Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 194

Thread: Is the London attack........

  1. #51
    Master OptiBoarder spartus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    CA
    Occupation
    Optical Retail
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by rep
    Spexvet - dumping tea in Boston Harbor so it won't be taxed, is equal to terrorism? What planet are you on? Winning the war means giving up something - what a wonderful blame us position - really glad you are not negotiating for the U.S. Typical hogwash about 9/11 being our fault and WE are to blame for hungry Muslums? Wow what a pantload. Name one time or place where appeasement has worked long term? No I am not advocating a civil war. I am advocating taking the war to the homefront of the terrorist and making it up close and personal. There have been many wars just like this. Most of them you never hear about because we deal with them up close and personal.

    Spartus - jury is still out regarding the British Bombers - my bet is that they were muslums, just from another nationality. Time will tell.
    K, first: Terrorism : The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.

    Tea, harbor, etc.

    I think the fourth definition listed there is the most accurate (The systematic use of violence to achieve political ends), but hey, that might just be me.

    Then, in regards to what I said. Whether or not they were "Muslums" [sic] was not the issue with what you posted, it was whether they were immigrants. This begs the question: Do you believe all immigrants are terrorists or only immigrants can become terrorists? If you agree with the second question, then how many generations does a family have to live in a country before they're no longer "immigrants"?

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    Rep: Long enough to adopt the language, culture and beliefs of the adopted country. This can be 15 min. or never.

  3. #53
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Sometimes you really "kill" me, Spexvet! :bbg:

    Take a close look and remark the details in this recent aerial photograph of some "Muslim holy ground" [sic] in Iraq.

    Study the caption under the photograph.

    "Holy ground", my a**! :hammer:



    US CENTCOM-release: Aerial imagery of Shiite militia mortar positions on the eastern sidewalk of the Imam Ali Shrine, Najaf, Iraq, taken from RQ-1 Predator UAV. Imagery from August 23, 2004.
    Welcome out of retirement, Rinsey. I don't see any conflict with "stay off our holy land" and "we have guns on our holy land to keep you off".
    ...Just ask me...

  4. #54
    Master OptiBoarder rep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Red State in The South
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    770

    Consider deaths per year and dollars per year......

    Quote Originally Posted by RGC_man
    In what way were Grenada and Panama bigger than Northern Ireland?

    US conflict deaths: http://members.aol.com/usregistry/allwars.htm

    Northern Ireland deaths: http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/sli...s_by_year.html

    When you consider the small population, it is a huge conflict.

    Despite the peace process, people are still being killed and maimed in punishment beatings.
    Massive influx of troops and military reasources that resulted in and end of the violence? vs long drawn out appeasement and consessions.

    Northern Ireland has been a long protracted conflict, some say since the 1921 peace accord. The average deaths per year during the period your chart covers is about 100. If you compare American and civillian deaths per year and average dollars spent per year for Grenada and Panama I think those conflicts were bigger. This is my point exactly regarding appeasement - Grenada and Panama would both be another Northern Ireland if the US had continued to appease the opposition. We went in took them out and restored peace. If the parties continue to appease in Northern Ireland the conflict will continue forever.

    I agree that the total number of deaths for Northern Ireland during the 80 years of the conflict total more than the other conflicts mentioned, but hey some people keep beating a dead horse. Remember I also said the more you appease the more you risk continued terror attacks, because to them it seems to be effective.

    Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict. Do you still think it is a huge conflict? - or is it a small conflict that has gone on for years with an average annual death rate of 100.

    http://www.psni.police.uk/index/stat...eaths_1997.htm

    Shanbaum go back to fretting about O'Conner and wringing you hands about Rehnquist.

    Rep
    Last edited by rep; 07-13-2005 at 11:46 PM.

  5. #55
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    Supporting repressive regimes in the Middle East, exploiting common Middle Eastern workers by our multinational corporations, and putting military bases on Muslim holy ground had nothing to to do with their lashing out with terrorism? Wow, what an arrogant and limited perspective on international affairs. Keep up the same attitude and behavior, and you'll keep getting the same results (terrorism).
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    Welcome out of retirement, Rinsey. I don't see any conflict with "stay off our holy land" and "we have guns on our holy land to keep you off".
    Hello Spexvet,

    I think that there is a real conflict between some of your own ideas about the Middle East and how the U.S. is involved with it.

