or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Oslo Explosion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Oslo Explosion - Page 6

post #201 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So you disagree that there are people that promote abortion as a primary, secondary or tertiary method of birth control?

Yes. Completely.

1. Abstinence.
2. Barrier method.
3. Oral contraceptives.
4. Surgery
5. Rhythm method.
6. Morning after pill.

All of those methods are promoted as alternatives to abortion. Abortion is not "promoted" as any method of birth control. Abortion is a terrible thing for any woman to go through, so the thing that is promoted on the left is to avoid it at all costs by not getting pregnant in the first place. The belief not only that teaching our kids not to have sex will keep them from having sex (Palin), but that all parents and schools can teach this equally well is complete and utter idiocy. This is why there are more abortions per capita in Texas than in California.

Abortion is only ever seen as a worst case scenario, available by women's choice if necessary if everything else goes wrong. The best way to avoid it is to have all the other options available. Not to close your eyes and pretend your kids aren't having sex.
post #202 of 228
The US right wing, and the corporate media kneepad drones who answer to them, are really spinning the terminology.

If the person who killed 80 or so people in Norway was a Muslim, the Press would have declared him as a terrorist. For now though, he is just an 'assailant', 'attacker' (Reuters), 'gunman' (BBC, CNN & Al Jazeera).

The US State Department calls it an 'Act of Violence', Not an 'Act of Terrorism'. Well, well.

Looks like the term 'Terrorist ' is reserved for Muslims and Arabs? Is AIPAC (etc) *that* influential? I guess so.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #203 of 228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mumbo jumbo View Post

back on topic, then.

Anders beiring brevik is a self-described "conservative nationalist" who massacred 68 teenagers on the norwegian island of utøya, because they were "category a cultural marxists" and "multicultural traitors" who would presumably grow up aid the islamisation of europe. According to his manifesto, the the principle aim of his "operation" is to stop this.

I have a fun game!

Let's play...

Anders or trumptman?

I'll take a quote from 1,500-page brevik's manifesto, and a quote from one of trumptman's 13,000 posts here on this forum, and you have to guess...

Anders beiring brevik (who massacred 68 teenagers) or trumptman?





anders? Or trumptman?



Anders? Or trumptman?



Anders? Or trumptman?

.

Anders? Or trumptman?

I am, literally, scratching the surface.

Coming next:

'anders? Or trumptman?: Liberals are mentally ill!' edition!!!!


Edit: I'll supply the answers later.

1) a
2) t
3) a
4) a
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #204 of 228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The US right wing, and the corporate media kneepad drones who answer to them, are really spinning the terminology.

If the person who killed 80 or so people in Norway was a Muslim, the Press would have declared him as a terrorist. For now though, he is just an 'assailant', 'attacker' (Reuters), 'gunman' (BBC, CNN & Al Jazeera).

The US State Department calls it an 'Act of Violence', Not an 'Act of Terrorism'. Well, well.

Looks like the term 'Terrorist ' is reserved for Muslims and Arabs? Is AIPAC (etc) *that* influential? I guess so.

Is that for real?

Surely this is being classed as terrorism by the US. If it's not that seems bizarre, even given the medias often one sided take on muslims.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #205 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Is that for real?

Surely this is being classed as terrorism by the US. If it's not that seems bizarre, even given the medias often one sided take on muslims.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168986.htm

The word "violence" is used specifically three times in the short statement. Violence is the preferred term often referred to in cases of, for example, soccer hooliganism, fist fights and "enthusiastic street protests".

*

http://norway.usembassy.gov/#
The word "violence" is used to describe the recent terrorist attack.

*

NO mention of "terrorism" specifically with the recent events in Norway:
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/

*

NO mention of terrorism here either:
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/sit...in_oslo_norway

*

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/...-violence.html
No mention of "terrorism" from US State Dept. spokesperson Heide Bronke.

Now, imagine if the bomber/shooter had been Palestinian or Iranian? Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, TERRORISM, terrorism. T e r r o r i s m, TERRORISM. TERRORISM

and even terrorism

The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #206 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168986.htm

The word "violence" is used specifically three times in the short statement. Violence is the preferred term often referred to in cases of, for example, soccer hooliganism, fist fights and "enthusiastic street protests".

