PDA

View Full Version : Protestors have too much time


acliff
18-09-2006, 10:14 AM
Was watching the news this morning and they were doing a piece on Muslims protesting against the Pope. Whereas the Pope could have chosen his words more carefully, there really wasn't anything in what he said that could have sparked off this outrage. Condemning violence in every religion, whats so bad about that? At any rate, certain people chose to take great offense and are now protesting and beginning to murder nuns and priests. Talk about overreaction.

In the state that the world is in right now, does Islam lend itself towards creating very angry people who feel as if everyone in the world is out to get them, or is Islam a good fit for people who are rather fiery and insecure to begin with? (Just a thought don't really want to spark a loud, angry religious debate)

These protestors seem to have alot of days off work to do their protesting thing. What do employers think of this? Do they even go to work? Are we harbouring thousands of people who leech off the welfare system and spend all their days protesting to relieve boredom? I respect a person's right to protest, but surely you'd be more likely to protest if you didn't have a day job?

Leonie
18-09-2006, 11:50 AM
I love how they all cover their faces like true heroes who are willing to stand up for what they believe in and deal with the consequences accordingly. Ffs.

hasselbrad
18-09-2006, 12:59 PM
I mean what is he thinking, to give a public speech about the truth of both Christianity and Islam, using quotes of a dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402 where the Qur'an is put in a negative 'violent' position.

http://www.september11news.com/TVScreenCNNBreakingNews.jpg

http://www.hnn.navy.mil/archives/010914/images_091401/pentagon_damage.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41293000/jpg/_41293911_bus203.jpg

Yeah...I mean what was he thinking?

calereneau
18-09-2006, 03:32 PM
Personally, I now think the Pope is a badass.

hasselbrad
18-09-2006, 03:57 PM
If the Islam really is a violent, evil and inhuman religion, than I'm wondering why the hell it is so difficult to catch terrorists. Should be easy don't u think? 1.200 billion people inspired by oh such a violent, evil and inhuman religion. Oh boy!

Because 1,199,000,000 people don't take issue with their religious leaders and demand an end to the supporting of terrorism. Hell, after 9/11 CAIR's first press conference didn't even hint at an admonishment, let alone condemnation, of the attacks. Instead, they took it upon themselves to cry foul because they weren't being treated nicely.
Go to www.freedomhouse.org and take a look at the report on the Wahabbist literature proliferating out of Saudia Arabia and winding up in mosques here and abroad. They can say they're a religion of peace all they want, but their tacit support of terror through an absolute refusal to do anything about it says otherwise.
Make a joke about a Jew picking up a penny. He'll laugh...and then tell you a better joke.
Make a joke about a Muslim blowing up a...***BOOM***

duckula
18-09-2006, 06:34 PM
The pope is a big fat fag. He totally wussed out of his position. He should have raised his garments, pulled out the papal penis and suggested that the angry masses take a lick of it.

seventhson
18-09-2006, 07:55 PM
I suggest we all read ALL the text of the Pope's talk that he gave. If one looks at the WHOLE lecture, the Pope was indicating that the west has just as much, if not more, responibilty for difficulties with more open, productive dialogue between western & Muslim cultures as the Islamic people of the world do. In the west, our culture tends to give very little value to faith alone. Is there more than what scientific evidence can justify or prove at work in your life? Is it fact or just faith? Do those two exclude each other? I didn't post all the links that you can go to to read ALL the text of the pantif's speech. If anyone has trouble finding it, ask me to & I will.

Peace,
Devoted active practicing Christian of Catholic denomination SeventhSon

hasselbrad
18-09-2006, 08:28 PM
I’m sure if u’d ask every American Muslim what they think about the Religious motivation of these terrorists they would disapprove it as much as you do.
Yeah...and then they'd go to mosque and contribute to a charity that siphons money into terrorist hands.
Like I said before, it's tacit approval.
They aren't all out in the streets burning American flags and chanting, but by not aggressively confronting the issue, they are allowing it to continue. You make the point that it is a tiny minority. Then why is it allowed to continue? Surely 1,200,000,000 people could stop what's going on, but they don't. Every religion has managed to marginalize the lunatics, except one.
Islam lets them dictate the agenda.

Leonie
19-09-2006, 02:22 AM
yeah exactly what was he thinking? These arguments could be used just against it. 'He' is trowing oil on the fire and the media is gladly helping him with that.

The past 5 years 1.200 billion Muslims have been connected to terrorism, have been pointed at as terrorists. Have been labeled as terrorists. Not to mention the hypocritical situation between Israel and the Palestinian. The Mohamed cartoons,...

And we expect them to be tolerant?

If the Islam really is a violent, evil and inhuman religion, than I'm wondering why the hell it is so difficult to catch terrorists. Should be easy don't u think? 1.200 billion people inspired by oh such a violent, evil and inhuman religion. Oh boy!


Of course it would help if Islam leaders would condemn the actions of the minority of dickheads who are terrorists. Might be an idea.

Secondly, why the fuck do these people have the right to get all pissy about the pope's speech when a great deal of them call Christians infidels and rubbish that religion on a weekly basis? I've not seen Christians out with pamphlets and banners yet.

The sad thing is, of couse, that half the people currently protesting with their faces covered only heard the one offending sentence and have no idea about the context it was uttered in.

The point is, people say the pope should not have quoted these lines because he represents Christianity, or at least Roman Catholicism. Then why is it we aren't getting upset at Muslim leaders trashing our beliefs? If they're allowed to say what they want, then so are we.

Liam
19-09-2006, 06:30 AM
It occurs to me that all the violence has proved the Pope's point.

Leonie
19-09-2006, 11:40 AM
Seeing a few hundred protestors in a smartly taken tele shot does not represent 1/6 of the world population

Exactly, and who’s fault is that? Who should have realised that that would happen?

We are supposed to be the smart ones here.Because you can’t compare the Muslim society to our western society and there for not judge over it from a western point of view.

Sorry but I disagree, like Leonie pointed out, the ones that are protesting, disagree with the following sentence "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" they feel once again being negatively judge by the west. If they would know in what context that sentence was used they would not have made a fuss.

To say that we should have taken into account the propaganda means the Pope's words would be used for is to blame us for every fault in the world. Everyone has his own responsiblity to check their sources and to take the time to spend a few intelligent thoughts. If any of those protestors believe that the quoted sentence was the only thing the pope said, they aren't misguided or misled, but just plain stupid.

