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.
total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.
I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.
Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.
Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.
Have you read the intelligence reports?
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
Bad intelligence?
You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.
""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""
Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.
"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""
Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.
"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""
I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.
Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....
You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).
Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?
Well... now let's see.
Bush followed Clinton, Right?
And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.
And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.
Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!
Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.
SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.
Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.
One can only imagine the outpouring of patriotic sentiments and support from Republicans if a Democrat had been in the White House on 911.
Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.
LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
No of course not. How could the Bush Administration possibly be responsible for anything that happened during the Bush presidency?total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.
I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.
Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.
Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.
Have you read the intelligence reports?
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
Bad intelligence?
You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.
""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""
Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.
"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""
Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.
"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""
I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.
Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....
You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).
Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?
Well... now let's see.
Bush followed Clinton, Right?
And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.
And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.
Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!
Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.
SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.
Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.
One can only imagine the outpouring of patriotic sentiments and support from Republicans if a Democrat had been in the White House on 911.
So you feel that because a Republican being there for 6 months... who replaced the Democrat that had been there for 8 years... removes all responsibility for the policies that lead to the US BEING VULNERABLE TO THE 9-11 ATTACK?
Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.
LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
When some politicians say Bush "protected us from attack"......I wonder what they mean? Looks like he was sleeping on the job on 911.Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.
LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
So you feel that we should rally around the people that set us up; we should run to support... the people that CREATED THE VULNERABILITY TO THAT ATTACK, THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY THAT MADE THE ATTACK POSSIBLE?
What color is the sky in your world?
Understand... and I'm being entirely honest with ya here.
When; on the moment after he was sworn in... when GW did NOT turn toward the Clintons and command: SEIZE THEM!
I knew in my heart that, the United States of America, was finished.
In my mind, that was the last chance we had, to turn this mess around.
And I blame GW for THAT!
And THAT was HUGE!
No of course not. How could the Bush Administration possibly be responsible for anything that happened during the Bush presidency?total bullshit. The whole Iraq fiasco was based on bad intel. The entire world bought into it. Bush did not fabricate it. If anyone fabricated it it was Saddam and the UN.
I understand that you libs have to blame Bush for every bad thing that ever happened in the history of the world, but the blame for this belongs with the intel services of many countries, because they all believed Saddam when he said the he had WMDs and was prepared to use them.
Obama did pull the plug, he ordered our troops out of Iraq when we were very close to stabilizing that screwed up country. He also drew a red line in Syria and then did nothing when it was crossed thereby helping strengthen ISIS.
Now, obama is allowing Putin to take control of the mid east. Face it, obama has been a terrible president.
Have you read the intelligence reports?
Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community’s October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic trade craft, led to the mischaracterization of the intelligence."
Bad intelligence?
You have evidence that was overstated, or didn't have any evidence to back it up. Intel trade craft was essentially missing.
""Let's keep in mind the fact that this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say. The Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about.""
Curveball, an Iraqi who had worked on the Iraqi nuclear program BEFORE 1991. He left Iraq in 1994. What would he know about the program in 2001? Not much. Actually nothing at all. But the US govt still stuck him in front of the Senate.
"The report partially looks at the question of whether pressure was brought to bear on intelligence analysts to get them to shape their assessments to support particular policy objectives. It recounts how Sen. Roberts made repeated public calls for any analysts who believed they had been pressured to alter their assessments to speak with the Committee about their experiences. The Committee also attempted to identify and interview several individuals who had described such pressure in media reports and government documents. The report says that the Committee did not find any evidence that administration officials tried to pressure analysts to change their judgments; however, an evaluation of the Bush Administration's use of intelligence was put off until "phase two" of the investigation. (Several Democratic committee members, although they voted to approve the report's conclusions, expressed reservations on this issue and Republicans also acknowledged that the issue of "pressure" would be examined during phase two; see below, in the discussion of the report's "additional views", for details.)""
Basically there was "pressure" in agents to find what was needed to support the case for war. The Powell Doctrine demands that there is public support for war. How do you make public support? Give them what they want to hear.
"“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.""
I didn't find it in my brief look just now, but I've seen it before, where basically the CIA (I believe) made stuff up and another body didn't, and Bush only bothered listening to the CIA who, conveniently, gave him what he needed while the other body didn't.
Are you telling me this was "bad intel"? Rubbish.....
