. Still, in their place is just another puppet, Karzai. And of course, the u&#036; trained bin Laden, but now that he&#39;s turned against them, he&#39;s a terrorist.
Do you have anything to offer that you didn&#39;t glean off the A.N.S.W.E.R. talking points?

[Professor Moneybags]

I never understood this; do you lie out of ignorance or lie to cover up for you empire?

Depeleted uranium has a very low level of radioactivity and that is a scientific fact, if it wasn&#39;t it would just be called "plain old uranium" (or is science a capitalist conspiracy too ?). Whether or not what was being fired was actually depleted is another story altogether.


I challenge you; eat depleted uranium,

It&#39;s actually poisonous, like lead.



http://www.benjaminforiraq.org/immagini/Depleted%20uranium%20photos/DU2.jpg


But as usual, the crocodile tears for Iraqi children do little to make us forget the "kill anyone who disagrees with us" ideology you choose to follow.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

T wolf.


Europe has a much larger population of muslims than we do, many of them extremists. They live in Germany and Holland and France and advocate those states&#39; ultimate destruction.


I don&#39;t think this generally applies to muslims who migrate to the United States though, since this is obviously the wrong country to immigrate to if one is looking for sharia-based laws.

Bit contradictionary. Nor is Western Europe the place to look for sharia laws. This is about money. People move to where the money is.

I live in Western Europe and no, most muslims here are not extremists.

A question: do you think the US would have been as powerfull and rich as it is, if it hadn&#39;t used force to subdue other nations?

What drives a lot of people in the middle-east to extremism, is the continous support of the US for their oppressing government. The extremists are one of the few groups that resist against the oppressive regimes. A big plus for the radical Islamists is that many in the middle-east many can identify themselves with the religionist messages.

The (atheist) socialist movements that existed are all pretty much dead thanks to the US.

It&#39;s not an impossiblity to hit large populated area&#39;s with WMD&#39;s. But these things often turn out to be harder, the one thought. An example would be the attacks on the Tokyo subs with Sarin. It wasn&#39;t that succesfull.


If your point is that they would push us towards the ultimate clash of civilizations, I agree with you.

Not really. Simplified version: What I mean is. The US supports an oppressive government, this drives people to fundamentalist islam. These fundamentalists then attack and threaten western civilians as revenge. Western civilians wonder why this happens - the government answers: "They hate you because you love freedom, they are crazy islamists. Then the president preys to God". In turn many Western civilians accept this answer and turn more fundamental in their Christianity. They see it as a big Muslim vs Christian fight. This Christian fundamentalism in turn convinces more Islamists that it is indeed a big Christian vs Muslim fight. Catch my grasp?


I have read in several books though that muslims in muslim countries generally don&#39;t accept such a secular form of government. Look at the results in Iraq, for instance (assuming you accept them as legit, which I realize is a long shot), the shia islamist won big time.

Interesting. On the other hand, all US presidents have been Christians. Bush tells the nation that he is on a mission of God. Christianity has a big influence of US society and laws. People are forced to swear allegiance to God every day. So, yes the same thing goes for the US.

BTW. I will respond to your other posts. But not now, bit tired of endlessly repeating the information. You evaded for the 4 th the question what gives a government the right to subdue others?

Either you answer will mean that the US is an illegal state or I am fully right in my fight against the state.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

But as usual, the crocodile tears for Iraqi children do little to make us forget the "kill anyone who disagrees with us" ideology you choose to follow.

Really? What do you do to better the position of Iraqi children? I doubt that you have tears or even sympathy for the Iraqi children.

BTW you can still accept my challenge. Spread Depleted Uranium around your house.

Do you really think that the DU radiation level is so low that it&#39;s harmless? Or that the metals that are spread are harmless?

Guess you are right again and the ten thousands of war veterans and the half million dead Iraqi children were lying.

[t_wolves_fan]

T wolf.

Yes? :P


Europe has a much larger population of muslims than we do, many of them extremists. They live in Germany and Holland and France and advocate those states&#39; ultimate destruction.

I don&#39;t think this generally applies to muslims who migrate to the United States though, since this is obviously the wrong country to immigrate to if one is looking for sharia-based laws.

Bit contradictionary. Nor is Western Europe the place to look for sharia laws. This is about money. People move to where the money is.

Yes, it certainly is. What I was relating was what my instructor told me, and he is in a position to have a pretty educated opinion on the matter. But...


