if we invest money into the stability of another country, or use it to buy off the puppet heads, we should expect them to be able to control their unruly citizens, or at least share some of the money with them. have no idea why we're investing money to support the sand people, probably something to do with corruption or maybe we just need the sand to make computer chips.

quit sending them Our Money. get the Christians to send them Their Money.

Selling weapons to countries so they can slaughter each other and their civilians? Yes. Selling them chemical weapons? Yes.



Sanctions are good? That's what you should be asking. They very rarely ever do any good. Also, it's a little thing called collective punishment -- the same thing that's happening in Gaza -- which leads to acute malnutrition (depending on what's being sanctioned), causes disease (can't repair anything or provide supplies to hospitals) and leads to death.

Look how awesome sanctions worked against Iraq. Look how awesome they are working against Iran and North Korea. The sanctions actually alienate them even more. What happened after we slapped new sanctions on Iran? They said they'd speed up their nuclear production. Good job, sanctions!



Don't get where this came from. Refusing to trade with countries that contradict our so-called principles is bad, yes.

I know where this is going to lead: "But every country doesn't share our exact principles, so we'd be refusing to trade with everyone."

No, what I mean is trading with countries that continually abuse human rights (*cough* Egypt *cough* Jordan *cough* Tunisia...etc). We can't completely stop trading with everyone, but limiting it would sure help those countries change their policies. Instead, we trade with whoever wants to so we can increase our standard of living. Yeah, sure, it's great and all and I am grateful to be an American, but it also means indulging in hypocrisy and keeping quiet whilst we tacitly support regimes that continually oppress their people.

bah, our traders prefer dealing with the scum of the earth. makes prices much cheaper.

plus they don't have guns before we get there.

They have sent forces to directly attack our troops. We have captured Iranian Guardsmen in Iraq on many occasions. Iran does not have a right to manipulate. They are a hostile force and should be opposed, forget your moral equivalencies that you can only apply due to your blessed station as an American.

We have supported many bad people in the world, as a lesser of two evils. This is reality TAN, not happy fun land where only good things happen. The Shah was supported to counterbalance the Soviets, Saddam to counter the Iranian radicals. As Ravi said, they alone are responsible for their own actions.



Yeah, you're presenting a serious case here, Iran is such a nice country, no rational person could think them ill. Yeah, we have how many UN sanction resolutions authorized. Come on man, EVEN the French agree.




Thank the evil Mubarak for that moderation. The Brotherhood has never had a problem with violence. Mubarak would smash them.

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/...o-friend_537572.html";>The Brotherhood</a>

ElBaradei is a stooge who has just showed up. Of course the Brotherhood will 'support' him, for now. Just like the Iranian revolution claimed to be 'for the people' and that worked out so well for the people. This is a very similar setup. What data do we have to say exactly who is protesting, how percentage wants this turn over in this way. I've gotten the sense that Egypt is mostly moderate, but a revolution in this manner is setting the perfect groundwork for radicals to come in. What does this serve?



Leaves us with a few dozen countries to invade, oh goodie. In the end the people of a country are responsible for their gov't. Sanctions don't ban food and medicines. The despotic regimes are just so good at governance that they drive their economies into the toilet and massive famines usually ensue. Weakened populations are easier to control.



Yeah, why would we have to worry about Iran and the bomb...

i wish i had the motivation to help TAN out here against the "america good ragheads evil" crew but it would just be too much wasted energy with low probability of success

meh, TAN can probably afford to be a towel head. he probably doesn't have to settle for rags.

Proof please. Of actual Iranian soldiers.



Being there doesn't mean they were actually killing our troops.



But we do? What did you think our troops are doing over there? Taking camel rides through the majestic desert?

And provided that Iranian troops were actually there and were actually engaging our soldiers, there are 2 questions that must be asked:

1) Why are Iranian troops there?
2) Why are American troops there?

