Monitoring freepers, an exercise in observation of the mentally ill.

[gully]

No offense to the mentally ill. ;)

However, I monitored their conversation surrounding "the path to 911" and when they don't like a fact, they just make shit up. Not that the movie was riddled with fact, but the two things they got right, freepers just "pretended" were incorrect.

For example, when it was pointed out that GWB gave 43 million to the Taliban ie. the terrorists, one poster responded: "yeah, but let's not forget that donation was part of Clinton's budget." Soon other stepford poster chimed in with "yeah, let's not forget that" and others to the tune of - "true, the budget doesn't take effect until October, so that was Clinton's doing." :eyes:



Not one person bothered to fact check any of this praddle.

They went on to excuse the lack of implementation of 911 commission recommendations by falsely claiming "the democrats have taken over the commission and are making stuff up."

* Proof of their cognitive dissonance *

From their own CATO Institute - http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

"Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

To make matters worse, U.S. officials were naive to take the Taliban edict at face value. The much-touted crackdown on opium poppy cultivation appears to have been little more than an illusion. Despite U.S. and UN reports that the Taliban had virtually wiped out the poppy crop in 2000-2001, authorities in neighboring Tajikistan reported that the amounts coming across the border were actually increasing. In reality, the Taliban gave its order to halt cultivation merely to drive up the price of opium the regime had already stockpiled.

Even if the Taliban had tried to stem cultivation for honest reasons, U.S. cooperation with that regime should have been morally repugnant. Among other outrages, the Taliban government prohibited the education of girls, tortured and executed political critics, and required non-Muslims to wear distinctive clothing--a practice eerily reminiscent of Nazi Germany's requirement that Jews display the Star of David on their clothing. Yet U.S. officials deemed none of that to be a bar to cooperation with the Taliban on drug policy.

Even if the Bush administration had not been dissuaded by moral considerations, it should have been by purely pragmatic concerns. There was already ample evidence in the spring of 2001 that the Taliban was giving sanctuary to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network that had bombed two U.S. embassies in East Africa. For the State Department to ignore that connection and agree to subsidize the Taliban was inexcusably obtuse. Scheer was on the mark when he concluded, "The war on drugs has become our own fanatics' obsession and easily trumps all other concerns."

* Regarding the absurd 911 commission claim *

http://www.9-11commission.gov/about/bios.htm

The 911 commission is not only bi-partisan, but Thomas Kean (former Republican Governor) served as a consultant to ABC's mockudrama.

I'm glad the debate here is rigorous and that we hold each other accountable for bullshit. These people, while highly entertaining, are very frightening. The ease in which they are collectively brain washed is dumbfounding. I'd be amused were it not so disturbing.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. A group of circle jerkers that do nothing but self-support

their fear-filled, enemy-essential, incurious, intellect distrusting, flat earth, extraordinarly narrow belief system.

[gully]

3. And make shit up to suit their collective idiocy.

sheesh.

[DeadManInc]

2. You could put all the freepers together

and still have an incomplete brain.

[Erika]

4. And who has hurt America immeasurably by supporting W

and being blind to how he and their support of him has devestated this country.

[Mr_Spock]

5. Facts are just lies said repeatedly.

Freepers have no sense of right & wrong.

[YOY]

6. Not to defend Freeps but there are a few here that

believe Clinton could do no wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I love big dog, but he had his faults (and I'm not talking about Monica.)

[gully]

7. "A few" sure, but they don't make up facts.

They back up their assertions with reason, and while I may disagree with my fellow DU-ers on occassion, I "generally" get a reasoned/well documented rationale for their views.

[YOY]

11. Agreed that they are thankfully few...

Then again we've given the boot to some Lieberman supporters who fit the mental agenda of using personal attacks (one of which shared the same name as the guy who wrote the novel 'Jaws') and pretzel logic.

There are a few Hilary supporters who are still here who were formed in that mold as well for all they portray.