    In the runup to the first Gulf War, the U.S. enlarged its military presence in Saudi Arabia to protect the arguably "repressive" regimes of the Arabian Gulf such as in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait against an even MORE repressive and dangerously expansionist regime in Iraq. Our military bases were established in the Arabian desert, with some presence in the cities -- but not in the holy city of Mecca. Was that trespassing on Muslim holy ground? For the extremists like Osama and his followers and the idiots who attacked the London transit system, there's no rational limit to the extent of "Muslim holy ground". THEIR concept of "Muslim holy ground" extends from North Africa eastward through the Middle East (and Israel!), across Iran and Afghanistan and Pakistan and all the way to the Philippines and Indonesia. The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!

    The U.S. invaded Iraq in part to put an end to a regime that was SINGULAR in its repression of the two main Iraqi minority groups, Shiites and Kurds. That of course was the regime of Saddam Hussein. And you are now speaking in defense of a few Shiite extremists like that criminal nut Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Al-Sadr militia? An extremist minority within a larger Shiite minority that welcomes the U.S. presence in Iraq as a necessary and only temporary measure towards establishing a new and freer Iraq? If the U.S. had not moved to finally eliminate Saddam Hussein (it was long overdue), we would have been supporting a singularly repressive regime in the Middle East by default -- by doing absolutely nothing to change it. Yet by your logic, it was somehow understandable or OK for a few Islamic extremists to set up artillery tubes and then fire on Coalition personnel from inside the perimeter of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf -- the most holy of (Shiite Muslim) "holy ground". GIVE ME A BREAK!

    I think I've said enough -- for now.

    Thank you for offering such a stimulating post to interest me and draw my response.

    Are you reading more posts and enjoying it less? Make RadioFreeRinsel your next Internet port of call ...

  6. #56
    Master OptiBoarder rinselberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Sunnyvale, CA 94086
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    2,301

    Correction!

    In my previous post (just above), I referred to the Iraqi Shiites as a "minority group".

    The Shiites are by a wide margin the largest religious or ethnic population within Iraq.

    So I correct myself, but I don't think that this has any bearing on what I was trying to put across in my post.

  7. #57
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg

    The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!
    It may be baloney to you, and for that matter, to me as well, but that doesn't matter in the least. The point is, that complaints of foreign occupation of Arab land (more specifically than Muslim land) resonate extremely well amongst Arabs. You may recall that the principal reason that bin Laden gave for the 9/11 attacks was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia. That may fail rational analysis, but it was almost certainly purposeful; the combination of the Arabs' experience of imperialism with the religious significance they have come to attach to property is very compelling to them.

    There was, for example, in a recent Time magazine, an interview with a would-be suicide bomber for whom the precipitative event in his decision to go down that path was not that America came to Iraq (which he apparently thought was OK) but that we stayed. That seems like a fine distinction when one is making that kind of decision, and I think it is; but it reveals something about their extreme sensitivity to occupation.

    These kinds of things matter when formulating a foreign policy, even if they're irrational. I submit that knowing what we know now, it is simply impossible to imagine that the U.S. would have done what we did in the way we did it (if, indeed, we would have done it at all, which I doubt). At the very least, the degree to which Iraqi society would simply fly apart after the removal of Saddam was not anticipated. Had it been, I'd like to think that the powers-such-as-they-be would have done something different to try to prevent it. If not, then they would be the ones behaving irrationally.

    Likewise, the import you impute to the presence of guns on "holy ground" is misplaced. You think it vitiates the assertion that the ground is holy. To them, it doesn't; I suspect that they see those guns as holy guns. It may not seem like a fair way to look at things - but, that's the way it is. Do you really think it would be sensible to take the attitude, "hey, you guys shoot up your mosques, so we should be able to, too." Maybe a fair position - but it's going to have a predictable outcome, which will not be positive.

    Let's try a practical demonstration. Go out and find a bunch of young gangsta black guys throwing the n-word at each other, and join in the conversation; I mean, if they can call each other n*****, you should be able to, too, right? Let me know how that works for you.

  8. #58
    ATO Member OPTIDONN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by shanbaum
    They were not. As you may have noticed, rep is quite the ignoramus; it's a pretty typical characteristic amongst extremists.
    Hmm...are you stating a fact or are you just name calling? I think he has made several good points.

