Alighieri Re...Thereby distorting my presumed views. Yours were not questions. They were statements.
Some were. However, I still gave you examples of why I interpreted your statements in a particular way. If you meant to say something different, you could easily correct it.
Usually when I loathe someone or something, I quit supporting the cause they are trying to promote with violence.
Are you inferring that I support OSB nd terror? <<
No, but you are supporting causes and people who support support terror, specifically Saddam, the Palestinians and the clerics. If you are against violence at all costs, you should also be against all who espouse violence.
What tools does a democracy (ours and the one we wish on everyone else in the world) have to punish Jerry Falwell for saying that Mohammed was a terrorist? Or Billy Graham for saying that Islam is an evil religion? How would you punish clerics for preaching hatred without infringing on their freedom of expression? Hell, we can't stop a KKK march through the streets of Montgomery.
I don't know where you are getting this. We have laws here against people who incite riots and civil disturbances and violence, including the KKK. As far as Falwell, or Billy Graham, neither called for a jihad. They both said that we should quit supporting Islam though.
the Muslim religion has condemned itself to the dustbin of history.
Actually that is a partial statement. I said. The same goes for the Muslim terrorists, who seem to have the backing of the fundamentalist clerics. And by refusing to condemn and punish the clerics, the Muslim religion has condemned itself to the dustbin of history. Perhaps saying "Has" is premature, and "will" is the more correct tense. Nonetheless, by letting a sect of Islam promote violence, and not stopping the promoters, Islam will become insignificant. Cancers are also fast spreading, but they kill their host. So will the fundamentalists, unless they are stopped.
Never mind that history tells us that England was not even close to ready to fight Germany during Chamberlain's tenure.
Actually its been over 40 yrs since I have been in school so I looked it up.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRchamberlain.htm
On 13th March 1938 Leon Blum returned to office in France. When he began to argue for an end to the country's nonintervention policy, Chamberlain and the Foreign Office joined with the right-wing press in France and political figures such as Henri-Philippe Petain and Maurice Gamelin to bring him down. On 10th April 1938, Blum was replaced by Edouard Daladier, a politician who agreed not only with Chamberlain's Spanish strategy but his foreign policy that later became known as appeasement.
Chamberlain believed that Germany had been badly treated by the Allies after it was defeated in the First World War. He therefore thought that the German government had genuine grievances and that these needed to be addressed. He also thought that by agreeing to some of the demands being made by Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, he could avoid a European war.
Chamberlain felt that he could avoid a war through giving in, that is not the same as saying he knew Britian wasn't ready for war; so I think frankly, history is on my side here.
In fact, I believe Clinton's try at peace failed for that very reason, that the Us and Israel looked too desperate for a deal, which led Arafat and his fellow terrorist organizations to believe they could hold out for a better deal.
How can you fault Clinton for coming so close to a Palestinian/Israeli peace accord. <
Anyone would know that the art of making a deal is in making both sides believe they are getting a good deal. Clinton and Bakarek were so anxious to make a deal that Afrafat and the terrorists thought they could do better.
You don't solve it by begging.
Who advocates begging as a policy?
If you take away the option to respond to violence with violence, that is what you are left with. " Oh please don't hurt me".
by defeating Iraq we will stop one of the main supporters of the PLO and Hamas.
And give rise to ten fold the same from other places.
Possibly, however, what makes you think we can continue to live with the current level. I would rather die trying than live a cowards life in Islam, which is what OSB demanded in his letter yesterday. Besides, I feel confident that history will repeat itself, and that once we win the war, the terrorism will stop.
By installing a democracy...
Don't see the contraddiction do you?
Not at all. Enlighten me.
I think you can discourage terror peacefully with nations by emabarking on a policy of equitable solutions.
Obviously you read OSB letter in a different light than I. Why don't you read it again and tell me how I can live with OSB terms for peace. |
