Iraq attacked the US? When did this happen? Iraq attacked Iran with US aid in 1980-88. Later Iraq attacked Kuweit and the United forces of allies went in and liberated Kuweit in 1991. But attacking the US.. Sorry I can't remember any such occation. (Well apart from the obvious resistance during the Iraq war in 2003.) Refresh my mind please.

No you can never win an argument over old conservative religious fanatics. The only way to go is to have the population educated so that they can learn to think critically by themselves and learn about science so that they don't have to rely on their holy men's interpretations of a "holy scripture" It happened in Europe when Luther broke lose and it can happen in the islamic world too. It will of course not be done overnight and just like we had the 30 years war before peace was agreed on with the conservative papists ,after countless of victems, so will the mullas of the muslem world fight for their right to rule their followers.

Last Edited : Saturday, 15 September 2012 - 07:47

Seeing all this turmoil over some stupid movie is pathetic. What the Islamic world needs to understand is that they can't control every single person's speech in the entire world. The west has had a long bitter fight to wrest thought control from the religious and allow freedom of speech and thought. Allowing Muslims to dictate what we say in the west is such a bad idea that I can't see apologizing for anything that doesn't come directly from the government itself. If I want to write a derogatory story about a religious figure that is my right here and I won't allow it to be taken by medieval thinkers halfway across the world.

This is possibly the most important issue that Islam and the West face, how to allow free speech in a world of fanatics. This goes for any religion that attempts to control speech or thought, and they all do. However, Christians and Jews and Hindus don't go on the warpath when insulted these days. They write insulting stuff back!

Thank god I don't believe in god.

Are you looking for an excuse to expand this into two other directions because you're already making me laugh with your mention of Luther?
Protestants today are still in the dark ages with their Old Testament beliefs of the age of Earth and Noah's arch for examples

and whether or not Saddam and his sons took down the WTC on 9/11, I don't know, but we believed they did at the time which was a bad thing in general for anyone we believed to be our enemy and that's all I'll say about that ...
get into all the conspiracy theories you want.

rex

"We" didn't believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, only the neo-cons wanted us to believe that. It was shown very early on that Iraq had nothing to do with it and eventually even the liar in chief had to admit he lied about the whole thing. They really, REALLY wanted to invade Iraq and engineered the whole war with lies so they could do what they wanted. This is the truth, it is all verifiable through official sources.


Obama's biggest error has been to let them get away with all the war crimes and torture they committed.

Just like to sum things up the way I understand , which is simple , believe me , but you probably already know that.

my point 1 - The news in the last couple of days has been from what I understand is America has been investing money into Syria (surprisingly for something constructive for once) And America isn't happy about how they're reacting at the moment e.g getting stroppy about this book thats been written etc blah blah Rioting blah.

point 2 - for as long as I remember America has invested money into terrorism , when we (Britain) were fighting with the Irish republic army (IRA) I heard America was investing money into that also . That was years ago.

point 3 - Iraq ,sorry , Sadam Hussein was causing mass genocide of Turks , we didn't like it , We accused them of making nuclear weapons (not true apparently) ,then bombed the ++++ out of them ..obviously also they have oil ,as mentioned by TR.

point4 - I beleive with Afganistan they appeared to harbour Al quieda ,who bombed twin towers , big scare,excuse to wage war on ,, I dont know if they have oil , but, and as I beleive another important factor in all this , they are the main cause for the supply of Heroin into our country . ..
.
So it turned out pakistan was actually harbouring Al Quieda (well the leader anyway )

point 5 - Cuba , main Cocaine supplier , I'm not sure of the history of this but again I think 'War' comes into it .

point6- To sum up - The west ,Britain and America and their friends like to run the show ( best dressed kids in school and like to steal yer dinner money) they dont like anyone having a good time , doing drugs , or getting above their station , Everyone else has to make the best of what they can under the circumstances.

So though Arabs ,muslims etc do seem primitive with their beliefs and idealologies ,threatening to us but simplier and healthier lifestyle (As long as you dont get your head blown off) .
We've just become so civilised that our rules and regulations are now too complex for us to keep it all together.But we still keep trying to make the rest of the world see things our way.

Last Edited : Saturday, 15 September 2012 - 09:21

Your point three should say Kurds, not Turks. Yes, Saddam was a murdering thug.

When the Taliban had control of Afghanistan heroin production fell by 95%. It is the US that allows heroin production and really, the CIA has been a major supplier of heroin to this country for decades to fund their "efforts" worldwide. It continues today. I'm not in favor of the Taliban but they aren't the ones who are behind heroin production, they are just very strict in their religion to not allow it. Along with alcohol.

Cuba has had very little to do with cocaine in general, you'd be better off looking at Columbia and Bolivia for the production and every single smuggler in the western hemisphere for the supplies reaching the US.

Depending on how you define terrorism you can accuse just about any organization or government of using it. To my mind, it is generally non-state actors using violent means to achieve some goal, many times just making people aware of some situation they consider important enough to kill innocent people over.

Don't make the error of thinking all Muslims are backward or stupid. They are humans with just as many geniuses and dummies as any group. However, the religion they follow hasn't had to reform at any time in a thousand years, unlike western religions that have had to use speech rather than violence to enforce their beliefs since the enlightenment in the 1700's. If Islam could be self-critical it could advance as a philosophy but it doesn't allow change, especially change that is asked for from outside the religion. The minds are entirely closed on that issue.

Pakistan is the biggest mess on the planet. Plus, nuclear weapons! We should back away from them and let them go back to being mad at India. But, hey, we won't. Money to be made over there, don't you know.

