RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers

RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:09:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 He wants the soldiers to die? I disagree. I think he considers it a neccessary loss, which is a point that can be debated. Of course I can't read minds like you... Wants them to die? No,maybe not.I don`t think he gives it that much thought. The lives of soldiers,to bush and neo-cons,are nothing more than line-items.To be counted and tallied,and spent..........,like so many dollars.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:13:19 PM)
And just to be clear Jay, you have no comment on Sudan whatsoever.....

jaymckenas -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:22:26 PM)
There was never really any contention you made regarding Sudan other than Muslims are killing each other. Sadly, contrary to popular belief, I can't read your mind. Unless you are referring to my argument that the US should be there doing humanitarian work and quelling genocide rather than spurring on fanatics in Iraq.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:48:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaymckenas There was never really any contention you made regarding Sudan other than Muslims are killing each other. Sadly, contrary to popular belief, I can't read your mind. Unless you are referring to my argument that the US should be there doing humanitarian work and quelling genocide rather than spurring on fanatics in Iraq. If the Sudan were floating on oil,the neo-cons would be all over stopping the genocide,and "spreading freedom,with 500 pound bombs. And luckydog would be imploring us to help the poor slaughtered masses there.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:51:13 PM)
You did not make that argument Jay, at least not here. Actually I pointed out that the muslim gov of Sudan does not tollerate various cultures and religions( a lot more have been killed in Sudan than just the muslims in Darfur). You cited North Africa as a possitive example of peacefull, tolerant muslims, which is so stupid it is funny. And as I pointed out, the reaction of the Muslim world at large to the salughter in Sudan has been virtually non existant , except where it has been approving, and certainly not an example of Peace (unless it is defined as submission to the Arabs). And it really is a one sided thing in Darfur, not muslims killing each other.

luckydog1 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 9:53:05 PM)
Owner Darfur is sitting on a huge pool of oil. The French and Chinese already have contracts to pump it after the blacks are eliminated. And I have been imploring the nation to get involved in Sudan for almost a decade.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 10:40:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Owner Darfur is sitting on a huge pool of oil. The French and Chinese already have contracts to pump it after the blacks are eliminated. And I have been imploring the nation to get involved in Sudan for almost a decade. I think you got my sarcasm.....

NorthernGent -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 11:19:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaymckenas quote: It was Radical Islam. More a State without borders rather than a religion. ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth There is no such thing as a State of Radical Islam. The hijackers of 9/11 are roughly equated to your Timothy McVeigh. You didn't invade Oklahoma because an individual whose opinions were radical acted outside the bounds of his Faith and his culture's norm, so why do you persecute the Muslim people by buying into the propaganda the media spoon feeds you about there being this great Islamic State of radical terrorists marching around preparing to do battle with the "Great Satan"? Islam is a peaceful religion which is tolerant, accepting, and respectful of other Faiths and ideologies, don't let the "McVeighs" of the Middle East taint your opinion of the nature of Islam. It is unfair to judge a people by their radical contingencies within, regardless of the impact on our own personal lives. There is no such thing as a radical Islamic State, that is a fabrication of American media. With respect and regret for the things of the past, but with hope for understanding and a world without prejudice, Jayson. Exactly.

NorthernGent -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 11:23:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Well yes Jay, if we all submit to Islam there will be peace Who wants you to submit to Islam? It's in your head; it's not reality. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 (though you might want to explain that to the Muslims of Darfur who thought they could keep thier language and culture and are now being exterminated by the Peace loving Arab speaking Muslims of Sudan). Yeah, there's genocide, as there was with the "peace loving" peoples of Croatia and Serbia. One swallow doesn't make a summer; you're simply highlighting your bigotry by taking one case and applying it as the norm. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 I look at the reaction of the Muslim world to the ongoing slaughter and find not much but a big yawn and saying they deserve it. Really? 'In your head again? Links.

NorthernGent -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/13/2007 11:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jaymckenas Sadly, contrary to popular belief, I can't read your mind. I've heard that world opinion is divided on the matter: Lucky thinks you can; the rest of the world do not agree. The jury's still out.

