Thanks, Tiassa. However, you may regret your cordiality; for, I am sorry to say I was not subtly parodying the "Islamophobe" -- I was bluntly embodying it.
Don't overcommit to dead-horse comedy Well, as long as we agree there was nothing subtle about it. Still, though, take heed—you're on a stale joke bit people don't seem to take very well around here. If you're not careful, they'll decide it's easier to decide you're being serious.
Dont fear terrorism. That will take the terror out of the equation. LOL The Patriot Act. This is what I call double terrorism. Its using the fear of terrorism (the act of using fear to gain control) to get people to give up their civil liberties. And really, maybe if we stopped to listen to these pissed off Muslims, or who ever these so called terrorist are things would be different. I mean, they do have a point. We as Americans are wasteful, lust filled, slobs. They spread hate, we spread ignorance. LOL
Egads! They be comin' fer the wimin and men folk! So tell me Mr Hesperado, you would search someone at the airport simply because his/her name sounds "Muslim" to your ears? How about based on their looks? Do you think that Muslims should be under suspicion automatically, because of their religion?
Yes. a) Most terrorism around the world is caused by Muslims. b) The motivation for that terrorism includes goals one can easily and massively locate in Islamic tenets. c) The high degree of Islamic-based extremism among Muslims at large has been indicated by many different data. Therefore, it's only rational to focus on the mere fact of being Muslim as an initial part of the screening process. It would certainly be a more rational use of our time and resources than either 1) suspecting Everyone Everywhere or 2) randomly checking people as though terrorism were being caused by Anyone Anywhere. The above is not meant to preclude, of course, the utilization of specific intel by which to intercept specific individuals; it is meant as a broad rationale in the precise absence of such intel (that being the whole point: we often don't have the specific intel, and the unknown potential terrorists are fanatically driven and as a sub-population emerge out of a broader population in ways we cannot usually predict).
How delightful! Of course, following the same premise, we can also suspect all Catholics to be paedophiles, since so many of the clergy are found to have abused children and/or protected child abusers. And we can also expect all born again Christians to be corrupt liars who lie about their sexuality, since such a large proportion of the leadership in that side of religious belief are corrupt and lie through their teeth. Unless of course you wish to apply a double standard? Actually no, it is not. If we are to look at bombing and causing fear and terror and disrupting a country, one would say that the West causes the most terrorism around the world, ie, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as a start point. And what is that goal, Mr Hesperado? "Muslims at large". My, you make them sound like animals that have escaped from a zoo. Reading your posts and the blog you were so kind to link in your profile, one could say you are just as much as an extremist. After all, you seem to be under the impression that anyone with a remotely Arabic sounding name should be instantly under suspicion and if they are a Muslim, then they should be automatically under suspicion. Heaven forbid anyone names their daughters Amber, Sarah, May or Judi, or their sons something like Basil, they could find their children or themselves being questioned under the mere suspicion that the names are Arabic and in the case of Judi at least, even mentioned in the Qu'ran. Ah, so you think giving more scrutiny to someone named "Najlah", solely because of their name, is rational? Interesting thought, Mr Hesperado. Do you think that I should suspect you? But we know that everyone is not a terrorist. Ah yes! The language of fear and paranoia. I think you and I are going to get along just dandy Mr Hesperado.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We should make sure that people who think like that never get their hands on the keys to the US military - permanent vendetta and feud is a shitty way to live, in an age of industrial weapons. It's one thing to be the Hatfields and McCoys, potting each other in some Appalachian ravines over clan feuds that go back to Stonehenge. You're only wrecking civilization for a couple of extended families. With modern military weapons and capabilities, you can wreck civilization for entire countries. Police and the other arms of justice are diametrically opposed, in concept and in execution, to blood feuds and tribal war. If you have one, you don't have the other. I think you did, probably. That seems to be the most likely explanation of events, and the most parsimonious accounting.
Speak for yourself for I'm a industrious entrepreneur American trying to work hard to improve my life as well as my fellow citizens. By showing that democracy and capitalism works to others around the globe shows that Americans are only trying to improve others lives not make them ignorant.
