Father of American Taliban fighter John Lynde asks for people to understand his son!!

[SueNC]

Indeed. And, from the radical Muslim view, leveling towers and taking 3,000 with them helps get their message across, right?

right. fight fire with fire.

the only thing is, they're doing it... not caring in the least about killing innocent civilians.
we, on the other hand, go in there with specific targets and make every attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

they attack us with no regards to who may die... as long as they're dead.
we 'play nice.'
yet... the liberal braindeads in this nation and around the world STILL look more harshly on us than them.

when you compare their tactics to ours, then consider the things liberals say about us, while ignoring the actions of terrorists, it really drives home the point that liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[stuglue]

Well both Bush senior and Bush junior are'nt going to confront the Saudi royal family or the Bin Ladens as they've got too many interlinking business interest's with them.The Bushes make a lot of money from their Saudi ties and for them it would'nt make any sense.In fact the Saudi's put an estimate 7% into the American economy now weigh that up.That is a lot of money.Why they targetted Saddam?Well i think they wanted a scapegoat and he fit the bill.Imaginary weapons of mass destruction and a campaign built on mere possibilites and suggestion has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths of 10's of 1000 Iraqi's not to mention the daily deaths of American and British soldiers.And they are still there,just what was the cause they were fighting for?Whether the coalition pulls out now or 1 year from now won't make a differnece Iraq is heading for a civil war as that power vacuum needs filling.Violence and bloodshed looks like the Iraqi's only future

 

[stuglue]

But the thing we in the west believe the propoganda our media feeds us.Do you think the American's wanted us to see the pictures from Abu Ghraib?Now how many heart's and mind's did that win.Or what about Guantanemo Bay the prisoner's are subjected to continuous white noise sessions,humiliation,solitary confinement,they are left in physically uncomfortable conditions for many hours and suffer various temperature techniques to get them to confess.But if they do crack under the pressure can the information they give really be reliable.I feel that their is real war and the media controlled war,2 different things.

 

[SoundMaster]

right. fight fire with fire.

the only thing is, they're doing it... not caring in the least about killing innocent civilians.
we, on the other hand, go in there with specific targets and make every attempt to avoid civilian casualties.

they attack us with no regards to who may die... as long as they're dead.
we 'play nice.'
yet... the liberal braindeads in this nation and around the world STILL look more harshly on us than them.

when you compare their tactics to ours, then consider the things liberals say about us, while ignoring the actions of terrorists, it really drives home the point that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Although I do agree that there is a small minority of foolish peaceniks on the lib side, it's very plain to see the vast mental disorder of radical conservatism. Take the jack ass Michael Savage, for example. After 9/11, his foolishness was made apparent when he stated on his show that the solution to, as he calls it, "the Muslim problem", would be to nuke Saudi Arabia during the Haj (when 2MM+ muslims visit a holy site in Arabia). Was he kidding? Perhaps, but his entire existence is owed to such nonsense, so who can be sure?
Now, this "solution" certainly satisfies the minds of non-thinkers, but the reality is that this would ultimately lead to America's demise. As it stands today, but a tiny percentage of the world's Muslims agree with bin laden...they see him as a radical murderer, as you and I do. But if the US were to systematically murder thousands of civillians in such a manner, even the most moderate of Muslims would flock to the banner of radicalism and take up arms to defend themselves. I have so many conservative friends who agree that all this would end if we just "killed 'em all".....of course, this isn't even logistically possible.

 

[SoundMaster]

Well both Bush senior and Bush junior are'nt going to confront the Saudi royal family or the Bin Ladens as they've got too many interlinking business interest's with them.The Bushes make a lot of money from their Saudi ties and for them it would'nt make any sense.In fact the Saudi's put an estimate 7% into the American economy now weigh that up.That is a lot of money.Why they targetted Saddam?Well i think they wanted a scapegoat and he fit the bill.Imaginary weapons of mass destruction and a campaign built on mere possibilites and suggestion has resulted in so many unnecessary deaths of 10's of 1000 Iraqi's not to mention the daily deaths of American and British soldiers.And they are still there,just what was the cause they were fighting for?Whether the coalition pulls out now or 1 year from now won't make a differnece Iraq is heading for a civil war as that power vacuum needs filling.Violence and bloodshed looks like the Iraqi's only future

Saddam had to go as we needed to rebuild Iraq's oil-infrastructure (which hadn't produced oil efficiently and in abundance since pre- Gulf War I days) and we needed to install a pro-West govt who'd selll it to the West at market value.

