And they would never see the hypocrisy! Seems they, themselves, believe Islam is too weak to stand on its own merits. If cartoons destroy Islam, then women and men would be in grave danger of having some great fun. Can’t have that!
If you go down to the bible belt and mock Jesus, you’d get your ass kicked by the peaceful Christians. There’s just less Allah (peace be upon Him) worshipers locally, at least in the US. Look how well the laws in Europe are working; fatwas, murders over cartoons, and fines for speaking out against Muslims in France for Bridget Bardot.
I only have one word for this: MOCK! Mock ’em all!
Some countries have passed laws about saying certain things about certain historical events.
Some have made it illegal to generalise about certain racial groups.
Some have made laws about how you speak in public places.
So why not pass laws making it illegal to generalise about a religion.
Then again, some countries have made it illegal to be a member of certain groups or factions.
So why not pass laws banning people from being a member of their church, mosque or synagogue?
Unfortunately, we can’t do either as both would be taking away liberties. And one would be as bad as the other.
So whilst violent reprisal is inexcusable, don’t poke the beehive then complain about getting stung.
I think the beehive needs poking becasue the bees are already flying out enraged by our passivity. Just when we thought we had sent all the weirdies off to be Americans, back they come as Muslims- with then same “We come in peace…shoot to kill” ethic. They must be relentlessly mocked, ridiculed and held up to scorn by all those capable of thought.
Just me being reasonable.
The history books are written by the ones who survive wars…whether over land or over religion. They are also the ones that write the rules that we live by after the wars are over. So, don’t be surprised that our new battles are being fought not only on mountainous and/or battlefields for our basic human rights , but also fought in court systems around the world, protecting the rights of the enemies to not let us defend our rights.
Welcome to the world where you will no longer to call the enemy “the enemy” because it will “offend” them and make them more angry and cause them to attack even more of us than they already are. Foolish thoughts, if you ask this former U.S. Marine.
‘So whilst violent reprisal is inexcusable, don’t poke the beehive then complain about getting stung.’
This is incoherent. You’re saying a violent response is inexcusable, but don’t complain about it if it happens. Surely you can see you’re contradicting yourself.
In civilised societies, people can question, criticise or simply ridicule other people’s beliefs without fear of being stabbed, beaten or blown up. It is right to treat all beliefs in the same way (ie to question or mock them), and it is right to complain extremely loudly if the response to that is threats, violence or murder. If we don’t do that people with less civilised views will impose their views on us. And all religions would like this sort of special status.
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
Ah, Samuel Adams. Good man! Good thoughts! Difficult to believe that one hell of a lot of sheeple wouldn’t have a clue, especially deeply, religiously indoctrinated sheeple.
I agree 100% with the spirit of your post. That said, since it’s (more or less, blurred a bit by my aging brain) a quote, perhaps you could give credit for the piece to Samuel Adams?
Fundamentalists of all persuasions are literally crazy, and therefore fundamentally dangerous. The author’s wisely kept anonymity indicates that he/she is well aware of this.
That said, the Islamics are especially dangerous because without their religion the vast majority of them would have to confront the fact that in the modern world in almost every sense they are total zeros, nothings, nonentities. In the last half century, the entire Islamic world has filed only a tiny fraction of all international patents. The GNP of the entire Arab world is less than that of Spain, and without oil, the Arab world would likely be little more than Somalia writ large. In addition, modern media have very effectively made the Islamic masses painfully aware of the disparity between the prosperous Infidels and the impoverished and marginalized faithful. The ones that have relocated to the First World have their noses rubbed in it at every turn.
The point? The fastest, cheapest and simplest way to be important to others is to be dangerous. One had best pay attention to the fanatic with an AK, a RPG or even a dagger when that individual would otherwise be beneath notice. This applies to nations as well as individuals.
