Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel. It is our first bullwark against the greatest evil the world has ever known, and I support Israel as vigourously as I support the defense of the US.
No can refute dino's points? How typical.
I always found it interesting that as much as Republicans of the Limbaugh variety love to indulge in tough-talk and "Political Incorrectness" because it makes them feel like the testosterone-gushing bad asses they never were in real life, the foreign policy link to 9/11 is sort of like their Political Correctness Achilles heel. This is where they become the mirror-image of the ultra-PC liberals of their imagination--the ones who absolutely deny racial differences in crime rates or the gay vulnerability to HIV, for example. Just observe neo-conservatives and their sympathizers in their TV appearances, and you will see that they are never more uncomfortable than in a discussion about foreign policy and it's link to 9/11. That's because the evidence is so overwhelming--and their own positions so untenable and unable to withstand the daylight of open debate--that the only thing forcing them to hold onto their absurd position is ego, national or personal. It's the only sort of debate where they are visibly trying to change the subject and digressing, in sharp contrast to their seeming addiction to butting heads with their liberal detractors. Ron Paul confronted them on their own turf in 2007, Republican Presidential primary debate, in South Carolina, and hosted by Fox News no less--and he humiliated the man who acts as if he was the first and biggest victim on 9/11. Another example is Pete Dominick going on Opie & Anthony and he pushed the same argument and as charged-up as the 2 hosts were about his argument they were completely ineffective at anything but expressing how much it upsets them (you can find it all on YouTube). When Chris Matthews took Rick Lazio to task (also on Youtube) for attacking the Manhattan Imam for his 9/11-foreign policy comments he left Lazio such a demoralized mess you couldn't help feel bad for him. When it comes to foreign policy and 9/11, many Republican will tell you flat out that they're not interested because such dangerous thinking is offensive and "blame America first" (codeword for blame America ever). It's amazing how it completely goes over their heads that they're behaving no differently than a social liberal insisting that the only way you can be tolerant is to categorically deny any racial differences in crime rates, something very few liberals or minorities I'm aware of actually do. On the other hand it seems that upward of 90% of Republicans angrily insist that the hijackers attacked us because they hate "democracy & titties" (or "infidels" if you find the need to sound tough).
I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel. It is our first bullwark against the greatest evil the world has ever known, and I support Israel as vigourously as I support the defense of the US.
Jesus Christ you are a walking contradiction. They are a bullwark against the greatest evil? WHAT EVIL? Your whole OP is about how wonderful Islam is.
I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel.
I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel. It is our first bullwark against the greatest evil the world has ever known, and I support Israel as vigourously as I support the defense of the US.
Jesus Christ you are a walking contradiction. They are a bullwark against the greatest evil? WHAT EVIL? Your whole OP is about how wonderful Islam is.
Israel is not under attack by people throwing the Koran, theHawk. The faith of Islam is not inextricably tied to the Middle East conflict nor terrorism...it is just a religion, and people in the US who choose to believe that-a-way have all the same civil rights as you and I.
Nuances can be your friend, yanno. No need to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is there?
Israel is not under attack by people throwing the Koran, theHawk. The faith of Islam is not inextricably tied to the Middle East conflict nor terrorism...it is just a religion, and people in the US who choose to believe that-a-way have all the same civil rights as you and I.
Nuances can be your friend, yanno. No need to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, is there?
Are you kidding? Are you prepared to say Judaism isn't inextricably tied to Zionism and the existance of Israel? Judaism and Islam may be "just religions", but the fact that those two religions have collided with each other for over a thousand years may have *something* to do with the hostilities in the region.
There is no debate with moving targets, but it would be futile for me to explain to one who neither has a grasp on debate nor on logic.No can refute dino's points? How typical.
....
Madeline has an inside source - the voices in her head.Is Madeline a card carrying member of Wikileaks now?
Concerned Americans who want to see school records and a birth certificate are called insane. People who demand classified national security documents are called what?
Rhetorical question of course.
Good God, you really just said that?I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel. It is our first bullwark against the greatest evil the world has ever known, and I support Israel as vigourously as I support the defense of the US.
Jesus Christ you are a walking contradiction. They are a bullwark against the greatest evil? WHAT EVIL? Your whole OP is about how wonderful Islam is.
.... The faith of Islam is not inextricably tied to the Middle East conflict nor terrorism...
....
I agree, except that the land belongs to the Israelis because the whole world NEEDS Israel. It is our first bullwark against the greatest evil the world has ever known, and I support Israel as vigourously as I support the defense of the US.
I don't think the land "belongs" to anyone in that neither side should be forbidden from living in that area, but the Israelis don't want to acknowledge that the other side has an equal claim to the land--they see them as unwelcome intruders despite being there since time immemorial. And when you say "support Israel" you're being awfully vague, why the evasiveness? Do you support funding and arming the occupation forever and ever, protecting settlements like Hebron where 600 violent uzi-toting Jewish jihadists live among a quarter million starving refugees while consuming 85% of the city's water? Or do you mean protecting Israel's security against its neighbors, which only a half-sane person could ever realistically see as threatened? South Korea is under an infinitely greater existential threat from a far more capable and close foe, and we somehow managed to allow them to prosper as a tech-savvy liberal democracy without the need to keep millions of people under brutal foreign military occupation that creates a living environment so hellish it inevitably produces monsters. This whole shifty sophistry with the use of the word "support" is the same as the "support our troops" bullshit during the first Gulf War. I'm not a fan of everything Chomsky writes but he hit the nail right on the head with this quote from that time:
"Suppose somebody asks, do you support the people in Iowa, can you say I support them or no I don't support them. It's not even a question it doesn't even mean anything. And that's the point of public relations slogans like support our troops is that they don't mean anything, they mean as much as whether you support the people in Iowa.
