PDA

View Full Version : Giuliani Gets a Standing Ovation At a Christian College


recxjake
06-27-2007, 09:41 AM
Giuliani Gets a Standing Ovation At a Christian College
BY RUSSELL BERMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 27, 2007
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/57392

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — Mayor Giuliani's battle to win over social conservatives in the Republican Party may not be the impossible task that many political pundits have predicted.

That certainly appeared to be the case yesterday at Regent University, the Christian college founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, where Mr. Giuliani's message of leadership and strength on terrorism met with a standing ovation.

In a 30-minute address to more than 650 students and business leaders, Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word abortion, nor did he make any other direct reference to the social issues on which his moderate positions are largely out of step with the Republican base. When he listed some of the "12 commitments" at the center of his presidential bid, he omitted the one promising to "reduce abortions."

Instead, he stuck to what has become his campaign's mantra — plugging his record as mayor, pledging to prosecute the war on terrorism aggressively, and offering a none too subtle reminder of his role following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

He offered the crowd his standard, unspecific warning: "Don't expect you're going to agree with me on everything. Because that would be unrealistic."

"It's not about one issue. It's about many issues," Mr. Giuliani said of the campaign. But, he quickly added, if a person's vote does come down to a single issue, there should be no question about which one.

"The one issue that dominates is the fact that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us," he said.

The audience applauded his stance on terrorism, and stood at the conclusion of his speech. And when given the opportunity to question the former mayor, attendees asked about Iran, Iraq, and immigration, not abortion, gay rights, or gun control.

Mr. Giuliani rarely volunteers his position on social issues, but in the face of repeated questioning from the press, he has worked recently to sharpen his abortion stance, saying that although he personally "hates" it, he supports a woman's right to choose.

Speaking to reporters afterward, Mr. Giuliani dismissed the suggestion that he made a "conscious decision" to avoid abortion during his speech, which came as part of Regent's series on executive leadership. "It wasn't a conscious decision," he said. "It was a decision to make a speech on leadership. I've done it 400 times and I've never mentioned abortion before, so it would actually have been a conscious decision to go out of my way to mention it."

The leader of Regent's student Republican group, Stephen Raper, said he came away impressed with Mr. Giuliani and did not mind the absence of a discussion of hot-button social topics. "Most of us are aware of his positions on social issues," he said, adding that it would have been more controversial had Mr. Giuliani broached topics that he knew would meet with disagreement. "It could appear you're trying to throw it in their face," Mr. Raper said. "It creates more problems."

The warm reception from a Christian conservative crowd signals an important benchmark for the Giuliani campaign, but, as the former mayor's critics are eager to point out, it does not necessarily translate into votes or indicate that social issues are receding in importance in the Republican primary. "Applause at Regent University does not make a president. Politeness does not make a president," the executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, Andrea Lafferty, said.

Political analysts said Mr. Giuliani's decision to focus on leadership and terrorism was simply a candidate playing to his strengths. "It's no surprise that Giuliani would not bring up his biggest weakness in front of a Christian conservative audience," the director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, Larry Sabato, said. "It's more of a surprise that he was not asked about it."

Not too much of a surprise, however, he added: "In my experience, Regent is a very polite school."

Mr. Giuliani's campaign has long maintained that his perceived vulnerability among conservatives is exaggerated, pointing to polls that show his support among conservative Republican voters nearing his support among self-identified GOP moderates and liberals. But the same polls also show increasing support for a former Tennessee senator, Fred Thompson.

Mr. Giuliani yesterday was introduced by Mr. Robertson, who, while stopping well short of an endorsement, praised the former mayor's stewardship of the city before and after September 11, 2001. He cited Mr. Giuliani's efforts to cut taxes, reduce crime, and improve quality of life, including his push to take "the pornography off 42nd Street."

In his speech, Mr. Giuliani referred often to President Reagan and stepped up his attacks on Democrats, saying they "want to put this country in reverse" in its defense against terrorism.

PunkinDrublic
06-27-2007, 09:44 AM
It's sad that so many in the GOP can't stay away from these phoney Christian jerkoffs.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:44 AM
Doesn't surprise me since Christian's have the most historical rancour toward Muslims than any other group. If there wasn't terrorism in America they'd be boo'in him.

And they're really apostates. Why don't they practice their faith and work to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict instead.

jAZ
06-27-2007, 09:55 AM
Was it for his willingness to ignore the biggest issue facing our nation today - Iraq?

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:56 AM
Was it for his willingness to ignore the biggest issue facing our nation today - Iraq?
Folks should point out that 9/11 actually happened on HIS watch....in HIS city.

Bowser
06-27-2007, 10:00 AM
"In his speech, Mr. Giuliani referred often to President Reagan and stepped up his attacks on Democrats, saying they "want to put this country in reverse" in its defense against terrorism."

Nothing screams credibilty more than accusing fellow Americans of supporting terrorism.

Spewing partisan horseshit to the religious right is Democrats = loving terrorism, therefore Democrats = Satan. Do you want Satan in the White House? I thought not! Better get me in there!

You'd think Giuliani would be above fear mongering.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:05 AM
Guiliani is NO Ronald Reagan.

AAMF, none of the GOP candidates are, even the ones waiting in the wings.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:07 AM
I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised if he gave a speech on defense and got a standing ovation while skipping over all the topics that would offend that crowd.

KC Dan
06-27-2007, 10:12 AM
Folks should point out that 9/11 actually happened on HIS watch....in HIS city.
Why? 9-11 was caused by terrorists boarding planes leaving cities other than NY... This is a stupid post - mine is too.

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:14 AM
Folks should point out that 9/11 actually happened on HIS watch....in HIS city.

If anyone should have seen that one coming, it's Jesus Giuliani.

