keep your friends close but your enemies closer
Published on February 7, 2011 By Anthony R In War on Terror

I've come to believe that Bush's policy of Democratization in the Middle East is a farce and a lost cause. It began to unravel when I saw the Iraqis time and time again standing on the smoldering ruins of American machinery and lives screaming allah akbar and it came to a grand finale, in a political sense, when Hamas. a terrorist organization, was democratically elected in the Gaza strip. Add to that woeful outcome the election in Lebanon of Hezbollah, a terrorist organization responsible for the Marine barrack bombing in Beirut and countless other bloody attacks on Americans and Israelis spanning the last 3 decades. Now, as we watch revolution in Egypt I can only hope the dictator Mubarak holds onto power and keeps the Egyptian people from electing the Muslim Brotherhood. Arabs and Persians will vote for the most repugnant, anti West regime imaginable. Time to wrap our troops and bring em home. Secure our borders, drill wherever oil might be, create a crash program to convert all residential and commercial property to natural gas heat, and deny all Visas to anyone from the Middle East, including those who try sneaking through France, Britain, and Germany.    


Comments (Page 8)
8 PagesFirst 6 7 8 
on May 10, 2011

BoobzTwo
The archbishop stated: "If there are violations of human rights, I cannot use the same method to stop them. As a Christian I have to use peaceful methods, first of all dialogue."

 

BoobzTwo
Lula, these were his words ... and you are manipulating them … why? … To what ends?

Ok. So you think I'm manipulating the archbishop's words, while I think I was trying to explain what "same methods" are as opposed to "peaceful methods". 

I pointed out that "same methods" are vengeance for vengeance (or as you say, an eye for an eye) methods.

Bottom line is that "same methods" here is employing violence for violence.

BoobzTwo
If you are making the claim that the Archbishop was promoting war, that info had to come from somewhere else?

No rest assured I wasn't making the claim that the Archbishop was promoting war. He is in fact promoting just the opposite.

 

 

on May 10, 2011

BoobzTwo
You are so cavalier with the use of the term “because they hate America” it sickens me. What is it YOU think AMERICA IS … that people like me hate? Obama apologists … you are being funny. If I ever mentioned him it would have been in a derogative way … just like I do for Bush. It must suck to have your life guided seemingly by politics alone … whose guiding light is the USG, go figure. The Human spider Web (Check figure), my of my, that explains a lot … I guess?

Sickens is such a strong term.  So I guess you really care.  Which is more than I can say for myself.  You may want to go back and reread my response as Ms. Narcissist, I never mentioned you.  I mentioned a cancer on America.  Should the shoe fit, you are more than welcome to wear it.  But do not accuse me of being your prince charming shodding your shoeless sole.

When you stop thinking the world is all about "U-U-U-U', come back and be more rational.  Until such time, go buzz someone who cares about what you think, feel, or don't think and feel.

on May 10, 2011

Leauki
Incidendentally, American and other forces are enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, not "bombing it". And I didn't even say whether I supported that action.

Au Contraire, they are bombing it.  The only similarity about this no fly zone being administered by France, GB and the USA and a real no fly zone is the use of airplanes.  In a "no fly zone" you do not bomb targets unless they are shooting at you - and Ghadhafy's compound was not doing that. (Neither were his tanks, but  I guess a supersonic jet fighter has to be afraid of a subsonic ground to ground projectile?)

on May 10, 2011

Dr Guy

Quoting Leauki, reply 101Incidendentally, American and other forces are enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, not "bombing it". And I didn't even say whether I supported that action.
Au Contraire, they are bombing it.  The only similarity about this no fly zone being administered by France, GB and the USA and a real no fly zone is the use of airplanes.  In a "no fly zone" you do not bomb targets unless they are shooting at you - and Ghadhafy's compound was not doing that. (Neither were his tanks, but  I guess a supersonic jet fighter has to be afraid of a subsonic ground to ground projectile?)

Well, they were supposed to institute a no-fly zone, not bomb the country. But I am not involved in that. I supported the invasion of Iraq but that was because I knew who the bad guy was (Saddam) and who the good guys were (the Kurds). I cannot say that I know that Gaddafi is worse than the rebels. Three things speak for the rebels though: They use the flag of royal Libya, they are supported by Berber (native) tribes and Gaddafi is a known terrorist supporter.

Either way, bombing military targets is no human rights violation and if that Bishop claims that they are he is either an idiot or a liar or both.

 

on May 10, 2011

lulapilgrim
No rest assured I wasn't making the claim that the Archbishop was promoting war. He is in fact promoting just the opposite.

What exactly is the opposite of promoting war?

 

on May 10, 2011

lulapilgrim
It's clearly not only military bases that are being bombed....civilians are being killed too.

The archbishop hasn't lied about anything. He would like the conflict in Libya resolved using "peaceful methods" beginning with dialogue. not by vengeance for vengeance or eye for an eye methods.

I don't know if Gaddafi uses human shields. Most like him do. Hitting human shields is no human rights violation either. I don't believe that US or other forces are purposefully hitting anything but military targets. If the Bishop wants to make that accusation he should say it out loud.

Who wouldn't like to resolve the conflict in Libya using "peaceful methods"? The problem is that "peaceful methods" don't work very well with people like Gaddafi (or the rebels for that matter). The Bishop has merely decided not to take the risk of doing anything. It's easy to call for "peace" when others do the fighting that protects you from war.

 

on May 10, 2011

Leauki posts:

Leauki
Incidendentally, American and other forces are enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya, not "bombing it". And I didn't even say whether I supported that action.

