bombings done without brains behind them, Gee, surprise!

live free or die? oh yeah…

and then there were none…

-Imp

The fanatics will kill you or enslave you if you do not fight.You can’t live free if you surrender, cower, hide or ignore. You instantly become owned. Theirs to do with what they will.

Pardon me, let me put this more clearly; no one doubts your propensity to violence. No one but you fobs off your responsibility onto your leaders.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Sorry, that is just too damn funny. :confused: You seriously believe that? then: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

What’s funny about that?

Do anyone but the readers of American op-eds blame George Bush for America’s 6,000,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions per year? or for the 1,000,000 violent deaths in Iraq? or the “Billions and Billions Served”?

LMAO…

you ain’t seen nothing yet…

-Imp

It damn funny because you said only The US fobs off their responsibilities to our leaders. That is just so wrong its too funny. I would say darn near every human being with very few exceptions fobs their responsibilities on to their leaders.

Why should we blame bush for the deaths in Iraq? Are the muslims whom are slaughtering each other by-standers in the civil war? Say what you want about the US helping Saddam, he’s the one who fractured iraqi society to shit, largely by not respecting the religious factions in the country, which eventually lead to massive conflict between them.

To paint it off as ‘bush’s war’ is idiotic, the second coalition forces leave iraqi society isn’t going to become peaceful. Iraqi society would not have magically stead the same had coalition forces decided *NOT to go to iraq.

The suggestion that coalition forces had anything to do with the collapse of iraq is ignorant. (it ignores every factor leading to iraq instability) Plenty of education iraqi’s seem to know better, why doesn’t anyone else?

seems like the unsaid assumption when people refer to it as ‘bush’s war’ or ask whether we should think that he’s responsible.

(we should think he’s responsible for every death resulting in ineptitude over everystep taken from start till now. Which is probably very significant)

but to blame him for the Whole problem, the whole death-toll?

No, a sunni/shiite civil war is what takes most of that.

That’s not what I said at all,

One could make the arguement that they never should have supported Saddam which eventually lead to *this. That might be an acceptable arguement, that united states actions decades ago paved the road for this, but to point at *the coalition forces, as a cause of iraq society collapse is a bit insane.

Or to suggest that the united states is truly responsible for what Saddam had done they just paved the road for a brutal dictatorship. Sure, they are responsible, but the only way to have avoided it was to remove him long before he fractured iraqi society, somthing the American people, have shown they never had the heart for.

American’s weren’t willing to remove him after they had helped established his rule, even after, obviously, clearly, that years down the road it would be a problem, and that was confirmed when he made a mockery of US inspections and engaged in things like genocide and such constantly, but no one dared removed him or suggesting doing so, probably because politicians could predict how the citizens would react.

With no stomach for a sustained invasion that would 1. Take away massive influence that his rule had on iraqi society and try to stop that fracturing for future term, what was america to do? Nothing until it’s too late, and when iraqi society finally does fracture, its blamed on a single coalition invasion, for a society that had been fracturing for years, WITH NO HELP. BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD GIVE IT.

If the coalition is responsible for iraqi social collapse, its because they didn’t show up ten+ years earlier.

How muslims love each other.

The only people muslims hate more than outsiders is other *different muslims. haha.

That’s not putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing whatever.

I think you need to review the British Mandate and King Faisal periods:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ma … esopotamia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq

Really? You did not say this? Well I guess I need reading glasses then Because I read that it has your name on it, or is someone just using your name?

I suppose Saddam changing his regime to one of fundamentalism, the mosque building, etc after Iran’s claims of ‘heretic’ was directly the fault of the united states too?

I suppose the united states forced iranian society to embrace religious fundamentalism to the point that they critisize another religious fundamentalist for not being nearly fundamentalist enough?

Muslims though, they have solutions to problems. When you have a problem with someone, you can always force some kids across landmines with machine gun fire, or give them golden colored keys and tell them that its the key to the gates of heaven. Child soldiers, elite shit.

Here’s the thing. Not a single muslim nation even has plans, for development, for a plane that would even conceptually match the F-22. This is the exact same for every aspect of military technology. Muslims have nothing and they will never catch up.

Its pathetic because muslims will never be a real threat to our full society/way of life (maybe to giant portions of it in some attack) or from within like a parasite entering through multiculturalism. The only threat they pose is in sad suicide attacks because they are so much the under-dog.

Well stick to it because under-dogs and suicide-bombers will stay under-dogs and suicide bombers. they’ll never give up the suicide bombing because as long as there are *free humans, they won’t succeed.

Which is why people in muslim nations are executed for looking up “women’s rights” attempting to mock/belittle the prophet, being a female and trying to do what you want with your life, the list goes on, endlessly.

No matter how strong islamic fundamentalism/repressiveness is, theres people in those societies who will have NOTHING OF IT. They will have nothing of it on PAIN OF DEATH. People continously, knowing the risk of death, violate repressive islamic cultural beliefs, and die for it.

If they’re willing to die for it probably because life is that empty under such repressiveness, I hope you don’t have any delusions about it winning out.


Much like Hitler’s decision to take his forces deep into the soviet union, muslims are going to realize that their dramatic tactics have destroyed their only chance at success. Each new terrorist attack, each new suicide bombing, each new newspaper story about free-citizens not getting common law/prosecuted for free-speech, each new public case of muslims complaining about not having sharia law and complaining about needing to wash their hands, is just going to cement people’s dislike/avoidance of muslims, and *RIGHTFULLY SO.

Muslims societies are barbaric, backwords and uneducated by any* modern standard, that includes the piss-poor united states which has education levels resembling some third-world village.

“Your”, that’s the possessive of “you”. Own your crimes.

You asked if we thought bush was responsible for the death toll.

Anyone asking that question, seems to me, to be implying that he is, or at least setting someone up to point out that he isn’t.

The muslims embroiled in a brutal civil war, who have done more suicide bombings in a few years in iraq, than half of all recorded suicide bombings in *history, ar e not by-standers in the civilian death-toll, ANYTHING from it. The civil war is responsible for massive iraqi deeath, and is a huge part of the death-toll. The killing is being done over religious-disagreements between religious groups, with secular iraqis caught in the middle.

He isn’t. You are.

Right and like everyone else owns their crimes. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: I can’t believe I am saying this but, Cyrene is right on the money, for right now.

Yes, muslim nations everywhere, are barbaric, only because of the united states. Not because islamic nations are repressive, not because they have a ‘culture of violence’ not because they view women as objects, not because they severely hate free-speech when it critisizes the prophet, not because the text is inherently violent oriented (even though I know plenty of muslims abhor violence because of their religion and its contradictive, it likely goes on about peace too) not because of these hundreds of factors that consistantly show up in muslim nations.

But because of the outside world interfering/bothering them.

Sure.