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 10:15 AM
Doesn't surprise me since Christian's have the most historical rancour toward Muslims than any other group. If there wasn't terrorism in America they'd be boo'in him.

And they're really apostates. Why don't they practice their faith and work to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict instead.


Exactly.

Dave

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:16 AM
Why? 9-11 was caused by terrorists boarding planes leaving cities other than NY... This is a stupid post - mine is too.

Well, he should have put on his cape and flew up there himself and stopped them :rolleyes:

Stupid post indeed.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:16 AM
Exactly.

Dave

Christians have more rancor toward Muslims than say... Jews?

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:17 AM
Well, he should have put on his cape and flew up there himself and stopped them :rolleyes:

Stupid post indeed.

I think your sarcasm detector needs new batteries.

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 10:22 AM
Christians have more rancor toward Muslims than say... Jews?


They have a large amount but heres the part I agree with completely:


And they're really apostates. Why don't they practice their faith and work to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict instead.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:23 AM
Christians have more rancor toward Muslims than say... Jews?
Yes! I'd say so. Historically that is.

Just because there's a conflict in our modern era, doesn't mean they have a longer history of conflict. In fact in the earlier migrations to Israel, the late 19th century, both Jews and Muslims lived side by side peacefully. Until a certain govt got involved.

I think what you can say about Jews and Muslims is that both faiths believe in an eye-for-an-eye.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:25 AM
Wow! I can't believe Dave Lane is agree'in with me.
Politics sure makes strange bedfellows!

PunkinDrublic
06-27-2007, 10:26 AM
Doesn't surprise me since Christian's have the most historical rancour toward Muslims than any other group. If there wasn't terrorism in America they'd be boo'in him.

And they're really apostates. Why don't they practice their faith and work to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict instead.

Nothing associated with Pat Robertson can be considered Christian. I wish he'd join his buddy Jerry Falwell.

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:28 AM
Wow! I can't believe Dave Lane is agree'in with me.
Politics sure makes strange bedfellows!


NTTAWWT

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:28 AM
Why? 9-11 was caused by terrorists boarding planes leaving cities other than NY... This is a stupid post - mine is too.
I was aware that this point could be brought up.
I'm just pullin' a Guiliani, being a politician about it.
But one could make this claim...it is still a fact. It's just not the whole story....exactly what politicians do.


OTOH, he has made millions in consulting fees exploiting it as he is in running for prez. If he can sound-bite it why not anyone else?

HolmeZz
06-27-2007, 10:28 AM
There's a reason you had to say 'Christian College' and didn't want to specify Regent. ROFL

noa
06-27-2007, 10:28 AM
I think what you can say about Jews and Muslims is that both faiths believe in an eye-for-an-eye.

I don't agree with that...this line comes from the Old Testament, so it originates from a Jewish text, but later Jewish teachings make many clarifications that make it much more compassionate and much less black & white.
If you are referring to Israel and Palestine's circle of violence, I don't think you are talking about a Jewish philosophy, but rather the Israeli political one, which might seem like splitting hairs but I think its an important distinction.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:29 AM
They have a large amount but heres the part I agree with completely:


And they're really apostates. Why don't they practice their faith and work to settle the Palestinian/Israeli conflict instead.

What does that statement even mean?

Are evangelical Christians in the United States the chief reason why Palestinians and Israelis don't get along?

Were they supposed to mediate that crisis? Was it the responsibility of American Christians to draw up a peace treaty? Did Billy Graham miss an appointment to moderate peace talks?

Do they know some secret to making these two groups get along that no one else has figured out in 2,000 years, but they are just sitting on it because they think the conflict is entertaining?

KC Dan
06-27-2007, 10:30 AM
It's just not the whole story....exactly what politicians do.
Which is why you now have a plummeting approval rating of 14%.:)

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:31 AM
Are evangelical Christians in the United States the chief reason why Palestinians and Israelis don't get along?

Not directly, but kinda.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:32 AM
Not directly, but kinda.

And how is that?

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:33 AM
What does that statement even mean?

Are evangelical Christians in the United States the chief reason why Palestinians and Israelis don't get along?
No absolutely not. Just that encouraging war, one that doesn't even meet Christian Just War Theory, as they have done on concert with the NC's as their chief allies is not practicing their faith.

Were they supposed to mediate that crisis?
No but they have taken sides to the point of unfairness. I'd say that they want Armageddon, so that the Jews will convert and be saved. That's how I see their taking sides to fit in.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:34 AM
Which is why you now have a plummeting approval rating of 14%.:)
Whatever. Feel free to flame with the ad hominem.

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:35 AM
And how is that?

It's not really an issue of faith, aside from the fact that the people who thought it would be a great idea to force them to fight over their land were christian.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 10:35 AM
It's not really an issue of faith, aside from the fact that the people who thought it would be a great idea to force them to fight over their land were christian.

Thanks professor. :spock:

Silock
06-27-2007, 10:39 AM
Thanks professor. :spock:

I'm just following the general trend of the thread of stating and re-stating the obvious.

KC Dan
06-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Whatever. Feel free to flame with the ad hominem.
now, now... don't take a joke personally. It was just a joke thus the smiley face.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 10:55 AM
You know Cochise, I'm not just talkin' end times beliefs of Dispensationalist Protestants, the major denomination that seems to support this warring in the ME. I'm also talking about Christianity in general...even Roman Catholics most of whom have been against expanding war over there. The two Popes spoke out against it and most Catholics supported Kerry and many Catholic groups gave to Kerry. But even though RC's didn't favor these wars, you'll still find a lot of disparaging and derogotary, to the point of untruth, comments about Muslims.

I have a very devout RC couple as friends and I have received numerous emails on why Muslims are truly evil. I finally had to tell them to stop. They weren't happy with this.

