[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

New York hunger levels 'rising'

Food Bank is unable to meet demand, with shelves empty
Over 1.3 million people, one in six New Yorkers, cannot afford enough food, with queues at soup kitchens getting longer, anti-poverty groups say...

BBC NEWS | Americas | New York hunger levels 'rising'

Perhaps you mean the numbers of Illegal aliens flocking to the city for that sanctuary and ID who have no job, and don't speak english?

When is the last time the BBC got a story right? WWII? I can see why the EU doesn't possess a superpower.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

I don't know anyone who has given up anything. Some inconvenience at the airport, but no Americans I know have given up 'what they have' for protection.

Can you name any Americans who have been victimized by post-9/11 legislation?

You need to pay more attention to what's going on around you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvu12z832Xc

[subego]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Can you name any Americans who have been victimized by post-9/11 legislation?

Just so I have the master list here, which parts of the Constitution other than Article One, Section 9 and the 4th Amendment you think are disposable?

Disposable being defined (by you) as something we can eliminate without victimizing Americans.

[BadKosh]

referencing Youtube! LOL

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

referencing Youtube! LOL

I know; the truth hurts, so attack it. You're one of those sheep.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

referencing Youtube! LOL

This is actually a good question and I intend to look into this a little more. Not long ago I was asking the same question as Cold Warrior (what rights have you lost?) before I availed myself of some troubling information such as that presented by Judge Napolitano in the You Tube video.

As technology affords us the ability to become more connected with one another, it also enables the government to be more connected to us. Telling me the government may occasionally listen in to my international phone calls and in knowing they can't possibly wrap their arms around this volume of calling activity may not be troubling to me today, but telling me I can't share an FBI warrant with my lawyer is most definitely troubling to me today. I suspect at the core it really is to you too.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is actually a good question and I intend to look into this a little more. Not long ago I was asking the same question as Cold Warrior (what rights have you lost?) before I availed myself of some troubling information such as that presented by Judge Napolitano in the You Tube video.

As technology affords us the ability to become more connected with one another, it also enables the government to be more connected to us. Telling me the government may occasionally listen in to my international phone calls and in knowing they can't possibly wrap their arms around this volume of calling activity may not be troubling to me today, but telling me I can't share an FBI warrant with my lawyer is most definitely troubling to me today. I suspect at the core it really is to you too.

He probably hasn't figured out that it's actions like that which also have the effect of chilling free speech either. Of course, you don't hear that on the six o'clock sound byte, so that would explain a lot about how too many people don't realize what's really going on in this country.

[macintologist]

When Ron Paul is elected president in 2008, the terrorists won't get what they want. America will pull out of Iraq making it much difficult for terrorists to target Americans. America will not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, giving terrorists less, if not zero excuse to hate America and attack us. Bin Laden's ideology will be discredited. The American economy will get a good boost from the gold standard. Truly free trade will increase which will spread wealth throughout the entire world, empowering everybody, which gives the terrorists a smaller base from which to recruit.

RON PAUL 2008

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

When Ron Paul is elected president in 2008, the terrorists won't get what they want. America will pull out of Iraq making it much difficult for terrorists to target Americans.

At this point, an immediate withdrawal would be a grievous error. While success has been slow and painful, a withdrawal would ensure any success comes to a screeching halt. This would weaken an already crippled image internationally and be viewed as US weakness among terrorists emboldening their resolve. This would be viewed as the US destroying Iraq and when we lost the war, bailed on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi civil apparatus is not fully prepared to handle the onslaught of terrorist expansion, leaving Iraq a sitting duck as staging grounds for future terrorist activity. A staging ground that offers a host of resources for them to strengthen themselves. We'll be compelled to return to Iraq within two years to address the implosion. A full re-deployment would cost us significantly in lives and in resources as we'd be returning to a more fortified enemy.

America will not meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, giving terrorists less, if not zero excuse to hate America and attack us.

