Obama Backs WTC Mosque

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
[/quote]

I dont know what a “loyal European” is.

Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.

And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.

Preposterous.

[/quote]

You are full of criticisms yet you offer no solutions of your own. The reason why is because you know that we are in a situation where there are no nice, neat, sanitary, pleasant, solutions.

However the solutions can be more or less neatly put into two categories. Pro action and reaction. The realities of WMD are such that a policy of pro-action makes a lot more sense than a policy of reaction.

But I could be wrong. So why don’t you prove me wrong by telling us how you would have handled Saddam without anyone getting hurt. Can you do it or are you full of scheisse? [/quote]

I would have left him where he was.

He would have handled his own population, kept al-Quaeda out and would have frightened the Iranians enough so that they would have more immediate problems than jousting for a leading role in the Islamic world.

[/quote]

Like I thought. Your solution would do nothing while hoping Saddam didn’t do something. Then when something did happen your hope would be that it could be correctly figured out who is responsible. Just like how they had to figure out who was responsible on 9/11 as Air force one was jetting out of Florida.

You have a double standard. While you have terrible problems with how America has handled Iraq and the Iraqi people you don’t have a problem with the way Saddam was handling them. You don’t give a damn about anyone who has died in Iraq all you care about is blaming America.

You assume Al Qaeda and Saddam would never work with each other. In that part of the world there is a saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that is the culture we are dealing with. But I am certain you will deny that they could work together because that would undermine your narrative that America is bad.

There is no way that Saddam could have continued to contain the Iranians. They have been buying a lot of weapons from the Russians and either already have or are about to have nuclear weapons. We would have had to let Saddam start rearming to keep the Iranians in check and we would have to do something about their nuclear program.

[/quote]

I have no double standard.

I simply do not care how much a government mistreats its own citizens, at least not enough to be for any kind of military intervention, especially if that government could not possibly hope to project power beyond its borders.

Also, it is one thing whether a dictator mistreats his people or whether America does it.

The first alternative is regrettable, for the second one America can and will be held responsible.

As a sidenote, Hussein never had any illusions when it came to what he was and what he did, some Americans however are the very embodiment of what they claim to fight in radical Islam and there is only so much self righteous, murderous bullshit I am willing to bear silently.

243

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I simply do not care how much a government mistreats its own citizens, at least not enough to be for any kind of military intervention, especially if that government could not possibly hope to project power beyond its borders.

[/quote]

How can you possibly justify this position?

You are saying that it’s basically ok (“at least not enough to be for any kind of military intervention”) for some dictator to kill some citizens of his own country, but if he crosses a border and does it, it’s wrong.

Because of some arbitrary lines on a map? Or arbitrary place of birth?

Forget the fact that I generally dislike you; this position is just downright astounding.[/quote]

Bad people do bad things, all the time.

However, that does not lead me to the conclusion that it would somehow be ok that I did the same.

Where is the problem?

I do not rape to stop rapists, I do not murder to stop murderers and I would not bomb the shit put of people so that their dictator does not get to kill them first. It comes from the odd idea that I am first and foremost responsible for my own actions and that I refuse to be responsible for everybody elses.

Unless of course they come to my house with those shenanigans, then I hardly have a choice, but as long as they stay in their medeaval little shithole they do not pose a threat to civilization itself which is really all you can ask for in a murderous psychopath.

245

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Bad people do bad things, all the time.

However, that does not lead me to the conclusion that it would somehow be ok that I did the same.

Where is the problem?

I do not rape to stop rapists, I do not murder to stop murderers and I would not bomb the shit put of people so that their dictator does not get to kill them first. It comes from the odd idea that I am first and foremost responsible for my own actions and that I refuse to be responsible for everybody elses.

Unless of course they come to my house with those shenanigans, then I hardly have a choice, but as long as they stay in their medeaval little shithole they do not pose a threat to civilization itself which is really all you can ask for in a murderous psychopath.

[/quote]

You do not murder to stop murderers, huh? So if you are armed and a guy who has already slit 10 throats is going for numbers 11, 12 and 13, what would you do? I’d really like to know. Because most people with a conscience would shoot the bastard and call it “righteous,” not “murder.”

If your mother happens to visit Japan, finds herself in serious shit somewhere in Kabuki-cho (she made a wrong turn) just as I’m passing by, am I to understand that I should smile and wave, because her new “friends” pose no threat to ME? Again, please answer.

It seems awfully clear how Jews can be cooked and girls kept in dungeons in your country, but somehow “nobody knew!!!”

Curious where you draw these magical lines. Is murder in your own country something that you’d “get involved in” to stop? I mean it’s not “in your house” after all. How about a few doors down from you? Your front yard? Neither are “in your house.”

Wake up, Orion.

Bad people do bad things all the time.

Which is why good people have to do what they can to help one another.

Unless of course they are Austrian, maybe?

In that case they just “didn’t know!!!”
[/quote]

I wrote “murder”.

Words have meanings.

