Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

PlanetSpores.ca
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4351159 -

You must have meant to type, " for 'decades' of perceived mistreatment," surely, since the US has never actually mistreated any Muslim country and certainly hasn't mistreated any individual Muslims.

Do you deny that, for example, the CIA supplied funds, training, and logistical support to certain Afghan "rebels" during the Soviet occupation of that country?

But let me pursue this a bit further -- are you saying that the 'splodeydopes and their masters are still owed a few free shots at the US for supposed past "injustices"? How many free shots? What do you feel should be the time limit on this "free shot season"?

No, actually, I wasn't saying that at all. Where do you get these ideas from?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4351265 -

Quote:
You must have meant to type, " for 'decades' of perceived mistreatment," surely, since the US has never actually mistreated any Muslim country and certainly hasn't mistreated any individual Muslims.


hahahaha  :lol: :lol: :lol:

oh nooooo we certainly never mistreated them as we played power games with their nations arming militia to drag them into our wars. Oh, wait lemme call bush up to give me some "proof" to back this up.  :lol:


--------------------
Think for yourself. Question authority.

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4351659 -

trendal writes:

Quote:
Do you deny that, for example, the CIA supplied funds, training, and logistical support to certain Afghan "rebels" during the Soviet occupation of that country?


Bwahahahaha!

I can't believe you are using that as an example of the US somehow transgressing against Muslims! I mean, seriously, why don't you re-read that sentence?

Try to grasp these essential points:

-- Afghanistan is (and of course was at the time of the Soviet invasion) a Muslim nation.

-- It was invaded by the most non-Muslim people on the face of the earth; the Godless Commies. At least most Muslims will grudgingly make allowances (or are supposed to do so according to the teachings of Mohammed -- peace be upon him) for those to whom they refer to as "people of the Book" -- i.e. Jews and Christians. They make no such allowances for atheists.

-- the CIA (along with over a dozen other countries) assisted the Muslim Afghanis in kicking out the Godless invaders. It would of course be too much to expect actual gratitude for this assistance, but one would be reasonable in hoping for at least an absence of hostility.

Quote:
No, actually, I wasn't saying that at all. Where do you get these ideas from?


From statements like this:

Quote:
Simple withdrawl is proably not enough to atone for decades of mistreatment.



I asked you if you seriously thought they'd quit if the US were to stop doing tomorrow whatever it is you think the US has been doing to piss them off (i.e. supporting Israel, buying oil from Muslim kleptocracies, etc.). You then chastised me for making a silly suggestion. But you seem to have somehow convinced yourself that it isn't what we (by "we" I refer to the West in general) are that stirs them into a murderous rage, but what we do to them. Yet according to you if we were to stop what we do to them (whatever that may be) that still isn't enough -- there must be atonement as well -- presumely more bombings and beheadings and stuff.

If that isn't what you meant by "atone", what was?



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Sycronica]
    #4351670 -

Sycronica writes:

Quote:
oh nooooo we certainly never mistreated them as we played power games with their nations arming militia to drag them into our wars.


What on earth are you babbling on about now? Which Muslim militia was armed and dragged into a US war?

I'm going to need some clarification on this one.


Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4351758 -

rightly said Phred


--------------------
Be all and you'll be to end all

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4351995 -

The CIA began funding the Afghan gorillas before the Soviets moved in to take over, which may have been the CIA's intention all along - to lure the Russians in to a country where they were almost guaranteed a long, bloody battle that would end in their loss (just like the US had experienced a decade earlier in Nam).

In short, two major superpowers used a 3rd world country to fight a proxy war with eachother, so that they wouldn't have to risk a REAL war which could go nuclear.

If that isn't what you meant by "atone", what was?

Learn to put yourself in the shoes of another. It comes in handy.

I'm sure the terrorists (some of them, and certainly the ones like OBL who started most of this shit) see their actions as payback for previous wrongs done to them by the USA as well as ongoing wrongs (such as keeping bases in SA...which I know is a stupid reason to perform an act of terrorism, but still a reason).


If I bend down and set some dry grass on fire with my lighter...does the fire go out as soon as I take the lighter away?


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4352474 -

trendal writes:

Quote:
The CIA began funding the Afghan gorillas before the Soviets moved in to take over...