Even if it's only a hundred people protesting, or fifty, that's a hundred or fifty more than I've seen on the Christian side of the spectrum. Do we force Islam leaders to apologise? Twice? Do we carry banners with hateful sentences towards an ENTIRE religion/part of the world based on what one person said? Sure, he represents Catholicism, but if we follow that logic, Catholics should be pretty damn upset about a lot of things Muslim leaders have said.

To say that we are the smart ones in this conflict is to show an awful lot of disdain regarding the mental capacity of muslims. They're not stupid. Those of them who are should nevertheless try to be fucking rational just for once.

And just for the record? I'm bloody tired of being judged by the Middle East. Just as tired as they are of us judging them. I feel we have behaved much more rational, barring the US/Iraq drama. Last time I checked, I didn't threaten to personally bomb a mosque because I didn't like someone's attitude.

If we start censuring ourselves to this extent, we might as well do a mass conversion to the Islam to stop the bitching. The pope said nothing islam leaders haven't said about Christianity. To say that we somehow should take their feelings into account when MANY islam leaders do not openly condemn the killing of innocent Christian people is to condone their actions and send a certain message to your followers. And that message? Pisses. Me. Off. Royally.

Get off your high camels and stop preaching, protestors.

acliff
19-09-2006, 12:02 PM
Who's side are you actually on Flightfreak, or are you playing devil's advocate?

The nun who was murdered, do you yourself have proof that it was not religiously motivated? Even if it is a coincidence, the media jumping on this, given that protestors have been threatening violence, is understandable.
I find a murder far more worthy of protest than of a sentence from a peace loving man which has been singled out and taken out of context.

Although impractical, in my mind it draws parallels with a mother and her screaming child. Not suggesting any superiority one way or the other (except that christianity is older) but if a screaming baby get what it wants through screaming, it will use that tactic again. Emotional blackmail. The only way to combat this is by being indifferent to baseless screaming. The screaming may become louder and louder for a while, but eventually they realise its pointless and quieten down. Somewhat harder to do when the screaming takes the form of thousands of murders, and protesting and terrorism are known to work.

The pope should not have apologised. As a position of authority, he should have clearly stated that sentence has been taken too far, and that he's sorry that people are too short sighted to see or listen to the big picture.
His apology may be seen as a victory by muslim groups who feel they have beaten the leader of Christianity (and therefore the west).

On the other hand, the fewer suicide bombers in the vatican the better. If the pope went boom, all hell would break loose. Say goodbye to the relatively civil relationships between the religions, and welcome holy war.

hasselbrad
19-09-2006, 01:17 PM
a sentence from a peace loving man which has been singled out and taken out of context.

And there lies the crux of the situation. In a speech calling for more dialogue between Christians and Muslims, they single out a certain passage and use it to inflame hostilities...period.

If Muslims are truly upset about how their religion is being hijacked and used as a political battering ram, then they should do something about it. I know all Muslims don't feel this way. I listened to a Muslim woman chastize those who have reacted with violence. You keep saying that this is a small part of the Muslim world, yet there are protests all over the world, not to mention, Muslim leaders calling for a "day of anger". This isn't simply trick photography. There really are thousands of people in the streets clamoring for some sort of retribution. There really is a dead nun, and I am afraid there will be many more if Muslim leaders continue to fan the flames of aggression every time someone says anything, however remotely critical, of Islam.

When you get bad service in a restaurant, do you tell the manager you are unhappy? Or, do you set your napkin on fire and chant "death to my waiter" as you leave the restaurant? If you engage in dialogue with the manager, you might just get your meal comped and a coupon good for another. Light the napkin on fire and you may get a free meal...but you'll have to wear an orange jumpsuit to get it.

I don't think anyone wants to live in a world where every word, action and nuance must be agonized over, simply because one group overreacts to everything.

acliff
19-09-2006, 01:57 PM
When you get bad service in a restaurant, do you tell the manager you are unhappy? Or, do you set your napkin on fire and chant "death to my waiter" as you leave the restaurant? If you engage in dialogue with the manager, you might just get your meal comped and a coupon good for another. Light the napkin on fire and you may get a free meal...but you'll have to wear an orange jumpsuit to get it.

Oh god, I want to don a balaclava, chanting 'In place of the crap on this plate, I want to see your head' and setting the menu on fire with my fury, all because my peas are cold.

EmotionSickness
19-09-2006, 02:55 PM
Keep it comin' boys. I love watching you two go back and forth. Really.

Just wish I had something intelligent and/or witty to add to the topic at hand. Oh, well. Carry on...

AureaMediocritas
19-09-2006, 03:04 PM
( The Pope is a German feeling bad about shooting down Allied airplanes during his youth, he therefore understandably hates violence )

Just an humble contribution : the situation at the moment has become so unbearable because of political evolutions provoked by the process of decolonisation, a process ending western hegemony in a great deal of countries; understandably, the western element retreating politically (Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Algeria, Afghanistan etc.) yet of course not culturally is identified as the enemy during the fight for independance. In fact, the newly gained authonomy from the West remains threatened culturally until now since the values of Islam are not compatible with capitalist materialism (atheism) considered worse by a convinced Muslim than (disappearing) Christianity.

The whole issue is heating up because a minority of fundamentalists use the general frustration to call for "Holy War", and a more and more areligious West showing less and less comprehension for the rise of religious frenzy. In other words and in my opinion, it would be best to chill out and relax instead of overreacting too, which would bring about an unhealthy and unnecessary climate of unescapable confrontation. Just let the fukkahs protest since you are not going to change their - deliberately kept as such - limited point of view, they will shut up soon enough (Dogs that bark don´t bite). Avoid the Islam versus Christianity logic... Christianity did exactly the same thing 800 years ago, but fortunately we are lucky not to be indoctrinated in the good old fashion anymore, so we can actually "think" and observe the whole thingy from a healthy distance. Islam´s radical wing, on the contrary, still relies on the medieval stubbornness; that´s why they get so angry when they see their sacrosanct faith not even attacked but "questioned" (it´s the same for us freaking out once we are accused of having a microscopically tiny penis, an organ that fortunately remains sacrosanct until now).

Finally, I´d say that I like the example chosen by our perfidious Benedict. Byzantium until its end always worked as a fortress against Muslim expansionnism and, presumably, if it had not held out until Tuesday, May 29, 1453 (Tuesday until now is a day of catastrophe in modern Greece), modern Europe and America would be devoted to Islam.

hasselbrad
19-09-2006, 03:22 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=2020283n

Listen to what she has to say about it. She has more of a dog in the hunt than either of us.

