Muslims have gone too far

[miraja2]

Yeah, sometimes people who give orders that directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians somehow manage to retain high approval ratings in their home areas. It is really unfortunate that it happens, but it continues to happen all over the world. The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, sometimes people who give orders that directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians somehow manage to retain high approval ratings in their home areas. It is really unfortunate that it happens, but it continues to happen all over the world. The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

Oh boy. Good luck tonight, miraja.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, sometimes people who give orders that directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians somehow manage to retain high approval ratings in their home areas. It is really unfortunate that it happens, but it continues to happen all over the world. The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

Come on Miraja2! How can you compare George Bush to Bin Laden? Bush was not a terrorist. Bush didn't intentionally target civilians.

Bush had good intentions going into Iraq. Not only that, but the vast majority of Iraqis wanted the US to come in and liberate them from Hussein. The polls in Iraq showed that at the time.

Who was Bin Laden liberating by blowing up the World Trade Center?

By the way, if you consider Bush to be a terrorist then I guess Obama is too since he is continuing the "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess Obama is a "murderous thug" in your opinion just like Bush.

Her comments aren't shocking. What is shocking is a chick who is a liberal and into natural foods is a lard ass. She musta been gigantor before the liberal media/Hollywood told her what to eat.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

Here's the kevlar. Enjoy

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's the kevlar. Enjoy

So you agree with Miraja2 that Bush was a "murderous thug"? If so, then I guess you feel the same way about Obama since he continues the policies of Bush in terms of continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I noticed that you haven't admitted that your belief that Bin Laden was not popular in the Muslim world was totally wrong.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So you agree with Miraja2 that Bush was a "murderous thug"?

If you'll read my post again, I believe you'll notice that I didn't call Bush a "murderous thug." I reserved that language only for Bin Laden.
The comparison I made between the two was simply one of individuals who gave orders that directly led to the deaths of thousands of people but retained relatively high approval ratings in certain parts of the world. The two men clearly and indisputably share those traits but, as you point out, they differ on many others.
Obviously the supporters of each man continue to believe that the motivations of their guy are/were noble while the other's are/were just plain evil. Personally I happen to believe the motivations of both individuals were pretty evil, and I find the worldview of them both to be absolutely disgusting. Does that mean I think they were the "same?" No. I'm not sure there is much merit in ranking which individual's (or group's) ideology is more evil/harmful/revolting etc. than another's ideology. However, were I to engage in such an exercise, then yes, I would rank Bin Laden and Al Queda as being worse than the Bush administration....which is saying a lot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

If you'll read my post again, I believe you'll notice that I didn't call Bush a "murderous thug." I reserved that language only for Bin Laden.
The comparison I made between the two was simply one of individuals who gave orders that directly led to the deaths of thousands of people but retained relatively high approval ratings in certain parts of the world. The two men clearly and indisputably share those traits but, as you point out, they differ on many others.
Obviously the supporters of each man continue to believe that the motivations of their guy are/were noble while the other's are/were just plain evil. Personally I happen to believe the motivations of both individuals were pretty evil, and I find the worldview of them both to be absolutely disgusting. Does that mean I think they were the "same?" No. I'm not sure there is much merit in ranking which individual's (or group's) ideology is more evil/harmful/revolting etc. than another's ideology. However, were I to engage in such an exercise, then yes, I would rank Bin Laden and Al Queda as being worse than the Bush administration....which is saying a lot.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I'm glad that you don't think Bush is a "murderous thug".

If Bush's wars were so evil, then isn't Obama just as bad as Bush? Obama is continuing the wars.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I'm glad that you don't think Bush is a "murderous thug".

If Bush's wars were so evil, then isn't Obama just as bad as Bush? Obama is continuing the wars.

Hmm...well I didn't say I didn't think it, I just said I didn't say it in that post.
As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible. I have criticized the administration's actions there on numerous occasions, and hope that other liberals do the same. If we only criticize the Bush administration when they do crap like this and give the Obama administration a free ride, we are just as hypocritical as all the conservatives who suddenly started caring about the debt and deficit in January '09 after ignoring it for eight years.