The solution? I don’t know if there is any realistic one. We’re all in for a very scary time. And then add to that the Malthusian catastrophe of 6.6 billion humans on this little planet, many of whom are starving already, and . . .
r00db00y, there is a difference between belonging to a religion or a ethnicity that is often blurred, by racists as well as fundamentalists.
A person can chose in what to believe or not and what to say or not, while this is not possible to say about your place of birth, colour of skin or mothertongue.
After the terrible genocide on the European Jews it was IMHO quite reasonable to view Holocaust-denial as part of a campaign that might lead to something like this again and to suppress it (admittedly this does not really work).
Anti-semitism is not “Anti-judaism”, you can say you don’t like the attemptet Abrahamic infanticide or the mutilation of genitals etc. but this is very different from stating that all Jews as a “race” are a cancer on mankind etc.
I think this is a distinction worth making. The real challenge towards free speech are anyway not “Muslims” but rather Islamists, and there even moderate ones like Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Racists who discovered “Islamophobia” for their xenophobic campaings are part of this problem.
This is a very interesting bbc documentary on the “Mohamed-cartoon-furore”, note especially the role of the OIC and its Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ä°hsanoÄŸlu (Turkey) in making this a global affair.
Apparently, fundi Muslims, like run-of-the-mill street thugs, confuse “fear” (being afraid for your life), with “respect” (admiration or reverence). Both fundis and street thugs believe the more violent they are, the more they are admired. It never dawns on them that what they see in others is fear. No one admires them.
Come to think of it. I feel the same way about de facto president Dick Cheney and his sock puppet, G.W. Bush.
I may not care for how my government is being run by either side of the aisle (Retardicans or Demoncrats) but I will have to give Bush (and if you insist that Cheney is really in charge, then him too) credit for keeping the U.S. from being hit by another attack like or worse than what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
Remember, we’re not at war with terror…we’re at war with radical Islamic extremists. If we went to war with actions instead of our real enemies, then after Pearl Harbor, we’d have declared a War on Sneak Attacks instead of the Japanese. Think about it.
>Hobbes: I have always had reservations about the policies of the US administration, but pandering to certain religious nuts is not something Bush/Cheney invented.
Further: your irrational rage against certain political figures in your country might prevent you from understanding the real problem here: the open society and its enemies. If you ask me: one of the biggest mistakes was that the USA did not support Denmark when it was attacked out of the sole reason that it is a free country. Those Islamists don’t really care if we fear or “admire” them, they just want us to shut up and do what they say. If we do so because we think that “islamophobia” is political incorrect, or because we are afraid for our lifes doesn’t matter to them, in fact they argue both ways, as they see fit.
“Ihsanoglu appreciated those Western governments which slammed a blasphemous and anti-Islamic film produced by a Danish lawmaker, Geert Wilders, which sparked strong protests by Muslims. ”
Geert Wilders is not Danish. He is Dutch. Like me, I am ashamed to admit.
Not that I believe nobody should be critical of Islam or whatever religion, but purely because he is a bigoted racist.
Apparently the film drew their wrath because it “portrays the Holy Qur’an as a book which inspires terrorism”.
I’d be more impressed if they directed as much criticism towards terrorists who claim to be inspired by islam. If Bin Laden and his chums are perverting the peaceful message of Islam for their own ends, let’s see THEM burned in effigy instead of danish/dutch flags.
Nobody would be laughing at (or drawing) those cartoons if they didn’t have a streak of truth in them.
bigot = someone who does not like someone else based on that other persons race, religion, sex, nationality
racist = someone who believes that anyone from a seperate race (not religion, sex or nationality) is inferior due to the genes of the person of the other race, making that person who holds these views more superior than the other race.
And no matter if Geert Wilders is a bigot or a racist, his film showed a lot of truths that the radical muslims don’t want people to focus on.
Eh, I was curious to see if anyone would recognize the Sam Adams quote. I didn’t think anyone would assume I was trying to pass it off as my own. Hell, the main reason I used it is because my initial reaction to r00db00y’s moronic post had too much profanity for this site. Think Al Swearengen from ‘Deadwood’.