The fact of the matter is, that if it wasn't the Pope, it would be something else.

And, exactly how am I "generalizing"? My point is that moderate Muslims need to take action against imams who fan the flames of hatred. They need to take a hard look at the charities they give money to. They need to examine the literature that's being distributed in their mosques and call into question pieces that simply incite hatred of non-Muslims. Likewise, overreacting with violence simply doesn't work. Cliff's analogy is perfect. Every time extremists react this way, our response is key. If we apologize and give them candy, the tantrum will only be worse next time. Remember the movie Kingdom of Heaven? The producers of that film bent over backwards, and sacrificed historical accuracy, to avoid offending Muslims. Islamic characters' only faults seemed to be excess generosity and forgiving, and yet, there was outrage. Pointless, baseless outrage.

Cuban ex-pats here in Florida have been actively attempting to bring Castro's regime down since he took power. And, I know there are Arab ex-pats here in the states who are working toward regime change in their countries. I've met a few Iraqis from Detroit who were involved in such a movement against Saddam Hussein. I would like to see more Muslims actively working to elicit change in these crackpot regimes so that we don't have these flare ups every time someone mentions Islam.

acliff
19-09-2006, 03:47 PM
Are you trying to say its the Pope's fault that this has happened? People say worse things all the time, but the reason he's been singled out is because he's the leader of an opposing, oppressive (in their minds) religion affiliated with the infidels of the wicked west.

As a religious and political leader, he should be careful with what he says, true. But when someone else misinterprets what he says, turns it against him to enhance their victim complex and stir up exactly what he was speaking against, he should be standing up to it and defending his position. Given that any rational person would have heard the entire speech and got the meaning, all these protestors seem to be programmed to be attention deficient hyperactive obsessives (the paradoxical nature of that is not lost on me) who would stone you if you mispronounced or misspelt 'koran' (sorry Qur'an)

It is a sad world where we cannot say what we want in case someone threatens murder, or worse, exacts it.

AureaMediocritas
19-09-2006, 03:51 PM
Given that any rational person would have heard the entire speech and got the meaning, all these protestors seem to be programmed to be attention deficient hyperactive obsessives (the paradoxical nature of that is not lost on me) who would stone you if you mispronounced or misspelt 'koran' (sorry Qur'an)

It is a sad world where we cannot say what we want in case someone threatens murder, or worse, exacts it.

I totally agree. The problem is that "ratio" needs to emancipate in the face of "unrational religions" : this happened in Europe owing to the humanist movement, whereas in Muslim regions it still depends on the degree of education and wealth.

Leonie
19-09-2006, 11:38 PM
Yeah, just to reiterate, I think Flightfreak should stop suggesting the Pope "should have realised this would happen." If we start censuring ourselves to avoid bomb threats, we have well and truly lost what is the greatest value of the Western world: freedom of speech.

Muslim leaders taking this one line to heat up the argument, to my mind, shows that they do not wish to communicate with us, or to solve anything. Of course the Pope would communicate through a speech: if the pope and a muslim leader agree, nothing changes, if the pope's followers and the imam's followers agree, we have progress. For that to happen, the message needs to be spread.

And as I told you, Turkey still has the death penalty, and as far as I know, as a girl you can still be murdered by your own family if you try hard enough. I would hardly cal l that non-violent or a "fair" political system, so that's the end of that argument.

Moreover, just because they are economically or politically less fortunate than us does NOT mean they have the right to behave like a bunch of petulant children with amazing skills in blowing things up. Nothing justifies that. You can be misguided by your radical leaders as much as you wish, but the respect for human life is such a basic part of being human that it shouldn't be overwritten by hateful feelings.

Lastly, how do you propose we give these countries a fair economy, democracy and the like, without being seen as "conquerors from the West?"

You need to stop placing all the brains and all the blame on our side. Just because they are poorer than we are does not mean they get to blow us up. Simple. And at least they don't pay almost two euros for petrol.

As for generalising? I'm talking about radical cunts in the Middle East whenever I mention "they."

Does someone know where I could find the full, original German speech? I'm not great with Google.

hasselbrad
20-09-2006, 12:02 AM
Lastly, how do you propose we give these countries a fair economy, democracy and the like, without being seen as "conquerors from the West?"

You shouldn't ask idealists questions like this. :p

duckula
20-09-2006, 07:50 PM
Could you summarise that or do I have to wait for the movie?

duckula
20-09-2006, 09:43 PM
So how does whitey win?

Leonie
20-09-2006, 11:12 PM
So the US have the death penalty. How is that relevant to the discussion? I never said I liked the US much, but that's completely beside the point. Just because other people do it as well, people with an better economy even, does not make it "less bad" or "ok." Nor does it prove that there is any sense in the death penalty. Instead of talking about one bad, you pointed out another. That's great, but not relevant. Moving on:

I was just showing you how Turkey has a long long way to go still. The fact that my dad, a detective, can't stop Dutch-Turkish parents taking their daughter to Turkey to be killed because she behaved too "Dutch" and put shame on the family seems a good reason to keep them out of the EU for a while longer. It would be a shame if they had to kill a whole generation of young girls because they behaved too "European." Although there are parts of Turkey that have advanced greatly, the countryside, sadly, is lagging behind a bit.

Leonie
21-09-2006, 11:00 AM
I wouldn't call it a migrant problem, as these girls are often sent back to the remaining family in Turkey. It's great that you believe this is a rare phenomenon and that you can honestly tell me that, but I can honestly tell you that you obviously don't have a father who is legally helpless to help girls that he knows will be killed by their family if we let them leave the country. It happens, and it happens a lot more often than we would like to know. Conviction of these kin-murderers is rare, because the two legal systems involved differ quite significantly and don't work together very well. These are Turkish people killing their Turkish expat girls that have Turkish passports.

Also, one big difference between the death penalty, as wrong as it may be, and a terrorist attack/religous murder is that the death penalty is exactly that, a penalty. A punishment for someone who's done something wrong - big time. You don't get sentenced to death for stealing a loaf of bread or insulting someone's religion. It's still a punishment that's too harsh, to my mind, but it's a punishment for someone we truly believe has committed the atrocious crime for which he stands trial. I think a comparison between the death penalty in the US and any sort of murdering in the Middle East therefore equals comparing apples and oranges.

You do realise that there are a shitload of rich little oil states that nevertheless spawn terrorists, right? I mention a Bin Laden from Saudi Arabia. He might be somewhat familiar.

