Whose War? Patrick J. Buchanan - The American Conservative

[torresD]

http://www.amconmag.com/03_24_03/cover.html
March 24, 2003 issue
The American Conservative

Whose War?

A neoconservative clique seeks to
ensnare our country in a series of
wars that are not in America's interest.

by Patrick J. Buchanan

[Asmodeus]

"torresD" > wrote in news:vvxkc.625$Hs1.308
@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> A neoconservative clique seeks to
<snip>
> by Patrick J. Buchanan

There is nothing more ludicrous than Pat trying to distance
himself from neocons. Pat is the prototypical neocon, and
always has been. Big government, intrusive government Pat.

Then again, the Indianapolis LP ran Greg Dixon. Go figure.


--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

[Some Guy]

"Asmodeus" > wrote in message
6.16...
....
> --
> "It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
> two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
> and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
> our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
> --The Hon. Zell Miller

If Zell had been running things in 1962 he would have rolled over for the
joint chiefs and we would have had a nice little nuclear war. Kennedy
argued.

SG

[WalterM140]

>If Zell had been running things in 1962 he would have rolled over for the
>joint chiefs and we would have had a nice little nuclear war. Kennedy
>argued.

Kennedy is often --usually-- seen as this playboy cheater, but he faced down
old Iron Pants himself -- Curtis Lemay -- and the other generals who had
convinced themselves that a nuclear exchange with the USSR was a good thing.

Walt

[redclay]

Jorge > wrote in message
om...
> Asmodeus > wrote in message
>...
> > There is nothing more ludicrous than Pat trying to distance
> > himself from neocons. Pat is the prototypical neocon, and
> > always has been. Big government, intrusive government Pat.
> > Then again, the Indianapolis LP ran Greg Dixon. Go figure.
>
> PJB being a neocon? No way! He is 100% American "Old Right"
> conservative aka paleoconservative.
Neoconservatives are Jews that left the Democratic Party in the late 60's
when they realized the Democrats had lost their will to use the U. S.
military to fight the Jews' fights. To see who and what are running the
controls behind the curtain Search wolfowitz, perle, libby and feith for
the reasons why Iraq was
invaded. Follow the references to the various societies, think tanks and
committees they have set up to promote the Zionists' programs.
These four horsemen of the neo-conservative apocalypse and their army of
pork-eating Zionists have declared a holy war against those who oppose the
invasion and occupation of the land once known as Palestine by the Jews.

"... Paul Wolfowitz - deputy secretary of defense (status of appointment:
decided but not announced)
The Jewish and pro-Israel communities are jumping for joy. While skeptical
regarding the Oslo Accords, Wolfowitz is considered a strong supporter of
Israel. He has been one of the loudest proponents of a tough policy toward
Iraq focused on finding a way to bring down Saddam Hussein's regime.
".....2/6/2001 zacharia in Jerusalem post

Search lobe +neoconservative +"irving kristol" for additional information.

As Michael Lind has observed, "Most neoconservative defense intellectuals
have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the
influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s
and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s
and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no
precedents in American culture or political history." From
disinfopedia.org
under neoconservative

Jews are loyal only to world Jewry and its focal point Israel; anything else
is just a tool to be used.

" ...10. The United States was anxious to have other countries supply
assistance to Iraq. For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that
Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing
Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the
United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald
Rumsfeld. Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir asked Rumsfeld if the
United States would deliver a secret offer of Israeli assistance to Iraq.
The United States agreed. I travelled wtih Rumsfeld to Baghdad and was
present at the meeting in which Rumsfeld told Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq
Aziz about Israel's offer of assistance. Aziz refused even to accept the
Israelis' letter to Hussein offering assistance, because Aziz told us that
he would be executed on the spot by Hussein if he did so. ..." from a
search "howard teicher" article 1413.htm

That's the way the System works !

Let the record reveal that President George Bush named Ross Connelly, a
former Bechtel executive, as executive vice-president and chief operating
officer of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--the agency
that supports and protects U.S. investment around the world.

President Bush has also appointed Bechtel president George P. Shultz as the
chairman of the Advisory Board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq;
while Riley Bechtel, the company's chairman and CEO was sworn in as a member
of the President's Export Council (which advises the President on how to
create markets for American corporations around the world); and Jack
Sheeham, a senior vice-president at Bechtel was made a member of the Defense
Department's Policy Board (this board advises the Pentagon on major defense
matters/issues). The members of the Board are approved by Donald Rumsfeld,
Secretary of Defense.

Americans don't know about the Defense Policy Board because its meetings are
classified and the information in these meetings is not released to the
public. The Center for Public Integrity, a private watch-dog group in
Washington reported that of "the 30 members that make up the Board, at least
9 of them are connected to corporations who have won more than $70 billion
in defense contracts the last two years." The Bechtel Group alone "is
currently working on 900 projects in 60 different countries."

Talk about public hypocrisy embedded with America's corporate greed and
profitability.
Do not forget that President Bush claims to be a born-again Christian which
means his "faith" directs him to do whatever is necessary to ensure the Jews
get whatever they want in the land once known as Palestine. It is Bush's
holy war.