Source, please.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this allegation is true, your point would be that if the CIA hadn't meddled, the Soviets wouldn't have invaded, therefore the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan was the fault of the CIA?

Quote:
I'm sure the terrorists (some of them, and certainly the ones like OBL who started most of this shit) see their actions as payback for previous wrongs done to them by the USA as well as ongoing wrongs (such as keeping bases in SA...which I know is a stupid reason to perform an act of terrorism, but still a reason).


I realize you see it that way, hence my questions:

How many more free shots do they get? What do you feel should be the time limit on this "free shot season"?


Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4353016 -

How many more free shots do they get? What do you feel should be the time limit on this "free shot season"?

Have we gone off the lunatic fringe, here?

I think you know damn well that I didn't say they "should" get any "free shots", but that they would not be satiated by a simple withdrawal of troops. It would not end the bloodshed.


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4353429 -

The "proof" is classified. And as things get unclassified you start to see what happens behind the sceens that doesn't make the nightly news.

It is widespread knowlege that our govt funds and arms militia groups. We funded the hell out of bin laden in afganistan, sadam against iran, funny how they end up bad guys now. What about all the militia arming we have done in south america? Oh wait, they become governments after we arm them so then they aren't militia anymore, can't forget technicalities.


--------------------
Think for yourself. Question authority.

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4354858 -

trendal writes:

Quote:
I think you know damn well that I didn't say they "should" get any "free shots", but that they would not be satiated by a simple withdrawal of troops. It would not end the bloodshed.


Then what will end the bloodshed? You have finally come right out and explicitly stated (I've been leading you to this conclusion for how many posts now?) what every thinking person already knows -- that even if we were to abandon Israel and pull all US troops out of every Muslim country tomorrow, the 'splodeydopes will go on 'sploding.

They will do so because their goal is not the withdrawal of US troops, their goal is world domination of their version of Islam. Thus, the Global War on Terrorists.

If ceasing support of Israel won't stop them, why cease supporting Israel? If withdrawing troops won't stop them, why withdraw troops? i don't know about you, but I'd much rather have them attempting to blow up well-armed troops in Iraq than attempting to blow up delicatessens in Manhattan.


Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Sycronica]
    #4354866 -

Sycronica writes:

Quote:
We funded the hell out of bin laden in afganistan, sadam against iran...


Incorrect. The US didn't "fund the hell out of" Saddam against Iran, although intelligence useful to Hussein's efforts was shared by the US.

Quote:
... funny how they end up bad guys now.


When rogue international actors turn bad, they should of course be neutralized. And it isn't Pacifists who'll do the neutralizing.


Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4354867 -

Quote:
You must have meant to type, " for 'decades' of perceived mistreatment," surely, since the US has never actually mistreated any Muslim country and certainly hasn't mistreated any individual Muslims.


How about the Eisenhower approved Coup that overthrew the Democratically elected government in Iran and replaced it with the ruthless (but pro-U.S!) Shah of Iran?


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4354871 -

trendal writes:

Quote:
If I bend down and set some dry grass on fire with my lighter...does the fire go out as soon as I take the lighter away?


If I end up setting a grassfire, I stomp it out.



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4354894 -

Phred said:
They exist because the Religion of Peace is not a gets-along-well-with-the-other-kids" religion. It never has been and as long as the words of Mohammed (peace be upon him) form the basis for islam it never will be.



Actually, one of the original tenets of Islam during the years after it was created by Mohammed was one of tolerance towards Jews and Christians. Until the Crusades, all Christians and Jews were allowed to practice their religions freely, even if they lived in the Muslim Empire. The Muslims believed that all 3 religions (and in some cases Zoroastrianism) were religions of "the book". They all believed in the same God, yet chose different ways to worship that God. This ideal was shot to shit by the beginning of the Crusades, and has been nonexistent ever since.

Not to nitpick, but I figured that was somewhat important.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4354926 -

Ancalagon writes:

Quote:
How about the Eisenhower approved Coup that overthrew the Democratically elected government in Iran...


Approving of an action is not the same as perpetrating it. Are you saying the US government overthrew the Democratically elected government in Iran? If so, do you have a list of specific actions taken by the US government which led to that overthrow?



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4354997 -

Quote:
Approving of an action is not the same as perpetrating it.


Did you expect Dwight D. Eisenhower himself, in all his glory, to march over to Iran, challenge the democratically elected Prime Minister to a sword fight, and then install his puppet?