"Of course there was an Issue -- the issue was do you support our policy but you don't want people to think about the issue that's the whole point of good propaganda, you want to create a slogan that nobody is gonna be against and I suppose everybody will be for because nobody knows what it means because it doesn't mean anything, but it's crucial value is it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something. Do you support our policy and that's the one you're not allowed to talk about."
Now can you be more specific as to what "support Israel" means to you?
There is no debate with moving targets, but it would be futile for me to explain to one who neither has a grasp on debate nor on logic.
You are insane.
The faith of Islam is not inextricably tied to Middle East conflict?
You really need to wake up madeline.
Nope. How about our Congressional leaders? The same ones who agreed with Clinton that Iraq had WMD's in the 90's? Should we prosecute them too?
Ummmmm, I did. Post 202.There is no debate with moving targets, but it would be futile for me to explain to one who neither has a grasp on debate nor on logic.
You are insane.
If the holes in my logic are so gapingly obvious then why don't you point them out? ....
The faith of Islam is not inextricably tied to Middle East conflict?
You really need to wake up madeline.
The Judaism practiced in Israel is a lot like the Islam there, unapologetically hostile to the encroachment of other religions. Israel's chief rabbi repeatedly came out in favor of civilian targets and collective punishment, defending them as correct under Jewish law. While in Israel you pretty much have the same personal freedoms as in the West, one major exception is proselytizing which can land you up to 5 years in prison--Christian preaching is strictly limited to the inside of churches. And when you take the al-Qaeda-like nature of the armed Jewish settlers in the West Bank and the various Kahanist splinter movements, you'll see that overall per capita Islam and Judaism produce a comparable percentage of repulsive violent radicals.
In the Middle East all 3 religions are still practiced the old-fashioned way, before the interfaith meetings, marriages, and holiday celebrations that are so common here. They're not always violent, evil, or even angry, but they're particularly 'liberal' either.
Nope. How about our Congressional leaders? The same ones who agreed with Clinton that Iraq had WMD's in the 90's? Should we prosecute them too?
Give it up Madeline. Arrogance about issues that are waaaaaay above our pay grades is not pretty.
There is no debate with moving targets, but it would be futile for me to explain to one who neither has a grasp on debate nor on logic.
You are insane.
If the holes in my logic are so gapingly obvious then why don't you point them out? This whole "you're so ridiculous that I can't even argue back" charade is fooling no one, not even your blockhead fellow teabaggers. As if I'm arguing that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the CIA in conjunction with transsexual martians and the Michelin Man, instead of simply pointing out that in all of bin Laden's propaganda and proselytizing videos especially pre-9/11, he spent the entire time fuming against US foreign policy practices that cause a lot of civilian casualties in the region and piss of whoever we leave alive. As if bin Laden's videos weren't enough, Mohammed Atta's former fellow students in Germany remember his transformation and recall him becoming increasingly enraged specifically at US sponsorship of Israeli occupation and the weekly bombings and suffocating sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, and not "democracy & titties" as Dumbya kept repeating. But in your neocon bizarro-world, all this evidence still doesn't merit a response because as Reagan Treasury undersecretary Paul Craig Roberts said, neo-conservatives believe they have a monopoly on virtue, and anything that offends their imagined virtues (such as suggesting that US foreign policy is occasionally unpleasant and cruel to foreigners) marks you a political enemy.
There is no debate with moving targets, but it would be futile for me to explain to one who neither has a grasp on debate nor on logic.
You are insane.
If the holes in my logic are so gapingly obvious then why don't you point them out? This whole "you're so ridiculous that I can't even argue back" charade is fooling no one, not even your blockhead fellow teabaggers. As if I'm arguing that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the CIA in conjunction with transsexual martians and the Michelin Man, instead of simply pointing out that in all of bin Laden's propaganda and proselytizing videos especially pre-9/11, he spent the entire time fuming against US foreign policy practices that cause a lot of civilian casualties in the region and piss of whoever we leave alive. As if bin Laden's videos weren't enough, Mohammed Atta's former fellow students in Germany remember his transformation and recall him becoming increasingly enraged specifically at US sponsorship of Israeli occupation and the weekly bombings and suffocating sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s, and not "democracy & titties" as Dumbya kept repeating. But in your neocon bizarro-world, all this evidence still doesn't merit a response because as Reagan Treasury undersecretary Paul Craig Roberts said, neo-conservatives believe they have a monopoly on virtue, and anything that offends their imagined virtues (such as suggesting that US foreign policy is occasionally unpleasant and cruel to foreigners) marks you a political enemy.
Funny, you seemed to completely ignore my post that answered your rediculous statement that we conservatives don't want to talk about foreign policy pre-9/11.
Dubya said a lot of stupid things because it was the "politically correct" thing to do. Like his naming it the "War on Terrorism", when it was really a war against Islam that had started.
