Ethiopians battle Somali Islamists, more popcorn & sodas pls

[0_transfat]

It's about time the 3rd worlders got involved in the global war against Islam.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1978674,00.html

Ethiopia today pressed on with its offensive against Somali Islamists and threatened to seize the Somali capital, Mogadishu.

At least two Ethiopian jets fired missiles on retreating Islamist forces, prompting the interim Somali government to claim a partial victory.

Hundreds of troops have been killed during a week of heavy artillery and mortar fighting amid fears that it could spark a wider regional conflict in the Horn of Africa.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Oh yeah, that's always good, starving people fighting wars.

Nice work people.

[TFS]

Oh yeah, that's always good, starving people fighting wars.

Nice work people.

Plenty to eat lying around when the battle's over...

[JaMaiCa]

Oh yeah, that's always good, starving people fighting wars.

Nice work people.

What do you mean by nice work people?

[Liberator13]

Plenty to eat lying around when the battle's over...

Ahahahaha awesomeness.

Black Hawk Down: Darkies Revenge

[American Infidel]

Oh yeah, that's always good, starving people fighting wars.

Nice work people.

It's sad but not unexpected to see you reply with seething like that.

I realize news that the Ethiopians (or anyone else, for that matter) driving back the Caliphate is abhorrent to you. Perhaps the UN will step in and issue sanctions against them for waging a "disproportionate" war.

Back to topic, GO ETHIOPIA! Unfortunately, followers of the Religion of Peace™ always seem to rally after the initial bloodletting, to return to shopping malls and nightclubs to spread their explosive love and tolerance.

[rand0m]

Somali is like a big old asshole of the world ozing shit everywhere, Ehiopia has realised this and is attempted to keep the shit away from them.

[slapnpopbass]

Wasn't Mogadishu seized by Islamic rebels (Al Qaida)?

[GotheriK]

Oh yeah, that's always good, starving people fighting wars.

Nice work people.
Ethiopian troops aren't starving. The government of Ethiopia is quite wealthy compared to the rest of the country, they just don't distribute it to the people.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

What do you mean by nice work people?

I mean humanity. We're nicely at a point where a gov't would rather fight than feeds its people.

Ethiopian troops aren't starving. The government of Ethiopia is quite wealthy compared to the rest of the country, they just don't distribute it to the people.

That's my point. They are waging wars when they should be feeding their people.


Oh but I'm sorry, I know eating is much less important than fighting Islam. :uhoh:

[avix123]

Better to starve while your military fights than be taken over by Islamist radicals that make you convert by shooting your familys pet, dog, cat, Elephant.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Let me get this straight, Ethiopian forces are attacking Islamic forces in Somalia.

Are those Islamic forces entering Ethiopia? Are countries allowed sovereignty anymore?

Are countries now justified in pre-emptive invasions because they disagree with political or religous movements in another country?

Tell me if I'm getting this wrong, because I dearly hope I am.

[18C]

I think Somalia will probably lose this one. The US will probably give Ethiopia a lot of funding and help.

[avix123]

Yeah except we don't know who's attacking who first. As if it would matter, the Islamic agenda in Somolia is to spread their religion as far as possible. There leaves little doubt they would be aggressivly pushing against all their surrounding neighbors, including Ethopia.

[Cousin Eddie]

Let me get this straight, Ethiopian forces are attacking Islamic forces in Somalia.

Are those Islamic forces entering Ethiopia? Are countries allowed sovereignty anymore?

Are countries now justified in pre-emptive invasions because they disagree with political or religous movements in another country?

Tell me if I'm getting this wrong, because I dearly hope I am.

From what I gather.... Eithiopia is trying to prevent Islamic forces in Somalia from completely taking over somalia. Would you want a radical islamic sharia-law-enforcing country/government right next door to you? They see a shitstorm coming & are trying to prevent/delay it.

Do you think the US would stand by while radical muslims attempt to take over the whole of mexico?

You mat.... are overly idealistic & give the impression of "peace at any cost" & "noone should ever be killed for any reason" type of thinking. The world isnt that simple.

Eithiopia is trying to head off something that would be a very REAL threat to them in the future. A radical islamic state right next door. Should they do nothing? Idly stand by.... until it is too late? As long as noone is killed?... that's all that matters huh?

[YouEnjoyMyself]

From what I gather.... Eithiopia is trying to prevent Islamic forces in Somalia from completely taking over somalia. Would you want a radical islamic sharia-law-enforcing country/government right next door to you? They see a shitstorm coming & are trying to prevent/delay it.

So you don't believe in the sovereignty of nations?

The business of Somalia is no business of Ethiopia. If they are that concerned about it, they should militarize their border and keep it from spreading. They have no right in a pre-emptive attack on another nation because of a religious or political movement there.

Do you think the US would stand by while radical muslims attempt to take over the whole of mexico?


I don't know what we would do. But I wouldn't like to see an invasion into another country because of their system of gov't. I'd support beefing up border security to keep it out, but in no way should we wage war over another country's gov't.

[Cousin Eddie]

So you don't believe in the sovereignty of nations?

Not when one nation is threatening another



The business of Somalia is no business of Ethiopia. If they are that concerned about it, they should militarize their border and keep it from spreading. They have no right in a pre-emptive attack on another nation because of a religious or political movement there.

.

Have you SEEN the eithiopian/somali border? Somalia is basically wrapped around a large part of eithiopia. How practical is it for eithiopia to guard that large a border? :rolleyes:

again... you are being idealistic. The world doesnt march to the beat of your pacifistic drum.

[18C]

again... you are being idealistic. The world doesnt march to the beat of your pacifistic drum.

Sorry, BigMatt, but I'm going to have to agree with him. Sometimes you just can't negotiate or wait. It's a sad truth.

[Motion City]

Fucking muslums they are fucking it up for everyone else just cuz they have to wear towels on there heads.

[rand0m]

Why is it that where ever there is trouble, there are Islamic Extremists?

[Nocturnal]

Why is it that where ever there is trouble, there are Islamic Extremists?


That is a very short sighted view of history.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

again... you are being idealistic. The world doesnt march to the beat of your pacifistic drum.

Unfortunately.


Fuck it, you all can fight and kill each other off. Be as violent as you want, I'm not giving in.

KILL KILL KILL!!!! YEEEEEE HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

[Cousin Eddie]

Unfortunately.


Fuck it, you all can fight and kill each other off. Be as violent as you want, I'm not giving in.

KILL KILL KILL!!!! YEEEEEE HAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Yup, reality sucks. I agree.
You have to realisticly live in the world the way it IS.... not the way it SHOULD be.

[bergshadow]

Why is it that where ever there is trouble, there are Islamic Extremists?
Wherever there is oil, there are Muslims. The converse is not true.

In fairness, there is oil and trouble but few Muslims in Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia, etc,

and even trouble without oil or Muslims in Tibet, Rwanda, Korea, etc.

but I like the quote anyway.

[eieio]

That is a very short sighted view of history.

Those sneaky Islamists! They invaded Somalia and conquered it right under our very noses! And you think we have a good handle on Islamist aggression and jihad towards achieving global domination??? :lol:

Any of you who say we should chill out and that we have nothing to worry about MISSED THIS ALTOGETHER!!!!

Or else you were aware of it but said nothing. And that makes you a what?

[whocares]

Yup, reality sucks. I agree.
You have to realisticly live in the world the way it IS.... not the way it SHOULD be.
Yup. Remember:

Life isn't fair.

And anyone should use that fact for their own advantage.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Yup, reality sucks. I agree.
You have to realisticly live in the world the way it IS.... not the way it SHOULD be.

I am realistic.

I realize there are people getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia, I realize there are children getting hacked to bits in Africa over diamonds and tribal differences, I realize our military is killing civilians in Iraq, I realize radical Islam is out for our heads, I realize people kill for very little reason and are quick to do it, I realize you can fly to many places around the world and have sex with teenagers...I realize the world isn't a nice place, but why should I accept that?

Why should I accept violence? Why should I not live my life in a way in which I think will decrease violence, or at least make my life happier?

Why is it not a good goal to rid as much violence as possible? Why is idealism in the sense of decreasing violence looked down upon? It may not be realistic, and I know it's not...but what is the harm in hating war, death, destruction and killing?

[Nocturnal]

Those sneaky Islamists! They invaded Somalia and conquered it right under our very noses! And you think we have a good handle on Islamist aggression and jihad towards achieving global domination??? :lol:

Any of you who say we should chill out and that we have nothing to worry about MISSED THIS ALTOGETHER!!!!

