NYTimes Connections
- islander - May 20, 2025 - 6:59am
Wordle - daily game
- islander - May 20, 2025 - 6:53am
NY Times Strands
- ptooey - May 20, 2025 - 6:53am
Other Medical Stuff
- Steely_D - May 20, 2025 - 6:48am
Mixtape Culture Club
- Steely_D - May 20, 2025 - 6:41am
Today in History
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2025 - 6:31am
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2025 - 6:26am
Joe Biden
- Red_Dragon - May 20, 2025 - 6:06am
Positive Thoughts and Prayer Requests
- Coaxial - May 20, 2025 - 4:59am
Breaking News
- Coaxial - May 20, 2025 - 4:57am
Radio Paradise Comments
- Coaxial - May 20, 2025 - 4:42am
Who is singing?
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:59pm
Recycle Bin
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 19, 2025 - 9:31pm
Live Music
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:25pm
merchandise?
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:22pm
What the hell OV?
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:21pm
Name My Band
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:15pm
Crazy conspiracy theories
- oldviolin - May 19, 2025 - 9:14pm
Trump
- Red_Dragon - May 19, 2025 - 3:04pm
Musky Mythology
- ScottFromWyoming - May 19, 2025 - 2:28pm
Israel
- R_P - May 19, 2025 - 12:07pm
YouTube: Music-Videos
- black321 - May 19, 2025 - 11:44am
May 2025 Photo Theme - Action
- fractalv - May 19, 2025 - 8:57am
Republican Party
- ColdMiser - May 19, 2025 - 8:09am
USA! USA! USA!
- ColdMiser - May 19, 2025 - 8:05am
Strips, cartoons, illustrations
- ColdMiser - May 19, 2025 - 7:59am
Immigration
- Red_Dragon - May 19, 2025 - 7:59am
Economix
- islander - May 19, 2025 - 7:06am
Bug Reports & Feature Requests
- speedydave.agnew - May 18, 2025 - 8:57pm
Artificial Intelligence
- R_P - May 18, 2025 - 3:09pm
Democratic Party
- Isabeau - May 18, 2025 - 1:28pm
New President Music
- Steely_D - May 18, 2025 - 10:30am
Beers are Dying
- islander - May 18, 2025 - 10:24am
Earthquake
- geoff_morphini - May 18, 2025 - 9:06am
Fascism In America
- kurtster - May 17, 2025 - 9:23am
Things You Thought Today
- Proclivities - May 17, 2025 - 7:11am
China
- R_P - May 16, 2025 - 9:12pm
Global Warming
- geoff_morphini - May 16, 2025 - 8:04pm
M.A.G.A.
- geoff_morphini - May 16, 2025 - 7:46pm
How does skip work, and how can I know I'm listening to t...
- sgt0pimienta - May 16, 2025 - 5:59pm
SCOTUS
- islander - May 16, 2025 - 2:23pm
Propaganda
- R_P - May 16, 2025 - 1:01pm
What Makes You Laugh?
- Proclivities - May 16, 2025 - 12:43pm
What makes you smile?
- GeneP59 - May 16, 2025 - 9:16am
How's the weather?
- GeneP59 - May 16, 2025 - 8:50am
My Favorites - Export and/or stream link?
- KickingUpDust - May 15, 2025 - 7:19pm
Things I Saw Today...
- Red_Dragon - May 15, 2025 - 4:19pm
::Animal Kingdom::
- GeneP59 - May 14, 2025 - 5:25pm
Bruce Springsteen interview and clips of concert
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2025 - 3:39pm
Europe
- Red_Dragon - May 14, 2025 - 3:32pm
BUG: My Favourites Mix not Playing in MQA Quality on Blue...
- NRJCL5 - May 14, 2025 - 3:18pm
BLOCKING SONGS
- ptooey - May 14, 2025 - 2:32pm
The Obituary Page
- miamizsun - May 14, 2025 - 6:12am
Baseball, anyone?
- ScottFromWyoming - May 13, 2025 - 6:32pm
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos
- Alchemist - May 13, 2025 - 4:09pm
::Famous Birthdays::
- Isabeau - May 13, 2025 - 3:54pm
Favorite Quotes
- R_P - May 13, 2025 - 12:37pm
Anti-War
- R_P - May 13, 2025 - 11:57am
Media Matters
- Red_Dragon - May 12, 2025 - 6:29pm
Album recommendation for fans of pop music
- Steely_D - May 12, 2025 - 4:59pm
Framed - movie guessing game
- Steely_D - May 12, 2025 - 10:20am
Celebrity Face Recognition
- islander - May 12, 2025 - 8:07am
No TuneIn Stream Lately
- rgio - May 12, 2025 - 5:46am
New Music
- miamizsun - May 12, 2025 - 3:47am
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum
- winter - May 11, 2025 - 8:41pm
The Dragons' Roost
- triskele - May 11, 2025 - 5:58pm
Ukraine
- R_P - May 11, 2025 - 11:03am
Real Time with Bill Maher
- R_P - May 10, 2025 - 12:21pm
No Rock Mix on Alexa?
- epsteel - May 10, 2025 - 9:45am
Kodi Addon
- DaveInSaoMiguel - May 10, 2025 - 9:19am
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see
- KurtfromLaQuinta - May 9, 2025 - 9:34pm
Basketball
- GeneP59 - May 9, 2025 - 4:58pm
Pink Floyd
- miamizsun - May 9, 2025 - 3:52pm
Freedom of speech?
- R_P - May 9, 2025 - 2:19pm
Questions.
- kurtster - May 8, 2025 - 11:56pm
|
Index »
Regional/Local »
USA/Canada »
Anti-War
|
Page: Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 25, 26, 27, 28 Next |
steeler

