Virtual Private Server (VPS) Hosting provided by Central Point Networking cpnllc.com
For some reason, the "Nodelist" and "Recent Callers" features are not working.
| Sysop: | Ray Quinn |
|---|---|
| Location: | Visalia, CA |
| Users: | 60 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 03:55:11 |
| Calls: | 12 |
| Files: | 12,929 |
| Messages: | 98,349 |
Check out the US 99 menu above for links to information about US Highway 99, after which the US 99 BBS is named.
Be sure to click on the Amateur Radio menu item above for packet BBSes, packet software, packet organizations, as well as packet how-to's. Also included is links to local and some not-so-local Amateur Radio Clubs.
That said, observing current events in the Middle East I cannot help
but feel that the
trouble has been organized/sponsored by al-Qaida. That
organization's goal, after all,
is to establish a multi-national caliphate and set human development
back by at least
a millenium. Having not had much luck here and in Europe over the
past several years
I think they're looking for softer targets.
OF course, and one must remember that wahhabism, which is
the root of al qaeda also has close ties to the muslim
brotherhood in Egypt. I've had much the same thoughts.
Which is why I would never support a war to defend Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. A young man or woman serving over there
for the U.S. must have his/her reading material censored to
satisfy these barbarians and that isn't what we stand for
in this country.
I'd forgotten about the trouble those folks have caused in Indonesia
and elsewhere in
southeast Asia (including the Philippines). In any case,
developments in Egypt and, to
a lesser extent in Jordan, seem to be right up their alley.
OF course they are. Which is why I still don't understand
how it was that our great federal bureaucracy could miss
all the signs before 9/11/2001.
Sayyid Qutb and some of the
founders of modern wahhabism were directly tied to the
Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. IT all is of a piece, and our
so-called experts missed it. They missed it because they
chose to ignore it.
OF course, and one must remember that wahhabism, which is
the root of al qaeda also has close ties to the muslim
brotherhood in Egypt. I've had much the same thoughts.
Except this arose so fast Al Qaeda didn't have time to set it up.
And the secularists are behind it in Egypt, the MB is
keeping a relatively low profile.
The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want democracy.
Which is why I would never support a war to defend Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. A young man or woman serving over there
for the U.S. must have his/her reading material censored to
satisfy these barbarians and that isn't what we stand for
in this country.
During the first Gulf War I was ranting how a Christian can't even
carry a bible in public. Our troops were built up in Saudi Arabia
over nearly a year. I was of the opinion we ought to take out the
Saudi Govt first.
OF course they are. Which is why I still don't understand
how it was that our great federal bureaucracy could miss
all the signs before 9/11/2001.
The FBI was investigating the tie between Saudi Arabia and
funding for Al Qaeda before 2001. The Bush administration shut
down the investigation.
Sayyid Qutb and some of the
founders of modern wahhabism were directly tied to the
Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. IT all is of a piece, and our
so-called experts missed it. They missed it because they
chose to ignore it.
They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
Therefore they buy the politicians.
OF course, and one must remember that wahhabism, which is
the root of al qaeda also has close ties to the muslim
brotherhood in Egypt. I've had much the same thoughts.
Except this arose so fast Al Qaeda didn't have time to set it up.
And the secularists are behind it in Egypt, the MB is
keeping a relatively low profile.
Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various
sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one
of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that
points directly to the MB and the Qaedas.
The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want
democracy.
Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment.
The FBI was investigating the tie between Saudi Arabia and
funding for Al Qaeda before 2001. The Bush administration shut
down the investigation.
Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly.
Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was
being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report,
but heavily redacted from the public version.
Sayyid Qutb and some of the
founders of modern wahhabism were directly tied to the
Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. IT all is of a piece, and our
so-called experts missed it. They missed it because they
chose to ignore it.
They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
Therefore they buy the politicians.
NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of
it however. See above.
OF course, and one must remember that wahhabism, which is
the root of al qaeda also has close ties to the muslim
brotherhood in Egypt. I've had much the same thoughts.
Except this arose so fast Al Qaeda didn't have time to set it up.
