I think this is important enough ...
-
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702050030[^] ... to mention again. I urge you to read it and pause for reflection before posting rants. Andy
That reads like a bad article from Indymedia. Pilger has been banging on about an imminent invasion of Iran for the last 4 years. Unfortunately he is probably wrong. All that 'Zionist crusader nazi bushitler' schpeel gets you hard though doesn't it?
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Yep, I have asked people before that if they truly believe that Blair and Bush are the world most evil men, dragging us into a global war while turning their nations into nazi hell holes then why the hell are they not marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb? At least the Islamists are not playing at revolutionaries.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
At least the Islamists are not playing at revolutionaries.
Exactly. These leftists are either cowards or the worst political hacks in history.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
OK, I paused. Now, lets fucking invade Iran, then set back and watch as all the little lefty heads explode. For my part, I am for anything that finally drives the left to violence. I am truly curious about what it would actually take to get them to fight for something.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
lets f****ing invade Iran
You dont have to. Look at Palestine since it lost EU and US funding, its fallen apart. Stop bying oil from Iran and the same thing will happen there. You can also pull out of Iraq and let Saudia and Iran duke it out in Iraq. Just dont be surprised when Turkey invades 'Kurdistan' though.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
Yep, I have asked people before that if they truly believe that Blair and Bush are the world most evil men, dragging us into a global war while turning their nations into nazi hell holes then why the hell are they not marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb? At least the Islamists are not playing at revolutionaries.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I have asked people before that if they truly believe that Blair and Bush are the world most evil men, dragging us into a global war while turning their nations into nazi hell holes then why the hell are they not marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb?
Citations please for all the left-wing people who have written this about Blair and Bush. You must have hundreds I'm sure, given that this is the standard leftist position. Supposing for the sake of argument that your claims regarding the left are true (:laugh::laugh:), why do you think that marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb would be an effective tactic? Or is it just that right-wing people are incapable of conceiving of any tactic that doesn't involve violence?
John Carson
-
Hi, I agree on that one (and not only because of your name). The US isn't able to handle the Iraq. How could they even dream about having Iraq AND Iran under real control. And Iran's miltitary is stronger then Husseins was. Robert
Robert Rohde wrote:
Iran's miltitary is stronger then Husseins was.
which is irrelevant. We easily won the Iraq war but soon became hampered by a politically correct policing action, studiously avoiding, for example, Sadre (sp?) and his city of thugs and thieves. Do you imagine that mistakes like that would be repeated? The WWII model of take no prisoners would send many more on to paradise.
Mike The NYT - my leftist brochure. dennisd45: My view of the world is slightly more nuanced dennisd45 (the NAMBLA supporter) wrote: I know exactly what it means. So shut up you mother killing baby raper.
-
Hi, I agree on that one (and not only because of your name). The US isn't able to handle the Iraq. How could they even dream about having Iraq AND Iran under real control. And Iran's miltitary is stronger then Husseins was. Robert
-
OK, I paused. Now, lets fucking invade Iran, then set back and watch as all the little lefty heads explode. For my part, I am for anything that finally drives the left to violence. I am truly curious about what it would actually take to get them to fight for something.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
lets f****ing invade Iran
You dont have to. Look at Palestine since it lost EU and US funding, its fallen apart. Stop bying oil from Iran and the same thing will happen there. You can also pull out of Iraq and let Saudia and Iran duke it out in Iraq. Just dont be surprised when Turkey invades 'Kurdistan' though.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Perhaps. But none of that would have the effect of driving the left in the west to violence. Which would be my entire plan. Once we have all our cats in one bag, we can beat them all to death with one club.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
A banal comment if ever there was one. Read the piece by Pilger, listen to what Blair and Bush say and trust yourself to form your opinions. Do you have any by the way?
AndyKEnZ wrote:
A banal comment if ever there was one. Read the piece by Pilger, listen to what Blair and Bush say and trust yourself to form your opinions. Do you have any by the way?