[gully]

15. Well I think people who support Democrats are welcome.

Lieberman is no longer a Democrat.

I also support Clinton, and would return to the days of his Presidency in a heart beat, but I do realize he was human/flawed.

[YOY]

26. I go back in a heartbeat

but would and could never display fanatacism towards he or any candidate.

[Union Thug]

8. This is why one should never attempt to debate with them or..

otherwise interact with them. Hating them for the pathetics pieces of shit that they are is enough. You'll never get anywhere with them.

[HuffleClaw]

9. i've witnessed them deny words from bush's own mouth

it usually goes like this;

1. someone says, 'bush said...'
2. someone else says,'he did not.'
3. a link to a website is offered, say msnbc
3. the response is, 'but thats the liberal media!'
4. a link to FOX news is provided
5. the response is, 'well, i'm sure it was taken out of context by mistake'
6. a link to the bush text in its entirety at the white house website is shown
7. the response is then 'well, i'm sure he REALLY meant...'


if that isn't proof of a complete disconnect from reality i don't know what is.

[gully]

19. Goodness.

After tonight, I have no doubt you're correct.

[radwriter0555]

10. It's true that the $43 million to the taliban came from the budget

determined by the Clinton administration. Budgets are done for years in advance and revised as they come into term.

However, the $43 million was allocated for the Taliban to continue with their (successful) efforts to halt opium production and as an incentive to further encourage the dialogue about the Silk Road, the oil line that has been planned for that region and lobbied for, for more than a decade.

This is a link http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1132/is_7_53/ai_80965677 to the 1998 testimony of Maresca, head of Unocal, regarding his pursuit of the Clinton Administration's assistance in gaining access to Afghanistan for that "new silk road oil slick" that he so desperately wanted. Not coincidentally, the PNAC officially issued its opening statements on the need to attack Iraq at the same time.

The taliban still isn't the bad guy here. They're the scapegoat. The taliban ultimately did what they could to resist the US oil co and heroin goals in their nation. They did what they had to do to oppose the westernization of thier country.

I can't fault them for it.

$43 million bucks is nothing. It doesn't establish anything that has any relevence to 911 in any way, shape or form.

It just is.

[gully]

13. Clinton did not allocate that money to the Taliban - period.

That is what they are attempting to claim.

And YES the Taliban is a "bad guy" try being a women or a Hindu or a widow or ??????? under their "rule."

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v01/n922/a09.html

"And the second Boobie Prize of the Week goes to the Bush Administration for giving a gift to the Taliban of $43 million for joining the War on Drugs. In a pretty shrewd PR move, the Taliban have declared that opium-growing is against the will of God. So, even though they're cutting off girls' clits & hookers' heads, even though they're beating the women for showing an ankle & beating the men for not growing a beard, even though they're making the Hindus wear little Hindu patches so when it's time to round up all the Hindus & do Allah knows what, they'll know who they are, even though they're verging on Nazism here, hey, they've signed up to fight the WAR on DRUGS.

"So President Bush just wipes the coke from his nose & hands 'em 43 mil. Are we nuts? We're like religious fanatics. When it comes to the Drug War, American zealotry knows no bounds. Hey Saddam, ya listening? All you have to do is declare War on Drugs, execute some poppy farmers, & America will give you money. Drug money. Hey, take away their opium, put 'em on Prozac. What a world."

http://www.counterpunch.org/block04212004.html

Clinton had nothing to do with this deal.

[radwriter0555]

25. You might want to read up a little more, no offense, before reacting

with a lack of information.


http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/

snip

WASHINGTON -- Warning that Afghanistan is "on the verge of a widespread famine," Secretary of State Colin Powell Thursday announced a $43 million package in humanitarian assistance for the Afghan people.

Powell also called on other nations to send aid to the Central Asian nation.

"If the international community does not take immediate action, countless deaths and terrible tragedy are certain to follow," Powell said.

The package includes $28 million worth of wheat from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.