You are right that Turkey would not be allowed to be part of the EU if it didn't fit the EU way of life. Turkey isn't a part of the EU, and its wish to join is a point of heated debate among the EU government. I rest my case.

acliff
21-09-2006, 12:04 PM
( The Pope is a German feeling bad about shooting down Allied airplanes during his youth, he therefore understandably hates violence )

Just noticed this...

The people who say the above are fucking retards.
The implication that he hates violence because he felt bad about shooting down allied planes is frankly ridiculous. He's hates violence as he is the Pope. He is the pope because he hates violence. I imagine he hated violence since before he was in the Hitler Youth. Do you think if he enjoyed shooting down allied planes he'd have a shot at pope? Is it lost on you that pretty much ever German man of his age was in the Hitler Youth (unless they were Jewish)
Have you heard of a violence loving pope since the Middle Ages? Do you think in our current political climate, they would have chosen a pope who had a passion for pain?

Leonie
22-09-2006, 01:41 AM
If it is a migration problem, then how come this mostly happens to girls whose family is originally from the Turkish countryside? The cities have advanced greatly, but killing girls because they have brought shame on the family still happens, and not just to girls who lived outside Turkey. Secondly, it happens in Turkey, and the Turkish government isn't doing anything about it, nor are they aiding the Dutch or any other government in their attempts to stop it.

The Turkey you are thinking of is the geographically western part, that has become fairly European. The poor countryside is a lot more staunchly religious still, and not nearely modernised as you would like to think. Perhaps the government are putting in a lot of effort to make into the EU, but mostly because of the economical benefits, not because they feel they are part of the cultural unity that is the EU (or was, until recently). Their culture is vastly different. A government's money-agenda does not prove anything about the people's mindset.

I hope you enjoy living in a world where we are the only people censuring ourselves, or taking responsibility and keeping in mind the ridiculous abuse of single sentences while religious fanatics slate us on a daily basis.

I refuse to.

deviljet88
22-09-2006, 10:28 AM
Think about the poor Africans (http://www.little-gamers.com/comics/00001439.jpg)

hasselbrad
22-09-2006, 01:43 PM
Since we're on the topic of "freedom of speech", what do you think of what Chavez said about Bush?


Can you blame stupidity out of ignorance, when we are the ones provoking it?

This would be a valid point if there weren't mullahs actively inciting people to acts of violence. Fact is, if most of these people are as backward and unsophisticated as you say, the Pope's comments would have sailed over their heads and not been given a second thought.

Leonie
22-09-2006, 01:48 PM
Dude, I don't have fucking freedom of speech if people like you tell me that any psycho muslim freaking out over an insult will threaten to bomb my house means I can't say what I want to say.

We're not a charity, we're trying to survive. I'm not trying to make friends, I'm trying to defend my standards of living - the very standards you say would make all the difference in the Middle East and Africa.

I have no obligations towards anyone so unwilling to cooperate. It may be ignorence, it may be downright evilness, but either way, I will not suffer for it. I certainly won't be insulted by muslim leaders only to keep mum as to not further escalate the situation. That is madness. There's being a victim, and there's playing the victim card for too fucking long. They have money to build bombs and buy plane tickets to hijack a plane to kill thousands. It's time to put that money into taking care of ones own people, so their pride will be preserved and they will not feel put down by the West, as one of the five pillars of Islam says a good Muslim should, and thus build up their own country.

Religion is being used as an excuse to nuke us. I'm not putting up with it any longer. By now, the Islam has become a violent religion. This does not mean that all Muslims practice violence, it mainly means that within the Muslim society, too little is done to stop or even stop condoning it.

I'm not going to feel sorry for anyone who's more than willing to nuke me and my country and defy what it stands for. It's as simple as that.

I'm not a victim, unless I give into this utter bullshit about keeping mum to avoid offending. When you tell me to, that's when you turn us all into victims.

deviljet88
22-09-2006, 02:13 PM
Fact is, if most of these people are as backward and unsophisticated as you say, the Pope's comments would have sailed over their heads and not been given a second thought.

As the cultured and sophisticated West, we give Islamic leaders' outrage of America's evilness second thoughts? I thought we just tossed it into the lunatic trash comment pile and moved on with our lives as best as we could.

hasselbrad
22-09-2006, 05:16 PM
As the cultured and sophisticated West, we give Islamic leaders' outrage of America's evilness second thoughts? I thought we just tossed it into the lunatic trash comment pile and moved on with our lives as best as we could.
We do, until something blows up.

And, we have an extreme, left-wing element in this country that believes everything they hear from al-Jazeera.
And yet, George W. Bush could say grass is green and they'd call him a liar.

hasselbrad
22-09-2006, 06:48 PM
From what I gathered from this, it is not the first time this happens. In the beginning of this year Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, compared Chavez to Hitler and said that Washington was considering invading Venezuela and that the country therefore needed more weapons to defend itself.

“I mean, we’ve got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money,” Rumsfeld added. “He’s a person who was elected legally — just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally — and then consolidated power and now is, of course, working closely with Fidel Castro and Mr. Morales and others.”

He compares his ascension and consolidation of power to Hitler's, because it's historically accurate. However, instead of blitzing his neighbors militarily, he buys them off with cheap oil.
Show me (on a legitimate site...not some left wing blog) where Rumsfeld said we are planning to invade Venezuela. Chavez has been rattling his saber about this as an excuse to buy military gear from Russia.
American propaganda? You need to stop believing Venezuelan propaganda.
The man pals around with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map with a nuclear strike...and yet, can't understand why the UN thinks his nuclear program might not just be for power production...and Fidel Castro, who turned a vibrant, culturally significant nation into a decaying backwater.

Fucking hell...Nancy Pelosi called Chavez a thug for his remarks and the way he's been running that country.

The only thing you can do is make that mullah less important for the crowd and the only way to do that is by changing their economical / political situation. Take a way the need for a mullah, take a way the need for religion.

Have at it. How would you go about doing this?

acliff
22-09-2006, 07:03 PM
Blah blah bullshit

Firstly use statistics when you're talking to thick people who get impressed by % and : signs. The relevance of someone dying from a heart attack and a terrorist attack is extremely minimal. If you are going to compare, one of them you have the power to prevent, although you might just be unlucky. The other one is preventable only by other people.
If you have a heart attack, who's going to televise it? Who's going to claim it as a victory against the west? Unless God is calling Jihad on your ventricles, I think your use of statistics to back up your argument is ridiculous.