*

http://norway.usembassy.gov/#
The word "violence" is used to describe the recent terrorist attack.

*

NO mention of "terrorism" specifically with the recent events in Norway:
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/

*

NO mention of terrorism here either:
http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/sit...in_oslo_norway

*

http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/...-violence.html
No mention of "terrorism" from US State Dept. spokesperson Heide Bronke.

Now, imagine if the bomber/shooter had been Palestinian or Iranian? Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, TERRORISM, terrorism. T e r r o r i s m, TERRORISM. TERRORISM

and even terrorism

The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.

You know, until your last paragraph you made some interesting points. Then you wandered into...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #207 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

You know, until your last paragraph you made some interesting points. Then you wandered into...

Well, perhaps the main reason why, for you, that last statement of mine is a is on account of political correctness? Just wondering.

I think we all know that there has been a long running, decades-long state of friction/lack of cordiality/war/skirmishes/attacks between Israel and neighboring Arab states, and this has escalated into the "Jew-vs-Muslim" awareness of many people. It is also well known that some of the most powerful and influential lobbies in Washington DC are Israeli activists. It is also well-known that the "war on terrorism", which originated on the evening of the 9/11 attacks, was a concerted effort against *Islamic* terrorism, specifically.

It is also well known that an extraordinary proportion of the senior members of the (Bush) administration happened to be dual US-Israeli citizens, and although many of these people are not working within the Executive Branch, they are still working behind the scenes exerting influence. Not a word on the mainstream media was ever mentioned about this strange state of affairs. And coming to think about it... imagine if a US administration happened to be loaded to the rafters with dual US-Bolivian citizens, for example? Would it not come across as somewhat odd, which people would question as being "not kosher"? To which nation do dual-citizens, in positions of political power, have the most allegiance?

Political correctness re. these issues can be a very powerful gagging device, knowing how quickly people regurgitate "anti-Semitic" slurs at the slightest opportunity.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #208 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Well, perhaps the main reason why, for you, that last statement of mine is a is on account of political correctness? Just wondering.

I think we all know that there has been a long running, decades-long state of friction/lack of cordiality/war/skirmishes/attacks between Israel and neighboring Arab states, and this has escalated into the "Jew-vs-Muslim" awareness of many people. It is also well known that some of the most powerful and influential lobbies in Washington DC are Israeli activists. It is also well-known that the "war on terrorism", which originated on the evening of the 9/11 attacks, was a concerted effort against *Islamic* terrorism, specifically.

It is also well known that an extraordinary proportion of the senior members of the (Bush) administration happened to be dual US-Israeli citizens, and although many of these people are not working within the Executive Branch, they are still working behind the scenes exerting influence. Not a word on the mainstream media was ever mentioned about this strange state of affairs. And coming to think about it... imagine if a US administration happened to be loaded to the rafters with dual US-Bolivian citizens, for example? Would it not come across as somewhat odd, which people would question as being "not kosher"? To which nation do dual-citizens, in positions of political power, have the most allegiance?

Political correctness re. these issues can be a very powerful gagging device, knowing how quickly people regurgitate "anti-Semitic" slurs at the slightest opportunity.

No Sammi. I have to disagree here. You have some weird ideas, but this one has to take the cake. Israel tells the US what to do. And I suppose Jews control the media too? And the banks? That is why this power exists over the nation? And why the powerful nation of Israel can make our leaders cower in fear?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #209 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

1) a
2) t
3) a
4) a

No.

The answers will surprise you.

Quote:
The native population has a birthrate as low as 1.2 in countries like Italy and Spain, countries that previously were Catholic and had a birthrate that reflected that fact. Instead the incoming Islamic immigrants have a birthrate that is well above replacement level and is often 2-300% higher than the native population

-Trumptman.

Quote:
Without a fundamental change in our social structures we will be unable to meet the minimum requirement for a sustainable fertility rate: 2,1.

