America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,479 comments
  • 1,777,240 views
Swift
Hmm....that's an interesting deduction.

So are you saying that all people with a strong faith are under mind control?

I am only saying what I said . Fanatics use religion to controll other fanatics and use religion to commit all types of murder and mayhem . I dont recall ever using the term " mind controll " to include all people of faith .
 
Diego440
isn't religion the opium of the masses?

Actually, that would be complete ignorance. Something a lot of people in America sime to enjoy right now. :nervous:

ledhed
I am only saying what I said . Fanatics use religion to controll other fanatics and use religion to commit all types of murder and mayhem . I dont recall ever using the term " mind controll " to include all people of faith .

I was not accussing, I was literally asking a question for clarification.

But fanatics use all kinds of stuff to get peopel to do all kinds of other evil stuff. But I suppose there is not such a significant medium then "religion" for that.
 
Swift
Actually, that would be complete ignorance. Something a lot of people in America sime to enjoy right now. :nervous:

I'm sorry, are you saying that believing religion to be the opiate of the masses is ignorance?
 
Diego440
I'm sorry, are you saying that believing religion to be the opiate of the masses is ignorance?

No, I'm saying that ignorance and misinformation is the opiate of the masses. Hence we have an incredible amount of liberalism in this country.
 
Diego440
I'm sorry, are you saying that believing religion to be the opiate of the masses is ignorance?
I would say yes if you think that is all religion is. If you don't see that religion has a compassionate side and causes people to perform good deeds and you only think that it is something used to make people think or act a certain way then yes you are, by definition, ignorant.

You don't have to believe in a God of any form to see that religion has a good side and is not constantly used as mind control. If you think that it is nothing more than a lie to make people be nice to each other then what exactly are laws and socialism? They are ways to make people behave and treat people equally and recognize civil rights. The only difference is that religion says a higher being gave you those rights and the other says that your government gave you those rights.

The difference is that religion can go beyond civil rights and the followers will do good things for others that go beyond granting civil rights. You can have your basic civil rights but still be miserable where as a Christian, for example, will come in and do something out of the kindness of their heart and make you feel happy.
 
So you wouldn't believe people are inherently good, but only act good to perform up to the standards of a religion. I personally believe in God as a higher being that created everything, but I don't believe in the Church, the Bible, the Trinity, etc. The Church itself has solely been responsible for some very great athrocities (sp?) throughout history using the name of God.

Now, do I believe in Marxism/Leninism? No... the system looks great on paper, but truth is it can't work in reality. However, you have to admit that Marx had some pretty clear ideas, which shouldn't be dismissed just because he "generated" Communism.

Karl Marx
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

You see, religion is not necessarily a bad thing, according to Marx; he sees it as the means people use to come to terms with life and its experiences.
 
Zardoz

National defense is one of the few things our government does that is absolutely necessary, and the Iraq war was quite necessary. Whether or not you think that our military has to be as capable as it is, or whether you think it has to be as efficient as it is, certainly you see the need for it to exist.

The Iraq war has been an important reminder to the world that America is serious about its treaties. We don't tolerate two-bit dictators who don't uphold their treaty agreements with us. Without that reminder, we'll get little international cooperation on any treaty that we sign with any country. The UN could stand to learn that lesson in diplomacy, a lesson that Iraq had been teaching them for 10 years and they still wouldn't listen.

I think our military is an important place to spend money, even if it is inefficient. We need a military that is superior to all others. When we spend a few extra billion on our military, we save lives - that's important.

You can find lots of ways that the government wastes money with either no positive gain, or even considerable negative effects - but the military is one thing we have to have.
 
IMO I think religion is really good for people that have had a bad life experience, like a trauma. You see religion is a real help to some people, especially in hard cases.

It's a bit stupid to say but I think, if it wasn't for religion some people would've commited suicide because of some of the hard stuff that happens in life. I'm sure thats a good thing.

But there are bad things of religion too, it drives some people crazy sometimes, I've heard some people say that if you dont believe, you are....I dunno how they call em, but that they have to die. And that gays have to die. So religion on the other hand causes some of the hardest problems in the world, some of the problems that have been going on for years and decades now. Palestina and Israel would be better off no having any religion lol.

Because of these 2 facts you can never say if it's good or bad. Some people say religion is an illusion (especially in my area) that might be true, or not, NO one knows.
But if it's an illusion or not, it doesn't matter cause you believe in it. If people would ever prove there cant be a god, people will still believe. It's just never going to end.

Religion is a lifestyle, not fact or fiction.