If you were living in a city which was a Terrorist target, would you still have the opinions that you seem to show? If you or friends and family were victims in a terrorist attack, or affected by it in any way, would you think the same way?

As you're talking about a wealth divide, i'll use the analogy of a rich man feeling sorry for the people on welfare and saying he understands, while he dines on a prime fillet steak that he later complains wasn't quite medium rare.

I don’t see a problem censoring everything that could be used as anti propaganda against us by incompetent religious dictatorships in the middle east. You still be able to live your luxurious live and the already nil chance that you’ll die in a terrorist attack will reduce even further. Really, what’s the problem with being the smarter one of the two? What is so hard in not publishing Mohamed cartoons, in not referring to the Islam in a negative way in a speech?'

Not smarter, more fearful. While you will no doubt be happy living forever in your own little idealistic world, let me bring you the undeniable fact that if you introduce censorship, extremists will find smaller and smaller more trivial things to target. 'You denied an muslim child from buying alcohol. You have effectively pissed on Muhammed's grave, and therefore we call Jihad! Underage? We married her off when she was 12!'
etc.

You do not seem to grasp the idea, that extremists are looking for a reason to attack their so called enemies. They will NEVER, EVER be happy. If you give them everything they want, will they stop demanding? Can we give them everything they want? Its a possibility, but that would mean sacrificing our own freedoms and destroying our own way of life.
There are muslims in England forcefully complaining that women aren't covering themselves in the streets. There are muslims walking up to women breastfeeding their children and shouting vehemently to them that they have no shame, and they deserve to burn in hell for displaying themselves like that in public. I don't know about you, but I doubt anyone could make those muslims happy. And they're the mild ones who aren't the ones who are off suicide bombing.

I do not care about the economics and politics of it all. It seems fairly clear to me. There are quite a few Islamic terrorists. Despite suicide bombers, their numbers do not seem to be decreasing. They are obviously getting funding from somewhere. If there are a group of people who are using your Religion, and your beliefs in order to murder people, then surely it is YOUR responsiblity as much as anyone elses to root them out, and tell the world 'here they are, we hate them as much as you do, we do not associate ourselves with them, deal with them how you will'. That seems logical yes?
How is it that every extremist leader and potential suicide bomber has been apprehended/shot/smoked out by America and Britain's allies?

I think muslim communities are not doing as much as they can. They are not stopping the cash flow that funds terrorism. Some of them may be actively allowing it. Either way, you can release press releases condemning someone's actions, but unless you act instead of talk, nothing is going to get better.

Your solution is to change the economy and politics situation of countries? You do realise these extremists do not care about their countries, they care about 'the attacks against their religion'. This is not Palestine bombing things due to land disputes. These are people who commit terrorism because they want it all. Suicide bombing is for sure not a sign of compromise.

Leonie
23-09-2006, 12:41 AM
What he said.

A few things:

"Exactly we’re just trying to defend the unfair hypocrite balance of wealth in this world."

Have you never heard of Darwin, or are you just an unconvincing flower child? If you're waiting for a fair world, you'll be waiting forever. It doesn't work like that, and I think you know.

"Terrorism is something that always excited and will always keep exciting. We’ve had the Ira in Ireland, we’ve had the Eta in Spain, we even have organisations that blow up Mac Donald’s because they protect the animals rights (ALF – animal liberation front). It’s nothing new, it’s nothing Muslim specific. Globalisation only brought it on a world scale and media took it further than ever in to your living room."

Globalisation effectively started in 1492. Your argument is ridiculous.

The IRA, like Israel & Palestine, are part of a conflict based on land. Their land, more specifically. Same goes for the ETA, who at least have the decency to realise average Joes aren't part of the dispute and announce their attacks, thus minimising the number of victims they make. Their targets are politicians and police officers. Even I can see the relative "fairness" of that as a daughter of the latter. These organisations have nothing in common with people calling for a religious war for no reason other than that we don't abide by their rules.

cmrobin21
23-09-2006, 12:57 AM
Keep it comin' boys. I love watching you two go back and forth. Really.

Just wish I had something intelligent and/or witty to add to the topic at hand. Oh, well. Carry on...

Emo is right, I can't add anything, but it's a good read!

AureaMediocritas
23-09-2006, 07:42 PM
Just noticed this...

The people who say the above are fucking retards.

Absolutely, retards. If meant seriously.

As for the rest of the discussion, it seems to me that the hardline approach to the problem is very well propagated as desireable by mostly right wing media, and therefore "politically correct", and yet to my mind the Islamic faith is just as violent as any other religion. I believe that you do not have to be an Islam expert to know that a great deal of Muslims are rather poor people, whereas the majority of the so-called Christians are rather wealthy.

In fact, the communicative "methods", and the ability of being critical, of poor people being less sophisticated than the ones of rich people, any attempt of showing that we Westerners are not impressed by terrorism may well be honourable and courageous, but it does not help our current situation.

Instinctively, considering that after my rough guessing some 70 % of the world population lack the ability of grasping nuances, dialogue with moderate
Islamic factions seems more appropriate to me than the hardline course, alienating the muslim masses and filling the ranks of the "Fighters of God".

A mixture of "left" and "right" wing opinions would do the thing :)

acliff
23-09-2006, 08:15 PM
Absolutely, retards. If meant seriously.

As for the rest of the discussion, it seems to me that the hardline approach to the problem is very well propagated as desireable by mostly right wing media, and therefore "politically correct", and yet to my mind the Islamic faith is just as violent as any other religion. I believe that you do not have to be an Islam expert to know that a great deal of Muslims are rather poor people, whereas the majority of the so-called Christians are rather wealthy.

In fact, the communicative "methods", and the ability of being critical, of poor people being less sophisticated than the ones of rich people, any attempt of showing that we Westerners are not impressed by terrorism may well be honourable and courageous, but it does not help our current situation.

Instinctively, considering that after my rough guessing some 70 % of the world population lack the ability of grasping nuances, dialogue with moderate
Islamic factions seems more appropriate to me than the hardline course, alienating the muslim masses and filling the ranks of the "Fighters of God".

A mixture of "left" and "right" wing opinions would do the thing :)

I would roughly guess that 70% of the world population would have difficulty reading what you've just written. I don't know why, but your way of putting words together really REALLY hurts my eyes.

AureaMediocritas
23-09-2006, 08:49 PM
Goody goody. Although I am certainly not entitled to doubt your stylistic analysis, I would nevertheless suggest we should carry on with our subject.

