• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

  • The site has been updated!

    If you notice any issues, please let us know below!

    VIEW THREAD

Libya

Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dbateman™</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its not Libya but their kicking it off all over the globe.

Aussie land news.

They were even flying al qaeda Flags and all the bs that goes with them. </div></div>

The protestors cover every issue. They enjoy freedom of religion in a free society. They sing songs of praise to Osama bin Laden(a mass murderer, terrorist who started a war that has killed over 100,000 across three continents) and carry signs calling upon others to commit murder for the benefit of their protected religion.

Democracy, started in 1901 and still messy today. At least the Australian Security Intelligence Organization got the opportunity to gather all the radicals together. So they can check for new members and gather some more intelligence.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RoosterShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the thing that get's me by reading through this thread. Ninety-nine percent of you are taking this whole thing at face value!

You are all missing the point! This is the outcome of our meddling in foreign affairs. We are just now reaping the outcome of 30+ years of interfering with government structures where we had no business being in the first place!

I am 100% for a free democratic society. However, do I believe it is for everyone? Absolutely not! I know it's hard for us to understand while we're in our air conditioned home with our TV on, while we eat our freshly cooked breakfast from a hot stove. If we wish to ... we can drive down the road and purchase anything we want with credit, as long as we pay the bill later ... or ... maybe not!

The point is ... not all societies are set up as free and democratic societies. When we try and force feed our ideas to countries that aren't structured that way ... we have problems. Like we're seeing here! Just because it's good for us doesn't mean it's good for them! </div></div>

At first I was OK he gets it but then...

Concept question - do you believe <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> men (humans) enjoy certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator - or do you believe those rights only should be extended if one is on US soil and sees 'The Creator' in a Judeo-Christian capacity?

Second concept question - and this may challenge your own thoughts about your perception of face value - do you actually believe that US policies that carry a public tag of 'Designed to promote democracy' do not often carry a non disclosed subversive element in order to create widespread destabilization?



Good luck
 
Re: Libya

Just some food for thought:

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=player_embedded#!"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_Qpy0mXg8Y&feature=player_embedded#!" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RoosterShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the thing that get's me by reading through this thread. Ninety-nine percent of you are taking this whole thing at face value!

You are all missing the point! This is the outcome of our meddling in foreign affairs. We are just now reaping the outcome of 30+ years of interfering with government structures where we had no business being in the first place!

I am 100% for a free democratic society. However, do I believe it is for everyone? Absolutely not! I know it's hard for us to understand while we're in our air conditioned home with our TV on, while we eat our freshly cooked breakfast from a hot stove. If we wish to ... we can drive down the road and purchase anything we want with credit, as long as we pay the bill later ... or ... maybe not!

The point is ... not all societies are set up as free and democratic societies. When we try and force feed our ideas to countries that aren't structured that way ... we have problems. Like we're seeing here! Just because it's good for us doesn't mean it's good for them! </div></div>

At first I was OK he gets it but then...

Concept question - do you believe <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> men (humans) enjoy certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator - or do you believe those rights only should be extended if one is on US soil and sees 'The Creator' in a Judeo-Christian capacity?

Second concept question - and this may challenge your own thoughts about your perception of face value - do you actually believe that US policies that carry a public tag of 'Designed to promote democracy' do not often carry a non disclosed subversive element in order to create widespread destabilization?



Good luck </div></div>
Do I believe ALL men are indowed with certain inailienable rights? NO! I know that sounds bad, but here is my reasoning.
In hindsight did Hitler deserve the power he weilded? No!
If a hypothetical country is populated with 75% KKK, & 25% Blacks. Does the fact that the majority rules automaticly mean that the ruling KKK faction will be a peace loving, & tolerant society? No!
Should we as the defacto representitives of a peacefull, democratic, & tolerant society do everything we can to dis allow the majority of said country the power they need to oppress the minority? Yes!
So, is it not our responsibility to do what we can to dis allow a nation whoes majority population is bent on the conquest, & slaughter of all who don't share thier beliefs, to achive the power they need to oppress thier neihbors? Yes it is!
Democracy at face value does not guarentee a peacefull, & tolerant society if the majority of the people there are not peacefull, nor tolerant. It gives them the opportunity, & power to oppress thier neihbors, & this should be opposed.
Therefore, a benevolent, minority dictator (How benevolent is another debate) is preferable to a democraticly elected tyrant.
Therefore not ALL men deserve, nor should have the same rights, as others.
As for your question about the "subversive" democratic aid... Are you realy suggesting that 30 yrs of US democratic aid was actually intended to destabilise the area? On purpose? I think not. May it have had that effect? Possibly. That is another debate.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps it needs repeating. Libya voted in a moderate and the muslim brotherhood lost the election. MB does not have hegemony in the region.

The foreign policy - if there is one - around Arab Spring is to depose those dictators who want to butter both sides of the slice. Now, the irony is the one country that's most guilty of this is Saudia Arabia but, well, then we're back to oil aren't we.

Dictators no longer work in our favor. The idea of 'he's our bastard' is not longer tenable not when we choose to justify wars on higher moral grounds. The information age, although not widespread in ME still means blatant hypocrisy is easily exploited by our enemies.

Just to put things in perspective - our judging the actions of the people who assaulted in the Consulate in Libya given the numbers involved would be same as judging the US or Christianity by the losers you get at a skinhead rally. It's not representative. Still needs attention and resolution, but it's not 'crater time'. We have more to gain by growing partnerships through more open politics and commerce than we do by outright isolationism.

As for Reagan... well, we already have an anti-gun, pro-debt dude in charge, two would just be too much fun...

</div></div>

With all due respect EH, and I mean that as I believe you are an independent thinker which I respect, I think your view here is somewhat optimistic. I have dedicated several years of my professional life to this region which has given me some common sense perspective, though I am not claiming to have the only valid viewpoint.

First, as far as the moderate government in Libya, we will just wait and see and don't worry I won't say I told you so later. I have seen some crazy stuff over there but I have never been surprised at anything they have done - if Libya turns out to be a moderate functioning Islamic democracy then I WILL be surprised. I won't bet you on the outcome because it would be the same as stealing. Most of the votes for Mustafa Abshugar came from Brotherhood delegates. We will see.

As far as the so called Arab Spring, again call me a severe sceptic, as I am confident it will in reality result in Arab winter. Show me a strong majority free Islamic society. Democracy in and of itself is the potential for good - not the result of it. The Palestinians had democratic elections and promptly elected Hamas. Is that cause for rejoicing? Hardly. Democracy can easily lead to all forms of despotism...a fact which causes me to fear for my children's future in our own country, which is why it is right to focus here. You believe the actions of the embassy attackers isn't representative, but based on my experience, I believe that it is. The expansion of Sharia law through violence when necessary follows them wherever they have the majority.