Both have no reason to be there. So saying "IRAN IS WRONG AND WE ARE RIGHT" is subjective, rhetorical bullfluff.



Yet if we weren't there, they wouldn't be fueling attacks against us, would they?



Like Pinochet?



And when Iranians overthrew their own Shah, it wasn't Communism that took hold, but a theocracy. One of the reasons why they revolted was because they were being oppressed -- kinda like what we're seeing with revolution 2011.

If you think Saddam was the "lesser" of two evils, you clearly don't know much about his history of oppression. They were both equally detestable.



All of those resolutions in the UN have to do with Iran building nuclear facilities. Now explain to me, if you can, why the Iranians are so evil.



And political Islam has EVER been known to back down because the government persecutes them? Have you been hiding under a rock or something? Has Hamas disappeared? Has Hezbollah disappeared? Have the TALIBAN disappeared? What about Chechen "terrorism"? Did that disappear simply because the Russians walked in there and stomped on them?

Your correlation between Mubarak and the MB going moderate is an insane assertion.



Funny you mentioned the Shah being the "lesser of two evils." You hit it EXACTLY. Excellent point. The Shah, a secular dictator that oppressed his own people, got overthrown with an Islamic revolution. The same thing is possible with Egypt now.

So much for that argument. Thanks for the help.



True, unless you're Gaza and the people sanctioning you are Israel.



YEAH TOTALLY. JUST LIKE HOW SADDAM, IRAN, NORTH KOREA AND CUBA ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE WANTED CUZ OF SANCTIONS.

OMGWTFBBQ
LULZ

NUB



Well if you ARE worried about the "bomb" that they are allegedly making but no one has been able to prove thus far, then sanctioning them is stupid, considering they're just getting their supplies from Russia anyways.

They even offered their Uranium so long as the transfer was conducted in Turkey. The West refused the offer.

Also, provide evidence that Iran would actually give away nuclear weapons to, what I assume you're going to say, terrorists. By terrorists, I mean their own proxy nations.

Hamas/Hezbollah are to Iran, as Israel/Kuwait are to the USA. You see how that works?

I'd be more worried about Pakistan/India launching their nukes, or Israel launching their nukes, than I would of Iran.

Could we please keep the racial slurs to a minimum? I don't have a ban button, but that doesn't mean I won't call in reinforcements. :p

pffft, how you figure that it's a racial slur if we're just talking about the headgear that they can afford to wear?

hmmm, maybe i accidently posted a link to some racial website that condemned all Westerners as infidels who needed to be shoved down a well to fulfill the will of Allah, who technically is kinda blind as to just exactly what will it is that it wants to fulfill as long as it makes him great.

think it's more likely that Patty doesn't like me calling TAN a towel-head though.

Meh, I don't think we should be concerned that much for Egypt, it'll either be better because of this, or worse... if it's worse, expect another riot and a beheading... if its better expect life to go on as usual like the riot thats happening now never happened.

I should know better, but I don't care; I like politics.

Both sides have a point, and I think the easiest way to split the difference is to say, simply, that HYPOCRISY is the real problem. The dictators named above are bad, no one disputes this. Americans arming some of those dictators to counter others of those dictators is also bad, but there is relevance to the argument that it is the lesser evil in some of those cases. The problem is that the American government likes to completely ignore the fact that it's treading into morally ambiguous territory in favor of a worldview that's black and white, in which there can be no question that America is blindingly white.

I have a suggestion: Get rid of nationalism altogether. In that way I agree with TAN completely: No life is worth more or less than another's because of nationality. To say otherwise invites hypocrisy: "This will save many [insert your nationality here] lives," at the cost of many other nationalities' lives, deaths which are often ignored or unknown at best and purposely whitewashed at worst. I would be a lot more forgiving if politicians would be open about the consequences of their actions, rather than trying to brush it under the rug. But of course that's a pipe dream.