-Anders

Quote:
There is no reason to focus on Norway alone. The entire EU, if majority Muslim or even Muslim controlled would represent a nuclear capably country of well over 800 million people. Claiming that history is a factor that can overcome demography is patently ridiculous. Those who have the kids make the rules. Culture is only one generation deep and can change quickly. The native population of Europe has a birthrate that is far below replacement levels.

-Trumptman (yes, really)

Quote:
Call me when [Europe] isn't tolerating Sharia courts and looking to have their decisions made legally binding. Call me when France isn't having to complain and legislate about the increasing number of women wearing burqas and when the whole continent is watching Mosques being built. ... The groups that do not assimilate and seek separation will follow that belief to its conclusion...

-Trumptman
post #210 of 228
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No.

The answers will surprise you.


-Trumptman.


-Anders


-Trumptman (yes, really)


-Trumptman

If he's so concerned with Sharia Law in Europe I find it odd he's not in the least concerned about it in the US.



"The birthrates of Muslim women in Europe have been falling significantly for some time. In the Netherlands, for example, the TFR among Dutch-born women rose between 1990 and 2005 from 1.6 to 1.7. In the same period for Moroccan-born women in Holland it fell from 4.9 to 2.9, and for Turkish-born women in Holland from 3.2 to 1.9.


In Austria, the TFR of Muslim women fell from 3.1 to 2.3 from 1981 to 2001. In 1970 Turkish-born women in Germany had on average two children more than German-born women. By 1996 the difference had fallen to one child and has now dropped to 0.5. These sharp falls reflect important cultural shifts, which include the impact of universal female education, rising living standards, the effect of local cultural norms and availability of contraception."
~ http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/20...es-rising.html
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #211 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No.

The answers will surprise you.


-Trumptman.


-Anders


-Trumptman (yes, really)


-Trumptman

Now besides trying to conflate my views with those of a rampaging murder, which of those statements (and the broader statements you've selected them from) do you actually dispute?

Do you dispute the birthrate in Spain is 1.2 children per couple? Do you dispute the birthrate of incoming Islamic immigrants is minimum of 2.4.

Shouldn't something be factually wrong rather than just attempting guilt by association?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If he's so concerned with Sharia Law in Europe I find it odd he's not in the least concerned about it in the US.

I'm not concerned about it in the United States because our primary source of immigration both legal and illegal is from Mexico and Latin America. Long term I consider the United States in a much better position than Europe because of this due to better cultural compatibility with the existing legal, social and financial systems in place.

Quote:
"The birthrates of Muslim women in Europe have been falling significantly for some time. In the Netherlands, for example, the TFR among Dutch-born women rose between 1990 and 2005 from 1.6 to 1.7. In the same period for Moroccan-born women in Holland it fell from 4.9 to 2.9, and for Turkish-born women in Holland from 3.2 to 1.9.

In Austria, the TFR of Muslim women fell from 3.1 to 2.3 from 1981 to 2001. In 1970 Turkish-born women in Germany had on average two children more than German-born women. By 1996 the difference had fallen to one child and has now dropped to 0.5. These sharp falls reflect important cultural shifts, which include the impact of universal female education, rising living standards, the effect of local cultural norms and availability of contraception."
~ http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/20...es-rising.html

Well let's just say there are reasons Mumbo won't link to the source material. It was much broader and went into many more details than the quotes here.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #212 of 228
That's nice, trumptman.

You have exactly the same beliefs as a "conservative nationalist" who massacred 68 young men and women in his fight to prevent Europe being Islamicised.

How does that feel?
post #213 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That's nice, trumptman.

You have exactly the same beliefs as a "conservative nationalist" who massacred 68 young men and women in his fight to prevent Europe being Islamicised.

How does that feel?

Exactly the same? If he had exactly the same he would be on the news right now.

Glad that nobody continues trying to make political points off of this situation.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #214 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

1) a
2) t
3) a
4) a

Interesting that there is no outcry from Hands on this topic when there were over 60 Murdered and a comparison is made directly to a person on this board calling the beliefs equal but when I do something that was seen by him as similar I am hateful and should be banned for it. Here, he plays along and answers the questions happily.