  9. #59
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Hello Spexvet,
    Hello Rinselberg
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    The U.S. trespassing on "Muslim holy ground"? That's baloney!
    Thank you, Robert, for your outstanding response. The only thing I would add, Rinsey, is:

    Would you have removed the military bases on their holy ground if you'd known it would have prevented 9/11?

    Would that have been appeasement, rep?
    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    The U.S. invaded Iraq in part to put an end to a regime that was SINGULAR in its repression of the two main Iraqi minority groups, Shiites and Kurds. That of course was the regime of Saddam Hussein.
    And yet we supported Saddam Hussein when it suited us. We provided arms when he was at war with Iran. We also supported repressive regimes like the Shah of Iran's. We provided weapons to the Afghan freedom fighters, when they resisted the Soviet Union - weapons that were probably used against us when we invaded Afghanistan. We have a close relationship with Saudi Arabia - hey, I hear they're actually going to let women have jobs there, soon. We support Pakistan, whose ideology impacted the young Brits who bombed London last week. So please don't pretend that we attacked Iraq out of some sense of good will.

    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    And you are now speaking in defense of a few Shiite extremists like that criminal nut Muqtada Al-Sadr and his Al-Sadr militia?
    Absolutely not! I addressed rep's point the we Americans are blameless. We are not, IMHO.

    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Yet by your logic, it was somehow understandable or OK for a few Islamic extremists to set up artillery tubes and then fire on Coalition personnel from inside the perimeter of the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf -- the most holy of (Shiite Muslim) "holy ground". GIVE ME A BREAK!
    It's not OK, but I do understand it. I don't think that it's much different than the action we would take. Would you take action to protect your holy place, if you have one? If an foriegn army was occupying the US, would you fire upon them? The best way to keep our personnel safe is for them to not be there. I guarantee that no muslim insurgents would fire upon them if they were in Fort Hood.

    Quote Originally Posted by rinselberg
    Thank you for offering such a stimulating post to interest me and draw my response.
    It has been my pleasure.
    ...Just ask me...

  10. #60
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by OPTIDONN
    Hmm...are you stating a fact or are you just name calling? I think he has made several good points.
    Really? What would those be?

    Sorry, but anyone who can write something as deeply stupid as, "Grenada and Panama would both be another Northern Ireland if the US had continued to appease the opposition" is unlikely to be a reliable source of information about anything.

    The only reason I bother to point this out is that rep persists in posting comments that are borderline skinhead. I want readers to understand that those kinds of comments come only from the profoundly ignorant and deeply disturbed. It's what I would have done had I been in pre-Nazi Germany in the early 30's (before hightailing it out of there, after my comments fell on deaf ears). In any case, it's the same kind of crap.

  11. #61
    ATO Member OPTIDONN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,336
    Could you pleases highlite some of his skin-head comments? I don't think that I have seen any. I do have one question. If you are passionate about something does that make you an extremist?

  12. #62
    Objection! OptiBoard Gold Supporter shanbaum's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Manchester, CT USA
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    2,976
    Quote Originally Posted by OPTIDONN
    Could you pleases highlite some of his skin-head comments? I don't think that I have seen any. I do have one question. If you are passionate about something does that make you an extremist?
    In this thread:

    "The whimsy of cultural diversity may kill us all."

    "Have we become so accomodating to those with cultural and religious differences that we are losing our own Christian-nurtured culture in the U. S., as Britian and Europe have?"

    "Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a 'us against them' conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid."

    "The appeasers be d***. Japan and Germany had their fanatical followers and only though the annihilation of a lot of their civilian population and their culture was peace established for the last 60 years and counting."

    The emphasized bits all advocate the commission of mass murder to achieve cultural purity. The achievement of cultural purity is itself a skinhead (or neo-Nazi) doctrine.

    In addition, the article he referenced was written by a fascist, as can be seen more clearly in the article by the same author that I cited.

    And no, being passionate about something doesn't make one an extremist; I am passionate about a number of things, about which I am not extreme: liberty, reason, and (tee-hee) moderation.

  13. #63
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by rep
    No, I have stated that I think the military should change tactics. Nothing else.

    Answering your question any other way is a federal crime punishable by life imprisonment. I am sure you know that -better luck next time, If you doubt it, check todays paper.