I live in Western Europe and no, most muslims here are not extremists.

I&#39;m sure most aren&#39;t. But with a larger population comes a greater likelihood that there are extremists, and more of them. Perhaps they are more of the Iranian variety that is not out for defensive jihad but out for destruction of the western lifestyle they view as decadent.



A question: do you think the US would have been as powerfull and rich as it is, if it hadn&#39;t used force to subdue other nations?

No.


What drives a lot of people in the middle-east to extremism, is the continous support of the US for their oppressing government. The extremists are one of the few groups that resist against the oppressive regimes. A big plus for the radical Islamists is that many in the middle-east many can identify themselves with the religionist messages.

I believe that is precisely what I said in my first post in this here thread.


It&#39;s not an impossiblity to hit large populated area&#39;s with WMD&#39;s. But these things often turn out to be harder, the one thought. An example would be the attacks on the Tokyo subs with Sarin. It wasn&#39;t that succesfull.



Not really. Simplified version: What I mean is. The US supports an oppressive government, this drives people to fundamentalist islam. These fundamentalists then attack and threaten western civilians as revenge. Western civilians wonder why this happens - the government answers: "They hate you because you love freedom, they are crazy islamists. Then the president preys to God". In turn many Western civilians accept this answer and turn more fundamental in their Christianity. They see it as a big Muslim vs Christian fight. This Christian fundamentalism in turn convinces more Islamists that it is indeed a big Christian vs Muslim fight. Catch my grasp?

Umm, yes. It&#39;s what I&#39;ve been arguing throughout this thread, so I&#39;m not sure why you&#39;re preaching it to me.



Interesting. On the other hand, all US presidents have been Christians. Bush tells the nation that he is on a mission of God. Christianity has a big influence of US society and laws. People are forced to swear allegiance to God every day. So, yes the same thing goes for the US.

Yes, from an uneducated muslim&#39;s point of view that is exactly the case, which is just one reason I&#39;m opposed to Bush and the religious right.

People are not forced to swear allegiance to God every day. Where did you get this idea? The pledge of allegiance? Nobody is required to say the pledge of allegiance, in fact few people even say it anymore.


BTW. I will respond to your other posts. But not now, bit tired of endlessly repeating the information. You evaded for the 4 th the question what gives a government the right to subdue others?

Self interest.


Either you answer will mean that the US is an illegal state or I am fully right in my fight against the state.

There is no such thing as an illegal state. Frankly international law is, at best, a concept. Despite our brutal actions in the past, most of the countries we subdued generally like us, or at least did before Bush came to power. The sore spot is the middle east for the reasons you and I have mentioned - continued support of repressive regimes, mixed with a religious element (certainly no South Americans would think we did what we did because we were attacking their religion, for obvious reasons).

I think it is within your rights to be opposed to Bush, hell I&#39;m opposed to him so I had better say that. I can understand your disdain for many of our policies and your desire to change them. I was an International Relations major in undergrad so I&#39;m pretty well aware of our many atrocities throughout history. On the other hand, we&#39;ve also prevented or stopped equally awful atrocities; and really no nation is without sin in their history.

[Djehuti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?
They should be disintergrated, and we shall vipe our arses with the beards of the Ayathollas&#33;

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I&#39;m sure most aren&#39;t. But with a larger population comes a greater likelihood that there are extremists, and more of them. Perhaps they are more of the Iranian variety that is not out for defensive jihad but out for destruction of the western lifestyle they view as decadent.

This is in contradiction with this:


Europe has a much larger population of muslims than we do, many of them extremists.

The second indicates that there is a majority of extemists among Western European muslims. Another contradiction is that you said that Bin Laden and Zarqawi had a large appeal on extremists, but now you state that the Iranian version has a large appeal.


People are not forced to swear allegiance to God every day. Where did you get this idea? The pledge of allegiance? Nobody is required to say the pledge of allegiance, in fact few people even say it anymore.


Yes, people are forced too. Quite regurarly newsreports appear which state that some kid refused to do the pledge of allegiance and that the school had suspended them.


Self interest.

Of who?


There is no such thing as an illegal state. Frankly international law is, at best, a concept. Despite our brutal actions in the past, most of the countries we subdued generally like us, or at least did before Bush came to power. The sore spot is the middle east for the reasons you and I have mentioned - continued support of repressive regimes, mixed with a religious element (certainly no South Americans would think we did what we did because we were attacking their religion, for obvious reasons).