The rational is that Muslims rejected Christ as the Son of God. Also, the RC had an empire of the whole known world at one time and per RCs it was the Muslim conquest that broke that up. He hates them for that and says that faith was spawned by Satan. His comments expanded to Muslim's rejected scientific inquiry and contributed little to the west which is just false. In fact this is something I'm researching right now. It's just prejudice and hate to take such
claims this far. The discovered 0 on which our computers are based. They gave us math and if it wasn't for the Muslims preserving certain texts the Renaissance would not have occurred. I mean really....this is classic prejudice and most western history books have traces of this strain of thought throughout. Muslims get credit for 0. ( pun intended)

noa
06-27-2007, 11:18 AM
In fact this is something I'm researching right now. It's just prejudice and hate to take such claims this far. The discovered 0 on which our computers are based. They gave us math and if it wasn't for the Muslims preserving certain texts the Renaissance would not have occurred. I mean really....this is classic prejudice and most western history books have traces of this strain of thought throughout. Muslims get credit for 0. ( pun intended)

This is definitely true. We owe a lot to early Muslim thinkers, from math to the arts. The problem is with the Islamic death cult that has hijacked the religion, and this problem is exacerbated by the fact that numbers of this death cult continue to grow against seemingly sparse Muslim backlash. Part of this is due to the fact that people blowing themselves up get a lot more attention than a progressive Muslim thinker who writes an essay. Still, facing a growing amount of Muslims who devote their lives to this death cult, I have a hard time blaming Americans for having a negative view of Islam. Its not a correct view, but its certainly an understandable one given our sources of information and the amount of fear that is pumped into our daily thought.
Have you tried presenting this other side of the story to your Catholic friends? If so, how did they react?

noa
06-27-2007, 11:28 AM
Also Buc, have you tried examining and comparing Christianity to Islam in terms of relative age? Since Islam is 600 years younger, maybe you could look at Christianity 600 years ago and see where they were at. I would be interested to see a side-by-side list of the characteristics of modern day Islam and Christianity of 600 years ago.

patteeu
06-27-2007, 12:05 PM
Guiliani is NO Ronald Reagan.

AAMF, none of the GOP candidates are, even the ones waiting in the wings.

Ronald Reagan grew up revering FDR and during his presidential years, if he wasn't a card carrying neocon himself, he sure cavorted with a lot of them.

Q.E.D. Ronald Reagan was a socialist!! ;)

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:07 PM
This is definitely true. We owe a lot to early Muslim thinkers, from math to the arts. The problem is with the Islamic death cult that has hijacked the religion, and this problem is exacerbated by the fact that numbers of this death cult continue to grow against seemingly sparse Muslim backlash. Part of this is due to the fact that people blowing themselves up get a lot more attention than a progressive Muslim thinker who writes an essay. Still, facing a growing amount of Muslims who devote their lives to this death cult, I have a hard time blaming Americans for having a negative view of Islam. Its not a correct view, but its certainly an understandable one given our sources of information and the amount of fear that is pumped into our daily thought.
Have you tried presenting this other side of the story to your Catholic friends? If so, how did they react?


I'm not sure I agree with this. I definitely feel that suicide terrorism is political far more than religious. I subscribe to Pape, as well as Giraldi, McGovern and Shuer that it is political...and Pape's a conservative.

The behavior of the western powers, primarily Great Britain but also France
( even Russia to a degree) in the area has a lot to do with what we're living with today and was spawned by the politics of WWI: that is England making two different sets of promises to two different groups—Arabs and Jews over who would get that land. This is the root cause. It's not the Jews. They're just as much a victim of how these countries conducted themselves.

The Muslim Arabs helped the British fight the Ottomans including storming the beaches of Palestine to take it in exchange for those promises. Even binLaden's fatwa on us mentions the secret Sykes-Picot of 1916. And the west was meddling in the area long before that too. People don't like being lied to and having promises/agreements broken. We'd go to war with them if it was done to us.

Arab nationalism was emerging at the same time, just like it had for other areas ending colonialisn post WWII. In fact it was because of France not letting Vietnam go right after WWII when colonialism was supposed to be "officially" dead that allowed the Commies to get in there and exploit that issue. They just should have allowed it's independence. Anyhow, the ME conflict as we know it today, begins with the Balfour Declaration.

Then there is Nasser, an Arab nationalist, enemy of the west but it was SECULAR movement. He lost to Israel, as they could not win with conventional war, in the 1967 war...but Israel did not win the peace either. This was the end of the secular Arab nationalist movement which then became the Fundamentalist Muslim movement with its suicide terrorism. Arab nationalism was originally secular....it morphed into a religious movement. The Muslims felt they lost because they had turned away from their faith....and so they returned to it to try to get the land they were promised back.

I do not believe that the Muslim faith in itself is violent anymore than any strain that has existed in some others. I believe that idea has been promoted by Christians.

BTW my RC friend, despite his views on Muslims in general, does not support either side in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict....he's neutral. He feels both sides have and are doing wrong.

Actually, per my friend ( also a history teacher) and I'd have to agree, this has something to do with Theodor Herzl going to what were RC monarchs at the time trying to get support for his Judenstat. They wouldn't support it. I forget the Pope's name but he said s/g like it belongs to us. The British did though.

Interesting 'eh? Still, he hates Muslims through and through.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:09 PM
Ronald Reagan grew up revering FDR and during his presidential years, if he wasn't a card carrying neocon himself, he sure cavorted with a lot of them.