    Rep
    Quote Originally Posted by rep
    ...Call it what you want, I am beginning to believe that this is a "us against them" conflict and it will not be resolved until there is no longer any of "them" willing to lift arms against us. Therefore it's time to change the rules of the game. Raising son's and daughter's to lift arms against Americans and American interest must have a price that has yet to be paid.

    The appeasers be d***. Japan and Germany had their fanatical followers and only though the annihilation of a lot of their civilian population and their culture was peace established for the last 60 years and counting...
    Rep
    I'll alert the authorities...
    ...Just ask me...

  14. #64
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    England
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by rep
    Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict. Do you still think it is a huge conflict? - or is it a small conflict that has gone on for years with an average annual death rate of 100.
    Well that's OK then. All the killings, kneecappings, beatings banishments, and gangsterism are no worse than road traffic accidents. That must be a real comfort to the relatives. You might as well say US WW2 deaths are no worse than deaths from smoking. Personally, I have more respect than to discount such suffering.

    But Northern Ireland is a good comparison in another way. Would you rather live behind huge "peace" lines in religously segregated Belfast where you can be killed for pronouncing the letter H incorrectly (showing which side you're from). Or would you rather live in a tolerant city like London where you can be anything you want, as long as you mind your own business, and live and let live.

    The London bombing was not Islamists attacking the West. It was extremists attacking moderates, many of who were Muslims. Muslim and Christian fundamentalists sound like two side of the same intolerant coin. Still, it's amusing listening to nervous whites talking in code.
    Optical technicians in Britain.

    http://www.optiglaze.co.uk/forum/

  15. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by chip anderson
    Has anyone noticed that the British have stated that "appearently all the bombers were suicide bombers and were killed in the blast."
    The British have also stated that they have recovered "timing devises" from the bombing sites.
    Now, just what does a suicide bomber need with a "timing devise" on his bomb. Want time to say prayers to Allah before it goes off?

    Chip
    Further to my last post on this matter, Chip, you brainiac , if you were going to carry a bomb onto a busy bus or train and you wanted it to go off at a specific time to co-ordinate with three of your accomplices how would you go about it?

    Would you tap the guy next to you on the shoulder, ask him the time and then start to dig the device out of your rucksack?

    Rick

  16. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by rep
    Northern Ireland has been a long protracted conflict, some say since the 1921 peace accord. The average deaths per year during the period your chart covers is about 100.
    Put things in perspective. There have been an average of 150 traffic deaths in Northern Ireland since 1997 vs 100 deaths due to the conflict.
    OK Rep....
    In the UK about 5000 people per year die as a result of MRSA, a hospital superbug.
    So as long as I only kill 4999 people per year who I take exception to is that OK?

    I mean dammit, im stll safer than the hospitals, right?

    Rick

  17. #67
    Master OptiBoarder Joann Raytar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    USA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    4,948
    Quote Originally Posted by RGC_man
    Or would you rather live in a tolerant city like London where you can be anything you want, as long as you mind your own business, and live and let live.

    The London bombing was not Islamists attacking the West. It was extremists attacking moderates, many of who were Muslims. Muslim and Christian fundamentalists sound like two side of the same intolerant coin. Still, it's amusing listening to nervous whites talking in code.
    Probably the closest post to what is actually going wrong and going on.

    But even extremist foot soldiers are trapped. All you need is a charismatic leader or group of leaders telling folks beaten down from decades of war, who don't know what their identities are because they keep being misplaced by one party or another that if they follow them everything will be fixed for their future generations - throw in the word of that cultures god/God and you have the makings for guerilla warfare. That's how leaders big and small manipulate, Jim Jones, Charles Manson, David Koresh, not to mention all of the political leaders who got away with talking their people into commiting genocide.

    We need to find these leaders and cut off the command centers. We need better means of getting intelligence.

  18. #68
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    My take on the religious aspect:

    There seems to be inheirent in Islam and the Arab world a desire to unite and form some sort of political/religious state (the so-called Pan-Arabic-whatever).

    (There are the militant Arabs, like Saddam [although he was nominally Muslim] that simply want power. Nothing unique there, so they shouldn't be included in this discussion.)

    A reasonably high percentage take their religion rather seriously, more so than in the soon-to-be completely secular West. Their religion seems to have the tenet that all are to be Muslim or at least to live under their Muslim law (shar-something?). Their sense of holiness dictates that. It is a easily offended religion, I think, as recent history has shown.

