Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 pb....if you read the pattern of some people's posts (here and in general) you will note that anyone who disagrees is stupid or ignorant. They are best left alone and in their case the Ignore Button is definitely a WMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 pb....if you read the pattern of some people's posts (here and in general) you will note that anyone who disagrees is stupid or ignorant. They are best left alone and in their case the Ignore Button is definitely a WMD 218514[/snapback] That's the dumbest post I've ever read! Why did you edit it? Did you misspell "stupid?" *Big Ass Grin* FYI - ignorance can be cured - stupidity cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 7, 2006 Author Share Posted February 7, 2006 FYI - ignorance can be cured 218535[/snapback] It's good to know you are getting help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Ignorance is bliss. 218455[/snapback] Indeed. You've got those blinders super glued securely to your head. We are NOT AT WAR. According to the Constitution (which you have little or no regard for) Congress declares war. It has not done so. No war - No war powers. Got it? 218455[/snapback] Congratulations, you've just managed to offend 3 generations of American soldiers. I'm sure my fellow veterans from Korea and Vietnam would offer you a different point of view. But since you obviously have no appreciation for what war really is it wouldn't be worth the effort to explain it to you. Nevertheless, I'll remember what you said next time I'm boxing up the personal effects of another fallen soldier. "This isn't a war, LegalEagle said so." The Invasion of Iraq was not a war against terrorists. The Conflict in Afganistan was. The Afganistan action was justified by the WTC event, the Invasion of Iraq was not. 218455[/snapback] So the intel was a little off, big deal. The President made the best decision he could with intelligence thought to have been very accurate. What if we hadn't gone in? What if there had been WMD's in Iraq? What if Saddam had used them against us or our allies in the region? You'd be blaming the President for that too I bet. It's kind of like a saying I heard concerning whether or not to believe in God: I'd rather live believing in God only to die and find out He doesn't exist than to live not believing in Him only to die and find out that He does. Get the correlation there? You probably think being the leader of the free world is a snap and that you could have done a better job yet strangely I don't recall your name being on the ballot when I voted. Much more money has been spent in Iraq than Afganistan. That money would be better spent in the U.S. 218455[/snapback] BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE TERRORISTS IN IRAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We didn't expect to be fighting terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was toppled but sometimes things don't go according to plan and you have to adapt and overcome. And guess what? We've adapted quite well and we're kicking ass and taking names in Iraq on a daily basis. By the way, "Afganistan" is spelled with an H, I'll let you figure out where it goes. I have a feeling if you were spending our money we would all have to up-armor our cars and trucks and wear flak vests to work everyday. But at least we wouldn't be fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, right? Take the fight to enemy, Legal. Kill him in his backyard on your terms. Do you know the number of American citizens that were killed in the WTC attack? I know many were foreigns. It's likely that more Americans have lost their lives in the Invasion of Iraq than in the WTC attack. 218455[/snapback] What an idiotic analysis. Are you really trying to prove a point here? I get what you're saying but it's asinine. So I guess when the combat deaths of American soldiers equal the total number of people killed on 9/11 we should call it quits? Give me a break. What would have happened if we'd stopped fighting WWII when the number of deaths equaled that of December 7th? I know, everyone east of the Mississippi would be speaking German and everyone west of it Japanese. I for one am not ready to stop fighting because I happen to like taking showers, wiping my ass with toilet paper, speaking English, and worshiping the Christian God. No evidence has yet be provided by the administration or any legitimate source that the surveillance at issue has provided any information that was used to thwart any enemy attack. The general information circulated at present is that it has borne little fruit. 218455[/snapback] No evidence has yet been provided that it hasn't either. I'm not so sure that I'd even want to know what information is being picked up because it'd probably scare the wits out of me. And I'm pretty sure the NSA isn't divulging everything they know, or at least I hope they aren't. They need to keep something to themselves otherwise all you liberal pinko commies will expose ALL our secret weapons for combatting terrorism. Who's your source for "general information?" The NYT? The NYT guy is a fine American who did what he had to in order to expose corruption and lawlessness in the highest positions of our government. Just like Deep Throat, he has contributed greatly to our Nation. 