[Ken Smith]

Asmodeus wrote:
> "torresD" > wrote in news:vvxkc.625$Hs1.308
> @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
>>A neoconservative clique seeks to
>
> <snip>
>
>>by Patrick J. Buchanan
>
> There is nothing more ludicrous than Pat trying to distance
> himself from neocons. Pat is the prototypical neocon, and
> always has been. Big government, intrusive government Pat.

Which planet have you been on for the past few years? Uranus?

Buchanan is absolutely right -- Israel hijacked our foreign policy
the old-fashioned way: they bought it fair and square. Bribery works.
And now, we are fighting a war for the benefit of Israel.

It's time to try Richard Perle for treason.

[Morton Davis]

"Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
> Asmodeus wrote:
> > "torresD" > wrote in news:vvxkc.625$Hs1.308
> > @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
> >
> >>A neoconservative clique seeks to
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>by Patrick J. Buchanan
> >
> > There is nothing more ludicrous than Pat trying to distance
> > himself from neocons. Pat is the prototypical neocon, and
> > always has been. Big government, intrusive government Pat.
>
> Which planet have you been on for the past few years? Uranus?
>
> Buchanan is absolutely right -- Israel hijacked our foreign policy
> the old-fashioned way: they bought it fair and square. Bribery works.
> And now, we are fighting a war for the benefit of Israel.
>

Yeah, sure.

-*MORT*-

[Some Guy]

"Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
....
>
> Buchanan is absolutely right -- Israel hijacked our foreign policy
> the old-fashioned way: they bought it fair and square. Bribery works.
> And now, we are fighting a war for the benefit of Israel.
>
> It's time to try Richard Perle for treason.

Wait a minute, I thought the war was fought to prop up the Saudi regime and
their extreme sect of Islam, Wahhibism. At any rate the usg does support
them, I doubt Israel likes that very much.

SG

[Asmodeus]

Ken Smith > wrote in :

> Which planet have you been on for the past few years? Uranus?

No, that would be the location of your head.

--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

[Ken Smith]

Morton Davis wrote:
> "Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>"torresD" > wrote in news:vvxkc.625$Hs1.308
:
>>>
>>>>A neoconservative clique seeks to
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>by Patrick J. Buchanan
>>>
>>>There is nothing more ludicrous than Pat trying to distance
>>>himself from neocons. Pat is the prototypical neocon, and
>>>always has been. Big government, intrusive government Pat.
>>
>> Which planet have you been on for the past few years? Uranus?
>>
>> Buchanan is absolutely right -- Israel hijacked our foreign policy
>>the old-fashioned way: they bought it fair and square. Bribery works.
>>And now, we are fighting a war for the benefit of Israel.
>
> Yeah, sure.

So tell me, why *ARE* we fighting this war? Because Dubya is a sick
religious nutter who hears voices (like our Teddi)? It *sure* as hell
ain't the WMD (none left, as Ritter predicted) or the links to al-Qaeda
(couldn't find those, either). Powell was right.

[Ken Smith]

Asmodeus wrote:
> Ken Smith > wrote in :
>
>> Which planet have you been on for the past few years? Uranus?
>
> No, that would be the location of your head.

That you haven't been reading Buchanan is hardly a surprise, given
your obvious antipathy toward him. He's closer to the Goldwater ideal
than the toxic Perle/Wolfowitz strain of neo-conartists.

[Chas]

"Ken Smith" > wrote
> So tell me, why *ARE* we fighting this war?

Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them.
Saddam got to ride the pipe because he was a secular muslim and nobody would
get ****ed from a religious standpoint. Iraq and Afghanistan provide good
platforms for confronting Islam on their own ground- better to fight there
than here.

Chas

[Asmodeus]

"Chas" > wrote in news:hqWdnS7AjcXgYwndRVn-
:

> Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them

And this:

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-04/30/article05.shtml


--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

[Asmodeus]

Ken Smith > wrote in :

> He's closer to the Goldwater ideal

You really are quite stupid. Buchanan is a protectionist;
Goldwater was the opposite. Buchanan wants an in loco parentis
government; Goldwater was the opposite. Buchanan loved great
big government; Goldwater did not.

Somebody here's not reading, but it's not me.

--
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into
two camps - the wimps and the warriors. The ones who want to argue
and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to
our enemies and kill them before they kill us."
--The Hon. Zell Miller

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Chas" > wrote in message >...
> "Ken Smith" > wrote
> > So tell me, why *ARE* we fighting this war?
>
> Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them.

Iraq was not an Islamic state. It HAD a secular government. However
when we leave, the fundamentalist Islamists might take over.

> Saddam got to ride the pipe because he was a secular muslim and nobody would
> get ****ed from a religious standpoint. Iraq and Afghanistan provide good
> platforms for confronting Islam on their own ground- better to fight there
> than here.
>

You contradict yourself. None of the reasons for taking the war on
AL Queda to Afghanistan were appicable to escalating the war in Iraq.

--

FF

[Chas]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> > Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them.
> Iraq was not an Islamic state. It HAD a secular government. However
> when we leave, the fundamentalist Islamists might take over.