I would be fine with open commerce, but I am done politically with the Islamists. Buy, sell, trade, fine. But if I was in charge this country would be done with being strong armed by a cartel of oil pushers who screw us with the sale of the same product we discovered for them, then delivered a turnkey industry to, and which industry WE have defended in several wars. I am done with them. The popular opinion is we cant afford life without them...after trillions in debt and the REAL cost of gasoline at the pump in the hundreds of dollars per gallon I say we can't afford living with them. It is time to take charge of our energy future and focus on solving our own problems instead of theirs.

I once had your optimism...unfortunately it was crushed under the weight of the reality I experienced.
</div></div>

Well, Turkey would be a good example. They've so far attained a working balance between legislative secularism within a predominantly Muslim culture. They've been supportive allies for both Iraqi conflicts and also for our wars in Afghanistan and drones strikes into Pakistan.

I know and share your feelings regarding the fragility of anything open and democratic in the ME. It's not fertile soil but then, no country has been a democracy without the precursors of violence and turmoil. As someone has said, 'all births are violent'.

As for oil, well, that's just one of those things. My family background is the oil business and the West was as complicit in supporting corrupt, double standard regimes in return for predictable prices and supply. Of this, I am perhaps more intimately aware than most. I agree, the future of this country MUST be free from Saudi and other ME countries but then, we're up against the two most powerful lobby groups - Energy and Banking. good luck with that. One need only look at the history this country has of doing deep, intractable business with those who would do us harm. Look at China - our debt ownership, our supply chain dependence, our very ability to function regarding rare earth materials. We've handed massively strategic advantages to one of the most vile, inhuman and ideologically bankrupt governement in the world... Why? Because it suited the power brokers IN THE USA.

Some might say I'm being down on the USA. They are dim. I believe you can't fix what you refuse to admit is broken. I've recently become a citizen of this country. It ranks as one of the proudest moments of my life. I too fear for the future of my children (one on the way!) and so I want the rot here to be fixed before we think it's only a matter of not being where we're not wanted.

Our problems are not borne overseas. Our problems are created at home and we seek solutions in the wrong places with the wrong tools.

Arming the embassies to the teeth would have solved nothing, achieved nothing only deferred the inevitable to some other venue at some other time. We're in this mess because we've chosen poor company abroad in turn because we've chosen poorly at home. I agree we need to be out of the ME. I disagree that simly pulling out would solve all our problems.
 
Re: Libya

You nailed it EH. These situations will continue as long as we have politicians that owe their souls and campaigns to the groups of men who buy the policies that precipitate this kinda stuff and put us in a lose lose situation.
 
Re: Libya

I thought the environmental groups, lawsuits and lobbyists were preventing development of domestic sources of mining, oil, coal, and refinery construction and the attendant jobs and GDP enhancement that follows such infrastructure growth as well as the obvious insulation to foreign manipulation, war and embargoes.

They, coupled with politicians of pretty much one particular persuasion have thwarted energy independence through the above listed methods for nearly 40 years since the first Arab oil embargo of 1973.

But it's been "The Bankers" all along...

Got it.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought the environmental groups, lawsuits and lobbyists were preventing development of domestic sources of mining, oil, coal, and refinery construction and the attendant jobs and GDP enhancement that follows such infrastructure growth as well as the obvious insulation to foreign manipulation, war and embargoes.

They, coupled with politicians of pretty much one particular persuasion have thwarted energy independence through the above listed methods for nearly 40 years since the first Arab oil embargo of 1973.

But it's been "The Bankers" all along...

Got it. </div></div>

No, you clearly don't get it, as shown by your parochial understanding of energy policy and the forces that control it. If you think domestic exploration (or the lack thereof) is simply the product of tree huggers, you really have swallowed the Kool Aid. When you're able to reconcile that political power is SUBSERVIENT to economic power, regardless of party, maybe then see how naive your statement truly is.
 
Re: Libya

QQ probably would have agreed with what I said had someone else said it. But just to humor it all...

He and others assume wrongly that the energy and banker lobbyists are not influential in both parties. To think Exxon isn't invested in staving off coal or gas adoption on a wider scale until they've milked every ounce of ROI from oil investments overseas is to be uneducated on the economics of energy.

To think bankers who managed to get a trillion dollar interest free loan dont wield enormous, un-elected power on our national policies is to be ignorant of the lobbyist/campaign financing dynamic.

To think an incumbent President in an election year with 8% unemployment would be indifferent to scenes of murdered Ambassadors is just very odd to say the least.

Fargo - id say the last 5 administrations have caused needless deaths of Americans overseas for the same reasons of political, economic expediency and good old fashioned incompetence. Again, our problems abroad are because of poor choices at home.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought the environmental groups, lawsuits and lobbyists were preventing development of domestic sources of mining, oil, coal, and refinery construction and the attendant jobs and GDP enhancement that follows such infrastructure growth as well as the obvious insulation to foreign manipulation, war and embargoes.

They, coupled with politicians of pretty much one particular persuasion have thwarted energy independence through the above listed methods for nearly 40 years since the first Arab oil embargo of 1973.

But it's been "The Bankers" all along...

Got it. </div></div>

No, you clearly don't get it, as shown by your parochial understanding of energy policy and the forces that control it. If you think domestic exploration (or the lack thereof) is simply the product of tree huggers, you really have swallowed the Kool Aid. When you're able to reconcile that political power is SUBSERVIENT to economic power, regardless of party, maybe then see how naive your statement truly is. </div></div>

Do flies swarm about you? Being so totally full of crap and all?

And while I'm sure you knew it before everyone else did, it was poisoned Flavor Aid that the people in Guyana drank at the behest of Jim Jones.

But of course you knew that.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">QQ probably would have agreed with what I said had someone else said it. But just to humor it all...

He and others assume wrongly that the energy and banker lobbyists are not influential in both parties. To think Exxon isn't invested in staving off coal or gas adoption on a wider scale until they've milked every ounce of ROI from oil investments overseas is to be uneducated on the economics of energy.

To think bankers who managed to get a trillion dollar interest free loan dont wield enormous, un-elected power on our national policies is to be ignorant of the lobbyist/campaign financing dynamic.

To think an incumbent President in an election year with 8% unemployment would be indifferent to scenes of murdered Ambassadors is just very odd to say the least.

Fargo - id say the last 5 administrations have caused needless deaths of Americans overseas for the same reasons of political, economic expediency and good old fashioned incompetence. Again, our problems abroad are because of poor choices at home. </div></div>

Wow, Lobbyists are influential? Amazing! I see it all now! Well not until someone else says it of course.

Seriously, you nailed it. Sloppily constructed horse shit conspiracy theories that don't quite have the stomach to go all the way in blaming the old favorites (bankers, big energy, <span style="font-size: 26pt">JEWS</span>...) are what I always jump to except when it comes from my intellectual superiors like yourself and Montag.

Busted.
 
Re: Libya

In the mean time, embassies have been breached and the Choomer in Chief was, and still is, in prime ankle grabbing position.

Several have been breached and destroyed, one ambassador murdered, in the midst of organized full military operations against sovereign United States diplomatic missions in Libya, Egypt, Yemen Tunisia and 17 other locations. Several have been over run.