You want to blame Obama for something that was a mess when Obama took over. You have to remember that ISIS had from 2003 until 2009 to get going, and they did that. By 2009 all they needed was the crisis in Syria (not Iraq where they'd basically been training) to get fully fledged. Bush, had he had a third term would have A) pulled out of Iraq (no president would have stayed, not a single one) and B) wouldn't have invaded Syria (not enough oil, not OPEC not in the US's interests).
Obama is "allowing" Putin to go into a country where Obama isn't the president???? What?
Well... now let's see.
Bush followed Clinton, Right?
And Clinton was the one that slashed and burned the CIA, which is sorta the core of US Foreign Intelligence.
And in so doing, among the numerous restrictions that Clinton set upon the CIA, was the policy wherein the CIA was not allowed to hire operatives, with any sense of a criminal record, thus precluding the means for the CIA to hire those whose job would be lower level functionaries, such as janitors, drivers, stockers, general labor, and the sort of people who individually, have limited access to anywhere, but who collectively have access EVERYWHERE. Thus the policy generally limited the means to of the US Foreign Intelligence to know what those working EVERYWHERE, collectively know.
Now... just to gloat a bit, I said at the time that the policy was treason... that it would severely hamper the means of the US to see what was happening at ground level around the world and sure enough, it fucked us!
Of course the Leftist insurgency will claim that Bush was President in 01, and should have changed the policy... and while that's true, Bush didn't take the office until the end of January and because of the mess created by the departing Clinton Cult... the Bush administration couldn't even get moved into the WhiteHouse until late February... and THAT policy was hardly at the top of anyone's list. What's more, 7 month's is insufficient time to undue YEARS of subversion and setup intelligence operatives throughout the world.
SOooo... please. The Clinton cult set the US up for 9-11... and that's not even a remotely debatable point.
Beyond that... Iraq had 18 months notice that the US was invading. 18 Months, during which it stymied the intense US diplomatic efforts to avoid the invasion, part and parcel of which was the inspections by the UN, which Iraq resisted, entirely and quite consistently.
One can only imagine the outpouring of patriotic sentiments and support from Republicans if a Democrat had been in the White House on 911.
So you feel that because a Republican being there for 6 months... who replaced the Democrat that had been there for 8 years... removes all responsibility for the policies that lead to the US BEING VULNERABLE TO THE 9-11 ATTACK?
When some politicians say Bush "protected us from attack"......I wonder what they mean? Looks like he was sleeping on the job on 911.Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.
LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
So you feel that we should rally around the people that set us up; we should run to support... the people that CREATED THE VULNERABILITY TO THAT ATTACK, THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY THAT MADE THE ATTACK POSSIBLE?
What color is the sky in your world?
Understand... and I'm being entirely honest with ya here.
When; on the moment after he was sworn in... when GW did NOT turn toward the Clintons and command: SEIZE THEM!
I knew in my heart that, the United States of America, was finished.
In my mind, that was the last chance we had, to turn this mess around.
And I blame GW for THAT!
And THAT was HUGE!
The Bush Administration had intelligence predicting a terrorist attack using commercial airliners, they just didn't act on it.When some politicians say Bush "protected us from attack"......I wonder what they mean? Looks like he was sleeping on the job on 911.Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.
LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
So you feel that we should rally around the people that set us up; we should run to support... the people that CREATED THE VULNERABILITY TO THAT ATTACK, THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY THAT MADE THE ATTACK POSSIBLE?
What color is the sky in your world?
Understand... and I'm being entirely honest with ya here.
When; on the moment after he was sworn in... when GW did NOT turn toward the Clintons and command: SEIZE THEM!
I knew in my heart that, the United States of America, was finished.
In my mind, that was the last chance we had, to turn this mess around.
And I blame GW for THAT!
And THAT was HUGE!
They mean that, post 9-11... GW stripped the US of all Clinton Policy, with regard to US Foreign Intelligence and the 'Wall of Separation' between US Law enforcement and Intelligence.
Which was directly responsible for foiling dozens of attacks that al qaeda attempted in the wake of 9-11.
THAT is what that means.
9-11 was; in the wake of the Clinton Regime... where the leadership of the US that followed the Clinton cult lent credence to the supposition that the Clintons were loyal to the United States and in being so, the Clinton policy with regard to US intelligence and policy that sets as protection of the United States from Foreign intelligence operations... a fait accompli.