It's entirely because Iraq was titularly a secular state that made it a good
demonstration project for the rest of them.

> > Saddam got to ride the pipe because he was a secular muslim and nobody
would
> > get ****ed from a religious standpoint. Iraq and Afghanistan provide
good
> > platforms for confronting Islam on their own ground- better to fight
there
> > than here.
> You contradict yourself. None of the reasons for taking the war on
> AL Queda to Afghanistan were appicable to escalating the war in Iraq.

Not in the least. Saddam was a secular leader out of an Islamic base. You'll
notice he had his ass in the air, calling for help from the jihadi, when it
suited him.
Other Islamic states are run by religious leaders, any attack would be seen
as an attack on the religion- other states have holy sites- again, the
Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy sites and desecrate
those of other religions.
Nah; Saddam was a good choice, and it also gives us a base of operations to
deal with other threats as they arise- and they will.

Chas

[George Z. Bush]

Chas wrote:
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote

> .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy sites
and desecrate
> those of other religions.

I'm not a defender of Islam but just out of curiosity, could you give me a
couple of examples that might illustrate your point? The reason is that I can't
think of any other than some idiotic Palestinians throwing rocks down on Hebrew
worshippers at the bottom of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem just to harass and
annoy them. Even there, it's the worshippers who are put out.....the Wailing
Wall is still there intact and not at all desecrated. I certinly can't think of
any Christian sites that are treated that way by Muslims.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

John A. Stovall wrote:
> On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:22:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > wrote:
>
>> Chas wrote:
>>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
>>
>>> .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy sites
>>> and desecrate those of other religions.
>>
>> I'm not a defender of Islam but just out of curiosity, could you give me a
>> couple of examples that might illustrate your point? The reason is that I
>> can't think of any other than some idiotic Palestinians throwing rocks down
>> on Hebrew worshippers at the bottom of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem just to
>> harass and annoy them. Even there, it's the worshippers who are put
>> out.....the Wailing Wall is still there intact and not at all desecrated. I
>> certinly can't think of any Christian sites that are treated that way by
>> Muslims.
>
> Here are a few..
>
> http://www.jnewswire.com/analysis/03/02/030227_josephs_tomb.asp
>
> http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem70.html

In both cases, we're dealing with reports concerning the activities of
Palestinians, who I am convinced have sole ownership of the bottom of the entire
Muslim gene pool. Is it fair to blame all of the world's billion or so Muslims
with the depradations of a few twisted members who share their faith, however
imperfectly?


>
> I would also suggest you look at these two site on how Islam treats
> religious minorities...
>
> http://www.dhimmitude.org/index.php
>
> http://www.dhimmi.org/
>
I don't care to get into that for the time being. Let's stick to the original
charge, i.e. - desecration of holy places.

George Z.

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
sites
> and desecrate
> > those of other religions.
> I'm not a defender of Islam but just out of curiosity, could you give me a
> couple of examples that might illustrate your point?

The Bamiyan Buddhas are a great example; so was the seige of the Church of
the Nativity last year- hell; the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount is the
classic. The destruction of Coptic churches, much less the massacre of them
in Egypt; the destruction of Christian churches in the Sudan, in Indonesia-
it's pervasive.

> .....I certinly can't think of
> any Christian sites that are treated that way by Muslims.

Yeah; they destroyed them a thousand years ago- there's no Little Chapel of
the Ka'abah for example.

Chas

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> In both cases, we're dealing with reports concerning the activities of
> Palestinians, who I am convinced have sole ownership of the bottom of the
entire
> Muslim gene pool. Is it fair to blame all of the world's billion or so
Muslims
> with the depradations of a few twisted members who share their faith,
however
> imperfectly?

It is when Islam refuses to deal with them on it's own.
They admit to 10% 'fundamentalists'. That means some 160,000,000 strong,
young, highly motivated warriors- promised an eternity in Paradise with you
holding the horses if they die in battle against you.
They are at war *everywhere*; Western China against the
atheists/confucians/ancestor worshippers, in the former SovUn, SEAsia from
Thailand to the Filipines, East Africa, North Africa, Northern India.
The war on the West is just a small part of their bid to conquer. The Peace
of Islam is the peace of Submission making the Great Kowtow and Reciting the
Oath of submission to their prophet.
Look at the despots that comprise Muslim Royalty; the Saud's, the Emirs, the
Sultans- are there any of them that you would trust with an 8 yr. old boy,
much less the governance of a country?

Chas

[Chas]

"John A. Stovall" > wrote
> I would also suggest you look at these two site on how Islam treats
> religious minorities and has treated them since it's beginning.

That's only for people of the Book- Christians, Jews and some other small
sects. Most people of the world are infidels- completely outside the
protection of any consideration at all- they are to submit or die. Mohammed
set the pattern with his Companions- conquering the Arabian Peninsula.
History doesn't even the butcher's bill for the expansion of Islam across
the mid-east into Northern India, SEAsia, Indonesia and the Filipines;
across East Africa, North Africa- no one remembers something having been
forgotten.
And it goes on today- Islam's depredations towards Europe, and even the Near
East ain't a peach on what they're doing in SEAsia and through the
Archipelago.