This looks good on paper, but the opposition is one of ideologies and governance. In this, the West will always be demonized while factors from the East meddle in the internal affairs of other nations, giving terrorists more resources and excuses to attack us. Isolationism while much simpler, is not effective foreign policy. If you believe imperialism is exclusive to the US, you're mistaken. I don't like this aspect of human nature, but burying our heads in the sands of the US will not make global tensions magically go away.

Bin Laden's ideology will be discredited. The American economy will get a good boost from the gold standard. Truly free trade will increase which will spread wealth throughout the entire world, empowering everybody, which gives the terrorists a smaller base from which to recruit.

RON PAUL 2008

Ron Paul if successful, will only accomplish victory for Hillary. You may not think things could be any worse than they are today. I disagree.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This would be viewed as the US destroying Iraq

Not that you aren't saying this, but I want to mention that it wouldn't just be viewed that way, that would be what it is.

[Big Mac]

Any person who thinks Islamo-fascists hate the West because of America's meddling in their affairs is pitifully ignorant of the Islamist mindset. To the Islamist there are two worlds: the world that submits to Islam and the world that Islam is at war with. Simply because bin Laden has claimed to have a beef with America for placing military bases in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that's the only reason they hate America; it's just one excuse of many given. Why did bin Laden accept American assistance when he was fighting the Soviets, only to resent us for not continuing to aid him afterward? The only view that is consistent among the Islamists and therefore most accurate is that two world view that is referred to above. Therefore, Islamists will continue to be at war with the West no matter what we do unless we capitulate to Islam, and abandoning our allies is not the way to win that war.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Any person who thinks Islamo-fascists hate the West because of America's meddling in their affairs is pitifully ignorant of the Islamist mindset. To the Islamist there are two worlds: the world that submits to Islam and the world that Islam is at war with. Simply because bin Laden has claimed to have a beef with America for placing military bases in Saudi Arabia doesn't mean that's the only reason they hate America; it's just one excuse of many given. Why did bin Laden accept American assistance when he was fighting the Soviets, only to resent us for not continuing to aid him afterward? The only view that is consistent among the Islamists and therefore most accurate is that two world view that is referred to above. Therefore, Islamists will continue to be at war with the West no matter what we do unless we capitulate to Islam, and abandoning our allies is not the way to win that war.

To a percentage of the so-called islamo-facists (i.e. radical Islamics) this might be the case, assuming that you happen to know some and can personally account for this. To the moderate islamic world (which makes up something like a third of the world's population), not so much. Be careful to be precise with how you word this stuff.

To a percentage of the radical Christian movement, they are also interested in converting everybody to their religion. They may not be as violent about it today, but they once were too.

[Big Mac]

Find me a radical Christian who is intent in converting people by force. I don't think they exist anymore and haven't for a long time. There are denominations that are serious about spreading the gospel and trying to win converts, even in some circles through deception. But the only outright force Christians have used is in regard to abortion clinics, and those terrorist acts aren't done in an attempt to convert anyone.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Find me a radical Christian who is intent in converting people by force. I don't think they exist anymore and haven't for a long time.

They are much smaller in numbers than they once were (thank God), but there are also far more moderate Islamics than there are radicals. That was my main point.

[subego]

Do they convert you with force or eliminate those who are not converted?

This question is posed for both radical Christians and radical Islamists.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

America will pull out of Iraq making it much difficult for terrorists to target Americans.

Funny, we weren't in Iraq when the terrorists hit the towers. Your ASSumption is stupid.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

They are much smaller in numbers than they once were (thank God), but there are also far more moderate Islamics than there are radicals. That was my main point.

Find me any Christian group that endorses forced conversions or precludes religious worship aside from Christianity. They don't exist, to my knowledge.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Funny, we weren't in Iraq when the terrorists hit the towers. Your ASSumption is stupid.

We were bombing Iraq almost every day, many times killing civilians, for 10 years. Also, our unconditional support for what Arabs view as an oppressive occupation of the Palestinians.

If we just stopped meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, nobody would have a reason to attack us. Why didn't 9/11 happen in Canada? Norway? Singapore?

[Big Mac]

As I said, you're ignoring all the reasons why they would continue to dislike us. You have a very simplistic view of world affairs - the same type of problem Ron Paul has.

And as for the Arab-Israeli conflict, many Christians and Jews think American foreign policy actually does a lot of harm to Israel, and that by calling for a new terrorist state carved out of Israel America undermines Israel's security and sovereignty. We have serious problems with American foreign policy in that regard, yet no Christian or Jew would resort to attacking America for it. Civilized people know how to express their grievances with countries without resorting to illegal acts of war.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

As I said, you're ignoring all the reasons why they would continue to dislike us. You have a very simplistic view of world affairs.

They don't attack us because we're rich and we're free, otherwise they would be bombing Hong Kong.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Find me any Christian group that endorses forced conversions or precludes religious worship aside from Christianity. They don't exist, to my knowledge.

I'm sure they exist, watch Jesus Camp.

Anyway, whether they do or not is tangential to my point, so let's move on...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

They don't attack us because we're rich and we're free, otherwise they would be bombing Hong Kong.

Wake up. Why did the bomb Spain? Why did they attack France (which was very liberal and anti-US at the time)? Why are they committing genocide in Darfur? Why do Muslims terrorize each other in Iraq? Almost every country on the face of the earth has been attacked by Islamo-fascism, and almost every conflict on earth today has an Islamist component. Ignorance doesn't enhance your argument.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Civilized people know how to express their grievances with countries without resorting to illegal acts of war.

Out of interest, which countries are you claiming have not resorted to illegal acts of war?

[Big Mac]

Huh? I said that civilized people know how to express grievances with countries (that they're angry at) without resorting to illegal acts of war - i.e. terrorism. They organize protests, they boycott, they use non-violent tactics. They don't resort to terrorism.

[peeb]

Oh, I misunderstood - I thought you were claiming that some countries you were talking about were civilized and had not resorted to illegal acts of war.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wake up. Why did the bomb Spain? Why did they attack France (which was very liberal and anti-US at the time)? Why are they committing genocide in Darfur? Why do Muslims terrorize each other in Iraq? Almost every country on the face of the earth has been attacked by Islamo-fascism, and almost every conflict on earth today has an Islamist component. Ignorance doesn't enhance your argument.

Your use of the word 'fascist' doesn't lend you credibility in this context, and your habit of thinking of 'Muslims' as a coherent political group with an agenda that crosses Iraq / Darfur / France / whatever shows your woeful ignorance on this issue. Back to school for you, I think.

[Big Mac]

Radical Islamist philosophy includes glorification of the Islamic state or super-state (such as envisioned in the Caliphate system), and most Islamic countries are set up in fascist ways, with a strong-man at the top, state controlled businesses feeding the government and general repression of the masses, so I think the Islamo-fascist label works really well. Also, I never said Islam is a homogeneous political class, just that Islam, in its various strains, happens to be a part of nearly every conflict on the globe.

[tie]

Big Mac, the Islamo-fascist label doesn't work so well because there is no coherent movement. By naming and starting a war on "Islamo-fascism," you are creating a movement where there was none---and you can bet that US opposition to this imaginary movement will make it real pretty fast.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Radical Islamist philosophy includes glorification of the Islamic state or super-state (such as envisioned in the Caliphate system), and most Islamic countries are set up in fascist ways, with a strong-man at the top, state controlled businesses feeding the government and general repression of the masses, so I think the Islamo-fascist label works really well. Also, I never said Islam is a homogeneous political class, just that Islam, in its various strains, happens to be a part of nearly every conflict on the globe.

Well, the biggest Islamic nation in the world, India, is not fascist. Without researching any others, I'd be willing to bet that several others are not run by dictators... Pakistan comes to mind, and Iran's leader was also elected.

Where do you get your information from Big Mac?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, the biggest Islamic nation in the world, India...

That'd be Indonesia.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

That'd be Indonesia.

Really? I would have figured India because of its massive population, but perhaps it is not all predominately Islamic?

[subego]

Hindu.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Well, the biggest Islamic nation in the world, India, is not fascist.

As others have stated; Indonesia.

About Indonesia, a recent poll indicates 58% believe adulterers should be stoned to death as is mandated (per them) according to Islamic law. The governance of Indonesia, while not an Islamic state has been wrought with militarism, cleansing, and terrorism.

Without researching any others, I'd be willing to bet that several others are not run by dictators... Pakistan comes to mind, and Iran's leader was also elected.

Where do you get your information from Big Mac?

Of course Big Mac's statement was; "Also, I never said Islam is a homogeneous political class, just that Islam, in its various strains, happens to be a part of nearly every conflict on the globe."

This ideology is not a Western construct. It is what it is.
You didn't really address this point besson. I'm not sure it is arguable, but I'm all ears.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wake up. Why did the bomb Spain?

Spain was part of the coalition of the willing, remember?

Why did they attack France (which was very liberal and anti-US at the time)?

France has their own problems with radical Islam unrelated to Iraq.

Why are they committing genocide in Darfur?

Regional hegemony and tribal disputes. None of our business

Why do Muslims terrorize each other in Iraq?

Iraqi sectarian conflict is nothing new

Almost every country on the face of the earth has been attacked by Islamo-fascism

Simply not true.

and almost every conflict on earth today has an Islamist component.

Again not true. Some, but not "almost every"

[besson3c]

Ah yes, my mistake...

The five major religions of the world: Hindu, Islam, Judiasm, Christianity, Buddism... India is Hindu (Hindi?), Pakistan is Muslim/Islamic. For some reason I get them confused since I know that there was a great war that separated them.

[subego]

As I understand it, Hinduism is the religion, people who follow Hinduism are Hindu, and Hindi is a language.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

As I understand it, Hinduism is the religion, people who follow Hinduism are Hindu, and Hindi is a language.

Okay, so:

Hinduism - religion
Hindi - language
Hindu - people

Judaism - religion
Jewish - language
Jews - people

Buddism - religion
there is no primary language
Buddists - people

Islam - an umbrella term that describes this group of people and their faith
Islamic - religion
there is no primary language
? - people

Christianity - religion
Roman/Latin - language source
Christians - people


Something like this?

[Chuckit]

"Jewish" is not a language; it's an adjective meaning "of or belonging to Judaism." The language of the Jewish scriptures is Hebrew. Islam is a religion. The primary language of Islam is Arabic. People who belong to the religion of Islam are called Muslims.

[Graviton]

The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - Religion
Pastafarians - People
Sarcasm - Language

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

Spain was part of the coalition of the willing, remember?

Terrorism in fact won here.

France has their own problems with radical Islam unrelated to Iraq.

... which was pretty much the point Big Mac is making.

Regional hegemony and tribal disputes. None of our business

... which does not at all address the point Big Mac is making. It should be noted that whether or not something should be done by the International Community regarding the attrocities in Darfur remains hotly debated. The point was, Islamic extremism is involved in almost every global conflict.

Iraqi sectarian conflict is nothing new

... which does not at all address the point Big Mac is making.

Again not true. Some, but not "almost every"

Name for me of the following general list of current conflicts, those that do not involve Islamic extremism, Muslim separatist movements, or Islamic sectarian violence;