“Afraid of Islam, many are not,” said Yoda. His voice changed to one of soft insistence, Yoda continued. “They should be. They should be.”
I’m a bigot as well, ticticboom, when it comes to all religions; because I don’t care for any religion that demands I follow their ways by threat of death in this world or eternal damnation in this world…all given to me by a “loving God”.
If you are giving the Chimp credit for stopping any other attacks, then you must also give him the blame for not stopping the Sept 11 attack, since he was in charge at that time.
I will pass the blame of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr., not just Junior. He’s not the only one to blame for the fact, as was shown by the “9/11 Commission” and their statement that the Islamic Extremeist were at war with us when we weren’t at war with them.
I remember the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole, American embassy’s around the globe, and more importantly for my Marine brothers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. This war goes much futher back than just “the Chimp,” as you call him, Craig. Even former-President Bill Clinton failed to take out Osama bin Laden when he had him in the sites.
But to complain now about the ineptitude of those in charge in the past is irrelevant as we should focus now on the future and to keep it from happening now. It’s just as bad as those that scream now it’s the Republican’s or Democrat’s fault that we are not drilling in the U.S. for the billions of gallons of oil that are here in the U.S. The fault lies with both sides; and they both need to open up to ways to solve the American (and world wide) energy crisis in the short AND long term. Drill now and produce oil so we don’t rely on the governments run by dictators who hate the west. Meanwhile, work with energy companies to come up with profitable and worthwhile energy solutions in the long term so we can stop using oil as much, if not altogether.
By the way, can we get away from the name calling of those we don’t like. It sounds far too much like bickering teenagers than rational adults who do recognize that religion is just a way for a group of people to force freedom loving people to do as they wish.
A very belated reply, but the fact that the US has not been hit again is certainly not contributable to the Shrub government. Consider that Laden never had the infrastructure in the US that the Shrub admin. said they did (sleeper cells). Remember, they are pathological liers, and should be brought up on charges of high treason, convicted, and locked up forever!
Remember too, that Cheney was placed in charge of a terrorism task force in 2001 well before the attack. Cheney NEVER called a meeting.
Hobbes, I see you didn’t read all of my last post; otherwise, you wouldn’t have resorted to calling people names. So, for that fact of the matter, I can just guess you have no intention of knowing what anyone says, only what you hear from others and want to believe.
Honestly, I’m surprised that with your belief that Bush and Cheney are behind letting the terrorist attack, you’re not just coming straight out and saying that Bush, his administration, and the thousands that would have had to be involved to do so, were behind the attacks themselves.
But, you believe what you wish, blame those that were only partly to blame instead of all that are to blame, and stress about the past while we slowly switch to Sharia Law one day at a time in the present and future.
mjm202036, there are many reasons I suspect Cheney/Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacksâ€â€though perhaps not exactly how it would take place. I could be wrong, but a lot needs to be explained, not the least of which is Bush’s opposition to the establishment of a 9/11 committee to investigate what actually happened, then stonewalling efforts of investigators to obtain requested documents; Bush’s reaction (actually, lack thereof) when learning of the attack; exactly why some evidence, e.g., cockpit conversations, for that day was destroyed; exactly why the operation in Afghanistan was compromised by diverting badly need personnel and equipment to Iraq; telling congress and the nation that Iraq was a threat when Intelligence community expressed doubt that Iraq was a threat (see http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290020); exactly why Cheney’s terrorism assessment committee (established MAY 8, 2001) never held a meeting; why Cheney set up a secrete intelligence agency and stove piped Intel to this committee, illegally by passing the CIA; and many other questions, not the least of which are the illegal wire taps that were going on before 9/11.
I include Iraq because it is well known, for anyone paying attention, that Bush/Cheney, et al, were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Knowing how much they lie to the nation and congress, having read the PNAC, and the fact that they encourage torture of suspected terrorists, I have no doubt in my mind that they would be capable of allowing 9/11 to happen.
As for calling names, you’re right. Shouldn’t do that. No need. Anyone paying attention should know already that our “leaders” are simply Machiavellian. I think Cheney is interested only in the profit side of war and Bush just wanted to be idolized as a great president, and thought such idolization comes from leading a nation in time of war. see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm.
I tend to believe the above because I know they lie and I know how secretive they are.
I am always willing to consider contrary arguments, unlike those who just pass off such questions as derived from the “conspiracy theory†crowd. Anyone who cannot see what Cheney and Bush are really like are simply ignoring the evidence.
What should be given a higher value in a society, preserving the rights of women, or a religion that takes away said rights of women?
What if your religion’s holy books prescribe assaulting, disenfranchising, or liquidating those belonging to another religion (or None of the Above). Why should that be respected? Even if you sanitise the ugly bits, why give that much slack to such a credo?
Religions are inherent divisive and provide no actual, tangible benefit that a secular option couldn’t provide.
So let’s kick ’em all to the curb, and the donkeys they rode in on.
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible. Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts. Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think. Kenan Malik
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ... Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world. Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available... Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper. Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming. New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet.. JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics. Mano Singham
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp! Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour. Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist... Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech
includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and
any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious... Council of Ex-Muslims
April 13, 2022
And they would never see the hypocrisy! Seems they, themselves, believe Islam is too weak to stand on its own merits. If cartoons destroy Islam, then women and men would be in grave danger of having some great fun. Can’t have that!
If you go down to the bible belt and mock Jesus, you’d get your ass kicked by the peaceful Christians. There’s just less Allah (peace be upon Him) worshipers locally, at least in the US. Look how well the laws in Europe are working; fatwas, murders over cartoons, and fines for speaking out against Muslims in France for Bridget Bardot.
I only have one word for this: MOCK! Mock ’em all!
Bodach
Hear Hear!
By the way, just where are our boys today. Squatting in a sauna?
Well, why not?
Some countries have passed laws about saying certain things about certain historical events.
Some have made it illegal to generalise about certain racial groups.
Some have made laws about how you speak in public places.
So why not pass laws making it illegal to generalise about a religion.
Then again, some countries have made it illegal to be a member of certain groups or factions.
So why not pass laws banning people from being a member of their church, mosque or synagogue?
Unfortunately, we can’t do either as both would be taking away liberties. And one would be as bad as the other.
So whilst violent reprisal is inexcusable, don’t poke the beehive then complain about getting stung.
I think the beehive needs poking becasue the bees are already flying out enraged by our passivity. Just when we thought we had sent all the weirdies off to be Americans, back they come as Muslims- with then same “We come in peace…shoot to kill” ethic. They must be relentlessly mocked, ridiculed and held up to scorn by all those capable of thought.
Just me being reasonable.
[…] Jesusandmo. […]
love this one,
so true.
The history books are written by the ones who survive wars…whether over land or over religion. They are also the ones that write the rules that we live by after the wars are over. So, don’t be surprised that our new battles are being fought not only on mountainous and/or battlefields for our basic human rights , but also fought in court systems around the world, protecting the rights of the enemies to not let us defend our rights.
Welcome to the world where you will no longer to call the enemy “the enemy” because it will “offend” them and make them more angry and cause them to attack even more of us than they already are. Foolish thoughts, if you ask this former U.S. Marine.
‘So whilst violent reprisal is inexcusable, don’t poke the beehive then complain about getting stung.’
This is incoherent. You’re saying a violent response is inexcusable, but don’t complain about it if it happens. Surely you can see you’re contradicting yourself.
In civilised societies, people can question, criticise or simply ridicule other people’s beliefs without fear of being stabbed, beaten or blown up. It is right to treat all beliefs in the same way (ie to question or mock them), and it is right to complain extremely loudly if the response to that is threats, violence or murder. If we don’t do that people with less civilised views will impose their views on us. And all religions would like this sort of special status.
@r00db00y:
If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.
doesn’t mo ever take his turban off? Can’t be very comfortable sitting in a sauna with a turban
Ah, Samuel Adams. Good man! Good thoughts! Difficult to believe that one hell of a lot of sheeple wouldn’t have a clue, especially deeply, religiously indoctrinated sheeple.
Maybe mo does not want anyone to see his bald head.
Ticticboom,
I agree 100% with the spirit of your post. That said, since it’s (more or less, blurred a bit by my aging brain) a quote, perhaps you could give credit for the piece to Samuel Adams?
Cheers,
Jerry W
http://boskolives.wordpress.com/
Fundamentalists of all persuasions are literally crazy, and therefore fundamentally dangerous. The author’s wisely kept anonymity indicates that he/she is well aware of this.
That said, the Islamics are especially dangerous because without their religion the vast majority of them would have to confront the fact that in the modern world in almost every sense they are total zeros, nothings, nonentities. In the last half century, the entire Islamic world has filed only a tiny fraction of all international patents. The GNP of the entire Arab world is less than that of Spain, and without oil, the Arab world would likely be little more than Somalia writ large. In addition, modern media have very effectively made the Islamic masses painfully aware of the disparity between the prosperous Infidels and the impoverished and marginalized faithful. The ones that have relocated to the First World have their noses rubbed in it at every turn.
The point? The fastest, cheapest and simplest way to be important to others is to be dangerous. One had best pay attention to the fanatic with an AK, a RPG or even a dagger when that individual would otherwise be beneath notice. This applies to nations as well as individuals.
The solution? I don’t know if there is any realistic one. We’re all in for a very scary time. And then add to that the Malthusian catastrophe of 6.6 billion humans on this little planet, many of whom are starving already, and . . .
r00db00y, there is a difference between belonging to a religion or a ethnicity that is often blurred, by racists as well as fundamentalists.
A person can chose in what to believe or not and what to say or not, while this is not possible to say about your place of birth, colour of skin or mothertongue.
After the terrible genocide on the European Jews it was IMHO quite reasonable to view Holocaust-denial as part of a campaign that might lead to something like this again and to suppress it (admittedly this does not really work).
Anti-semitism is not “Anti-judaism”, you can say you don’t like the attemptet Abrahamic infanticide or the mutilation of genitals etc. but this is very different from stating that all Jews as a “race” are a cancer on mankind etc.
I think this is a distinction worth making. The real challenge towards free speech are anyway not “Muslims” but rather Islamists, and there even moderate ones like Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu. Racists who discovered “Islamophobia” for their xenophobic campaings are part of this problem.
This is a very interesting bbc documentary on the “Mohamed-cartoon-furore”, note especially the role of the OIC and its Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ä°hsanoÄŸlu (Turkey) in making this a global affair.
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03OhSgLlETY
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQP4QK834Rk
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIdw2vIHbHI
part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kie_rYz1AJQ
part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvvgl8U0hBs
part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rG2W-NI6afI
Mel, thanks for the links.
Apparently, fundi Muslims, like run-of-the-mill street thugs, confuse “fear” (being afraid for your life), with “respect” (admiration or reverence). Both fundis and street thugs believe the more violent they are, the more they are admired. It never dawns on them that what they see in others is fear. No one admires them.
Come to think of it. I feel the same way about de facto president Dick Cheney and his sock puppet, G.W. Bush.
I may not care for how my government is being run by either side of the aisle (Retardicans or Demoncrats) but I will have to give Bush (and if you insist that Cheney is really in charge, then him too) credit for keeping the U.S. from being hit by another attack like or worse than what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.
Remember, we’re not at war with terror…we’re at war with radical Islamic extremists. If we went to war with actions instead of our real enemies, then after Pearl Harbor, we’d have declared a War on Sneak Attacks instead of the Japanese. Think about it.