The primary response of the Administration and his state department has been insulting mendacity and complete aversion to taking any responsibility for their monumental incompetence. Lies upon lies have been forthcoming coupled with redaction of e-mails and denial of the wave of intelligence that has been forthcoming from media sources not completely whoring themselves to the administration.

I'm not among the delusional people in this thread.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess that makes me a self-hating Jew.

Busted my fellow Tribesman, you truly are desperate to try that feeble shit. </div></div>

If you say so.

And you did.
 
Re: Libya

I say you're a desperate clown who's unable to offer a rebuttal. Hate away my friend, the Talmud has prepared me for situations like your offense, it offers me an excellent opportunity to practice forgiveness. Your stupidity is in fact a mitvah, for that I am thankful.
 
Re: Libya

QQ I usually enjoy reading your posts and find myself agreeing with you quite a bit, but I'm having a hard time following your posts on this thread thru all your sarcasm. You seem to chastise anyone who tries to connect the dots to a deeper root of our problems in the ME. What are your conclusions and solutions? I'm genuinely curious and have no axe to grind or bone to pick, as all I share are my opinions and nothing more.
 
Re: Libya

My offense? You are the one bandying about the "Banker" horse shit! When I hear bogey man language such as that I remember history's ample lessons.

If you want to be insulted feel free as I see you are little more than a blow hard.

Oh and by the way, the thread is about Libya and the embassies that have been attacked, not about your incessant mental masturbation about how the whole world is too stupid to understand how we would all have been better off if we had just listened to you.

Somehow I'll manage not to eat my gun over your incessant missing of any point other than your own.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Immorteq</div><div class="ubbcode-body">QQ I usually enjoy reading your posts and find myself agreeing with you quite a bit, but I'm having a hard time following your posts on this thread thru all your sarcasm. You seem to chastise anyone who tries to connect the dots to a deeper root of our problems in the ME. What are your conclusions and solutions? I'm genuinely curious and have no axe to grind or bone to pick, as all I share are my opinions and nothing more. </div></div>

Good question.

My sarcasm relates to the Soviet style mendacity that characterizes the preparedness, response and accountability of the administration throughout the whole of this mess that is in many ways the fruit of the last 3.5 years of middle eastern policy, and the eager dick sucking by the mainstream media to cover up for it.

On the 11th anniversary of September 11th no less!

Like the recent thread on "Iran" where some of the same hyperbolic "Banker", "Rothchild","Lobbyest" crap derailed the basic subject which was the impact of the Iranian psychos in possession of nukes. I was chastised by Dr. Knowitall for saying Iran's threat of nuclear aggression must be neutralized. Instead we fecklessly dither and insult our only ally in the region and look where we are!

This thread now has become a wang fest of blowhardery completely off topic of the Libyan and other embassies and missions under attack.

There is no sarcasm intended on the central subject of the thread. Our Diplomatic missions are under active attack and in my opinion anything other than smashing those who are responsible is giving rise to greater attacks.

Energy policy, global economics, real politic, grand strategy of course all have an impact but at the core of all of this, what is obviously lost in my view is basic ownership of a massive and ongoing fuck up.

The main story of this whole saga is being forcibly obscured, not by mythical wall street bankers,or Goebbels-esque caricatures, but by good old fashioned incompetent ass coverers who are so unqualified for their jobs as to be laughable if not for the people who have been killed and put at risk.

In my experience it is much more difficult to salvage a cluster fuck than to have avoided it in the first place.

Was Mubarak a dictator? Yep! Is Egypt better off with the MB in charge? No fucking way! Pretending the Muslim Brotherhood was a democratic movement was just more of the kind of mush headed point missing that has landed us in this shit.

At this point, we have been humiliated in several countries. There are no easy solutions. Now.

But letting our embassies and consuls fall due to ignorance of, or unwillingness or incapability to deal with, the intelligence at hand must be condemned. It is the way responsible adults who must account for their actions and decisions are dealt with.

Even "Bankers"
 
Re: Libya

I was a bit surprised to see the news footage of the idiots rioting in Australia and trying to make trouble at the US embassy there.

Stupid idiots running around chanting how they love Osama!
(Somebody forgot to tell them we wacked him good and proper)

The irony to all this is that this is all going down in a country that bends over backwards and grabs it's ankles on a daily basis to make them feel good. Where there is no real freedom of speech (well you can have freedom of speech as long as nothing you say offends anyone except white chrisitans) and is it against the law to talk against the muslims or insult them & where you can be thrown in jail for talking about how you hate all the human rights abuses done under the name of Muslim religion.

Even with all that bending over they still want to go riot and have it out with the police.... Just goes to show you can't make them happy ever.. No matter how much you try they will never be peaceful till you surrender and worship Allah in exactly the same way they do (and then once you do that, the other faction will want to kill you because they worship Allah a bit differently).
 
Re: Libya

Thanks for the reply. I think I have a better understanding of where you're coming from. From everything I've read, the Russians tried a variation of the solution you seem to be in favor of. We gave it a half hearted try. We're not much better off now for it in my opinion. The "glass factory" faction has some interesting proponents but few seem concerned with the price tag. A bit naive and delusional for my tastes.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RoosterShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the thing that get's me by reading through this thread. Ninety-nine percent of you are taking this whole thing at face value!

You are all missing the point! This is the outcome of our meddling in foreign affairs. We are just now reaping the outcome of 30+ years of interfering with government structures where we had no business being in the first place!

I am 100% for a free democratic society. However, do I believe it is for everyone? Absolutely not! I know it's hard for us to understand while we're in our air conditioned home with our TV on, while we eat our freshly cooked breakfast from a hot stove. If we wish to ... we can drive down the road and purchase anything we want with credit, as long as we pay the bill later ... or ... maybe not!

The point is ... not all societies are set up as free and democratic societies. When we try and force feed our ideas to countries that aren't structured that way ... we have problems. Like we're seeing here! Just because it's good for us doesn't mean it's good for them! </div></div>

At first I was OK he gets it but then...

Concept question - do you believe <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> men (humans) enjoy certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator - or do you believe those rights only should be extended if one is on US soil and sees 'The Creator' in a Judeo-Christian capacity?

Second concept question - and this may challenge your own thoughts about your perception of face value - do you actually believe that US policies that carry a public tag of 'Designed to promote democracy' do not often carry a non disclosed subversive element in order to create widespread destabilization?