1. Israel vs. Palestine and rest of Arab world
2. Iraqis Sunni vs. Shi'ite & Iraqis vs. Kurds
3. Cambodia govt. vs. Khmer Rouge and Royalists
4. India govt. vs. Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front
5. India govt. vs. Punjab
6. India vs. Pakistan
7. Indonesia govt. vs. Revolutionary Front for East Timor
8. Indonesia govt. vs. Irian Jaya and Aceh
9. Philippines govt. vs. New People's Army, National Liberation Front
10. Sri Lanka govt. vs. Tamil Eelam
11. Algeria govt. vs. Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
12. Angola govt. vs. UNITA
13. Burundi: Tutsi vs. Hutu
14. Democratic Republic of Congo govt. vs. Rwanda, Uganda and indigenous rebels
15. Rwanda govt. ( Tutsi) vs. Hutu
16. Sierra Leone govt. vs. Revolutionary United Front, National Provisional Ruling Council
17. Somalia; various factions
18. Sudan govt. vs. Sudanese People's Liberation Army
19. Yugoslavia govt. vs. Kosovo Liberation Army
20. Colombia govt. vs. National Liberation Army (ELN) and Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
21. Peru govt. vs. Sendero Luminoso

Thanx.

[Chuckit]

In fairness, that's a bit like pointing out that most criminals in America are Christians.

[besson3c]

Yeah, I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what the point is here... That there are more militant Muslims than Christians? Maybe, but not terribly actionable information even if provable. There are obviously plenty of peaceful Muslims.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

"Jewish" is not a language; it's an adjective meaning "of or belonging to Judaism." The language of the Jewish scriptures is Hebrew. Islam is a religion. The primary language of Islam is Arabic. People who belong to the religion of Islam are called Muslims.

Thanks for this clarification, but aren't Hindus also considered Muslims?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Thanks for this clarification, but aren't Hindus also considered Muslims?

Wow, are you for real? Seriously?

Hinduism and Islam are two completely different religions.

It's amazing to me when people come here and try to debate authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Wow, are you for real? Seriously?

Hinduism and Islam are two completely different religions.

It's amazing to me when people come here and try to debate authoritatively on subjects they know absolutely nothing about.

I know they are separate religions, I thought Muslim was just sort of a blanket category, sort of like how Caucasian covers a pretty wide spectrum.

[Big Mac]

Uh huh. A blanket category meaning what now? A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam, just as a Christian is an adherent of the religion of Christianity. How did you graduate high school without learning such things?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Uh huh. A blanket category meaning what now? A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam, just as a Christian is an adherent of the religion of Christianity. How did you graduate high school without learning such things?

The purpose of my post listing languages/religions/people was to clarify my misconceptions with the concession of my own ignorance. There is no purpose to be obnoxious about this, there are things we are all ignorant about, the important thing is whether or not we are willing to acknowledge that which we don't know.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

In fairness, that's a bit like pointing out that most criminals in America are Christians.

Not really, since what they're talking about has to do with conflict caused directly by the radical elements of people's religious beliefs, and clashes with others resulting from that.

What your trying to compare, is simply a happenstance- most criminals in Muslim nations are also Muslims, but most criminals don't commit crimes because of their extreme religious views.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The purpose of my post listing languages/religions/people was to clarify my misconceptions with the concession of my own ignorance. There is no purpose to be obnoxious about this, there are things we are all ignorant about, the important thing is whether or not we are willing to acknowledge that which we don't know.

It's just kind of shocking because you appear to be otherwise intelligent. Additionally, it's rather annoying that you have so much confidence in your opinions when you don't even know basic facts related to the conversation.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Not really, since what they're talking about has to do with conflict caused directly by the radical elements of people's religious beliefs, and clashes with others resulting from that.

What your trying to compare, is simply a happenstance- most criminals in Muslim nations are also Muslims, but most criminals don't commit crimes because of their extreme religious views.

Exactly.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's just kind of shocking because you appear to be otherwise intelligent. It's just rather annoying that you have so much confidence in your opinions when you don't even know basic facts related to the conversation.

Just like anybody else, my confidence with my opinions varies depending on what opinion I'm presenting. The main thing I took exception with you on originally was the idea that Muslim countries are predominately fascist. I felt just as capable (with my limited capabilities in this subject matter) to disprove what you wrote as you would to defend what you wrote.

I'm starting to sound like another poster on this forum though picking this apart to this extent, so let's just move on... I was only intending for my original post to be a quick interjection.