I read the article and formed an opinion of it. I made an accurate comment which was very pertinent to the article. Pilger has a strong political bias. The evidence he presents is carefully selected and spun to support his political bias. His articles are therefore of little value - unless you enjoy that kind of spin. Hence my comparison with Bush and Blair. To form an informed opinion of what is happening in the middle east, it is best to seek out the least biased reporting - you won't find that with Pilger. Sorry if the truth offends you.
-
Perhaps. But none of that would have the effect of driving the left in the west to violence. Which would be my entire plan. Once we have all our cats in one bag, we can beat them all to death with one club.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I have asked people before that if they truly believe that Blair and Bush are the world most evil men, dragging us into a global war while turning their nations into nazi hell holes then why the hell are they not marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb?
Citations please for all the left-wing people who have written this about Blair and Bush. You must have hundreds I'm sure, given that this is the standard leftist position. Supposing for the sake of argument that your claims regarding the left are true (:laugh::laugh:), why do you think that marching on the nearest US embassy with a bomb would be an effective tactic? Or is it just that right-wing people are incapable of conceiving of any tactic that doesn't involve violence?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Citations please for all the left-wing people who have written this about Blair and Bush.
Ryan roberts wrote:
I have asked people
This is from personal conversation (this morning in fact, It's so much fun being the only non knee jerk liberal in the office). You mean to say you have never met anyone who says the think Bush and Blair are comparable to Ahmadinejad and OBL? Anti US sentiment has grown so much in the UK that this mornings gibbering wasn't even restricted to a particular administration, Americans are the new Nazis (though it was Israel a couple of weeks ago). And yes, if our governments had truly been seized by anyone comparable to Mahmood Ahmadinejad it would be your duty to overthrow them.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
AndyKEnZ wrote:
A banal comment if ever there was one. Read the piece by Pilger, listen to what Blair and Bush say and trust yourself to form your opinions. Do you have any by the way?
I read the article and formed an opinion of it. I made an accurate comment which was very pertinent to the article. Pilger has a strong political bias. The evidence he presents is carefully selected and spun to support his political bias. His articles are therefore of little value - unless you enjoy that kind of spin. Hence my comparison with Bush and Blair. To form an informed opinion of what is happening in the middle east, it is best to seek out the least biased reporting - you won't find that with Pilger. Sorry if the truth offends you.
Dan Bennett wrote:
To form an informed opinion of what is happening in the middle east, it is best to seek out the least biased reporting - you won't find that with Pilger.
Got any links to examples of that?
Dan Bennett wrote:
Sorry if the truth offends you.
It's OK it doesn't.
-
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702050030[^] ... to mention again. I urge you to read it and pause for reflection before posting rants. Andy
Anyone who actually takes this writer seriously is a raving lunatic.
-
Who gives a fuck about left or right when faced with extreamist Islam?
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
Because the left is the ultimate enabler of extremist Islam. It is the left that holds our hands behind our backs while Islamic fascist beat us. It is the left that tries to sow the seeds of doubts in western minds about confronting threats such as Islamic fundamnetalism and it is the left that encourages such threats by establishing a moral agenda which they refuse to enforce against any culture aside form their own. Kill the left, and Islamic radicalism will die with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Because the left is the ultimate enabler of extremist Islam. It is the left that holds our hands behind our backs while Islamic fascist beat us. It is the left that tries to sow the seeds of doubts in western minds about confronting threats such as Islamic fundamnetalism and it is the left that encourages such threats by establishing a moral agenda which they refuse to enforce against any culture aside form their own. Kill the left, and Islamic radicalism will die with it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Dan Bennett wrote:
To form an informed opinion of what is happening in the middle east, it is best to seek out the least biased reporting - you won't find that with Pilger.
Got any links to examples of that?
Dan Bennett wrote:
Sorry if the truth offends you.
It's OK it doesn't.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
Got any links to examples of that?