They had nothing but wild speculation.The Bush Administration had intelligence predicting a terrorist attack using commercial airliners, they just didn't act on it.When some politicians say Bush "protected us from attack"......I wonder what they mean? Looks like he was sleeping on the job on 911.Yes, no doubt Republicans would have rallied around who ever the President was at the time. Because that's just how consistent and principled they are.LOL! That is a magnificently false premise!
To get there... all you need to do, is remove from the equation the ARAB Spring which came as a direct result of the obama cult, the ABANDONMENT of the IRAQ front, by the obama cult, the tearing down of Lybia by obama, the tearing down of Egypt by obama, the replacement of Mubarak by obama, the installation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt by obama and the creation, funding and support of ISIS... again, by obama.
ROFLMNAO! HYSTERICAL!
So you feel that we should rally around the people that set us up; we should run to support... the people that CREATED THE VULNERABILITY TO THAT ATTACK, THROUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY THAT MADE THE ATTACK POSSIBLE?
What color is the sky in your world?
Understand... and I'm being entirely honest with ya here.
When; on the moment after he was sworn in... when GW did NOT turn toward the Clintons and command: SEIZE THEM!
I knew in my heart that, the United States of America, was finished.
In my mind, that was the last chance we had, to turn this mess around.
And I blame GW for THAT!
And THAT was HUGE!
They mean that, post 9-11... GW stripped the US of all Clinton Policy, with regard to US Foreign Intelligence and the 'Wall of Separation' between US Law enforcement and Intelligence.
Which was directly responsible for foiling dozens of attacks that al qaeda attempted in the wake of 9-11.
THAT is what that means.
9-11 was; in the wake of the Clinton Regime... where the leadership of the US that followed the Clinton cult lent credence to the supposition that the Clintons were loyal to the United States and in being so, the Clinton policy with regard to US intelligence and policy that sets as protection of the United States from Foreign intelligence operations... a fait accompli.
The Bush Administration had intelligence predicting a terrorist attack using commercial airliners, they just didn't act on it.
The difference is that where islam teaches its diciples to kill all non-believers, Christianity teaches to love all people no matter what their religion.
There in no inconsistency in acknowledging that a very tiny % of mentally ill people commit crimes and claim that they did it in the name of Christianity, and acknowledging that almost all of the terrorists in the world today are muslims who are being indoctrinated into a culture of death in the muslim madrassas and mosques.
Using your logic, all terrorists are operating under their free will. The difference is that many muslims are taught to hate and kill by their religious leaders. Is not the leader of Iran teaching hate when he says death to america and israel. What Christian leader has ever made such a statement?
And don't give us that moronic rot about how Obama is 'destroying' the country, as nothing could be further from the truth.
You're kidding right, this dumbass we have occupying the white house at this time has done more to destroy our constitutional republic than anyone since FDR.
FDR saved the Republic.
FDR saved the Republic.
The problem isn't a lack of research.You need to do some research. The three countries who have taken by far the most have been Muslim countries: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan.
The problem is an unwarranted fear and hatred of Islam, and bigotry concerning Muslims.
Of course, unwarranted fear, like those who fear global warming, is a problem. But fear of Muslims, not so much unwarranted.
If you are keeping score:
People killed by radical Muslims on 9/11: 2,996
Muslim-Americans killed "in revenge": 1
Wow they are way ahead.
Oh, wow, facts that are just missing lots of stuff. You forget the number of people the US managed to get killed by making a political vacuum in Iraq.
Now you want to bring global warming into this debate..... er......
Fear of Muslims??? Why would I fear a Muslim? A friend of mine is a Muslim, she wouldn't hurt a fly, she's a bit bossy though. I went to Southern Africa last year, there's a history of Muslims in the area due to trading. Places like Inhambane in Mozambique which has it's semi-famous old mosque. It's not the Muslims I fears in that area, it was the criminals who walk around with knifes and guns.
But then some people want to know the truth, others want to make the truth simple so they can understand it. You seem to be aiming for the latter.
I would not use the word 'fear' when describing how most americans feel about muslims. I think "distrust' is more accurate.
No one has said that all muslims are bad people. I worked with many good honest muslims in the mid east for years. But did I fully trust them? only a very few.
Islam teaches that lying and deception are permissible if they are needed to reach a goal called for by the koran.
