Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2006 20:35:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1618 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Fundamentalism breeds intolerance, and that’s the underlying problem--not
whether the protesters are Christian or Muslim.
|
Does it actually breed it? I don’t believe one needs to be a fundamentalist
to be intolerant. I have come across many intolerant liberals lately, though
I doubt they’d ever admit it.
|
Let’s be clear, though; I’m not saying that only fundamentalism breeds
intolerance, nor that all fundamentalists are intolerant.
Perhaps a better word than “fundamentalist” in this context is “absolutist,”
meaning someone who claims to have knowledge of an “absolute” and is motivated
to extremes of action (violent or otherwise) as a result of that claim. Many
fundamentalists are absolutists. Robertson certainly is, as is Phelps.
Liberals have their sacred cows, too, no question.
| |
| |
As far as what happened to them, I understand that there are several likely
theories:
1. He used them all
2. He destroyed them after Desert Storm
3. They were destroyed during Desert Storm
4. They degraded to the point of non-viability
|
Again, why let on that you still had them, even to the point of being
deposed? It doesn’t make sense to me.
|
A fine question. Before answering, I should point out that almost no one
outside of the Bush administration (along with Blair himself) believed that
Hussein really still had a viable WMD arsenal. Colin Powell certainly didn’t
believe it, but like a dutiful soldier he paraded his grainy photos before the
Security Council.
As far as why Hussein would foster the perception that he had them, some of it
was probably raw bravado, paired with the belief that we just wouldn’t attack
him. Some is also a “don’t mess with me” attitude, insofar as he didn’t care
for the inspectors to be running around his country (especially when some had
previously been revealed as US spies).
| |
| |
But it is clear that they were not smuggled into Syria prior to the
start of the current war.
|
What is this new book out claiming that very thing by a SH pilot? I Need to
check that out.
|
The burden of proof is on the one making that assertion, and it’ll have to be a
lot stronger than “he could have done it if he’d wanted,” which is the best I’ve
heard so far.
Simply put, Iraq was the most closely scrutinized real estate in the world for
over a decade. If he succeeded in smuggling them into Syria in the run-up to
the war, then Dubya should be impeached for allowing such a huge movement of
equipment to go unnoticed.
Of course, Dubya should be impeached for a range of reasons, so what’s one more?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