The fact of the matter is that this is all an insurance policy against the eventual coup of the Saudi Royal family.
If bin Laden's ultimate goal (overthrowing the Sauds) is ever realized, the west would be screwed. So Iraq's reserves became target #1. Period.
He was a much easier enemy/target than, say, Iran. For one, he has more oil. For 2, the radical Islamists hate him for being an apostate....although we'd still garner their wrath, it's less so than if we invaded Iran. Thirdly, an easier picture could be painted making him a threat (although it was very thin).

 

[stuglue]

Saddam had to go as we needed to rebuild Iraq's oil-infrastructure (which hadn't produced oil efficiently and in abundance since pre- Gulf War I days) and we needed to install a pro-West govt who'd selll it to the West at market value.

Yes but how much money has the Iraq cost America already.Consider that the war started in March 2003 and here we are 3 years later.If you think about what still needs to be done in Iraq i could say at a conservative guess that it will take about12-15 years from now just to get Iraq in a stable condition in all ways.Has been worth it?And don't forget the human tragedies.

 

[SoundMaster]

Yes but how much money has the Iraq cost America already.Consider that the war started in March 2003 and here we are 3 years later.If you think about what still needs to be done in Iraq i could say at a conservative guess that it will take about12-15 years from now just to get Iraq in a stable condition in all ways.Has been worth it?And don't forget the human tragedies.

12-15, at a minimum. The admin themselves in recent months said another 12+ years.
Anyway, with us pulling out or Arabia, we'd be in Iraq anyway for the long haul.

All good points, but the potential collapse of our economy is worth it all, no?

 

[ZeeZooZum]

Saddam had to go as we needed to rebuild Iraq's oil-infrastructure (which hadn't produced oil efficiently and in abundance since pre- Gulf War I days) and we needed to install a pro-West govt who'd selll it to the West at market value.

The fact of the matter is that this is all an insurance policy against the eventual coup of the Saudi Royal family.
If bin Laden's ultimate goal (overthrowing the Sauds) is ever realized, the west would be screwed. So Iraq's reserves became target #1. Period.
He was a much easier enemy/target than, say, Iran. For one, he has more oil. For 2, the radical Islamists hate him for being an apostate....although we'd still garner their wrath, it's less so than if we invaded Iran. Thirdly, an easier picture could be painted making him a threat (although it was very thin).

I agree. This is about the Saudis who are a bigger enemy to that Islamic fascists than us....

and congrats for being someone on the this board who prefers reason and clear thinking over ideological fanaticism, simple-minded declarations of politics and childish unhistorical definitions of what liberalism may or may not mean. Thankfully, even within or associated with the Bush administation there are people like Paul Bremer who at least have inteliigence when they approach the problems of the Middle East.....

Thankfully, the popular right-wing movement in this country, the direct observe of the smelly anti-establishement hippies of the 60's, is cutting its throat, drowning in its own whinning. This, alas, is what people like SueNC or other Micheal Savage supporters will never get. They assume that the world and politics are as simple as their minds and if you just blame liberals it will all be ok. At heart, someone like Savage, who was a jewish hippie who hung around with Allen Ginsberg (again, proving the point how closely connected the far-right is associated with the far-left in their reductive anti-establishment thinking..... Yesterdays "squares" are todays "liberals") is just laughing his ass off knowing dopes are taking him seriously

At least 2008 on the Republican side looks like it might return to sanity. Candidates like Mcain or Rudy are serious-minded and do more than just talk big. They want to solve problems and not just whine about liberals. Oh, what will the fascist pigs on the right do when the republican party returns to sanity? Who will they blame?

 

[SoundMaster]

I agree. This is about the Saudis who are a bigger enemy to that Islamic fascists than us....

and congrats for being someone on the this board who prefers reason and clear thinking over ideological fanaticism, simple-minded declarations of politics and childish unhistorical definitions of what liberalism may or may not mean. Thankfully, even within or associated with the Bush administation there are people like Paul Bremer who at least have inteliigence when they approach the problems of the Middle East.....