And the secularists are behind it in Egypt, the MB is
keeping a relatively low profile.
Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various
sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one
of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that
points directly to the MB and the Qaedas.
I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? I did see Islamic
clergy gathering around Christian churches to protect them.
The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want
democracy.
Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment.
I suspect the MB would not like a Caliphate, that would mean they
are ruled from somewhere else, probably Saudi Arabia. Oh, and until
a few decades ago Egyptians denied they were Arabs, they called
themselves Egyptians.
Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly.
Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was
being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report,
but heavily redacted from the public version.
Just read Greg Palast.
Sayyid Qutb and some of the
founders of modern wahhabism were directly tied to the
Muslim brotherhood in Egypt. IT all is of a piece, and our
so-called experts missed it. They missed it because they
chose to ignore it.
They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
Therefore they buy the politicians.
NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of
it however. See above.
With Saudis involved they wouldn't be allowed to be.
Mmmm, so far what I"ve been able to glean from various
sources have mentioned muslim on Christian violence as one
of the catalysts that set all this off in Egypt, and that
points directly to the MB and the Qaedas.
I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? I did see Islamic
clergy gathering around Christian churches to protect them.
sOme of that noted in this article too. Sorry no link,
came from MEmphis Commercial appeal, iirc wire story, a
Sunday edition when this first started a couple weeks ago.
The Caliphate would be another dictatorship, and the people want
democracy.
Many do, but there's the mb fly in the ointment.
I suspect the MB would not like a Caliphate, that would mean they
are ruled from somewhere else, probably Saudi Arabia. Oh, and until
a few decades ago Egyptians denied they were Arabs, they called
themselves Egyptians.
This is also true. I'd like to come right out and support
a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of
the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
revolutions is something like Iran.
THIs libertarian did
*not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way
propping up repressive governments with troops or money.
Not a dime, not a drop of American blood. LET those people
all kill each other in the name of their religion.
Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
because they don't really want to acknowledge that publicly.
Anybody who's read on the subject a bit knows what was
being obliquely referenced in the joint committee report,
but heavily redacted from the public version.
Just read Greg Palast.
DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject
over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who
bothers to acquire real information.
They missed it because it's Saudi, and the Saudis have the oil.
Therefore they buy the politicians.
NOt even all of the FBI counterterror folks were aware of
it however. See above.
With Saudis involved they wouldn't be allowed to be.
OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this
"groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read
just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc
last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first
then see what comes from there.
The question is what
they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with
secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and
keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.
I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything
at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people are playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator.
This is also true. I'd like to come right out and support
a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of
the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
revolutions is something like Iran.
Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did
turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of
Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back
by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came after
that.
THIs libertarian did
*not* support the Bush doctrine, I don't support in any way
propping up repressive governments with troops or money.
Not a dime, not a drop of American blood. LET those people
all kill each other in the name of their religion.
Let those government all be told, if they require US
intervention, the price will be democracy. Any dictatorship that
requires the US to intervene against an invader will find it self a democracy afterwards. Under US guarantee, so they can't expect to
come back afterwards.
<snip>Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
DOn't think I ever have, but read widely on the subject
over the years, the history is quite plain to anyone who
bothers to acquire real information.
Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is
really obvious, but you have to pay attention.
OF course not, and that's why I have my doubts about this
"groundswell for democracy" even though articles I've read
just yesterday, NEw YOrk TImes large type weekly dated iirc
last Friday stated the MB wants to see Mubarak ousted first
then see what comes from there.
Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him
gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy,
mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from
there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a
chance to understand what was happening. No one did.
Not only was it unpredicted, I doubt it could have been
predicted by any reasonable process. Sudan had had trouble for a
long time, but the seperation of the South was voted this year.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
The question is what
they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with
secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and
keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.
That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that
should decide our actions at this point. We need to support
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's
how we lost in Vietnam.
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at.
There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in
Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and
beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found in Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish
tradition.
Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can
make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
Islamic fundamentalism.
I can't see why Muslim on Chriatian violence would have anything
at all to do with the revolution. I wonder if anti-Islam people are
playing this up. Or supporters of the (now former) dicator.