When we try to apply judeo/christian principles to muslims, it doesn't work because they do not think about right and wrong the same way we do.
The problem is not the people, its the religion.
Well how many people do you actually trust in real life? I mean I went to southern Africa and you get paranoid about black people. I went to South Africa first and you have to be careful, but then in other countries the people are really friendly, but you're still wary of them because of the experience in South Africa, especially in the big cities. No matter how many black people you talk to there's still that mistrust especially when on the streets.
So I understand mistrust. However at the same time you need to tell yourself that this mistrust is based on what a few people do and not the majority. Letting your impulses control your brain and your views is not a great way to go. I'd still say the black people are generally friendlier than the white people in southern Africa, though even the white people are friendly on the whole. I'd not discriminate against them.
Islam teaches that lying is permissible, they probably learned it from Christianity. I mean, you can go do what you like during the week, then go to church and all your sins are absolved so you can continue sinning the next week. What does this teach Christians? I mean, I'd not trust a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or a Buddhist the same as any other person out there. Until they earn their trust as individuals.
Religions ARE a problem, and I don't like Islam, but much of the problem with Islam is the way they react to the west and are becoming more conservative. War does that. Look at the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which after years of problems under Sharon the right are now firmly entrenched on both sides. Because people feel the need for strong action to "defend" their position. Then politicians "defend" by attacking and causing more reasons to "defend" and keep telling people they're the ones who are strong and will defend. Age old right wing tactics in play that cause more harm.
Islam was becoming more secular, but the west, mostly France and Britain caused problems to the extent where Jihad was the way of countering the forces. Britain in Afghanistan is a perfect example.
Yeah, whatever. The people on the bread lines appreciated him.FDR saved the Republic.
If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims
Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim
"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."
Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school
"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."
Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.
In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.
And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.
Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).
If Obama had not abandoned Iraq there would be no ISIS. If he had done something when his "red line" was crossed there would be no civil war in Syria. If he had any balls Putin would not be taking control of the mid east.
But we agree on one thing, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake based on bad intel and a world consensus that Saddam had to be removed from power. But once there we could have won if obozo had not pulled the plug and allowed the radicals to take over.
Iraq was a complete fuck up from start to finish. Poorly planned and executed, no provision for occupation, and the crowning glory of stupidity......disbanding the Iraqi Army. The Bush Administration did more to undermine this nation's strategic position than the Soviet Union ever could have done. This country used to have a policy of always being able to fight two major campaigns at once, a strategic military policy that had been in place since the Second World War. The Bush Administration showed the whole world that the United States is no longer capable of successfully fighting even one campaign against rag tag insurgents. That cornerstone of US policy is no longer in effect.
Yeah, whatever. The people on the bread lines appreciated him.FDR saved the Republic.
If we hadn't invaded and occupied Iraq there wouldn't be an ISIS or any civil war in Syria. A cause and effect most Americans would prefer to ignore.Columbia Heights students walk out over Facebook post about Muslims
Trump declines to correct man who says Obama is Muslim
"We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims," said the first man Trump called on to ask a question. "We know our current president is one. You know he's not even an American."
Ahmed Mohamed, Muslim teen cuffed over clock mistaken for bomb, still suspended from school
"Mohamed will not be charged with possessing a hoax bomb because there's no evidence the 14-year-old meant to cause alarm Monday at MacArthur High School in the Dallas suburb of Irving, according to police Chief Larry Boyd."
Since 9/11 Muslims have been having a hard time in the US. The reasons are clear, Bush wanted to make a new Common Enemy, the demise of the USSR left a gaping hole in the right wing "be tough on anything" policy.
In the past just calling someone a Communist was as bad as it got, now it's calling someone a Muslim. You want to get at Obama because you don't like him? Just call him a Muslim. It's simple, so simple even a redneck who managed to pass grade 2 could do it. It doesn't take brains.
And the whole while with ISIS going around killing and apparently this being really important for the citizens of the US, as opposed to, say, the Civil War in DRC or other such places.
Some Muslims are bad. Some Christians are bad. But by vilifying ALL Muslims people are essentially giving the right exactly what they want. People criticise Obama's foreign policy, it hasn't been amazing, but he's pulled back from the vilification of Muslims, and the need for the right to make Muslims the problem (and therefore the solution).
