Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

info: Please Sign Up or Sign In to continue.

A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Dec 2nd 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: As far as I can tell, you're point is that you want to support, or at least not help ...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

As far as I can tell, you're point is that you want to support, or at least not help overthrow, anybody who claims to be anti-Jihadist. Even the slightest hint of ANY Islamic militants in any revolution results in you declaring the whole revolution to be a front for al-Quida & Co.

If I'm wrong, please point out where.

--hide--

And as far as I can see you support American supported régime change even if terrorists we fight in other countries are part of it. It just happens, we're not really sending them and would never do that (except that we do), and we mustn't be afraid to break a few, or thousands, of eggs to make the Middle East into you democratic omlete.

First of all, why is the régime change necessary at all, especially with Middle Eastern states that were, with the exception of Syria, client states of ours? What, did Obama decide elected dictators were the in thing this year?

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: (Quote) John-336509 said: As far as I can tell, you're point...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Quote:
John-336509 said:

As far as I can tell, you're point is that you want to support, or at least not help overthrow, anybody who claims to be anti-Jihadist. Even the slightest hint of ANY Islamic militants in any revolution results in you declaring the whole revolution to be a front for al-Quida & Co.

If I'm wrong, please point out where.


And as far as I can see you support American supported régime change even if terrorists we fight in other countries are part of it. It just happens, we're not really sending them and would never do that (except that we do), and we mustn't be afraid to break a few, or thousands, of eggs to make the Middle East into you democratic omlete.

First of all, why is the régime change necessary at all, especially with Middle Eastern states that were, with the exception of Syria, client states of ours? What, did Obama decide elected dictators were the in thing this year?

--hide--

I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong about your point? I did after all invite you to point out where I was misinterpreting it.

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong a...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong about your point? I did after all invite you to point out where I was misinterpreting it.

--hide--

Maybe I think there's truth to the old song, "What are words for...when no one's listening, there's no use talking at all."

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong a...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong about your point? I did after all invite you to point out where I was misinterpreting it.

--hide--

I didn't. I just pointed out another aspect of the scandal, which is that the states being "democratized" by force were, to some extent, client states of ours.

And yes, I find the fact that I include Libya, of all places, in that list quite amazing given the history.

But to get back to the point, it appears that this 1984 "we've always been at war with Eastasia" turn to the policy of Middle Eastern régime change is a peculiarly Orwellian touch of this President. What do you think?

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: (Quote) John-336509 said: I take it from the attempt to change t...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

Quote:
John-336509 said:

I take it from the attempt to change the subject that you don't think I'm wrong about your point? I did after all invite you to point out where I was misinterpreting it.


Maybe I think there's truth to the old song, "What are words for...when no one's listening, there's no use talking at all."

--hide--

I think it far more likely you simply prefer to avoid a straight answer on the topic. Which, ironically enough. is a pretty decisive answer in itself.

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: I didn't. I just pointed out another aspect of the scandal, which is that the state...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

I didn't. I just pointed out another aspect of the scandal, which is that the states being "democratized" by force were, to some extent, client states of ours.

And yes, I find the fact that I include Libya, of all places, in that list quite amazing given the history.

But to get back to the point, it appears that this 1984 "we've always been at war with Eastasia" turn to the policy of Middle Eastern régime change is a peculiarly Orwellian touch of this President. What do you think?

--hide--

The fact that you include Libya is less amazing when you consider that the only way to include it (or Syria) is to have a "creative" definition of what constitutes a client state.

I will agree that the Democrats are certainly showing themselves to be at the very least hypocritical in their sudden embrace of the necesity of regieme change.

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) John-336509 said: I think it far more likely you simply prefer to avoid a straight answer on the topic. Whi...
(Quote) John-336509 said:

I think it far more likely you simply prefer to avoid a straight answer on the topic. Which, ironically enough. is a pretty decisive answer in itself.

--hide--

The decisive answer is that yes, the US aided and abetted a revolution whose leading faction was an Islamist organization tied to Al Qaeda since 2007. The answer is that the US is supporting a rebellion in Syria lead by another arm of Al Qaeda.

I'm not seeing Al Qaeda where it isn't there. It is, and we are supporting them; in effect making our enemies our de facto mercenaries. This is insane, and I'm not the only one noticing.

www.zerohedge.com

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The decisive answer is that yes, the US aided and abetted a revolution whose leading fa...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The decisive answer is that yes, the US aided and abetted a revolution whose leading faction was an Islamist organization tied to Al Qaeda since 2007. The answer is that the US is supporting a rebellion in Syria lead by another arm of Al Qaeda.

I'm not seeing Al Qaeda where it isn't there. It is, and we are supporting them; in effect making our enemies our de facto mercenaries. This is insane, and I'm not the only one noticing.

www.zerohedge.com

--hide--

Allow me to repeat the statement:

As far as I can tell, you're point is that you want to support, or at least not help overthrow, anybody who claims to be anti-Jihadist. Even the slightest hint of ANY Islamic militants in any revolution results in you declaring the whole revolution to be a front for al-Quida & Co.

You do not appear to be making any attempt to deny any of that, so it would appear that I am properly understanding your point.

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Steven-706921 said: The decisive answer is that yes, the US aided and abetted a revolution whose leading fa...
(Quote) Steven-706921 said:

The decisive answer is that yes, the US aided and abetted a revolution whose leading faction was an Islamist organization tied to Al Qaeda since 2007. The answer is that the US is supporting a rebellion in Syria lead by another arm of Al Qaeda.

I'm not seeing Al Qaeda where it isn't there. It is, and we are supporting them; in effect making our enemies our de facto mercenaries. This is insane, and I'm not the only one noticing.

www.zerohedge.com

--hide--


I have heard that Al Qaeda is ultimately linked to a lot of the Arab Spring uprisings, and what is going on in Libya and Syria.
Al Qaeda is very strong, so that not a stretch.

Dec 4th 2012 new

(Quote) Marianne-100218 said: I have heard that Al Qaeda is ultimately linked to a lot of the Arab Spring uprisings,...
(Quote) Marianne-100218 said:



I have heard that Al Qaeda is ultimately linked to a lot of the Arab Spring uprisings, and what is going on in Libya and Syria.
Al Qaeda is very strong, so that not a stretch.

--hide--

The problem is what is meant by "linked." Depending on how you define your terms, you can "link" anybody to anything. The whole "Keven Bacon" game and all that.

There is no question that there are militant jihadists taking part in these conflicts. There is no question that there are also plenty of far more reasonable folks who are also taking part.

In the Cold War, the U.S. made the mistake of supporting ANYBODY, no matter how vile, who said they were anti-communist. Sometimes we kept the commies out, sometimes we failed. But we always created a lot of hatred and bitterness in the local populations by supporting their oppressors (in places where there were oppressive regimes). We need to avoid repeating that.

Posts 21 - 30 of 55