Lula posts:

lulapilgrim
News articles indicate that you are incorrect.

DrG posts:

Dr Guy
Au Contraire, they are bombing it.

Leauki posts:

Leauki
Well, they were supposed to institute a no-fly zone, not bomb the country. But I am not involved in that.

This isn't about you or your support of or involvement. Why can't you see that you made a claim the forces were not bombing Libya and that claim is incorrect? End of story. 

 

Leauki
Either way, bombing military targets is no human rights violation and if that Bishop claims that they are he is either an idiot or a liar or both.

 "If"?

here is the Archbishop's quote:

lulapilgrim
The archbishop stated: "If there are violations of human rights, I cannot use the same method to stop them. As a Christian I have to use peaceful methods, first of all dialogue."

Here the  "violations of human rights" was not about bombing military targets.

You might note that the news article also included that the bishops held an episcopal meeting:

The commission meeting, which ended Wednesday in Tunisia, gathered bishops of Maghreb with others from France and Spain.

The final declaration of the participants emphasized the plight of migrants fleeing the conflict zones, while also affirming that "no one can control the consequences of armed intervention that also affect innocent victims."

 

 

 

on May 10, 2011

Leauki
Bombing military installations is not a "human rights violation". The Bishop is lying. If he is not an idiot, he is a liar.

Here's today's news about the bombing of Libya and the archbishop:

Bombing of Libya is driving thousands of civilian from homes, bishop reports

  May 10, 2011

The apostolic vicar of Tripoli, who has consistently denounced the NATO air strikes in Libya, reports that the bombing is causing a massive exodus of refugees.

"The Libyans are afraid, every day thousands of people leave for Egypt and Tunisia, where refugee camps have been set up,” Bishop Giovanni Martinelli told the AsiaNews service. “Yesterday more than 30,000 people fled to Tunisia alone.”

Bishop Martinelli has issued numerous pleas for an end to the bombing campaign and the beginning of negotiations to settle Libya's future.

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

 

on May 11, 2011

lulapilgrim
Why can't you see that you made a claim the forces were not bombing Libya and that claim is incorrect? End of story.

Already seen. The end of the story happened before your involvement, as usual.

 

on May 11, 2011

To demonstrate that the Bishop is telling the truth you refer to other statements the Bishop has made backing up his claims?

Isn't the traditional method to find another source that confirms the first rather than just showing that the first source agrees with itself?

on May 11, 2011

Leauki
Either way, bombing military targets is no human rights violation and if that Bishop claims that they are he is either an idiot or a liar or both.

I was not getting into your debate with Lula, just contending the no fly as that is a great point of vexation for me.  I know why they call it that - so the progressives can support it without looking like the true hypocrites they are (ala iraq).  but that is not what vexes me.  As it is the natural tendency of progressives to lie even when the truth will do.

The vexation is with the Media going along with the charade.  I should not be, since that again is the natural tendency of the ministers of propaganda, yet I still have those rose colored glasses on.

on May 11, 2011

Dr Guy
I was not getting into your debate with Lula, just contending the no fly as that is a great point of vexation for me. I know why they call it that - so the progressives can support it without looking like the true hypocrites they are (ala iraq). but that is not what vexes me. As it is the natural tendency of progressives to lie even when the truth will do.

I get your point. Nevertheless, I doubt that NATO (or Arab League) forces intentionally fire at civilian targets (unless Gaddafi's troops hide next to them as does happen). Whether or not one agrees with what the US and others are doing in Libya, bombing military targets is not a human rights violation. (It is, however, a violation of Libya's souvereinty, because the west and the Arab League have recognised Gaddafi as the rightful ruler of Libya even though that in itself was also a crime.)

 

 

on May 11, 2011

Leauki

Quoting lulapilgrim, reply 106No rest assured I wasn't making the claim that the Archbishop was promoting war. He is in fact promoting just the opposite.
What exactly is the opposite of promoting war?

 

Promoting peace by peaceful means.

on May 11, 2011

lulapilgrim
Why can't you see that you made a claim the forces were not bombing Libya and that claim is incorrect? End of story.

Leauki
Already seen.

Evidently not, for you attempt  oneupsmanship by poking at me with this nonsense.

 

Leauki
To demonstrate that the Bishop is telling the truth you refer to other statements the Bishop has made backing up his claims?

Isn't the traditional method to find another source that confirms the first rather than just showing that the first source agrees with itself?

 

 

 

on May 11, 2011

Leauki
Whether or not one agrees with what the US and others are doing in Libya, ..... (It is, however, a violation of Libya's souvereinty, because the west and the Arab League have recognised Gaddafi as the rightful ruler of Libya even though that in itself was also a crime.)

And this point is one of major importance.  

Going back to the last paragraph of the AsiaNews.It article from 4/26/11  #92 post.

lulapilgrim
What is also of great concern is the fact that the military involvement in Libya is not only a neo-colonial war, but also the death warrant for the era that began with the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Thus, United Nations Resolutions 1970 and 1973 mark the end of the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs (based on the principle ‘Cuius regio, eius religio’) of an internationally recognised sovereign and independent nation. A world directory or government and a world central bank thus appear to be real possibilities. If this were the case, the war in Libya would mean the end of Western democracy and the system that developed in the past 300-400 years.

The point that the bombings have been authorized by the UN was thrown out to the archbishop and he asserted that "the United Nations, NATO and the European Union do not have "the moral authority to decide to bomb."

THe archbishop's point is one of major importance as well.

 

 

8 PagesFirst 6 7 8