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth 
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:59pm |
|
kurtster wrote: The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East. SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept. Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world.
I'm not paranoid, just offering my take. Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't. If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless. No worries on my part. I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else.
But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century. The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere. We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over.
Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind. We've paid for it long enough. Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.
I think I've asked this of you before: How do you reconcile this position with your postion that we should be supporting Israel? You made a point in your other post immediately before this one that Romney would be a more reliable supporter of Israel than Obama, implying that you believe that our foreign policy should be to support Israel against its enemies in the Middle East. Yet, you also advocate our removing ourselves from matters in the Middle East.
|
|
cc_rider

Location: Bastrop Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:52pm |
|
kurtster wrote: The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East.
... What would happen if a small group of extremists highjacked a religion for political purposes? What if religious fanatics used fundamentalism as a cover to perpetrate violence and oppression? And the government tacitly approved of their actions, by doing nothing to stop the spread of hatred? In fact the government explicitly created laws that discriminated against people based on their religious beliefs. That would be horrible. Good thing it can't happen here in the U.S.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:44pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?
Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.
If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
The use of Jihad seems to have a major role in a small part of the Muslim world, mostly Northern Africa and The Middle East. SE Asia doesn't seem to be all wrapped up in the concept. Indonesia and Malaysia are not building armies, nuclear weapons and sponsoring terror around the world. I'm not paranoid, just offering my take. Either one considers Jihad a real threat or one doesn't. If one doesn't then what I have offered is meaningless. No worries on my part. I'm just along for the ride. like everyone else. But as far as the Monroe Doctrine is concerned, absolutely ... with modifications to reflect the 21st Century. The US needs to stick to the Western Hemisphere. We only verred away from it to save Europe's a$$, twice and for the Cold War, which is over. Time for the US to come home and mind our own business and leave the Middle East and all the crap that goes with it behind. We've paid for it long enough. Time for the slackers of the world to take it over.
|
|
aflanigan