It wasn't the first time the US had contributed aid to afghanistan, it's just the first time anyone bothered to notice it:

snip

As the State Department reported on October 15, 2001:

"The United States has been the single largest donor of humanitarian aid for Afghans for the past several years. In 2000, the United States contributed a total of $113 million in humanitarian aid to Afghans, both inside Afghanistan and in refugee camps in neighboring countries. In 2001, the aid level has already exceeded $184, accounting for some 300,000 tons of American food sent to Afghanistan this year."


"- - In 1999 the United States contributed over $70 million in assistance to the Afghan people. This year's total of over $100 million covers food, housing, health and education programs, de-mining and refugee assistance. Of every two dollars of global assistance to Afghans, half is food aid; and of every ten dollars, nine dollars is a United States contribution."

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com/library/wonderful/afghanistan.php

That aside, the taliban isn't so much a clit cutting, hooker killing cult as they are an extremely conservative muslim tribe. The northern alliance is far, far more brutal. You should read about the concerns about both tribes in afghanistan at http://www.rawa.org for some real facts, and not fairy tales made up to demonize them. The kind and considerate Northern Alliance, the bush allies, believe that it's far more compassionate to hold the beheadings outside the stadium now, and re-instituted pederasty as a favorite form of sexual slavery... a practice outlawed by the Taliban.

[gully]

27. Actually YOU may wish to read up "a little more" before reacting.

Contributing to "The Afghan People" is not contributing to "the Taliban."

Clinton contributed aid to "The Afghan people."

"The United States today joined other Security Council members in approving a humanitarian flight to transport medicine to Afghanistan for Doctors Without Borders," said James Foley, deputy press spokesman at the U.S. Department of State on December 15.

The shipment of medicine to Afghanistan is not prohibited by UN Security Council Resolution 1267 that calls on the Taliban to expel Usama bin Laden to a country where he can be brought to justice for the alleged bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, said Foley. "The resolution does not prohibit humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people. Medical supplies are clearly humanitarian assistance."

Until Bin Laden is apprehended, said Foley, the resolution prohibits flights by Ariana Afghan Airlines and freezes Taliban bank accounts and other financial assets.

The U.S. has already donated $70 million in 1999 for humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people noted Foley. "We are considering further emergency humanitarian assistance," he said noting that the one-day delay in granting permission was due to technical reason and to insure that the flight was designed to be humanitarian.

Bush on the other hand, gave money to the Taliban ie terrorists - by his own standards - to fight "the war on drugs."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1159992

One has to wonder what our President was thinking in granting that money to Afghanistan. Is the War on Drugs such a priority that we would give money to the mostly unrecognized government that harbors terrorists that have formerly bombed two of our embassies in Africa, and bombed the USS Cole while it was fueling in Yemen?

Now that we have committed this nations resources to fighting terrorism globally, there are issues that we must face. One issue is what effect the $43 million dollars we gave to the Taliban will have upon our effort to remove the Taliban from power, and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Remember, Afghan fighter have repelled other foreign powers such as the former Soviet Union and Great Britain with far less funds. True, we have something they didn't: The desire to seek atonement for barbaric acts which took the lives of over 6,000 of our citizens.

Also Clinton slapped the Taliban with sanctions for aiding Al Qaida: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/side2/1053291.html

Further, it is NO "fairytale" that the Taliban are more than conservative muslims. Educate YOURSELF before suggesting others do.

Regarding the Taliban - I have watched women testify to the horrors committed against them under their rule. The Northern Alliance sounds like an improvement to me.