I think they were misinterpreting some of what they were
seeing. Islamic group members were vocal supporters, and
some former brotherhood members as well from what I"ve read
since, but they all say the same thing. Ideology has no
place in this, we've got to get changes made for the
benefit of the citizens, then we're going to worry about
the rest, but this inresponsive government's gotta go.
This is also true. I'd like to come right out and support
a democracy movement over there, meaning that whole part of
the world, but so far what I"ve seen with "popular"
revolutions is something like Iran.
Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did
turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of
Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back
by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came after
that.
EH? 1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
to me. I grant they were growing that direction. IN fact,
iirc Iran did make some pretty bold steps toward democracy
way back when and the U.S> helped tip that one over to
install the shah.
I"ve argued this for years. Part of U.s> intervention
should be the assistance in building a stable
constitutional democracy. THat should be an assumption
going in, and an expectation of those who ask our help.
Anything else and the troops and equipment stay home.
...Acknowledged and agreed. You notice in the joint committee
report of congress a bunch of information suppressed,
Oh, yeah. If you follow it for years you see what is unknown is
really obvious, but you have to pay attention.
OF course you do, and you have to seek it out because it
isn't available to you via the talking heads on cnn and Fox
news.
Mubarak has been torturing leaders of the MB. So they want him
gone in any case. I don't doubt the groundswell for democracy,
mostly because it started with Tunisia and has spread from
there. It exploded so fast I don't believe the MB had even a
chance to understand what was happening. No one did.
WAs sort of a bolt from the blue <grin>.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the
vote is in. There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.
The question is what
they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with
secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and
keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.
That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that
should decide our actions at this point. We need to support
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's
how we lost in Vietnam.
INdeed, but there are valid concerns there as well. But
you could add Iran to that other example, the installation
of the Shah and the overthrow of a government with popular
support. The Shah wouldn't have been able to take power if
not for the U.S.
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.
BTW, the idea that Islamic law is bad is something to wonder at.
There is little if anything in Islamic law that isn't also in
Jewish and Christian law. Cutting off people's hands and
beheading them is not Islamic, it's Arabic. And it's also found in
Christian history. As is stoning. Which comes from the Jewish
tradition.
Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of
"islamic " or sharia are we going with? I wouldn't support
the Wahhabi version at all.
<snip again>
Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can
make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?" MOst of us
granted are Christian in one form or another. For those of
us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common. But
then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us? tHen I'd
venture to say that there are more atheists than one might
think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should
I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief
publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your
own business and between you and whatever you perceive your
ggod to be. Although I was raised Christian I turned my
back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after
doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and
avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.
Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious
traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
Islamic fundamentalism.
YOu got that right!!! <hmmm> What are we talking here?
14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.
I think they were misinterpreting some of what they were
seeing. Islamic group members were vocal supporters, and
some former brotherhood members as well from what I"ve read
since, but they all say the same thing. Ideology has no
place in this, we've got to get changes made for the
benefit of the citizens, then we're going to worry about
the rest, but this inresponsive government's gotta go.
That's how I see it. They were lining up against a bad
government. There is nothing for us to do there, but stand back
and let it happen.
Iran was no real threat to the US from the beginning. Iran did
turn to democracy, and even supported the US invasion of
Afghanistan and the democratization of Iraq. Bush paid them back
by kicking them in the teeth. The current regime in Iran came after
that.
EH? 1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
to me. I grant they were growing that direction. IN fact,
By 2001 they were supporting the US in the WOT. However, Bush
needed enemies more than he needed allies.
I've argued this for years. Part of U.S. interventionThat imho is the only justifiable reason for any war which
should be the assistance in building a stable
constitutional democracy. THat should be an assumption
going in, and an expectation of those who ask our help.
Anything else and the troops and equipment stay home.
Exactly what I am thinking.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the
vote is in. There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.
Yep. It could. Which is why the US needs to get out of Iraq and Afghanisan, so we can have a credible military to support
democratic govts when the locals establish them.