247

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
Agree with Orion. It’s not like Iraq posed even a small threat to the security of America. [/quote]

How can you possibly say that? Just look at how much damage was inflicted on the US by 19 men armed with box cutters. 9/11 cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars. Saddam had way more resources that Osama yet you are going to say that he couldn’t hurt us? You are not being realistic. [/quote]
He had no motive to do anything. If he did anything America would invade. He didn’t want to loose his power. USA were looking for excuses to attack. The excuse of them posing a threat, was ridiculous, and has been used plenty of times before. People are so fucking gullible.

248

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
Agree with Orion. It’s not like Iraq posed even a small threat to the security of America. [/quote]

How can you possibly say that? Just look at how much damage was inflicted on the US by 19 men armed with box cutters. 9/11 cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars. Saddam had way more resources that Osama yet you are going to say that he couldn’t hurt us? You are not being realistic. [/quote]

No, YOU’RE not being realistic. Are you seriously STILL believing that BS??

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed NO immediate threat to the United States, or to other countries in the Middle East.

Intelligence reports released by the CIA in 2001 and 2002 and more than 100 interviews of top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. NEVER believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people.

However, in a February 2001 report, Tenet said Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network remain the single greatest threat to U.S. interests here and abroad. Tenet eerily describes in the report a scenario that six months later would become a reality.
SIX MONTHS LATER… on DUNBYA’S WATCH!

Connect the dots, man!

249

The centre should go ahead.
I see no reason in stopping it, it is not a ‘Ground Zero’ mosque.
Silly Americans.

250

[quote]molnes wrote:

He had no motive to do anything. If he did anything America would invade. He didn’t want to loose his power. USA were looking for excuses to attack. The excuse of them posing a threat, was ridiculous, and has been used plenty of times before. People are so fucking gullible.[/quote]

Go read UN Resolution 1441 - 15 out of 16 UNSC countries (Syrian abstaining, for obvious reasons) signed a resolution affirming that Saddam and his WMD shenanigans were a threat to international peace. The problem was always “what do we do about it?”, not whether he constituted a threat.

Good Lord - the “internationalists” can’t even figure out how to use the Google function.

251

I dont get why anyone cares, every one knows the Jews did 9/11

252

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:
[/quote]

I dont know what a “loyal European” is.

Does not matter anyway, because you are afraid that they might try to reshape your society in their image and yet you kill them by the hundreds of thousands to reshape their society in your likeness.

And yet they are dangerous fanatics whereas the US is only there to “help” them.

Preposterous.

[/quote]

You are full of criticisms yet you offer no solutions of your own. The reason why is because you know that we are in a situation where there are no nice, neat, sanitary, pleasant, solutions.

However the solutions can be more or less neatly put into two categories. Pro action and reaction. The realities of WMD are such that a policy of pro-action makes a lot more sense than a policy of reaction.

But I could be wrong. So why don’t you prove me wrong by telling us how you would have handled Saddam without anyone getting hurt. Can you do it or are you full of scheisse? [/quote]

I would have left him where he was.

He would have handled his own population, kept al-Quaeda out and would have frightened the Iranians enough so that they would have more immediate problems than jousting for a leading role in the Islamic world.

[/quote]

Like I thought. Your solution would do nothing while hoping Saddam didn’t do something. Then when something did happen your hope would be that it could be correctly figured out who is responsible. Just like how they had to figure out who was responsible on 9/11 as Air force one was jetting out of Florida.

You have a double standard. While you have terrible problems with how America has handled Iraq and the Iraqi people you don’t have a problem with the way Saddam was handling them. You don’t give a damn about anyone who has died in Iraq all you care about is blaming America.

You assume Al Qaeda and Saddam would never work with each other. In that part of the world there is a saying, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” that is the culture we are dealing with. But I am certain you will deny that they could work together because that would undermine your narrative that America is bad.

There is no way that Saddam could have continued to contain the Iranians. They have been buying a lot of weapons from the Russians and either already have or are about to have nuclear weapons. We would have had to let Saddam start rearming to keep the Iranians in check and we would have to do something about their nuclear program.

[/quote]

I have no double standard.

I simply do not care how much a government mistreats its own citizens, at least not enough to be for any kind of military intervention, especially if that government could not possibly hope to project power beyond its borders.

Also, it is one thing whether a dictator mistreats his people or whether America does it.

The first alternative is regrettable, for the second one America can and will be held responsible.

As a sidenote, Hussein never had any illusions when it came to what he was and what he did, some Americans however are the very embodiment of what they claim to fight in radical Islam and there is only so much self righteous, murderous bullshit I am willing to bear silently.

[/quote]

Let me think about this. You have one standard if people are killed by their own countrymen and another standard if a foreign country intervenes and does something about it. That sounds like a double standard to me and I think there are more people who would agree with me than you.

Besides something you don’t understand because living Europe you are not really exposed to it very much is America is a democracy. So in America, American citizens have the right to petition their government to act on their behalf. Something that living in Detroit is aware of is Metro Detroit has a very large Caldean community and other Iraqis who fled Iraq. Before the invasion when President Bush came to Detroit there were members of the Caldean community who met with him and petitioned him to do something about Saddam as is their right.