From your source where you claim we can find "real facts."

http://www.rawa.org/rules.htm



The following list offers only an abbreviated glimpse of the hellish lives Afghan women are forced to lead under the Taliban, and can not begin to reflect the depth of female deprivations and sufferings. Taliban treat women worse than they treat animals. In fact, even as Taliban declare the keeping of caged birds and animals illegal, they imprison Afghan women within the four walls of their own houses. Women have no importance in Taliban eyes unless they are occupied producing children, satisfying male sexual needs or attending to the drudgery of daily housework. Jehadi fundamentalists such as Gulbaddin, Rabbani, Masood, Sayyaf, Khalili, Akbari, Mazari and their co-criminal Dostum have committed the most treacherous and filthy crimes against Afghan women. And as more areas come under Taliban control, even if the number of rapes and murders perpetrated against women falls, Taliban restrictions --comparable to those from the middle ages-- will continue to kill the spirit of our people while depriving them of a humane existence. We consider Taliban more treacherous and ignorant than Jehadis. According to our people, "Jehadis were killing us with guns and swords but Taliban are killing us with cotton."

Taliban restrictions and mistreatment of women include the:

1- Complete ban on women's work outside the home, which also applies to female teachers, engineers and most professionals. Only a few female doctors and nurses are allowed to work in some hospitals in Kabul.

2- Complete ban on women's activity outside the home unless accompanied by a mahram (close male relative such as a father, brother or husband).

3- Ban on women dealing with male shopkeepers.

4- Ban on women being treated by male doctors.

5- Ban on women studying at schools, universities or any other educational institution. (Taliban have converted girls' schools into religious seminaries.)

6- Requirement that women wear a long veil (Burqa), which covers them from head to toe.

7- Whipping, beating and verbal abuse of women not clothed in accordance with Taliban rules, or of women unaccompanied by a mahram.

8- Whipping of women in public for having non-covered ankles.

9- Public stoning of women accused of having sex outside marriage. (A number of lovers are stoned to death under this rule).

10- Ban on the use of cosmetics. (Many women with painted nails have had fingers cut off).

11- Ban on women talking or shaking hands with non-mahram males.

12- Ban on women laughing loudly. (No stranger should hear a woman's voice).

13- Ban on women wearing high heel shoes, which would produce sound while walking. (A man must not hear a woman's footsteps.)

14- Ban on women riding in a taxi without a mahram.

15- Ban on women's presence in radio, television or public gatherings of any kind.

16- Ban on women playing sports or entering a sport center or club.

17- Ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles, even with their mahrams.

18- Ban on women's wearing brightly colored clothes. In Taliban terms, these are "sexually attracting colors."

19- Ban on women gathering for festive occasions such as the Eids, or for any recreational purpose.

20- Ban on women washing clothes next to rivers or in a public place.

21- Modification of all place names including the word "women." For example, "women's garden" has been renamed "spring garden".

22- Ban on women appearing on the balconies of their apartments or houses.

23- Compulsory painting of all windows, so women can not be seen from outside their homes.

24- Ban on male tailors taking women's measurements or sewing women's clothes.

25- Ban on female public baths.

26- Ban on males and females traveling on the same bus. Public buses have now been designated "males only" (or "females only").

27- Ban on flared (wide) pant-legs, even under a burqa.

28- Ban on the photographing or filming of women.

29- Ban on women's pictures printed in newspapers and books, or hung on the walls of houses and shops.

Apart from the above restrictions on women, the Taliban has:

- Banned listening to music, not only for women but men as well.

- Banned the watching of movies, television and videos, for everyone.

- Banned celebrating the traditional new year (Nowroz) on March 21. The Taliban has proclaimed the holiday un-Islamic.

- Disavowed Labor Day (May 1st), because it is deemed a "communist" holiday.

- Ordered that all people with non-Islamic names change them to Islamic ones.

- Forced haircuts upon Afghan youth.

- Ordered that men wear Islamic clothes and a cap.

- Ordered that men not shave or trim their beards, which should grow long enough to protrude from a fist clasped at the point of the chin.

- Ordered that all people attend prayers in mosques five times daily.

- Banned the keeping of pigeons and playing with the birds, describing it as un-Islamic. The violators will be imprisoned and the birds shall be killed. The kite flying has also been stopped.