The question is what
they'll do if they get their wish. WIll they work with
secular leaders to actually govern in the interest of all
the people or settle for nothing less than rule by their
ISlamic law? That's the question we should be asking, and
keep on asking before we pour in any support at all.
That's a question we should ask, but it's not the question that
should decide our actions at this point. We need to support
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's
how we lost in Vietnam.
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.
Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of
"islamic " or sharia are we going with? I wouldn't support
the Wahhabi version at all.
Which takes us back to the Wahabi, and the Saudis, being the prime
source of anti-US terror.
Essentially yes.Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can
make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?" MOst of us
granted are Christian in one form or another. For those of
This is a Christian culture, even for those who are not
Christians themselves.
us who are JEwish we have many teachings in common. But
then what of the hindus and Buddhists among us? tHen I'd
A small fraction, and not near as peaceful and spiritual as they
are painted.
venture to say that there are more atheists than one might
think, they usually choose to keep their beliefs, or should
I say lack of beliefs silent and hold the one belief
Worldwide the top belief systems are, Christian, Muslim,
Unbeliever. And Catholics are the overwhelming majority of
Christians. IOW, unbelievers are the third largest group. In the
stats they are divided between atheists and unbelievers. I think
that's to reduce the apparent numbers.
publicly which states that your religious beliefs are your
own business and between you and whatever you perceive your
ggod to be. Although I was raised Christian I turned my
back on all of it as a young man, and learned soon after
doing so the advisability of just keeping my mouth shut and
avoiding religious pomp and ceremony whenever possible.
True. And now the evangelical extremists are becoming a danger to
this country. Read up on the Millitary Religious Freedom
Foundation.
Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious
traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
Islamic fundamentalism.
YOu got that right!!! <hmmm> What are we talking here?
14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.
See the tagline.
That's how I see it. They were lining up against a bad
government. There is nothing for us to do there, but stand back
and let it happen.
INdeed, which is what we should have been doing all along
instead of pouring millions in.
EH? 1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
to me. I grant they were growing that direction. IN fact,
By 2001 they were supporting the US in the WOT. However, Bush
needed enemies more than he needed allies.
MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic
state, iow a theocracy.
I've argued this for years. Part of U.S. intervention
should be the assistance in building a stable
constitutional democracy. THat should be an assumption
going in, and an expectation of those who ask our help.
Anything else and the troops and equipment stay home.
Exactly what I am thinking.
That imho is the only justifiable reason for any war which
is not for the purpose of directly defending U.S. teritory.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the
vote is in. There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.
Yep. It could. Which is why the US needs to get out of Iraq and
Afghanisan, so we can have a credible military to support
democratic govts when the locals establish them.
wHole region is still a powderkeg, and likely to get worse
as climate conditions change.
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's
how we lost in Vietnam.
Agreed, to a point. Local self determination is always
preferrable, but i have the same objections to a
"christian" theocracy, or any other theocracy for that
matter. <snip>
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.
But it rarely is, it's usually commercial interests that
carry the day.
Agreed, so that's the next question, who's version of
"islamic " or sharia are we going with? I wouldn't support
the Wahhabi version at all.
Which takes us back to the Wahabi, and the Saudis, being the prime
source of anti-US terror.
OF course it does, and the ease with which they can coopt
democracy movements over there.
Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can
make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Indeed, but there again, what are "our own?" MOst of us
granted are Christian in one form or another. For those of
This is a Christian culture, even for those who are not
Christians themselves.
Essentially yes.
True. And now the evangelical extremists are becoming a danger to
this country. Read up on the Millitary Religious Freedom
Foundation.
I have, in fact I've read up on those isues for years. My
period of ahteism sensitized me quite a bit to those
issues. See the tagline.
Those who insist our society should be governed by our religious
traditions and laws, going all the way back to the most ancient
ones, can be no better in their conduct than the worst of
Islamic fundamentalism.
YOu got that right!!! <hmmm> What are we talking here?
14th amendment if I'm right (first cup of coffee) and
proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.
See the tagline.
NOted, cruel doesn't become unusual once practiced.
... RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM A THREAT ABROAD, A THREAT AT
HOME --- timEd 1.10.y2k+
Well... yeah. And we should pull the 5th fleet out of Bahrain.