Okay so sellings weapons is bad because people use them to kill themselves and using sanctions don't work and can actually make the situation worse. I happen to agree. However I'm still not understanding why America is responsible? I guess I'm not seeing the resonsibility put where it should be. I see America being used as an excuse. You really don't know where I've been coming from with all this have you?



Originally posted by Ravi:
Refusing to trade is bad?

"Don't get where this came from. Refusing to trade with countries that contradict our so-called principles is bad, yes.

"I know where this is going to lead: "But every country doesn't share our exact principles, so we'd be refusing to trade with everyone."

"No, what I mean is trading with countries that continually abuse human rights (*cough* Egypt *cough* Jordan *cough* Tunisia...etc). We can't completely stop trading with everyone, but limiting it would sure help those countries change their policies"


What do you mean you don't know where this came from? Trade is an interaction with another country. You seem to be blaming the USA for deaths in other countries based on our interactions with them. Trade is such an interaction. Any trade item can be used for a military purpose. I sell or trade you food and you use it to feed yourself so you have the stregth to stab Detmer. I sold you the food in good faith to feed yourself. You killed poor Detmer. I may have even sold you the knife you used to stab the bastard. I thought you were going to use it to protect yourself from Zen.

But trade is still good. True. But is there a right amount? I mean if I trade too much and you are a bad country I must be enabling you. If I trade too little I may be bordering on sanctions. Man this whole world thing isn't easy.

lol America is blamed for everything these days don't you know...

America is responsible because the onus is on them to STOP selling weapons to countries that use them for mass murder and against the Geneva Conventions, of which we are a Signatory -- we are *obligated* to stop knowingly aiding war criminals, yet we do it anyways. That is how we are responsible.

Also, I guess while we're at it -- and this is a huge tangent -- google the School of the Americas for more fun in responsibility.




Ah sorry. I should have been more clear that I wasn't sure what that question was directly referring to vis-a-vis what I posted, but I see now.

See the above response to answer this -- it all involves *knowing* that someone is misusing weapons we give them but continue selling them those weapons anyways.

That is when trade is bad (from a moral point of view -- not necessarily strategic, which is a whole different story).




That's because the USSR isn't around anymore. :P

tbh I think the situation in Egypt is quite different from what happened in Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood based on what I've been able to learn about them is hardly as extreme as the Ayatollahs. Also there are enough secular factions in Egypt that have influence to make it much harder to happen than somewhere like Lebanon (not saying it will, just citing an example).

The issue with Pakistan/India/Israel and nukes is a political one. The rule is that if you have a powerful benefactor (be it the US/China/Russia) you can get away with more until your population finds a way of disposing of you (also see Sudan + China). But this has nothing to do with the topic.

Where this wave of upheavals will go next is interesting. I read that Jordan is also having issues now.

My question is who is organizing this. Is it local or external?
There is no such thing as a "spontaneous" demonstration or chaos of this magnitude (other than caused by a huge disaster). We'll see.

"America is responsible because the onus is on them to STOP selling weapons to countries that use them for mass murder and against the Geneva Conventions"

True. But they aren't the only guilty ones.
China/Russia/France/UK are equally as bad.
Germany/Canada/Japan/Belgium are almost as bad.
Yes.. you read correctly what I typed above.

If the Americans ceased all military sales, someone else would step in. Don't kid yourself here. The US is the easier target to get blamed because they have by in large the largest military budget in the world (followed by the UK and probably Russia).

Arms dealing is a global problem and sadly there is no solution in site to this.

The countries in the middle east (most of them) have bought arms from every major power at one point or another in their history. Many of them from multiple sources over the past 3-4 years.

martian, it actually started with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bou'azizi in Tunisia, which set off the Tunisian riots. After the 'people's power' revolution there actually succeeded, it started a cascade across other Arab countries that realized that it IS possible to oust a dictator through revolution.

Copycat suiciders sprung up in Algeria and Sudan. Copycat protests immediately sprung up in Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Morocco (to a lesser degree), and Sudan (also to a lesser degree).