218455[/snapback] A "fine" American? "Contributed greatly to our Nation"? Since when did weakening a country correlate into being a "fine" American? I'd like to punch him in the face myself but that's just me. As I have already stated, if the government had justification to listen in on the telephone calls they listened to, they could have gone to the FISA court and gotten lawful approvals. The enemy knew this. How do they change they're methods now that they know Bush isn't going to a secret court first? Nonsense. 218455[/snapback] Roger, got it. But when you do it that way you run the risk of others (others being bad guys like terrorists and democrats) finding out what you're up to which ruins the element of surprise. I'm sure the enemy had no idea they were being listened in on until Mr. Fine American at the NYT blabbed. I'm sure they were nervous everytime they picked up the phone because not knowing is worse than knowing. Now that they know I'm sure they are taking extra precautions at not getting caught. Nonsense nothing. Thanks a lot NYT, way to take one for the team. Again, stop whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 No evidence has yet be provided by the administration or any legitimate source that the surveillance at issue has provided any information that was used to thwart any enemy attack. The general information circulated at present is that it has borne little fruit. 218455[/snapback] The answer to this one is easy to sort out. In every single written, video, or audio message from Osama or any other Al Queda a-hole, the message is the same. "We are planning an attack. Get ready. Death in America is coming." They keep promising and promising and promising... Yet, strangely enough, the last time I checked, there HASN'T BEEN AN ATTACK IN THE US SINCE 9-11. I suppose Osama is just a big ole kidder? That he and Al Queda are just sittin' back in their cave, playing pinochle, and having a good chuckle about how the US is wasting all this time and all those resources chasing after an attack that just ain't happening. But since the NSA didn't bother to call you up personally and let you know every single time they have managed to disrupt or otherwise stop a potential attack, then the intelligence we have been getting is useless. Did it ever occur to you, and others of your liberal persuasion that perhaps 1) it ain't none of your business and 2) release of some information might prevent us from tapping the same source for information in the future? You can't unring a bell. And for all those pinkos in the House and Senate who think that because they were able to persuade some idiots to elect them to office means that they are so important and powerful that both the NSA and the President have to personally brief them about every little thing that happens.. I got news for them. Members of Congress leak like a collander - best way to spread information is to tell a member of Congress to keep a secret. That's why there are so few people on the Intelligence Committees - and even that doesn't stop leaks. The old WWII phrase "loose lips sink ships." still holds true today, but these idiot politicians and the so called "Deep Throats" are doing so much more harm than good, all in the name of hurting President Bush and getting their name in the papers. Maybe you feel as tho you personally could deal with the knowledge, but have you ever stopped and thought about how less educated Americans would deal with that information? My dad used to get calls at the Sheriff's Dept from some old farmer wanting to know if he could take potshots at an unmarked Army helo on maneuvers because it "might be one of them Al-Kyder fellers." Now tell that same guy that the NSA stopped an "AL-Ky-der feller" from blowing up the local Wal Mart... and his reaction would be....??? How about devastion to the US economy? If people stopped flying after 9-11, and the airline industry nearly went under, what would happen to this country if everyone was scared to go to Wal Mart? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 Well, unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to each point raised. No football, so I do have some time. You are right about the sadness of soldiers dying for a country without that country even being staunch enough to declare war as specified in the Constitution. I don't believe that Iraq is worth one American soldier's life. It's a shame that such lives are being lost. You are for this - you justify their loss, I can't. Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? Keep in mind the AG couldn't even guarantee the Congress yesterday that domestic calls have not been surveilled. When was the WTC bombed before? How many years passed before it was hit by planes? Does that mean that we were protected? Terrorists have killed many more Americans since 911 than before. There's about 5 or 6 of you jumpin' on your fellow American here. I'm still right and you are still wrong. But, yeah, you can kick my ass. Kick it good, though, I'm suin'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 Well, unfortunately, I don't have time to respond to each point raised. No football, so I do have some time.You are right about the sadness of soldiers dying for a country without that country even being staunch enough to declare war as specified in the Constitution. I don't believe that Iraq is worth one American soldier's life. It's a shame that such lives are being lost. You are for this - you justify their loss, I can't. Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? Keep in mind the AG couldn't even guarantee the Congress yesterday that domestic calls have not been surveilled. When was the WTC bombed before? How many years passed before it was hit by planes? Does that mean that we were protected? Terrorists have killed many more Americans since 911 than before. There's about 5 or 6 of you jumpin' on your fellow American here. I'm still right and you are still wrong. But, yeah, you can kick my ass. Kick it good, though, I'm suin'! 218634[/snapback] "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." Franklin D. Roosevelt, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? 218634[/snapback] No, but if you talk to him or his buddies on the phone then your call should be monitored. It's that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? 218634[/snapback] No, but if you talk to him or his buddies on the phone then your call should be monitored. It's that simple. 218746[/snapback] Then get your warrant and tap away. I'll never know! Oh, if you don't get the "intel" you are after, maybe you should come in the night and take me to the local dungen for torture training. . . I'm sure I'll tell you whatever you want to hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny AU-92 0 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? 218634[/snapback] No, but if you talk to him or his buddies on the phone then your call should be monitored. It's that simple. 218746[/snapback] Then get your warrant and tap away. I'll never know! Oh, if you don't get the "intel" you are after, maybe you should come in the night and take me to the local dungen for torture training. . . I'm sure I'll tell you whatever you want to hear! 218756[/snapback] SO... if we are taping a call that originates overseas from a known terrorist... and terminates at YOUR house on YOUR phone... you want us to STOP taping, run get a warrant, and then and only then resume taping the call which has most likely ended LONG before? And may never occur again? You are nuts. What if that was the one call that said "Commence Operation Kill Americans"?? Those few words on that one call could mean a lot... but nope, can't use the tape since we didn't have a WARRANT??? PLEASE. Spoken like a true liberal lawyer. If you are taking calls from a known foreign operative - Muslim, Russian, Chinese, whomever... then all bets are off as far as I am concerned regarding your right to privacy. If you are taking calls from a known foreign operative, then the NSA has every right to pick you up and ask you what the hell you were chatting about. If you want to believe that sleep deprivation and loud music are torture, then you go right ahead and get your panties in a twist about that. Maybe when Osama calls, worrying about wire taps and torture will encourage you to hang up on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 I have a nagging suspicion that if there were a democrat in the White House, LegalEagle's opinion would be different as would most all other demos. Conservatives on the other hand would have reason to be fearful since the dems have already been caught with FBI files hidden in the bedroom at the White House. So Legal it's easy to see where you are coming from and why you would have fears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 Osama sends videos - that means you need to tap my telephone? 218634[/snapback] No, but if you talk to him or his buddies on the phone then your call should be monitored. It's that simple. 218746[/snapback] Then get your warrant and tap away. I'll never know! Oh, if you don't get the "intel" you are after, maybe you should come in the night and take me to the local dungen for torture training. . . I'm sure I'll tell you whatever you want to hear! 218756[/snapback] SO... if we are taping a call that originates overseas from a known terrorist... and terminates at YOUR house on YOUR phone... you want us to STOP taping, run get a warrant, and then and only then resume taping the call which has most likely ended LONG before? And may never occur again? You are nuts. What if that was the one call that said "Commence Operation Kill Americans"?? Those few words on that one call could mean a lot... but nope, can't use the tape since we didn't have a WARRANT??? PLEASE. Spoken like a true liberal lawyer. If you are taking calls from a known foreign operative - Muslim, Russian, Chinese, whomever... then all bets are off as far as I am concerned regarding your right to privacy. If you are taking calls from a known foreign operative, then the NSA has every right to pick you up and ask you what the hell you were chatting about. If you want to believe that sleep deprivation and loud music are torture, then you go right ahead and get your panties in a twist about that. Maybe when Osama calls, worrying about wire taps and torture will encourage you to hang up on him. 218804[/snapback] Jen, under FISA, under the circs you stated, the Feds may intercept my calls for a minimum of 72 hours before they apply for a warrant. I think they can go for up to 15 days, but I'm not sure. Why can't they get the warrant in 72 hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 8, 2006 Share Posted February 8, 2006 I have a nagging suspicion that if there were a democrat in the White House, LegalEagle's opinion would be different as would most all other demos. Conservatives on the other hand would have reason to be fearful since the dems have already been caught with FBI files hidden in the bedroom at the White House. So Legal it's easy to see where you are coming from and why you would have fears. 