Or else you were aware of it but said nothing. And that makes you a what?

My Somalian history is a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure the Islamicists didn't make it there in the past few decades.

Name one nation that has fallen to Islamic invaders in the past 500 years or so. Ever since the Moors were repulsed from Spain muslims have been steadily losing ground.

[MooCowzRock]

I am realistic.

I realize there are people getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia, I realize there are children getting hacked to bits in Africa over diamonds and tribal differences, I realize our military is killing civilians in Iraq, I realize radical Islam is out for our heads, I realize people kill for very little reason and are quick to do it, I realize you can fly to many places around the world and have sex with teenagers...I realize the world isn't a nice place, but why should I accept that?

Why should I accept violence? Why should I not live my life in a way in which I think will decrease violence, or at least make my life happier?

Why is it not a good goal to rid as much violence as possible? Why is idealism in the sense of decreasing violence looked down upon? It may not be realistic, and I know it's not...but what is the harm in hating war, death, destruction and killing?

So you don't believe in the sovereignty of nations?

The business of Somalia is no business of Ethiopia. If they are that concerned about it, they should militarize their border and keep it from spreading. They have no right in a pre-emptive attack on another nation because of a religious or political movement there.

See, here is where you have to decide whats more important...

Condemning all violence and respecting the sovereignty of other nations, or interveneing when that sovereignty goes to extremes that should not be acceptable regardless of cultural differences...

Sometimes you will have to go to the extreme, and I cant really judge the feelings of Ethiopians on the situation because I can hardly say I imagine how desperate they are, or how threatened they are...

[Synch]

Somalia's transitional government was under threat, Ethiopia is strengthening Somalia's transitional government(The one recognized by the UN), which was under perilous threats from the ICU, who pushes to impose Sharia Law on the country.

These incursions were also supported by the AU.
..... (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/document?_m=0b8075a5f548522ade4c3648d8237cb5&_docnum=13&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkVk&_md5=634aa27d856628c5114a43c71a3b63ba)

ETHIOPIAN troops routed Islamist forces in fighting and air strikes across Somalia yesterday, killing 1,000 and forcing survivors into a hurried retreat.

Fighters of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) were pushed out of several strategic towns close to the seat of Somalia's weak transitional government, which Addis Ababa has sent 4,000 troops to protect. Convoys of technicals - pick-ups fitted with anti-aircraft guns - were speeding south from the frontline towards their power base in Mogadishu, with the Ethiopians giving chase.

Abdikarin Farah, Somalia's ambassador to Ethiopia, said in Addis Ababa: "Ethiopian forces are on their way to Mogadishu. They are about 40 miles away and they could capture it in 48 hours.''

However, Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's prime minister, denied that his aim was to take the capital. "Our military is skirting the towns and attacking only military bases. We have completed half our mission, and as soon as we finish the second half, our troops will leave Somalia.''

The African Union (AU) backed Ethiopia's offensive, saying the country had a right to defend itself from the ICU's advance. Senior members of the ICU have vowed to wage holy war on Ethiopia.

"The AU recognises that Ethiopia was threatened by the Islamic courts and we acknowledge its rights to self defence,'' said Patrick Mazimhaka, the AU's deputy commissioner. "But we hope the AU will be able to do something to avoid the escalation and the intervention of other neighbours in the conflict.''

[borgee]

I am realistic.

I realize there are people getting beheaded in Saudi Arabia, I realize there are children getting hacked to bits in Africa over diamonds and tribal differences, I realize our military is killing civilians in Iraq, I realize radical Islam is out for our heads, I realize people kill for very little reason and are quick to do it, I realize you can fly to many places around the world and have sex with teenagers...I realize the world isn't a nice place, but why should I accept that?

Why should I accept violence? Why should I not live my life in a way in which I think will decrease violence, or at least make my life happier?

Why is it not a good goal to rid as much violence as possible? Why is idealism in the sense of decreasing violence looked down upon? It may not be realistic, and I know it's not...but what is the harm in hating war, death, destruction and killing?

I respect your world view, I truly do. But it is based on feelings, and not reality.


Let's say there is a madman with a room full of hostages, and he is killing a hostage every minute.

Now let's say there is a sniper who has this man's melon right in his cross hairs.


What would you have him do?


Would you want him to follow his feelings and not pull the trigger because it is just more violence?

Or would you want him to face the reality of the situation and realize that pulling that trigger will save lives?


I'm not trying to mock your beliefs, I just wonder what you would do.

[david_slupper]

Holy shit! The Islamists are getting pwned by the Ethiopians.

A top Somali Islamic leader says his forces have abandoned the capital Mogadishu, following an offensive by the Ethiopian-backed government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6213499.stm

[MooCowzRock]

I respect your world view, I truly do. But it is based on feelings, and not reality.

Let's say there is a madman with a room full of hostages, and he is killing a hostage every minute.

Now let's say there is a sniper who has this man's melon right in his cross hairs.

What would you have him do?

Would you want him to follow his feelings and not pull the trigger because it is just more violence?

Or would you want him to face the reality of the situation and realize that pulling that trigger will save lives?

I'm not trying to mock your beliefs, I just wonder what you would do.

One of my best friends stnds by his decision that he would not pull the trigger, no matter what...I understand where he is trying to go with it, but I dont understand how he sticks with that logic...

[bergshadow]

Can't say I regret seeing Islamic fundies on the wrong end of the broom for once, but this war isn't good against bad: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/index.php
November 17/18/19, 2006 -- A Ghanaian Boeing 707, suspected of being involved with Russian-Israeli mafiosi facilitator Viktor Bout's worldwide arms trafficking and smuggling network of charter flights, was recently spotted off-loading 40 tons of ammunition at Mogadishu Airport in Somalia. The ammunition was for the Islamic radical forces of the Union of Islamic Courts, a fundamentalist group that has captured control of much of Somalia and threatens the independence of Somaliland and the territorial integrity of surrounding countries.

The Boeing-707, registered in Ghana with registry number 9G-GAL, marked with “SACHA” on the fuselage, used the call sign 9QCTA. The plane landed in Mogadishu at 0700 GMT on November 13, 2006. The plane reportedly made previous stops with arms and ammunition at Mogadishu. Bout often re-registers and re-paints his aircraft as a way of covering his activities. The involvement of the Bout/Russian-Israeli mafia in Somalia is reminiscent of its logistics support for the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda prior to the 911 attacks. Bout was also named by the UN as a prime arms embargo buster in the brutal civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia. The same Bout network is contracted to provide logistics support for U.S. occupation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Various intelligence services have reported that "Al Qaeda" fighters have entered Somali areas controlled by the Union of Islamic Courts. Since her days as National Security Adviser, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has a policy of "look but don't touch" when it comes to Bout's activities.
Arming both sides, again, we are. Odd.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

See, here is where you have to decide whats more important...

Condemning all violence and respecting the sovereignty of other nations, or interveneing when that sovereignty goes to extremes that should not be acceptable regardless of cultural differences...

I see the former as being more important. I believe that nations have the right to do what they please as long as it doesn't effect other nations. If it spills over, then fine. But for now I don't hear that.


I respect your world view, I truly do. But it is based on feelings, and not reality.


Let's say there is a madman with a room full of hostages, and he is killing a hostage every minute.

Now let's say there is a sniper who has this man's melon right in his cross hairs.


What would you have him do?


Would you want him to follow his feelings and not pull the trigger because it is just more violence?

Or would you want him to face the reality of the situation and realize that pulling that trigger will save lives?


I'm not trying to mock your beliefs, I just wonder what you would do.

I'd say pull the trigger, it will save more lives. But the thing is, that madman was directly involved in other people's lives. I don't care if he wants to sit at home and play with his guns and think as violent as he wants. When he crosses that line and interferes with another person's life, that's when action becomes necessary.

[Spike Lee]

Fighting a war against a culture is all fine and dandy if it is going to destroy your nation. But when that culture is taking another country, and not your, stay the fuck out of it.

If you want to protect your borders, do what BigMatt said. Put more people at the border start an ad campaign in YOUR country.

And fucking besides, the one country not minding thier own fucking business has its people starving. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT!

And I understand the paradox that war can lead to peace. But c'mon. We also know that war can be bullshit! Don't act like the US of A was doing favors to latin American countries in the 80s with all these coups. What a load of horseshit.

AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

YOU GUYS DONT SEE HOW YOU COME ACROSS SOMETIMES!

I know you guys are talking about radical Islam because gotherik told me so.

and people complain about bing PC, but look at you.