One thing I forgot to mention is that some of these terrorists do not even have a chance to escape the usual religious indoctrination. They literally do not know anything else than their Holy Book to explain the world. The same thing applies to many younger Muslims who are either naturally dissatisfied with Western culture or frustrated by their modest lives.

Instead of worsening this state by unnecessarily aggressive statements, I personnally would chose the way of dialogue with the moderate faction. Because it remains culturally acceptable for the Muslim community and because its victory would solve the problem for more than a periodic invasion of "evil" countries (which after all solves nothing related to religion).

Leonie
23-09-2006, 11:10 PM
That's all lovely, but not what the thread was about. We've already established that the vast majority of Muslims aren't chucking bombs on our buildings.

We have also established that communication would probably be the way forward, but at the same time, we noted that it is nigh on impossibly to communicate with people without seeming condescending or without having one's words twisted to suit propaganda. We cannot stop the later, and no matter how careful we are, nitpickers will always find something to be offended about. As long as there are Muslim leaders who abuse their power over people, those who do not *want* to make peace, we stand a snowballs chance in hell of creating peace through communication.

It's fair to say we are in reasonably immediate danger. You don't talk to a bomb. We can't communicate with people while in the back of our mind, we are worried about our people and our safety. Talking to the moderate factions does not solve the problem, because they aren't the ones we're fighting with, they aren't the people who pose a threat. If they are really as moderate as we think, they'll want nothing to do with extremists as well, so they can't pass the message on either.

So, although your post is nice, it's hardly workeable.

AureaMediocritas
24-09-2006, 04:41 PM
I like your comparison with the snowball chance in hell :) .

Quite frankly, I fully understand that it is hard to escape the culture shock logic we are being taught almost everyday, but practical examples are rather encouraging. Just take big cities like Paris or London whose Muslim population is important in number. To my knowledge and practical experience, human relationships with those people are not bad, since they are so to say "integrated", speak the language and behave just like any other average citizen.
Therefore, it seems to me that their religion is no impediment to a decent attitude towards the democraties they live in; with all the positive consequences this involves. You can easily transpose this to an overwhelming majority of Muslims (who did not protest).

seventhson
25-09-2006, 12:58 PM
Please pray for Peace?

"Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See said Benedict's address to the envoys should end to the anger over the pontiff's remarks on Islam and violence.

"The Holy Father stated his profound respect for Islam. This is what we were expecting," said Iraqi envoy Albert Edward Ismail Yelda as he left the half-hour meeting. "It is now time to put what happened behind and build bridges."

hasselbrad
25-09-2006, 01:06 PM
One thing I forgot to mention is that some of these terrorists do not even have a chance to escape the usual religious indoctrination. They literally do not know anything else than their Holy Book to explain the world. The same thing applies to many younger Muslims who are either naturally dissatisfied with Western culture or frustrated by their modest lives.
Actually, this isn't true. Most of these guys have every chance to escape this indoctrination. A majority of terrorists come from middle class backgrounds and study in Western universities. They are, far and away, more educated than the rank and file muslim. Most of their anger is based on the isolation they feel on these campuses. Of course, rather than an introspective look at their own unwillingness to assimilate, they blame Western culture for not bending to their religious beliefs, thus, they become easy prey for terrorist organizations.

hasselbrad
05-11-2006, 02:41 AM
He compares his ascension and consolidation of power to Hitler's, because it's historically accurate. However, instead of blitzing his neighbors militarily, he buys them off with cheap oil.
Show me (on a legitimate site...not some left wing blog) where Rumsfeld said we are planning to invade Venezuela. Chavez has been rattling his saber about this as an excuse to buy military gear from Russia.
American propaganda? You need to stop believing Venezuelan propaganda.
The man pals around with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has vowed to wipe Israel off the map with a nuclear strike...and yet, can't understand why the UN thinks his nuclear program might not just be for power production...and Fidel Castro, who turned a vibrant, culturally significant nation into a decaying backwater.

Fucking hell...Nancy Pelosi called Chavez a thug for his remarks and the way he's been running that country.


Sorry for the double post and quoting myself, but this story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061105/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/venezuela) caught my attention. Chavez is beginning to look more and more like Hitler with every passing day.

AureaMediocritas
05-11-2006, 02:39 PM
Speaking of Hitler... If one actually tends to believe these evil subversive despicable multiplying movies analyzing the September 11 2001 attacks by mere observation and gathering of interviews combined with facts, one gets this :
the analogy between Adolf (whose people believed him absolutely through the
lovely action of the "media") and Georgie (whose adherents believe him absolutely through the lovely action of the "impartial media") is quite apparent.
Simulated attack on Gleiwitz radio station + Simulated attack on WTC = Psychological attack on their own people + Goal reached legitimately.

At first I regarded this as stupid lunacy, but the more I think of it, the more it
seems to fit into everything happening afterwards.
"Notstandsgesetz" - "Patriot Act"
Who says a government consists of saints ?

Right. Sorry for the interruption. No need to reflect upon this further.

hasselbrad
05-11-2006, 05:29 PM
It depends what terrorists you're speaking of. The ones from the attacks in New york, Spain, London... 'are' ('are' if we can believe what the media/governments are telling us). The terrorists in Palestine/Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan,... are not.

From what i gathered about it, they all have two things in common, they are young (impressionable) and believe in Allah.

Wow. Just...wow. It's not like these guys are figments of our collective imagination. There's security video evidence of them boarding planes. They were known threats whose names appeared on different lists of such characters in law enforcement agencies around the world.
Do you really think this could just be made up?

That's something you have to explain me, because it don't see it. The only thing i see is a leader that is not very found of the USA and its foreign arrogant politics.

Did you read the article? He is strong-arming voters.

Speaking of Hitler... If one actually tends to believe these evil subversive despicable multiplying movies analyzing the September 11 2001 attacks by mere observation and gathering of interviews combined with facts, one gets this :
the analogy between Adolf (whose people believed him absolutely through the
lovely action of the "media") and Georgie (whose adherents believe him absolutely through the lovely action of the "impartial media") is quite apparent.
Simulated attack on Gleiwitz radio station + Simulated attack on WTC = Psychological attack on their own people + Goal reached legitimately.

At first I regarded this as stupid lunacy, but the more I think of it, the more it
seems to fit into everything happening afterwards.
"Notstandsgesetz" - "Patriot Act"
Who says a government consists of saints ?

Right. Sorry for the interruption. No need to reflect upon this further.

You're kidding me, right?
Are you really going to compare a staged attack on a radio station in 1939 with September 11th?
That's not apples and oranges.
That's apples and orangutans.
Dressing up some SS troops as Poles and staging an attack in an era when radio was a relatively new medium and most news was disseminated via newspapers and, more importantly, word of mouth is a far cry from staging the kind of coordinated attack that unfolded on September 11th, pretty much in front of our eyes.
If you want to see how ridiculous the conspiracy theories are, take a look at the conspiracy episode of Penn & Teller's Bullshit!. Anyone who can take the "evidence" that the conspiracy theorists present seriously, especially in the face of what actual experts say about what happened, has simply lost touch with reality. Every "smoking gun" that they present has the bullets removed and is holstered by experts who can actually use science and knowledge to explain what happened.

hasselbrad
05-11-2006, 06:57 PM
No, I dont think the planes flew in the WTC towers by themselves.
The only thing Im saying is that they can say whatever they want about the identity of the terrorists. They can tell you what ever they want and thats a fact.
Its also has little to do with the point I wanted to make.



Its election time in Venezuela, doesnt that make you a little more critical for all the crap you hear/read/see in the media? That article is exactly the same sort of crap we now get to see about the States and their (pre-)elections by the way! I hoped you would be a little more critical for this electoral crap.

And other than that, Chavezs isnt really doing the USAs economy good is he?
No wonders the states try to do everything possible to put him in a bad day light.

What crap?
They have videotape of him/his campaign threatening the jobs of workers of a government run agency. And now, he's trying to throw the election results into question by blaming the evil George Bush and all of his minions that are trying to steal the election. Nice strategy. If he loses, all he has to do is whip the country into a frenzy by blaming some imaginary bogeyman...kind of like Hitler did with the Jews.

Your absolute, unyeilding bias against the United States really does border on insanity. :dontknowa

hasselbrad
05-11-2006, 07:56 PM
First of all it was NOT Chavez.

Secondly, I would love to see the tape, really i'd love to hear the exact words used by Rafael Ramizer.

When the pope makes a speech, that gets abused by fundamentalists you're the first one to say "his speech is taken out of the context, the Muslim world is overreacting". Were is your criticisms now!?

Your selective lack of criticism stuns me hasselbrad.

I'm wondering if you're as critical for all the republican scandals going on in your own country at the moment. Or is it all overreacting and democratic propaganda eh!?

Electoral crap Hasselbrad, don't fall for it.

Oh, and I'm still wondering what Hitler had to do with it.

I know it wasn't Chavez directly. My point was that it was his campaign.
Here's a recording of the speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or1jxx45Ki4). It's not very good, but feel free to translate it.

Nice straw man comparing it to what I said about the Pope's speech. Of course, this speech was given in an attempt to coerce employees to vote a certain way. The Pope's speech was simply used by mullahs to inflame the anger of the masses.

Lecture me all you want about propaganda while swallowing the Chavez propaganda hook, line and sinker.

If you can't see how this relates to Hitler's election and subsequent consolodation of power, you haven't paid very close attention to history.

To be honest with you, I'm pretty embarrassed by the entire landscape of American politics at the moment. But I'd take anything, Democrat or Republican, over the sort of power grab that Chavez has been involved in since he came to power.

AureaMediocritas
05-11-2006, 10:22 PM
You're kidding me, right?

I am afraid I am not.
What I was trying to suggest ( I cannot prove I am right) was that a simulated attack on WTC follows exactly the same scheme as the Gleiwitz "attack". In plain terms : We want to attack the bad bad designated "enemies" but we cannot do it straight away; syphilisation (sorry, my spelling error) needs us to legitimate... hmm what to do what to do ? :) Lets pretend we are under attack :) Damn I am good today...
Hey you, SS guy (please do not see an analogy to SECRET SERVICE there , that would be FULLY freaking wrong !!! American "honor" excludes this theory in advance, as we all well know), assemble me a nice little commando group. Oh well, and take somebody out of a concentration camp... we dont want to lose a good German (WTC employees regularly working, hm possibly not ?).

Terrorist (yes the word is identical) attack on Gleiwitz station ! (Lets say in the "Vlkischer Beobachter" )
/ Terrorist attack on WTC ! (on TV, radio, in the papers, inet, everywhere... the effect remains the same)

-The Fhrer : "Ab heute morgen 5.45 Uhr wird zurckgeschossen !"
-His transposition into the future (do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting Bush = Hitler, the former lacks the latters rhethorical skills ;) ) : "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. "
Adolf at least was not as clever as to say hes going to bring "freedom" to the world... a shame, the Germans might have believed him.

Right. I hope you are not offended... it is really not what I wanted. It is only
an alternative which you are entitled to consider for more than 5 seconds as
something different that "bullshit" (a terribly lyrical word) or not.
We are all free in the end, or are we not ? (!?)

As for these horrid conspiracy movies spreading heresy, I doubt that you have ever seen one. I suspect you are merely repeating what CNN or, more accurately perhaps ?, Fox News already told you. Namely, that the governement is not to be contradicted !!!!:icon_ange
Correct me if I suggest you are not being objective.

:wave:

hasselbrad
06-11-2006, 03:30 PM
Do you speak Spanish Hasselbrad? If i told you this guy was telling a bad joke could you say I'm wrong? If i said this even isn't the interview that is referred to in the article, could you prove me wrong?


No, but I'm sure there would be plenty of bloggers contradicting the reports, and after several Google searches, I can't find anyone doing so. I have, however followed Venezuelan politics enough to know that Chavez has seen fit to consolidate his power, block recall attempts and create para-military organizations outside of any authority except his. I'm sure people in Venezuela's private sector are less than eager to see him re-elected.
And, on a side note, I wouldn't be surprised to see some sort of Reichstag-esque fire or disturbance prior to the upcoming elections so he has an excuse to postpone/cancel them. On that note...

I am afraid I am not.
What I was trying to suggest ( I cannot prove I am right) was that a simulated attack on WTC follows exactly the same scheme as the Gleiwitz "attack". In plain terms : We want to attack the bad bad designated "enemies" but we cannot do it straight away; syphilisation (sorry, my spelling error) needs us to legitimate... hmm what to do what to do ? :) Lets pretend we are under attack :) Damn I am good today...
Hey you, SS guy (please do not see an analogy to SECRET SERVICE there , that would be FULLY freaking wrong !!! American "honor" excludes this theory in advance, as we all well know), assemble me a nice little commando group. Oh well, and take somebody out of a concentration camp... we dont want to lose a good German (WTC employees regularly working, hm possibly not ?).