Q.E.D. Ronald Reagan was a socialist!! ;)
I'm referring to the fact that he closed out the Cold War without a major war.
I'm referring to him pulling out of the hatreds and rivalries of the ME.
I'm referring to the Bush Doctrine which is more belligerent than the Reagan Doctrine. RR was also an upbeat cheerful man....not an angry man.

noa
06-27-2007, 12:21 PM
Buc, I just read, re-read, and re-re-read your response and it seems to me that your only explanation for the ME is that this is a political response to Israel's existence. Please tell me that I'm wrong, because surely you are not arguing that all of Islamic terrorism and barbarism is due to Israel's existence.
Just look at the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing to do with Israel, but barbaric acts in that war included sending children to clear minefields by exploiting their belief in the coming of the 12th Imam. Just look up the Basij, and you will find some of what I am talking about -- atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Not to say this is unique to Islam, because any religion can be exploited to commit atrocities and acts of barbarism. My only point is that you can't explain all of Islamic terrorism in the ME by pointing at Israel's existence. And once you allow for that, you have to allow for the fact that at least some of the roots of current terrorism in the ME are religious.

Edit: I think you may have made some changes to your original post, although it doesn't say you edited it. I agree more with what I am reading now. Sorry if I just mis-read it the first few times.

Cochise
06-27-2007, 12:22 PM
Ronald Reagan grew up revering FDR and during his presidential years, if he wasn't a card carrying neocon himself, he sure cavorted with a lot of them.

Q.E.D. Ronald Reagan was a socialist!! ;)

You can't say the n-word out loud. You must refer to them as you-know-who, or they-who-must-not-be-named. After all, they are everywhere you know, they'll hear you. :eek:

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 12:28 PM
Buc, I just read, re-read, and re-re-read your response and it seems to me that your only explanation for the ME is that this is a political response to Israel's existence. Please tell me that I'm wrong, because surely you are not arguing that all of Islamic terrorism and barbarism is due to Israel's existence.
Just look at the Iran-Iraq war. Nothing to do with Israel, but barbaric acts in that war included sending children to clear minefields by exploiting their belief in the coming of the 12th Imam. Just look up the Basiji, and you will find some of what I am talking about -- atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Not to say this is unique to Islam, because any religion can be exploited to commit atrocities and acts of barbarism. My only point is that you can't explain all of Islamic terrorism in the ME by pointing at Israel's existence. And once you allow for that, you have to allow for the fact that at least some of the roots of current terrorism in the ME are religious.

I'm not saying there aren't other past historical acts by Muslims that were initiated by them ( any more than any other religion for that matter)....I'm saying...

The behavior of the western powers, primarily Great Britain but also France ( even Russia to a degree) in the area has a lot to do with what we're living with today and was spawned by the politics of WWI.

I'm saying it's chiefly political. It seems religious as they cloak their complaints in religion.

Direckshun
06-27-2007, 12:58 PM
"The one issue that dominates is the fact that Islamic terrorists are trying to kill us," he said.
JESUS CHRIST. SAVE ME RUDY.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 05:55 PM
The behavior of the western powers, primarily Great Britain but also France ( even Russia to a degree) in the area has a lot to do with what we're living with today and was spawned by the politics of WWI.
You know, I had an uncle [RIP] who was a hotheaded yout'.
Not well-educated, but VERY smart, business sense, horse sense, intuition, what have you.
And endless were the times where at family functions where we'd be regaled with his detailed and florid recounting of all the wrongs someone there had occasioned upon him.
And the thing was, you couldn't discount any of the charges he leveled, nor the slights against him they represented, but over time you came to realize that the anger came first [usually for some more contemporary, less righteous reason], then the rationale.
Just saying.

And no, that's not a parable. That was really my uncle, and it's what my mind goes to when people start the whole litany of 'rational origins' of Islamist hatred.

StcChief
06-27-2007, 06:05 PM
'm saying it's chiefly political. It seems religious as they cloak their complaints in religion.
They have been covering under Jihad as religous reason for too long.....

Nothing a full fledged attack with Planes, bombs, tanks, cruise missile couldn't fix....

return them to stone age.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:16 PM
They have been covering under Jihad as religous reason for too long.....

Nothing a full fledged attack with Planes, bombs, tanks, cruise missile couldn't fix....

return them to stone age.
You're a Christian right? What would Christ do?

And btw what is too long? They fought on our side in WWI.

None of what you've recommended has worked to date. Time for a new strategy....like getting off their turf and leaving them alone.

BTW jihad means struggle.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 07:19 PM
return them to stone age.


That seems a little harsh. Regent University is already well on it's way there.

:)

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:22 PM
That was really my uncle, and it's what my mind goes to when people start the whole litany of 'rational origins' of Islamist hatred.
And what of the historical Christian rancour for them?
What those on your side of the argument have recommended hasn't made it any better but worse. Of course it's a responsibility level based on blame. You bad. Me good. It takes two sides to make a dispute and often a third.

Logical
06-27-2007, 07:25 PM
Just another recxjake, spoogefest thread.

Logical
06-27-2007, 07:27 PM
JESUS CHRIST. SAVE ME RUDY.ROFLROFLROFL

Logical
06-27-2007, 07:30 PM
I'm referring to the fact that he closed out the Cold War without a major war.
I'm referring to him pulling out of the hatreds and rivalries of the ME.
I'm referring to the Bush Doctrine which is more belligerent than the Reagan Doctrine. RR was also an upbeat cheerful man....not an angry man.You just spoke nicely about a neo-con, ohmy.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 07:35 PM
And what of the historical Christian rancour for them?
What those on your side of the argument have recommended hasn't made it any better but worse. Of course it's a responsibility level based on blame. You bad. Me good. It takes two sides to make a dispute and often a third.
I don't have a DISPUTE with them, I have a wish to not be targeted for terror tactics because Britney Spears let her cooter loose before a camera somewhere.