Hypocrisy is alive and well it seems.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #215 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

That's nice, trumptman.

You have exactly the same beliefs as a "conservative nationalist" who massacred 68 young men and women in his fight to prevent Europe being Islamicised.

How does that feel?

Facts are not beliefs. I was stating facts. There were also a few conclusions based off those facts. I asked if you disputed the facts. Forward looking conclusions can always be disputed of course but drawing the same conclusion doesn't mean anyone is going to massacre someone. You are welcome to show anywhere where I have posted to take the same actions that person did.

I could you the day of the week., the month of the year, the planet on which you reside. If you give the same faction answers as Hitler, does that make you Hitler?

That is the guilt by associate you have attempted here. It is a logical flaw. I laughed at your assertion and had some fun with it because that is all you can do with pure nonsense.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #216 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

No Sammi. I have to disagree here. You have some weird ideas, but this one has to take the cake. Israel tells the US what to do.

Nation A has a government in which a significant proportion of its senior officials are also citizens of Nation B. You're telling us that B will not use it's status in the government of A to modify, direct, or even formulate its policies, to the advantage of B? It's not a case of "Israel telling the US what to do" ... Israeli interests are so deeply embedded within the US policy-making process that (Israel) doesn't have to "tell the US what to do".

Perhaps by mentioning this, I broke a taboo: We are dealing with a "special case nation" which is immune to any and every criticism in the US.

Quote:
And I suppose Jews control the media too?

Here is a very common type of misstatement, used to mischaracterize an argument. No. It is not "the Jews" who control the media. Out of the millions of Jewish people in the US, the huge, vast, overwhelming majority have nothing to do with the media. However, the boards of directors of all the big media companies, Hollywood, etc. do have a considerable membership of Jewish people. There's nothing wrong with that... in fact it shows the resourcefulness and talents of the Jewish people to get to the top in so many fields ... perhaps centuries of persecution, to a degree unparalleled by any culture/creed has honed the survival instincts, as a community? If this is the case, why so much effort at hiding it, or not taking credit?

Quote:
And the banks?

Likewise.

Quote:
That is why this power exists over the nation? And why the powerful nation of Israel can make our leaders cower in fear?

"Cower in fear" while enjoying a session of mutual masturbation? Hardly.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #217 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yes. Completely.

1. Abstinence.
2. Barrier method.
3. Oral contraceptives.
4. Surgery
5. Rhythm method.
6. Morning after pill.

All of those methods are promoted as alternatives to abortion. Abortion is not "promoted" as any method of birth control. Abortion is a terrible thing for any woman to go through, so the thing that is promoted on the left is to avoid it at all costs by not getting pregnant in the first place. The belief not only that teaching our kids not to have sex will keep them from having sex (Palin), but that all parents and schools can teach this equally well is complete and utter idiocy. This is why there are more abortions per capita in Texas than in California.

Abortion is only ever seen as a worst case scenario, available by women's choice if necessary if everything else goes wrong. The best way to avoid it is to have all the other options available. Not to close your eyes and pretend your kids aren't having sex.

tonton...there is only one way to say this: You are absolutely, totally wrong. There are many people that have had abortions in the double digits. There are groups that think ANY restriction on abortion means abortion rights are eroding. Now, if you're talking about what is publicly promoted by mainstream groups, I agree.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #218 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Nation A has a government in which a significant proportion of its senior officials are also citizens of Nation B. You're telling us that B will not use it's status in the government of A to modify, direct, or even formulate its policies, to the advantage of B? It's not a case of "Israel telling the US what to do" ... Israeli interests are so deeply embedded within the US policy-making process that (Israel) doesn't have to "tell the US what to do".

Perhaps by mentioning this, I broke a taboo: We are dealing with a "special case nation" which is immune to any and every criticism in the US.

Here is your post.
The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.
Try not to wander off your own message. It was fairly clear, unless you are saying that you misspoke and really intended to say something else.