Thankfully, the popular right-wing movement in this country, the direct observe of the smelly anti-establishement hippies of the 60's, is cutting its throat, drowning in its own whinning. This, alas, is what people like SueNC or other Micheal Savage supporters will never get. They assume that the world and politics are as simple as their minds and if you just blame liberals it will all be ok. At heart, someone like Savage, who was a jewish hippie who hung around with Allen Ginsberg (again, proving the point how closely connected the far-right is associated with the far-left in their reductive anti-establishment thinking..... Yesterdays "squares" are todays "liberals") is just laughing his ass off knowing dopes are taking him seriously

At least 2008 on the Republican side looks like it might return to sanity. Candidates like Mcain or Rudy are serious-minded and do more than just talk big. They want to solve problems and not just whine about liberals. Oh, what will the fascist pigs on the right do when the republican party returns to sanity? Who will they blame?

Perfectly stated.
The GOP, which has been hi-jacked by neo-conservatives (cut tax and spend, etc) may soon resort back to old fashioned Republicanism. Rudy or McCain would make excellent presidents. Although, however, due to the fact that Rudy's last name ends in a vowel and due to the fact that he's socially moderate (even liberal) he doesn't have a chance to win the party's nomination.

 

[MyHatred]

I agree. This is about the Saudis who are a bigger enemy to that Islamic fascists than us....

and congrats for being someone on the this board who prefers reason and clear thinking over ideological fanaticism, simple-minded declarations of politics and childish unhistorical definitions of what liberalism may or may not mean. Thankfully, even within or associated with the Bush administation there are people like Paul Bremer who at least have inteliigence when they approach the problems of the Middle East.....

Thankfully, the popular right-wing movement in this country, the direct observe of the smelly anti-establishement hippies of the 60's, is cutting its throat, drowning in its own whinning. This, alas, is what people like SueNC or other Micheal Savage supporters will never get. They assume that the world and politics are as simple as their minds and if you just blame liberals it will all be ok.

Good show ZeeZooZum, Soundmaster, stuglue you have all made very valid and good points. That was definitely a good civilized read.

 

[SueNC]

This, alas, is what people like SueNC or other Micheal Savage supporters

i'm not a Michael Savage supporter, actually.
you lump everyone into neat little boxes, but people arent that predictable or simple.

it's that narrow minded thinking that is the very reason why the safety of this nation CAN NOT be left up to liberals.

 

[SoundMaster]

i'm not a Michael Savage supporter, actually.
you lump everyone into neat little boxes, but people arent that predictable or simple.

it's that narrow minded thinking that is the very reason why the safety of this nation CAN NOT be left up to liberals.

Conservatives don't do this (...lump everyone into neat little boxes...")?

 

[MyHatred]

Conservatives don't do this (...lump everyone into neat little boxes...")?

I was going to say the same thing. I would say that 98% of the threads and posts about Liberals do just that(Lump them into neat little boxes). Some of the extremely narrow minded things posted here give me quite a chuckle though. Most of the stuff posted is so outrageous and down right wrong that I can't help but laugh.

 

[MyHatred]

Granted, I do have some republican leanings.

 

[SueNC]

Conservatives don't do this (...lump everyone into neat little boxes...")?

to some extent, but on the whole, Conservatives are MUCH more willing to take the high road and allow for opposing ideas.
liberals are as close to being nazis as this nation has ever seen. they seek to clamp tight, rigid rules on everything from speech to ideas, as has been glaringly illustrated time and again.

a prime example is the incident where Ann Coulter was asked to speak at a college campus recently [possibly in Connecticut?], only to be shouted down by the liberal brain trust [an oxymoron] of the campus, who couldnt be bothered with listening politely and THEN forming their opinions or giving opposing views. that would have been too civilized and fair.

another example is Bill O'Reilly's recent appearance on the David Letterman show.
Letterman acted like a complete idiot!
he tells O'Reilly... an invited guest... that 60% of what he says is crap. when O'Reilly asks him if he's ever watched the show and actually HEARD FOR HIMSELF what he says, he said 'no' but that he'd read about it.
that was possibly one of the stupidest things i'd ever heard!

liberals are all about 'freedoms' but only if those freedoms mirror their particular ideals.

at least Conservatives allow room for honest, democratic debate.
Conservatives conduct themselves like civilized, decent people. liberals are rude, hateful, oppressive people, who shouldnt be allowed anywhere in polite society.

 

[MyHatred]

another example is Bill O'Reilly's recent appearance on the David Letterman show.
Letterman acted like a complete idiot!
he tells O'Reilly... an invited guest... that 60% of what he says is crap. when O'Reilly asks him if he's ever watched the show and actually HEARD FOR HIMSELF what he says, he said 'no' but that he'd read about it.
that was possibly one of the stupidest things i'd ever heard!

at least Conservatives allow room for honest, democratic debate.
Conservatives conduct themselves like civilized, decent people. liberals are rude, hateful, oppressive people, who shouldnt be allowed anywhere in polite society.