Here's a quote from Madeleine Albright:
Quote:
In 1953, the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran?s popular prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons, but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran?s political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs. Moreover, during the next quarter century, the United States and the West gave sustained backing to the Shah?s regime. Although it did much to develop the country economically, the Shah?s government also brutally repressed political dissent. As President Clinton has said, the United States must bear its fair share of responsibility for the problems that have arisen in U.S.-Iranian relations.


I also suggest reading this article.

Enjoy.


--------------------
?When Alexander the Great visted the philosopher Diogenes and asked whether he could do anything for him, Diogenes is said to have replied: 'Yes, stand a little less between me and the sun.' It is what every citizen is entitled to ask of his government.?
-Henry Hazlitt in 'Economics in One Lesson'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4355150 -

You have finally come right out and explicitly stated (I've been leading you to this conclusion for how many posts now?) what every thinking person already knows -- that even if we were to abandon Israel and pull all US troops out of every Muslim country tomorrow, the 'splodeydopes will go on 'sploding.

What do you mean "finally"? I said right from the start that simple withdrawal would not end the violence. :smirk:

They will do so because their goal is not the withdrawal of US troops

I never said it was :wink:


--------------------
Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free.
But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: trendal]
    #4355272 -

Quote:
If I end up setting a grassfire, I stomp it out.


EXACTLY! And as you stomp out the grass (people in power) you stomp on the innocents too. And PISS THEM OFF. Which is WHY 9/11 happened. We started a grassfire that spread, now we come to put it out and made an even bigger fire.


--------------------
Think for yourself. Question authority.

Forgiveness is the ultimate sacrifice.

You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Ancalagon]
    #4355565 -

Okay, I read the article. Not surprisingly, the author of the article fails to do what I had asked you to do -- provide a list of specific actions taken by the US government which led to that overthrow.

The most specific he gets is the following:

Quote:
Capitalizing on the oil-nationalization showdown between Iran and Great Britain, which had thrown Iran into chaos and crisis, Kermit Roosevelt skillfully used a combination of bribery of Iranian military officials and CIA-engendered street protests to pull off the coup.


Just how the CIA managed to persuade Iranians to protest in the streets is left unsaid -- perhaps they paid them to? As it turns out, bribing Iranian military officials (to do what?) and "engendering" street protests failed rather miserably, as the author notes:

Quote:
The first stage of the coup, however, was unsuccessful, and the shah, who had partnered with the CIA to oust Mossadegh from office, fled Tehran in fear of his life.


Well... shucks. But hey... if at first you don't succeed, try, try again --

Quote:
However, in the second stage of the coup a few days later, the CIA achieved its goal, enabling the shah to return to Iran in triumph ...


And just what was the "second stage of the coup", pray tell? Bribing different military officials (to do what?)? Engendering street protests on different streets? The author doesn't say. Nor has any other author I've come across so far, although I will admit I haven't yet had time to read every commentary on the coup ever written.

Perhaps you could provide a link to someone who is a bit more specific.




Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: What is more dangerous to America? Terrorists or Republicans? [Re: Phred]
    #4356645 -

Two heavyweights bumpin heads here :popcorn:


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bush is History's Top Terrorist fft2 2,168 18 09/29/04 09:07 PM
by Skikid16
* Cheney: Terrorists May Bomb U.S. Cities ekomstop 1,191 16 10/22/04 09:23 AM
by AntiMeme
* It is not in America?s interest to invade Iraq. RonoS 2,545 12 09/27/02 12:03 AM
by downforpot
* Us planning another terrorist attack on america and Dayton knows AhronZombi 654 4 10/12/04 09:55 PM
by AhronZombi
* Terrorism: The Word Itself is Dangerous Prodijal_Son 815 3 05/02/03 09:07 AM
by Prodijal_Son
* There is still hope for America
( 1 2 all )		 luvdemshrooms 3,609 39 01/29/04 09:03 PM
by Evolving
* Clinton sows the terror that America reaps... Ellis Dee 2,587 19 09/21/16 10:40 PM
by Bodhi of Ankou
* Is Pat Robertson a Terrorist? Cornholio 1,147 9 06/20/03 07:36 PM
by z@z.com

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
9,566 topic views. 2 members, 302 guests and 47 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 17 queries.