- Ordered all onlookers, while encouraging the sportsmen, to chant Allah-o-Akbar (God is great) and refrain from clapping.

- Ban on certain games including kite flying which is "un-Islamic" according to Taliban.

- Anyone who carries objectionable literature will be executed.

- Anyone who converts from Islam to any other religion will be executed.

- All boy students must wear turbans. They say "No turban, no education".

- Non-Muslim minorities must distinct badge or stitch a yellow cloth onto their dress to be differentiated from the majority Muslim population. Just like what did Nazis with Jews.

- Banned the use of the internet by both ordinary Afghans and foreigners.

And so on...

So, read your own so called research huh? And, by the way I'M NOT DEFENDING THE NORTHERN ALLIANCE, I don't have to take sides between lunatics.

[radwriter0555]

28. Before the bush regime took office there was little to differentiate

between the afghan people and the taliban, since the taliban had control over most of afghanistan. They had shut down the western friendly NA.

I've read all the research and I was reading and learning about the taliban long before the bush regime took office. I was one of the first people to bring to light the connection between the PNAC's desire to invade afghanistan for that ridiculous Silk Road idea. Maresch's testimony was lost in the congressional archives before I made sure it was broadcast wide and far on the web as bush was stealing office.

I was one of the first people to say in September of 2000 that if bush gets into office, he'll be sure to make a play to get the Afghanistan heroin trade back on track. To this day most people still don't even know about that oil pipeline and the oil business that Unocal was desperate to get the taliban cooperation on. I paid close attention to the little country club tour the taliban were given in the US in the spring of 01. I know 3 people who protested the presence of the Taliban in the USA due to their hardline position against women.

I took the time to learn the difference between the northern alliance and the taliban and there isn't much difference at all. Just a few players are different and better financing -- because of karzai. He was willing to do business with NA.

And we all know karzai's background.

The taliban wasn't interested in allowing westerners to do business in afghanistan, and that's what's cost them, otherwise they'd still be in control, and if they regain control again, the oil business will once again get knocked off line.

We all know that the US didn't go into afghanistan to liberate it from the taliban or the bloodthirsty mountain mullahs. Just as the US didn't go into iraq to liberate the iraqis from saddam. Neither operations were in any way ever to be considered humanitarian efforts.

The taliban are rough, brutal people, but unlike the NA, they have ethics because they are deeply religious. I know it's difficult for most people to understand brutal tribes-people who kill each other as ethical, but they're as ethical as bin laden, and he was/is one of the most ethical people in modern times... that's why he has such a wide following.

He sets the standard and abides by it. That's why I absolutely don't believe he perpetrated 911. He said he didn't, and he doesn't lie. If he was a liar, no one would trust him. But his followers do trust him. He might be brutal, he might be a mass murderer, he cops to his attacks, like the Cole. But he has very valid reasons for striking back as he does/did. I don't blame today's "terrorists" in any manner. I fully understand their reaction to the US/western invasion of the middle east. The horrors that the west has inflicted on the ME over the past 35 years are beyond atrocious and pale in comparison to the devesastation wrought by hitler.

I'm not defending the taliban or the NA or bin laden or terrorists. But I understand how, why and what they're doing. They don't have a choice.... they have no choice at all. It's horrific.

[gully]

29. Giving food and medicine is not the same as giving money to the Taliban.

As for ethics, I don't think what the Taliban does is "ethical" at all. As for OBL, he has said he didn't have a "direct" connection to 911. OBL chose his words carefully and politically.

Here is OBL's letter to america. Granted some of his rantings "make sense" however, he's a fanatical conservative bigot much like those we're "fighting" here at home.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

I'm not going to argue the guilt or innocence of OBL as he relates to 911 however. I don't know for certain who funded the attacks on the US.

As for going into Afghanistan - I agree it was not about "liberation" nor was our continuing venture in Iraq.

[radwriter0555]

30. The $43 million consisted of 28 million in wheat,

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, $5 million in food commodities and $10 million in "livelihood and food security" programs, both from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

It appears the taliban got a whopping $10 million bucks in "programs", whatever that means.

The pakistani ISI funded the attacks on the USA. That relationship has never been denied, just buried.

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/76366.php

That's just one of many, many interesting and buried stories.

[gully]

31. I don't know that one can deny every potential "myth" that surrounds 911.

Though I don't deny the possibility that Pakistan and others were involved.

However, it is my belief that OBL was involved in addition to others -

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:ytpu456_NTwJ:www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1266520,00.html+pakistan+and+911&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4

Another person who must know a great deal about what led up to 9/11 is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, allegedly arrested in Rawalpindi on March 1 2003. A joint Senate-House intelligence select committee inquiry in July 2003 stated: "KSM appears to be one of Bin Laden's most trusted lieutenants and was active in recruiting people to travel outside Afghanistan, including to the US, on behalf of Bin Laden." According to the report, the clear implication was that they would be engaged in planning terrorist-related activities.

The report was sent from the CIA to the FBI, but neither agency apparently recognised the significance of a Bin Laden lieutenant sending terrorists to the US and asking them to establish contacts with colleagues already there. Yet the New York Times has since noted that "American officials said that KSM, once al-Qaida's top operational commander, personally executed Daniel Pearl ... but he was unlikely to be accused of the crime in an American criminal court because of the risk of divulging classified information". Indeed, he may never be brought to trial.

Though, this is a discussion for another thread perhaps.

BTW, do you have a link to the breakdown of the 43 million?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gully]

33. "Truthful and accurate?"

Sorry, WTF are you reading?

He said he advocated the death of innocent people in America because Israel wishes to exist?

Spare me.

They describe those brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks.

Brave guys?

They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things. If inciting people to do that is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.

You find this truthful? It's lunacy! How the F did killing 3000 innocent people in New York liberate anyone? You must find Bush quite rational as well?

Q: Sheikh, those who follow your statements and speeches may link your threats to what happened in America. To quote one of your latest statements: "I swear that America won't enjoy security before we live it for real in Palestine." It is easy for anyone following developments to link the acts to your threats.

BIN LADEN: It is easy to link them.

We have agitated for this for years and we have issued statements and fatwas to that effect. This appeared in the investigations into the four young men who destroyed the American center in Ulayya in Riyadh, as disclosed and published by the Saudi government. The reported that they were influenced by some of the fatwas and statements that we issued. Also, apart from that, incitement continues in many meetings and has been published in the media. If they mean, or if you mean, that there is a link as a result of our incitement, then it is true. We incite because incitement is our today. God assigned incitement to the best of all mankind, Mohammed, who said, "Fight for the sake of God. Assign this to no one but yourself, and incite the faithful."

This guy is a fundi control freak and you're supporting him deeming him accurate? Please tell me I've misunderstood you? First you say the Taliban isn't that bad, now Osama Bin Laden? OBL is Jerry Falwell with a blood lust. Anyone who uses their "God" to advocate the death of others is insane and dangerous.

[radwriter0555]

34. I don't condone what he says or his beliefs, I just understand them.

I understand how and why he feels persecuted and oppressed and why he feels the need to oppose the westerners who have invaded the middle east and made targets of the muslims.

I don't like what he says, but I like less the reasons why he feels the way he does. The US allied with other western interests has invaded and destroyed the middle east for more than 25 years now. I can totally understand their fighting back and retaliating.

I don't like it. I don't condone it, but I understand it. He's not like a serial killer bundy fulfilling a lunatic destiny warped by psychosis, he's reacting to the astrocities being inflicted on his way of life and his people.

Just like Hezbollah, just like Hamas. They've risen out of need and desperation.

[gully]

35. I don't think the US has any business meddling in the Mid-east either.

But the mentality that Israel doesn't have the right to exist give us an excuse to do so.