So how do your standards work when there were Iraqi American citizens who ask President Bush to do something about Saddam? Does it matter that there were Iraqis who petitioned the President to do something? Or do you think the proper thing for a President to do is ignore a petition from his citizens, have a European elitist mentality that it is beneath him to listen to the “small people”?

How can you expect any rational person to believe that the Iraqi “government could not possibly hope to project power beyond its borders” after what was done to us on 9/11 by people who barely had a fraction of the resources and capabilities of the Iraqi government? If Osama could project that much damage from a cave in Afghanistan with his limited resources why could Saddam not be able to do just as much or even worse with his vastly superior resources?

You are creating your own reality that goes against the evidence and common sense in order to support your point of view. America is very free, open society, which makes us very vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Your side note about America is bullshit. While it is unfortunate that innocent civilians have been getting killed and injured through no fault of their own it is not like we deliberately target them. Unlike our enemies and Al Jezeera we don’t shoot videos of some poor soul begging for his life then cut off his head because we can play it on CNN for people to enjoy. So there is only so much of your hypocritical bullshit that I can bear silently.

253

[quote]molnes wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
Agree with Orion. It’s not like Iraq posed even a small threat to the security of America. [/quote]

How can you possibly say that? Just look at how much damage was inflicted on the US by 19 men armed with box cutters. 9/11 cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars. Saddam had way more resources that Osama yet you are going to say that he couldn’t hurt us? You are not being realistic. [/quote]
He had no motive to do anything. If he did anything America would invade. He didn’t want to loose his power. USA were looking for excuses to attack. The excuse of them posing a threat, was ridiculous, and has been used plenty of times before. People are so fucking gullible.[/quote]

You should study current events and know the history because you look ignorant with this post. After what we did to him in the Gulf war Saddam had plenty of motive to do something. It is why Saddam tried to kill President Bush in Kuwait. We should have ended it for Saddam then.

As for losing his power you credit Saddam with being more rational than he demonstrated he was. Before the Gulf war he watched the US build up a massive military force while telling him to get out of Kuwait so we don’t have to use force. It was completely irrational for him to think he could hold on to Kuwait against the US. But he tried. Didn’t he? Then here you are spouting ideas that are predicated upon your false premise that Saddam was rational and would not take a risk.

You and orion are like two peas from a pod. You create your own sense of reality to base your ideas upon, then expect others to join you in your fantasies.

254

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]Sifu wrote:

[quote]molnes wrote:
Agree with Orion. It’s not like Iraq posed even a small threat to the security of America. [/quote]

How can you possibly say that? Just look at how much damage was inflicted on the US by 19 men armed with box cutters. 9/11 cost Al Qaeda half a million dollars. Saddam had way more resources that Osama yet you are going to say that he couldn’t hurt us? You are not being realistic. [/quote]

No, YOU’RE not being realistic. Are you seriously STILL believing that BS??

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed NO immediate threat to the United States, or to other countries in the Middle East.

Intelligence reports released by the CIA in 2001 and 2002 and more than 100 interviews of top officials in the Bush administration, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, gave to various Senate and Congressional committees and media outlets prior to 9-11 show that the U.S. NEVER believed Saddam Hussein to be an imminent threat other than to his own people.

However, in a February 2001 report, Tenet said Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network remain the single greatest threat to U.S. interests here and abroad. Tenet eerily describes in the report a scenario that six months later would become a reality.
SIX MONTHS LATER… on DUNBYA’S WATCH!

Connect the dots, man!
[/quote]

They underestimated what AQ was capable of and got taught a lesson. Didn’t they? Yet despite what happened on 9/11 you say the rational course of action would have been to NOT re-evaluate our opinion of whether or not Saddam presented a danger to us or do anything to eliminate that threat until after we had been hit again.

I think your philosophy is fatally flawed. Because you don’t take into account the realities of asymmetrical warfare. We are not up against enemies who are going to give us a fair fight. They are not coming at us dressed in a uniform so we can know exactly where they came from. Just like there are no rules to a street fight other than do whatever it takes to survive, there are no set rules governing our enemies. For example there is no rule that says that if Saddam hit us Osama couldn’t release a video saying it was AQ and take the heat off of Saddam.

These are people who hate us and are not going to make things easy for us. But you are predicating your ideas on a false belief that they will. Now that Saddam is gone we don’t have to play as complex of a guessing game trying to figure out who just hit us because one of the usual suspects has been eliminated.

We can not play games with our enemies and expect to not to suffer for it. We need to deal with these people the same way the Israelis do. They can’t afford to take hits so they don’t play. If you threaten or attack the Israelis they kill you.

255

[quote]LiftEatSleep wrote:
The centre should go ahead.
I see no reason in stopping it, it is not a ‘Ground Zero’ mosque.
Silly Americans. [/quote]

Legally there is no grounds to stop it, so if they get funding and don’t give a fuck about how people feel about it, the mosque will get built.

However the Imam building the mosque has stated that the location of the mosque was selected specifically because of it’s proximity to ‘Ground Zero’. Since the Imam is the one who made the connection with ‘Ground Zero’ he is the one who gave people a reason to voice an opinion about it.

If anyone is silly it is Australians who don’t know the details making snide remarks.