[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Banksy! - haresfur - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:25pm
 
Live Music - R_P - Jul 14, 2020 - 6:17pm
 
Joe Biden - maryte - Jul 14, 2020 - 6:14pm
 
Gardeners Corner - JrzyTmata - Jul 14, 2020 - 5:28pm
 
Trump - Steely_D - Jul 14, 2020 - 4:27pm
 
• • • Clownstock • • •  - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 14, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
RPeeps who would have a sense of humor if they were not s... - Proclivities - Jul 14, 2020 - 1:42pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Jul 14, 2020 - 1:20pm
 
kurtster's quiet vinyl - buddy - Jul 14, 2020 - 12:16pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Jul 14, 2020 - 10:15am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - fractalv - Jul 14, 2020 - 8:59am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Steely_D - Jul 14, 2020 - 8:46am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - Steely_D - Jul 14, 2020 - 8:35am
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 8:12am
 
Today in History - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:56am
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:18am
 
Oh, The Stupidity - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:13am
 
What Did You See Today? - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:11am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Proclivities - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:05am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:03am
 
Manbird's Stones - oldviolin - Jul 14, 2020 - 7:01am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jul 14, 2020 - 5:24am
 
What Makes You Laugh? - haresfur - Jul 13, 2020 - 10:46pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jul 13, 2020 - 7:31pm
 
China - R_P - Jul 13, 2020 - 3:53pm
 
Excitable Boy: Zevon biography - buddy - Jul 13, 2020 - 12:32pm
 
Oh GOD, they're GAY! - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2020 - 9:37am
 
Counting with Pictures - ndg - Jul 13, 2020 - 8:56am
 
2020 Elections - Red_Dragon - Jul 13, 2020 - 8:17am
 
Sound clicks on announcements - billyrom - Jul 12, 2020 - 9:08pm
 
Are they married yet? YES THEY ARE! - kcar - Jul 12, 2020 - 8:22pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 12, 2020 - 2:40pm
 
Caretakers Of Our Parents - oldviolin - Jul 12, 2020 - 8:42am
 
Offset between Music and Song/Interpret Text, Silence... - nicolas65 - Jul 12, 2020 - 8:29am
 
Capitalism and Consumerism... now what? - Red_Dragon - Jul 12, 2020 - 8:09am
 
The Dragons' Roost - triskele - Jul 12, 2020 - 6:58am
 
Name My Album - Antigone - Jul 12, 2020 - 5:01am
 
And the good news is.... - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 11, 2020 - 7:32pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Jul 11, 2020 - 6:25pm
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - R_P - Jul 11, 2020 - 3:10pm
 
Canada - R_P - Jul 11, 2020 - 1:10pm
 
New Doves album ‘The Universal Want’ coming in September - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 11, 2020 - 11:00am
 
Religion as Beer - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 11, 2020 - 10:58am
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - Proclivities - Jul 11, 2020 - 10:23am
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Jul 11, 2020 - 6:26am
 
RP streams in Opus - Romain98 - Jul 11, 2020 - 6:10am
 
Bad Poetry - sirdroseph - Jul 11, 2020 - 4:46am
 
AppleTV 4K and Radio Paradise stopping - edz - Jul 10, 2020 - 10:10pm
 
Fox Spews - buddy - Jul 10, 2020 - 5:44pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - edz - Jul 10, 2020 - 2:45pm
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Jul 10, 2020 - 2:29pm
 
Make Scott laugh - kcar - Jul 10, 2020 - 2:29pm
 
Economix - R_P - Jul 10, 2020 - 2:16pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - Red_Dragon - Jul 10, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - ptooey - Jul 10, 2020 - 1:00pm
 
South Korea - islander - Jul 10, 2020 - 12:32pm
 
New Music - miamizsun - Jul 10, 2020 - 12:18pm
 
In My Room - miamizsun - Jul 10, 2020 - 11:58am
 
What the hell OV? - miamizsun - Jul 10, 2020 - 11:54am
 
Cool Stuff I Really Want - Proclivities - Jul 10, 2020 - 10:43am
 
True Confessions - buddy - Jul 10, 2020 - 9:30am
 
TV shows you watch - ScottN - Jul 10, 2020 - 8:22am
 
Constitution - Red_Dragon - Jul 10, 2020 - 7:05am
 
Race in America - sirdroseph - Jul 10, 2020 - 2:57am
 
Removing rated songs - Cache personalization - BillG - Jul 9, 2020 - 8:36pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jul 9, 2020 - 3:40pm
 
Social Networking - R_P - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:54pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Jul 9, 2020 - 12:03pm
 
One Reason I Don't Trust the Police - miamizsun - Jul 9, 2020 - 11:19am
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - ScottFromWyoming - Jul 9, 2020 - 10:32am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - oldviolin - Jul 9, 2020 - 8:53am
 
Ask the Libertarian - Lazy8 - Jul 9, 2020 - 7:40am
 
Dog - kcar - Jul 8, 2020 - 11:13pm
 
Questions. - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 6:49pm
 
Sunrise, Sunset - oldviolin - Jul 8, 2020 - 4:01pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Anti-War Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Post to this Topic
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 1:24pm

 kurtster wrote:


We are supporting Israel, although tacitly right now.