[Danimal87]

AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

YOU GUYS DONT SEE HOW YOU COME ACROSS SOMETIMES!

I know you guys are talking about radical Islam because gotherik told me so.

and people complain about bing PC, but look at you.
If Mohammed the prophet was alive today, everyone here would call him a radical. He fought to advance his cult just like "radical" Muslims do today. Islam itself is a radical religion, no need in being redundant.

[PolishKing84]

fuck islam, we dont need islam, we dont want islam

[Nocturnal]

I respect your world view, I truly do. But it is based on feelings, and not reality.


Let's say there is a madman with a room full of hostages, and he is killing a hostage every minute.

Now let's say there is a sniper who has this man's melon right in his cross hairs.



I don't think it's instructive to break down complicated issues into scenarios consisting of just a couple variables.

Even then, Ethiopia is not battling the Somalis because of innocents being killed, but rather to pre-empt a threat to themselves. To be closer to the truth your scenario would have to consist of two men fighting it out, and you decided to go up and kill one because you don't want him to win and possibly threaten you later on.


The main problem with pre-emption is that anyone may use that claim. It is too easily abused.



AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

YOU GUYS DONT SEE HOW YOU COME ACROSS SOMETIMES!



Most of them do not appear to be referring to "radical" islam. The propaganda campaign being waged by the right wing pundits and bloggers is not to convince us that "radical" islam is bad, but rather that all islam is bad. Everyone already agrees that radical islamics are bad, that isn't the issue.

The point of there little propaganda war is to scare everyone into voting for people like GW. That is why it contains no suggestions on how to deal with the problems, just empty rhetoric and the blame game. (ie Religion of peace :blahblah: and "The democrats want Muslims to convert us)

Personally I don't even much care for "moderate" Muslims, the only religious people I don't mind are the secular types (Secular Christians, Jews, any type really). That being said I'm not going to let people whose views are dangerously close to the same Muslims that they scream about control the debate with their nonsense.

[rand0m]

That is a very short sighted view of history.

I'm sorry, but I'm not stuck in the middle ages. I'm talking about current affairs.


1964 - Colombian Armed Conflict
1969 - New People's Army/Islamic insurgency (including OEF-P)
1983 Sri Lankan civil war Tamil Eelam
1984 Kurdish Separatist Insurgency Turkey and Kurdistan
1984 Free Papua Movement Western New Guinea
1988 Casamance Conflict Senegal
1988 Somali Civil War Somalia/Ethiopia
1989 Kashmir conflict Kashmir
1993 Ethnic conflict in Nagaland Nagaland, India
1999 Ituri Conflict DR Congo
1999 Second Chechen War Russia
2000 Al-Aqsa Intifada Israel, Palestinian territories
2000 Conflict in Laos involving the Hmong Laos
2001 War in Afghanistan Afghanistan
2001 South Thailand insurgency Pattani (region)
2002 Ivorian Civil War Côte d'Ivoire
2003 Iraq War Iraq
2003 Balochistan conflict Balochistan, Pakistan
2003 Central African War: Darfur conflict
Chadian-Sudanese conflict Sudan/Chad/Central African Republic
2005 Western Sahara Independence Intifada Western Sahara
2006 Mexican Drug War Mexico
2006 War in Somalia Somalia/Ethiopia

AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

[borgee]

Fighting a war against a culture is all fine and dandy if it is going to destroy your nation. But when that culture is taking another country, and not your, stay the fuck out of it.

If you want to protect your borders, do what BigMatt said. Put more people at the border start an ad campaign in YOUR country.

And fucking besides, the one country not minding thier own fucking business has its people starving. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT!

And I understand the paradox that war can lead to peace. But c'mon. We also know that war can be bullshit! Don't act like the US of A was doing favors to latin American countries in the 80s with all these coups. What a load of horseshit.

AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

YOU GUYS DONT SEE HOW YOU COME ACROSS SOMETIMES!

I know you guys are talking about radical Islam because gotherik told me so.

and people complain about bing PC, but look at you.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! What did my post have to do with Islam?

And by the way, Islam is radical! What else would you call a religion that riots all over the world over cartoons?

I don't think it's instructive to break down complicated issues into scenarios consisting of just a couple variables.

Even then, Ethiopia is not battling the Somalis because of innocents being killed, but rather to pre-empt a threat to themselves. To be closer to the truth your scenario would have to consist of two men fighting it out, and you decided to go up and kill one because you don't want him to win and possibly threaten you later on.


The main problem with pre-emption is that anyone may use that claim. It is too easily abused.

Did you even read what I wrote, or are you just reading what you want in order to argue. I said nothing about Somalia nor did I even refer to it. I simply asked him about his world view. So no, my scenario wouldn't have to be about anything but exactly what it was. It was a valid question, and he answered it, so there is no need for you to swoop in and try and save him.

And by the way, sometimes complicated issues can be broken down into black and white.

[Nocturnal]

I'm sorry, but I'm not stuck in the middle ages. I'm talking about current affairs.

If you wish to only dicuss recent affairs (I don't think the 80's are that current ;) ) then the answer to your question is easy.

Due to the weakness of Muslim areas since the renaissance, most Muslim nations have been under the control of one or more great powers for the better part of the last century.

You should note in your timeline when the Cold War ended. What we are seeing is nations/peoples that have little history of independence suddenly being dumped out on their own.

I'm supremely confident that holding everything else constant, had the mid-east been Christian, we would be seeing similar results. Although a Christianized middle east would not have fallen so far behind the others, but you get the point.

I don't think that blaming/fighting the religion of Islam is going to be helpful in winning this war. In fact I think that sets us up for a loss. (barring genocide)


Did you even read what I wrote, or are you just reading what you want in order to argue. I said nothing about Somalia nor did I even refer to it. I simply asked him about his world view. So no, my scenario wouldn't have to be about anything but exactly what it was. It was a valid question, and he answered it, so there is no need for you to swoop in and try and save him.

And by the way, sometimes complicated issues can be broken down into black and white.

Based on what you wrote I assumed you were drawing a comparison to Somalia. If that is not the case then I admit I was mistaken. I also am not in the habit of swooping in and saving anyone, particularly as BigMatt does not need the assistance.

I disagree. Things like that always have more than two players. The real world is much more like a game of craps, than a game of checkers.

[rand0m]

That is a very short sighted view of history.

I'm sorry, but I'm not stuck in the middle ages. I'm talking about current affairs.

Here are the main current wars that are happening today.

1964 - Colombian Armed Conflict
1969 - New People's Army/Islamic insurgency (including OEF-P)
1983 - Sri Lankan civil war
1984 - Kurdish Separatist Insurgency
1988 - Somali Civil War
1989 - Kashmir conflict
1999 - Second Chechen War
2000 - Al-Aqsa Intifada
2001 - War in Afghanistan
2001 - South Thailand insurgency
2002 - Ivorian Civil War
2003 - Iraq War
2003 - Balochistan conflict
2003 - Central African War: Darfur conflict
2005 - Western Sahara Independence Intifada
2006 - War in Somalia

The ones in bold are the ones which are involved with some aspect of Islam, whether the population been Islamic, or Islamics fighter fighting in the name of Islam.


AND A PEICE OF ADVICE TO THE PEOPLE LIKE HEATHER AND BORGEE:

WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE THREAT OF RADICAL ISLAM, REFER TO IT AS RADICAL ISLAM@!

NOT ISLAM! RADICAL...ISLAM.

Mind stating the difference between Radical Muslims and Non-Radical Muslims?

Mohammed Sidique Khan (30) - Edgware Road Tube 8.50 a.m. Lived in Dewsbury with his heavily pregnant wife and young child.

Shehzad Tanweer (22) - Aldgate Tube 8.50 a.m. Lived in Leeds with his mother and father working in a fish and chips shop.

Germaine Lindsay (19) - Russell Square 8.50 a.m. Lived in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire with his pregnant wife.

Hasib Hussain (18) - Tavistock Square 9.47 a.m. Lived in Leeds with his brother and sister.

Ordinary jobs? Ordinary lives? Ordinary muslims?

7 July 2005 London bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings#The_bombers)

[whocares]

If Mohammed the prophet was alive today, everyone here would call him a radical. He fought to advance his cult just like "radical" Muslims do today. Islam itself is a radical religion, no need in being redundant.
Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

You surely know everything about the true meaning of that religion from just reading biased websites against it.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

You surely know everything about the true meaning of that religion from just reading biased websites against it.

You forget dude, after 9/11 everyone is a theologian!