Edit: So thats my whole opinion about religion, if anyone cares lol:dopey:
 
Diego440
So you wouldn't believe people are inherently good, but only act good to perform up to the standards of a religion. I personally believe in God as a higher being that created everything, but I don't believe in the Church, the Bible, the Trinity, etc. The Church itself has solely been responsible for some very great athrocities (sp?) throughout history using the name of God.

That's the funniest reasoning I've ever heard to not have faith. Because there have been bad things done by people that were OBVIOUSLY abusing the power they had? The same thing could be said for many presidents and other leaders of our country. Does that mean the form of government that we have is completely useless? I'm thinking no.

But at least you have a well defined opinion.

Also, I really don't care what Marx says about anything. His views are so scewed that they don't even have reality in the rear view mirror anymore.
 
danoff
...the Iraq war was quite necessary...

Considering that every stated rationale for invading has proven to be wrong, and that it appears that we are going to end up with that dreaded worst-case scenario of a separate Iran-leaning Shiite state in the south, Kurdistan in the north, and a vengeful oil-deprived Sunni state between them, its hard to understand how this little exercise can be considered "necessary".

Do you agree, at least, that our conducting of this operation has been a series of faulty estimations, naive assumptions, serious miscalculations, and catastrophic blunders, one after another?

Or do you believe that the conducting of one election makes it all better, somehow?
 
Zardoz
Considering that every stated rationale for invading has proven to be wrong, and that it appears that we are going to end up with that dreaded worst-case scenario of a separate Iran-leaning Shiite state in the south, Kurdistan in the north, and a vengeful oil-deprived Sunni state between them, its hard to understand how this little exercise can be considered "necessary".

Do you agree, at least, that our conducting of this operation has been a series of faulty estimations, naive assumptions, serious miscalculations, and catastrophic blunders, one after another?

Or do you believe that the conducting of one election makes it all better, somehow?

I believe that president Bush described the Iraq war as a "long hard slog". That's what it has proven to be. He called upon America to have steadfast resolve for a long time ahead, since this was certainly not going to be easy.

I do not agree that this operation has been a series of faulty estimations, naive assumptions, serious miscalculations, and certainly not catastrophic blunders. I think it has been conducted quite well, no not perfectly, but quite well.

Rather than arguing with President Bush's rationale for going into Iraq - which is like taking candy from a baby. You should try something a bit more difficult and argue with mine (which I'll note you have not tried).
 
I dont get it, doesn't Bush understand, that because he's all anti terrorism and going into war for it, he'll create even more ordinary people there into terrorists because they know how bad the US and because of that "the West" is? Is he really that dumb?

Edit: I think with the huge terrorist threats and the number of people against Bush, there are already many terrorists who have made a plan already, but I think for most people this is just so serious, that the terrorists are kind of affraid for their own actions.
So Bush comes in to give em a little push to convince they SHOULD hate the west....
 
G-T-4-Fan
I dont get it, doesn't Bush understand, that because he's all anti terrorism and going into war for it, he'll create even more ordinary people there into terrorists because they know how bad the US and because of that "the West" is? Is he really that dumb?

Edit: I think with the huge terrorist threats and the number of people against Bush, there are already many terrorists who have made a plan already, but I think for most people this is just so serious, that the terrorists are kind of affraid for their own actions.
So Bush comes in to give em a little push to convince they SHOULD hate the west....

No, if they have hated the west is was long before the Iraq war. There are leaders that focus on only one thing, "Killing Americans" And they've been doing it for decades. The main reason they hate us is because we like Israel.

But anyway, people have hated america before bush and will after he's out of office. I just wish there was a more unified effort to rid the world of terrorism.
 
Swift
...I just wish there was a more unified effort to rid the world of terrorism.

Rent the DVD of the old Disney classic "Fantasia". Watch "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" sequence.

We're Mickey, and the brooms are Islamic terrorists.
 
Zardoz
Rent the DVD of the old Disney classic "Fantasia". Watch "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" sequence.

We're Mickey, and the brooms are Islamic terrorists.

What are you talking about? I've seen that and I'm trying to figure out the connection.
 
Swift
What are you talking about? I've seen that and I'm trying to figure out the connection.

Kill one (or one detonates himself), and many more, inspired by the "martyrdom" of the deceased, instantly rise to take his place. For example:

From The Los Angeles Times, January 10, 2006:

European Women Join Ranks of Jihadis

Authorities confront an unsettling new trend: militants' wives who are suspected of plotting suicide attacks, with their mates or alone.

By Sebastian Rotella, Times Staff Writer


AMSTERDAM — The women of the Dutch extremist network were a new breed of holy warriors on the front lines where Islam and the West collide.