    The religious Muslims seem to understand what western culture can do to destroy their holy laws/culture, and they take umbrage to Western presence and culture. And I understand that: lots of popular Western culture, especially American, is trash. Muslims and Christians would agree, here.

    I don't have a problem if Islam wants to keep itself isolated from external forces, but that is increasingly unlikely to occur (same in the US/West). It's how we interact with our neighbors that count, though, and these killers are giving Islam a very bad name, worldwide. In segments of Islam, it's acceptable to kill the neighbors.

    (As a comparison, in defense of fundamentalist Christianity, its response to neighbors is to proselytize. At least in Christianity, there is an understanding that Christianity is voluntary. Yes, to those cynics that will complain of fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to interact with the world's culture, it is voluntary. So I would claim that at least fundamentalism in Christianity leads to no bloodshed [the rare wacko abortion-bomber is not a Christian].)

    What I'm preaching here, is religious tolerance. If we could script the way the world works, I would recommend a situation where religions co-exist, and leave all the "fighting" to peaceful discourse between religions. There's no need to kill in the name of religion.

    Having said all that about religion, I would say there is at least an equal amount of worldly/secular/military/economic/power-related force behind the conflict between the Arabs and the Western Civilizations. I would say even that's a conservative estimate. That's not to be ignored; a lot of bad stuff is done in the name of religion, and no matter how tolerant and respectful we might be towards their religion, that would by no means end the friction.

    Warning! Warning! Warning! Only read the below if you are not offended by a conservative:

    Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.

    I fear that is true, and that that will never change. We must be realistic.

  19. #69
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    michigan
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    My take on the religious aspect:

    There seems to be inheirent in Islam and the Arab world a desire to unite and form some sort of political/religious state (the so-called Pan-Arabic-whatever).

    (There are the militant Arabs, like Saddam [although he was nominally Muslim] that simply want power. Nothing unique there, so they shouldn't be included in this discussion.)

    A reasonably high percentage take their religion rather seriously, more so than in the soon-to-be completely secular West. Their religion seems to have the tenet that all are to be Muslim or at least to live under their Muslim law (shar-something?). Their sense of holiness dictates that. It is a easily offended religion, I think, as recent history has shown.

    The religious Muslims seem to understand what western culture can do to destroy their holy laws/culture, and they take umbrage to Western presence and culture. And I understand that: lots of popular Western culture, especially American, is trash. Muslims and Christians would agree, here.

    I don't have a problem if Islam wants to keep itself isolated from external forces, but that is increasingly unlikely to occur (same in the US/West). It's how we interact with our neighbors that count, though, and these killers are giving Islam a very bad name, worldwide. In segments of Islam, it's acceptable to kill the neighbors.

    (As a comparison, in defense of fundamentalist Christianity, its response to neighbors is to proselytize. At least in Christianity, there is an understanding that Christianity is voluntary. Yes, to those cynics that will complain of fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to interact with the world's culture, it is voluntary. So I would claim that at least fundamentalism in Christianity leads to no bloodshed [the rare wacko abortion-bomber is not a Christian].)

    What I'm preaching here, is religious tolerance. If we could script the way the world works, I would recommend a situation where religions co-exist, and leave all the "fighting" to peaceful discourse between religions. There's no need to kill in the name of religion.

    Having said all that about religion, I would say there is at least an equal amount of worldly/secular/military/economic/power-related force behind the conflict between the Arabs and the Western Civilizations. I would say even that's a conservative estimate. That's not to be ignored; a lot of bad stuff is done in the name of religion, and no matter how tolerant and respectful we might be towards their religion, that would by no means end the friction.

    Warning! Warning! Warning! Only read the below if you are not offended by a conservative:

    Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.

    I fear that is true, and that that will never change. We must be realistic.
    I enjoyed reading this post. I concur.

  20. #70
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    ...
    (As a comparison, in defense of fundamentalist Christianity, its response to neighbors is to proselytize. At least in Christianity, there is an understanding that Christianity is voluntary. Yes, to those cynics that will complain of fundamentalist Christianity's attempt to interact with the world's culture, it is voluntary. So I would claim that at least fundamentalism in Christianity leads to no bloodshed [the rare wacko abortion-bomber is not a Christian].)
    I was thinking how closely your description fit Christian fundamentalists. Please - voluntary? Trying to pass an ammendment prohibiting same-gender marriage? Taking away a woman's right to choose? Posting the ten commandments on our halls of justice? (as if it's illegal to covet!). YOU say abortion clinic bombers are not Christian, but they are, and they do it in the name of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    Rush Limbaugh doctrine (and I paraphrase): Regrettably, history has shown that peace rarely comes with negotiations and treaties, but rather from one side militarily enforcing it's will on another's.
    And how's that working? War in Iraq and Afghanistan sure stopped the terrorism, didn't it? No?