Good luck </div></div>
Do I believe ALL men are indowed with certain inailienable rights? NO! I know that sounds bad, but here is my reasoning.
In hindsight did Hitler deserve the power he weilded? No!
If a hypothetical country is populated with 75% KKK, & 25% Blacks. Does the fact that the majority rules automaticly mean that the ruling KKK faction will be a peace loving, & tolerant society? No!
Should we as the defacto representitives of a peacefull, democratic, & tolerant society do everything we can to dis allow the majority of said country the power they need to oppress the minority? Yes!
So, is it not our responsibility to do what we can to dis allow a nation whoes majority population is bent on the conquest, & slaughter of all who don't share thier beliefs, to achive the power they need to oppress thier neihbors? Yes it is!
Democracy at face value does not guarentee a peacefull, & tolerant society if the majority of the people there are not peacefull, nor tolerant. It gives them the opportunity, & power to oppress thier neihbors, & this should be opposed.
Therefore, a benevolent, minority dictator (How benevolent is another debate) is preferable to a democraticly elected tyrant.
Therefore not ALL men deserve, nor should have the same rights, as others.
As for your question about the "subversive" democratic aid... Are you realy suggesting that 30 yrs of US democratic aid was actually intended to destabilise the area? On purpose? I think not. May it have had that effect? Possibly. That is another debate. </div></div>


You realize that "certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator" is from the Declaration of Independence - right? And further, you realize that the statement is in reference to, and in support of precluding exactly the situation that you pointed out - correct? (That all men have the God given right to among other things: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness).

So when you say you feel as though not all men should have the same rights - expand on that if you would. What does that mean exactly in the USA? Do you feel that simply be being in America one has such basic rights? Do they come with citizenship? Should there be a test? Is it a religious belief issue? Can you understand how if it was a common belief that some people in America should enjoy fewer rights than others - pretty soon you're bound to be on the loosing side of that one?

As for am I saying the US double deals in foreign policy? I strongly encourage you to educate yourself. Yes. By all means the US has historically pursued policies that have publicly been for the benefit of a foreign nation state, while they privately undermine them. Some of the most blatant examples are economic. A simplified common theme is - US interests 'loan' money to a developing nation for infrastructure improvements which of course will lead to economic development and improving the living standard of the population. The US interest makes the loan, other US interests construct and manage the facility, however the people do not possess the disposable income to utilize the electricity (as an example), nor does developed industry exist to utilize the same at a rate required to amortize the investment. Generally the ruler and those close them have skimmed the loan and the project. The debt is on the people. Years later they default. We (via the Fed - which, then puts the defaulted sum on the back of the American taxpayer) recapitalize and re-amortize the loan to make the US interests whole while at the same time exacting some addition advantage to further American hegemony within the region.

In addition to the other book that I have referenced twice before in this thread you may consider (among a long list of others) The Creature from Jekyll Island


Good luck
 
Re: Libya

Best be careful referencing those Bankers.

In case you didn't know, it's "code" for Jews, just ask QQ.
crazy.gif
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To think an incumbent President in an election year with 8% unemployment would be indifferent to scenes of murdered Ambassadors is just very odd to say the least.

Fargo - id say the last 5 administrations have caused needless deaths of Americans overseas for the same reasons of political, economic expediency and good old fashioned incompetence. Again, our problems abroad are because of poor choices at home. </div></div>

He is indeed indifferent. To the extent that he is willing to pin it on a straw man ("the film") to avoid entertaining it in its true context. It remains unanswered (excepting the campaign photo op with the caskets), and likely will never be.

Whatever American deaths you are attributing to the last five administrations (this goes back what, thirty years?) are irrelevant. Each administration started and ended, and was its own political system; different from any other.

Islam and jihad have been underway for what, some 1400 years? That conquest continues to be a root cause of ongoing deaths throughout the world. It by contrast is a political system unchanged, and operates out of the very same playbook to this day.

When Americans go overseas, they are not in danger because of anything or any choice or decision made here. The USA came about long after islam already existed, and we are a fundamental barrier to its continuing progress. I believe this is the underlying nature of it all.

What are the "poor choices at home?" That is vague enough that I can't even see the perspective from which it is offered.

--Fargo007
 
Re: Libya

3.5 years nah, it's been going on slightly longer than that!

JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Controlled Media, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York, New York, (4/21/1961)

"The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious who wish to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it is in my control.
For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence,
on infiltration instead of invasion,
on subversion instead of elections,
on intimidation, instead of free choice,
on guerrillas by night, instead of armies by day,
It is a system which has conscripted, vast material and human resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published.
Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters silenced, not praised.
No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed.
No president should fear public scrutiny of his program.
I am not asking your newspaper to support an administration.. But I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people..I not only could not stifle controversy from your readers, I welcome it. Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed. And no republic can survive.
For I have complete confidence in the response and the dedication of our citizens when they are fully informed.
That is why the Athenian law decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the first amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the constitution,
not primarily to amuse or entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental,
not to simply give the public what it wants,
but to inform, to arouse, and to reflect
to state our dangers and our opportunities,
to indicate our crises and our choices,
to lead, mould, and educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away and foreign, but close at hand and local.. it means greater attention, to improved attention, to greater understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And it means finally, the government at all levels, must meet its obligation, to provide you with it's possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security.
And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the carrier of his news, that we look for strength, and his assistance, confident that with your help, Man will be what he was born to be..
Free and independent."
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Whatever American deaths you are attributing to the last five administrations (this goes back what, thirty years?) are irrelevant. Each administration started and ended, and was its own political system; different from any other.

Islam and jihad have been underway for what, some 1400 years? That conquest continues to be a root cause of ongoing deaths throughout the world. It by contrast is a political system unchanged, and operates out of the very same playbook to this day.

</div></div>

Mind if I challenge your thinking on that?

Let's start with your premise that Islam and Jihad have been going on for 1400 yrs and continues to be a systemic source of violence. And then let's also move forward with your thought about at the irrelevancy of the deaths on the heads of the last 5 administrations.

Do you feel that if you are capable of understanding the potential of Islam / Jihad as a source of future violence, there are professional soldiers of rank (Joint Chief level) that have understood the same during the last 30 yrs?

If you really think each administration is 'a separate political system'? ?Why does each successive admin effectively pursue legacy policy doctrine? Why do they each by and large refuse to listen to those who should know?



Good luck
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Best be careful referencing those Bankers.

In case you didn't know, it's "code" for Jews, just ask QQ.
crazy.gif
</div></div>

Not always, but very often. When it is used pejoratively, as frequently applied in this thread, as a smear, as it so often is by manipulators of simpletons, or the outright lazy who live in the world of nefarious bogey men: the scary-all powerful who are responsible for all the the ills of "The Middle Class" or "The Workin Man".

Blaming "Bankers" is indicative of dishonesty or indolence. The use of straw men is a timeless trick of the sleazy, including antisemitic scumbags trying to misdirect frustrated and angry imbeciles to lash out at those perceived to be manipulating their misery behind the scenes. Much like the savages ostensibly attacking our diplomatic missions under a phony pretense of outrage over a 14 minute movie no one ever saw...

I pointed this out and you concluded I was referring to you. Interesting take. And revealing as well.

Rather than focus on the outrageous attacks on sovereign U.S.diplomatic missions, the dead and wounded, the humiliation of our country and the systemic lying that is being coordinated by the administration and their presstitutes, you insist on going all over the road tying to impress upon the internet your superior intellect.

Speak of "distraction" and "Doing more reading" all you want: You are a blow hard with flimsy arguments who is amazingly self impressed with your mediocre point of view and entirely too quick to insult anyone not vapid enough to agree with you.