Chas

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> Chas wrote:
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > DID NOT WRITE:
>
> > .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy sites
> and desecrate
> > those of other religions.
>

You screwed up the attributions.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> John A. Stovall wrote:
> > On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:22:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Chas wrote:
> >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > DID NOT WRITE:
>
> >>> .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy sites
> >>> and desecrate those of other religions.
> >>
>

You screwed up the attributions.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"Chas" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> > > Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them.
> > Iraq was not an Islamic state. It HAD a secular government. However
> > when we leave, the fundamentalist Islamists might take over.
>
> It's entirely because Iraq was titularly a secular state that made it a good
> demonstration project for the rest of them.
>
> > > Saddam got to ride the pipe because he was a secular muslim and nobody
> would
> > > get ****ed from a religious standpoint. Iraq and Afghanistan provide
> good
> > > platforms for confronting Islam on their own ground- better to fight
> there
> > > than here.
> > You contradict yourself. None of the reasons for taking the war on
> > AL Queda to Afghanistan were appicable to escalating the war in Iraq.
>
> Not in the least. Saddam was a secular leader out of an Islamic base. You'll
> notice he had his ass in the air, calling for help from the jihadi, when it
> suited him.

GWB calls upon Christian relgion and Christian GOD too. It doesn't
make us a Christian Nation.

The best we could do at this point would be to support an autonomous
Kurdish State. I'm sur hte Kurds would be happy to host a large US
military base in Kurdistan and the Saudis are anxious for us to leave
Saudi Arabia.

--

FF

[George Z. Bush]

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > > .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
> sites
> > and desecrate
> > > those of other religions.
> > I'm not a defender of Islam but just out of curiosity, could you give me a
> > couple of examples that might illustrate your point?
>
> The Bamiyan Buddhas are a great example; so was the seige of the Church of
> the Nativity last year- hell; the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount is the
> classic. The destruction of Coptic churches, much less the massacre of them
> in Egypt; the destruction of Christian churches in the Sudan, in Indonesia-
> it's pervasive.
>
> > .....I certinly can't think of
> > any Christian sites that are treated that way by Muslims.
>
> Yeah; they destroyed them a thousand years ago- there's no Little Chapel of
> the Ka'abah for example.

Do you suppose it's too late to bring the culprits to justice?

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > In both cases, we're dealing with reports concerning the activities of
> > Palestinians, who I am convinced have sole ownership of the bottom of the
> entire
> > Muslim gene pool. Is it fair to blame all of the world's billion or so
> Muslims
> > with the depradations of a few twisted members who share their faith,
> however
> > imperfectly?
>
> It is when Islam refuses to deal with them on it's own.
> They admit to 10% 'fundamentalists'. That means some 160,000,000 strong,
> young, highly motivated warriors- promised an eternity in Paradise with you
> holding the horses if they die in battle against you.

I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of the
Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%. If you did
that, you'd be condemning over a billion Muslims for the wrongdoings of just a
fraction of them.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > Chas wrote:
> > > "Fred the Red Shirt" > DID NOT WRITE:
> >
> > > .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
sites
> > and desecrate
> > > those of other religions.
> >
>
> You screwed up the attributions.

Sorry about that. Who the hell did say it? It looked like you on my monitor,
but if you say not, I won't argue the point.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
>...
> > John A. Stovall wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:22:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Chas wrote:
> > >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > DID NOT WRITE:
> >
> > >>> .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
sites
> > >>> and desecrate those of other religions.
> > >>
> >
>
> You screwed up the attributions.

I may have screwed up once, so I only apologize once. You've already got that,
so there's no need to bore the public with repetitions.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Chas" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote
> > > > Because Islam has come for us and we've got it to do with them.
> > > Iraq was not an Islamic state. It HAD a secular government. However
> > > when we leave, the fundamentalist Islamists might take over.
> >
> > It's entirely because Iraq was titularly a secular state that made it a good
> > demonstration project for the rest of them.
> >
> > > > Saddam got to ride the pipe because he was a secular muslim and nobody
> > would
> > > > get ****ed from a religious standpoint. Iraq and Afghanistan provide
> > good
> > > > platforms for confronting Islam on their own ground- better to fight
> > there
> > > > than here.
> > > You contradict yourself. None of the reasons for taking the war on
> > > AL Queda to Afghanistan were appicable to escalating the war in Iraq.
> >
> > Not in the least. Saddam was a secular leader out of an Islamic base. You'll
> > notice he had his ass in the air, calling for help from the jihadi, when it
> > suited him.
>
> GWB calls upon Christian relgion and Christian GOD too. It doesn't
> make us a Christian Nation.
>
> The best we could do at this point would be to support an autonomous
> Kurdish State. I'm sur hte Kurds would be happy to host a large US
> military base in Kurdistan and the Saudis are anxious for us to leave
> Saudi Arabia.

You may be right, but that'd sure as hell **** off the Turks, and they've been
our friends for a long, long time. Not an easy problem to solve, is it?