Don't get me mixed up with the glass-ems. I have no interest in killing any of them. My interest is that they stop efforts to kill us [and I don't mean us-'Merkins, I mean us-anyone from any stripe who wants a freer life than their fundamentalism can tolerate].

So it's not You bad, Me Good. It's you want to kill me, I just want to exist as I wish without worrying about you.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:36 PM
Ya' know what's funny? I just got off the phone with a cousin from NH.

They were at some college in NH where Rudy spoke. He tried to warm the audience up by asking who won the 2004 World Series. My cousin just happened to have a baseball that said Boston Red Sox 2004 WS on it. So he tossed it to Rudy who caught it. He shouted to him to sign it. Rudy said a former mayor of NY can't sign a ball like that. But he signed it eventually anyway.

Later they had their pic taken with him with some other family. They all love Rudy now. My cousin asked me who I liked. When I said Ron Paul my cousin, went dumb for a few seconds and asked "Who's he?"

I just thought it was funny! Amazing how something like that can convince people to vote for them though. I didn't hear anyone mention a single issue either.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:38 PM
I don't have a DISPUTE with them, I have a wish to not be targeted for terror tactics because Britney Spears let her cooter loose before a camera somewhere.

Don't get me mixed up with the glass-ems. I have no interest in killing any of them. My interest is that they stop efforts to kill us [and I don't mean us-'Merkins, I mean us-anyone from any stripe who wants a freer life than their fundamentalism can tolerate].

So it's not You bad, Me Good. It's you want to kill me, I just want to exist as I wish without worrying about you.
My interest is the same as yours. My way of going about it is different.
An infidel is not just a non-believer it's also someone who has done their people great harm. I don't believe "they" generality want to kill "us" either.
I believe it's tactic get our country off their land and out of their business.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:40 PM
You just spoke nicely about a neo-con, ohmy.
I don't consider RR a NC....I do consider the NC's to have come into the GOP during his reign. Don't forget the quote I've put up several times about how RR viewed the ME taking our troops out of Beirut.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 07:48 PM
My interest is the same as yours. My way of going about it is different.
An infidel is not just a non-believer it's also someone who has done their people great harm. I don't believe "they" generality want to kill "us" either.
I believe it's tactic get our country off their land and out of their business.
I know you position, and that was the point of my relating the stuff about my uncle.
Point is, you THINK that if we withdraw their anger will disappear.
I OTOH think that their anger has it's roots in a complex mix of envy and pride, and the things they cite as 'root causes' angering them are ad hoc appendages.
And once the rationales get stretched out to cover their various and sundry mistreatments over the entire course of history, well that's something no amount of disengagement is gonna rectify.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 07:54 PM
I know you position, and that was the point of my relating the stuff about my uncle.
Point is, you THINK that if we withdraw their anger will disappear.
I OTOH think that their anger has it's roots in a complex mix of envy and pride, and the things they cite as 'root causes' angering them are ad hoc appendages.
And once the rationales get stretched out to cover their various and sundry mistreatments over the entire course of history, well that's something no amount of disengagement is gonna rectify.
Did the commies follow us home post Vietnam?
Did AQ/Mujaheedan follow the Soviets home when they left?

Also, I never said their "anger" would disappear, nor will their not killing us end historical rancour of Christians toward them. I was talking about them wanting to come to America to kill us would most likely end terror here at home. As it removes the rational. Not the historical ones, the one's they have currently such as troops on their lands.

Blame the Bush family dynasty for this blowback which began after PGWI. I will NEVER vote for a Bush again.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 07:57 PM
Did AQ/Mujaheedan follow the Soviets home when they left?


While I generally agree with you, I feel I should point out the Mujhadeen may not have, but the Chechens sure did.

Granted, that's bad blood going back considerably farther than the other examples, and it has a strong Nationalist element to reinforce the Religious one.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 08:03 PM
Did the commies follow us home post Vietnam?
Did AQ/Mujaheedan follow the Soviets home when they left?

Also, I never said their "anger" would disappear, nor will their not killing us end historical rancour of Christians toward them. I was talking about them wanting to come to America to kill us would most likely end terror here at home. As it removes the rational. Not the historical ones, the one's they have currently such as troops on their lands.

Blame the Bush family dynasty for this blowback which began after PGWI. I will NEVER vote for a Bush again.
1. The Commies clearly just wanted us out. You may think that's equally clear here. I clearly disagree.
2. AQ itself may not have gone into Russia, but they've had their fair share of Chechen Islamist problems, too.
3. It's not just about 'us' 'Merkins. We might be able to crawl inside ourselves, due to our continental isolation, for a while with total withdrawal. But the honor killings and sectarian killing, and the bombings of every contrivance of modern life and decadence from Bali to France, will continue. And I guess we can say "well, it's not us" . . . until, again, it is us [or our kids].

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 08:07 PM
While I generally agree with you, I feel I should point out the Mujhadeen may not have, but the Chechens sure did.

Granted, that's bad blood going back considerably farther than the other examples, and it has a strong Nationalist element to reinforce the Religious one.
I've actually presented this argument before, and said some could say the Chechens but I don't believe in falls into this paradigm. It has other roots than the Soviet invasion; just as the other republics broke away after the Soviet Union fell. They are fighting for independence. If the Soviets let it go...I think that would end. It's still not like the AQ went all the way to Moscow or into the rest of Russia. They also sought a peaceful route at first too but Russia forced a consitituion on them that made them secular when they wanted to be Islamic. Eventually that led to denying them independence completely. So even that comes back to outside intereference on sovereignty. AFAIC, Russia's getting blowback on it.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 08:15 PM
1. The Commies clearly just wanted us out. You may think that's equally clear here. I clearly disagree.
2. AQ itself may not have gone into Russia, but they've had their fair share of Chechen Islamist problems, too.
See my post to Adept Havelock. I don't agree.