In Egypt, it was organized, but collectively. It started on Facebook and Twitter, where people organized a protest on January 25 -- and on Twitter, it was primarily organized through the hashtag #jan25.

After that initial protest, it just started cascading from there.

There were multiple reasons how it got started -- I just gave a brief version in the first post of this thread.

Well if Muslim Brotherhood comes to power - Egypt might be at war with Israel....


"Muhammad Ghannem reportedly told Al- Alam that the Suez Canal should be closed immediately, and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease “in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.” He added that “the people should be prepared for war against Israel,” saying the world should understand that “the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.”

Ghannem praised Egyptian soldiers deployed by President Hosni Mubarak to Egyptian cities, saying they “would not kill their brothers.” He added that Washington was forced to abandon plans to help Mubarak stay in power after “seeing millions head for the streets.” "

It is retarded to say America is responsible for any of this. What is the reason is a poor economy with people having no money for anything- meanwhile they have a dictator who is living it up. People blaming America are either ignorant or are "good muslems". After all we are the infidel and we will NEVER have shirea law here (exc spell). That alone is more than enough for any "good muslem" to hate and want to kill us. Sure you might call them radicals- but they are just doing what the koran tells them to. I dont blame them for following their religion. Ill follow mine. I only wish more people would read the koran and shirea law so they know that muslems are taught that its ok to lie to the infidel. That its good to beat you wife. All these facts and more are there for you to read if you chose.

Ill continue to follow my religious beliefs and respect women and not hate someone just cause they believe something different. And no i dont hate muslems- i understand their beliefs- and that might make us enemies, but i dont hate them. I hope they see how crazy many things in their teachings are and maybe with the mideast getting more westernized things might change- until then- Stop blaming America. We cant stop you from being ignorant.

Obvious troll is obvious.

um, what kind of religion does a PimpThang practice? sounds like someone who does their job laying down.

I cannot read it Sam I Am. I haven't learned how to read da Arabic yet. suppose i could spend time trying to figure out if the interpreters were smoking crack.

Bah. I was going to respond to Dibs with some helpful advice, but I know he is just looking for fuel to continue trolling.

The breaking point with these situations is always what the military/secret police decides to do. Fortunately in egypt they have decided not to massacre the demonstrators.. the Iranian people were not as lucky a while back.

Will we have an eastern europe type situation here or will we end up with a a pre-1990's South america scenario.. That remains to be seen. Or will Egypt become another Iran? I think that's far less likely give the strategic nature of the Suez canal to Europe and the US. I think we all remember what happened the last time Egypt tried to mess with that.

How nice to have an ignorant fluff trolling around on the forums.

1. It is not permissible to beat one's wife. There's a hadith (narration) that supports this. Nowhere in Islamic sources (Koran or Hadith) does it say you're permitted to beat your wife.

2. Muslims as a whole don't hate the US because they're Muslims. They, like any other group that being targeted and discriminated against, abhor the hypocrisy of the United States POLITICIANS who are total HYPOCRITES when it comes to dealing with Muslims.

3. A significant chunk of the US are ignorant of what REALLY goes on in the rest of the world. The relatively ignorant minority wonder, "why the fluff does it seem like everyone is hating our guts? We're the protectors of the 'free world' after all, they should kiss our bums for saving theirs!"

This is the exact attitude that has people hating on the US. Heck, if you took some time out to check out both sides of the arguments/news, you might get some real info. Instead they keep swallowing bullfluff propaganda and then go around spewing it out without checking out its authenticity. After all, a significant proportion of Americans think that the Palestinians are the occupiers of Israel instead of the other way around. But then again, this is a nation that almost voted Sarah Palin (that ignorant fluff who knows nothing about the rest of the world) into office. It's not that surprising.

4. The US has been known to support cruel dictators that massacred their own people and turned a blind eye while providing free munitions so that they can continue fluffing up their own people.

Taliban vs Soviet. Shahs vs Iranian people. Israel vs Palestine....all those and more were the result of US financial and military support. The Taliban were after all armed by the US (CIA). They provided weapons and training financed by the US to the Taliban to use against the Soviet Union troops in Afghanistan.

With one hand, they blocked all trade with Iran including weapons(a country that has never attacked another nation in its modern history) while the other hand provided free firearms and financial support to crazy fluff dictators with nukes who were prosecuting their own peeps and were known to go into full blown WAR with their neighbors over little territorial disputes.

5. The US politicians and military meddled in other countries' affairs, even going so far as setting up wars under false pretenses (non-existent WMDs) so as to protect their oil interests (Afghanistan/Iraq) and to prop up their Arab puppet regimes and Israeli puppetmasters who have so long controlled the American politicians via their powerful Jewish lobbies.

The US will go to any lengths to protect Israel even if its detrimental to its own interests. They'd willing sacrifice their own soldiers and warships killed by their own closest "ally" just so Israel can protect its own dark secrets. *coughUSSLibertycough*

6. It's ok for the US to kill thousands of innocent civilians but it's bad when a few US soldiers die? Nice price tag you put on human lives there.

Epic hypocrisy in action.

iNouda, I've learned to just ignore Dibs and his ilk. They purposely come here to troll.

If you ask PimpThang to cite any sources, he'll just link to Christian sites or Muslim-bashing sites.

It's pointless to even argue with them, and the majority of the AT community are educated enough to recognize them as trolls.

I guess at least the Russians were direct about it when dealing with Afghanistan and Chechnya..
As are the Chinese in Xinjiang.

I wasnt trolling- read the Koran and shria law. Its there.

Maybe instead of blaming the US for all your problems you guys could get up and do your own thing. Trust me i would LOVE to see the US stop giving ANY aid or having anything to do with the mid east ect. We have the resources here (oil ect) and i wish we would use them. Then we could sit back and watch as you guys try to eat sand cause we stop selling you grain. Im sure that would make you happy.

I've read the Quran, and I know Sharia law. I am a Muslim after all. You are just ignorant and uneducated.

Don't bother providing links to your Islamophobic sites. Not gonna bother reading them.

yah! ignore my posts and let me practice my free speech!

Muslims have extremists, like all other religions, like the dude in Florida.. well he's just crazy.

everyone has thier extremists.

then why are we spending billions and billions of dollars trying to wipe out only the muslim extremists?

cause every religion always looks the otherway when it comes to thier extremists... and we are democratic :-P we still havn't got ridda the kkk, they are pretty extreme about thier religious views... and racial ones...

i kinda find it extreme to believe in something simply because it was taught to you from birth, especially since parents have this habit of recounting what they taught their children as they get older.

that wasn't Santa.
that wasn't the Tooth Fairy.
you won't actually go blind.

The biggest difference between Muslims and EVERY OTHER religion is that Muslims are the ONLY ones who are doing mass murder for RELIGIOUS reasons. No other religion is killing people for religion. Now, i know youll say there are other crazy and extreme people out there- there are- but they are not killing, suicide bombing, for religious reasons. Name me the last time anyone here knows of any other person suicide bombing for RELIGIOUS reasons? You can't. Yes, there are other people killing for politics, cause they are crazy, or for revenge ect. But no other religion is breeding these mass murders like Muslims religion is.

I want to be wrong- please for the love of god someone show me. Timm Mcbay and thye Ok bombing was for political reasons- he dont count- i am looking for RELIGIOUS reasons- that are not muslims. Please some one show me.

If it is ONLY the muslim religion that has suicide bombers dont you think maybe we should check them out a little or be a slight bit cautious around them??? Im not advocating and i dont think we should stop anyone from their beliefs- but i do think its probable cause to check them out. Like seeing someone with a beer in their hand- they probably are fine- but then again they might be drunk.

Please someone give me a name of a suicide bomber who was not a muslim. I want to believe they are just extremists and that its not the religion but i need one name. This is not to troll- i really need a name.

http://www.commonplacebook.com/...tics/christian_terro.shtm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_bomber

"Such views are challenged both from the outside and from within Islam. According to Islamic jurist and scholar Khaled Abou Al-Fadl,

The classical jurists, nearly without exception, argued that those who attack by stealth, while targeting noncombatants in order to terrorize the resident and wayfarer, are corrupters of the earth. "Resident and wayfarer" was a legal expression that meant that whether the attackers terrorize people in their urban centers or terrorize travelers, the result was the same: all such attacks constitute a corruption of the earth. The legal term given to people who act this way was muharibun (those who wage war against society), and the crime is called the crime of hiraba (waging war against society). The crime of hiraba was so serious and repugnant that, according to Islamic law, those guilty of this crime were considered enemies of humankind and were not to be given quarter or sanctuary anywhere. ... Those who are familiar with the classical tradition will find the parallels between what were described as crimes of hiraba and what is often called terrorism today nothing short of remarkable. The classical jurists considered crimes such as assassinations, setting fires, or poisoning water wells – that could indiscriminately kill the innocent – as offenses of hiraba. Furthermore, hijacking methods of transportation or crucifying people in order to spread fear and terror are also crimes of hiraba. Importantly, Islamic law strictly prohibited the taking of hostages, the mutilation of corpses, and torture.[93]"

what a neat quote.

oh, btw, why do you think that suicide bombing is pivotal to the debate on what makes a terrorist a terrorist?

I never said that was what made a terrorist. What im saying is that i cant find one instance of a person suicide bombing for religious reasons in any religion other than muslim. And it would be a great world if they all followed that practice in your quote. I would love to see every nation get along.

PimpThang, your problem is you are not making a distinction between politically-motivated attacks from religious zealots, and religious zealots.

All the suiciding bombing you see usually has a political reason, not a religious one.

Bombings in Israel? Political. Bombings in Afghanistan/Iraq/USA? Political. Bombing in Bali? Political.

It's all political dude. You're just confusing the issues.

The Crusades... just saying.

OK, so Junky the most recent time you can think of is the crusades? I think that goes a long way to proving my point. And its not political. If you think its political when a guy starts yelling "alla alla akbar" (exc spelling) and then opens up on innocent civilians or detonated a bomb wrapped around himself- that is not political- that is religious. The crusades was religious- and i agree- that was the last time i can think of any other religion performing mass murder because of religion.
The rest of the world has moved on. I mean that was what well over 1k years ago? This really needs to be looked at. And you can't have your argument both ways- first you say they are extremists and now you say they are just doing it for political reasons? They are doing it for religious reasons. Maybe they are extremists, but if they are, muslims have the only religion that breeds this kind of insanity and that proves my point. Self preservation is not discrimination. Based on that knowledge, its not unreasonable to screen people who are muslims a little closer- just as one would do to someone doing drugs or that looked drunk?


Maybe if they Muslims started policing and going after the "extremists" themselves it would show the rest of the world that it really is the few and not so much the many. However, when they had the chance who did they elect? Hezbolla got elected, the Taliban protected, and Bin Ladden allowed his safety net. Ya, there is something seriously wrong here.


Im still waiting for ANYONE to give a name of someone since the CRUSADES that mass murdered (suicide bomb ect) for religious reasons. PLEASE enlighten me- i want to eat crow.

If it was all political they why was the people responsible for 911 from many different mid east countries, and the ONLY thing they had in common was that they were all muslims??? Thats not political- its religious. We (the rest of the world) is not stupid. We see through your lies. Dont tell us that was political- cause if a State would have been solely responsible for that we would have destroyed it. 911 was religious motivated.

The Crusades weren't political? I can't wait to tear you a new one when I get home in a couple of hours.

I am flying back to Chicago tomorrow, so I will have some time tonight to sit down and shred every single thought you made.

I am even going to correct your fluffing grammar and syntax. Give me a few hours.

Actually only the US and certain Euro politicians believe that fluff about Islam. The rest of the world aka Russia/China and their minions believe you're full of fluff. But that's just politics :P

Christian Mass Murders since Crusades?

Really?

Hitler- was a Christian and used the BIble to support many of his issues.
Jim Jones?- happened in America,
David Koresh- kinda iffy but on the list.

The Church slaughtered many people in Europe, and there were many religious wars over the "type of CHristianity" so much so that Europe is mostly postchristian today and many won't even look at our faith.

Salem Witch trials,

The killing of people in Africa and the USA that happened during the Slave trade.

ALl the above were justified by people b/c of their Christian Faith.

Recent Violence in Yugoslavia in the 90's had CHristians mass murdering Muslims...I believe (need facts checked on this one..)


Don't get me wrong,
I believe in the power of the world religions. Very Strongly.
But I also believe that fundamentalism eventually creates a percentage of the population that resorts to violence to protect their truth.

Hence why I stand as strongly against "creationism" as I do against Suiciding for your relgion.

Fundamentalism in all Faiths is the issue.
Not the Faiths themself

Servant- i appreciate your try but you missed the question. Not christian mass murders- im sure every faith has nutjobs. I was asking for an example of mass killing for religious reasons. Hitler was nuts- but his was for racial reasons as was in Yugoslavia in the 90's... They were not christians saying god is great as they murdered non christians.

So, the best anyone can come us with is the salem witch trials? over 200 years ago? And as far as i know there was no one suiciding to perform mass murder there. As for David Koresh- that is wrong too- that was a radical religious group i grant you- BUT- they were strictly defending their compound and not out trying to mass murder innocent people. So i dont think that counts either.


Im still fairly certain that within the last 200 years the ONLY religion that has fanatics willing to kill themselves in order to mass murder is Muslims. I wish i was wrong- but no one seems able to prove otherwise. Now, dont you think something must be wrong with a religion that breeds that kind of hate? I mean enough hate to die for killing babies and kids and women? I wish there was a way of flushing their minds into not agreeing with other religions but at least letting them live in peace. I dont get why many mid east countries want Israiel wiped off the map. My father has heard, in person, a mid east muslim say "that there will never be peace in the mid east so long as there is one jew left in israiel." I dont understand this thinking.

Maybe it used to be muslim country but it hasnt been for a long time. why not just let those people live in peace? And why blame America for all your problems? You say its our fault because we sold you the weapons- well dont buy them.

"Dude, do you even know WHY you hate the Muslim Brotherhood? Read up on them. They aren't even as bad as most people think."
tan

so when it is reported that they say they are going to shut down the suez canal and that we can all expect war with isreal, it is a lie? either them playing tough for whatever reason, or fox news spinning webs of deceit?

Any religion has its own outlined government system, everyone has the join us or die attitude, everyone is wrong, christians, sikh, jew, buddhist, and islam ect... i fluff on all religions of the world and anyone that wants to argue about faith. faith is just another word for imaginary.

Wrong



Wrong



Debateable



That is a lie. You would be in jail if what you said was true. It is a crime to defecate on people who do not consent. (Well, I suppose I can't prove you aren't ranting from prison.)



Wrong. Faith is a word for trusting in something without complete proof. People put faith in a plethora of non-religious things every day. There are many things that are unexplainable to anybody and it is not unreasonable to put faith in the most plausible explanation. Science is a religion for some people. I admit I have faith in the words of many scientists I have never met but trust what they are telling me is true. Likewise I trust that Jesus died to save me from my sins. I am certain you have faith in any number of things and I wouldn't mind if you video taped yourself doing a handstand over the toilet.

Okay! I have 1.5 hours before I have to be at the airport.

First thing's first, it's time to fix that isht up to make it more readable!

Your last three posts, in sequential order: