Still beats your system hands down. We all know the English way is above reproach.MountainPro said:
Which are you?
- Thread starter iknowtest
- Start date
I wouldn't know, not being English myself.Bikerman2004 said:
How does it beat the British system exactly?
if Bush looses my a factor of 1% to Kerry you will see it in court and the desicion could then go either way. And vice versa.Bikerman2004 said:
That'll never happen at Holyrood. Guarenteed.
I think all of Europe supports a war on genuine terrorists but it needs to be understood that these individuals form a very weak minority and had a very weak base in Iraq.
The problem is that Bush's policy has strengthened the terrorists by dividing the original alliance with Europe and alienating Arab countries. I mean, what we've been seeing is images of bombed Iraqi civilians beamed out all over the Arab world as opposed to images of Bin Laden and his cohorts being rounded up and neutralised.
This is what Kerry has been trying to get across.
So, my bet is that Bush has actually strengthened the terrorists.
Again, what Kerry has been saying is there's a need to form strong alliances, even with moslem countries since their particular governments have the best intelligence and understanding of how terrorism works. Before Bush's campaign such countries were largely sympathetic towards the West but they've now been pretty much alienated.
One things for sure: Before Bush, Al Quaida was a very small terrorist network with weak links in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction. After 4 years of Bush, the membership of Al Quaida has escalated, they have strong links in Iraq and have successfully managed to divide the U.S. and Europe.
Kerry's spot on, of course. And guess what? The Islamo/fanatics now have weapons of mass destruction since they were able to remove these from Iraq when the previous regime collapsed.
So, sure, even the liberals hate terrorists but you have to have some kind of thought-out strategy to win the war.
The problem is that Bush's policy has strengthened the terrorists by dividing the original alliance with Europe and alienating Arab countries. I mean, what we've been seeing is images of bombed Iraqi civilians beamed out all over the Arab world as opposed to images of Bin Laden and his cohorts being rounded up and neutralised.
This is what Kerry has been trying to get across.
So, my bet is that Bush has actually strengthened the terrorists.
Again, what Kerry has been saying is there's a need to form strong alliances, even with moslem countries since their particular governments have the best intelligence and understanding of how terrorism works. Before Bush's campaign such countries were largely sympathetic towards the West but they've now been pretty much alienated.
One things for sure: Before Bush, Al Quaida was a very small terrorist network with weak links in Iraq and no weapons of mass destruction. After 4 years of Bush, the membership of Al Quaida has escalated, they have strong links in Iraq and have successfully managed to divide the U.S. and Europe.
Kerry's spot on, of course. And guess what? The Islamo/fanatics now have weapons of mass destruction since they were able to remove these from Iraq when the previous regime collapsed.
So, sure, even the liberals hate terrorists but you have to have some kind of thought-out strategy to win the war.
iknowtest said:
Saying "I believe that American negligence and complacency were the main contributors to terrorism" shows you to have a twisted belief system...sadItsikH said:
It must have taken a lot of thought to compose this piece of nothingness. You don't mention anything of any significance whatsoever, nor point to anything which pertains to your own country. Israel, and your frequent brushes with direct and impersonal attacks, and the *** for tat reactions. With an American income of $12b, it is not going to bleed your economy to any degree. I have read many of your postings, and find them mainly sensible. A lot of the trouble would melt away if the US took a firmer line with the Knesset. You know well that Sharon has always been a troublecauser. I find that the Knesset is a totally unbalanced organisation, and controlled by you know who. How did your Negev ride turn out?ItsikH said:
It's possibly treading a fine line, but I don't think this discussion is breaking any actual regulations. If people were argueing about religion per se, sure, it would be inapproriate. But we're not having a debate as to whose religion is right or attemting to interpret doctrines. The thread is asking both liberals and conservatives how they feel about the war on terror.
As for the term "Islamo fascists", yes, it should be pointed out that such a group exists but constitutes a small minority, not Moslems. Suffice it to say that neither religion endorses war, terrorism or human rights violations but it's essentially people who twist a particular faith to suit their own ends.
As Muhammad Ali already stated, Moslems don't fly planes into buildings or kill people.
But I agree, the less said about religion the better.
As for the term "Islamo fascists", yes, it should be pointed out that such a group exists but constitutes a small minority, not Moslems. Suffice it to say that neither religion endorses war, terrorism or human rights violations but it's essentially people who twist a particular faith to suit their own ends.
As Muhammad Ali already stated, Moslems don't fly planes into buildings or kill people.