[borgee]

You forget dude, after 9/11 everyone is a theologian!

Exactly! I am sick of every liberal and atheist on eBaums constantly talking about Christianity as if they are experts:)

[Nocturnal]

Exactly! I am sick of every liberal and atheist on eBaums constantly talking about Christianity as if they are experts:)

In my experience the average Atheist is much more familiar with Christianity than the average Christian. Speaking for myself this came from the process of growing up Christian and questioning the religion in depth. I believe other Atheists have come to similar paths.

I don't usually take part in theological debates though, I find them rather pointless. Believers accross the board don't seem to care what their religion actually says, but rather what they want it to say.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Exactly! I am sick of every liberal and atheist on eBaums constantly talking about Christianity as if they are experts

You're right man, it goes both ways.

I believe other Atheists have come to similar paths.



Yup, I was raised Catholic....I even thought once about being a preist. :eek:

[borgee]

In my experience the average Atheist is much more familiar with Christianity than the average Christian. Speaking for myself this came from the process of growing up Christian and questioning the religion in depth. I believe other Atheists have come to similar paths.

I don't usually take part in theological debates though, I find them rather pointless. Believers accross the board don't seem to care what their religion actually says, but rather what they want it to say.

I disagree, considering people on here seem to think that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians. Almost all Christians I know can't stand tv evangelists.

[Nocturnal]

Yup, I was raised Catholic....I even thought once about being a preist. :eek:

A lesser man than myself might make a joke about you realizing that you were straight. Oh wait.... :redface:

I disagree, considering people on here seem to think that Pat Robertson speaks for all Christians. Almost all Christians I know can't stand tv evangelists.

No doubt true, but I don't think you get the same pressure to "stand up" to the "radical" christians here at home, as other groups do.

[YouEnjoyMyself]

Damn you, you cheeky bastard.

[eieio]

Here's more of an indication that the Islamist threat is global, there is a connection between Iraq and the War on Terror and things would get worse for us eventually here in the USA if we pulled out of Iraq.

Al-Qaida's "Islamic State of Iraq" Urges Immediate Support for Somali Islamists

By Evan Kohlmann

In a statement issued yesterday, the Al-Qaida-led "Islamic State of Iraq" urged Muslims around the world to stand behind the retreating Islamic Courts militia in Somalia--including with "money, weapons, and men." According to the statement from Al-Qaida's "Islamic State":

"...Major battles are now taking place between the Crusaders and the Soldiers of Allah in the Muslim land of Somalia, with the approval of the apostates in the caretaker Somali government and with the support of the alliance of crusader nations--at their head, the White House administration in Washington. The blood of Muslims is being spilled there, and their houses and villages are being destroyed. Thousands of their women, children, elderly are being expelled and left homeless, and this is only happening because they are Muslims... The Islamic State of Iraq calls upon all Muslims to stand with their brothers in Somalia, to support them with money, weapons, and men, and to pray for them that Allah grants them victory over their enemies..."

Just weeks ago, Al-Qaida's "Islamic State" issued a formal congratulatory note to the Islamic Courts on their conquest of the strategic town of Dinsor--which now has reportedly fallen back into the hands of Ethiopian and Somali government forces.

http://counterterrorismblog.org/

[whocares]

It's a blog... :sleeping2

[Spike Lee]

Wow, just wow. Let alone no one even adresses the Ethiopia Somalia conflict that I wrote about as well.

[borgee]

No doubt true, but I don't think you get the same pressure to "stand up" to the "radical" christians here at home, as other groups do.

Maybe because the "radical" Christians aren't sending out suicide bombers, beheading unbelievers, rioting over cartoons, flying hijacked planes into buildings, and otherwise waging a global jihad.

Just a thought:rolleyes:

[eieio]

It's a blog... :sleeping2

A blog by someone like yourself is JUST A BLOG. A blog by people who know what they are talking about is significant.

You would cream your jeans if it was Ahmadinejad's blog. And don't deny it! :lol:

Fighting a war against a culture is all fine and dandy if it is going to destroy your nation. But when that culture is taking another country, and not your, stay the fuck out of it.

[...]

And fucking besides, the one country not minding thier own fucking business has its people starving. DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT!

And I understand the paradox that war can lead to peace. But c'mon. We also know that war can be bullshit! Don't act like the US of A was doing favors to latin American countries in the 80s with all these coups. What a load of horseshit.


There are a few points to make here.

The following describes what happened when Bill Clinton tried to help make sure humanitarian aid (food & medicines and the like) got through to the poor Somali civilians.


****** During the night of October 3, 1993, a raid designed to apprehend a Somali warlord turned into a sixteen-hour firefight pitting a hundred or so Army Rangers and commandos against several hundred Somali irregulars.* The Somalis encircled the Rangers in the congested alleys of Mogadishu and turned it into the deadliest firefight in the history of UN peace operations.* Nineteen American servicemen were killed, seventy-seven wounded, and a* helicopter pilot was taken prisoner.[12]

****** "How could this happen?" demanded the President of his advisors.[13]* After witnessing the grisly televised coverage of Somali mobs desecrating the corps of a U.S. soldier in the downtown streets of Mogadishu, the American public also questioned how a "humanitarian" mission could deteriorate into such a deadly contest between the Somali people and those sent to their rescue.* The cost in lives and blood far exceeded what the American public was willing to pay in this remote and dangerous land where less than vital national interests were at stake.* Many in Congress demanded the immediate withdrawal of United States forces while some went so far as to call for the resignations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense.[14]*
******

It turns out this debacle was actually an ambush staged by those who were operatives of Osama bin Laden. Yup. Al Qaeda was operating in a democratic country. Yup. Somalia did not have a Sharia government. But there were secret al Qaeda operatives amongst the ignorant Somalis.

And when we suffered those losses we turned tail and ran from Somalia with our tails between our legs.

However, many people fail to note that this wasn't a pure U.S. military operation. It was a United Nations operation which Bill Clinton got everyone to agree to doing together.

Responding to the public and political uproar within days of the stinging setback in Mogadishu, President Clinton set a date to end American participation in the UN nation-building mission in Somalia.* Over the objections of the UN officials, he broke off the manhunt for the fugitive warlord General Mohammad Aideed, brought the bloodied Ranger battalion home, and ordered all American ground troops out of Somalia no later than 31 March 1994.[15]* With the departure of the United States, other coalition members began to follow.* Having lost control of Mogadishu in a continually deteriorating security situation, the United Nations decided to pull out of Somalia by 31 March 1995, ending UNOSOM II.* Returning to the chaos of 1992, the fate of Somalia was left in the hands of its own people. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Allen.htm#_edn21

Just as if we leave Iraq we will be leaving things in the hands of it's own people.

The al Qaeda operatives were there in Somalia and led the attack on Americans which forced us to flee.

Just as in Iraq there are al Qaeda and other radical Islamic operatives who lead attacks on Americans and who are forcing us to flee.

And 'when' we do there will be ignorant voices in the news who will be saying that we are leaving things in the hands of the Iraqi people to decide.

But they won't say much about the al Qaeda and other operatives who were so effective that they were able to force the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to scurry home.

So 'when' we leave things in the hands of the Iraqi people will the Iraqi people be able to resist the influence of the radical Islamic operatives better than the United States of America?

Will the Iraqi people be able to resist al Qaeda and Iranian operatives without our help?

But back to Somalia.

It turns out that not ONLY was Osama bin Laden behind the ambush, it was helped along by the United Nations Secretary General at the time, Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali AND by the infamous traitor Aldrich Ames.

An intense investigation followed the Mogadishu debacle to discover how the enemy was so well informed of U.S. plans. There were signs that bin Laden's men knew the secret U.S. codes and also the U.S. battle plan, enabling them to keep a jump head and lay traps. The investigation picked up the trail of leaked codes in Boutros-Ghali's office in New York, following them to the U.N. command in Mogadishu and bin Laden's aides.

Barred access to U.N. command offices to collect proof of the conspiracy, they resorted to an alternative scheme. On Feb. 26, 1994, a CIA special unit was flown directly from the States to Mogadishu and took over the U.N. building. A search turned up the documents containing the most secret U.S. codes.

Five days before the CIA break-in in Mogadishu, the FBI arrested senior CIA officer Aldrich Ames at his home in Arlington, Va., and charged him with spying for Moscow. A search of his home turned up evidence that Ames had been feeding secret U.S. codes to a recipient at U.N. headquarters in New York. Among them were the secret signals of the Mogadishu operation.

After the CIA agents in Mogadishu reported their findings to the White House, they were told to destroy all the papers, making sure they had the originals.