218821[/snapback] You, sir, are mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 8, 2006 Author Share Posted February 8, 2006 A great man once said, "Most all of the talk that comes from the Democrats is to make things appear what they are not." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger in Spain 0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Jen, under FISA, under the circs you stated, the Feds may intercept my calls for a minimum of 72 hours before they apply for a warrant. I think they can go for up to 15 days, but I'm not sure. Why can't they get the warrant in 72 hours? 218830[/snapback] Don't talk to terrorists and you have nothing to worry about. A little news for you, counselor. If you talk on a cordless phone or a cell phone, anyone with a police scanner can listen in on your conversations. Are you concerned about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Don't talk to terrorists and you have nothing to worry about. A little news for you, counselor. If you talk on a cordless phone or a cell phone, anyone with a police scanner can listen in on your conversations. Are you concerned about that? 219018[/snapback] Yep. That's why I don't use them. I will not support Anti-American activities unlike many of you flag wavers on this board! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I will not support Anti-American activities unlike many of you flag wavers on this board! 219030[/snapback] What an idiot. I knew there was a reason why I hate blood sucking lawyers. PS - I'm in the Signal Corps. I know how to tap land lines. Does that worry you? Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I will not support Anti-American activities unlike many of you flag wavers on this board! 219030[/snapback] What an idiot. I knew there was a reason why I hate blood sucking lawyers. PS - I'm in the Signal Corps. I know how to tap land lines. Does that worry you? Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite. 219096[/snapback] Yes, people like you scare me. They make me wonder how much longer this great nation can survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 I will not support Anti-American activities unlike many of you flag wavers on this board! 219030[/snapback] What an idiot. I knew there was a reason why I hate blood sucking lawyers. PS - I'm in the Signal Corps. I know how to tap land lines. Does that worry you? Sleep tight, don't let the bedbugs bite. 219096[/snapback] Yes, people like you scare me. They make me wonder how much longer this great nation can survive. 219129[/snapback] An extremely long time as long as liberal whiners like yourself sit down and shutup during times of war. The prosecution rests. (LOL, awesome........I actually scare somebody.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 9, 2006 Share Posted February 9, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,048 Posted February 9, 2006 Author Share Posted February 9, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] February 08, 2006, 10:00 a.m.Rage Against the Western Machine Claudia Rosett We’re at war. But only one side seems to get that. "Rage over cartoons†has been the gist of many a headline over the past week describing the violence with which masked gunmen and arsonist mobs in the Islamic world have been protesting the publication in Denmark five months ago of political cartoons caricaturing Mohammed. Rage, yes. But let’s please get over the idea that this latest violence has anything much to do with the cartoons. "Religion of Peace," Love & Understanding This is more of the same rage that for years - decades, actually - has brought us parades of masked gunmen, along with bombings, beheadings, the murder of aid workers, tourists, and journalists, the assaults on resorts in Kenya and Bali, on the trains and subways of Madrid and London, on the weddings, funerals, and religious ceremonies of Israel and post-Baathist Iraq. This is more of the same rage - inspired one may presume by factors other than Danish political satire - that produced that act of war known as September 11. With each step, we have looked for ways to defuse the anger by understanding the grievances. Bookshops have filled with volumes on the history of Islam, the wounded pride, the regional distinctions, the contending forces within Islam itself. Our political leaders, who have relatively little to say - and just as well - about Buddhism, Hinduism, or for that matter Animism, have taken to celebrating the end of Ramadan, invited Islamic moderates to their state dinner tables and told us over and over that Islam is a religion of peace. We have debated whether to describe those who deviate from this serene vision as Islamic radicals, Islamo-fascists, militant Islamists, or plain old evil-doers, terrorists, fascists, and thugs who happen to be Muslims. And as the Danish drawings have made world headlines in recent days, our statesman have given every sign of being more disturbed by the contents of the cartoons than by the grotesque and bullying violence of the response. From many quarters, we have been warned that we must above all exercise that Christian virtue of turning the other cheek - if not positively feeling the rioters’ pain. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, self-described chief diplomat of the world, has stepped into the cartoon fray, taking the time - while accepting a $500,000 environmental prize in the United Arab Emirates - to say he shares the “anguish†of Muslims over the cartoons, but urges them to “forgive the wrong they have suffered.†Bill Clinton has condemned the cartoons as “totally outrageous.†The Bush White House has agreed with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen that all sides should move ahead “through dialogue and tolerance, not violence†- as if all sides had committed acts of equal gravity. The State Department has trotted out a spokesman to pronounce the cartoons “offensive†and a spokeswoman to scold that “Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable†- a reprimand presumably meant not for the gunmen and arsonists but for the press that dared publish the cartoons. The press, which these days includes the Internet, has been struggling over whether to run the cartoons or not - a debate salted with allusions to Hamlet’s “To be or not to be,†to print or not to print. Two editors in Jordan who bravely reprinted the cartoons - reportedly on the theory that people should at least know what they are rioting about - have been arrested. Newspapers in Germany, Norway, France, Spain, Mexico, Iceland, and Hungary have run the cartoons. Many in the U.S. have given them a pass. The Times of London ran an editorial on the matter with links to the cartoons, explaining this was meant to underscore that the viewing of them is a matter of choice. And some Western newspapers and blogs have been prompted to review the vast archive of grossly Anti-American anti-western, and above all anti-Semitic cartoons published daily in the state-controlled press in the most dictatorial countries of the Muslim world. They will soon have plenty more to review. An Iranian state newspaper is holding a Holocaust cartoon contest. But all this might be chalked up as merely a sort of jarring cultural or religious misunderstanding, needing mainly a big dose of the patience, tolerance, and dialogue so many world statesmen have been urging - were it not for the violence, and the credible threats of violence. Palestinian gunmen have stormed the European Union offices in Gaza and threatened to kidnap Scandinavians and Germans. Mobs have attacked and torched the Danish embassies in Beirut, Damascus, and Tehran, with assaults for good measure on the embassies of Norway. The Danish cartoonist, his newspaper, and others who have published the cartoons have been getting bomb threats and death threats. Iran’s Holocaust contest is no joke not simply because it is sick - which it is - but because it is accompanied by Iran’s building of nuclear bombs, teaching and funding of terror, and officially announced plans to annihilate Israel. A Pain That We're Used to These things cross a line that separates “dialogue†from acts of terrorism and war. Whatever the offense, or lack of it, the real question for the free world is where we draw the line over threats and violent acts meant to control or kill us. Are there any grounds on which it is all right for Palestinians, swimming for decades in Western aid, to storm the EU offices in Gaza? Are there any grounds on which it is acceptable for embassies to go up in smoke because the authorities of Syria, or Lebanon, or Iran, do not protect them? Are there any grounds on which it is appropriate for a secretary general of the U.N. to treat such attacks as mere breaches of etiquette, pronouncing himself “alarmed†apparently in equal measure by cartoonists and gunmen? What’s noteworthy about the latest violence is not that it is unusual - but how very ordinary in so many ways it has become. Yes, of course, the grimly whimsical surprise is that this time the lightning rod has turned out to be not the famous London underground, or the grand train stations of Madrid, or the twin towers of New York, but a set of cartoons out of Copenhagen. The Danish drawings did not trigger some previously nonexistent fury. They have simply become the latest litmus test of how very much the worst thugs of the Islamic world believe they are entitled to get away with, whatever the pretext. As for the cartoons, what ought to jump out here is that it is not, in fact, common for the Western press to caricature Mohammed, or even to run pointed cartoons about Islam. One has to wonder if the organizers of the gunmen, arsonists and death-threat-deliverers (and it takes a fair amount of organization to get hold of Danish flags in Gaza, or burn an embassy in the police-state of Syria) had to scour the ample outpourings of the Western press looking for something, anything, over which to take offense, and - faced with reams of material trying to understand their pain - had to fall back as a last resort on the cartoons of Denmark. To what extent is the Western press already afraid to risk offending those who even before the recent protests had racked up a record of death threats and murder? If statehood, citizenship, and civilization itself are to mean anything, we are all in the end accountable for our own actions. When people riot and brutalize and burn, there are individuals in the crowds who are responsible. And in the places where this is happening, if the governments will not call these individuals to account, we need to hold those governments themselves responsible. Cartoons alone, to quote another line from Hamlet, are in a class with nothing more than “words, words, words,†and those are grounds on which newspapers, nations, and religions may have their disagreements and their dialogues. But when violence enters the picture, that is a matter for governments to settle, and in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives. - Claudia Rosett is a journalist in residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200602081000.