You don't know what you are talking about or so over-simplifying the Afghan situation that you've lost any nuance on their history. I would suggest you go back and do some research. Many did not support the Taliban and there was a struggle for power which amounted to a civil war AFTER the Soviets left. You speak as if you have some special knowledge of the Taliban and the insurgency so I would like to see a link that describes the insurgency as something designed to bring back Taliban rule: Following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, Afghanistan deteriorated into a brutal civil war between rival mujahideen groups, many of which had spent much of their energy fighting each other even during the height of the anti-Soviet jihad. This civil war claimed thousands of lives and decimated the country’s infrastructure. The civil war intensified after a mujahideen group took Kabul in April 1992. Shortly afterwards, Beirut-style street fighting erupted in the city, especially between the Pashtun HiG and the Tajik Jamaat-i-Islam. In Kandahar, FIGHTING BETWEEN ISLAMISTS AND TRADITIONALIST MUJAHIDEEN parties resulted in the destruction of much of the traditional power structures. In the rural areas, warlords, drug lords, and bandits ran amok in a state of anarchy created by the unraveling of the traditional tribal leadership system. War-weary Afghans initially welcomed the Taliban, which promoted itself as a new force for honesty and unity and was seen as the desperately needed balm of peace and stability by many Afghans, particularly fellow Pashtuns. The Taliban immediately targeted warlords who were deemed responsible for much of the destruction, instability, and chaos that plagued the country since the outbreak of the civil war. But it also instituted a religious police force, the Amr Bil Marof Wa Nai An Munkir (Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice) to brutally uphold its extreme and often unorthodox interpretations of Islam, which were not previously known in Afghanistan. Taliban philosophy, Ahmed Rashid notes, . . . fitted nowhere in the Islamic spectrum of ideas and movements that had emerged in Afghanistan between 1979 and 1994. . . . The Taliban represented nobody but themselves and they recognized no Islam except their own. . . . Before the Taliban, Islamic extremism had never flourished in Afghanistan.3 The people’s optimism soon turned to fear as the Taliban introduced a stringent interpretation of sharia, banned women from work, and introduced punishments such as death by stoning and amputations. While Tajik resistance to the Taliban in the form of the Northern Alliance held out throughout the Taliban period and retained Afghanistan’s seat in the UN, the Taliban eventually conquered 80 percent of the country. For its part, the Taliban today is conducting a brilliant defensive insurgency. They have deployed enough low- level fighters to intimidate the NGOs and international organizations into withdrawing their personnel from the south. By night, Taliban mullahs travel in the rural areas, speaking to village elders. They are fond of saying, ‘‘The Americans have the wristwatches, but we have the time.’’ The simple message they deliver in person or by ‘‘night letter’’ is one of intimidation: ‘‘THE AMERICANS MAY STAY FOR FIVE YEARS, THEY MAY STAY FOR TEN, BUT EVENTUALLY THEY WILL LEAVE, AND WHEN THEY DO, WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS VILLAGE AND KILL EVERY FAMILY THAT HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE AMERICANS OR THE KARZAI GOVERNMENT." Such a message is devastatingly effective in these areas, where transgenerational feuds and revenge are a fabric of the society. The insurgency has recently regained major footholds across the southern region of the country in areas ranging from Helmand to Ghazni. COMBINED WITH THE LACK OF ANY TANGIBLE REASON TO SUPPORT EITHER THE AMERICANS OR KARZAI, THE VILLAGERS EITHER REMAIN NEUTRAL OR PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO THE GUERRILLAS. U.S. FORCES HAVE OFTEN ACCELERATED THIS PROCESS THROUGH CULTURALLY OBTUSE BEHAVIOR, UNNECESSARILY INVASIVE AND VIOLENT TACTICS, AND A SERIES OF TRAGIC INCIDENTS OF "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" WHICH ARE INEVITABLE IN WARTIME. http://www.nps.edu/programs/ccs/doc...the taliban and insurgency in afghanistan.pdf In short this is why the US is losing and never had a chance of 'winning duh'Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Why would they want Taliban rule? They want to go back to regional ethnic tribal rule which is what they were before the bloody Americans, Taliban and Soviets. At the end of the day you have no one to blame but Western military intervention for the Taliban's existence. They had no more reason to suspect the complete draconian rule than communists did with Stalin, or americans with Bush and Cheney. I think you see my point. I don't believe everything I read but I also don't swallow every bit of propaganda being shoved down the throat. What's funny about your point of view is that your nation is being bled dry economically from these wars and you will pay for it and your children and their children will pay for it. And the Afghans will lose their lives but they now laugh at you, and their children and grandchildren will continue to laugh at the you. Because you stupidly thought you could nation build where there is not one nation and because you thought that you could bomb them into submission and because you think that 'Al Qaeda' is only in Afghanistan and Iraq when it can be launched from anywhere in the world. That's how Al Qaeda works. The UK university produces more muslim radicals than you can possibly imagine but you at least have the presence of mind to know you cannot bomb UK universities to rid yourself of that threat. Terrorist cells are mobile, they can move and change strategy which is what happened in Afghanistan. They simply moved across the border into Pakistan and they will disperse themselves throughout the world picking up new recruits along the way. So go on with your violent prescription for an ideological war, it will only leave you exhausted and bankrupt.
We are talking about two somewhat different situations. When we talk about drone attacks, that mostly happens in Pakistan. The tribal regions where we are attacking Islamists do tend to support the Taliban and sharia law. You are correct that in Afghanistan, some tribal leaders did fight the Taliban and now support the US in our fight against the Taliban.
@Spidergoat By the way my husband wants to know if you are willing to serve. He says that the military would love someone with your spirit for violence and they would absolutely comply with a request to send you to Afghanistan were you will find plenty of the violence you are seeking. I think he's right it might do you some good and take the wind out of your mindless bravado.
Ok if you were talking about pakistan and not Afghanistan then its my mistake. But the suggestion of you serving your military still stands.
Yeah, all those brown people should be grateful for the sweatshops, the polluting industries, etc. we've so generously given them--plus we even give 'em McDonalds! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
We all know you haven't so it wasn't something where you needed to respond. Those who serve their country and live with experience don't deny nor hide.
It's irrelevant to the subject. What if I were an elderly infirm person, could I not have an opinion on how this country should use it's military? Are all soldiers anti-war? Do only soldiers have a right to an opinion? You want to make it personal so you can dismiss my arguments. I don't seek violence, violence was waged on our country, and arresting those responsible apparently isn't practical. Student #1: I can't go to your party. We're going to an anti-war rally Student #2: I have a question. What does it mean to be anti-war? Student #1: It means you're anti-war. Student #2: I know, but... What does it do? I could be anti-cancer, but shit's still gonna happen.
Yeah, I've heard many a story--based on actual experiences of friends--that "our" lovely troops hate us jooooos even more than they do the ragheads.
oh dear are you questioning the goatman's patriotism? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
