Iran

[buckman]

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

Now I know why your a nut
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Now I know why your a nut
Let's see. Obama puts Iran on" notice", and the next day they fire off two rockets.

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm curious, did you skip high school?

-spence

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?
See Spence, I don't like Obama. I don't like what he stands for. He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues. He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward. Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.
FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.
Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.
Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

No, I'm private school educated. Why the cheap shot?

Not a cheap shot, I was just wondering where your critical thinking went. Read your own responses in this thread.

See Spence, I don't like Obama.

I got that.

I don't like what he stands for.

America?

He won't make a tough decision because he's a fraud. He talks a bunch of BS but never really takes the courage to make a stand on National security issues.

I see that he has a different approach than Bush, but where has Obama shown a lack of courage?

He voted present for most of his senate votes and continues to be a coward.

Election year fluff long since debunked.

Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate.

The Illinois state Legislature allows members to vote "present" rather than "yes" or "no." The Times reported in December that "present" votes provide a way for lawmakers to voice opposition to an issue. Such votes can also help them avoid the political fall-out of voting "no":

Say what you want about Bush, but at least he had some sack.

Yep, Iran sure was intimidated.

FYI, it was the Patriot Ac,t that you and JD have trashed that Obama, who also trashed it, used to stop the most recent homeland attacks.

I think most would agree that the majority of the Patriot Act is very reasonable. Some elements need additional measures to ensure privacy is protected. I don't see this as "trashing."

Talk is cheap. When I see our security handed over to others to secure, I get worried.

Where?

Now, I'm going to strive to be as educated as you, talk in circles and never really say much, but I want to keep my common sense if thats OK.

I'm really not all that educated, it just comes naturally

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, yea. Guess you haven't had time to pick up a paper the past week.

Regardless, here's a quick article you should read.

Zakaria on Obama, the U.N., and Iran | Newsweek Voices - Fareed Zakaria | Newsweek.com

-spence

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

[scottw]

Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post, has finally noticed that Barack Obama is not leading as chief executive but is still stuck in campaign mode - as if he is still running for the office:


The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Zakaria says "the speech was well received all over the world, except one place--Americas's right-wing netherworld . . ." So only the U.S. "right-wing netherworld" had objections? Really?

I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

He says "This is the discourse of American conservatism today: Obama is bad because he loves death panels and Hitler." Hardly--this minute and partisan distillation of American conservative discourse is silly--like JohnnyD's oft rants against conservatives.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He says that "there is a serious case to be made that it's not worth taking the United Nations seriously, that it's an anachronistic institution based on 60-year-old geopolitics and a platform for tyrants and weirdos. But while much of that is true, the United Nations is the only organization in the world to which all countries belong, and as such, it does have considerable legitimacy." He tries to sound objective by slanting both ways, but then abandons the "serious case" against the UN and abandons objectivity by fully getting on board with its "considerable ligitmacy."

This isn't a contradiction, but rather a pragmatic observation. The UN certainly has dysfunctions, but at the present it's the only global organization with legal legitimacy. While I'd agree this shouldn't be seen as a crippling constraint, when used properly it could dramatically diminish the options of our opponents.

He goes on about Obama's "calculated strategy"--"a central task of diplomacy is to explore those areas of agreement, build on them, and thus create a more stable world. That's why we have treaties on everthing from trade to taxation." He says that "there is a phony realism brandished on the right these days that says no one will ever cooperate with America." Further on "for decades, it's been thought deadly for an American Politician to be seen as seeking international cooperation. Denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries was a cheap and easy way to seem strong." And then "Obama is gambling that America is now mature enough to understand that machismo is not foreign policy . . ."

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

He is full of smart sounding phrases and generalizations that not only contradict each other but contradict history. America has been in the diplomacy game for well over 200 years. How did all those treaties that he glosses come about? No one even on "the right these days" said or says that "no one will ever cooperate with America" Certainly not Bush. Didn't he reach out to Putin? I don't recall him "denouncing, demeaning, and insulting other countries." Rather, it was he who received the insults. We have cooperated and are cooperating with more countries than most if not more than any other country. Hell, we helped create the UN. We host it, have been influential and involved with it as anybody, we sponsor it, help pay for it, donate soldiers, go to summits, have behind the scenes tete-a-tetes, create coalitions, all these even under right wingers. And, yes, many do believe that the UN has lost or never achieved its intention to solve world problems (much as the league of nations didn't), but nobody has abandoned it. Obama can go ahead and gamble on the old tried and tried and tried diplomacy gig. It may work. Zakaria sure does "hope" it will. But he could have said that without his twisted insulting verbiage.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

A very interesting book (I loaned to my father and haven't seen since) is the "The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War" by Andrew Bacevich.

"Bacevich is a graduate of West Point, a Vietnam veteran, and a conservative Catholic.... He has thus earned the right to a hearing even in circles typically immune to criticism. What he writes should give them pause.... His conclusion is clear. The United States is becoming not just a militarized state but a military society: a country where armed power is the measure of national greatness, and war, or planning for war, is the exemplary (and only) common project."--Tony Judt, The New York Review of Books

Basically he argues that as a nation we've come to rely on cruise missiles rather than thinking to solve our big problems.