3. It's not just about 'us' 'Merkins. We might be able to crawl inside ourselves, due to our continental isolation, for a while with total withdrawal. But the honor killings and sectarian killing, and the bombings of every contrivance of modern life and decadence from Bali to France, will continue. And I guess we can say "well, it's not us" . . . until, again, it is us [or our kids].

There you go again with the two-valued logic. If we don't fight everywhere, we're crawling inside ourselves. It's nothing but a crock. One choice or the other for those that live in a binary world.Leaves no choice for non-conformist third views.

We have to try something different...because the tit-for-tat cycle of violence leads nowhere. Someone has to bend on some things. And AFAIC, we have NO divine right to run the world, interefere everywhere and demand others be like us. It's arrogant and chauvanistic. It didn't work for the British Empire eventually either.

Baby Lee
06-27-2007, 08:20 PM
There you go again with the two-valued logic. If we don't fight everywhere, we're crawling inside ourselves. It's nothing but a crock. One choice or the other for those that live in a binary world.Leaves no choice for non-conformist third views.
Jesus, at this point I can't tell if you're scratching your watch or winding your butt.
You're the one saying we need to get out of there and leave them alone.
Are you now envisioning some kind of prescient, withdraw from the places where we make them really angry, but stay where we really need to stay.

I've never in my life seen someone so quickly espouse a solution, then call it a ridiculous solution when it's read back to them.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:39 PM
I've actually presented this argument before, and said some could say the Chechens but I don't believe in falls into this paradigm. It has other roots than the Soviet invasion; just as the other republics broke away after the Soviet Union fell. They are fighting for independence. If the Soviets let it go...I think that would end. It's still not like the AQ went all the way to Moscow or into the rest of Russia. They also sought a peaceful route at first too but Russia forced a consitituion on them that made them secular when they wanted to be Islamic. Eventually that led to denying them independence completely. So even that comes back to outside intereference on sovereignty. AFAIC, Russia's getting blowback on it.


It certainly had roots other than the Soviet Invasion...they were an Islamic nation invaded by the Orthodox Christian nation of Russia.

If the Soviets let it go..it would certainly die down, IMO.

I believe the Chechens did go to Moscow.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,383909,00.html

They also went to a place called Beslan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis


I think this qualifies as "following them home".

I can't say I'm surprised. I've read in a couple of books by Soviet Defectors (Viktor Belenko [Mig-25 Pilot-1976] and Viktor Suvurov [Col. GRU General Staff -1960's]) that many Chechen men did not consider a teen to be a man until he had killed a Russian with a knife. Part of me is willing to dismiss it as hyperbole, but considering the tribal mores of many groups in Transcaucasia...it wouldn't shock me to learn it's a common attitude.


Russia is getting blowback. Blowback with it's origins in the 1700's..or all the way back to the late 1500's , if you want to include the "settling" of the area by the Russian Cossacks.

I think getting out of Iraq will help us to a great degree, but I think there are some that will at least try regardless of how we act now.

IMO, while it has a strong nationalist component, I belive religion is a huge factor in the roots of the Chechen conflict. After all, it was an Islamic nation conquered and settled by a Christian Orthodox one. The Russians wouldn't let them live under Islamic law either.

Like I said, I generally agree with you. I just don't think withdrawl is quite as simple as you're painting it to be, for reasons akin to the Chechen/Russian conflict.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 08:42 PM
Jesus, at this point I can't tell if you're scratching your watch or winding your butt.
Both. ROFL

You're the one saying we need to get out of there and leave them alone.
Because, I'm primarily referring to military troops on their land. I am not talking about maintaining trade relations for oil, use of ambassadors for discourse or other problems or even some attempting a sincere resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. PGWI need not have ever happened. I've posted before how that was avoidable.

The Swiss brokered a deal and resolution offered by Iran in 2003 to our WH on settling the nuke issue, the Hezbollah issue and the Israeli/Palestinian issue with a two state solution and recognition for Israel. It was rebuffed by Cheney. Why? There's only one plausible explanation, they want to take over and conquer Iran and drag it into the 21st century like a bully. This is proves these guys are not good people and are just aggressors.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 08:45 PM
It certainly had roots other than the Soviet Invasion...they were an Islamic nation invaded by the Orthodox Christian nation of Russia.

If the Soviets let it go..it would certainly die down, IMO.

I believe the Chechens did go to Moscow.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,383909,00.html

They also went to a place called Beslan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis


I think this qualifies as "following them home". Getting out of Iraq will help to a great degree, but I think there are some that will at least try regardless of how we act now.

I can't say I'm surprised. I've read in a couple of books by Soviet Defectors (Viktor Belenko [Mig-25 Pilot-1976] and Viktor Suvurov [Col. GRU General Staff -1960's]) that many Chechen men did not consider a teen to be a man until he had killed a Russian with a knife. Part of me is willing to dismiss it as hyperbole, but considering the tribal mores of many groups in Transcaucasia...it wouldn't shock me to learn it's a common attitude.

Russia is getting blowback. Blowback with it's origins in the 1700's..or all the way back to the late 1500's , if you want to include the "settling" of the area by the Russian Cossacks.

IMO, while it has a strong nationalist component, I belive religion is a huge factor in the roots of this conflict. After all, it was an Islamic nation conquered and settled by a Christian Orthodox one. The Russians wouldn't let them live under Islamic law either.