Thanks ,mog, I do get a bit jumbled up sometimes .
I was also going to mention my concerns I had about China ,but I did actually (briefly) research that and it turns out , apparently , I was wrong about that too.
I thought China would take over the world with all their income at the moment from their export of everything . But it turns out they really only supply the world with a small percentage and their financial wealth is nothing compared to America ,, Have I at least got this right ?

It isn't nothing, but the US still has the world's biggest economy.

Actually the EU is biggest But it's a close race

Yeah, but that isn't a country, is it?

Not yet, even if some seem to belive so

Wow,
I actually saw a 1935 Edward G. Robinson movie with a newspaper headline with ARCH CRIMINAL in bold type among other mentions of arch, arc and ark in the news and on tv ...
yes I know I misspelled *ARK*.

rex

Last Edited : Tuesday, 18 September 2012 - 00:47

They are not a country but they share an economy so in terms of the questions "who has the biggest economy" the EU might as well be considered a country.

This has got to be said somewhere, that is, I could also start a thread in a few other places;
But anyway, *"Foxnews"* is really starting to cause me to talk to myself.

Why can't the attack where our ambassador along with three other gentlemen be termed a *"spontaneous attack"* and also obviously a terrorist attack as I've finally heard Obama's people start to rebut the attacks mostly from *"Foxnews"* by whom Obama is accused of denying that the attack was a terrorist attack.

Nowhere did Obama deny that the attack was a terrorist attack ...
his term spontaneous attack was simply to opinion that the attack (obviously a terrorist attack and so not versed as such (my words)) was not planned, but was instead a spontaneous (terrorist attack (again my words)) as a result of the video which defamed their religion.

PS:
As the Obama administration has made clear imho, I believe also in freedom of speech and make no excuse for the murderers of our good people;
And I'll even go beyond that and say that I'm sure that Obama is well aware that the vast majority of these folks in addition to making a spontaneous terrorist attack on 9/11 hate us and seem to want any excuse to express it;

But however, I also believe that *"Foxnews"* (especially since Romney's political blunder (getting caught on tape basically dismissing 47% of our population) has seized upon every opportunity to twist the words of Obama from *"you didn't build that"* (referring to infrastructure) to now this *"spontaneous attack"* as if he's supposed to be denying that an act of war has been committed which he has also not done ...

He/Obama from day one has clearly stated that the perpetrators of the attack against our embassy will be brought to justice.

rex

Last Edited : Saturday, 22 September 2012 - 01:47

Too late foxnews ...
Obama is still our president for another four years, but foxnews finally caught a *blooper*:

*"HE SAID WHAT?
MSNBC's Chris Matthews 'So Glad We Had' Sandy".

Yes that was a really dumb thing to say imho even though because of the storm our NJ republican governor publicly praised Obama's efforts and the need for FEMA was illustrated by it and Obama was probably overall politically caused to shine due to his prompt response because of it.

rex

"I dont think there is any bug in which to abuse."-hitmewithit

"" www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abuse"
"abuse noun \ə-ˈbyüs\
Definition of ABUSE
1: a corrupt practice or custom
2: improper or excessive use or treatment"

"www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit"
"2: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage""

Granted Hitmewithit, there can be a similar meaning between *"abuse"* and *exploit* except I have stated elsewhere that there is nothing illegal being done whereas *"abuse"* (your choice of word) may imply that;

Although I did refer to it as a *dirty tactic* and because I'll use this tactic basicly to show how it feels, the following satisfies my meaning:

"" www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dirty "
"c : disagreeable, distasteful, or objectionable but usually necessary (as in achieving a desired result)""

PS:
Hitmewithit,
now that you know how it's done, will you try to *exploit* it?

rex

one ,i still dont think there is an "issue" here anyway ,
two , no because as stated elsewhere I dont use "dirty" tactics .
and 3 You put this comment on the wrong topic catagory , this is the smoke filled room .. oops

How good a president Huckabee would have been is beyond me, but he does have some unique words of wisdom that he expresses it seems at just the right time like for example to the question:

"Where was God?" pertaining to the horror in Newtown, Ct.,
his answer was basicly that we've been doing our best to remove God from our schools and now we ask: "Where was He?"

The words from the 23rd psalm:
"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for thou art with me" are imho a loss for our youth possibly not to hear in their lives.

rex

What we have done our best to remove from schools is government sanctioned religious instruction. It's in the constitution.

God is wherever the heck he or she wants to be, by definition. God seems to allow atrocity at all times anyway so having him there won't help.

Religion is an important subject for people to know about. Kids can be taught about world religions, but I think it is such a touchy subject that no one is teaching it in grade schools, or even high schools. Just to have a level of cultural literacy people need to understand religion and the historical effects of it. Same goes for philosophy.

The issue then is forcing kids to learn just one religion by state command. If it is one's own religion that seems ok, but what if the state tried teaching your kids a wildly different religion as the truth?

"The words from the 23rd psalm:
"Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for thou art with me" are imho a loss for our youth possibly not to hear in their lives. "

TaurusRex

That is not a bad thing. Religion has NOTHING to do with that event. End of story. God is everywhere (and nowhere) by definition. Believing in him only saves individuals their sanity long enough to not worry about where they are going to be "in the next world". It would have made ZERO difference to what happened in Connecticut. It would have happened anyway as per "God's will", we are all given free reigns with our conscious, we are all gifted with "free will". Him being in schools means ZERO and would change absolutely nothing.