Good book...

http://www.amazon.com/New-American-M...4251588&sr=8-1

-spence

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;714535]I think this statement is generally accurate. Certainly most of the International media found the change in tone to be quite reassuring, the domestic media reported it as is and the Right basically accused Obama of surrender.

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.

Clearly he's over simplifying matters to make a point, that the tip of the Conservatives rhetorical spear has been severely lacking of late.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.

Certainly there's an argument from many on the Right that treaties and institutions only seek to undermine our interests...when they don't explicitly seek to further our interests!

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.

Bush's "my way or the highway" approach to foreign policy was great fodder for a domestic base, but did absolutely nothing to further our interests abroad.

Do you think the USA has the same diplomatic strength as it did in the 1940's?

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the truth consisted only of what media report, you may have a point--especially the SELECT media. In reality, "right wing media" exist throughout the world, not just in the US. Furthermore, many millions of people whose voice doesn't reach the media also have opinions counter to the select media. So when you use words like "generally accurate" or "most of the International media" you're leaving out quite a chunk of humanity.

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

He is "clearly" doing more than oversimplifying. He is creating a picture that does not actually exist. The Hitler thing is NOT a part of conservative rhetoric and the "death panel" bit is such a minute part of con rhetoric that it has to be played up by libs to discredit what cons actually are concerned about.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.

As Zakaria says, all countries have their interests, and that we need to seek what interests we have in common, not that anybodies interests should be undermined. I am not aware of this argument from the Right that treaties and institutions ONLY SEEK to undermine our interests. Some treaties may have that affect (not because they seeked to do so) but many don't. Treaties have been made by those on the Right.

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

How can it? Or, why should it? As a founding member, we sought the input of the rest of the world. We were looked up to as a benevolent saviour by most at the time. There were only 21 original members of the UN. It has grown immensely and the latter members do not have and did not have a favorable view of us long before any Bush policy. We are, by our own device, another member of the world community. We have not been regarded as THE leader for many years. And we are not supposed to be so. The "diplomatic strength" has rightly been dispersed.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.


Belize? Riots? This is not marginalizing, it is super-minimalizing and smearing. It was Zakaria, not you, that left out "right wing" opinions in ALL the countries to whose select media he referred.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.



Your picture is not the GOP. Is code pink the Democrat party?

I'll argue that the current conservative position is that most if not all treaties we've signed up to do more to constrain than enable. I listen to a lot of conservative pundits and this theme is very consistent.

It is the nature of treaties to constrain. Without the constraint, anything goes. On the other hand, if too much constraint already exists, a treaty may remove it. That is usually the object of "free trade." I have not followed "current" conservative position on trade. It has traditionally been for open markets. It is the nature of law, in a society such as ours, to constrain government from infringing on the rights of the people.

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.-spence

Where did you find these beliefs? I am not aware of them.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This is quite contrary to the belief of the last Administration that the world "needs" our leadership. I know this is rooted in neoconservatism which you don't believe exists.

-spence

Anyway, my response was to your question to ME, did I think the U.S. has the diplomatic strength that it had in the 1940s. I wasn't responding for the GOP, or neocons.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It's called "marginalizing", to get a somewhat accurate big picture view. If I've left out the under reported anti-Obama riots in Belize, please forgive me.

In regard to Zakaria saying that Obama's speech was well received ALL OVER THE WORLD except in ONE PLACE, he must not consider much of the trepidation in East Europe to be occurring in a place. There is much fear there with his "cooperation" with Russia. Especially when, in July a group of politicians and scholars from 9 of these countries published a lengthy open letter to Obama stating the need for continued and expanded US engagement in the security of that region, and specifically pointed to the need for maintaining the planned missile-defence installations and NOT to bow to Moscow's wishes.

He also must not think Israel is much of a place. 4% of Israelis see obamas policies as pro-Israel, 51% see them as pro-palestinian. 88% of Israelis, by the way, view Bushes administration as pro-Israel.

Because of the growing Islamic "problem," their are many in Western Europe who have become "right wing populists," some percentages as high as 25-30% or more. They do not have favorable views of Obama and his policies. But, of course, the MEDIA that Zakaria hears reports that everywhere in the world except America's right wing netherworld received Obama's speech well.

No, the point is loud and clear. It's precisely that the GOP has lost it's way that silly images and ideas like these are so easily tossed around by the opposition.


-spence

In regard to your photo, isn't it interesting that the Obama as Hitler photo is being held conveniently backwards right at the camera, the sign holders arms fully extended (which couldn't be held in that position very long due to circulation and gravity/weight problems) so as to place the photo prominently above the distraction of the messy crowd, dominating the photo in an almost perfect artistic "third" portion. And all so conveniently coinciding with the click of the camera.