This was the first and only time the CIA got hold of evidence that its most secret codes were in the hands of the ex-Saudi terror master.

Boutros-Ghali is a former Egyptian diplomat who served as U.N. secretary-general from 1992 through 1995. In the '70s, he officiated as undersecretary for foreign affairs in his country's government under President Anwar Sadat. Boutros-Ghali is currently secretary of the Francophone Group of Nations, which disseminates French culture and influence, especially in the Middle East and Africa. He is also an unofficial adviser on the Middle East to French President Jacque Chirac.

Less known are his close ties with the Palestinians and long personal friendship with their leader, Yasser Arafat, from the '60s, when Arafat made his debut on the international stage. Ghali still retains considerable influence in the plotting of Arafat's strategy, DEBKA reports.http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24595

And to help give everyone a CLEARER view of the realities of the situation regarding Somalia and who is who and what, here's a paragraph from the left leaning BBC.

Hardline elements

The (Union of Islamic Courts) UIC has its roots in the north of Mogadishu. Courts administering Islamic law restored order in a city bedevilled by anarchy since the overthrow of former President Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991.

The UIC assumed control of the capital in June, driving warlords out and rapidly extending their influence to much of southern Somalia - with the exception of Baidoa, the seat of the transitional Somali government.

That body, set up in 2004 after talks between Somali factions, has been unable to meet in the capital because of opposition first from warlords, then from the UIC.

Almost all Somalis are Muslim and after years of lawlessness, many were happy to have some kind of law and order under the UIC.

But some are wary of the hardline elements among the UIC.

The UIC have staged public executions and floggings of people they have found guilty of crimes such as murder and selling drugs.

UIC leader Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys is accused by both Ethiopia and the US of having links to al-Qaeda - charges he denies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6214379.stm


And while Aweys denies he has links to al Qaeda try to imagine Osama bin Laden's issuing Fatwas and having training bases and the kinds of signs of 'ownership' displayed here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/alqaeda.html without there being eye to eye concurrence on the matter of religion and government.

Remember, al Qaeda is KILLING Muslims who are modern or moderate or Shiites or democratic.

So, for Aweys to deny links to al Qaeda shows just how little they think of our intellect.

[Chewy]

A blog by someone like yourself is JUST A BLOG. A blog by people who know what they are talking about is significant.
These guys 'know what they are talking about too' (http://www.supernaturalnews.com/?cat=26)... and they blog it must be real!!!

[Nocturnal]

Maybe because the "radical" Christians aren't sending out suicide bombers, beheading unbelievers, rioting over cartoons, flying hijacked planes into buildings, and otherwise waging a global jihad.

Just a thought:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes all you want, but you aren't "standing up" to those types of Christians. Am I to assume that you support them then?

[18C]

A lot of this violence is because the big empires back in the 1800's conquered the ME and grouped people together without even thinking about ethnic differences and how much all the different groups hate each other.

[whocares]

A blog by someone like yourself is JUST A BLOG.
Just like that guy's blog.

A blog by people who know what they are talking about is significant.
Not really, it is still just a blog.

You would cream your jeans if it was Ahmadinejad's blog. And don't deny it! :lol:
Good job making assumptions. Seems like you can't reply with something better, that's sad... for you. :(

But, yes, I deny it. Is still just a blog.

Besides, we all agree that Iran's pres is quite crazy.

Lesson is: blogs aren't really a reputable source. Just opinion pieces. :)

[eieio]

These guys 'know what they are talking about too' (http://www.supernaturalnews.com/?cat=26)... and they blog it must be real!!!
Just like that guy's blog.


Not really, it is still just a blog.


Good job making assumptions. Seems like you can't reply with something better, that's sad... for you. :(

But, yes, I deny it. Is still just a blog.

Besides, we all agree that Iran's pres is quite crazy.

Lesson is: blogs aren't really a reputable source. Just opinion pieces. :)

Maybe it doesn't impress those like you who aren't policymakers and serious researchers.

The first multi-expert blog dedicated solely to counterterrorism issues, serving as a gateway to the community for policymakers and serious researchers. Designed to provide realtime information about terrorism cases and policy developments.

THE COUNTERTERRORISM BLOG

Welcome to the Counterterrorism Blog, a unique, multi-expert blog dedicated to providing a one-stop gateway to the counterterrorism community. To our knowledge, there has been no such blog on the internet.

We envision the blog’s audience to be the policymakers in Congress and the Executive Branch, as well as serious students elsewhere, who want to visit a single site to access (1) overnight and breaking news, with realtime intel and commentary by operational experts ("Contributing Experts"); (2) discussions of long-term trends in counterterrorism; (3) summaries of and discussions about US and international law; and (4) a calendar of upcoming events, hearings, and seminars featuring the Contributing Experts. We want to highlight those experts who are or have been deeply involved in counterterrorism cases, and thus enable them to expand their opportunities to bring their expertise to the attention of policymakers.

The site is intended to provide fresh information and various perspectives (sometimes opposing), as presented by the Contributing Experts and in the news articles, columns, and website links posted on the blog. Contributing Experts are responsible only for the content of their posts and links. The editor is responsible for sidebar content and design.


The Founder and Editor, Andrew Cochran, is Vice President of GAGE, a business consulting and government affairs firm headquartered in Washington, DC. GAGE's marketing and business development unit engages in securing a variety of funding, new business, and regulatory approvals for clients.

Mr. Cochran advises clients on terrorism and homeland security, corporate governance, and appropriations issues. He also serves as a special adviser to the Congressional Anti-Terrorist Financing Task Force and is Co-Chairman of the Advisory Board of CatholicMil.Org, which serves Catholics serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, their families, and Catholic chaplains. He has appeared in numerous media outlets, including MSNBC, the Fox News Channel, BBC Radio, Congressional Quarterly, and Roll Call to discuss terrorism issues and events. Mr. Cochran previously served as Senior VP of Public Policy Partners LLC from January 2004 until that firm merged with GAGE LLC in September 2005.

From 2001 through 2003, Mr. Cochran was senior oversight counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, chaired by Rep. Michael Oxley (R-OH). He led investigations into terrorism issues and into the corporate accounting scandals, including the first Congressional hearings on Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom. He was the lead counsel for the committee's oversight of federal money laundering and anti-terrorist financing issues and the international efforts to seize and repatriate Saddam Hussein’s hidden assets. Many of the Contributing Experts served as witnesses or informally advised the committee on many of the major terrorism issues. He also served in the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary of Commerce, was an attorney in private practice, and was a CPA in Ohio prior to his government service.

Contributing Experts
Steven Emerson & The Investigative Project on Terrorism
Dennis Lormel
Douglas Farah
Bill West
Evan Kohlmann
Michael Cutler
Victor Comras
Michael Kraft
Dr. Zachary Abuza
Dr. Walid Phares
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross
Zeyno Baran
Olivier Guitta
Jeffrey Cozzens
Kenneth Conboy
Dr. Magnus Ranstorp
Dr. Stephen Sloan
Aaron Mannes
David Schenker
Jeffrey Imm
Animesh Roul
Jonathan Winer

Andrew Cochran, VP of GAGE and CT Blog Founder & Editor


Click here to read: EXPERTS' ARCHIVES & BIOS
http://counterterrorismblog.org/about/

On second thought, nevermind. It's all probably over your head. :p

[whocares]

No matter how much they brag about... is still a blog, not a reputable source for serious discussion. :p

[rand0m]

It's a blog? Is that all you can come up with.

Try proving what the blog states as wrong.

[eieio]

No matter how much they brag about... is still a blog, not a reputable source for serious discussion. :p

You adopt some silly arguments.

Have you ever thought about the difference between a blog and a "reliable" news source?

Do you know what people said about the Drudge Report at first?

Do you know why some reporters said they wouldn't work at the Washington Times when it first started and why they changed their tune?

Silly arguments, indeed! :lol:

[whocares]

It's a blog? Is that all you can come up with.

Try proving what the blog states as wrong.
Maybe the bloggers have to prove what they say is true. Sorry, burden of proof is over them.

Anybody could post blogs with a left wing agenda, you would be saying the same thing: "it's a blog, not a reputable source" and rightfully so.
You adopt some silly arguments.

Have you ever thought about the difference between a blog and a "reliable" news source?
Yup, the difference is that a blog does not really have a reputation to mantain nor they have a compromise with saying the truth as close as possible. They are mainly spaces where people put their thoughts, their opinions, fuck... even what they do at every day.