They have the same sort of protests, and are killing the
protestors. We don't need to be getting tied to that.
EH? 1979-80 didn't look like a friendly democratic regime
to me. I grant they were growing that direction. IN fact,
By 2001 they were supporting the US in the WOT. However, Bush
needed enemies more than he needed allies.
MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic
state, iow a theocracy.
So is Israel, but that doesn't stop us from supporting them. Iran
was on the way to democracy. Who knows how much of the detour is
due to Bush trashing them.
Since mid Dec of last year, Tunisia and Egypt have had
successful rebellions. Jordan, Algeria, Yemen and Bahrain have
been subject to enough protests to force the governments to make
changes.
RIght, and that one could still blow up even though the
vote is in. There's still some pretty bad blood in Sudan.
True. The US needs to talk to the leaders there, and let them
know, if they go for democracy they get full support.
Yep. It could. Which is why the US needs to get out of Iraq and
Afghanisan, so we can have a credible military to support
democratic govts when the locals establish them.
wHole region is still a powderkeg, and likely to get worse
as climate conditions change.
Yeah, but climate change is a fraud don't you know. Ask the
Australians swimming in their streets, or the Chinese enjoying
their extended dry spell, or the African nations now getting ready
to fight over the Nile water.
democracy. Supporting a country on the basis of how it suits our
needs is how we lose countries. It's how we are losing in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It's how Iran and Venezuala turned against us. It's
how we lost in Vietnam.
Agreed, to a point. Local self determination is always
preferrable, but i have the same objections to a
"christian" theocracy, or any other theocracy for that
matter. <snip>
I agree. As I said, mix government and religion and it's bad for
both.
We need to look at one thing only, what is best for the people
there.
Indeed, that should be the biggest factor in our decision.
But it rarely is, it's usually commercial interests that
carry the day.
Need to also declare any corporate involvement in suppressing
human rights won't be tolerated, and we don't care what country
that corporation is from.
Which takes us back to the Wahabi, and the Saudis, being the prime
source of anti-US terror.
OF course it does, and the ease with which they can coopt
democracy movements over there.
Just today reading the reason Al Qaeda has been totally silent on
Egypt, it's a denial of everything Al Qaeda stands for. Seems Al
Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB renounced
violence, and this revolution was pulled off peacefully. Al Qaeda
stands for violent revolution, and this shows them up badly.
Isn't it interesting that the biggest claim of superiority we can
make against a related religion is that we *IGNORE* our own
religious teachings and traditions.
Well... yeah. And we should pull the 5th fleet out of Bahrain.
They have the same sort of protests, and are killing the
protestors. We don't need to be getting tied to that.
INdeed we should, but probably won't.
MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic
state, iow a theocracy.
So is Israel, but that doesn't stop us from supporting them. Iran
was on the way to democracy. Who knows how much of the detour is
due to Bush trashing them.
WHO can tell, but as for ISrael, I haven't been an ISrael
supporter for a long time.
wHole region is still a powderkeg, and likely to get worse
as climate conditions change.
Yeah, but climate change is a fraud don't you know. Ask the
Australians swimming in their streets, or the Chinese enjoying
their extended dry spell, or the African nations now getting ready
to fight over the Nile water.
I'm supposed to buy into the assertion this is a fraud made
by the same scamsters who ripped off the American taxpayer
to the tune of millions for this tarp horse hockey. <yeah
I'm gonna rush right out and do that.>
Agreed, to a point. Local self determination is always
preferrable, but i have the same objections to a
"christian" theocracy, or any other theocracy for that
matter. <snip>
I agree. As I said, mix government and religion and it's bad for
both.
OF course it is, but we still have plenty of that mixture,
and the religionists want more.
Need to also declare any corporate involvement in suppressing
human rights won't be tolerated, and we don't care what country
that corporation is from.
But then we'd be severely punishing our own, and punishing
the biggest ISrael boosters from their NEw York City board
rooms.
Just today reading the reason Al Qaeda has been totally silent on
Egypt, it's a denial of everything Al Qaeda stands for. Seems Al
Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB renounced
violence, and this revolution was pulled off peacefully. Al Qaeda
stands for violent revolution, and this shows them up badly.
COol!
Of course we won't. That would take facing down the republicans.
The administration would defend their failure to do that as
"picking our battles." This is the battle they should chose to
fight.
MIght be, but still imho appeared to be another despotic
state, iow a theocracy.
So is Israel, but that doesn't stop us from supporting them. Iran
was on the way to democracy. Who knows how much of the detour is
due to Bush trashing them.
WHO can tell, but as for ISrael, I haven't been an ISrael
supporter for a long time.
I hold that the only right to exist Israel has is the same as any
other nation, the fact that they do exist. That does not imply a requirement on our part that we support every extreme thing they
do.
Yeah, but climate change is a fraud don't you know. Ask the
Australians swimming in their streets, or the Chinese enjoying
their extended dry spell, or the African nations now getting ready
to fight over the Nile water.
I'm supposed to buy into the assertion this is a fraud made
by the same scamsters who ripped off the American taxpayer
to the tune of millions for this tarp horse hockey. <yeah
I'm gonna rush right out and do that.>
You do realize that was the ironic form of speech, don't you?
Agreed, to a point. Local self determination is always
preferrable, but i have the same objections to a
"christian" theocracy, or any other theocracy for that
matter. <snip>
I agree. As I said, mix government and religion and it's bad for
both.
OF course it is, but we still have plenty of that mixture,
and the religionists want more.
Obama should abolish the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
Straight out abolish it as unconstitutional.
Need to also declare any corporate involvement in suppressing
human rights won't be tolerated, and we don't care what country
that corporation is from.
But then we'd be severely punishing our own, and punishing
the biggest ISrael boosters from their NEw York City board
rooms.
I feel so sad for them. (Stopping to wipe a tear from the corner
of my eye.)
Just today reading the reason Al Qaeda has been totally silent on
Egypt, it's a denial of everything Al Qaeda stands for. Seems Al
Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB renounced
violence, and this revolution was pulled off peacefully. Al Qaeda
stands for violent revolution, and this shows them up badly.
COol!
Of course we won't. That would take facing down the republicans.
The administration would defend their failure to do that as
"picking our battles." This is the battle they should chose to
fight.
Right, but I don't see us moving to even support those
movements. FIrst, even if we would find intervention
desirable we're already spread too thin militarily, so
we'll have to just watch and see what happens.
I hold that the only right to exist Israel has is the same as any
other nation, the fact that they do exist. That does not imply a
requirement on our part that we support every extreme thing they
do.
That's essentially my position. tHey exist, that's a fact
of life, but that doesn't mean we should prop them up.
I'm supposed to buy into the assertion this is a fraud made
by the same scamsters who ripped off the American taxpayer
to the tune of millions for this tarp horse hockey. <yeah
I'm gonna rush right out and do that.>
You do realize that was the ironic form of speech, don't you?
Knew that <grin>. Still these anti science barbarians get
about as much respect from me as do the Qaedas.
Imho they're dangerous to the survival of the human race.
I agree. As I said, mix government and religion and it's bad for
both.
OF course it is, but we still have plenty of that mixture,
and the religionists want more.
Obama should abolish the Office of Faith Based Initiatives.
Straight out abolish it as unconstitutional.
I've thought that should be declared unconstitutional from
the get-go.
But then we'd be severely punishing our own, and punishing
the biggest ISrael boosters from their NEw York City board
rooms.
I feel so sad for them. (Stopping to wipe a tear from the corner
of my eye.)
ME too <grin>.
Just today reading the reason Al Qaeda has been totally silent on
Egypt, it's a denial of everything Al Qaeda stands for. Seems Al
Qaeda hates the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB renounced
violence, and this revolution was pulled off peacefully. Al Qaeda
stands for violent revolution, and this shows them up badly.
COol!
If stable truly representative governments do happen to
spring up the Qaedas have lost their best recruiting tool.
They know this. tHIs is the biggest reason we should aid
and abet those movements.