In the male-dominated world of Islamic extremism, they saw themselves as full-fledged partners in jihad. Wives watched videos about female suicide bombers, posed for photos holding guns and fired automatic weapons during clandestine target practice.

The militants swore publicly that one of them would kill Dutch legislator Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an outspoken feminist. Last summer, police captured a 23-year-old leader of the group and his wife at a subway station here as they were allegedly on their way to assassinate the legislator.

The story of the Dutch network, 14 members of which are now on trial, reveals the increasing aggressiveness and prominence of female extremists in Europe. In a chilling trend in the Netherlands and Belgium, police are investigating militants' wives suspected of plotting suicide attacks with their husbands, or on their own.

"I think it's a very dangerous trend," said Ali, the lawmaker targeted for assassination. "Women all over the world are seen as vulnerable, as less violent. And that can make anti-terror authorities less vigilant when it comes to women."

In November, a Belgian named Muriel Degauque rammed an explosives-filled vehicle into a U.S. convoy in Iraq, becoming the first Western female convert to Islam to carry out a suicide bombing for the networks affiliated with Al Qaeda. U.S. commandos killed her husband a day later as he was reportedly preparing a suicide attack wearing an explosives vest near Fallouja, Iraq.

Dismantling the network in Belgium that sent them to their deaths, police arrested another couple allegedly preparing to go to Iraq to become "martyrs." The Belgian case has links to the youthful Dutch group, a unique mix of extremist ferocity and modern European attitudes.

"They are clever girls," said Digna van Boetzelaer, a chief anti-terrorism prosecutor here. "The girls were all born here, raised here, went to school here. So maybe some of that Dutch mentality came in through their pores."

For years, women have committed suicide attacks in places such as Chechnya and the Palestinian territories. At least one female suicide bomber had struck in Iraq before Degauque, and in November a would-be female suicide bomber was implicated in Iraqi operatives' bombing of three hotels in the Jordanian capital.

But Europe's Al Qaeda-aligned networks have been shaped by fundamentalism and strict separation of the sexes.

Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 hijacker, was a classically misogynistic example.

Malika Aroud, a Belgian, was an early exception to the rule.

When her husband traveled to an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Aroud joined him. Two days before the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, her husband carried out the suicide bombing that killed Ahmed Shah Massoud, an anti-Taliban guerrilla leader.

Acquitted in the plot against Massoud, Aroud moved to Switzerland, where she has been charged with operating a website that incited terrorism. Newer female recruits include daughters of immigrant families who rediscover their Muslim roots as well as native Europeans such as Degauque. They are gaining more acceptance because of a perception among male leaders that all Muslims must defend the faith against attack, analysts say.

Western investigators are somewhat relieved that Degauque wasn't used for a more audacious attack in the West.

"It would have been valuable operationally to have a Belgian blond" for plots in Europe, said a senior French anti-terrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But I wonder if these networks are more erratic, more dispersed than that, leaving a lot to spontaneous individual initiative. Also, the Iraqi insurgency needs cannon fodder for suicide attacks."

Another case raised fears closer to home. In November, Moroccan police arrested Belgian-born Mohammed Reha, allegedly a top operative with myriad international connections.

Reha told interrogators that he had met in Brussels with the wife of an extremist on trial in Belgium, investigators say. During the meeting at a train station last summer, the woman reportedly told Reha that she and other wives of imprisoned extremists were ready to become suicide bombers in Europe. She asked for help to get training and explosives, according to his account, which was first reported by Agence France-Presse news service.

Belgian police questioned the woman, who has not been arrested or publicly identified. She denied Reha's account, an investigator said.

Police, however, have confirmed that Reha met with a top suspect in the Dutch network, Samir Azzouz, who was allegedly planning an attack in the Netherlands. Belgian and Dutch authorities are investigating his claim that he offered to provide him with the aspiring female bombers from Belgium.

"It's very interesting to us," said Van Boetzelaer, the prosecutor. "Supposedly Azzouz says, 'I want to do an attack, do you have somebody for me?' Then Reha volunteers the 'sisters.' That's the version we have. But we have a lot to do to confirm this."

Azzouz, 19, was a central figure in the Dutch network whose members, mostly in their teens or 20s, were raised in a society proud of its progressive attitudes about equality of the sexes. That, investigators believe, helps explain the ferocity of half a dozen female militants in the group.

"Western Muslims, whether they like it or not, have grown up with the idea of women being equal," lawmaker Ali said. "So in some ways that may still affect the women in the networks, especially the converts."

Azzouz's wife, Abida, 25, came to Islam through her mother, a Dutch convert. His defense lawyer has alleged that Abida was the driving force behind Azzouz's radicalism, but authorities say they do not have enough evidence to charge her.