The thread is about the attacks on the consulate in Libya and, by extension, the diplomatic missions in several other nations. Energy policy, real politic, the manipulation of smaller nations by bigger ones have relevance but when the conversation devolves into the kind of sloppy accusations I could read in a job site shitter, I'll call it out as bullshit.

Have you noticed how Mo Zam Beek actually does research and disputes with those he disagrees? He doesn't lunge into pejoratives and ad hominem attacks: and he always concludes with "good luck".

I don't know the man, and we don't always agree, but I have concluded he is secure in his manhood, is sincere in his opinions and has no need to inflate himself by feeling the need to behead those around him. Nor does he seem to think he needs new internet friends as you do.

Montag, it is clear you are not similarly secure.







 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Polytrauma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">3.5 years nah, it's been going on slightly longer than that!

JFK Speech on Secret Societies and Controlled Media, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York, New York, (4/21/1961)

"The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society, and we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings.
We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweigh the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it.
And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious who wish to expand it's meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit, to the extent that it is in my control.
For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy, that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence,
on infiltration instead of invasion,
on subversion instead of elections,
on intimidation, instead of free choice,
on guerrillas by night, instead of armies by day,
It is a system which has conscripted, vast material and human resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published.
Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters silenced, not praised.
No expenditure is questioned. No rumor is printed. No secret is revealed.
No president should fear public scrutiny of his program.
I am not asking your newspaper to support an administration.. But I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people..I not only could not stifle controversy from your readers, I welcome it. Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed. And no republic can survive.
For I have complete confidence in the response and the dedication of our citizens when they are fully informed.
That is why the Athenian law decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the first amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the constitution,
not primarily to amuse or entertain,
not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental,
not to simply give the public what it wants,
but to inform, to arouse, and to reflect
to state our dangers and our opportunities,
to indicate our crises and our choices,
to lead, mould, and educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news, for it is no longer far away and foreign, but close at hand and local.. it means greater attention, to improved attention, to greater understanding of the news, as well as improved transmission. And it means finally, the government at all levels, must meet its obligation, to provide you with it's possible information, outside the narrowest limits of national security.
And so it is to the printing press, to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the carrier of his news, that we look for strength, and his assistance, confident that with your help, Man will be what he was born to be..
Free and independent." </div></div>

And yet there is this; JFK and the Diem Coup

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm

And Judith Exner;

http://scandalouswoman.blogspot.com/2009/01/mob-moll-judith-campbell-exner-jfk-and.html

And Bay of Pigs;

http://hnn.us/articles/55759.html

So the invocation of nefarious bogeymen is used to influence people to trust them with high office and then they proceed to use the very tools they railed against to manipulate the very people who trusted them to be open and transparent.
 
Re: Libya

We treated the dictators as legitimate leaders. Somehow this invalidates our diplomatic policies, if I'm reading this topic right.

I'm at some difficulty understanding whom else we should have engaged in our foreign policy.

When we supported the opposition in Afghanistan during the Russian incursion, we suuceeded mainly in empowering Al Queda and paving the way for Taliban rule.

When we withdrew our support for the most recent crop of dictators and supported their opposition, we enabled regimes under which the current range of violence against an American presence has flourished.

I don't think we did so well, but I'm again at some difficulty figuring out how we might have done better.

I'm beginning (again) to think that like tic-tac-toe, the only winning move is to not play at all.

Greg
 
Re: Libya

Inalienable rights IMHO, is a Western concept, and has been repeatedly redefined here in the West several times. It clearly means something different now than it did when it was proposed as a basis for governance.

Elsewhere, on a large proportion of the other continents, equality, even between genders, is not a recognizable basis of governance, or even home life.

It's hard to envision those societies grasping and embracing either equality or inalienable rights and incorporating them into their governing principles.

Pushing an egalitarian, inaleinable rights agenda in the Middle East comes across like trying to sell hard candies to industrial robots. There's just no market for the product. Those people are not like us; so unlike us that interaction allows for only a very small common frame of reference.

Greg
 
Re: Libya

...And if there ever was a time for the Galactic Overlords to intervene, this might be one of the better ones...

....and is anyone following gas prices...?
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Best be careful referencing those Bankers.

In case you didn't know, it's "code" for Jews, just ask QQ.
crazy.gif
</div></div>

Not always, but very often. When it is used pejoratively, as frequently applied in this thread, as a smear, as it so often is by manipulators of simpletons, or the outright lazy who live in the world of nefarious bogey men: the scary-all powerful who are responsible for all the the ills of "The Middle Class" or "The Workin Man".

Blaming "Bankers" is indicative of dishonesty or indolence. The use of straw men is a timeless trick of the sleazy, including antisemitic scumbags trying to misdirect frustrated and angry imbeciles to lash out at those perceived to be manipulating their misery behind the scenes. Much like the savages ostensibly attacking our diplomatic missions under a phony pretense of outrage over a 14 minute movie no one ever saw...

I pointed this out and you concluded I was referring to you. Interesting take. And revealing as well.

Rather than focus on the outrageous attacks on sovereign U.S.diplomatic missions, the dead and wounded, the humiliation of our country and the systemic lying that is being coordinated by the administration and their presstitutes, you insist on going all over the road tying to impress upon the internet your superior intellect.

Speak of "distraction" and "Doing more reading" all you want: You are a blow hard with flimsy arguments who is amazingly self impressed with your mediocre point of view and entirely too quick to insult anyone not vapid enough to agree with you.

The thread is about the attacks on the consulate in Libya and, by extension, the diplomatic missions in several other nations. Energy policy, real politic, the manipulation of smaller nations by bigger ones have relevance but when the conversation devolves into the kind of sloppy accusations I could read in a job site shitter, I'll call it out as bullshit.

Have you noticed how Mo Zam Beek actually does research and disputes with those he disagrees? He doesn't lunge into pejoratives and ad hominem attacks: and he always concludes with "good luck".

I don't know the man, and we don't always agree, but I have concluded he is secure in his manhood, is sincere in his opinions and has no need to inflate himself by feeling the need to behead those around him. Nor does he seem to think he needs new internet friends as you do.

Montag, it is clear you are not similarly secure.

</div></div>

Reading this drivel it reminded me of someone in the way it reached to paint others as racist or anti- Semites. Then it hit me. You're no better in this thread than Al Sharpton.

When I say bankers I mean bankers. No euphemisms. You should be embarrassed you resorted to that bullshit and this is my last response to you on this thread.
 
Re: Libya

Sure you can!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you feel that if you are capable of understanding the potential of Islam / Jihad as a source of future violence, there are professional soldiers of rank (Joint Chief level) that have understood the same during the last 30 yrs?
</div></div>

Some, but not all. Actually probably quite few, because to get to that rank and those billets you are more of a politician than a soldier. Such a person will cheerfully swallow most political notions put on his plate, including the naive shibboleth: <span style="font-style: italic">"we are not at war with islam."</span> I offer General Wesley Clark as a walking example. And those that understand it aren't going to say it. For those that have, I am sure it has been career suicide.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you really think each administration is 'a separate political system'? ?Why does each successive admin effectively pursue legacy policy doctrine? Why do they each by and large refuse to listen to those who should know?
</div></div>

Well first of all, it didn't stick its finger in our eye with sufficient strength to even awaken the average US citizen until 9-11, and the US has only existed for a little more than 200 years. Our playbook does have an old page in it (Jefferson) but it won't be followed.