On Bill O'Reilly's show, if you do not agree with his opinion he pretty much takes the low road and just tells people to shut up and that they are un-American Not a very polite person in the least and a bad example to include.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

i'm not a Michael Savage supporter, actually.
you lump everyone into neat little boxes, but people arent that predictable or simple.

it's that narrow minded thinking that is the very reason why the safety of this nation CAN NOT be left up to liberals.

1) Again, you have no clue what the world liberal means. 2) The depth of your understanding of the world is that liberals are bad. Congrats. I've converted to your world view. Yesterday's hangover I had was the fault of liberals.
You really are no different the far-left you think you understand. You are both the ruin of America.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

to some extent, but on the whole, Conservatives are MUCH more willing to take the high road and allow for opposing ideas.
liberals are as close to being nazis as this nation has ever seen. they seek to clamp tight, rigid rules on everything from speech to ideas, as has been glaringly illustrated time and again.

.

Yet another fantical post. As someone whose Grandmother had to hide in the forest from Nazis, I can say for sure your attempted equation between speech codes and over sensitivity about them and Nazism is a form of mental illness.

And Letterman is a comedian whose whole persona is about being jerky and ironic. He was no ruder to poor old Bill then Bill is to half the guests who he disagress with. And yes, I have seen the show......

Rest assured, your Republician party will return to sanity in 2008 even if you never will. People like Rove will be gone and the party will have more to offer than shallow bitching.

Oh, the liberals...they're so mean. They hurt our feelings.....WAAA...WAAAA

Yup, todays' "conservaties," the dopey Bush ones, are no different than the big government leftys of the past. They whine just like them......

 

[SoundMaster]

to some extent, but on the whole, Conservatives are MUCH more willing to take the high road and allow for opposing ideas.
liberals are as close to being nazis as this nation has ever seen. they seek to clamp tight, rigid rules on everything from speech to ideas, as has been glaringly illustrated time and again.

a prime example is the incident where Ann Coulter was asked to speak at a college campus recently [possibly in Connecticut?], only to be shouted down by the liberal brain trust [an oxymoron] of the campus, who couldnt be bothered with listening politely and THEN forming their opinions or giving opposing views. that would have been too civilized and fair.

another example is Bill O'Reilly's recent appearance on the David Letterman show.
Letterman acted like a complete idiot!
he tells O'Reilly... an invited guest... that 60% of what he says is crap. when O'Reilly asks him if he's ever watched the show and actually HEARD FOR HIMSELF what he says, he said 'no' but that he'd read about it.
that was possibly one of the stupidest things i'd ever heard!

liberals are all about 'freedoms' but only if those freedoms mirror their particular ideals.

at least Conservatives allow room for honest, democratic debate.
Conservatives conduct themselves like civilized, decent people. liberals are rude, hateful, oppressive people, who shouldnt be allowed anywhere in polite society.

Generally speaking, I think the exact opposite tends to be true, that liberals and NOT conservatives are more open to debate and rational discourse. This is a generalization, of course, and does not imply to any & everyone who labels themselves as either "conservative" or "liberal".

The O'Reilly Show is an excellent example of this. It's not a true debate show. Rather, it's Fox's way of throwing read meat to the lions - Bill simply tells his audience what they want to hear. He doesn't debate at all. When his supposed "guests" begin making a point, he resorts to the infamous "just SHUT UP!" line. That's his gig. There's no rational discourse coming from him. Savage, Coulter, etc., are worse.

As for the common man, however, it's been my experience that most conservs tend to be too close-minded, and too often see the world in black and white when the reality is that it's totally gray.

But that's my experience only.

 

[SueNC]

Yet another fantical post. As someone whose Grandmother had to hide in the forest from Nazis, I can say for sure your attempted equation between speech codes and over sensitivity about them and Nazism is a form of mental illness.

And Letterman is a comedian whose whole persona is about being jerky and ironic. He was no ruder to poor old Bill then Bill is to half the guests who he disagress with. And yes, I have seen the show......

Rest assured, your Republician party will return to sanity in 2008 even if you never will. People like Rove will be gone and the party will have more to offer than shallow bitching.

Oh, the liberals...they're so mean. They hurt our feelings.....WAAA...WAAAA

Yup, todays' "conservaties," the dopey Bush ones, are no different than the big government leftys of the past. They whine just like them......

rude and wrong.
just the way liberals have always been.