Quote:
Here is a very common type of misstatement, used to mischaracterize an argument. No. It is not "the Jews" who control the media. Out of the millions of Jewish people in the US, the huge, vast, overwhelming majority have nothing to do with the media. However, the boards of directors of all the big media companies, Hollywood, etc. do have a considerable membership of Jewish people. There's nothing wrong with that... in fact it shows the resourcefulness and talents of the Jewish people to get to the top in so many fields ... perhaps centuries of persecution, to a degree unparalleled by any culture/creed has honed the survival instincts, as a community? If this is the case, why so much effort at hiding it, or not taking credit?

Likewise.

"Cower in fear" while enjoying a session of mutual masturbation? Hardly.

Based on your first statement I wanted to clear up how this would work exactly. Israel does enjoy a protected status from the US. However, I don't believe that every policy regarding terrorism or security that is implemented revolves around them.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #219 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

tonton...there is only one way to say this: You are absolutely, totally wrong. There are many people that have had abortions in the double digits. There are groups that think ANY restriction on abortion means abortion rights are eroding. Now, if you're talking about what is publicly promoted by mainstream groups, I agree.

Haha!!!! First of all, we were never talking about individual choices in this debate. We were only ever talking about agenda. Your exact claim is that there are people on the left who promote abortion as birth control. You do know what "promote" means, right?

But what's LMFAO worthy is when you say "You're totally 100% wrong, but part of what you say is right." Never mind that the "part" you're talking about is 100% of what was on topic (agenda).
post #220 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Haha!!!! First of all, we were never talking about individual choices in this debate. We were only ever talking about agenda. Your exact claim is that there are people on the left who promote abortion as birth control. You do know what "promote" means, right?

But what's LMFAO worthy is when you say "You're totally 100% wrong, but part of what you say is right." Never mind that the "part" you're talking about is 100% of what was on topic (agenda).

[SDW]YOU'RE WRONG tonton! WRONG WRONG WRONG![/SDW]

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #221 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Here is your post.
The State Department was probably ordered by, or more likely, reminded by Israel to avoid the term explicitly reserved for Muslims and Arabs. ie. Do NOT wander off message.
Try not to wander off your own message. It was fairly clear, unless you are saying that you misspoke and really intended to say something else.

If you read my post, I did say... "more likely, reminded by...". Then perhaps I might have been even more specific, adding "more likely reminded by Israeli interests within the US government", as opposed to "Israel" itself. There is a huge difference between the state and people of Israel, and those who speak and act for it... (as there is with any nation)

Quote:
Based on your first statement I wanted to clear up how this would work exactly. Israel does enjoy a protected status from the US. However, I don't believe that every policy regarding terrorism or security that is implemented revolves around them.

Well, thats arguable. Every US policy regarding terrorism doesn't as much "revolve around Israel", but most definitely *does*, as we have seen on multiple occasions in recent years, revolve around the religion of Islam, those who practice it, and Arabs. But since the Islamic faith, its adherents and Arabs are Israel's common enemy, then by extension one could say that the US government's policies on terrorism most certainly revolve around Israel. And since statistics indicate that Islamic terrorism, although a tangible threat, represents but a small proportion (<6%) of all terrorism cases, that further tells us that the 'war on terrorism', as pursued by successive US administrations from both (major) parties, is bogus: it *appears* on all counts to be more an agenda, with the mainstream media is full compliance to frame Islam and Arabs as a boogeyman, and an excuse to go to war against entire nations, than a genuine effort at preventing terrorism.

As an example which illustrates the absurdity of the situation with the so-called 'war on terrorism": The US went to war in Afghanistan, in the words of President George W. Bush, to "get Osama bin Laden". One man. The final words rom the White House, before the bombs started raining down, was: "We gave the Taliban a chance to hand him over and they refused". That, however, was an outright lie: the reality of this episode was that the Taliban was given an ultimatum to arrest bin Laden on account of the 9/11 attacks.. the they responded.. "give us your evidence that he was involved, and we'll get him". No response was forthcoming from the White House... as if it ever would. The Afghanistan war was already a done deal... but here we were sold the story that the US and an international coalition force attacked a sovereign nation to "get Osama bin Laden for 9/11", despite the fact that the FBI didn't want him for 9/11, and the Justice Department never indicted him for 9/11. So it looks as if the Taliban were essentially correct.... don't get me wrong... the Taliban IMHO are a bunch of fvckheads of the worst order.