Azzouz, who was arrested in October, is considered a top figure in the Dutch network, along with Nourredine Fatmi, a diminutive, Moroccan-born militant with a reputation as a hot-headed charmer.

Fatmi "married" a 16-year-old girl in a secret and unofficial ceremony presided over by another militant, Mohammed Bouyeri. The newlyweds spent the wedding night watching videos of suicide bombers, according to testimony.

"Once, when she was with Fatmi in a car, he said to her that she had to die as a martyr," said Wim de Bruin, a spokesman for Dutch prosecutors. "He talked about filling a car with explosives and driving it into a shopping center. He said they would do it together."

In November 2004, Bouyeri assassinated filmmaker Theo van Gogh. After his arrest, police rounded up Bouyeri's associates for allegedly plotting follow-up attacks.

Fatmi left his "wife" and went underground. Last spring he met and quickly "married" another woman, Soumaya Sahla, a 21-year-old nursing student and ardent fundamentalist. They floated among hide-outs in the Netherlands and Belgium. He took her to Morocco to meet his parents; he also took her to a forest outside Amsterdam to practice shooting with an Agram 2000 machine gun, according to testimony.

Sahla allegedly gathered intelligence on potential targets. In a wiretapped phone call June 20, she tried to persuade her sister, an employee of a pharmacy frequented by politicians, to give her the home address of legislator Ali, whose crusade against fundamentalism has made her a target.

During the couple's final days on the run, they hid at the home of Martine van der Oeven, an accused accomplice in The Hague. She drove them to Amsterdam on June 22.

Fatmi has admitted that he was on his way to assassinate Ali, according to recent testimony. Police swarmed the couple on the platform of a subway station. The officers overpowered them as Fatmi reached into his backpack for the Agram machine gun and Sahla shouted, "Allah is great!"

Sahla is now serving a prison sentence for weapons possession. Fatmi is on trial.

Minutes after they were captured, police outside the station arrested Van der Oeven, the driver. Her profile sums up the worst fears of investigators. She is a convert with cherubic Dutch looks.

Her former profession: policewoman.
 
Aye, all this dutch stuff. Alot of this has caused great trouble here. One almost Preminister here was shot down too, like a week before election days.
Just like Kennedy if I remember correctly.

Because of this, the normal foreign society feels like the dutch people are racist towards them. We dont really know what to think anymore, there seem to be so many foreigners that have a real strict religion. It doesn't take much to turn them against Holland I'm affraid...:scared:

It's all between racist, and realistic threat, no one knows where the limit is....
 
Zardoz
Kill one (or one detonates himself), and many more, inspired by the "martyrdom" of the deceased, instantly rise to take his place.

Kill enough and that's not a problem.

What would you have us do, take our licks and beg for mercy?
 
danoff
Kill enough and that's not a problem.

What would you have us do, take our licks and beg for mercy?

Do you believe that all problems have solutions? Do you believe the "war on terror" can actually be "won"?

I don't.

The nasty reality is that we are up against a fairly substantial percentage of a billion people, and those billion are making babies like it was going out of style. There will always be what is effectively an infinite supply of replacement martyrs.

We are damned if we do, and damned if we don't. We are caught in an unresolvable dilemma: Take our licks and beg for mercy and it will embolden and encourage them. Kill them selectively and it hardens their resolve to avenge the dead. Massacre them in vast numbers and it will elicit suicidal retaliatory responses on an unimaginable scale.

Sorry to be so negative, but it's hard to be positive about this subject. We can argue and debate forever, using all the highly-polished debating ploys, dodges, games, and tricks, but history and current events are all that matter: Look where we are now in the struggle against terrorism, look at how the threat of it is affecting all our lives every single day, and tell me if you think we're making progress.
 
danoff
Kill enough and that's not a problem.

What would you have us do, take our licks and beg for mercy?

A lot of people would. They're mostly democrats...

Zardoz, is it MY or YOUR fault that these women are married to people that are extremists? Nope, so how does that mean Bush is creating more. In that article, it specifically says that it's the wives of the extremists that are getting into terrorism now. So, yeah, you kill my husband and I'd want revenge too.

So what should our response be?
 
Swift
The same thing could be said for many presidents and other leaders of our country. Does that mean the form of government that we have is completely useless? I'm thinking no.

It goes back to the saying about abosulte power corrupting absolutely.

Swift
Also, I really don't care what Marx says about anything. His views are so scewed that they don't even have reality in the rear view mirror anymore.