But I agree, the less said about religion the better.
mjw_byrne said:
I've often felt there's a real danger we're entering a new Middle Ages period - something that happened in the post classical age.
For example, after the fall of Classical Greece (when philosophy, politics and democracy were actually invented), civilization eventualy entered the dark ages where blind religious belief began to dominate. I mean, in the Middle Ages, anyone who professed the world was spherical could be sentenced to death.
Today what we're seeing is the Evangelisation of the U.S. and Islamisation of the Third World with corresponding world leaders who think in terms of doctrines, black and white, good and bad, crusades and intolerance. So, those people who feel political problems need to be solved with some level of diplomacy and even logic, may well find themselves forming part of a minority group.
Somehow Europe has to tread a line between the 2 extremes and it may have to be Europe that has to solve the various political problems you refer to - by hard-headed diplomacy.
As an afterthought I disagreed with the E.U.'s decision to ban an Italian politician from office due to his strict Catholic convictions but I guess it does show that the Europeans are determined to keep politics and religion apart.
For example, after the fall of Classical Greece (when philosophy, politics and democracy were actually invented), civilization eventualy entered the dark ages where blind religious belief began to dominate. I mean, in the Middle Ages, anyone who professed the world was spherical could be sentenced to death.
Today what we're seeing is the Evangelisation of the U.S. and Islamisation of the Third World with corresponding world leaders who think in terms of doctrines, black and white, good and bad, crusades and intolerance. So, those people who feel political problems need to be solved with some level of diplomacy and even logic, may well find themselves forming part of a minority group.
Somehow Europe has to tread a line between the 2 extremes and it may have to be Europe that has to solve the various political problems you refer to - by hard-headed diplomacy.
As an afterthought I disagreed with the E.U.'s decision to ban an Italian politician from office due to his strict Catholic convictions but I guess it does show that the Europeans are determined to keep politics and religion apart.
FredC said:
I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was just pointing out that religious posts were once allowed but are now banned - I wasn't saying this thread is inappropriate because it mentions Islam. But I do think this thread was started purely to cause trouble (just look at the options in the poll), and if people keep that up I reckon it won't be long before political discussions are banned as well.FredC said:
I was actually commenting to my American flatm8 last night that the current handholding in the US of politics and religion was not good. The two are separate and should be kept that way. Bush has consistently used Christianity since 9/11 to make his point (Axis of Evil etc...).Carrera said:
While he was Governer (of Texas I think), there was a woman on death row. She'd done some very bad stuff but had converted to christianity in prison. Loads of good catholic folks tried to pursuade Bush to life the death penalty but in his speech on the subject, he said that he had 'asked god for guidance and god had said' not to interfere...
Now, while I do not agree with the death penalty, I do agree with Bush that converting to christianity 'inside' shouldn't get you off. But, he 'asked god'!?! Holly mother of god! Religion and the Law - do not mix, in the same way that politics and religion dont.
I think that so long as nobody actually belittles somebody's religious faith, it's O.K. to have this debate.
Myself, I hold the same views a Lance Armstrong - who made it quite clear he believes in his own ability to help himself and doesn't need religion. However, you have to respect peoples' religious views regardless.
Some of us are criticizing the idea of mixing religion and politics but we're not knocking other peoples' beliefs per se. We're simply stressing that there are politicians out there who quote scripture to justify their aims.
Quote: Brasidas, Commander of the Spartan Army around 400 B.C:
"For it is more disgraceful, at least for those who have a name to lose (insert Bush) to gain one's ends by deceit which pretends to be morality than by open violence. Straightforward aggression has a certain justification in the strength that is given us by fortune; but the other form of attack comes simply from the treacherous devices of an evil mind."
The term "deceit which pretends to be morality" is the most thought-provoking.
Myself, I hold the same views a Lance Armstrong - who made it quite clear he believes in his own ability to help himself and doesn't need religion. However, you have to respect peoples' religious views regardless.
Some of us are criticizing the idea of mixing religion and politics but we're not knocking other peoples' beliefs per se. We're simply stressing that there are politicians out there who quote scripture to justify their aims.
Quote: Brasidas, Commander of the Spartan Army around 400 B.C:
"For it is more disgraceful, at least for those who have a name to lose (insert Bush) to gain one's ends by deceit which pretends to be morality than by open violence. Straightforward aggression has a certain justification in the strength that is given us by fortune; but the other form of attack comes simply from the treacherous devices of an evil mind."
The term "deceit which pretends to be morality" is the most thought-provoking.
mjw_byrne said: