Should the Pope apologize??

[louie694]

I find it astounding that 40% of Democrats think it's okay if Iran has nukes. I guess I shouldn't be surprised anymore...

b, if they can ignore harris' piece, and ignore the koran, and ignore the promises from hitler/ahmadnijad/hezbollah, and ignore 911, madrid, london, bali, israeli, beslan et al, then no, you ought not to be surprised.

tehran is next. then damascus. let's get it out of the way already.

 

[louie694]

I don't care if it's Howard Dean or Mickey Mouse. We do need a new direction. Doing what we're doing has had the opposite effect of what was intended and no amount of "staying the course" is going to result in anything but more of the same.

yes, of course. a new direction for you is let's-have-the-un-solve-it. somebody even suggested here that iran has a right to nukes because heck it's their country and who are we, etc etc.

your suggested course of action is essentially let's do nothing and let's let the bad guys keep on doing bad things and killing our folks, etc.

typical leftist empty blather. a tempest in a teapot loud and furious signifying nothing.

 

[Disney MAINEiac]

JPII beat him to it.

Yeah, I know. My point was if we start playing this blame game for everything some organization has done hundreds of years ago, everytime someone gets their feeling hurt, it could go on forever.

 

[eclectics]

tehran is next. then damascus. let's get it out of the way already.

Way to go Louie! Just think, you'd have two new invasions to look forward to! Or should we just nuke them both? That would be quicker.

 

[louie694]

Way to go Louie! Just think, you'd have two new invasions to look forward to! Or should we just nuke them both? That would be quicker.

ok, let's put it this way. i know you're not really upset enough at these folks yet to really want to take decisive action against them. i know you believe that do nothing diplomats can solve the problem. but, sorry to say, you are wrong.

here is what i propose to completely militarise and MOTIVATE the left wing in this country and europe, it's really very simple and i think the buy-in will be total.

it's built upon the taliban model. remember all the outrage from the american left when the talibans blew up the two buddhas in the mountains? remember the vitriol and hatred and anger at the "barbarians" and "anti-civilization" taliban from the left at that time? the left wasn't upset about women being stoned to death, about a mysoginist culture of intolerance, about a society as backwards as say, well, the DNC, about the support of terrorists, etc. they never said anything about any of it. but they were all outraged about the buddhas getting whacked.

let's have the terrorist blow up the louvre!! wow! all that beautiful art ruined destroyed lost! what a loss to humanity! the left will say, let's kill em all!!!!

you know i'm right, admit it. the left doesn't care a dang about lives lost or anything of the sort, they don't support the united states, hate it infact, and are swimming in the filth of their own arrogance while their intellects are left on the sand to rot.

so, if you want a motivated left, we're gonna have to have the bad guys blow up some art pieces folks. sorry.

 

[LuvDuke]

Way to go Louie! Just think, you'd have two new invasions to look forward to! Or should we just nuke them both? That would be quicker.

Don't feed the troll. Let her get a new persona.

 

[eclectics]

ok, let's put it this way. i know you're not really upset enough at these folks yet to really want to take decisive action against them. i know you believe that do nothing diplomats can solve the problem. but, sorry to say, you are wrong.

here is what i propose to completely militarise and MOTIVATE the left wing in this country and europe, it's really very simple and i think the buy-in will be total.

it's built upon the taliban model. remember all the outrage from the american left when the talibans blew up the two buddhas in the mountains? remember the vitriol and hatred and anger at the "barbarians" and "anti-civilization" taliban from the left at that time? the left wasn't upset about women being stoned to death, about a mysoginist culture of intolerance, about a society as backwards as say, well, the DNC, about the support of terrorists, etc. they never said anything about any of it. but they were all outraged about the buddhas getting whacked.

let's have the terrorist blow up the louvre!! wow! all that beautiful art ruined destroyed lost! what a loss to humanity! the left will say, let's kill em all!!!!

you know i'm right, admit it. the left doesn't care a dang about lives lost or anything of the sort, they don't support the united states, hate it infact, and are swimming in the filth of their own arrogance while their intellects are left on the sand to rot.

so, if you want a motivated left, we're gonna have to have the bad guys blow up some art pieces folks. sorry.

Kendra made more sense with blowing up Mecca.

 

[eclectics]

Don't feed the troll. Let her get a new persona.

passive aggressive much?

 

[louie694]

Kendra made more sense with blowing up Mecca.

well, in defense of my idea versus kendra's, my idea involves a museum in FRANCE!! i should get extra points just for that.

 

[louie694]

Kendra made more sense with blowing up Mecca.

uhh, with all respect, aren't you proving my point here?

 

[LuvDuke]

passive aggressive much?

Not this time.

 

[eclectics]

well, in defense of my idea versus kendra's, my idea involves a museum in FRANCE!! i should get extra points just for that.

That's true. I'll give you that. Muslims and France. Having Jimmy Carter and Al Gore inside the Louvre at the time would give you a home run!

 

[lindalinda]

Thank you. I appreciate your apology. In this heated climate, it takes a big person to admit they were wrong. You are doing yourself and your religious beliefs proud.

When it comes to religion, I believe all should have the right practice as they see fit within Constitutional limits. In that respect, this non-religious person is a good friend to religion.

Again, thank you. It took courage to do what you did.

And for the record, I think these Muslim fundamentalists, who are killing, burning, and protesting are insane. Or maybe crazy like a fox because I do believe it isn't religious fervor that guides them, but the quest for political power.

As one who lived in the Middle East, I saw firsthand the poverty, illiteracy, and ignorance that's rampant in the Arab world. Some of these people are in the same position as Christians during the Dark Ages: whatever's on the other side has got to be better than what they have on earth. That lure and that promise is very powerful.

