Liberal memorial to those that died

You forgot to add the part about those nasty civilians being Little Eichmans.  Maybe Ward Churchill can write the inscription for Soros and his ilk.

#1 by Dr. Guy Thursday, June 23, 2005

You forgot to add the part about those nasty civilians being Little Eichmans. Maybe Ward Churchill can write the inscription for Soros and his ilk.

sure what better than to have a "real hero" like ward churchill give a Solemn eulogy.

R-H's reply didn't get through...perhaps a conspiracy is afoot? I think we all can just about tell what it was going to say, though.
The living version of "King of the Hill's" Dale Gribble, man.

I appreciate that you are trying to have a laugh at liberals--but I should remind you that there are plenty of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time who are registered Democrats and liberals. To suggest that they, and all liberals, pander to terrorists, is an insult to them and the sacrifices they have made for this country.

To suggest that they, and all liberals, pander to terrorists, is an insult to them and the sacrifices they have made for this country.

Two points: First, the "registered Democrats and liberals" in the war zones have a MUCH different point of view than the ones here in the States, which I'm sure skews their attitudes just a tad.

Second, not all of the liberals pander, just the most vocal ones.

4 by Rightwinger Thursday, June 23, 2005

R-H's reply didn't get through...perhaps a conspiracy is afoot? I think we all can just about tell what it was going to say, though. The living version of "King of the Hill's" Dale Gribble, man.

maybe he just changed his mind and deleted his comment.

5 by shadesofgrey Thursday, June 23, 2005

appreciate that you are trying to have a laugh at liberals--but I should remind you that there are plenty of soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan at this time who are registered Democrats and liberals. To suggest that they, and all liberals, pander to terrorists, is an insult to them and the sacrifices they have made for this country.

no shades, what durbin, dean and company is the disgrace, not what I said. sorry ro disagree with you,

maybe he just changed his mind and deleted his comment.

I know...I just love to be sand in his swimtrunks.

by Rightwinger Thursday, June 23, 2005

6 by Rightwinger Thursday, June 23, 2005

Two points: First, the "registered Democrats and liberals" in the war zones have a MUCH different point of view than the ones here in the States, which I'm sure skews their attitudes just a tad. Second, not all of the liberals pander, just the most vocal ones.

just a tad, I am sure the democrats in combat DID NOT appreciate durbins comments anymore than the rightwing does.

Two points: First, the "registered Democrats and liberals" in the war zones have a MUCH different point of view than the ones here in the States, which I'm sure skews their attitudes just a tad.

I'm not sure how that justifies it? Are democrats not married to, or the parents or siblings of soldiers? Clearly Senator Tim Johnson, the democratic senator from South Dakota, has no valid opinion on the war regardless of the fact that his son served in Iraq.

For the record, I am a liberal and my dad is a retired colonel (reservist) in the army, and served in the first gulf war. I am accutely aware of a soldiers reaction to war. I still firmly believe that we need to address the causes of terrorism, not simply the manifestations of it. Without acknowledging that there is something that feeds these evil men (yes, they are evil, but I do not believe that evil exists in a vaccum), without figuring out what that cause is, we are doomed to fight this invisible enemy for eternity.

Please do not be so bold as to think that because I disagree with you, I must have not have a valid view point.

no shades, what durbin, dean and company is the disgrace, not what I said. sorry ro disagree with you,

I do not buy the two wrongs make a right argument. You might not agree with what Durbin or Dean or whoever said, but that does not make your comments any less hurtful. Stooping to the level of those you disagree with should not be an admirable character trait.

Without acknowledging that there is something that feeds these evil men (yes, they are evil, but I do not believe that evil exists in a vaccum). Without figuring out what that cause is, we are doomed to fight this invisible enemy for eternity.

I think we already know what feeds them.  Envy and hatred.  Envy that they are not top dogs and hatred for everything they cannot control.  Their leaders are no different from the despots of the past.  The only difference now is these are stateless, the despots of yesterday and today had a state.

"I still firmly believe that we need to address the causes of terrorism, not simply the manifestations of it."

And presumably the causes of terrorism do not include Arab fascism and religious fanaticism, and the real causes would be addressed by not interfering with the region terrorism comes from?

You see, I also believe that we need to address the causes of terrorism, which is why I think that a failed culture of fundamentalism and fascism has to be replaced with a democratic system by force, just as it was done in Germany and Japan.

And I also think that we should not fight simply the manifestations of terrorism, that is why I think we should attack the countries sponsoring terrorism (yes, that included Iraq) and not just wait for terrorists to attack us and fight them back a bit until they regroup.

But perhaps this is what you meant?

Could European fascism be fought forever at the British border or was it necessary to go to Germany and take out fascism's roots and life blood?

"I think we already know what feeds them.  Envy and hatred.  Envy that they are not top dogs and hatred for everything they cannot control."

They believe that Allah (I would write G-d, but I'm positive that these people's Allah and the G-d I believe in are not the same entity), is all-powerful and that those who follow Allah's will will be rewarded. They cannot explain why these rewards do not happen in one's lifetime already but perceive that clearly Israel, America, Japan, Europe even, all societies that do not follow Allah's law, are more powerful, richer, more influential, and happier than Muslim countries. And in fact the closer a country gets to following Allah's will, the less powerful and more unhappy it becomes.

Thus the reward must come in the afterlife. And to make sure that one is among those who will be rewarded, one must die for one's faith.

I assume that originally "dying for one's faith" was meant as the last line of defence, not the first and only line of attack...

Incidentally, why don't the "spiritual leaders" ever die for their faith?


Actually, strictly speaking, and using a more traditional interpretation of the Quran than the terrorists seem to use, Israel DOES follow Allah's law

And presumably the causes of terrorism do not include Arab fascism and religious fanaticism, and the real causes would be addressed by not interfering with the region terrorism comes from?

I wouldn't be so quick to presume what others are thinking--or to assume that I am too dumb to realize that the causes of terrorism are multifaceted and addressing them will not be easy. Yes, the dictatorships in the Arab world play a large role in forming the conditions that create a breeding ground for terrorism. But that is not the only factor.

democratic system by force

I think that the term "democracy by force" is an oxymoron.

I think we should attack the countries sponsoring terrorism

Then we should be quite willing attack Saudi Arabia as well--as that is where the majority of the 9/11 terrorist were from.

But perhaps this is what you meant?

Perhaps you enjoying assuming I am stupid. I will return the favor.

Please do not be so bold as to think that because I disagree with you, I must have not have a valid view point.

nevere shades... I respect your point of view, even when I diagree with them , you ALWAYS politely make your case the way youn see it.

12 by shadesofgrey Thursday, June 23, 2005

do not buy the two wrongs make a right argument. You might not agree with what Durbin or Dean or whoever said, but that does not make your comments any less hurtful. Stooping to the level of those you disagree with should not be an admirable character trait.

you of course are correct about two wrongs shades, But all i did was hypothisise where dean and durbim have accussed out brave fighting men to nazis.

14 by Andrew J. Brehm Thursday, June 23, 2005

I still firmly believe that we need to address the causes of terrorism, not simply the manifestations of it." And presumably the causes of terrorism do not include Arab fascism and religious fanaticism, and the real causes would be addressed by not interfering with the region terrorism comes from? You see, I also believe that we need to address the causes of terrorism, which is why I think that a failed culture of fundamentalism and fascism has to be replaced with a democratic system by force, just as it was done in Germany and Japan. And I also think that we should not fight simply the manifestations of terrorism, that is why I think we should attack the countries sponsoring terrorism (yes, that included Iraq) and not just wait for terrorists to attack us and fight them back a bit until they regroup. But perhaps this is what you meant? Could European fascism be fought forever at the British border or was it necessary to go to Germany and take out fascism's roots and life blood?

good points all.

16 by shadesofgrey Thursday, June 23, 2005

Then we should be quite willing attack Saudi Arabia as well--as that is where the majority of the 9/11 terrorist were from. But perhaps this is what you meant? Perhaps you enjoying assuming I am stupid. I will return the favor.

agreed the saudis are scum and we will have to deal with them sooner or later.

NO I do not think for a second you are stupid/

assume that originally "dying for one's faith" was meant as the last line of defence, not the first and only line of attack... Incidentally, why don't the "spiritual leaders" ever die for their faith?

andrew, because the so called leaders are to bizy sending kids to blow themselves up and to bizy hiding.

As far as them being willing to die for their faith, I would be happy to accomodate them.

13 by Dr. Guy Thursday, June 23, 2005

think we already know what feeds them. Envy and hatred. Envy that they are not top dogs and hatred for everything they cannot control. Their leaders are no different from the despots of the past. The only difference now is these are stateless, the despots of yesterday and today had a state.

And a huge fear of women doc, that's why they use the koran to keep the women down.

nevere shades... I respect your point of view, even when I diagree with them , you ALWAYS politely make your case the way youn see it.

that comment was directed at Rightwinger, not you.

I'm calling it quits for the night--enjoy your debate.

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Thursday, June 23, 2005nevere shades... I respect your point of view, even when I diagree with them , you ALWAYS politely make your case the way youn see it.that comment was directed at Rightwinger, not you. I'm calling it quits for the night--enjoy your debate.

ok shades... enjoy your evening.

Incidentally, why don't the "spiritual leaders" ever die for their faith?

Meglomaniacs inspire others to destruction, while reaping the rewards of their blood.  IN that they are no different than the other despots the world has known.

I think we should attack the countries sponsoring terrorism Then we should be quite willing attack Saudi Arabia as well--as that is where the majority of the 9/11 terrorist were from.

Note he said sponsoring Terrorism.  Saudi Arabia clearly is not.  Some of its private citrizens clearly are, but do you want to be tried for the policies of the president just because you are a citizen of the USA?  That is what you are advocating in reverse.