John Cowan: LOOKS like a sauna. Native Americans believe steam drives out bad spirits, and Poor Richard concurs. Think it will help our boys here?
Albert Ross: Yes, those children, too.
Jerry W: Itchy palms are a sign of Mortal Sin. Didn’t your Mom tell you? It will also make you crazy.
>Hobbes: I have always had reservations about the policies of the US administration, but pandering to certain religious nuts is not something Bush/Cheney invented.
Further: your irrational rage against certain political figures in your country might prevent you from understanding the real problem here: the open society and its enemies. If you ask me: one of the biggest mistakes was that the USA did not support Denmark when it was attacked out of the sole reason that it is a free country. Those Islamists don’t really care if we fear or “admire” them, they just want us to shut up and do what they say. If we do so because we think that “islamophobia” is political incorrect, or because we are afraid for our lifes doesn’t matter to them, in fact they argue both ways, as they see fit.
“Ihsanoglu appreciated those Western governments which slammed a blasphemous and anti-Islamic film produced by a Danish lawmaker, Geert Wilders, which sparked strong protests by Muslims. ”
Geert Wilders is not Danish. He is Dutch. Like me, I am ashamed to admit.
Not that I believe nobody should be critical of Islam or whatever religion, but purely because he is a bigoted racist.
Apparently the film drew their wrath because it “portrays the Holy Qur’an as a book which inspires terrorism”.
I’d be more impressed if they directed as much criticism towards terrorists who claim to be inspired by islam. If Bin Laden and his chums are perverting the peaceful message of Islam for their own ends, let’s see THEM burned in effigy instead of danish/dutch flags.
Nobody would be laughing at (or drawing) those cartoons if they didn’t have a streak of truth in them.
bigot = someone who does not like someone else based on that other persons race, religion, sex, nationality
racist = someone who believes that anyone from a seperate race (not religion, sex or nationality) is inferior due to the genes of the person of the other race, making that person who holds these views more superior than the other race.
And no matter if Geert Wilders is a bigot or a racist, his film showed a lot of truths that the radical muslims don’t want people to focus on.
Eh, I was curious to see if anyone would recognize the Sam Adams quote. I didn’t think anyone would assume I was trying to pass it off as my own. Hell, the main reason I used it is because my initial reaction to r00db00y’s moronic post had too much profanity for this site. Think Al Swearengen from ‘Deadwood’.
@mjm202036:
Guess I’m a bigot. I don’t like people who believe the ‘perfect example’ that every man should emulate is a murdering, thieving, raping, tyrant.
As for Islamophobia, if you’re not afraid of Islam, (in Yoda voice) “You should be.”
@ticticboom:
“Afraid of Islam, many are not,” said Yoda. His voice changed to one of soft insistence, Yoda continued. “They should be. They should be.”
I’m a bigot as well, ticticboom, when it comes to all religions; because I don’t care for any religion that demands I follow their ways by threat of death in this world or eternal damnation in this world…all given to me by a “loving God”.
reply to mjm202036
If you are giving the Chimp credit for stopping any other attacks, then you must also give him the blame for not stopping the Sept 11 attack, since he was in charge at that time.
I will pass the blame of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on Bush Jr., Clinton, and Bush Sr., not just Junior. He’s not the only one to blame for the fact, as was shown by the “9/11 Commission” and their statement that the Islamic Extremeist were at war with us when we weren’t at war with them.
I remember the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole, American embassy’s around the globe, and more importantly for my Marine brothers, the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. This war goes much futher back than just “the Chimp,” as you call him, Craig. Even former-President Bill Clinton failed to take out Osama bin Laden when he had him in the sites.
But to complain now about the ineptitude of those in charge in the past is irrelevant as we should focus now on the future and to keep it from happening now. It’s just as bad as those that scream now it’s the Republican’s or Democrat’s fault that we are not drilling in the U.S. for the billions of gallons of oil that are here in the U.S. The fault lies with both sides; and they both need to open up to ways to solve the American (and world wide) energy crisis in the short AND long term. Drill now and produce oil so we don’t rely on the governments run by dictators who hate the west. Meanwhile, work with energy companies to come up with profitable and worthwhile energy solutions in the long term so we can stop using oil as much, if not altogether.