Do you know what people said about the Drudge Report at first?
And that is comparable to a blog, how?

Do you know why some reporters said they wouldn't work at the Washington Times when it first started and why they changed their tune?

Silly arguments, indeed! :lol:
The Washington Times, a media source that has a reputation to take care of. Sure thing, the media does not always tell the truth, but they are more trustable than a blog that can be made by anyone.

Sorry, once again, it's not a reputable source. No matter how many examples you put.

Just because people didn't believe Galileo at first does not mean that those blogs are stating the truth. :p

You are the one using silly arguments.

Perhaps, we can have bergshadow & csite posting blogs about how the US and Israel are evil countries, from people that are 'experts' on Israel/Palestine conflict... and when they are challengued with posting a reputable source, they could just answer with: people, at one point, were very sceptical with Darwin's/Einstein's theory, but then it was shown that he was right on. Same is going to happen with the bloggers.

[Nocturnal]

Do you know what people said about the Drudge Report at first?



The same shit they say about it now? Trash journalism, started by a guy who began his career digging through people's actual trash? :D

[eieio]

The same shit they say about it now? Trash journalism, started by a guy who began his career digging through people's actual trash? :D

I'm beginning to feel you should pay me tuition for the amount of work I have to do to educate your ignorant butt! :lol:

Drudge Report

In the year of 2005, Drudge reported 3,641,002,163 visits to his website[citation needed].

A typical day at the Drudge Report.

The Drudge Report is a popular U.S.-based news website run by Matt Drudge. The site consists primarily of links to stories from the US and international mainstream media about politics, entertainment, and various current events as well as links to many popular columnists. Occasionally Drudge authors a story of his own. The Report originated around 1994 as a weekly subscriber-based email dispatch. It is most famous for being the first entity to break the news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public.
The Drudge Report is regarded as an important news outlet: Democratic Party strategist Chris Lehane says "phones start ringing" whenever Drudge breaks a story and Mark McKinnon, one of President George W. Bush's top advisors says he checks the site 30-40 times per day[1].

ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage.[1] In The Way To Win, a book written by journalists Mark Halperin and John Harris, Drudge is called "the Walter Cronkite of his era." [2] Matt Drudge has been criticized by other media news personalities: Bill O'Reilly who twice called Drudge a "threat to democracy" [3], and Keith Olbermann who referred to Drudge as "an idiot with a modem" [4].

Maybe the bloggers have to prove what they say is true. Sorry, burden of proof is over them.

Anybody could post blogs with a left wing agenda, you would be saying the same thing: "it's a blog, not a reputable source" and rightfully so.

Yup, the difference is that a blog does not really have a reputation to mantain nor they have a compromise with saying the truth as close as possible. They are mainly spaces where people put their thoughts, their opinions, fuck... even what they do at every day.


And that is comparable to a blog, how?


The Washington Times, a media source that has a reputation to take care of. Sure thing, the media does not always tell the truth, but they are more trustable than a blog that can be made by anyone.

Sorry, once again, it's not a reputable source. No matter how many examples you put.

Just because people didn't believe Galileo at first does not mean that those blogs are stating the truth. :p

You are the one using silly arguments.

Perhaps, we can have bergshadow & csite posting blogs about how the US and Israel are evil countries, from people that are 'experts' on Israel/Palestine conflict... and when they are challengued with posting a reputable source, they could just answer with: people, at one point, were very sceptical with Darwin's/Einstein's theory, but then it was shown that he was right on. Same is going to happen with the bloggers.

No. No. No.

Go back to the internet and read up.

Man C has conservative political opinions he'd like to express to the world.

Man L has liberal political opinions he'd like to express to the world.

Man C decides to start a blog. But it costs him money for equipment and software and supplies and bandwidth so he makes up an advertiser's page which shows potential advertisers what the blog will look like and what kinds of opinions will be printed and the level of the writing and the frequency of posting and the intended audience and the subject matter and the scope of the blog along with his own personal/professional credentials.

Man L decides to start a newspaper. But it costs him money for equipment and software and supplies and office space so he makes up an investor's packet which shows potential investors & advertisers what the newspaper will look like and what kinds of opinions will be printed and the level of the writing and the frequency of publication and the intended audience and the subject matter and the scope of the paper along with his own personal/professional credentials.

Both Man C and Man L are able to interest advertisers and investors in their ventures BEFORE they actually come out with their first posting or publication. They each have cash and/or credit commitments representing 6 months of their expected operating expenses.

They were each able to do this because they have high journalistic standards, excellent credentials, experience in the industry, good track records and a reputation which precedes them.

Which one is more likely to jeopardize their venture on shoddy journalistic practices?

The one who spends all his time trying to cover news and write opinion pieces and run his venture?

Or the one who focuses his time on researching, thinking and writing opinions while managing a blog?

And don't even bother answering that hypothetical question.

Neither one is going to risk their venture, their reputation and their advertising potential by printing/posting crap as long as we are talking about really thoughtful responsible people.

And that's the point.

Liberal or Conservative, newspaper or blog, a million dollars at risk or $50,000. Both are serious and they know that they live and die by their accuracy AS WELL AS their popularity.

But their popularity will suffer when their accuracy drops. And if either one drops so will their advertising income.

For you to assume that a newspaper is more accurate than a blog is silly.

There are blogs, like the one I posted above, that has higher ethical and journalistic standards than many newspapers.

Now that I have spent 20 - 30 minutes helping educate you in this matter I want $20.00.

From EACH of you! :lol:

BTW, whocares, you need to read better blogs. Your view of what a blog is reminds me of someone who thinks all books are colorful pen & ink publications featuring mostly superheroes because the only books he reads are Comic Books.

[borgee]

Roll your eyes all you want, but you aren't "standing up" to those types of Christians. Am I to assume that you support them then?

What should I stand up to them for. You are acting like they are both the same since they are both religions, and that is absolutely insane!

And do I support them? Well, I support the fact that they don't strap bombs to their waist and blow up innocent people:banghead:

[Spike Lee]

It's a blog? Is that all you can come up with.

Try proving what the blog states as wrong.
Like dismissing the CNN sometimes because they are liberal.

[Danimal87]

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

You surely know everything about the true meaning of that religion from just reading biased websites against it.
No biased website required. Any basic history on Islam will tell you about how Mohammed literally fought to advance the power of his religion. He fled to Medina after being kicked out of Mecca, then returned and took Mecca over. Those who led Islam after his death followed his example by conquering the Middle East, Persia, and North Africa.

[bergshadow]

Do you know what people said about the Drudge Report at first? Yep: The same shit they say about it now. Trash journalism, started by a guy who began his career digging through people's actual trash. And as evidence: Occasionally Drudge authors a story of his own. - - . It is most famous for being the first entity to break the news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public. -
ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage. - And the tone of the national political coverage has been exactly what one would expect from that. Nobody ever said trash wasn't popular or influential.
They were each able to do this because they have high journalistic standards, excellent credentials, experience in the industry, good track records and a reputation which precedes them. That isn't how Drudge got started. Except maybe the reputation part - that he had, and has. Neither one is going to risk their venture, their reputation and their advertising potential by printing/posting crap as long as we are talking about really thoughtful responsible people. We aren't. We're talking about right wing bloggers. Their reputation, venture, and advertising potential depend on their posting thoughtless, irresponsible crap of a particular kind.

The US has been cooperating with the arms dealers on all sides of the Somali conflicts. So W&Co have been winking at Islamic terrorist suppliers?
(I got that from a blog, an informed one that checks out in such matters).

[Hawks9718]

Good for Ethiopia... Free nations can not stand idlely by as islamic terrorists run amok next door.

[Ace Hippie]

Surprised no one's added this yet - Ethiopian and UN-backed government troops retook Mogadishu as the Islamicist government basically fell apart. The good ol' Islamacists are, of course, vowing vengeance.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/29/africa/AF_ANL_Somalia_Square_One.php

Of course, the most important aspect, in my mind, is that Somalia is still a mess and, thus, still ripe for takeover by any sort of fundamentalists - be it Islamacists or another warlord like Aidid.

[0_transfat]

http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/12/the_islamic_courts_a.php

Despite the abandonment of Mogadishu, the Islamic Courts has yet to fully surrender to the TFG. "Unconfirmed reports say that the ICU hardliners and its fighters have gone to Ras-kamboni, a small island in southern Somalia, the Islamist’s former base," notes SomaliNet.


They retreated to an island? That doesn't seem too bright. No place to go from there. Custer's last stand, Somali style.

[eieio]

They retreated to an island? That doesn't seem too bright. No place to go from there. Custer's last stand, Somali style.

