You won't be surprised that I supported both wars. I don't mean to imply that Bush and Blair acted on my advice or were indulging my  sentiments. But it is possible for reasonable people to come to the conlusion that it is better to fight them there than here (to condense it into a single dot point.)

But then again, I am pro-Israel, so maybe it is just evil people, after all, who were in favour. ANd yes, my type has a grossly disproportionate say in these things as our voice is greater than our numbers would ordinarily suppose. That's because we have to earn those fat monthly cheques from Big Oil, Big Weapon -all financed, of course, by Big Matzo - the jooos, as every scoolboy knows.

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:


Unless you can show somewhere where I wrote that I will feel justified in thinking you are not worth replying to.

Quote:


You forgot to add all the usual emotive tripe about the "men and women of our emergency services having to fight them on our streets".

The fact you're just regurgitating Bush's mindless mantras isn't a very good reflection on you soren.

abu_rashid wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 9:11pm:


A few years after Bush's sun settled, and over a year after he left office, it remains clear  and is getting clearer by the day that what we have here is another pushback against Islam, the first one being the Crusades.
Despite the popular myth, the Crusades were in response to ongoing bloody war on the ever expanding borders of Islam. Islam is once again a motivator of Muslims, and so Muslims, once again are carrying our razzias (Arabic for terrorist attacks) against settled people.
Islam is the enemy of every people it comes into contact with. Every single one. It is capable of peaceful coexitence only while it is under the thumb. It cannot be friends with anyone because of its fundamental tenets. It can only appear so, while biding its time. Always. Any smiles are only temporary and in the service of its ultimate aim of conversion or subjugation.

So Bush is neither here nor there. If you take a view that is a bit longer than the American electoral cycle, you realise that Islam IS waging a religious war against the west, against buddhists (Thailand) against Hindus, Chinese, and first and foremost against joo. Always the joos. Even in Bombay, the one rabbi and his family. Islam is the perennial Johnny from On the Waterfront:
What're you rebelling against, Johnny?
Johnny: Whaddya got?

The half-Muslim O'bama would have ended the wars if they were only about Bush's 'mindless mantras'. They aren't, of course. Everyone knows it. His initial characterisation of the conflict as Crusade (hastily withdrawn out of miplaced sensitivity) was correct. Every conflict with Islam is a religious conflict. That is the only conflict islam can conceive of.

So cut the old Bush-bashing, it was meaningless even when he was in office.

fawkes wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 5:59pm:

We could start with recent history, such as Saddam Hussein's gross misinterpretation of US and European attitude towards his, at the time, intended annexation of Kuwait.

back to the topic.

Is this a new thing, muzzies wanting to kill kafirs ?
is it in your warped violent belief?

Quote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abul_Ala_Maududi

and is this why the free world should evict you all from our lands ?

Soren wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 7:48pm:


Are such people "reasonable", or actually extremely selfish and disregarding of fairness and the wellbeing of others?

Of course, if you have the world's most threatening military force at your disposal, it will be less dangerous to you to let it rampage through some other country rather than have it operating in your streets and neighbourhood. Mind you, the rhetoric would still be just as meaningless. As the military blows up your fellow citizens and their houses it will say it is trying to defend you. In other countries their claim is to be winning hearts and minds whilst bringing demahcracy!  We all know that military forces wreck civilization and innocent civilians wherever they are deployed, so I ask how "reasonable" is it to send death and destruction to the innocents of another country halfway around the world, just so a bunch of warmongering cowards can feel safe at home?