Location: At Sea Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:14pm |
|
RichardPrins wrote: If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally?
Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria.
If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
Stop confusing the issue with facts!
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:08pm |
|
kurtster wrote:
I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ...
Rather reaching.  As usual I agree with RichardPrins.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 12:02pm |
|
sirdroseph wrote:
Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
I'll risk crawling farther out on my limb ... These are my assumed givens ... in no particular order. Jihad is seperate from Islam in the senses I am speaking. Obama has clearly thrown Israel under the bus. Jihadists only respect power. Negotiation is interpreted as a sign of weakness, therefore to be regarded as inferior and the negotiators culled. Arminajad or however you spell his name is serving his last term in office. Arminajad seeks to bring the Islamic version of End Times on the world. He is hell bent of wiping out Israel and will use the bomb as soon as he can. As long as Obama is in office, there is doubt that the US will back Israel should they elect to act on their own and are highly vulnerable to unchallenged retaliation. Romney as POTUS clearly represents unwavering support for Israel, making any initial hostile actions towards them less likely. How much I don't pretend to know, but there would certainly be an effect. The mullahs in Iran are getting unhappy with A...d and if there is chance to wait him out, that is the best strategy. The mullahs are looking at him like a loose cannon. I don't think they really want to bring about End Times. There is no way we can stop Iran from getting a nuke without a military action and even that is uncertain. I would prefer to have someone in office who might make the mullahs think twice about it and slow down A....d internally. Meanwhile, we secure our own energy resources and make us totally independent of the Middle East so when it does go nuclear, we will not suffer immediately and directly. It becomes Europe, Russia and China's problem as they are the ones dependent on the oil, not us. We will cut Israel loose, but later rather than sooner. Eventually Israel will have to stand up for itself. We need to get back to where the US was at its peak and strongest. That was when we didn't need the rest of the world, they needed us. The Monroe Doctrine again comes into play as a guide for our future foreign policy. All the above is incomplete, oversimplified and broadbrushed. And it only matters if we can survive our domestic economic problems.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:59am |
|
kurtster wrote:Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way. If that historical enmity were true to such an extent, then why would Saudi Arabia, with its holiest of holies, Mecca, have such a close relationships with the West, and the US in particular, when they are one of the most fundamentalist countries (see Wahhabism) out there? Why sell them state-of-the-art weaponry and consider them a close ally? Why would the US use the Mujahideen (those brave "freedom fighters" fighting those godless commies) in their fight against Russian influence in Afghanistan, or in reverse why would they let themselves be used by the US (or the West) to do the fighting? Same goes for Libya and Syria. If Jihad would be as important as you claim, 1.6 billion Muslims would have a considerable and possibly devastating impact on the West. It has not. What does appear to have a huge impact is institutionalized paranoia.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:20am |
|
kurtster wrote:
Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
Absolutely is part of the equation. Given this, Romney as opposed to Obama or anyone for that matter is going to make them hate us less by...........and if you don't care whether they hate us and just want to support Israel at all cost and increase bombing of the Islamic world than this policy is going to make us safer by..........
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 11:13am |
|
sirdroseph wrote:If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House. Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS? Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us. Its a little deeper than 1947. It goes back to the breakup of the Ottoman empire which was the Caliphate that the Muslim Brotherhood seeks to re-establish and expand. The Europeans were responsible for ending the Ottoman Empire, not the US. The US has just been lumped into the hate for that act along the way.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 10:59am |
|
kurtster wrote:I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above. Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post. They are always a threat to peace. Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm. Jihad is sanctioned war. It is instutionalized. It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly. It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented. It is a fight to the death. While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within. Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna. It is an ideal. It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely. It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons. To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied. The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years. Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it. Same as erasing Israel from the map.Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak. There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time. I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die. Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole. I'll let y'all decide ... If this is true, than does it not render any policy or stance we take towards the Islamic world mute, making it a complete non-issue as to how we react towards them? In other words, they are gonna do what they are gonna do regardless of US policy and who is implementing them therefore they don't give a rat's ass whether Obama, Romney or the Pillsbury doughboy occupy the White House. Given this, why even speak of it in regards to making our choice for POTUS? Not to mention, I am sure US foreign policy in particular from 1947 on has absolutely nothing with providing fertile ground for the impoverished Arab youth to take up arms against us I am sure. I am thinking that there is something in the dirty water that makes them hate us.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 10:48am |
|
islander wrote: Who do you feel has called for Jihad? What do you think it would take to satisfy it? Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
I'll reply broadly to the 4 posts below and directly answer the questions above. Economic imbalances and upheaval are not to be ignored or discounted by my original post. They are always a threat to peace. Jihad is a special distinction and the US has been fighting the status of Infidel for two hundred years. From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... from the Marine Hymm. Jihad is sanctioned war. It is instutionalized. It is institutionalized meglamania when applied broadly. It requires as little as a cartoon to be implemented. It is a fight to the death. While Jihad is a minority view of the broader Muslim community, one risks death in denouncing it from within. Dictators of varying bents and extremes have come and gone and been killed, vanquished or whatever, Jihad has no singular face or personna. It is an ideal. It does not require a Hitler for example to be successful or effective or continue indefinitely. It will use anything deemed worthy for justification, from economic to religious reasons. To answer a question posed above, IMO it can never be satisfied. The US is still being treated in the same terms for 200 years. Only the total conquering of the US will end the Jihad declared against it. Same as erasing Israel from the map. Jihad is currently working and conducting extreme violence as we speak. There are no other worldwide threats currently operating that threaten world peace on the levels of the Jihadists, hence my point that Jihad is the greatest threat to global peace that we have at this point in time. I do not think that our country has expressed any language equal to convert or die. Either I explained myself or dug a deeper hole. I'll let y'all decide ...
|
|
miamizsun