Where is CNN? :ahhh: Where is the outrage from the world??? There MUST be some noble Islamists that need to make some on-camera accusations against the evil Ame, er, Zionist, er uh Ethiopian Nazis who are committing genocide against defenseless freedom fighters.

:rollseyes

Here's the score. The Somali government was weak and that allowed OBL to set up shop there and when the Islamists decided to take over the non-Sharia government they had a pretty easy time of it.

There was an improvement in the day to day operations and affairs of business and governance and this would have been their chance to show the world how things COULD be in Iraq.

Like a knight in shining armor they would gallop into town quickly put an end to lawlessness and establish order BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY and then they would set up a Sharia government where people would have less chaos on one hand but at the cost of freedoms.

I think we all remember the Soccer fan who was killed for watching a World Cup match on TV?

This is what they plan to do ALL OVER THE WORLD.

But this is a formula ALL of US (repubs AND Democrats, Liberals AND Conservatives) have said we reject!

The Islamists promise security and order but at the cost of LIBERTY.

And you know what?

When we leave Iraq the Islamists are going to use violence and intimidation to forcefully impose order.

And take away the rights of freedom loving iraqis who chose Democracy when they voted but will be getting Sharia law thanks to OUR PULLING OUT.

Way to go America!

[Spike Lee]

Turn on cnn and say that again.

[eieio]

Turn on cnn and say that again.

That's a clever way to get me to watch the devil's channel. :bigwink:

Seriously though, you mean the Islamists actually ARE using their same tactics? :eek:

Wow. I guess you keep on using whatever works.

[Spike Lee]

No I juwt wanted you to turn away from your pc

[eieio]

No I juwt wanted you to turn away from your pc

Why didn't you just ask? I'd have done it if you'd asked me.

Ok. Good bye.

[0_transfat]

Good news from the front lines......


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6219763.stm

Ethiopians chase Somali Islamists

Ethiopian and Somali troops are reported to be heading south towards the stronghold of Islamist fighters driven from the capital on Thursday.
...
The Ethiopian forces, who back Somali's transitional government, are now reported to be closing in on an estimated 3,000 Islamist fighters in Kismayo.


Nothing beats the smell of burning Muslims in the morning.

[Spike Lee]

how about the smell of your ass on fire?

[rand0m]

This was pretty much a onesided battle ...

[American Infidel]

This is how combat is supposed to be conducted. One side whips the complete and utter shit out of the other. The winning population cheers for their side. The losers whimper and moan. There are rules set by the winner. Oftentimes, the winner gets a prize, such as land, property and the promise from the loser not to attack again.

But that only happens when the country, like ours, doesn't have John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha or Hillary Clinton or CAIR or the ACLU to stand up for the enemy.

America used to be like that, back when we loved to win...back during WWII.

Of course, you can also blame Bush for his acknowledgment of these sympathetic peace-above-all idiots. We could have had our soldiers out of Iraq, by now, if he would've let them do their jobs and destroyed the opposition. Instead, he appeases the left by waging a "sensitive" war.

Bleeding-heart liberal hippies have reduced America's will to be victorious in combat. To be fair, it's Bush's fault, too, for listening to them.

[JaMaiCa]

This is how combat is supposed to be conducted. One side whips the complete and utter shit out of the other. The winning population cheers for their side. The losers whimper and moan. There are rules set by the winner. Oftentimes, the winner gets a prize, such as land, property and the promise from the loser not to attack again.

But that only happens when the country, like ours, doesn't have John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha or Hillary Clinton or CAIR or the ACLU to stand up for the enemy.

America used to be like that, back when we loved to win...back during WWII.

Of course, you can also blame Bush for his acknowledgment of these sympathetic peace-above-all idiots. We could have had our soldiers out of Iraq, by now, if he would've let them do their jobs and destroyed the opposition. Instead, he appeases the left by waging a "sensitive" war.

Bleeding-heart liberal hippies have reduced America's will to be victorious in combat. To be fair, it's Bush's fault, too, for listening to them.

I thought the purpose of the war was to liberate the people and help them become independant? Sorry, but I don't see how that purpose could coincide with the kind of war you want to see.

[American Infidel]

I thought the purpose of the war was to liberate the people and help them become independant? Sorry, but I don't see how that purpose could coincide with the kind of war you want to see.

Victory in Iraq is not consistent with the liberation of Iraq?

[JaMaiCa]

Victory in Iraq is not consistent with the liberation of Iraq?

It is, but short of nuking the country what more do you think the US could be doing to win the war?

[Nocturnal]

This is how combat is supposed to be conducted. One side whips the complete and utter shit out of the other. The winning population cheers for their side. The losers whimper and moan. There are rules set by the winner. Oftentimes, the winner gets a prize, such as land, property and the promise from the loser not to attack again.

But that only happens when the country, like ours, doesn't have John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi or John Murtha or Hillary Clinton or CAIR or the ACLU to stand up for the enemy.

America used to be like that, back when we loved to win...back during WWII.

Of course, you can also blame Bush for his acknowledgment of these sympathetic peace-above-all idiots. We could have had our soldiers out of Iraq, by now, if he would've let them do their jobs and destroyed the opposition. Instead, he appeases the left by waging a "sensitive" war.

Bleeding-heart liberal hippies have reduced America's will to be victorious in combat. To be fair, it's Bush's fault, too, for listening to them.


Why is every story a chance for you to bash the majority of America?

You aren't making a damn bit of sense. The war in Iraq has NEVER been affected by those who are against it. NOT ONCE. Bush and his people had the opportunity to plan the entire thing. To say that we are failing there because of the anti-war crowd is ridiculous.


This is all a case of sour grapes. Your ideology and your beloved leaders have failed miserably. So, instead of questioning your beliefs or wondering if The Decider really is a good President, you decide that the real fault lays in the hands who had no say in the matter.

[bergshadow]

This is how combat is supposed to be conducted. One side whips the complete and utter shit out of the other. The winning population cheers for their side. The losers whimper and moan. There are rules set by the winner. Oftentimes, the winner gets a prize, such as land, property and the promise from the loser not to attack again.
Victory in Iraq is not consistent with the liberation of Iraq? The answer to your question, according to you, is "yes". Or better, since I see the need of clarification: according to you, "No, it isn't".

[eieio]

I thought the purpose of the war was to liberate the people and help them become independant? Sorry, but I don't see how that purpose could coincide with the kind of war you want to see.

Why do war bashers have such an inability to recognize MULTIPLE reasons for things?

I'll try to help you out here.

Why do gay guys pick strong, good looking, well to do guys with good taste to have relationships with?

Because they want to enjoy the nicer things in life and having good times that only $$ can make possible, they like the ego satisfaction of being with someone successful and attractive, they are turned on by someone who looks good and they like the way a hard body feels. If the person has an intellect and a good personality those are plusses, too.

Those are SIX reasons for people that likely oppose the war use in something as casual as picking a sex partner.

Now why do you think the straight world is so stupid that they would have only one reason for invading a country? :rollseyes

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Why is every story a chance for you to bash the majority of America?

You aren't making a damn bit of sense. The war in Iraq has NEVER been affected by those who are against it. NOT ONCE. Bush and his people had the opportunity to plan the entire thing. To say that we are failing there because of the anti-war crowd is ridiculous.

This is all a case of sour grapes. Your ideology and your beloved leaders have failed miserably. So, instead of questioning your beliefs or wondering if The Decider really is a good President, you decide that the real fault lays in the hands who had no say in the matter.

You are not stupid, but you aren't always correct. And what's the nice way of saying this next thing? Hmmm...oh yes. You are being disingenuous.

The Iraq war has CONTINUOUSLY been affected by the protesters. And the fact of the most recent elections is proof. After the 2004 re-election of GWB and then two years later to lose the House and Senate? The protests have been a factor since BEFORE we knew for certain whether the WMD's were there or not.

NO WAR can be waged without the consent of the people. The Islamists know this and that's why they have pro-Islamist propagandists on the internet. To lead the criticism and to guide and channel the opposition to the war and to America.

And the Americans just follow along.

Why do you think for awhile they were calling us SHEEPLE? Because we were so sheep-like that we would follow anyone without knowing or caring who they were or what they stood for.

Cindy Sheehan? She was an example of that. She consorted with MOST of America's enemies while helping them weaken us.

And you insult our intelligence by saying the war opposition never affected the war! HAH!

[Spike Lee]

mainly because those reasons came after our main goal was found out to be false.

[eieio]

mainly because those reasons came after our main goal was found out to be false.

It doesn't matter what was found out AFTERWARDS. Only what we believed BEFORE the invasion.Officers cleared in shooting death


Source Staff Writer

According to a recent opinion issued by the Macomb County Prosecutors Office, three Sterling Heights police officers were justified in shooting a teenager who pointed a toy gun at them.

The report, completed by Chief of Operations James Langtry, outlined the events of Oct. 12, when the officers were dispatched to the Rudgate mobile home community on 18 Mile Road in response to a stolen vehicle.

Officers attempted to pull over the vehicle, but the driver refused to pull over. During the pursuit, the stolen vehicle struck a police car before crashing into a mobile home.

The three officers approached the driver’s side of the vehicle, at which time the suspect revved the engine, and ignored the verbal commands given by officers to show his hands, turn off the engine and exit the vehicle.

He then turned and pointed a weapon at one of the officers, at which time all three officers fired their weapons, killing the suspect.

“It is important to note that although the weapon in question was later determined to be a toy gun, by all appearances the weapon was an actual handgun,” Langtry said in his report. “In fact, the suspect had gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal the orange colored tip placed on the gun by the manufacturer by painting it black at some point prior to the night in question.”

The suspect, a 15-year-old from Massachusetts, had come to live with his uncle at Rudgate after some family issues.

According to Langtry, the suspect may have committed “suicide by cop.” He said that officers found rap lyrics the suspect had written that suggested he wanted to be fatally shot by police officers.

The report concluded that, based on the available evidence, the officers had cause to believe that the suspect “posed a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to themselves, other officers and the citizens that resided in the surrounding homes. Accordingly, the use of deadly force was justified.”

Click here to return to story:
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/stories/111906/loc_story2001.shtml

[bergshadow]

Why do war bashers have such an inability to recognize MULTIPLE reasons for things? We recognize them. They are all BS.

We also recognize the technique of arguing around in a circle from one BS justification to another, substituting whichever justification was least recently dismissed for whichever one was was just now blown up.

It doesn't matter what was found out AFTERWARDS. Only what we believed BEFORE the invasion. Who's "we"? The folks opposed to this war from the beginning had quite accurate beliefs about it, beforehand. That's why they opposed it. Did the small but powerful coterie of warmongers actually hold some beliefs that would have justified the war, secretly, or were they lying about all them, not just the ones they got caught lying about? NO WAR can be waged without the consent of the people. Consent can be manufactured. It was, in this case.

[eieio]

We recognize them. They are all BS.

We also recognize the technique of arguing around in a circle from one BS justification to another, substituting whichever justification was least recently dismissed for whichever one was was just now blown up.

Who's "we"? The folks opposed to this war from the beginning had quite accurate beliefs about it, beforehand. That's why they opposed it. Did the small but powerful coterie of warmongers actually hold some beliefs that would have justified the war, secretly, or were they lying about all them, not just the ones they got caught lying about? Consent can be manufactured. It was, in this case.

If you live in the developed free world you have benefitted from this war as well, so please climb down from your hypocritical hobby horse and join us here in realizing we all drink from the same thick sweet black crude.

OIL BABY, OIL!!!

And lots of it.

ALL HUMANS EAT IT AND DRINK IT!

But while you insatiably drink your share and you say we are bad for being human, too.

:ahhh:

STFU

[JaMaiCa]

If you live in the developed free world you have benefitted from this war as well, so please climb down from your hypocritical hobby horse and join us here in realizing we all drink from the same thick sweet black crude.

OIL BABY, OIL!!!

And lots of it.

ALL HUMANS EAT IT AND DRINK IT!

But while you insatiably drink your share and you say we are bad for being human, too.

:ahhh:

STFU

You just did exactly what bergshadow described in his last post.

[eieio]

You just did exactly what bergshadow described in his last post.

And some people wonder why I repeat myself so much. :rolleyes:

Your criticism or condemnation of the decision to invade Iraq is apparently done without:

-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's.
-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

[Burningnun]

If you live in the developed free world you have benefitted from this war as well, so please climb down from your hypocritical hobby horse and join us here in realizing we all drink from the same thick sweet black crude.

OIL BABY, OIL!!!

And lots of it.

ALL HUMANS EAT IT AND DRINK IT!

But while you insatiably drink your share and you say we are bad for being human, too.

:ahhh:

STFU
I might be crazy, but wasn't petrol cheaper before the war?

[0_transfat]

More good news from Somalia. Maybe the bloody horror of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate will be put off for a few more years anyway. Let's hope.


http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=176583&D=2007-01-01&SO=&HC=1

Somali Islamists attacked near last bastion

Somali government forces backed by Ethiopian troops, tanks and warplanes attacked Islamist fighters dug in for a last stand near a southern port town on Sunday, witnesses said. "Fighting has started here. We are on the outskirts of Jilib," lawmaker Abdirashid Hidig told Reuters by phone.

The Somalia Islamic Courts Council (SICC) had urged their fighters and locals to rally around Jilib and the nearby port town of Kismayu after retreating south 300 km (190 miles) from the capital Mogadishu. Carrying blankets, food and water on their heads, thousands of frantic people fled ahead of a showdown that has been looming since the Islamists abandoned the Somali capital to advancing government forces on Thursday. "Two thirds of the population in Jilib have fled the town... nearly 4,700 have fled," aid worker Osman Mohamed said.

The Islamists used bulldozers to dig deep trenches outside Jilib, where about 3,000 of their fighters were based with more than 60 "technicals" -- pickups mounted with heavy weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-tank guns.

[bergshadow]

More good news from Somalia. Courtesy the UN, which is backing the locally unpopular transitional government in Somalia partly by brokering deals with Ethiopia. The Ethiopian soldiers were held to be "decisive", in the linked articles.

[eieio]

I might be crazy, but wasn't petrol cheaper before the war?

Hahahahaha! You aren't loony are you? :eek: :D

While you are snidely complaining about gas PRICES, OBL wanted you to be friggin DRY!!!

:bigwink:

Al-Qaeda's Strategy: Use Oil to Undermine the West

The Al-Qaeda Threat to Saudi Arabia's Oil Sector Mordechai Abir

Jerusalem Issue Brief Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Institute for Contemporary
Affairs founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Vol. 4, No. 13 - 28 December 2004

* In the attack on the American consulate in Jedda on December 6, for the first time, al-Qaeda mounted an assault on a "fortified" American facility rather than attacking soft targets.

* When it turned out that nearly all the victims were Muslims, many Saudis, who were at first pleased by the U.S. humiliation, strongly condemned al-Qaeda. Even the families of the four terrorists killed in the consulate's courtyard were denounced by their kin.

* On December 15, 2004, in an audio recording, bin Laden said "oil prices should be at least $100 a barrel," and called upon Persian Gulf militants to exert themselves to prevent the West from getting Arab oil by attacking oil facilities all over the region. This was the first time that al-Qaeda's leadership had openly divulged its strategy of hitting the Western economy by disrupting oil supplies and causing prices to skyrocket. The following day, NYMEX crude spiked by 5 percent to $46.28 a barrel.

* While Saudi Arabia's Persian Gulf oil production facilities are largely in Shi'a eastern Arabia, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to totally prevent extremists ready to sacrifice their lives in Allah's name from infiltrating Aramco's workforce, or otherwise hitting weak spots in the oil industry. Even an abortive attack on the Arabian oil network would seriously spike oil prices.

* Although no longer a serious threat to the Saudi regime, the remaining al-Qaeda cells have now been directed to target the region's oil industry. Al-Qaeda's new "oil jihad" could threaten the regime's stability and could undermine the supply of oil to the industrial countries.

http://www.cephas-library.com/israel/israel_al-qaedas_strategy_use_oil_to_undermine_the_west.html

[Burningnun]

Hahahahaha! You aren't loony are you? :eek: :D

While you are snidely complaining about gas PRICES, OBL wanted you to be friggin DRY!!!


You're a little behind the times.

OBL had nothing to do with Iraq.

In any case, what OBL wanted is academic. You claimed that people's qualities of life have improved since the war, and I pointed out that as far as oil prices are concerned life hasn't improved. I can't think of other aspects of my life that might have been affected, other than safety which is impossible to measure. I suppose I could measure the proportional number of terror attacks on Britain since the war began and conclude that I am less safe, but I wouldn't say that's very scientific.

[whocares]

It doesn't matter what was found out AFTERWARDS. Only what we believed BEFORE the invasion.

Oh yes, it does matter!

So, the results aren't important at all, I see.