George Z.

[Ken Smith]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> "Chas" > wrote in message
> ...
>>"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>>
>>>In both cases, we're dealing with reports concerning the activities of
>>>Palestinians, who I am convinced have sole ownership of the bottom of the
>>>entire
>>>Muslim gene pool. Is it fair to blame all of the world's billion or so
>>>Muslims
>>>with the depradations of a few twisted members who share their faith,
>>>however imperfectly?
>>
>>It is when Islam refuses to deal with them on it's own.
>>They admit to 10% 'fundamentalists'. That means some 160,000,000 strong,
>>young, highly motivated warriors- promised an eternity in Paradise with you
>>holding the horses if they die in battle against you.
>
> I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of the
> Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%.

Christians are making that argument to me all the time -- that it's
unfair to blame Christians as a whole for the ~90% who are malicious. ;)

[Ken Smith]

Asmodeus wrote:
> Ken Smith > wrote in :
>
>>He's closer to the Goldwater ideal
>
> You really are quite stupid. Buchanan is a protectionist;
> Goldwater was the opposite.

Which is hell and gone from the neo-con Zionists.

> Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;

Cite?

> Buchanan loved great big government;

Cite?

> Somebody here's not reading,

Like you.

[Asmodeus]

Ken Smith > wrote in :

>> Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;
>
> Cite?
>
>> Buchanan loved great big government;
>
> Cite?

All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
and legislated "morality" and his protectionism. That's big fat
intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
in loco parentis means, I assume.




--
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more
efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote
welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws,
but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel
old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their
purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.
I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is 'needed' before I
have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And
if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents
'interests,' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest
is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
--Barry Goldwater

[Ken Smith]

Asmodeus wrote:
> Ken Smith > wrote in :
>
>>>Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;
>>
>> Cite?
>>
>>>Buchanan loved great big government;
>>
>> Cite?
>
> All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
> and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.

Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)

And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?

With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
policy.

> That's big fat
> intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
> in loco parentis means, I assume.

Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
for Israel.

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of
the
> Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%. If you
did
> that, you'd be condemning over a billion Muslims for the wrongdoings of
just a
> fraction of them.

If the billion of them stood up and denounced the minority, that might be a
consideration- but they don't. Muslims are enjoined by their religion to
always take the part of another muslim in any dispute with a non-muslim. You
won't find any but the most academic disagreement with the fundamentalists-
never a direct confrontation. The mild exception is when their Royalty gets
worried about their privilege and power, and kills a bunch of 'dissidents'.
And 'fairness' has got to run two ways. Expecting us to continue to treat
them as if they were civilized, and overlooking their conduct of conquering
and war, is naive at best. They despise us as weak, ingenuous, confused,
without character; their natural slaves as for the last thousand years.

Chas

[Morton Davis]

"Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
> Asmodeus wrote:
> >
> > All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
> > and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.
>
> Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
> which I'm trying to fight.

Actually, it is the demorats who are pushing the most "legislsated
morality". Folk like Joe Lieberman want to be Americas "moral compass".
They want to control everything we see, hear or read.

-*MORT*-

[George Z. Bush]

Ken Smith wrote:
> Asmodeus wrote:
>> Ken Smith > wrote in :
>>
>>>> Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>> Buchanan loved great big government;
>>>
>>> Cite?
>>
>> All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
>> and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.
>
> Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
> which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
> advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
> opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
> like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
> from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
> consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
> 'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)
>
> And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?
>
> With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
> enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
> protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
> and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
> of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
> policy.
>
>> That's big fat
>> intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
>> in loco parentis means, I assume.
>
> Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
> The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
> -- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
> been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
> generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
> for Israel.

The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.
It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

Chas wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
>> I thought my point was fairly clear; it's eminently unfair to blame 90% of
>> the Muslim population for the depravations of the fundamentalist 10%. If
>> you did that, you'd be condemning over a billion Muslims for the wrongdoings
>> of just a fraction of them.
>
> If the billion of them stood up and denounced the minority, that might be a
> consideration- but they don't. Muslims are enjoined by their religion to
> always take the part of another muslim in any dispute with a non-muslim. You
> won't find any but the most academic disagreement with the fundamentalists-
> never a direct confrontation. The mild exception is when their Royalty gets
> worried about their privilege and power, and kills a bunch of 'dissidents'.
> And 'fairness' has got to run two ways. Expecting us to continue to treat
> them as if they were civilized, and overlooking their conduct of conquering
> and war, is naive at best. They despise us as weak, ingenuous, confused,
> without character; their natural slaves as for the last thousand years.


I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all speak with
one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that way. If
you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
projects of that magnitude.

George Z.

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all
speak with
> one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that
way.

If a basic tenet of Christianity commanded us to go conquer the world,
require everyone to Submit to our Religion and Recite an Oath to our god,
one might well worry about what voice was being heard.

> If
> you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
> exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
> projects of that magnitude.

