Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 7 Feb 2006 03:04:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1686 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
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.
|
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar.
| |
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.
|
Exactly. But are fundamentalists more apt to resort to violence in
promoting/defending their ideals? I’m thinking not, and so I suspect that the
seeds of violent intolerance are sown elsewhere. I have a suspicion that they
are cultural in origin. I point to American Muslims to illustrate my case.
There are many fundamental Muslims living in America. Why are they not rioting
as are their European brethren? I believe it is because they are more
Westernized than their fellow (and most likely) newly immigrated Islamists.
This difference in cultures is the only explanation up with what I can come.
(;-)
| |
| |
| |
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.
|
Come on, Dave! The inspectors still thought he had them, but you know what?
I’m having deja vu all over again, AND my spider sense is tingling. This is a
fruitless, deadend road IMO. It bothers me that we are forced to simply
speculate because the truth is not or never will be known. Both Righties and
Lefties are going to formulate hypotheticals that conform to their own world
views and so the whole thing is a frustrating exercise in futility. I want more
facts and less divisive theorizing. :-)
| |
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.
|
He claims to have been the one that flew them out! Now I must go find the
title.... I’m back (did you miss me?) The book:
Saddam’s Secrets HERE is an article about
the book.
| |
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?
|
Aren’t those damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, win-win situations swell?
:-)
JOHN
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