By the way, can we get away from the name calling of those we don’t like. It sounds far too much like bickering teenagers than rational adults who do recognize that religion is just a way for a group of people to force freedom loving people to do as they wish.
A very belated reply, but the fact that the US has not been hit again is certainly not contributable to the Shrub government. Consider that Laden never had the infrastructure in the US that the Shrub admin. said they did (sleeper cells). Remember, they are pathological liers, and should be brought up on charges of high treason, convicted, and locked up forever!
Remember too, that Cheney was placed in charge of a terrorism task force in 2001 well before the attack. Cheney NEVER called a meeting.
Hobbes, I see you didn’t read all of my last post; otherwise, you wouldn’t have resorted to calling people names. So, for that fact of the matter, I can just guess you have no intention of knowing what anyone says, only what you hear from others and want to believe.
Honestly, I’m surprised that with your belief that Bush and Cheney are behind letting the terrorist attack, you’re not just coming straight out and saying that Bush, his administration, and the thousands that would have had to be involved to do so, were behind the attacks themselves.
But, you believe what you wish, blame those that were only partly to blame instead of all that are to blame, and stress about the past while we slowly switch to Sharia Law one day at a time in the present and future.
mjm202036, there are many reasons I suspect Cheney/Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacksâ€â€though perhaps not exactly how it would take place. I could be wrong, but a lot needs to be explained, not the least of which is Bush’s opposition to the establishment of a 9/11 committee to investigate what actually happened, then stonewalling efforts of investigators to obtain requested documents; Bush’s reaction (actually, lack thereof) when learning of the attack; exactly why some evidence, e.g., cockpit conversations, for that day was destroyed; exactly why the operation in Afghanistan was compromised by diverting badly need personnel and equipment to Iraq; telling congress and the nation that Iraq was a threat when Intelligence community expressed doubt that Iraq was a threat (see http://mediamatters.org/items/200802290020); exactly why Cheney’s terrorism assessment committee (established MAY 8, 2001) never held a meeting; why Cheney set up a secrete intelligence agency and stove piped Intel to this committee, illegally by passing the CIA; and many other questions, not the least of which are the illegal wire taps that were going on before 9/11.
I include Iraq because it is well known, for anyone paying attention, that Bush/Cheney, et al, were looking for an excuse to invade Iraq long before 9/11. Knowing how much they lie to the nation and congress, having read the PNAC, and the fact that they encourage torture of suspected terrorists, I have no doubt in my mind that they would be capable of allowing 9/11 to happen.
As for calling names, you’re right. Shouldn’t do that. No need. Anyone paying attention should know already that our “leaders” are simply Machiavellian. I think Cheney is interested only in the profit side of war and Bush just wanted to be idolized as a great president, and thought such idolization comes from leading a nation in time of war. see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htmhttp://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-01.htm.
I tend to believe the above because I know they lie and I know how secretive they are.
I am always willing to consider contrary arguments, unlike those who just pass off such questions as derived from the “conspiracy theory†crowd. Anyone who cannot see what Cheney and Bush are really like are simply ignoring the evidence.
What should be given a higher value in a society, preserving the rights of women, or a religion that takes away said rights of women?
What if your religion’s holy books prescribe assaulting, disenfranchising, or liquidating those belonging to another religion (or None of the Above). Why should that be respected? Even if you sanitise the ugly bits, why give that much slack to such a credo?
Religions are inherent divisive and provide no actual, tangible benefit that a secular option couldn’t provide.
So let’s kick ’em all to the curb, and the donkeys they rode in on.
This has been used so many times and it still remains funny. Oh, hypocrisy. But would it be funny if they knew how stupid they sounded?