You're an intelligent person who knows how to use the internet and I'm certainly not going to waste time holding your hand. When you read an article, just ask yourself where they are coming from and what their track record is. Think for yourself rather than just swollowing whatever is fed to you.
AndyKEnZ wrote:
It's OK it doesn't.
That's good to hear because you sounded somewhat peeved that I exposed the article's author for what he is.
-
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702050030[^] ... to mention again. I urge you to read it and pause for reflection before posting rants. Andy
The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq. In announcing what he called a "surge" of American troops in Iraq, George W Bush identified Iran as his real target. "We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."I don't know which of this author's traits I should be in awe of: His total ignorance of military strategy or his rampant paranoia. Never the less, his idiocy aside, the truly disturbing thing about his editorial id that recent history has taught that eveything he assert is possible. Could the Iranian leadership be wondering the same thing?“Some have an idea that the reason we in this country discard things so readily is because we have so much. The facts are exactly opposite - the reason we have so much is simply because we discard things so readily. We replace the old in return for something that will serve us better.”--Alfred P. Sloan
-
The leaders of the US are all barking mad.
Ægidius Ahenobarbus wrote:
The leaders of the US are all barking mad.
How many times will it take before the rest of the civilized world comes to realize that Americans on the whole do not react in a civilized manner to sneak attacks or having 100s of our fellow Americans hijacked and flown into building killing thousand more Americans. In fact, given most of America's visceral reaction to 9-11 I consider all of our country's actions so far very understated when compared to what it could've been...
“Some have an idea that the reason we in this country discard things so readily is because we have so much. The facts are exactly opposite - the reason we have so much is simply because we discard things so readily. We replace the old in return for something that will serve us better.”--Alfred P. Sloan
-
John Carson wrote:
Citations please for all the left-wing people who have written this about Blair and Bush.
Ryan roberts wrote:
I have asked people
This is from personal conversation (this morning in fact, It's so much fun being the only non knee jerk liberal in the office). You mean to say you have never met anyone who says the think Bush and Blair are comparable to Ahmadinejad and OBL? Anti US sentiment has grown so much in the UK that this mornings gibbering wasn't even restricted to a particular administration, Americans are the new Nazis (though it was Israel a couple of weeks ago). And yes, if our governments had truly been seized by anyone comparable to Mahmood Ahmadinejad it would be your duty to overthrow them.
Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
This is from personal conversation (this morning in fact, It's so much fun being the only non knee jerk liberal in the office). You mean to say you have never met anyone who says the think Bush and Blair are comparable to Ahmadinejad and OBL?
Actually what you wrote was: "they truly believe that Blair and Bush are the world most evil men, dragging us into a global war while turning their nations into nazi hell holes". I have certainly never met anyone who claimed that. As for comparisons with Ahmadinejad and OBL, I expect that most of the people with whom I associate would say that Ahmadinejad and OBL are nuttier and that OBL, at least, is more contemptuous of the value of human life, but that Bush has got a lot more people killed and will likely continue to do so in the future. Hard to argue with that.
Ryan Roberts wrote:
And yes, if our governments had truly been seized by anyone comparable to Mahmood Ahmadinejad it would be your duty to overthrow it.
How about voting it out of office? Wouldn't that be better? Democracy is a valuable thing. It should not be lightly cast aside. Indeed, a large part of the problem with much of the world is their inability to conduct elections and then accept the verdict. That is one of Iraq's failures. Would you want that failure to extend to the Western world as well? In any event, a "duty to overthrow" is a rather poorly defined concept if the power to overthrow is absent. A "duty to attempt to overthrow" sounds like a really bad idea. People need to think through the likely consequences of their actions, not implement hard-coded routines regardless. If that lesson had been learned, the debacle in Iraq could have been avoided.
John Carson
-
Looks like a credible source....
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog
Christian Graus wrote:
Looks like a credible source....
You forgot the sarcasm icon.