South America has been rather a hotbed of revolutionary activities. Even in South-America there is a large anti-American sentiment. Even though less, because of the lack of a religious motive.


I think it is within your rights to be opposed to Bush, hell I&#39;m opposed to him so I had better say that. I can understand your disdain for many of our policies and your desire to change them. I was an International Relations major in undergrad so I&#39;m pretty well aware of our many atrocities throughout history. On the other hand, we&#39;ve also prevented or stopped equally awful atrocities; and really no nation is without sin in their history.

I am not just oppossed to Bush, I am oppossed to the entire system which puts so many people in such miserable conditions. Who did you vote on?

The second one, isn&#39;t of much importance; hell Nazi Germany even prevented atrocities.

Interesting. What is according to you the motive for the attrocities and foreign policy of the US? Why would it be different in the future? What do you do to change the system?

If you still hadn&#39;t figured out. I believe that all states are corrupt, I am against all governments.

[t_wolves_fan]

The second indicates that there is a majority of extemists among Western European muslims. Another contradiction is that you said that Bin Laden and Zarqawi had a large appeal on extremists, but now you state that the Iranian version has a large appeal.

First of all, the two are NOT contradictory. If English is your first language then you should know that.

I said that while a majority of European Muslims are not extremist, many are. Many means quite a few, it does not mean a majority.

Look at it this way: Say there are 1,000 muslims in the U.S. and 1 million in Europe. I&#39;d say I think "many" muslims in Europe are extremist if I believe 10,000 (for example) are extremist. That means while only 1% of the muslims in Europe are extremist, that&#39;s still a hell of a lot more extremists in Europe than in the U.S.


Yes, people are forced too. Quite regurarly newsreports appear which state that some kid refused to do the pledge of allegiance and that the school had suspended them.

I don&#39;t know where you are getting these stories. If they are "regular" then they are lying and probably not telling you the truth.

I believe most, though not nearly all, schools have the pledge of allegiance in the morning. However, federal courts have held that students cannot be required to participate. It does happen on occasion that some overzealous teacher tries to force a student, but they are usually overturned and condemned immediately.

If you&#39;re under the impression that all U.S. public school students are required to participate in the pledge every morning under threat of discipline, then you have been severely misled.



I am not just oppossed to Bush, I am oppossed to the entire system which puts so many people in such miserable conditions. Who did you vote on?

I am a moderate Republican but I voted for Kerry.


Interesting. What is according to you the motive for the attrocities and foreign policy of the US? Why would it be different in the future? What do you do to change the system?

The motive was to keep oil cheap and stop communism. It was sometimes for economic reasons, when we wanted raw materials, but rarely if ever for the purpose of establishing a colony.

Why couldn&#39;t our foreign policy be different in the future? Our system is not static. 50 years ago black kids couldn&#39;t go to school with white kids; why do you assume our foreign policy will always be the same?

This is the difference between you and I. I see the good in the system, the reality of economics, the necessity of individual liberty, and the impracticality of anarchy or stateless communism. I admit to our past and present misbehavior and use that as a reason to push for reform.

You on the other hand see past and present misbehavior and think it means the system needs to be destroyed. With all due respect, it seems like cutting off the head to cure a headache.


If you still hadn&#39;t figured out. I believe that all states are corrupt, I am against all governments.

Which I think is impossible and would inevitably lead to authoritarianism. That is why I asked the question I did about stateless communism.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

No, English isn&#39;t my first language. It would my third. Sorry, I misunderstood then.


I am a moderate Republican but I voted for Kerry.

You are against the US occupation of Iraq, but you vote on Kerry. Lack of choices?


Why couldn&#39;t our foreign policy be different in the future? Our system is not static. 50 years ago black kids couldn&#39;t go to school with white kids; why do you assume our foreign policy will always be the same?

Nothing comes falling out of nowhere. There was a large social movement active to emancipate the blacks in America.

Why would the foreign policy change? It&#39;s way to beneficiary for the rulingclass to head up a different direction. What do you do to change it?


This is the difference between you and I. I see the good in the system, the reality of economics, the necessity of individual liberty, and the impracticality of anarchy or stateless communism. I admit to our past and present misbehavior and use that as a reason to push for reform.


Individual liberty, it really depends on perspectives. Certain choices are limited or even unavaible in the Capitalist system, the same goes for Anarchism. It would be rather false to claim me against individual liberty, I am even against hierachy. How do you push for reform?