Alumbrado -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 7:07:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Not really an offensive army, did you read the whole article.... "Japan can count on America, and increasingly, America can count on Japan," he said. But he nudged the nation to expand "self-defense" to include the defense of US forces should they come under attack near Japan. "We're just working for a little more flexibility so that the US and Japanese colleagues of the Self-Defense Forces would be able to come to each other's assistance should it be necessary," he said. And as I already pointed out they are helping in the mideast with supplies and logistics. And they are doing it to a large degree because we want them to, which I think bolsters my point. That article shows that Japan has been moving away from a purely local defensive force for a while. Here's their status more recently: "On January 7, 2007, the Japan Defense Agency was upgraded to Ministry of Defense, a Cabinet-level ministry. With nearly 240,000 military personnel and an annual budget of close to $50 billion, Japan's military outstrips Britain's in total spending and manpower, while its navy in particular scores high among experts for its sophistication... " http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/jda.htm Now that may not be an offensive military, but it will probably do until a real one comes along. (Which learning from history would suggest is exactly what is happening).

Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 10:59:52 AM)
Britains 2005/06 defence budget was £30 Billion and toatl manpower is above 300,000 both figures outstrip Japan the 2007/08 estimate has risen to £33 billion http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm

Alumbrado -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 12:23:14 PM)
I'd call it a given that 'defense spending' is a flexible figure, as is manpower. Particularly allowing for factors such as yen to pounds to dollars exchange rates, and the range between active duty UK troops (closer to 195K?) and the total personnel in the entire GB defence organization. A quick search seems to yield a consensus that 'Britain' is 2nd in spending behind the US and only slightly ahead of Japan, and 22nd in troops, to Japan's 10th. But in any case, what does stretching numbers have to do with whether or not Japan has moved away from a purely local defensive only force? Or to the earlier point, whether or not they are a vassal state to the US? The fact that they are even in the same ballpark as other major countries is far from the intent of post WWII restrictions. .

Politesub53 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 12:29:26 PM)
Your correct that the actual numbers concerned don`t matter as much as the intent of the Japanese. Personally i am not sure the Japanese will try and repeat history from early last centuary though. Maybe America isnt too worried about the expansion of the Japanese forces due to the situation with North Korea.

Alumbrado -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 12:32:24 PM)
I suspect that American politicians will continue the practice of overlooking potential problems in order to satisfy temporary objectives...[:D]

meatcleaver -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/14/2007 12:46:49 PM)
The US has been urging Japan to change its constitution so it can use its military in international theatres, the Japanese have been resisting this, even though there are nationalists who want to change the post war constitution. Japan is the second biggest economy in the world and the size of its forces should be seen in respect to that. They are probably the only country that could get anywhere near to rivaling the US but they don't care to. Their biggest concern however is N. Korea and China and is viewing both with increasing concern.

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/16/2007 3:18:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I suspect that American politicians will continue the practice of overlooking potential problems in order to satisfy temporary objectives...[:D] yeh their next paycheck and getting re-elcted!

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/16/2007 4:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado I suspect that American politicians will continue the practice of overlooking potential problems in order to satisfy temporary objectives...[:D] Well,....not every politician. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451.html?nav=rss_politics Clinton,for all his faults,tried to fix problems.Rather then" fix" the data,or produce photo ops,claiming to have fixed problems,like the current administration does.

Sinergy -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathizers (9/16/2007 5:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver The US has been urging Japan to change its constitution so it can use its military in international theatres, the Japanese have been resisting this, even though there are nationalists who want to change the post war constitution. Considering we dictated their constitution to them after World War 2, I imagine they have a pretty good position to refuse to budge. On the other hand, 1/10 of their GNP is a huge amount of money to work with to build up their military. On the other, other hand, they would be a grease spot if China got pissy at them. Since the neo-cons have frittered away the US military playing in the sand, I imagine Japan is a bit nervous appearing too warlike to China, because if the Chinese attacked, the US is not in a position to protect them. Sinergy Edited to remove superfluous Sinergys

dcnovice -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/16/2007 8:17:00 PM)
quote: I mean, sure, he had a bit of warning, but it was so vague and not exactly major that going to check for it, with all the other things his career demands, would've been wholey irresponsible. Wasn't one of his warnings entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."?

Page: << < prev 10 11 12 [13] 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875