Native Americans realize the earth does not belong to anyone, and it should be shared. They felt it absurd to claim portions of the earth should be sold/divided/owned. I think people need to realize that if they believe in a God, God made the earth for us all to exist upon.

I take issue with saying "they've risen out of the need" as they've been "rising" for centuries and have been at war with one another long before we became involved. The mistake the US has made, was stepping into that hornets nest.

When I examine the Israeli position, I sympathize - when I examine the position of "Palestine" - I can also sympathize. But, I don't think anyone who condones killing innocent people to solve problems should have any sympathy from anyone.

Thanks for the discussion.

[radwriter0555]

36. There is no mentality that 'israel doesn't have the right to exist'.

The phrase, or rather, a version of it, was grossly misinterpreted to suit the fodder of fear and rhetoric devised to demonize the iranians.

The original statement wasn't that succinct.

I found this, it's quite interesting...

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).<8>

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."<1>

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

his regime that is occupying Qods must be eliminated from the pages of history.<9>

On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_of_phrase_.22wiped_off_the_map.22

[gully]

37. Sorry, "Israel can't exist HERE."

"We don't recognize LEGALLY this REGIME."

How bout "We don't legally recognize Palestine?"

"We are part of a united front against the enemies of Islam."

How does this mentality differ from the "Axis of Evil" bullshit?

"Enemies of Islam?" :eyes:

Replace Israel with Palestine in these statements and perhaps you'll stop defending this ignorance.

I'm out, have the last word.

[Botany]

12. just remember that Tony Snow was a Freeper

Freeper Tony?


Wednesday, April 26 2006 @ 08:45 EDT
Contributed by: Stranger
Views: 688
Heh. They had to purge Freeperville of posts by the new White House Press Secretary.

When the White House press corps first starts asking questions of new White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, the first question should be, "Sir, exactly what are you trying to hide?". There are a plethora of glib answers one could give to such a question, but the fact remains, Mr. Snow was a regular poster over at Free Republic, and as one can see from the link and quote below, overnight when it was announced he would be the new press secretary, the mountain of information Mr. Snow had submitted and had posted on the site disappeared. What is he hiding? What sorts of comments is he afraid might see the light of day?

Here's an actual post on the freeper site (Editor's note = while it lasts...):

To: lexington minuteman 1775 Jim Robinson and/or the moderators removed all of Tony's posts from here sometime yesterday. My assumption is that the White House doesn't want any of his private comments easily available.


http://www.blah3.com/article.php?story=20060426234525369

[gully]

16. Bad link, but I'm not surprised.

So was "Jeffy Gannon."

[Nevernose]

14. NPR ran a story about the amout of opium produced, Clinton v. Bush

ANhyone know where we can get the article?

[razors edge]

17. never argue with a freeper

they only drag the conversation down to the gutter and beat you with the prosthetic leg they stole from a homeless vet.

[shadowknows69]

18. As one of the mentally ill (chronic depression)

please don't lump me in with that group. It is possible to be depressed but not disturbed.

[gully]

21. When I say "mentally ill"

I'm referring to the Berkely study that found conservatives are suffering from "mental illness."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml

I am not trying to lump all mentally ill with those who suffer from collective -


* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management

which contribute to the conservative mentality.

[shadowknows69]

23. I just think they should come up with a different term

for conservative illness. I like: "Batshit crazy"

[gully]

24. In hindsite

I should have come up with a different term. I shall take that into account for future reference. Perhaps as you note, a name would be good, an extention of your suggestion - "Batshitcrazy-itis?"

Good night all.

[CarlVK]

20. Conservatiism is a mental illness

I read a Berkely study on the subject once that convinced me. I'm going from memory now, but I recall that it brought up some "symptoms" of the thinking that fall well within common psychological maladies...among them:

Intolerance to ambiguity

Obsessive need for dogmatic frameworks

outside authority in place of personal inquiry

Anyway it was a great read...I'll see if I can find it again.

[gully]

22. I just posted it above.

LOL