And regarding Zakaria's saying the discourse of American conservatism today being death panels and Hitler, how about:

Gore Vidal, major leftist and Obama supporter, says the Republican party is a mindset, like Hitler youth, based on hatred, and conservatives are fascists.

Ted Turner, leftist CNN guy, compares Fox News to Hitler.

CNN host D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany.

Allen L Roland (lefty radio host) said Bush was like Hitler.

Edward Jayne said Bush was like Hitler.

George Soros compared Bush to Nazis.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd said Bush reminded him of Goering.

Al Gore referred to republican computer teams as brownshirts.

Novelist Andrew Greeley depicted Bush as a Hitler figure.

Judge Guido Calabresi said Bushes rise to power was like the rise of Hitler and Mussolini

Various leftists depicted Bush as Attila, Ted Bundy, Mussolini, Hannibal Lecter, the Anti-Christ, Frankenstein.

Anti-war protests of 2003-2007 was rife with images of Bush with Hitler Mustache and Nazi uniform.

The Hitler/Nazi thing is not new, certainly practised by the left as much IF NOT MORE than the right, and is not part of either parties platform or official views.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

Obama has decided to take a wait and see attitude toward Iran. He will wait and see what kind of relationship they want. I'm not sure what friggin sign he is looking for. This is going to keep going in circles until Iran finally does have nukes. Then they will have "hand" and we are screwed. This is not the time for patience.

While I don't have an opinion on the Iran situation because, quite frankly, I don't care.

But based on your above comments, what exactly should be done about Iran then? Should we extend the military and embark on fighting wars on three separate fronts, all against Islamic countries?

Eventually, the world will have no choice but to believe the US hates Islam - and then you'll see how much "unsafer than a year ago" we will be.

[Fly Rod]

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by detbuch

From a utube video that I don't know how to link:
A birth rate of 2.11 children per family is required to sustain a culture. A 1.9 ratio has never been reversed. A 1.3 ratio is "impossible" to reverse as it would take 80-100 years.
Fertility rates:
France 1.8
England 1.6
Greece 1.3
Germany 1.3
Italy 1.2
Spain 1.1
European Union 1.38

England's Muslim population has increased 30 fold in a short time from 82,000 to 2.5 million. In the Netherlands, 50% of newborns are Muslim. In 15 years ½ of the Dutch will be Muslim. Since 1990, 90% of immigration to Europe is Islamic. France with a birth rate of 1.8 for native French, has a Muslim birth rate of 8.1. South France which had been a stronghold for Christian churches, now has more mosques than churches. 30% of that regions 20 year olds or younger are Islamic. In Nice, Marseille, Paris, that age group is 40% Muslim. By 2027 1/5 of Frenchmen will be Islamic. There are 23 million Muslims in Russia and 1 out of 5 Russians are Islamic. 40% of the Russian Army will soon be Islamic. 25% of the Belgian population is Islamic and 50% of newborns there are Islamic. Belgian gov. says that 1/3 of Europe's children will be Muslim by 2025. The German gov. says the fall in birth rate cannot be stopped and Germany will be a Muslim state by 2050. Gaddafi says Europe will be a Muslim continent in a few dacades without guns, swords, or conquest. There are over 52 million Muslims now in Europe and that number will double in 20 years.

Canada has a birth rate of 1.6. Islam is its fastest growing religion. Its population increased by 1.6 million between 2001-06, 1.2 million of that was by immigration. The U.S. birth rate is 1.6 which is boosted to 2.11 (the bare minimum) by the Latino influx. In 1970 we had 100,000 Muslims. Today there are over 9 million. Several Islamic organizations met in Chicago to plan how to evangelize America. In 5-7 years, Islam will be the dominant religion in the world.

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This all echos the "Every child in America should learn Spanish because Spanish with become the dominant language in America with in 5-10 years" saying that was prominent in the late-90s.

No, it "echos" evidence for demographic predictions. Some predictions actually occur. Some don't. The statitistics on fertility rates for various countries is not new. Nor are those on the rapidly growing Muslim populations, way out of proportion to their starting points. The predictions are based on demographic data. As far as I know, no one has disputed them. Whether they mean anything to you or not is up to you

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Do you like ISLAM?

I hate islam and the islamic way of thinking. Are we suppose to cower?

Majority of Brits hate islam. Prove me wrong.

OOPS! I take back part of the first sentence, point me in the right direction for the 70 virgins.

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Posts like this lead me to believe you fear Islam because you don't understand it.

-spence

I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I can't believe I have to actually agree with Spence. Islam isn't the problem in Iran or anywhere else. The problem is with extremists, of which every religion has some.

i dont agree 100%. Islam is not the problem, but enough of Islam, as an entity, is not speaking up enough about the extremists nor taking any action. Its pretty telling when you see the polls on who caused 9/11 and a large majority of muslims beleive it was the jews. They need to get over the palestinian thing. Muslims countries do NOTHING to help the palestinians other than condemn the jews. Spread the wealth.