There is a growing reform movement within Islam, but it's in a race for time similar to what we're seeing with the Chinese. Which is going to topple first: the regime or the reform movement?

Btw, you better sit down for this one: I don't believe Pope Benedict owed anyone an apology. I believed he showed bad judgment in his choice of words. but that's where I draw the line. These people have no justification for what they're doing and I believe most in the Muslim world believe that also. They have a civil war that needs to be fought among themselves over who and what is going dominate Islam for the next millenia. And we can't help them with that. That's an internal fight within the family.

OT---I just appreciate this post. A simple and forthright description of a personal opinion on a topic. I normally dont post on these threads because of the tiresome (to me, obviously someone must be enjoying them) college debate team rules. Whoever cites the most convoluted reference wins! An actual independent thought!

 

[eclectics]

uhh, with all respect, aren't you proving my point here?

Louie, I think it's nap time.

 

[louie694]

Not this time.

right. more aggressive than passive certainly.
while you aspire to passive aggressive you just aren't quite subtle enough.

 

[louie694]

Louie, I think it's nap time.

what?? i'm on 84 hours wide awake!! i ain't breakin' my streak now, pal!!

 

[louie694]

OT---I just appreciate this post. A simple and forthright description of a personal opinion on a topic. I normally dont post on these threads because of the tiresome (to me, obviously someone must be enjoying them) college debate team rules. Whoever cites the most convoluted reference wins! An actual independent thought!

i thought paid advertising was not allowed in these forums!!!

 

[LuvDuke]

OT---I just appreciate this post. A simple and forthright description of a personal opinion on a topic. I normally dont post on these threads because of the tiresome (to me, obviously someone must be enjoying them) college debate team rules. Whoever cites the most convoluted reference wins! An actual independent thought!

Thank you for your kind words.

 

[sodaseller]

If you're finished throwing up all the smoke and mirrors, perhaps you (or Kevin) would like to take a stab at the main point of his piece (and BTW, I don't think he's a columnist for the LAT). His main point was directed at you, not me. To wit:


Quote:
On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

"Smoke & Mirrors" means you are not intellectually or morally equipped to understand or respond.

That's not a point. A point is a logical argument. He has stated his personal belief, without any empirical support, except for the letters he received, which I conceded are irrefutable, as much as the voices in his head.

One of the problems debating someone like you is that you can't process logic. He is making the argument "I don't trust "A" without explaining what "A" did to deserve that mistrust, other than the aforementioned letters that no one has seen or interpreted but him. Based on publicly available evidence, his conclusions are unsupportable. Based on his private letters, who knows? But how does one refute that? The problem with arguing with someone of your limitations is that you cannot ascertain that someone relating ther personal feelings based on unseen evidence that is at odds with publicly available evidence is not an argument. It's contrariwise Twioddlydee logic.

He refers to some extreme number of those seeking to blow us up, possibly nuclearly, without ever explaining the basis of that number. And you still cling to the survey as your last island of hope against a tsunami of opposing logic, when Drum addressed that fine - 16% of people (without political identification) think it likely that the towers were blown. How do you make a political point out of that relevant to his claim when 38% believe aliens are being concealed? You have the intellect and integrity of your President, which explains this exchange and the Iraq war. Ya'll can't process that opposition to war can be anything except preference for the enemy and an illdefined one at that, to kill instead. That's a moral failing, and it's not ours

 

[sodaseller]

At least you admit there's a problem. And, it looks as if luvduk, also, admits there's a problem. The thing is, for so many others here, it SEEMS as if they will NOT even admit there's a problem anywhere.

So, here's my solution: We have to admit there's an "enemy". Until this is at least admitted by most on the left, I'm not sure what we can really do. Too many are defending the murderers and want to point out what all the Christians have done, how bad America is, etc. But, assuming we could all agree on the enemy and admit how bad Political Islam is. . .

My dh and I went to dinner the other night with some real activists. They have been politically active since the 60s and they were liberals. They marched with MLK. They BROUGHT Buddhism to our city (they are the "father' and "mother" of Buddhism here, although they are no longer buddhists, since 2001). He's a professor at a University here. He's an author on Islam. She is a researcher and has briefed homeland security on terrorism.

I'm trying to let you know they are liberals, or were. They recognize the threat, too.

His idea (and there is a big meeting here planned in January) is that we get rid of the Kabah. He believes that once this happens, there is no more Hajj. And, once there is no more Haj, no more pilgrimage, it breaks one of the pillars of Islam without going to war on an entire group of people. He thinks that Islam needs to 'fall'. And, he believes that by breaking one of the Pillars of Islam, it can fall. They are not permitted to pray to a desecrated altar, so if the Kabah is gone. . .

He believes that the Prayer pillar will be gone, too, although I don't understand this one quite as much, since they can still pray. But, they won't be facing Mecca anymore, since the Kabah would be gone.

I don't remember everything he talked about because he talked about a LOT.

Now, I'm suggesting an idea that does NOT include going into lots of countries. It has to do with breaking the religion, causing the fall of Islam, possibly.

(The other 3 pillars are charity (only to other Muslims), bearing witness to Allah, and fasting during Ramadan. )

I am thinking that some on the board will be horrified at this idea, but this idea admits there's a problem and suggests a solution without HUGE war.

Remember that Islam is not just a religion. Nobody here CARES what people believe in their minds/hearts. We care that it is ALSO a POLITICAL-- and violent-- system. It's the political system of Islam we're fighting. They have entwined the two, so it's difficult to impossible to reason with them (likelihood of another summit working).

WOW. I was being too charitable with the comparison to an incited that does not explicitly counsel violence whiel setting the tone for it. You go beyond that. Darkness, darkness