What's the number one job of a politician?

The narrative in most of the western world has been set such that islam cannot officially be recognized as a cause, or be targeted in any way. It has been incorrectly posited as a religion (constitutionally protected) when in actuality it is a totalitarian political system (not constitutionally protected). For the history aspects, watch the video posted prior by Bill Warner. It is chock full of statistics.

I think you have to go back to Jimmy Carter (6 admins) to really learn how not to deal with the roots of it in the modern era. Go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates (islamic slave traders) Thomas Jefferson thus far was the only American president that dealt with them properly. IMHO.

Back into it from the other direction. If you were an islamic force, what would you be doing differently to bring about the goals laid out in your doctrines? I say nothing. They are moving in line with their playbook.

It's not that we don't see their playbook; it's that we won't admit that we do.

--Fargo007
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: queequeg</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shankster</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is the stupid POS film they killed them over?


<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_6XJWh_sPo&"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/D_6XJWh_sPo&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object> </div></div>

The whole thing is such utter horse shit! What movie? Who even heard of this?

What degree of unfathomable imbecility does one have to possess to believe that this tripe is what motivated the savages to attack two established diplomatic missions, in two countries, <span style="font-size: 26pt">ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?????</span>

And expect us to believe it... </div></div>

STOP IT! Don't be telling the truth. Now everyone back to sleep.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure you can!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Do you feel that if you are capable of understanding the potential of Islam / Jihad as a source of future violence, there are professional soldiers of rank (Joint Chief level) that have understood the same during the last 30 yrs?
</div></div>

Some, but not all. Actually probably quite few, because to get to that rank and those billets you are more of a politician than a soldier. Such a person will cheerfully swallow most political notions put on his plate, including the naive shibboleth: <span style="font-style: italic">"we are not at war with islam."</span> I offer General Wesley Clark as a walking example. And those that understand it aren't going to say it. For those that have, I am sure it has been career suicide.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
If you really think each administration is 'a separate political system'? ?Why does each successive admin effectively pursue legacy policy doctrine? Why do they each by and large refuse to listen to those who should know?
</div></div>

Well first of all, it didn't stick its finger in our eye with sufficient strength to even awaken the average US citizen until 9-11, and the US has only existed for a little more than 200 years. Our playbook does have an old page in it (Jefferson) but it won't be followed.

What's the number one job of a politician?

The narrative in most of the western world has been set such that islam cannot officially be recognized as a cause, or be targeted in any way. It has been incorrectly posited as a religion (constitutionally protected) when in actuality it is a totalitarian political system (not constitutionally protected). For the history aspects, watch the video posted prior by Bill Warner. It is chock full of statistics.

I think you have to go back to Jimmy Carter (6 admins) to really learn how not to deal with the roots of it in the modern era. Go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates (islamic slave traders) Thomas Jefferson thus far was the only American president that dealt with them properly. IMHO.

Back into it from the other direction. If you were an islamic force, what would you be doing differently to bring about the goals laid out in your doctrines? I say nothing. They are moving in line with their playbook.

It's not that we don't see their playbook; it's that we won't admit that we do.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

I would contend that the more one seriously looks into the history of American policy contrasted against advances in hegemony we understand the play book and their essence quite well. While it is hard for the fodder class to accept, that is how we are viewed. These are acceptable losses.

In the big picture, Islamist are nothing more than pawns to be manipulated.

For those that are on the wave length that these silly savages are not worthy of the inherent rights bestowed upon them by their Creator - is it easier to nefariously co-opt a movement if the masses culturally see the individual as less than the whole? Is it even easier to push their buttons if they are culturally predisposed to adhere to radical despots?

As for Carter... I think most would say we'd need to go back at least to Paris in 1919, when Wilson showed up to carry the water for the progressives and shuffled the deck on a global scale - ensuring conflict amongst many.


I challenge all to think bigger, stop focusing on snapshots in time and thinking the resulting flashpoint contained both the cause and effect.


Good luck
 
Re: Libya

On the note of the flick - campy. It was a little like watching "Airplane" <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rzRJWy-3_Dc&feature=youtube_gdata_player"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rzRJWy-3_Dc&feature=youtube_gdata_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Inalienable rights IMHO, is a Western concept, and has been repeatedly redefined here in the West several times. It clearly means something different now than it did when it was proposed as a basis for governance.

Elsewhere, on a large proportion of the other continents, equality, even between genders, is not a recognizable basis of governance, or even home life.

It's hard to envision those societies grasping and embracing either equality or inalienable rights and incorporating them into their governing principles.

Pushing an egalitarian, inaleinable rights agenda in the Middle East comes across like trying to sell hard candies to industrial robots. There's just no market for the product. Those people are not like us; so unlike us that interaction allows for only a very small common frame of reference.

Greg</div></div>

Careful Langelius, too much clarity will spoil the discussion.
 
Re: Libya

I must agree that the only way to stop any and all violence is nothing less than a Crusade to cleanse the lands of any and all who hold true to certain profits and books containing sharia law.
It's not genocide, it's total, complete, prejudiced theocracide of a single entity and belief system and people. Genocide is way too small of a word considering the multitude of tribes, peoples, and states. They all have one thing in common though. The system of sharia law that governs behavior. Remove that and every trace of that, and there will be peace.
I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Greg Langelius *</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
...
Pushing an egalitarian, inaleinable rights agenda in the Middle East comes across like trying to sell hard candies to industrial robots. There's just no market for the product. Those people are not like us; so unlike us that interaction allows for only a very small common frame of reference.

Greg</div></div>

I agree with this. If we advocate for values in direct contrast with their doctrines (and the US constitution conflicts with islam fundamentally) we really don't have much of a product to sell. The small frame of reference Greg points out, I would define as trade.

There is a market for the bill of rights outside the USA, but it's definitely not anywhere overcome by islam.

--Fargo007
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I must agree that the only way to stop any and all violence is nothing less than a Crusade to cleanse the lands of any and all who hold true to certain profits and books containing sharia law.
It's not genocide, it's total, complete, prejudiced theocracide of a single entity and belief system and people. Genocide is way too small of a word considering the multitude of tribes, peoples, and states. They all have one thing in common though. The system of sharia law that governs behavior. Remove that and every trace of that, and there will be peace.
I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

While that option seems to be very popular with some, it quite simply would not work. It has been tried throughout history and has never worked. Going on an all out war against a religion is the surest way to get everyone off the fence and totally committed. In the case of Islam, the sheer numbers and geography make it impossible, it is the fastest growing religion around these days, with at least a billion + followers.

So in addition to just about the entire middle east, you want to wipe out big sections of Asia, Big patches of China, Big parts of Russia, Just about all of europe has huge Muslim populations, Australia, central africa, Canada, South America, all the same, huge muslim populations. Even in the USA places are loaded with them and practically turning some cities or parts of cities into little caliphates. I live in good righteous Christian country and there is still a very large muslim population.

It would be impossible to wipe out a religion like that without a civil war engulfing the entire planet that would destroy most funcitonal civilization. Plus once you start a global bloodbath based on religion, exactly where will it end? Much like the French Revolution turned into an insane orgy of killing, genocide & terror until it drowned in it's own blood and things slowly worked their way back to a version of normal.

You could go back to simply carving out areas of the world like the old days and say this is ours, that's yours. You come here we kill you, we go there you kill us and banish everyone to their sides & then get rid of anything that pops up. That was tried more recently in the whole India / Pakistan separation, but with modern travel it won't work unless we almost totally shut down global trade.

Even then, do you want to live in a society where if you don't worship the state religion you get banished or executed? (Take a look at Europe in the dark ages under the iron rule of the Catholic church and you'll find it was not much different than life under the iron rule of Islam, or for that matter take a look at life under the Iron rule of the religion of Atheism such as under Stalin, Mao or North Korea, life was even worse than under Islam)

My thinking is that most religions started out with kill all the infidels and then slowly moved towards tolerence and the later acceptance of others being around.

If you start with the Hebrews and the Jewish religion they started out with slaughter and genocide and wiping out the heathens then they were the first to later become peaceable.

The chrisitans later on went through their whole kill all heathens phase (including lots of trying to wipe out jews) and then eventually became peaceful.

The Athiests went on huge genocide rampages as well, killing christians, jews, muslims and anyone who disagreed with them (Take the hundreds of thousands killed in the french revolution for being devout catholics, to the 30 million+ of their own people killed for Stalin, 60 million+ chinese dead for for Mao etc) then they eventually settled down and came to a version of tolerance as well. (Except for places like North Korea that are the Athiest / Communist equivalent of the Taliban).

The muslims have settled down a lot from their original kill everyone phase, but still have a ways to go and the only way (without global slaughter) to bring them fully into the modern world is to make the religious leaders change what they preach (most likely using a combination of rewards and consequences). You can't force ideological or religious change on people of any lasting effect, they must want to do it themselves.

You need to decide how you deal with the governments where the top people take all the wealth, the rest of the people live in poverty and opression and the goverment through the religious leaders beats the drums of hatred against the infidels / zionists as the source of all problems to keep people from looking at their own goverment. (Take Arafat & his successors, faning the flames of hatred for the west and Israel, refusing to make a real peace and final settled solution, while keeping his own people in poverty and amassing a billion dollar personal fortune and was hated even more than Hamas by his own people as bore out when they had elections).

Before anyone can get anywhere, there needs to be a actual full laying open of the truth in regards to recent history in the past 100 years and open discussion about how it makes each side feel, but NOBODY on any side wants to do that, so everybody keeps playing the same game with ever worse results.

Then after that, ever all gets settled, you have to recognize that there is no standing still in nature, and the same is true with religions which are an idea that goes beyond race or geography, if you get lax and lazy and don't care about your own religion because it is not comfortable to obey the social commandments of your religion, and don't teach your children it well and don't have many kids because you want to have a better lifestyle & don't talk about your religion because you have come to belive that it is not "polite", then don't be suprised if another religion with more dedicated followers more children and more outreach slowly (even if peaceably) gains more followers and more political power and starts to change civil laws based on their beliefs just as right now we have laws that came out of one religious system. (Like where I live, why do car dealerships have to be closed on Sunday?, why can't you buy wine on Sunday before noon? Why can't you buy Liquor on Sunday? Why are there "dry" cities and counties? Why is it the worst thing in the world if you walk around naked?)
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bigwheels</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RoosterShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's the thing that get's me by reading through this thread. Ninety-nine percent of you are taking this whole thing at face value!

You are all missing the point! This is the outcome of our meddling in foreign affairs. We are just now reaping the outcome of 30+ years of interfering with government structures where we had no business being in the first place!

I am 100% for a free democratic society. However, do I believe it is for everyone? Absolutely not! I know it's hard for us to understand while we're in our air conditioned home with our TV on, while we eat our freshly cooked breakfast from a hot stove. If we wish to ... we can drive down the road and purchase anything we want with credit, as long as we pay the bill later ... or ... maybe not!

The point is ... not all societies are set up as free and democratic societies. When we try and force feed our ideas to countries that aren't structured that way ... we have problems. Like we're seeing here! Just because it's good for us doesn't mean it's good for them! </div></div>

At first I was OK he gets it but then...

Concept question - do you believe <span style="font-weight: bold">all</span> men (humans) enjoy certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator - or do you believe those rights only should be extended if one is on US soil and sees 'The Creator' in a Judeo-Christian capacity?

Second concept question - and this may challenge your own thoughts about your perception of face value - do you actually believe that US policies that carry a public tag of 'Designed to promote democracy' do not often carry a non disclosed subversive element in order to create widespread destabilization?



Good luck </div></div>
Do I believe ALL men are indowed with certain inailienable rights? NO! I know that sounds bad, but here is my reasoning.
In hindsight did Hitler deserve the power he weilded? No!
If a hypothetical country is populated with 75% KKK, & 25% Blacks. Does the fact that the majority rules automaticly mean that the ruling KKK faction will be a peace loving, & tolerant society? No!
Should we as the defacto representitives of a peacefull, democratic, & tolerant society do everything we can to dis allow the majority of said country the power they need to oppress the minority? Yes!
So, is it not our responsibility to do what we can to dis allow a nation whoes majority population is bent on the conquest, & slaughter of all who don't share thier beliefs, to achive the power they need to oppress thier neihbors? Yes it is!
Democracy at face value does not guarentee a peacefull, & tolerant society if the majority of the people there are not peacefull, nor tolerant. It gives them the opportunity, & power to oppress thier neihbors, & this should be opposed.
Therefore, a benevolent, minority dictator (How benevolent is another debate) is preferable to a democraticly elected tyrant.
Therefore not ALL men deserve, nor should have the same rights, as others.
As for your question about the "subversive" democratic aid... Are you realy suggesting that 30 yrs of US democratic aid was actually intended to destabilise the area? On purpose? I think not. May it have had that effect? Possibly. That is another debate. </div></div>


You realize that "certain inalienable rights endowed by their Creator" is from the Declaration of Independence - right? And further, you realize that the statement is in reference to, and in support of precluding exactly the situation that you pointed out - correct? (That all men have the God given right to among other things: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness).

So when you say you feel as though not all men should have the same rights - expand on that if you would. What does that mean exactly in the USA? Do you feel that simply be being in America one has such basic rights? Do they come with citizenship? Should there be a test? Is it a religious belief issue? Can you understand how if it was a common belief that some people in America should enjoy fewer rights than others - pretty soon you're bound to be on the loosing side of that one?

As for am I saying the US double deals in foreign policy? I strongly encourage you to educate yourself. Yes. By all means the US has historically pursued policies that have publicly been for the benefit of a foreign nation state, while they privately undermine them. Some of the most blatant examples are economic. A simplified common theme is - US interests 'loan' money to a developing nation for infrastructure improvements which of course will lead to economic development and improving the living standard of the population. The US interest makes the loan, other US interests construct and manage the facility, however the people do not possess the disposable income to utilize the electricity (as an example), nor does developed industry exist to utilize the same at a rate required to amortize the investment. Generally the ruler and those close them have skimmed the loan and the project. The debt is on the people. Years later they default. We (via the Fed - which, then puts the defaulted sum on the back of the American taxpayer) recapitalize and re-amortize the loan to make the US interests whole while at the same time exacting some addition advantage to further American hegemony within the region.

In addition to the other book that I have referenced twice before in this thread you may consider (among a long list of others) The Creature from Jekyll Island


Good luck </div></div>
Yes, I have read, & understand the D of I. However I stand by my point. Here in the US there are millions of people whe do not deserve thier rights. They are in prison. They have forsaken thier rights for the oppression of others. This is the same with a society which, by thier actions, & declared mission, is bent on the oppression of others. Since the entire society can't be imprisoned, they should be governed with a stronger hand. If, some day they collectivly reach the conclusion that they need to be tolerant of the rights of others, then they can get together, & write thier own constitution, with a bill of rights, & then join the rest of the world in peace.
As for the US "interests" subverting other societies. I beleive that is an issue with unscroupulous individuals preying on the weak. Not the society of the USA screwing people. As for the "FED", I don't think it should exist, or have ever existed.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.

</div></div>

I agree that would be batshit crazy.

But we still need to understand how an islamic state or faithful population thinks, how they see us, and why. If you study islam, its history and its doctrines it is clear there is an inevitable clash between it, and any Western democracy. They simply cannot co-exist as written. Viewing the US, it's freedoms, and its constitution through the prism of islam does not leave much space for compatibility or compromise. There is no such thing as radical or moderate islam. There is islam. The quantity of that compromise space is defined by how adherent to islam the body is.

Turkey = not governmentally adherent. We get along fine.

Iran = An islamic theocracy, extremely adherent.

--Fargo007
 
Re: Libya

There are 3 simple choices in getting along with Islam. 1) Accept & become Islamic, 2) Accept being "ruled" by Islam & paying a tax just to exist and every Islamic can kick you around because YOU WILL be a 3RD Class being, 3) Refuse and prepare to DIE, because they will do whatever to rule. Did I mention that in the eyes of Islam, "what once was theirs, should be theirs ...Always?!!"
Peaceful religion, yeah right ... figure the odds.

Off soapbox
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.

</div></div>

I agree that would be batshit crazy.

But we still need to understand how an islamic state or faithful population thinks, how they see us, and why. If you study islam, its history and its doctrines it is clear there is an inevitable clash between it, and any Western democracy. They simply cannot co-exist as written. Viewing the US, it's freedoms, and its constitution through the prism of islam does not leave much space for compatibility or compromise. There is no such thing as radical or moderate islam. There is islam. The quantity of that compromise space is defined by how adherent to islam the body is.

Turkey = not governmentally adherent. We get along fine.

Iran = An islamic theocracy, extremely adherent.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

Iran is not extremely adherent. You can say it is, but that doesn't make it so. It's ruled by mullahs and military but it's not an extremely adherent population. ask me how I know...
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.

</div></div>

I agree that would be batshit crazy.

But we still need to understand how an islamic state or faithful population thinks, how they see us, and why. If you study islam, its history and its doctrines it is clear there is an inevitable clash between it, and any Western democracy. They simply cannot co-exist as written. Viewing the US, it's freedoms, and its constitution through the prism of islam does not leave much space for compatibility or compromise. There is no such thing as radical or moderate islam. There is islam. The quantity of that compromise space is defined by how adherent to islam the body is.

Turkey = not governmentally adherent. We get along fine.

Iran = An islamic theocracy, extremely adherent.

--Fargo007
</div></div>

If you look at the US Constitution through the prism of ANY religion you'll come to the SAME conclusion... there are no religions that are tolerant of diversity. Why do you think the Founding Fathers put in freedom of (and from) religion...?!?!?

The blinkered bias is stunning, you think no other religion has used violence as its method of converts? Ever spoken to a Native American about the forced conversions to Christianity? BLah blah blah - so far, everything that's being used to downplay islam has been a tool box of 'Western' religions.
 
Re: Libya

This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EventHorizon</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Guy Montag</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Switchblade</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'll lay the cards on teh table. I see your Jihad and raise you one Crusade </div></div>

Advocating going to war with a billion+ Muslims is beyond batshit crazy.

Forgive me for not sharing your enthusiasm for genocide.

</div></div>

I agree that would be batshit crazy.

But we still need to understand how an islamic state or faithful population thinks, how they see us, and why. If you study islam, its history and its doctrines it is clear there is an inevitable clash between it, and any Western democracy. They simply cannot co-exist as written. Viewing the US, it's freedoms, and its constitution through the prism of islam does not leave much space for compatibility or compromise. There is no such thing as radical or moderate islam. There is islam. The quantity of that compromise space is defined by how adherent to islam the body is.

Turkey = not governmentally adherent. We get along fine.

Iran = An islamic theocracy, extremely adherent.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

Iran is not extremely adherent. You can say it is, but that doesn't make it so. It's ruled by mullahs and military but it's not an extremely adherent population. ask me how I know... </div></div>

Because you're the only one who knows an Iranian and you know they aren't Arabs and speak Farsi...Yeah, yeah, yeah.
 
Re: Libya

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fargo007</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is where we differ fundamentally.

You are positioning islam as a religion in order to foist a moral relativism argument.

Cue Mr. Mackey:

<span style="font-style: italic">"religions are bad... Mmmmkay?" </span>

It is a totalitarian political, financial and legal system whose stated doctrinal goal it is to supplant any other form of government and impose itself in their place. It certainly has religious aspects, but considering those alone would be out of context.

<span style="font-style: italic">"render unto caesar what is caesars"</span>

There is no Buddhist, Hindu, or Judeo-Christian equivalent. None among these contain commands of a governmental political system or command violent conquest.

There are no theocracies or religiously-influenced institutions on the planet right now but for islamic ones that are cutting off heads, raping, chopping limbs, stoning people, hanging gays, sanctioning bestiality, and resting upon divine commands to do so.

A moral relativism argument is out of step with the facts.

--Fargo007

</div></div>

you're coming to this battle ill-equipped. I went to a hardline, fundamentalist Christian school for my entire childhood...

"Extra ecclediam nulla salus"

Look up the Old Testament for your 'tolerance'... As for 'give unto' why not answer my points on intolerance as evidenced by how it's practiced... Look up the Gospel of Paul, the Epistles, and then good old Revelations for your warm and fuzziness...

You think the vatican for centuries exercised no political and economic power? Really? The ONLY reason why its power has faded is due to secularism, not the benevolence of the religion. Believe what you want, but when your argument ignores the evidence you're just trying to engage in a frame up rather than a debate.