I'm thinking in a period of 5 years or so.  Until we get out, we support Israel unilaterally.  We arm them to the teeth and tell them to figure out how to defend themselves and coexist, if their neighbors allow them.

Then its adios !  The US did not create Israel in the first place.  Again, it is Europe's creation, via the UN.  It is Europe that has originated all the problems in the Middle East.  We didn't colonize it, Europe did.  We have paid whatever the imagined debt to Europe is manifold over.

And your thoughts on returning to the Monroe Doctrine ?

 
1) Done.
2) Done.
3) When pigs become kosher. Or halal.

I don't know what the hell to do over there, frankly. Sure, Israel is a strong ally, but they also have extremists who will not, under any circumstances, including use of force by Israeli security forces, accede to any accommodations with the Palestinians.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 1:14pm

 steeler wrote:


I think I've asked this of you before:

How do you reconcile this position with your postion that we should be supporting Israel?

You made a point in your other post immediately before this one that Romney would be a more reliable supporter of Israel than Obama, implying that you believe that our foreign policy should be to support Israel against its enemies in the Middle East.  Yet, you also advocate our removing ourselves from matters in the Middle East.  

 

We are supporting Israel, although tacitly right now.

I'm thinking in a period of 5 years or so.  Until we get out, we support Israel unilaterally.  We arm them to the teeth and tell them to figure out how to defend themselves and coexist, if their neighbors allow them.

Then its adios !  The US did not create Israel in the first place.  Again, it is Europe's creation, via the UN.  It is Europe that has originated all the problems in the Middle East.  We didn't colonize it, Europe did.  We have paid whatever the imagined debt to Europe is manifold over.

And your thoughts on returning to the Monroe Doctrine ?
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:59pm

 kurtster wrote:

The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.  SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept.  Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world.

I'm not paranoid, just offering my take.  Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't.  If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless.  No worries on my part.  I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else.

But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century.  The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere.  We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over.

Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind.  We've paid for it long enough.  Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.

 

I think I've asked this of you before:

How do you reconcile this position with your postion that we should be supporting Israel?

You made a point in your other post immediately before this one that Romney would be a more reliable supporter of Israel than Obama, implying that you believe that our foreign policy should be to support Israel against its enemies in the Middle East.  Yet, you also advocate our removing ourselves from matters in the Middle East.  
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:52pm

 kurtster wrote:

The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.

...
 
What would happen if a small group of extremists highjacked a religion for political purposes? What if religious fanatics used fundamentalism as a cover to perpetrate violence and oppression? And the government tacitly approved of their actions, by doing nothing to stop the spread of hatred? In fact the government explicitly created laws that discriminated against people based on their religious beliefs. That would be horrible. Good thing it can't happen here in the U.S.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:44pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.

 
The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.  SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept.  Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world.

I'm not paranoid, just offering my take.  Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't.  If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless.  No worries on my part.  I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else.

But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century.  The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere.  We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over.

Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind.  We've paid for it long enough.  Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:14pm

 RichardPrins wrote:

If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.

 

Stop confusing the issue with facts!
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:08pm

 kurtster wrote:


I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...

 

Rather reaching.{#Wink} As usual I agree with RichardPrins.{#Arrowd}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 12:02pm

 sirdroseph wrote:


Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........

 

I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...

These are my assumed givens ... in no particular order.

Jihad is seperate from Islam in the senses I am speaking.
Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus.
Jihadists only respect power.  Negotiation is interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore to be regarded as inferior and the negotiators culled.
Arminajad or however you spell his name is serving his last term in office.
Arminajad seeks to bring the Islamic version of End Times on the world.
He is hell bent of wiping out Israel and will use the bomb as soon as he can.

As long as Obama is in office, there is doubt that the US will back Israel should they elect to act on their own and are highly vulnerable to unchallenged retaliation.  Romney as POTUS clearly represents unwavering support for Israel, making any initial hostile actions towards them less likely.  How much I don't pretend to know, but there would certainly be an effect.

The mullahs in Iran are getting unhappy with A...d and if there is chance to wait him out, that is the best strategy.  The mullahs are looking at him like a loose cannon.  I don't think they really want to bring about End Times.  There is no way we can stop Iran from getting a nuke without a military action and even that is uncertain.  I would prefer to have someone in office who might make the mullahs think twice about it and slow down A....d internally.

Meanwhile, we secure our own energy resources and make us totally independent of the Middle East so when it does go nuclear, we will not suffer immediately and directly.  It becomes Europe, Russia and China's problem as they are the ones dependent on the oil, not us.  We will cut Israel loose, but later rather than sooner.  Eventually Israel will have to stand up for itself.

We need to get back to where the US was at its peak and strongest.  That was when we didn't need the rest of the world, they needed us.

The Monroe Doctrine again comes into play as a guide for our future foreign policy.
All the above is incomplete, oversimplified and broadbrushed.  And it only matters if we can survive our domestic economic problems.

R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:59am

 kurtster wrote:
Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
 
If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?

Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.

If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:20am

 kurtster wrote:


Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.

 

Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 11:13am

 sirdroseph wrote:


If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House.  Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS?  Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.{#Rolleyes}

 

Its a little deeper than 1947.  It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand.  The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US.  The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 10:59am

 kurtster wrote:

I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above.

Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post.  They are always a threat to peace.

Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years.  From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm.  Jihad is sanctioned war.  It is instutionalized.  It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly.  It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented.  It is a fight to the death.

While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within.  Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna.  It is an ideal.  It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely.

It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons.  To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied.  The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years.  Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it.  Same as erasing Israel from the map.

Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak.  There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time.

I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die.

Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole.  I'll let y'all decide ...

 

If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House.  Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS?  Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.{#Rolleyes}
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 10:48am

 islander wrote:

Who do you feel has called for Jihad?  What do you think it would take to satisfy it?  Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?

 
I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above.

Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post.  They are always a threat to peace.

Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years.  From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm.  Jihad is sanctioned war.  It is instutionalized.  It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly.  It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented.  It is a fight to the death.

While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within.  Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna.  It is an ideal.  It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely.

It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons.  To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied.  The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years.  Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it.  Same as erasing Israel from the map.

Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak.  There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time.

I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die.

Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole.  I'll let y'all decide ...
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 24, 2012 - 4:50am

from Anti-War.com...

Informant: NYPD paid me to 'bait' Muslims



NEW YORK (AP) — A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press.

Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests.

"We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater."

Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was "detrimental to the Constitution." After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, "Steve," and his handler's NYPD phone number was disconnected.

Rahman's account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using.

The AP corroborated Rahman's account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants.

Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD's wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques — known informally as "mosque crawlers" — tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime.

The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA.

more...



islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 6:45am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.

 
Who do you feel has called for Jihad?  What do you think it would take to satisfy it?  Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 6:36am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
 
The greatest threat to world peace is economic inequality. There was war long before there was jihad, and there will be war after jihad. Wars, on the other hand, have almost invariably been over economics. 

Jihad is the struggle of Muslims that is either internal or external. Like many things Islam, there are many meanings, from improving your home and community, to the armed struggle against infidels and non-believers. 


sirdroseph

sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:56am

 kurtster wrote:
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.

 

I actually think on the whole Jihad is not really a big deal. At worse they may unleash a bomb here and there. No, the greatest threat does not even involve bombs and military at all, that is an antiquated 20th century way of looking at the world. No the greatest threat is the world economy and currency.{#Yes}


kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:24am

Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.

Jihad does not take prisoners.  All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.

The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
R_P

R_P Avatar



Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 5:18am

 miamizsun wrote:

americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it

it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises

some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence

others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them

those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages

obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along

the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages

human rights? peace? innocent life?

they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...

regards

 
Interestingly, it didn't always use to be this way (see Vietnam). And even stranger when you go further back in time: American Resistance to a Standing Army

Now, apparently, "resistance" is living the atomized good life, keeping your head down and avoiding eye contact.
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Oct 23, 2012 - 4:42am

 RichardPrins wrote:
In Foreign Policy Debate, Romney Capitulates, Agrees With Obama
In Monday’s presidential debate, GOP contender Mitt Romney persistently avoided confronting President Obama on foreign policy issues, with both candidates agreeing on most fundamental issues.

Romney’s ‘Me Too’ Foreign Policy Debate

Kill on...

 
americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it

it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises

some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence

others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them

those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages

obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along

the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages

human rights? peace? innocent life?

they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...

regards
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next