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Liger 0 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] Oh I won't. You've made it very clear to me, remember? I said I wouldn't forget next time I'm packing up another fallen soldier's......ya know what, nevermind. Nobody can get through to you so you just keep on defending murderers in court and driving your Benz and making your six digit salary or whatever it is that you do and I'll keep defending your right to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] Oh I won't. You've made it very clear to me, remember? I said I wouldn't forget next time I'm packing up another fallen soldier's......ya know what, nevermind. Nobody can get through to you so you just keep on defending murderers in court and driving your Benz and making your six digit salary or whatever it is that you do and I'll keep defending your right to do so. 219219[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] Oh I won't. You've made it very clear to me, remember? I said I wouldn't forget next time I'm packing up another fallen soldier's......ya know what, nevermind. Nobody can get through to you so you just keep on defending murderers in court and driving your Benz and making your six digit salary or whatever it is that you do and I'll keep defending your right to do so. 219219[/snapback] If you didn't want the job, you didn't have to sign up. If we weren't in Iraq, you wouldn't be packing up so many bodies would you? You should be in the U. S. "defending" our country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegalEagle 22 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Don't forget that we are not "at war." 219179[/snapback] February 08, 2006, 10:00 a.m.Rage Against the Western Machine Claudia Rosett We’re at war. But only one side seems to get that. "Rage over cartoons†has been the gist of many a headline over the past week describing the violence with which masked gunmen and arsonist mobs in the Islamic world have been protesting the publication in Denmark five months ago of political cartoons caricaturing Mohammed. Rage, yes. But let’s please get over the idea that this latest violence has anything much to do with the cartoons. "Religion of Peace," Love & Understanding This is more of the same rage that for years - decades, actually - has brought us parades of masked gunmen, along with bombings, beheadings, the murder of aid workers, tourists, and journalists, the assaults on resorts in Kenya and Bali, on the trains and subways of Madrid and London, on the weddings, funerals, and religious ceremonies of Israel and post-Baathist Iraq. This is more of the same rage - inspired one may presume by factors other than Danish political satire - that produced that act of war known as September 11. With each step, we have looked for ways to defuse the anger by understanding the grievances. Bookshops have filled with volumes on the history of Islam, the wounded pride, the regional distinctions, the contending forces within Islam itself. Our political leaders, who have relatively little to say - and just as well - about Buddhism, Hinduism, or for that matter Animism, have taken to celebrating the end of Ramadan, invited Islamic moderates to their state dinner tables and told us over and over that Islam is a religion of peace. We have debated whether to describe those who deviate from this serene vision as Islamic radicals, Islamo-fascists, militant Islamists, or plain old evil-doers, terrorists, fascists, and thugs who happen to be Muslims. And as the Danish drawings have made world headlines in recent days, our statesman have given every sign of being more disturbed by the contents of the cartoons than by the grotesque and bullying violence of the response. From many quarters, we have been warned that we must above all exercise that Christian virtue of turning the other cheek - if not positively feeling the rioters’ pain. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, self-described chief diplomat of the world, has stepped into the cartoon fray, taking the time - while accepting a $500,000 environmental prize in the United Arab Emirates - to say he shares the “anguish†of Muslims over the cartoons, but urges them to “forgive the wrong they have suffered.†Bill Clinton has condemned the cartoons as “totally outrageous.