Terrorist (yes the word is identical) attack on Gleiwitz station ! (Lets say in the "Vlkischer Beobachter" )
/ Terrorist attack on WTC ! (on TV, radio, in the papers, inet, everywhere... the effect remains the same)

-The Fhrer : "Ab heute morgen 5.45 Uhr wird zurckgeschossen !"
-His transposition into the future (do not get me wrong, I am not suggesting Bush = Hitler, the former lacks the latters rhethorical skills ;) ) : "Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. "
Adolf at least was not as clever as to say hes going to bring "freedom" to the world... a shame, the Germans might have believed him.

Right. I hope you are not offended... it is really not what I wanted. It is only
an alternative which you are entitled to consider for more than 5 seconds as
something different that "bullshit" (a terribly lyrical word) or not.
We are all free in the end, or are we not ? (!?)

As for these horrid conspiracy movies spreading heresy, I doubt that you have ever seen one. I suspect you are merely repeating what CNN or, more accurately perhaps ?, Fox News already told you. Namely, that the governement is not to be contradicted !!!!:icon_ange
Correct me if I suggest you are not being objective.

:wave:

It's funny that you bring up the Secret Service. I have a friend who works for the Secret Service in Frankfurt, and he says it's the strangest thing, but many Germans are utterly convinced that September 11th was a plot by the U.S. government and that the Israelis were involved.
And yet, stranger still, there is a collective blank space in many Germans' memory when it comes to the 1930s and 1940s, almost as if the Nazi party never exisited.
How very odd.

As for where I gather my information, you couldn't be further off base. There's actually a small gnome named Francis living by my left ear drum that gives me all the news I need.
:icon_lol:

Seriously though, I watch/listen to various outlets. It's remarkable how differently Fox News will report a story as opposed to CNN. If new housing starts are up, Fox will report it and extol the fact that it's an indicator of good economic things to come. CNN will report that new hosing starts are up, but that sales of existing homes are down and that prices for existing homes have dropped. And, amazingly enough, both will have economists that support the networks prevailing spin. I read the newspaper and pick through weekly news magazines and I scan the internet. I listen to 88.5 WMNF (a decidedly anti-Bush, left wing community radio station) on a regular basis. I like to look at blogs from both sides of the political spectrum and pick out the areas where bloggers are playing fast and loose with the facts.
I really need to start playing golf again. ;)

As for the comparison of 9/11 to the staged attacks along the Polish border by the German army, the scale and scope are far too different. First off, the "attacks" in Germany were carried out by the military. The military chain of command, especially in an army as professional and well trained as the German army was, would provide the sort of cover that an operation like this would require. Soldiers wouldn't question their superiors when ordered to stage an attack, and quite frankly, were probably eager for a fight in the first place.
Our military simply doesn't have the same discipline. People would talk.
And, contrary to those who believe the Bush Regime has the heel of its totalitarian/fascist/Satan's minions boot on the throat of America, we still have two houses of Congress and the Judicial branch to check his power grab. The one part of the Bush = Hitler equation that doesn't quite add up is the lack of power consolidation. Would Bush like to have a stacked Congress? You betcha...but the reality is the Republicans are probably going to lose control of Congress after tomorrow's election.

I've watched several documentaries on PBS and Discovery about 9/11. I have not seen Fahrenheit 9/11 all the way through, but rather in disparate chunks. That said, anyone who takes what Michael Moore says as the gospel should really shy away from criticizing anyone's fact gathering process. I've seen his previous work, and to call it "documentary" is really an insult to those who make true documentary films. He's a cut and paste "artist" who tailors his footage to dictate to an audience exactly what he wants them to think.
I've also taken a look at a lot of the other conspiracy theories online, and they all have the same holes. What it boils down to are a bunch of people making tenuous connections with fragments of disparate information. Jimmy Walter is the most prominent, and possibly the least stable, mentally. He bases much of his theory on the material that "explodes" outward as each tower begins to pancake. Nevermind the fact that several experts in the field of demolition and/or engineering state that what is seen on the video is what happens when the structure of a building fails. Walter points to the debris as absolute, concrete evidence that the building was brought down intentionally with preset explosives. As does a janitor from the WTC. He claims he heard explosions that he knew couldn't be from airplanes hitting the building. How a janitor knows this for a fact, is beyond me, but he insists, to anyone who'll listen, that those buildings were brought down by explosives.
If there is a conspiracy, and by that, I mean any American involvement in what happened whatsoever, it would have to be in clandestine, black-ops circles that make the CIA look like the Boy Scouts. But then, what would be their motive? A large scale ground war disrupts their world.
All of the conspiracy theories, at their heart, are attempts to cull sanity from chaos. It's very uncomfortable to look at something like Pearl Harbor, the JFK assassination and/or September 11th and think that it's possible for the government to have failed so miserably. It's more comforting, for some, to explain it through some deep, dark conspiracy, because if we can shine some light on it, maybe we can prevent it from ever happening again.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed. I'm at work and the interruptions are non-stop.
;)

AureaMediocritas
06-11-2006, 05:26 PM
Good :) .

Anway, I now recall one movie of that sort that particularly convinced me.
I think it is called "Call to reopen". You may like its entirely apolitical tone and quite a lovely stack of arguments that are convincing more by demonstration that by testimonies (that you stated, and which of course are not enough to justify a theory of explosive detonations inside the buildings).
The shit is, I doubt that it is easy to get it for you... damn ;) .

As for the rest of what you wrote, I think we will not reach an agrement because we have different mentalities ;) .
Just one thing. Considered seriously... do you believe that in theory a government such as the current one would not have the theoretical means to stage it ? Is the possibility of such a conspiracy given ?
Talking only about the possibility, I only know that heck yeah it is given.
This alone, makes me consider these sometimes rather gloomy theories with a part of interest- problem is, everything they say is not wrong... it is correct, and understandable in the way they put it.

That is all I have to say... I think I am wasting way too much time arguying around hihi :xmas: .

hasselbrad
06-11-2006, 06:48 PM
Good :)
Just one thing. Considered seriously... do you believe that in theory a government such as the current one would not have the theoretical means to stage it ? Is the possibility of such a conspiracy given ?


Is it a possibility? Yes. From the office of the President? No.
Like I said, if there was U.S. involvement, it would be on a level that would be so covert, the men who pulled off the attacks would have thought they were doing it for al Qaeda.
As for what I really think happened...we got caught with our pants down.