You on the other hand see past and present misbehavior and think it means the system needs to be destroyed. With all due respect, it seems like cutting off the head to cure a headache.

I am concerned with the workingclass. What are the prospects for the workingclass under Capitalism? The prospects are just like the past: bad. No, a minor problem would if people encounterd a small shortage of scarfs.

I would call 20.000 a 30.000 deads per day due to hunger a MAJOR problem. Billions in absolute poverty would count as MAJOR problem. Millions in slavery would count as a MAJoR problem. Billions live merely to survive the day. The motto of today is "chop chop".

On your questions on Anarchism and that you can&#39;t imagine something happening. Too bad, it already happend and happens. Societies existed and exist that show that a hierachyless, direct-democratic, gift-economic thingie can work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

This has a section with examples of Anarchism in practice, just read it through it will answer a lot of your questions.

Again this one:


Self interest.


Of who?

[Ele'ill]

I do not mean to butt into this delightful conversation but I would highly enjoy adding to it.


If you still hadn&#39;t figured out. I believe that all states are corrupt, I am against all governments

All states are corrupt.
What differs between different forms of government? The Ideology. The Ideology embraced by the people, the masses. Capitalism, anarchism, socialism, communism ect... All different ideologies. So wouldn&#39;t all Ideologies be corrupt or exploitable? I presume, that would include anarchism, as there is in my opinion, a direct connection between ideology and government. Anarchist ideology would be just as corrupt as capitlism or communism ect..

(this is a question, not a flame)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

I don&#39;t understand your course of thought. All governments are corrupt, so all ideologies are corrupt too?

That&#39;s a bit false, what makes governments corrupt is authority. The power over others, it becomes very tempting not to use that power to better yourself. There is no power over others in anarchism.

[Loknar]

The reason America supported the Mujahadeen was because it was the cold war, the Soviets were bogged down and we wanted to stop them from expanding their influence into Afghanistan, just as the Russians and Chinese did to America in Vietnam, it is exactly the same thing.


America didn’t support the Taliban as you may think. The Mujhadeen were headed by a talented military leader (whom was assassinated by Bin laden just before 9-11/ and was the Commander in Chief of the Northern alliance Forces) who knew how to beat the shit out of the soviets.

After the soviets withdrew the Mujhadeen were in control of Afghanistan officially but the Taliban and the Mujahadeen fought. Pakistan’s intelligence service were the ones who supported the Talibans rise to power, they more than anyone supported the Taliban.

And just to clarify, Osama was a member of the Mujahadeen, a mere member, he wasnt, and never was the leader.


As for what I think about Islamic Fundamentalism.....

I think all of em should be liquidated.

[Professor Moneybags]

Really? What do you do to better the position of Iraqi children ?

Nothing. I have no obligation to. Why what have you done, other than denounce the removal of their dictator ?


BTW you can still accept my challenge. Spread Depleted Uranium around your house.

Do you really think that the DU radiation level is so low that it&#39;s harmless? Or that the metals that are spread are harmless?

It&#39;s not what I think, it&#39;s what is that matters. The stuff in used in radiation shielding, so I shouldn&#39;t imagine it&#39;s as dangerous as it&#39;s made out to be.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 26 2005, 07:38 AM
There is no power over others in anarchism.
Except the power to kill and enslave without fear of punishment.

[Ele'ill]

I don&#39;t understand your course of thought. All governments are corrupt, so all ideologies are corrupt too?

That&#39;s a bit false, what makes governments corrupt is authority. The power over others, it becomes very tempting not to use that power to better yourself. There is no power over others in anarchism.




Except the power to kill and enslave without fear of punishment.


And the power to dictate that anarchist ideology is the correct ideology.
Which was one of my points.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Actually the US did support the Taliban. On multiple occassion even. When the Taliban rose to power, Pakistan asked US approval, the US granted. The Clinton regime sent aid to the Taliban, as a suck-up for the negotiations on an oil pipeline. One of the first actions of the Bush jr. administration was to give the Taliban 43 million dollar.

http://humanbacon.blogs.com/human_bacon/20...nistan_in_.html (http://humanbacon.blogs.com/human_bacon/2003/12/afghanistan_in_.html)

http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/foreign/f...ws_20011104.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/foreign/fa_archives/fa_shows/shows_20011104.htm)


America didn’t support the Taliban as you may think. The Mujhadeen were headed by a talented military leader (whom was assassinated by Bin laden just before 9-11/ and was the Commander in Chief of the Northern alliance Forces) who knew how to beat the shit out of the soviets.