†The Bush White House has agreed with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen that all sides should move ahead “through dialogue and tolerance, not violence†- as if all sides had committed acts of equal gravity. The State Department has trotted out a spokesman to pronounce the cartoons “offensive†and a spokeswoman to scold that “Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable†- a reprimand presumably meant not for the gunmen and arsonists but for the press that dared publish the cartoons. The press, which these days includes the Internet, has been struggling over whether to run the cartoons or not - a debate salted with allusions to Hamlet’s “To be or not to be,†to print or not to print. Two editors in Jordan who bravely reprinted the cartoons - reportedly on the theory that people should at least know what they are rioting about - have been arrested. Newspapers in Germany, Norway, France, Spain, Mexico, Iceland, and Hungary have run the cartoons. Many in the U.S. have given them a pass. The Times of London ran an editorial on the matter with links to the cartoons, explaining this was meant to underscore that the viewing of them is a matter of choice. And some Western newspapers and blogs have been prompted to review the vast archive of grossly Anti-American anti-western, and above all anti-Semitic cartoons published daily in the state-controlled press in the most dictatorial countries of the Muslim world. They will soon have plenty more to review. An Iranian state newspaper is holding a Holocaust cartoon contest. But all this might be chalked up as merely a sort of jarring cultural or religious misunderstanding, needing mainly a big dose of the patience, tolerance, and dialogue so many world statesmen have been urging - were it not for the violence, and the credible threats of violence. Palestinian gunmen have stormed the European Union offices in Gaza and threatened to kidnap Scandinavians and Germans. Mobs have attacked and torched the Danish embassies in Beirut, Damascus, and Tehran, with assaults for good measure on the embassies of Norway. The Danish cartoonist, his newspaper, and others who have published the cartoons have been getting bomb threats and death threats. Iran’s Holocaust contest is no joke not simply because it is sick - which it is - but because it is accompanied by Iran’s building of nuclear bombs, teaching and funding of terror, and officially announced plans to annihilate Israel. A Pain That We're Used to These things cross a line that separates “dialogue†from acts of terrorism and war. Whatever the offense, or lack of it, the real question for the free world is where we draw the line over threats and violent acts meant to control or kill us. Are there any grounds on which it is all right for Palestinians, swimming for decades in Western aid, to storm the EU offices in Gaza? Are there any grounds on which it is acceptable for embassies to go up in smoke because the authorities of Syria, or Lebanon, or Iran, do not protect them? Are there any grounds on which it is appropriate for a secretary general of the U.N. to treat such attacks as mere breaches of etiquette, pronouncing himself “alarmed†apparently in equal measure by cartoonists and gunmen? What’s noteworthy about the latest violence is not that it is unusual - but how very ordinary in so many ways it has become. Yes, of course, the grimly whimsical surprise is that this time the lightning rod has turned out to be not the famous London underground, or the grand train stations of Madrid, or the twin towers of New York, but a set of cartoons out of Copenhagen. The Danish drawings did not trigger some previously nonexistent fury. They have simply become the latest litmus test of how very much the worst thugs of the Islamic world believe they are entitled to get away with, whatever the pretext. As for the cartoons, what ought to jump out here is that it is not, in fact, common for the Western press to caricature Mohammed, or even to run pointed cartoons about Islam. One has to wonder if the organizers of the gunmen, arsonists and death-threat-deliverers (and it takes a fair amount of organization to get hold of Danish flags in Gaza, or burn an embassy in the police-state of Syria) had to scour the ample outpourings of the Western press looking for something, anything, over which to take offense, and - faced with reams of material trying to understand their pain - had to fall back as a last resort on the cartoons of Denmark. To what extent is the Western press already afraid to risk offending those who even before the recent protests had racked up a record of death threats and murder? If statehood, citizenship, and civilization itself are to mean anything, we are all in the end accountable for our own actions. When people riot and brutalize and burn, there are individuals in the crowds who are responsible. And in the places where this is happening, if the governments will not call these individuals to account, we need to hold those governments themselves responsible. Cartoons alone, to quote another line from Hamlet, are in a class with nothing more than “words, words, words,†and those are grounds on which newspapers, nations, and religions may have their disagreements and their dialogues. But when violence enters the picture, that is a matter for governments to settle, and in the free world the job of government and politicians is not to opine upon cartoons, but to lay down the law that no one may with impunity threaten our liberty and lives. - Claudia Rosett is a journalist in residence at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. http://www.nationalreview.com/rosett/rosett200602081000.asp 219199[/snapback] Why isn't Bush speaking out for freedom of speach? Why isn't he straightening out those protestors throughout the world. If you want to destroy Muslims, now you have the way. Just put up a billboard in the middle of each country with a certain cartoon on it. If anyone comes out to protest, blow 'em away! Is that a plan or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.