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 24, 2012 - 4:50am |
|
from Anti-War.com... By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO | Associated Press – 14 hrs agoNEW YORK (AP) — A paid informant for the New York Police Department's intelligence unit was under orders to "bait" Muslims into saying inflammatory things as he lived a double life, snapping pictures inside mosques and collecting the names of innocent people attending study groups on Islam, he told The Associated Press. Shamiur Rahman, a 19-year-old American of Bangladeshi descent who has now denounced his work as an informant, said police told him to embrace a strategy called "create and capture." He said it involved creating a conversation about jihad or terrorism, then capturing the response to send to the NYPD. For his work, he earned as much as $1,000 a month and goodwill from the police after a string of minor marijuana arrests. "We need you to pretend to be one of them," Rahman recalled the police telling him. "It's street theater." Rahman said he now believes his work as an informant against Muslims in New York was "detrimental to the Constitution." After he disclosed to friends details about his work for the police — and after he told the police that he had been contacted by the AP — he stopped receiving text messages from his NYPD handler, "Steve," and his handler's NYPD phone number was disconnected. Rahman's account shows how the NYPD unleashed informants on Muslim neighborhoods, often without specific targets or criminal leads. Much of what Rahman said represents a tactic the NYPD has denied using. The AP corroborated Rahman's account through arrest records and weeks of text messages between Rahman and his police handler. The AP also reviewed the photos Rahman sent to police. Friends confirmed Rahman was at certain events when he said he was there, and former NYPD officials, while not personally familiar with Rahman, said the tactics he described were used by informants. Informants like Rahman are a central component of the NYPD's wide-ranging programs to monitor life in Muslim neighborhoods since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Police officers have eavesdropped inside Muslim businesses, trained video cameras on mosques and collected license plates of worshippers. Informants who trawl the mosques — known informally as "mosque crawlers" — tell police what the imam says at sermons and provide police lists of attendees, even when there's no evidence they committed a crime. The programs were built with unprecedented help from the CIA. more...
|
|
islander

Location: West coast somewhere Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 6:45am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
Who do you feel has called for Jihad? What do you think it would take to satisfy it? Do you think that any of our countries actions might objectively be defined using the same language and terms?
|
|
Zep

Location: Funkytown 
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 6:36am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad. The greatest threat to world peace is economic inequality. There was war long before there was jihad, and there will be war after jihad. Wars, on the other hand, have almost invariably been over economics. Jihad is the struggle of Muslims that is either internal or external. Like many things Islam, there are many meanings, from improving your home and community, to the armed struggle against infidels and non-believers.
|
|
sirdroseph

Location: Not here, I tell you wat Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:56am |
|
kurtster wrote:Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
I actually think on the whole Jihad is not really a big deal. At worse they may unleash a bomb here and there. No, the greatest threat does not even involve bombs and military at all, that is an antiquated 20th century way of looking at the world. No the greatest threat is the world economy and currency.
|
|
kurtster

Location: where fear is not a virtue Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:24am |
|
Presently, the greatest threat to world peace is Jihad.
Jihad does not take prisoners. All life is expendable in the pursuit of Jihad.
The world would be pretty quiet right now if it weren't for Jihad.
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 5:18am |
|
miamizsun wrote: americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it
it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises
some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence
others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them
those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages
obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along
the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages
human rights? peace? innocent life?
they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it...
regards
Interestingly, it didn't always use to be this way (see Vietnam). And even stranger when you go further back in time: American Resistance to a Standing ArmyNow, apparently, "resistance" is living the atomized good life, keeping your head down and avoiding eye contact.
|
|
miamizsun

Location: (3283.1 Miles SE of RP) Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 23, 2012 - 4:42am |
|
RichardPrins wrote: americans aren't very concerned about their rulers slaughtering innocent people, and if they are I don't see many speaking out about it it seems the anti-war or peace movements have been marginalized by authority and sham promises some people are afraid of that same govt putting them on a list or targeting them for whatever, they fear the violence or threat of violence others just don't know or care, they're looking at (listening to) promises of what govt can do for them those promises are backed up by force/laws/rules and folks want to be on what they perceive to be the beneficial end of that coercion and violence, even if it means ignoring or turning a blind eye to murder, death, destruction and locking people in cages obama and romney are both purchased by the same lobbyists and people will fall for their rhetoric cause they've been trained to or because it is just easier to go along the war machine is a big business and wielding that power has been coveted by rulers for ages human rights? peace? innocent life? they'll continue to be snuffed by these two and millions will vote to enable it... regards
|
|
R_P

Gender:  
|
|
Umberdog

Location: In my body. Gender:  
|
Posted:
Oct 21, 2012 - 4:06am |
|
RichardPrins wrote:Michael Parenti: The Nobel Peace Prize for War(...) But what was I to expect? For years I ironically asserted that the best way to win a Nobel Peace Prize was to wage war or support those who wage war instead of peace. An overstatement perhaps, but take a look. (...) A very thoughtful piece. Thank you. Note that my remaining eye hates you. ::joking:: (It's hard to read these days.)
|
|
|