Four blasts shake Egyptian resortFollow

John Dildoe:

Heh, just wait until some of those Wahabi madmen run into this,
.

That will be the end of them.

The only time I said all Muslims in either of my posts, is when I made reference to all Muslims wanting a completely Muslim world. Is this false? one of the fundamental principles of the other 2 “Abrahamic” religions is our way is the only way... am I wrong?

Generalising about Muslims without distinguishing between Moderate and Extreist, Sunni or Shia is like bundling together Hassidic, Mizrahi, Karaite and Sephardic Jews and ignoring the massive difference between tolerant members of the diaspora with the likes of Menachem Begin and his Deir Yasin death squad in '48. [/quote]

Hassidic, Mizrahi, Karaite and Sephardic Jews are all the same though, they are either orthodox or they're not.

Kol Tuv!


Edited, Tue Jul 26 13:59:58 2005 by Tallbrownjew

Err. Yes. You clearly know little about the Islam. Not all Christians are evangelist. Some of the Imami I work with do believe that Islam is the only path, but most work closely with Christians, Sikhs and Jews locally. Plenty of inter-faith work goes on. As an atheist, I no longer pray, but regularly attend events in Mosques, Synagogues and Churches where the different faiths pray to the one God.

For someone well-travelled, you remind me of British Tourists who've been around the world "but the Fish and Chips were crap"

Fu[/i]ck Me! What utter bullsh[i]it! Sounds like someone who's never experienced a theological debate between Hasidim and Sephardim!

Salaam 'alaikum pilgrim.

Wait! So you are now saying that Iraq was related to the 9/11 attacks? Say it ain't so!

You are aware that you are directly blaming the UNs methodology of protracted weapons inspections for the 9/11 attacks, right? If the UN had allowed us to continue attacking in 91, instead of adopting the strategy they did, we would not have had forces stationed in Saudi Arabia for that long. If the UN had decided that Iraq was not complying and done the "right thing" back in the 90s, and done something directly as a body instead of making us take the action, maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Kinda throws the whole "But Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11" argument out the window. You just directly connected them. Welcome to the reality of international politics...



Which is exactly what we're trying to do skippy! The whole point of attacking Iraq was to resolve the problems with Saddam's government with the least amount of time spent in/on muslim soil. How do you not get this? The UN thought that the sanctions and inspection process was "working as intended". How many decades were we supposed to sit imposing them for the UN, while more folks like bin Laden prepared attacks against us?

The funny thing is that you are correct, but you don't seem to be able to logically move from realizing what the problem is, to realizing a solution. We were legally bound to enforce the UN resolutions against Iraq. But that required that we maintain a military and political presence there. You get that this was a big part of why Al-queda attacked us, but don't get that the quickest way to get us out of that situation is to attack Iraq, remove Saddam from power, replace him with a stable Muslim run democracy, and then hand power over to that muslim democracy.

Um. That's exactly what we've done. What more do you expect? Our soldiers are doing less and less of the soldiering in Iraq every day. The Iraqi defense foces are growing and getting better trained and equipped every day. We are doing *exactly* what we should do. In a few years, we'll likely have a very minimal amount of force in Iraq. No more then we've had in other parts of the region for decades. Certainly *less* then we had while enforcing UN sanctions over the last decade. That's the goal here.

And yeah. In the short term, that means that now the new Iraqi military and police are the targets for terrorists. Because they're seen as agents of the US. But in time that will change. How about you wait and see before condemning the current action and demanding an impossible set of conditions for success?



Huh? We do get that. The largest amount of ignorance is those who criticize the actions of our military in the region with virtually zero understanding of what their mission is right now. All you hear is body count. How many people were blown up this week in Iraq? Do you have a clue how many schools we've built? How many factories? Roads? Bridges? Power plants? Of course not. Because you care more about finding the exceptions that supports your "side", then learning about what is really going on every day in Iraq. You don't care to know about that because that would mean accepting the fact that what we're doing is actually working. You don't want to know that because that might make you have to admit that maybe the Bush administration is the first US administration to actually look at the problem of terrorism realistically and take actions that can actually work.

And you'll never want to admit that...

Who was SITTING ON THEIR LAND in EGYPT?



yeah folks lets just pull out of the middle east, it's going to quite nice when iran and iraq form a shiite persia the likes of which nebuchadnezzar would be envious of.




Edited, Wed Jul 27 03:23:11 2005 by Tallbrownjew

Edited, Wed Jul 27 09:35:29 2005 by Tallbrownjew

No he's saying the refusal of America to leave Saudi Arabia caused 9/11, for gods sake Gbaji he only spouts it in every F*cking post he makes, at least TRY to keep up.