Massud wasn&#39;t the head of the Nortern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was simply an Alliance of people who were against the Taliban. It existed out of various factions, tribes each with their own leaders.


The reason America supported the Mujahadeen was because it was the cold war, the Soviets were bogged down and we wanted to stop them from expanding their influence into Afghanistan, just as the Russians and Chinese did to America in Vietnam, it is exactly the same thing.


How is this suppossed to justify the actions of the US regime? Wasn&#39;t the US supposed to be better then their foes?


After the soviets withdrew the Mujhadeen were in control of Afghanistan officially but the Taliban and the Mujahadeen fought. Pakistan’s intelligence service were the ones who supported the Talibans rise to power, they more than anyone supported the Taliban.

Actually no. The official government of Afghanistan after the Soviet retreat was People&#39;s Democratic Party of Afghanistan who lost power in 1992. The Taliban came to existence in 1994. Yes the Pakistani SIS did the major supporting, but a lot of Arab countries and the US regime supported too.


As for what I think about Islamic Fundamentalism.....

I think all of em should be liquidated.

I couldn&#39;t agree more, but I add on, that all their supporters should meet the same fate. The same should go for the "other" side. All Christian, Jewish, Hindu etc. fundamentalists.

--------------

Another strike of Moneybags. Yes, we anarchists want to enslave people. :o You saw right through it. Nothing can fool you&#33;

[Loknar]

Actually the US did support the Taliban. On multiple occassion even. When the Taliban rose to power, Pakistan asked US approval, the US granted. The Clinton regime sent aid to the Taliban, as a suck-up for the negotiations on an oil pipeline. One of the first actions of the Bush jr. administration was to give the Taliban 43 million dollar.



Of course, oil is what we need.


My point though was this, people think that the Taliban and the Mujahadeen, and Osama were all 1 group with Osama as its leader, I was just pointing out that it wasn’t true.



Massud wasn&#39;t the head of the Nortern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was simply an Alliance of people who were against the Taliban. It existed out of various factions, tribes each with their own leaders.

I know he wasn’t the leader, but he was the head (in theory) of their military.


How is this suppossed to justify the actions of the US regime? Wasn&#39;t the US supposed to be better then their foes?

I am not apologizing for it, I only place logic on it.
and does that mean the Russians were wrong for supplying the Northern Vietnamese?


Actually no. The official government of Afghanistan after the Soviet retreat was People&#39;s Democratic Party of Afghanistan who lost power in 1992. The Taliban came to existence in 1994. Yes the Pakistani SIS did the major supporting, but a lot of Arab countries and the US regime supported too.

I know that, the northern alliance alone was not the head of the government, but Mussud was apart of that government when it lost Kabul in 1994 (or the faction which controlled Kabul in 1994).

As for the rise of the Taliban, people act as if America a lone did the supporting of it, but it is not true. Pakistan more than anybody championed the idea. We supported it, but America doesn’t deserve %100 of the blame.


I couldn&#39;t agree more, but I add on, that all their supporters should meet the same fate. The same should go for the "other" side. All Christian, Jewish, Hindu etc. fundamentalists.

No argument here....

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 12:53 PM
Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?
Fundamentalist Islam will join Nazism and Communism on the ash heap of history, placed there by free people.

When it&#39;s all said and done, Muslims will freely worship Allah.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Non&#045;Sectarian Bastard&#33;@Feb 26 2005, 10:07 PM
Another strike of Moneybags. Yes, we anarchists want to enslave people. :o You saw right through it. Nothing can fool you&#33;
All the sarcasm in the world isn&#39;t going to change reality. It&#39;s an excuse for violence hidden behind a smokescreen of "freedom". Wasn&#39;t fooled the first time.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

So all the babbling about freedom, democracy isn&#39;t true, because the US wants oil?

[t_wolves_fan]

Actually the US did support the Taliban. On multiple occassion even. When the Taliban rose to power, Pakistan asked US approval, the US granted. The Clinton regime sent aid to the Taliban, as a suck-up for the negotiations on an oil pipeline. One of the first actions of the Bush jr. administration was to give the Taliban 43 million dollar.

http://humanbacon.blogs.com/human_bacon/20...nistan_in_.html (http://humanbacon.blogs.com/human_bacon/2003/12/afghanistan_in_.html)

http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/foreign/f...ws_20011104.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/foreign/fa_archives/fa_shows/shows_20011104.htm)



Let me ask you a question: What do you think thank &#036;43 million was made up of? (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/)


Massud wasn&#39;t the head of the Nortern Alliance. The Northern Alliance was simply an Alliance of people who were against the Taliban. It existed out of various factions, tribes each with their own leaders.