    Quote Originally Posted by drk
    I fear that is true, and that that will never change. We must be realistic.
    When you continue to do the same old things, you get the same old results.
    ...Just ask me...

  21. #71
    Bad address email on file
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    michigan
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    334
    Quote Originally Posted by Spexvet
    I was thinking how closely your description fit Christian fundamentalists. Please - voluntary? Trying to pass an ammendment prohibiting same-gender marriage? Taking away a woman's right to choose? Posting the ten commandments on our halls of justice? (as if it's illegal to covet!). YOU say abortion clinic bombers are not Christian, but they are, and they do it in the name of Christ.



    And how's that working? War in Iraq and Afghanistan sure stopped the terrorism, didn't it? No?



    When you continue to do the same old things, you get the same old results.
    I will just say that NO they may claim to be christians but I am nearly sure that when they meet God he will say he did not know them, God is of love and forgiveness and mercy not of killing people for thinking differently then you. They are wackos claiming to be Christian just like there are wackos claiming to be muslim but I am nearly positive that they do there evils in the name of religion as a scape goat or because they really honestly have no idea the trueness and core of there religion. I as a Christian dislike the anti abortionist tactics when blowing up buildings...I imagine there are muslims who dislike the behavior of those bombing people and places as well. I cant believe that its hard to see that people need a reason for there craziness, its unfortunate but true...

  22. #72
    ATO Member OPTIDONN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Glen Ellyn, Illinois
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    1,336
    WOW! I just have to say what a thread! Ranting and not making any points for pages can be really annoying but geeze! This is a few pages of some good thought provoking stuff!!:cheers:

  23. #73
    Pomposity! Spexvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    On my soapbox
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    3,760
    Quote Originally Posted by cinders831
    I will just say that NO they may claim to be christians but I am nearly sure that when they meet God he will say he did not know them, God is of love and forgiveness and mercy not of killing people for thinking differently then you. They are wackos claiming to be Christian just like there are wackos claiming to be muslim but I am nearly positive that they do there evils in the name of religion as a scape goat or because they really honestly have no idea the trueness and core of there religion.
    Sounds like George W Bush
    ...Just ask me...

  24. #74
    What's up? drk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    9,388
    Word to the wise, judge any religion apart from those who profess to adhere to it. Adherence is the tough part!

    Spex, you surely see the distinction between Christians using the legal and governmentally-approved means to promote their positions versus using violence, don't you?

  25. #75
    Master OptiBoarder rep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Red State in The South
    Occupation
    Other Eyecare-Related Field
    Posts
    770

    demonizing views different from your own..................

    I posted an article and asked some questions. I never said they were my views but that I wanted some comments. I also made some statements in response to those who responded.

    Here are the responses from Robert the self proclaimed Optiboard "moderate":
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanbaum
    "I am passionate about a number of things, about which I am not extreme: liberty, reason, and (tee-hee) moderation"
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanbaum
    rep is quite the ignoramus; it's a pretty typical characteristic amongst extremists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanbaum
    rep persists in posting comments that are borderline skinhead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanbaum
    those kinds of comments come only from the profoundly ignorant and deeply disturbed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanbaum
    we are in rep's debt for pointing out the kinds of warped and twisted people we have to watch out for..
    and the ultimate sign of reason and moderation.......link someone to being a Nazi.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shambaum
    It's what I would have done had I been in pre-Nazi Germany in the early 30's (before hightailing it out of there, after my comments fell on deaf ears). In any case, it's the same kind of crap.
    Reason and moderation? Right.....................

    Thanks for the lesson.


    Rep

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oakley Retail Starting in London
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-16-2005, 11:57 AM
  2. U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
    By Steve Machol in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 07-16-2004, 06:44 PM
  3. Calling London
    By Jedi in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-11-2003, 09:00 AM
  4. London terror alert.
    By optispares in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-12-2003, 02:15 AM
  5. Big Brother is Watching London
    By Joann Raytar in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-23-2002, 09:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •