McCain should win in landslide. Obama turning out to be a lightweight.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I use the term “liberal” more in the modern sense of “liberal democracy” (i.e. as found in Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History”). I want to be very careful there, because mention of Fukuyama is likely to prompt a response regarding his previous alignment with Bill Kristol and the Neoconservative movement. What I am trying to say is that “liberal” to me means someone who believes in the rule of law, the right of franchise and free speech and the right to choose their own form of government. Yes, “Common Sense” was Paine. Paine’s contemporaries included Edmund Burke (who coined the wonderful expression: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”), as well as Robespierre, both of whom had very different ideas about freedom, liberty and governing.

That being said, I would also quickly like to point out that some of our policies as of late would certainly not support the idea that the US advocates a liberal approach, but rather is more hegemonic in our approach, especially with something like the nation building strategy employed in Iraq.

I wanted to say that I found much of what you said regarding the US disheartening. The idea that we are nothing better than a rampaging monster bent on world domination at any cost stands in stark contrast to history. It was a tirade in the sense that it left out a lot of facts, as well as making assertions that are undeniably false. One of these is the notion that Israel is a vassal state to the US. Israel, at present, is the only country in that part of the world where the rule of law does prevail. It is surrounded by countries where having opinions like the ones we freely express here would get you imprisoned, tortured or worse.

You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.

I think for the dialogue to work, we need to stick with facts and dump the rhetoric and the polemic. Just my $.02.

[NotCranky]

Not polemic at all Allan,If you contain my comments to recent history,which was my intention. As far a rhetoric goes well yea . I was deliberately a little sloppy in defining Israel as a Colony. Not that I think that is completely off (rule of law or not). Maybe, standing army, outpost, or military base is more appropriate? Of course I understand that in many contexts Israel means many things to different people.

Thanks for pointing out that a big mouth like me would be dead in other countries. If I were someone of an importance in this country I would be silenced and made obscure by either party or both. We can afford pretty high morals domestically at the time, thank goodness.Kent state tells me it is a luxury that is transient.

“You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.”

I don’t find this surprising. Faced with different tensions in the world other religions have also behaved the same way or worse. This is a red herring no? Although I find Osama’s visions as stated by yourself,appalling as well I tend to see him as forced into a reactionary position.

[NotCranky]

Not polemic at all Allan,If you contain my comments to recent history,which was my intention. As far a rhetoric goes well yea . I was deliberately a little sloppy in defining Israel as a Colony. Not that I think that is completely off (rule of law or not). Maybe, standing army, outpost, or military base is more appropriate? Of course I understand that in many contexts Israel means many things to different people.

Thanks for pointing out that a big mouth like me would be dead in other countries. If I were someone of an importance in this country I would be silenced and made obscure by either party or both. We can afford pretty high morals domestically at the time, thank goodness.Kent state tells me it is a luxury that is transient.

“You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.”

I don’t find this surprising. Faced with different tensions in the world other religions have also behaved the same way or worse. This is a red herring no? Although I find Osama’s visions as stated by yourself,appalling as well I tend to see him as forced into a reactionary position.

[NotCranky]

Not polemic at all Allan,If you contain my comments to recent history,which was my intention. As far a rhetoric goes well yea . I was deliberately a little sloppy in defining Israel as a Colony. Not that I think that is completely off (rule of law or not). Maybe, standing army, outpost, or military base is more appropriate? Of course I understand that in many contexts Israel means many things to different people.

Thanks for pointing out that a big mouth like me would be dead in other countries. If I were someone of an importance in this country I would be silenced and made obscure by either party or both. We can afford pretty high morals domestically at the time, thank goodness.Kent state tells me it is a luxury that is transient.

“You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.”

I don’t find this surprising. Faced with different tensions in the world other religions have also behaved the same way or worse. This is a red herring no? Although I find Osama’s visions as stated by yourself,appalling as well I tend to see him as forced into a reactionary position.

[NotCranky]

Not polemic at all Allan,If you contain my comments to recent history,which was my intention. As far a rhetoric goes well yea . I was deliberately a little sloppy in defining Israel as a Colony. Not that I think that is completely off (rule of law or not). Maybe, standing army, outpost, or military base is more appropriate? Of course I understand that in many contexts Israel means many things to different people.

Thanks for pointing out that a big mouth like me would be dead in other countries. If I were someone of an importance in this country I would be silenced and made obscure by either party or both. We can afford pretty high morals domestically at the time, thank goodness.Kent state tells me it is a luxury that is transient.

“You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.”

I don’t find this surprising. Faced with different tensions in the world other religions have also behaved the same way or worse. This is a red herring no? Although I find Osama’s visions as stated by yourself,appalling as well I tend to see him as forced into a reactionary position.

[NotCranky]

Not polemic at all Allan,If you contain my comments to recent history,which was my intention. As far a rhetoric goes well yea . I was deliberately a little sloppy in defining Israel as a Colony. Not that I think that is completely off (rule of law or not). Maybe, standing army, outpost, or military base is more appropriate? Of course I understand that in many contexts Israel means many things to different people.

Thanks for pointing out that a big mouth like me would be dead in other countries. If I were someone of an importance in this country I would be silenced and made obscure by either party or both. We can afford pretty high morals domestically at the time, thank goodness.Kent state tells me it is a luxury that is transient.

“You also omit the part about how many Moslems are killed throughout the world by their co-religionists, or the true nature of Islam when it comes to subjugation. I would think Osama’s vision of a worldwide Caliphate completely subject to Shari’a (Islamic law) hews more closely to world domination than any plans the US might have in this regard.”

I don’t find this surprising. Faced with different tensions in the world other religions have also behaved the same way or worse. This is a red herring no? Although I find Osama’s visions as stated by yourself,appalling as well I tend to see him as forced into a reactionary position.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Rus: I wasn’t referring to you as a big mouth at all. I was pointing out that the particular freedoms we enjoy, such as free speech, and the right of dissent, and the freedom of religion, don’t exist at all in those countries, or exist in severely curtailed and closely monitored forms.

My point about the Moslems was not a red herring. They are not simply unwitting victims in a largely Western conspiracy; rather, the conflict between Islam and the West (and the East, for that matter) has existed from the beginning of Islam’s expansion into “infidel” territory. The “Crusader” myth that Osama spins for his followers and a gullible Western media and Leftists all too eager to buy it, is exactly that: A myth. The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.

What Osama sells and many buy is the notion somehow that the US “deserved” 9/11 as a result of our policies and actions. As is true with every good lie, there is a kernel of truth in there. But ask yourself this: What is Osama’s greater vision for Israel, the US and the world? One where all peoples coexist peacefully, enjoy freedom of speech and religion, and the right of franchise? I don’t think so, and I’m hard pressed to think you do, either. We haven’t forced him into anything. He is motivated by a racist, xenophobic vision of a world dominated by an archaic form of Islam; a form of Islam that despises modernity and the notions of free speech, or another religion or religions, or any type of freedom of government, or sexuality, or equality.

[surveyor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.
[/quote]

Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in the year 638. The Muslims started expanding their territory and attacking the then Byzantine Empire. Throughout this time there was many attacks on the clergy by Muslims and also a tax was issued on non-muslims (as required by the Koran). There was a lot of back and forth between the Muslims and the Byzantines until finally the Byzantine emperor appealed for help from the Pope. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusades in 1095.

So it’s not decades of attacks. It’s centuries.

There is a law in Islam that if land has passed from muslim hands to infidel hands, it is required that muslims wage war to reclaim it. That is the crux of their argument against Israel. That is why many muslims are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel because it goes against their religious law. While they may negotiate, they will always break their agreements because of this principle.

It’s also interesting because the popular perception of the Crusades is that the Christian world was waging an unjustified war of conquest and subjugation against the muslims, when the truth was exactly the opposite. It certainly sounds familiar.

(no page 12 yet?).

[surveyor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.
[/quote]

Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in the year 638. The Muslims started expanding their territory and attacking the then Byzantine Empire. Throughout this time there was many attacks on the clergy by Muslims and also a tax was issued on non-muslims (as required by the Koran). There was a lot of back and forth between the Muslims and the Byzantines until finally the Byzantine emperor appealed for help from the Pope. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusades in 1095.

So it’s not decades of attacks. It’s centuries.

There is a law in Islam that if land has passed from muslim hands to infidel hands, it is required that muslims wage war to reclaim it. That is the crux of their argument against Israel. That is why many muslims are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel because it goes against their religious law. While they may negotiate, they will always break their agreements because of this principle.

It’s also interesting because the popular perception of the Crusades is that the Christian world was waging an unjustified war of conquest and subjugation against the muslims, when the truth was exactly the opposite. It certainly sounds familiar.

(no page 12 yet?).

[surveyor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.
[/quote]

Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in the year 638. The Muslims started expanding their territory and attacking the then Byzantine Empire. Throughout this time there was many attacks on the clergy by Muslims and also a tax was issued on non-muslims (as required by the Koran). There was a lot of back and forth between the Muslims and the Byzantines until finally the Byzantine emperor appealed for help from the Pope. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusades in 1095.

So it’s not decades of attacks. It’s centuries.

There is a law in Islam that if land has passed from muslim hands to infidel hands, it is required that muslims wage war to reclaim it. That is the crux of their argument against Israel. That is why many muslims are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel because it goes against their religious law. While they may negotiate, they will always break their agreements because of this principle.

It’s also interesting because the popular perception of the Crusades is that the Christian world was waging an unjustified war of conquest and subjugation against the muslims, when the truth was exactly the opposite. It certainly sounds familiar.

(no page 12 yet?).

[surveyor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]The Crusades weren’t solely a result of Christians attempting to retake Jerusalem and the Holy Land, they were also an attempt to resist the decades of predations and invasions that Christians had suffered at the hands of Moslems.
[/quote]

Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslims in the year 638. The Muslims started expanding their territory and attacking the then Byzantine Empire. Throughout this time there was many attacks on the clergy by Muslims and also a tax was issued on non-muslims (as required by the Koran). There was a lot of back and forth between the Muslims and the Byzantines until finally the Byzantine emperor appealed for help from the Pope. Pope Urban II issued the call for the crusades in 1095.

So it’s not decades of attacks. It’s centuries.

There is a law in Islam that if land has passed from muslim hands to infidel hands, it is required that muslims wage war to reclaim it. That is the crux of their argument against Israel. That is why many muslims are unwilling to accept the existence of Israel because it goes against their religious law. While they may negotiate, they will always break their agreements because of this principle.

It’s also interesting because the popular perception of the Crusades is that the Christian world was waging an unjustified war of conquest and subjugation against the muslims, when the truth was exactly the opposite. It certainly sounds familiar.

(no page 12 yet?).

[Author]

Posts