I'll accept that. But I think it's quite unfair to dismiss a whole person's views just because of what they've done. Adolf Hitler had a great idea in the early 30s about producing car that would be cheap and accesible for everyone... of course, it's the people's car: Volkswagen.
 
I think Bush is acting stupid because he's gonna invade Iran maybe now too.......but somehow, against the threat of terorism and the media on it all the time, if something goes wrong again in the USA with terorism, he'll be taken responsible for all, he should've acted quicker and stuff.

Now offcourse by invading the whole bloody middle east will give you more problems, but the terrorists in our West, in my bloody country to add it up, should be punished severely. If you kill an important man in Holland here you will get away with 12 years of jail.

DAMN THOSE TIMES ARE EMBARASING!!!:crazy::yuck: I know Holland is really doing something wrong on countermessures against terrorism, doesn'ts suprise me why so many terrorists are here. it's uber safe here:boggled:
 
Diego440
I'll accept that. But I think it's quite unfair to dismiss a whole person's views just because of what they've done. Adolf Hitler had a great idea in the early 30s about producing car that would be cheap and accesible for everyone... of course, it's the people's car: Volkswagen.

Before you said...

Diego440
I personally believe in God as a higher being that created everything, but I don't believe in the Church, the Bible, the Trinity, etc. The Church itself has solely been responsible for some very great athrocities (sp?) throughout history using the name of God.

Now, are you saying it's ok to hold the ideals as long as it's one person that is a sadistic murder and not when it's a group?
 
Swift
...So what should our response be?

Beats me. Nothing seems to work short of locking absolutely everything down and creating a totally-monitored police state with an enormous percentage of the population employed as security workers. Problem is, that's exactly what those jerks want us to sink to, isn't it? That would be their ultimate victory: A virtual revoking of all our basic freedoms and rights.

I have no more idea of what to do than anybody else does. Everything we try seems to only make things worse. That's why I feel it's so hopeless.

"The newlyweds spent the wedding night watching videos of suicide bombers..."

This is the mentality we're up against. What "response" can anyone have to this?



EDIT:

Can't argue with this:

Bush: Year of testing and sacrifice ahead in Iraq

"Testing and sacrifice", indeed...
 
Swift
A lot of people would. They're mostly democrats...
Yes, I'm sure a whole bunch of American just with to bow down and beg for their lives to etremists from the Middle East. You got it so right. :rolleyes: so much for the ubiquitous "mindless Bush bashing" label.

Find me one American who would actually beg to Bin Laden...

Swift
So what should our response be?

Hmm, how could we possibly find a better response than spending about $2 Trillions to "liberate" a country in the Middle East, making a total mess of it the process, ending up with several thousands civilian casualties? After all, looking at Iran, it's quite clear how nations in the Middle-East are so inherently much better off within a democratic process.

The world is much, much safer now, extremist groups must be having a really hard time trying to find new recruits recently. Well done. 👍
 
Zardoz
I have no more idea of what to do than anybody else does. Everything we try seems to only make things worse.

We haven't ever tried what we're trying now... and it has yet to increase terrorist attacks against us here. If it's a trade between having people attack civilians here, or spending money and have them attack our trained forces, I'm going to choose the latter.

Since we know ignoring them doesn't work, let's try the other alternative... fighting.
 
danoff
Since we know ignoring them doesn't work, let's try the other alternative... fighting.

Man, this agreeing with Danoff thing is starting to get really old..:sly:

Somebody resurrect the Abortion thread so we can start up arguing again. :dopey:
 
Carl.
Yes, I'm sure a whole bunch of American just with to bow down and beg for their lives to etremists from the Middle East. You got it so right. :rolleyes: so much for the ubiquitous "mindless Bush bashing" label.

Find me one American who would actually beg to Bin Laden...

Those foolish actors right after 9/11. Talking about we should "love" them and all this garbage. I'm all about loving people. that is just stupidity.

And who said beg for you lives? Us doing NOTHING is saying that "Well, we don't like it but it's ok." Maybe we could've done it better, but if we just give up, what will that prove? That terrorism can beat the most powerful nation on the face of the earth?

Yeah, that's an intelligent way to go.
 
danoff
Kill enough and that's not a problem.
I believe that's called genocide (or xenocide).

What if, in the act of killing all the terrorists (and who do we label as a terrorist?), someone who wasn't a terrorist when we came around to shoot them became one becuase the killing made him angry.
danoff
Since we know ignoring them doesn't work, let's try the other alternative... fighting.
Actually, ignoring them probably would work. Think about it: if terrorism never changed anything, would people still do it? If your employer suddenly stopped paying you, effectively meaning that your job wouldn't benefit you in any way, would you still go to work?
 
Back