Whose War? Patrick J. Buchanan - The American Conservative

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.

"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

"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/...rticle05.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

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

"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

"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

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.

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...sephs_tomb.asp

http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerus...rusalem70.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.

"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

"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