People who blame Islam, are cowards!

[Billo_Really]

Fuck all the Muslim bastards. That includes Obama.

Fuck all American's who don't take the time to educate themselves.

 

[October]

I wasn't aware we were bombing Egypt and Yemen.

We supported Mubarak, a tyrannical dictator we sent our renditions to.

And yes, we're bombing Yemen. We even have troops there.

Weak argument, not what you said at all. The truth of the matter is plain and simple and I'm pretty damn liberal too. They hate us because we kiss up to Israel too much. This video was merely a easy excuse to act on.

 

[Billo_Really]

So that means I can blame the President that ordered the bombings that happened in the same country where our Ambassador was killed?

I almost forgot, I hate the Dolphins!

Ever since that double-overtime playoff game against the Chiefs.

 

[Billo_Really]

Weak argument, not what you said at all. The truth of the matter is plain and simple and I'm pretty damn liberal too. They hate us because we kiss up to Israel too much. This video was merely a easy excuse to act on.

Support of Israel is part of it. So is everything else I've said (except the part about the Dolphins).

 

[Billo_Really]

According to Barack HUSSEIN Obama it was all about a movie.... not bombs

All you have to do, is ask yourself what would piss you off more:

- a movie
- or your neighborhood getting bombed by a foreign force​

 

[Meathead]

I can't decide if the OP is simply stupid or if pathology comes into play. Having said that, I realize they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[editec]

I would appreciate it if a foreign government helped topple a dictator that oppressed my people.

You?

 

[dblack]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

This is something I was repeatedly surprised by after 9/11 - and all through the Bush years. It's nearly impossible for some people to view things from the other guy's perspective. This is why Ron Paul still fails to reach so many Republicans on foreign policy. He's made this point repeatedly (often in the face of angry, booing neo-cons, et. al.), asking them "how would you feel if the tables were turned?". Most of them can't, or won't, think about this question rationally.

This is the twisted, ugly misapprehension of "American Exceptionalism", which is more akin to the self-centered attitude of a spoiled child, too often told they are 'exceptional'.

 

[mudwhistle]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

Problem with your silly argument is that we don't murder people over videos, cartoons, or any number of silly reasons.

We aren't taught to murder infidels on sight, or to rape their ambassadors and drag their bodies through the streets.

I really have zero compassion for someone who never showed any for us.

 

[dblack]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

Problem with your silly argument is that we don't murder people over videos, cartoons, or any number of silly reasons.

We aren't taught to murder infidels on sight, or to rape their ambassadors and drag their bodies through the streets.

I really have zero compassion for someone who never showed any for us.

It's not a question of "compassion", just simple intelligence. To bury your head in the sand and pretend that we can act without consequence - regardless of whether you consider the consequences "fair" or not - is foolish. Yet this view forms the core of neo-con foreign policy.

 

[dblack]

I would appreciate it if a foreign government helped topple a dictator that oppressed my people.

You?

Maybe, yeah. But some of my neighbors surely wouldn't. And if the foreigners hung around for years and years afterward, I suspect plenty of gun-toting Americans would start to get pretty irate about it. Can you see how that might work out? Can you see how, even if most of us are simply annoyed by the foreign soldiers marching around "protecting" us, and not interested in getting violent, some of us would come unhinged and resort to crazy stuff? And many of the rest of us might just be fed up enough to go along with it.

I challenge you to think this through. Imagine if Bush had gone off the rails, if 9/11 had been used to usher in martial law and something like a real dictatorship had happened. Even under those circumstances - don't you think a China-backed UN marching in to "restore order" would have been pretty damned hard for us to take? Even if they were perfectly justified and most of us supported their actions, can't you see how a large, potentially violent minority would resist?

 

[mudwhistle]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

Problem with your silly argument is that we don't murder people over videos, cartoons, or any number of silly reasons.

We aren't taught to murder infidels on sight, or to rape their ambassadors and drag their bodies through the streets.

I really have zero compassion for someone who never showed any for us.

It's not a question of "compassion", just simple intelligence. To bury your head in the sand and pretend that we can act without consequence - regardless of whether you consider the consequences "fair" or not - is foolish. Yet this view forms the core of neo-con foreign policy.

I'm afraid that the effects of progressive foreign policy is all over the news today.

 

[manifold]

"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

I wouldn't like it at all.

Were you expecting a different answer?

