Speak softly and carry a big stick

ptrashptrash
Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/wo...-pakistan.html



Go to the multimedia slide show (it's the second photo down, on the left), then to picture #2. Look at the soldier standing (facing the camera) on the right.



Someone's reading Teddy Roosevelt. First they atacked the mosque, and then they pulled out the big stick.



Gotta love those NY Times photo editors' sense of humor. Sick F*ucks.



PS No wonder they hate us. First we demand they attack their own people, and then we make fun of them!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 5
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    I think "they" hate "us" because they want something to hate, and we are an easy target. In a similar sense, you want something to bash, and the NY Times is your easy target. The USA is no more to blame here than Pakistanis themselves. If they were worried about what would happen here, they shouldn't have put a woman in a high position in government.



    Clearly, they weren't worried. We didn't do this to them. If there's anything that can actually be pointed at and blamed, it's the fact that the Koran isn't written loosely enough for fundamental Islam to coexist with secular governments. If this weren't the case, the world would be much more different than had nothing changed other than a complete erasure of outside influence on this region of the world.



    When I find people lamenting "the forces of democracy," a seemingly popular lamentation these days, it worries me. What do you suggest? Neutrality? Neutrality is a farce: the world is too small to ignore everyone else out there. In an age of information, to erase influence on our neighbors, we have to erase ourselves. The world isn't Eden. People are going to die by natural and unnatural causes, and we can't go on holding ourselves accountable for every last skirmish that takes place.
  • Reply 2 of 5
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    I think they don't 'hate you' at all....that's what you are taught to think so it's ok to hate them...



    Btw, if a country spouts an ideology - the 'WOT, say - and others Dictatorships buy into it - Pakistan, say - and use it to justify killing the citizens then maybe hate might come into it somewhere.



    Clearly, there are groups of Muslims worldwide who are full of hate. That's hard to deny. I don't particularly care about hate, but I do care about the actions caused by these hateful people that directly affect my way of life (i.e. terrorism). Maybe I misread the article, but the impression I got was that the government of Pakistan laid siege to a group of radicals. Pakistan is a mess. I don't pretend to know what's best for them. But I do know what's best for everyone in the non-Muslim world: less radical Islam. In the struggle to reform Islam, people are going to die, but I'm of the belief that the long-term result is going to be worth the price. Despite the questionable integrity of the Pakistani government, I'm glad they are at least on the same page with respect to the greater issue of how to quell radical Islam.
  • Reply 3 of 5
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    I will tell you what I find interesting. I think it was last month on some given friday I was watching a a press conference in the Rose Garden given by the President. When reporters started asking President Bush questions I counted about 6 or 7 times Bush used the canned response,,,, "We are fighting the terrorists over there so we don't have fight them here".



    Now let me ask... Does that not sound cowardly? So it is ok if this WOT results in deaths of innocent civillians as long as they are Iraqi? Iraqi people are more expendable???



    So the way I see it the President of the Unites States is saying to the world. "We don't want to fight them here" which no matter how you slice it is a cowardly sounding statement given by what should be a capable leader. And also the President of the United States is saying in effect that the lives of innocents in Iraq if lost is "not as bad" as if such a thing were to happen in America.



    This to me shows the true colors of our president and his admin. On the one hand they have insisted that if you speak out against the war in Iraq you are emboldening the terrorists, yet it is completely ok for the President to tip his hand as it were and disclose quite clearly that he does not want to fight the terrorists here.



    If you believe that the potential for attack by terrorists is real then you should be outraged that our President would communicate to them exactly what he does not want: (fighting them here). Now all the terrorists in the world know what Bush does not want...... You do the math. Is that such a smart thing? to tell them what gives you the most fear..



    I digress..



    In summary Bush has communicated to a world audience two things...



    - He would rather fight the terrorists in Iraq and have those native Iraqi civillians catch the brunt of the collateral damage including women and children. Not here in America.



    - He has tiped his hand and flat out told "the terrorists" exactly what he does not want. (to fight them here)



    Brilliant....



    Fellows
  • Reply 4 of 5
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by segovius View Post


    Well, they SAY the mosque was full of radicals. We know it was full of women and kids.



    But what is a radical?



    You are too gray for your own good. Furthermore, so what if it was full of women and kids? What where they doing there in the first place?
Sign In or Register to comment.