Like I said, I generally agree with you. I just don't think withdrawl is quite as simple as you're painting it to be, for reasons akin to the Chechen/Russian conflict.
Interesting. I don't know how far back that went. But letting them go is the solution. It's a Muslim country basically. I think your data just goes to show the historical rancour between Christians and Muslims though which I mentioned earlier.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:48 PM
The Swiss brokered a deal and resolution offered by Iran in 2003 to our WH on settling the nuke issue, the Hezbollah issue and the Israeli/Palestinian issue with a two state solution and recognition for Israel. It was rebuffed by Cheney. Why? There's only one plausible explanation, they want to take over and conquer Iran and drag it into the 21st century like a bully. This is proves these guys are not good people and are just aggressors.

In all fairness I'd have rejected the deal as well (as would most here I suspect), for a very plausible reason.

But that's only because I trust Ahmadinejad even less than I trust Cheney. :eek:

The Swiss may have brokered the deal, but they could not have acted as a Guarantor.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 08:53 PM
Here's some more on Chechnya.
Uprising in Chenya (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/banchik1.htm)

Russian officials refused to clarify Chechnya's status, treating it neither as as an independent state (a subject of the international law) nor as part of the Russian Federation. This left the devastated republic acutely isolated, blocked from most Western aid, uncompensated for the enormous damage inflicted by the Russian attacks. Chechens had nowhere to turn for help but to the Islamic world. They did not look to Iran, Syria, Iraq or Libya, but to moderate, pro-Western regimes such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the Arab emirates. However, the social chaos and misery caused by the war did provide a breeding ground for extremists who looked to the Taliban for help and example. Aslan Maskhadov did his best to resist these radicals, but without outside support. Russia even refused to provide the aid it had offered as part of the peace agreement.

How Russia Created a 'Criminal Zone'

There is evidence that some of these Islamic extremists, such as Arbi Barayev, received support from the Russian secret service ...

Adept Havelock
06-27-2007, 08:55 PM
Here's some more on Chechnya.
Uprising in Chenya (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/banchik1.htm)

Yep, Russia managed to create a failed state within it's own national borders. Quite a trick.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:00 PM
In all fairness I'd have rejected the deal as well (as would most here I suspect), for a very plausible reason.

But that's only because I trust Ahmadinejad even less than I trust Cheney. :eek:

The Swiss may have brokered the deal, but they could not have acted as a Guarantor.
Except that was before Ahmadinejad came to power which was 2005. That deal was in 2003.

Frankly, I believe it, as I think our being east of them in Afghanistan and the talk of our going into Iraq was enough to scare them. As I recall, they expressed sympathy, as did Syria, just after 9/11. I think SH did as well.

There are extremists on both sides even on the Israeli conflict. There are some on that side that want all of Israel just as there are some who want all of it for the Arabs. You have to work with the moderates....then they can squeeze the other guys out. It was one of the leading NC's here that convinced Israel they should tear up the Oslo Accords. Although, both sides had problems with that too. Both sides won't end it.

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 09:28 PM
Wow! I can't believe Dave Lane is agree'in with me.
Politics sure makes strange bedfellows!

Stick to the facts and I'm there with bells on! :)

Dave

BucEyedPea
06-27-2007, 09:30 PM
I'm getting a picture of you with slippers on that curl at the tips with little jingle bells on 'em with that. :eek: LMAO

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 09:35 PM
That seems a little harsh. Regent University is already well on it's way there.

:)


Goddamn it AH I can't give you more rep right now!

Dave

Dave Lane
06-27-2007, 09:42 PM
I trust Ahmadinejad even less than I trust Cheney. :eek:


Tell me that was a typo!

If I shook hands with Dick Cheney I'd count my fingers.

Dave

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:21 AM
Did AQ/Mujaheedan follow the Soviets home when they left?

Yes, many of them did. Some chechens returned home after fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and other mujahadeen went to Chechnia to support their islamic brothers. Just like they went to Bosnia and Kosovo to support the muslims there, as you've correctly pointed out in the past, I believe.

patteeu
06-28-2007, 12:25 AM
The Swiss brokered a deal and resolution offered by Iran in 2003 to our WH on settling the nuke issue, the Hezbollah issue and the Israeli/Palestinian issue with a two state solution and recognition for Israel. It was rebuffed by Cheney. Why? There's only one plausible explanation, they want to take over and conquer Iran and drag it into the 21st century like a bully. This is proves these guys are not good people and are just aggressors.

I think there's another plausible explanation. Maybe the deal wasn't a good one for us?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 05:20 AM
I think there's another plausible explanation. Maybe the deal wasn't a good one for us?
Nope. Rove refused to pass it on. Cheney has refused communication period.
Wasn't aired at all. Of course, they have other plans....like conqueste....PNAC.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 05:33 AM
Yes, many of them did. Some chechens returned home after fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan and other mujahadeen went to Chechnia to support their islamic brothers. Just like they went to Bosnia and Kosovo to support the muslims there, as you've correctly pointed out in the past, I believe.
Ya' know I did a little more research on this since I last posted.
It's not really quite that black and white.
Per answers.com only a small amount of them went to Chechyna but basically the Afghani's did not really chase the Soviets back to Russia. They were made up from various tribes in Afghanistan;then some foreign fighters came in.

The problem is how the word "mujahideen" gets used regarding the Chechans. The word commonly gets applied to the whole Chechyan resistance but it's not true. Only a small amount of them are from the mujahideen. They came to help their people just like in Afghanistan. Some settled there and some went to Bosnia and also settled there. Kinda like Iraq. But once the dispute was over, in a given area, they didn't follow the perpetrator.

As for Bosnia, we defended them didn't we?
Some went Somalia too.
But it's more that they went to other Muslim areas where their kind were being harmed as opposed to just following the Russians home. More proof that being on their lands, or bothering their people on their lands is the impetus for what they do as the CIA claims.