 

[dblack]

Problem with your silly argument is that we don't murder people over videos, cartoons, or any number of silly reasons.

We aren't taught to murder infidels on sight, or to rape their ambassadors and drag their bodies through the streets.

I really have zero compassion for someone who never showed any for us.

It's not a question of "compassion", just simple intelligence. To bury your head in the sand and pretend that we can act without consequence - regardless of whether you consider the consequences "fair" or not - is foolish. Yet this view forms the core of neo-con foreign policy.

I'm afraid that the effects of progressive foreign policy is all over the news today.

What's the difference?

 

[mudwhistle]

It's not a question of "compassion", just simple intelligence. To bury your head in the sand and pretend that we can act without consequence - regardless of whether you consider the consequences "fair" or not - is foolish. Yet this view forms the core of neo-con foreign policy.

I'm afraid that the effects of progressive foreign policy is all over the news today.

What's the difference?

I fail to see your point.

Do we often go to the streets and murder members of foreign embassies? Do we attack and ransack their property inside their embassy compounds?

I'd like to see links to these sort of attacks in America.

 

[editec]

I would appreciate it if a foreign government helped topple a dictator that oppressed my people.

You?

Maybe, yeah. But some of my neighbors surely wouldn't. And if the foreigners hung around for years and years afterward, I suspect plenty of gun-toting Americans would start to get pretty irate about it. Can you see how that might work out? Can you see how, even if most of us are simply annoyed by the foreign soldiers marching around "protecting" us, and not interested in getting violent, some of us would come unhinged and resort to crazy stuff? And many of the rest of us might just be fed up enough to go along with it.

I challenge you to think this through. Imagine if Bush had gone off the rails, if 9/11 had been used to usher in martial law and something like a real dictatorship had happened. Even under those circumstances - don't you think a China-backed UN marching in to "restore order" would have been pretty damned hard for us to take? Even if they were perfectly justified and most of us supported their actions, can't you see how a large, potentially violent minority would resist?

I didn't think it through because the question offered nothins ELSE to think about but the facts as presented.

Would YOU rather be living under a totalitariarian regime comprised of fellow citizens who are also fascist monsters, or would you prefer if anothr national force put down that regime and replaced it with a fairer and more honest government?

Me?

I'll take a temporary but good government run by foreignors over a horrible regime run by home grown mobsters.

 

[dblack]

It's not a question of "compassion", just simple intelligence. To bury your head in the sand and pretend that we can act without consequence - regardless of whether you consider the consequences "fair" or not - is foolish. Yet this view forms the core of neo-con foreign policy.

I'm afraid that the effects of progressive foreign policy is all over the news today.

What's the difference?

I fail to see your point.

I'm asking, what's the difference between progressive foreign policy and neo-con foreign policy? Apart from the platitudes and speech-making, very little has changed from Bush to Obama.

 

[dblack]

I'll take a temporary but good government run by foreignors over a horrible regime run by home grown mobsters.

You're missing the point. That may be your view. It might be my view. But surely you can understand that many of our countrymen would not agree. People have a natural resentment to outsiders telling them how to live - even if they're right.

The point we're trying to make here - which gets utterly lost in the shrill responses - is NOT that the terrorists and fundamentalist miscreants are justified in doing what they're doing. Just that it's an obvious and predictable reaction to our interference, and we're insane to keep doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different response.

If you listen to what Ron Paul and others are saying - it's not sympathizing with terrorists. It's simply making the point that if they don't appreciate our presence there - with all the benefits that brings - we should get the hell out and leave them to their own devices. Then, if they fuck with us, we bomb them into the stone age. But continuing to meddle in their affairs when it obviously isn't appreciated isn't working.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

When did we bomb Khartoum, Hyderabad, Doha, Cairo, Bangladesh, Mombasa, Jos, Nouakchott, Casablanca, or London? Once you provide examples of America bombing those cities you can claim this is about us bombing their neighborhoods, until then I will continue to point out how stupid it is for anyone to pretend that this is not about them.

 

[hortysir]

If you blame Islam as the only reason for violence against American embassy's, then you are a coward! And I'll prove it right now.


A coward, will not answer the following question...


"How would you like it, if another country, came over and started bombing the shit out of your neighborhood?"

I wasn't aware we were bombing Egypt and Yemen.

Predator Drones are bombing everybody everywhere