It doesn't even matter whether you are tolerant of them or not, because
they're not tolerant of you.
They *hope* you're 'fair'; just makes you that much more vulnerable.
They hope you're reticent to fight; makes conquering you that much easier.
They hope you're divided amongst yourselves; fragmenting makes you easier to
kill.
They hope you abide by your own Geneva Convention- they aren't bound by it
at all.
If you want to see the Muslims as they are, look at East Africa.

Chas

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
crossed
> in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
boggling.
> It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking
that
> one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within
the
> confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

Then get used to trying to fight wars on *their* soil instead of our own.
Islam is a warrior faith with the command to require everyone in the world
to Submit to their religion and Recite the Oath of Allegiance to their god
and their prophet. Submitting to the Peace of Conquest, they'd set a ruler
over you with the absolute right to treat you any way he cares to- the
Sultanate system is a bench-mark for despotism and decadence in government.
They have 160,000,000 fanatic warriors committed to destroying everything
about you. They don't care about your economics, except as loot. They don't
care about your tolerance, fairness, democracy, compassion- they think
you're stupid, and of less worth than a good goat.

Chas

[Ken Smith]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>Ken Smith > wrote in :


>>>>>Buchanan wants an in loco parentis government;
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>>
>>>>>Buchanan loved great big government;
>>>>
>>>> Cite?
>>>
>>>All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
>>>and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.
>>
>> Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
>>which I'm trying to fight. The difference is that Pat was more of an
>>advocate for a more voluntary adoption of that brand of "morality," as
>>opposed to using the sledgehammer of the law to require us to follow it
>>like modern mainstream Republicans. At least, that is what I gather
>>from tomes like "Death of the West," and the article now under
>>consideration. (Advocacy and persuasion are favored by us old-line
>>'Pubs, because the decision is invariably left with the individual.)
>>
>> And as for "culture wars," why in the hell *ARE* we fighting in Iraq?
>>
>> With respect to protectionism, it is always a function of who throws
>>enough money around. The drug companies enjoy the immense benefits of
>>protectionism, which is why Jack Nicklaus and Bob Dole are drug pushers,
>> and we pay twice what the rest of the civilzed world pays for the bulk
>>of our prescriptions. No different from the Zionists buying our foreign
>>policy.
>
>>>That's big fat
>>>intrusive in loco parentis government--you *do* understand what
>>>in loco parentis means, I assume.
>>
>> Of course, and the word "loco" is somehow fitting, don't you think?
>>The question here is how far the two groups -- the Zionists and Pat B.
>>-- deviate from traditional Goldwater Republicanism (of which I have
>>been a consistent advocate, and know well). On foreign policy, we're
>>generally isolationist, and don't relish the concept of fighting wars
>>for Israel.
>
> The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
> in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.

"Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
and self-determination, then let's trust them.

> It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
> one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
> confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!

One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
honest broker.

[Ken Smith]

Morton Davis wrote:
> "Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>
>>>All of Buchanan's "culture wars" bull****, his demands for enforced
>>>and legislated "morality" and his protectionism.
>>
>> Sounds like the mainstream Republican agenda here in Colorado --
>>which I'm trying to fight.
>
> Actually, it is the demorats who are pushing the most "legislsated
> morality". Folk like Joe Lieberman want to be Americas "moral compass".
> They want to control everything we see, hear or read.

You wouldn't know that from perusing the resolutions voted upon at
the Jefferson County (CO) Republican Assembly [I'm a multi-assembly
delegate]. I'm no fan of Lieberman, but paternalism is not a sin of the
Left alone.

[George Z. Bush]

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > I gather that you think the world's 3 billion some odd Christians all
> speak with
> > one voice, since you apparently expect the Moslem world to behave that
> way.
>
> If a basic tenet of Christianity commanded us to go conquer the world,
> require everyone to Submit to our Religion and Recite an Oath to our god,
> one might well worry about what voice was being heard.

You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of its
1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically. From what I have read
of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true. Now, if you think
they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider how to
deal with your paranoia problem.
>
> > If
> > you really think the world is that way, I'm not going to bother taking
> > exception. I don't have enough time left in my life to fritter it away on
> > projects of that magnitude.
>
> It doesn't even matter whether you are tolerant of them or not, because
> they're not tolerant of you.
> They *hope* you're 'fair'; just makes you that much more vulnerable.
> They hope you're reticent to fight; makes conquering you that much easier.
> They hope you're divided amongst yourselves; fragmenting makes you easier to
> kill.
> They hope you abide by your own Geneva Convention- they aren't bound by it
> at all.
> If you want to see the Muslims as they are, look at East Africa.

What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not even
qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them. Muslims
world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than Christians
are.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
> crossed
> > in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
> boggling.
> > It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking
> that
> > one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within
> the
> > confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!
>
> Then get used to trying to fight wars on *their* soil instead of our own.
> Islam is a warrior faith with the command to require everyone in the world
> to Submit to their religion and Recite the Oath of Allegiance to their god
> and their prophet. Submitting to the Peace of Conquest, they'd set a ruler
> over you with the absolute right to treat you any way he cares to- the
> Sultanate system is a bench-mark for despotism and decadence in government.
> They have 160,000,000 fanatic warriors committed to destroying everything
> about you. They don't care about your economics, except as loot. They don't
> care about your tolerance, fairness, democracy, compassion- they think
> you're stupid, and of less worth than a good goat.

Not much point in trying to change a mind set in concrete.....I'm fresh out of
jack hammers. You're entitled to your opinion, however mistaken; I choose to
think otherwise.

George Z.

[George Z. Bush]

"Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
> > Ken Smith wrote:
> >>Asmodeus wrote:
> >>>Ken Smith > wrote in :

> > The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be
crossed
> > in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind
boggling.
>
> "Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
> attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
> engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
> Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
> and self-determination, then let's trust them.

Isolationism, the the 30s and 40s , was a movement designed to keep our nation
out of international agreements. I wasn't aware that its definition had
changed. Surely, a nation committed to isolationism (as I define it) would not
have been involved in engineering coups to achieve regime changes.....they would
have expressed no interest in seeing such changes made.


>
> > It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
> > one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
> > confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!
>
> One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
> credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
> We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
> Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
> honest broker.

That just might be a little hard to do if you express no interest in what's
going on outside of your own back yard. That's my point.

George Z.
>

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
>
> You may be right, but that'd sure as hell **** off the Turks, and they've been
> our friends for a long, long time. Not an easy problem to solve, is it?
>

You're right and my solution is Screw the Turks.

--

FF

[Fred the Red Shirt]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message >...
> "Fred the Red Shirt" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > John A. Stovall wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2 May 2004 16:22:08 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Chas wrote:
> > > >>> "Fred the Red Shirt" > DID NOT WRITE:
>
> > > >>> .....again, the Muslims claim a proprietary authority over their holy
> sites
> > > >>> and desecrate those of other religions.
> > > >>
> > >
> >
> > You screwed up the attributions.
>
> I may have screwed up once, so I only apologize once. You've already got that,
> so there's no need to bore the public with repetitions.
>

I wanted a correction to appear as a reply to each published instance
of the error.

Propogation dely may have played a part here.

--

FF

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of
its
> 1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically.

there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.
And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and present,
public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
just isn't necessary to make the point.

> From what I have read
> of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true.

They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with Mohammed
and his Companions.

> Now, if you think
> they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider
how to
> deal with your paranoia problem.

It's not 'paranoia' when they kill you by the thousands and tell you why.

> What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not
even
> qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them.
Muslims
> world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than
Christians
> are.

But Muslims are also enjoined to take the part of any muslim over any dhimmi
or infidel for any reason. That's why you don't see any opposition to the
terrs, and damned little condemnation.

Chas

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> Not much point in trying to change a mind set in concrete.....I'm fresh
out of
> jack hammers. You're entitled to your opinion, however mistaken; I choose
to
> think otherwise.

Always trust the advice of your Psychic Friend- after all, you're paying
them.

Chas

[Ken Smith]

George Z. Bush wrote:
> "Ken Smith" > wrote in message ...
>>George Z. Bush wrote:
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>>>>Asmodeus wrote:
>>>>>Ken Smith > wrote in :

>>>The concept of international isolationism in a world where oceans can be crossed
>>>in a matter of hours instead of days, weeks or months is truly mind boggling.
>
>> "Isolationism" in the modern sense is the adoption of a laissez-faire
>>attitude toward how other countries govern their affairs, as opposed to
>>engineering a seemingly endless procession of coups in virtually every
>>Third World country on the friggin' globe. If we *can* trust democracy
>>and self-determination, then let's trust them.
>
> Isolationism, the the 30s and 40s , was a movement designed to keep our nation
> out of international agreements. I wasn't aware that its definition had
> changed. Surely, a nation committed to isolationism (as I define it) would not
> have been involved in engineering coups to achieve regime changes.....they would
> have expressed no interest in seeing such changes made.

There is an obvious difference between relative isolationism, which
relies mostly on creating cultural and economic ties to promote one's
legitimate interests, and our unduly meddlesome current policy.

>>>It amounts to little more than sticking one's head in the sand thinking that
>>>one's backside will be protected by an ocean's vastness, and all within the
>>>confines of a global economy. Like I said, mind boggling!!!
>>
>> One's backside is better-protected by a fair, consistent, and
>>credible foreign policy, which keeps us from being a global hemorrhoid.
>> We'd be in a lot better position to broker a settlement between the
>>Israelis and Palestinians, for instance, if we could be seen as an
>>honest broker.
>
> That just might be a little hard to do if you express no interest in what's
> going on outside of your own back yard. That's my point.

You think in terms of black-and-white, when there are infinite shades
of grey.

[George Z. Bush]

Chas wrote:
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
>> You seem to be inferring that that is true of the Koran, and that each of its
>> 1.6 billion adherants interprets every tenet identically.
>
> there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.

Of course there's a doubt. When some Muslims publicly say that they don't
subscribe to that interpretation, then there is a doubt.....at least in my mind,
if not yours.

> .....And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and present,
> public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
> just isn't necessary to make the point.

You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to not share it, and don't.

>> From what I have read
>> of how Muslims address that point, they claim it is not true.
>
> They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with Mohammed
> and his Companions.