And now we have one of the most vicious terrorist attacks in the last decade, targeting of all people, mostly defenseless kids who were sitting targets in the water desperately trying to swim to safety.. and the State Department carefully downgrades the atrocity to a "crime committed by a gunman". There's thousands of "crimes committed by gunmen" in the US every month, and presumably because this particularly heinous attack was carried out by a non-Muslim, or even more to the point, someone who hates Islam, to classify him as a "terrorist" is regarded as so far off message that a certain amount of damage control happened at State. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when they were deciding on the 'language' of the response.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #222 of 228
Excellent and reality based article here. Finally, someone in the media, albeit the mainstream alternative media, has the guts to tell the truth.

To quote:

Many of the American writers who influenced Breivik spent years churning out calls for the mass murder of Muslims, Palestinians and their left-wing Western supporters. But the sort of terrorism these US-based rightists incited for was not the style the Norwegian killer would eventually adopt. Instead of Breivik's renegade free-booting, they preferred the "shock and awe" brand of state terror perfected by Western armies against the brown hordes threatening to impose Sharia law on the people in Peoria. This kind of violence provides a righteous satisfaction so powerful it can be experienced from thousands of miles away.

And so most American Islamophobes simply sit back from the comfort of their homes and cheer as American and Israeli troops -- and their remote-controlled aerial drones -- leave a trail of charred bodies from Waziristan to Gaza City. Only a select group of able-bodied Islamophobes are willing to suit up in a uniform and rush to the front lines of the clash of civilizations. There, they have discovered that they can mow down Muslim non-combatants without much fear of legal consequences, and that when they return, they will be celebrated as the elite Crusader-warriors of the new Islamophobic right -- a few particularly violent figures have been rewarded with seats in Congress. Given the variety of culturally acceptable, officially approved outlets for venting violent anti-Muslim resentment, there is little reason for any American to follow in Breivik's path of infamy.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #223 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Recall the OKC bombing in 1995? It was all mid-easterners, all the time, until Tim McVeigh, on account of a small oversight, got himself arrested and spoiled all the fun. If that arrest had never happened, the blame for OKC would have rested firmly with middle eastern sources.... and there would have been revenge exacted, in some fashion that never had the chance to materialize.

"A lie can get half way around the world before the truth has got its boots on" Mark Twain

And don't forget. McVeigh was a christian. I sure hope no one builds a church near the Murrah building.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #224 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

And don't forget. McVeigh was a christian. I sure hope no one builds a church near the Murrah building.

I forget. The Crusades were such a long time ago. Do Christians have a history of erecting 'victory churches' on the sites of contested battlegrounds?

Whichever side you are on the GZ mosque debate, you can at least acknowledge that the issue isn't that of just erecting a random house of worship near a blast site.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #225 of 228
And atheists are the rude, immoral ones. Yeesh.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #226 of 228
As I understand it, the people who are objecting to the GZ mosque building are concerned that its placement will be used by some as a traditional islamic 'victory mosque' which celebrates great military triumphs over the enemies of Islam.

Is that incorrect?

I see no similarity to someone erecting a church next to the Murrah building, unless its a particular Christian denomination that would celebrate such a terrorist disaster as doing God's work (and I'm not aware of any that currently do that.)
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #227 of 228
Is it incorrect that some people hold ignorant, bigoted, terrible beliefs? Is it incorrect that some people have ulterior motives, are hypocritical, and hold all other minorities to double standards? I guess since that's what you're asking, I have to say no. It's not incorrect.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #228 of 228
You're getting more incoherent by the post. Even the new sig is crazier than ever.

Did anyone here actually claim that the steel cross was divinely inspired, or just that a segment of the population claimed it as a reminder of faith amidst a great tragedy?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Oslo Explosion