The thing that I found shocking was that answers.com listed all the countries that helped create and finance the original mujahideen. It wasn't just the US ( yes it was our CIA) but even Iran, Suadi Arabia, China ....and more. I was surprised. Brezinski, Carter's Nat'l Security Advisor actually brags about creating them. I found a picture of him with what is thought to be a young binLaden.

Also Pace claims in his book that the US deliberately drew Russia into invading Afghanistan so they'd have their own Vietnam in order to help bring it down.
The mujahideen, I'm assuming, was created for the purpose of fighting them.
So alQeada was created by all of these countries. Seems like we're victims of our own creations.

noa
06-29-2007, 10:44 AM
Buc, how do you account for Islamic terrorism in Southeast Asia?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 03:43 PM
Buc, how do you account for Islamic terrorism in Southeast Asia?

Blowback is global and growing (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stjohn.php?articleid=4149)

You should read this. It covers hot spots.

Otherwise, I don't about every group in that area but I do know the Bali and Jakarta bombings were to get Australians who've been a staunch American ally. It's easier to get access there than to Australia that has more security.

Islam is not limited to just one country it's ww. Geography doesn't matter as much. My understanding is that alQaeda is a franchised operation. Our going into Iraq has created recruits for them ww. Malay/Muslim insurgency is gaining ground. It's increasing in Saudi Arabia against the Saudi govt...also in Pakistan.


But in Thailand, officials and local villagers later agreed that the foiled attacks were spurred by widely broadcast images of al-Qaeda and the U.S occupation of Iraq. As the father of one of the victims said: "What happens in Iraq and Palestine and Afghanistan really makes me angry. It makes me want to fight back." Bush Doctrine Breed Terror (http://www.antiwar.com/orig/stjohn.php?articleid=2681)


I think you think I blame it all on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I don't. Terror over there perhaps, but not here in America. Terror in America is date coincident to PGWI with troops on their Holy Lands. All the earlier attempts included in NY, but attacks soared over there during that war. We're rigid ideologically when it comes to our hegemony ww.

The Independent Institute has a list of all attacks including in the 80's with our response to each, and how each led to something else later. It also had another list showing when we pulled our military out, how the attacks subside too. Pretty eye-opening if you ask me.

I could tell you a little story about Pakistan 2002, where I was supposed to go on an education trip but had to decline as it was too dangerous and my kid was too young. My colleague told me the average person there had no clue or understanding as to why we were even bombing in Afghanistan. They were pretty darn angry. Mobs swarmed his cab until police could protect it. He said he was surprised he wasn't a dead man.

Fishpicker
06-29-2007, 04:16 PM
The thing that I found shocking was that answers.com listed all the countries that helped create and finance the original mujahideen. It wasn't just the US ( yes it was our CIA) but even Iran, Suadi Arabia, China ....and more. I was surprised. Brezinski, Carter's Nat'l Security Advisor actually brags about creating them. I found a picture of him with what is thought to be a young binLaden.


http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/7099/binladenbrzezinskixp4.gif

note: OBL is holding a Soviet made RPD.

patteeu
06-29-2007, 04:23 PM
Ya' know I did a little more research on this since I last posted.
It's not really quite that black and white.
Per answers.com only a small amount of them went to Chechyna but basically the Afghani's did not really chase the Soviets back to Russia. They were made up from various tribes in Afghanistan;then some foreign fighters came in.

The problem is how the word "mujahideen" gets used regarding the Chechans. The word commonly gets applied to the whole Chechyan resistance but it's not true. Only a small amount of them are from the mujahideen. They came to help their people just like in Afghanistan. Some settled there and some went to Bosnia and also settled there. Kinda like Iraq. But once the dispute was over, in a given area, they didn't follow the perpetrator.

As for Bosnia, we defended them didn't we?
Some went Somalia too.
But it's more that they went to other Muslim areas where their kind were being harmed as opposed to just following the Russians home. More proof that being on their lands, or bothering their people on their lands is the impetus for what they do as the CIA claims.

The thing that I found shocking was that answers.com listed all the countries that helped create and finance the original mujahideen. It wasn't just the US ( yes it was our CIA) but even Iran, Suadi Arabia, China ....and more. I was surprised. Brezinski, Carter's Nat'l Security Advisor actually brags about creating them. I found a picture of him with what is thought to be a young binLaden.

Also Pace claims in his book that the US deliberately drew Russia into invading Afghanistan so they'd have their own Vietnam in order to help bring it down.
The mujahideen, I'm assuming, was created for the purpose of fighting them.
So alQeada was created by all of these countries. Seems like we're victims of our own creations.

Are you under the misimpression that "they'll follow us home" means that every last one of them will actually come to the US?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2007, 04:46 PM
Are you under the misimpression that "they'll follow us home" means that every last one of them will actually come to the US?
No

Are you under the misimpression that they haven't already followed us home?
And/or that more may be coming?

Baby Lee
07-02-2007, 12:55 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 12:58 PM
The new boogeyman: Islamic Theology

Baby Lee
07-02-2007, 01:11 PM
The new boogeyman: Islamic Theology
Impeccable refutation.

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 01:24 PM
Impeccible refutation.
Impeccable. Just consider it blowback. http://nfcsouth.net/bbs/html/emoticons/haha.gif

Baby Lee
07-02-2007, 01:27 PM
Just consider it blowback. :p
In case I forgot to mention it, thanks for that tongue wagging thing you do when blowing me [back].

:)

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Well then, I guess that calls for an edit of my post.
Please take note.

Baby Lee
07-02-2007, 01:42 PM
Well then, I guess that calls for an edit of my post.
Please take note.
No teeth!!!!

BucEyedPea
07-02-2007, 01:46 PM
http://nfcsouth.net/bbs/html/emoticons/badteeth.gif