Translate into a coherent English sentence, please.
>
>> Now, if you think
>> they're all lying and trying to hoodwink you, you might want to consider how
>> to deal with your paranoia problem.
>
> It's not 'paranoia' when they kill you by the thousands and tell you why.

We are talking about three billion Christians (that's with a "B") and 1.6
billion Muslims (also with a "B") and you see thousands of deaths as a cause of
a new Crusade? Sorry, but leave me out of that kind of thinking.
>
>> What they hope, as translated by you, is immaterial. Since you're not even
>> qualified to speak for us, you're hardly qualified to speak for them. Muslims
>> world-wide are no more of one voice regarding their religion than Christians
>> are.
>
> But Muslims are also enjoined to take the part of any muslim over any dhimmi
> or infidel for any reason. That's why you don't see any opposition to the
> terrs, and damned little condemnation.

I'm so happy that, by reducing a complex problem down to a simple sentence,
you've managed to make fools of serious scholars who conclude otherwise. Must
make you feel good about yourself and how smart you are.

George Z.

[Chas]

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.
> Of course there's a doubt. When some Muslims publicly say that they don't
> subscribe to that interpretation, then there is a doubt.....at least in my
mind,
> if not yours.

Cite please.
An assertion that muslims don't adhere to the command to Submit & Recite is
just silly. The commands that flow from that basic tenet are debatable only
insofar as the extent to which it is forced, not *that* it is forced.

> > .....And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and
present,
> > public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
> > just isn't necessary to make the point.
> You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to not share it, and
don't.

Sure- you seem to enjoy rather a passive ignorance as a change from a more
aggressively ignorant posture- rather a Renaissance man, ignorance-wise.

> > They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with
Mohammed
> > and his Companions.
> Translate into a coherent English sentence, please.

Which word confuses you?
Mohammed was a raider and a bandit; worked with a criminal gang called the
'Companions', attacking caravans and later invading towns and camps all
across the Arabian Peninsula. The Companions became the rulers of the
conquered lands.
Do you have any knowledge of the history of Islam at all?

> We are talking about three billion Christians (that's with a "B") and 1.6
> billion Muslims (also with a "B") and you see thousands of deaths as a
cause of
> a new Crusade? Sorry, but leave me out of that kind of thinking.

You do remember that the Crusades were to take back our Holy Land from the
invaders, don't you? You remember that all but two of the Crusades were
non-military, and that the Muslims killed whom they didn't enslave? You do
remember that we've had to fight them as far North as Vienna, don't you?
does the name 'Bosnian Turk' ring any bells with you?

> I'm so happy that, by reducing a complex problem down to a simple
sentence,
> you've managed to make fools of serious scholars who conclude otherwise.
Must
> make you feel good about yourself and how smart you are.

Please feel free to post a refutation; oh, and concrete examples might be
nice too.

Chas

[George Z. Bush]

"Chas" > wrote in message
...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > > there is no doubt that the basic tenet is; Submit & Recite.
> > Of course there's a doubt. When some Muslims publicly say that they don't
> > subscribe to that interpretation, then there is a doubt.....at least in my
> mind,
> > if not yours.
>
> Cite please.
> An assertion that muslims don't adhere to the command to Submit & Recite is
> just silly. The commands that flow from that basic tenet are debatable only
> insofar as the extent to which it is forced, not *that* it is forced.
>
> > > .....And an identical interpretation by every single muslim, past and
> present,
> > > public and private, on the record and off, here and there, then and now,
> > > just isn't necessary to make the point.
> > You're entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to not share it, and
> don't.
>
> Sure- you seem to enjoy rather a passive ignorance as a change from a more
> aggressively ignorant posture- rather a Renaissance man, ignorance-wise.
>
> > > They have conquered in it's command for 1300 years, starting with
> Mohammed
> > > and his Companions.
> > Translate into a coherent English sentence, please.
>
> Which word confuses you?
> Mohammed was a raider and a bandit; worked with a criminal gang called the
> 'Companions', attacking caravans and later invading towns and camps all
> across the Arabian Peninsula. The Companions became the rulers of the
> conquered lands.
> Do you have any knowledge of the history of Islam at all?
>
> > We are talking about three billion Christians (that's with a "B") and 1.6
> > billion Muslims (also with a "B") and you see thousands of deaths as a
> cause of
> > a new Crusade? Sorry, but leave me out of that kind of thinking.
>
> You do remember that the Crusades were to take back our Holy Land from the
> invaders, don't you? You remember that all but two of the Crusades were
> non-military, and that the Muslims killed whom they didn't enslave? You do
> remember that we've had to fight them as far North as Vienna, don't you?
> does the name 'Bosnian Turk' ring any bells with you?
>
> > I'm so happy that, by reducing a complex problem down to a simple
> sentence,
> > you've managed to make fools of serious scholars who conclude otherwise.
> Must
> > make you feel good about yourself and how smart you are.
>
> Please feel free to post a refutation; oh, and concrete examples might be
> nice too.

No deal --- my jack hammer just broke down, and I can't make any progress
without it. You can have the last word....I'm done with this.

George Z.