[joeydb]

It's all fun and games until somebody gets their head cut off...

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by miraja2

As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible.

This is the key. I'm not sure it's practical or responsible to come into office, drag every last troop out of two war zones, and say you did it just because you don't agree with the wars.

So the best thing to do is what's happening in Iraq, which is admittedly happening slower than I'd like. Not a fan of increasing presence in another war zone....not at all. But to say that somehow having to deal with the $hit sandwich someone dropped in your lap in a responsible way is equally as bad as creating it in the first place is a little bit of a dishonest way to approach it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Hmm...well I didn't say I didn't think it, I just said I didn't say it in that post.
As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible. I have criticized the administration's actions there on numerous occasions, and hope that other liberals do the same. If we only criticize the Bush administration when they do crap like this and give the Obama administration a free ride, we are just as hypocritical as all the conservatives who suddenly started caring about the debt and deficit in January '09 after ignoring it for eight years.

Fair enough. I respect that you are consistent about being against the war no matter who the President is.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, sometimes people who give orders that directly result in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians somehow manage to retain high approval ratings in their home areas. It is really unfortunate that it happens, but it continues to happen all over the world. The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

I guess you could expect many Americans to support their President. The President has to make tough decisions sometimes and people recognize that. People will often times rally around their leader. But what do Americans supporting their President have to do with Muslims supporting a terrorist? Bin Laden is not the President of anything. He's not the head of a country. He's just a guy that likes to kill people and blow things up. That's all he is. And yet tens of millions of Muslims all around the world admire and support him.

In the one case, you have the President of the United Sates making a tough decisions and the citizens of the country supporting him. In the other case, you have a guy (Bin Laden) that likes to kill people and blow things, who is not the leader of a country, blowing up the World Trade Center and killing thousands of people. You wouldn't think anybody would support or admire Bin Laden. It's not like he's the leader of anything. He's just a terrorist. Yet tens of millions of Muslims (all around the world from Indonesia to Afghanistan) support and admire him. If his philosophy was not at least somewhat representative of his religion, then you wouldn't have tens of millions of people from that religion supporting him.

[Danzig]

can't help but wonder how much of the terrorists' attitude comes from their religion, and how much comes from them wanting to be a terrorist. hell, a criminal always finds a way to justify his acts-in this case, they portray themselves as doing the work of allah. how do you argue with someone who says god, allah, jehovah, told me to? after all, if you dispute their act, you're disputing god.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

can't help but wonder how much of the terrorists' attitude comes from their religion, and how much comes from them wanting to be a terrorist. hell, a criminal always finds a way to justify his acts-in this case, they portray themselves as doing the work of allah. how do you argue with someone who says god, allah, jehovah, told me to? after all, if you dispute their act, you're disputing god.

Sharia law is pervasive...it's the "big hammer" of Islam. There's no way in hell America would allow it....but Europe is under siege because of it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

can't help but wonder how much of the terrorists' attitude comes from their religion, and how much comes from them wanting to be a terrorist. hell, a criminal always finds a way to justify his acts-in this case, they portray themselves as doing the work of allah. how do you argue with someone who says god, allah, jehovah, told me to? after all, if you dispute their act, you're disputing god.

Precisely and simply How different is that from David Berkowitz taking his killing instructions from a dog?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

can't help but wonder how much of the terrorists' attitude comes from their religion, and how much comes from them wanting to be a terrorist. hell, a criminal always finds a way to justify his acts-in this case, they portray themselves as doing the work of allah. how do you argue with someone who says god, allah, jehovah, told me to? after all, if you dispute their act, you're disputing god.

That is a good point and groups like Al Qaeda will use this to their advantage. They will often recruit violent, angry, young men that are looking for an excuse to act out.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is a good point and groups like Al Qaeda will use this to their advantage. They will often recruit violent, angry, young men that are looking for an excuse to act out.

I agree completely.