Yes, he was the head.

Get your facts straight. (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3067685/)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Only you could be naive enough. The US is one of the lowest Western spenders on "development-aid". They constantly fuck up any country that they have a possiblity to fuck up. But all the sudden they give "aid". Unsuprisingly it involves oil interest. If their motive was really to stop hunger, then they would cut their military budget by 5 billion and feed the hungry.

You get your facts straigt. Massud was an important figure, but he wasn&#39;t the actual leader. The official political leader was Rabanni. You should note that there were besides Massud other military commanders such as; Dostum and Khan.


All the sarcasm in the world isn&#39;t going to change reality. It&#39;s an excuse for violence hidden behind a smokescreen of "freedom". Wasn&#39;t fooled the first time.

Really if violence was my ultimate goal, then I would have been a soldier in the US army or something. The US army is every violence obsessed sick bastards dream. The soldiers really seem to enjoy killing Iraqi&#39;s.


Fundamentalist Islam will join Nazism and Communism on the ash heap of history, placed there by free people.

Interesting, that whever there is a matter of US liberation it involves a lot of dead civilians. Even more interesting: Iraqi civilians are resisting their "liberators". How can someone be liberated against their will?

[Professor Moneybags]

If their motive was really to stop hunger, then they would cut their military budget by 5 billion and feed the hungry.

Targetting the cause rather the effect is a much smarter use of money in the long run.


Interesting, that whever there is a matter of US liberation it involves a lot of dead civilians. Even more interesting: Iraqi civilians are resisting their "liberators". How can someone be liberated against their will?

Ask a former member of the "Volksturm" (assuming there are any still alive).

[t_wolves_fan]

Only you could be naive enough. The US is one of the lowest Western spenders on "development-aid".

What does this have to do with anything?


They constantly fuck up any country that they have a possiblity to fuck up. But all the sudden they give "aid". Unsuprisingly it involves oil interest. If their motive was really to stop hunger, then they would cut their military budget by 5 billion and feed the hungry.

Again, so what? You complain that the U.S. gave the taliban &#036;43 million. I point out that the &#036;43 million was food. Now your complaint is that it&#39;s not enough&#33;




You get your facts straigt. Massud was an important figure, but he wasn&#39;t the actual leader. The official political leader was Rabanni. You should note that there were besides Massud other military commanders such as; Dostum and Khan.

Semantics. He was the inspirational leader and its top military commander.

[Ele'ill]

If their motive was really to stop hunger, then they would cut their military budget by 5 billion and feed the hungry.

Holy asssack I think I agree with you for a minute or two.

Generally the US&#39;s motives are lucrative and kept secret. If the US wanted to erradicate the worlds despots, they would have targeted other, easier countries to invade ect.. As this wasn&#39;t the direct point made, i&#39;m using it only as a parallel example. Had they invaded other countries, to liberate them of &#39;tyranny&#39;, they would have reaped no significant return of resources or money. Granted I would like to think that most of us on this board understand that you lend a helping hand out of compassion and not respect something in return. Unfortunatly, global politics runs a bit differently.



The US is one of the lowest Western spenders on "development-aid". They constantly fuck up any country that they have a possiblity to fuck up.

Can you give a legitimate trustworthy source showing statistics of US spending on foreign aid? As for the second part I agree that they should stop treating humanitarian efforts as a buisiness operation. Maybe they&#39;ll get a warm fuzzy feeling inside by cutting military cost by a fraction of a percentage so that some people can buy food on their own. Although that was all cynicism as I am perpetuatly doubtful with the US.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 04:53 PM
Just a quick question for you cappies, what do you think about fundamentalist Islam? Like the kind preached by bin Laden?
Going back to the original question, how many here support niXion and ITS&#39; approach to solving fundamentalist Islam, which apparently involves destroying religious buildings and symbolks, killing Mullahs, and enforcing laws that restrict parents from teaching Islam to their children in their own homes?

[Ele'ill]

There are no lesser of the two evils. They are the same enemy; they simply operate differently. I have my fingers crossed that nature will manifest a scenario in which they kill eachother off. She is ancient. ;)