Quote from Rush Limbaugh's appearance on CBS evening news... - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-11-2006, 02:02 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


but Rush is a strong supporter of abstinence-only education...
I could agree that Limbaugh is a hypocrite, and I consider him a very secular conservative. He's had more divorces than anyone I've ever heard of. I've never admired him as a broadcaster, his delivery is rather stale.

I can't say he embraces conservative principles in his personal life, but on the War on Terror, he's right.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 02:19 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Roosevelt imposed curfews on citizens with Japanese ancestry.


firstly, Roosevelt did a whole lot more than simply impose curfews, and it's now considered a national tragedy and thoroughly unnecessary as there was not a single act of sabotague or treason on the part of Japanese Americans -- essentially, you had a government who bended to the will of long standing nativist groups in California who pounced on this opportunity. (yet, the Japanese Americans in Hawaii, so critical to the pineapple harvest, were never interned, despite being thousands of miles closer to Japan).
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 05:42 PM   #18
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Oh Rush is wrong, Bush is wrong. He's an idiot....and golly our behavior has just been horrific and our lives haven't changed. And we'll be more comfortable and all of this will go away when a democrat is back in the White House. Only then will the atmosphere in Washington, D.C. go back to what it was when I spent my youth there instead of the warzone, edge of Apocalypse feeling I have when I visit there now. Airport security will go away. Security zones in skyscraprers will go away. I'll stop praying whenever I get on an airplane. We'll no longer have to sacrafice.

Only then will this cult will lay down their arms and disband.

And we'll all sit around and sing kumbaya.




--

"Islamic fascists" want to kill us and we're arguing what to call them and we're arguing about what an asshole Rush is or what kind of pills he takes or how many wives he's been through. I can only hope we do as well in judging and being a critic of our own lives.

Call them fuckwads for all I care. Their very existence makes us unsafe. But we argue the degrees or percentages of safe? Shouldn't be doing this...shouldn't have done that, we should be doing this. Don't do that...you've just made them madder! Boo hoo. It is like arguing about the degrees of a terminal cancer.

When the World Trade Center was attacked the first time in February of 1993, it was a declaration of war and we made a decision at that time to go forward without guns or ammunition. We made a decision not to imagine worse. Where did that take us? It failed.

We should go forward now as we should have when they failed in knocking down the Towers the first time. We should go forward as if the Pennsylvania plane wasn't delayed and our Capitol was destroyed. We should go forward as if another 10 planes had gone down over the Atlantic last month or as if a dirty bomb went off in Boston yesterday. They are planning our murder and destruction...we need to always remember and be aware of that.

These people celebrate the loss of every innocent life. Ours and theirs. We mourn innocent life while we all critique and get critiqued for every nuance of this war (this is not a war!). That's what makes us different. That's what freedom is about. Thank god for that freedom.

We all wish we could go back to our pre-9/11 lives. I wish my kids could grow up in that world but 9/11 was mass murder and we should never forget those raw images. I don't believe that we see them enough. We're are always a minute away from it happening again on much grander scale.

I am very excited about the next presidential election. I am looking forward to hearing what the candidates have to say on these issues and hearing some new ideas. I'm curious to see how the country will vote on this time around.

Don't ever forget. This is a battle for civilization.
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 06:20 PM   #19
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
Their very existence makes us unsafe.
Yes and what causes their existence, will war eleminate their existence, will it provide for recruiting in the future, etc. Questions you and all those rushing to war are too afraid and impatient to ask.



Quote:
Originally posted by Westport

When the World Trade Center was attacked the first time in February of 1993, it was a declaration of war and we made a decision at that time to go forward without guns or ammunition. We made a decision not to imagine worse. Where did that take us? It failed.

We didn't try anything else either, so it really doesn't prove that guns and ammunition are the end all be all...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 06:24 PM   #20
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 06:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport

"Islamic fascists" want to kill us and we're arguing what to call them and we're arguing about what an asshole Rush is or what kind of pills he takes or how many wives he's been through. I can only hope we do as well in judging and being a critic of our own lives.

Call them fuckwads for all I care. Their very existence makes us unsafe. But we argue the degrees or percentages of safe? Shouldn't be doing this...shouldn't have done that, we should be doing this. Don't do that...you've just made them madder! Boo hoo. It is like arguing about the degrees of a terminal cancer.

When the World Trade Center was attacked the first time in February of 1993, it was a declaration of war and we made a decision at that time to go forward without guns or ammunition. We made a decision not to imagine worse. Where did that take us? It failed.

We should go forward now as we should have when they failed in knocking down the Towers the first time. We should go forward as if the Pennsylvania plane wasn't delayed and our Capitol was destroyed. We should go forward as if another 10 planes had gone down over the Atlantic last month or as if a dirty bomb went off in Boston yesterday. They are planning our murder and destruction...we need to always remember and be aware of that.

These people celebrate the loss of every innocent life. Ours and theirs. We mourn innocent life while we all critique and get critiqued for every nuance of this war (this is not a war!). That's what makes us different. That's what freedom is about. Thank god for that freedom.

We all wish we could go back to our pre-9/11 lives. I wish my kids could grow up in that world but 9/11 was mass murder and we should never forget those raw images. I don't believe that we see them enough. We're are always a minute away from it happening again on much grander scale.

I am very excited about the next presidential election. I am looking forward to hearing what the candidates have to say on these issues and hearing some new ideas. I'm curious to see how the country will vote on this time around.

Don't ever forget. This is a battle for civilization.
'



yes, it's either Bush's way or a bongo circle. either you're with us or against us.

this attitude has done wonders for us so far.

you'll notice that people who think that Rush is a fool and Bush is an idiot don't, de facto, underestimate the threat that faces us. in fact, if i could plug my thread, which has heretofore been ignored, you'll see that it's because some of us value very deeply what it is those who would fly airplanes into buildings are seeking to destroy that we care very, very deeply about how this "war" (so intentionally vauge) is prosecuted, and i am firmly convinced that there could have been no worse man in the White House than the proudly ignorant simpleton we've been subjected to for the past 6 years.



and if Rush is going to make a career out of the judgement of, say, the recipient of a blow job, then he ought to be prepared for what's going to come his way when his own dirty laundry is aired in public
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 08:44 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Yes and what causes their existence, will war eleminate their existence, will it provide for recruiting in the future, etc. Questions you and all those rushing to war are too afraid and impatient to ask.





We didn't try anything else either, so it really doesn't prove that guns and ammunition are the end all be all...


I am all for ideas. What do you believe we should be trying?
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 09:06 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport




I am all for ideas. What do you believe we should be trying?
Start by asking the questions I just asked...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 09:13 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 08:08 PM
How about a Manhattan Project designed to eliminate the dependency on oil?

How about massive conservation policies which will reduce the usage of oil and energy?

How about policies which don't contribute to the recruitment of young angry disenfranchised men and women? Or people who have nothing but hatred for America after having their families killed during an air raid? Every innocent killed by the military is more fuel for recruitment by extremist groups.

How about stop trying to force other countries to follow your government system and let them evolve on their own? Also, if the government preaches the concepts of freedom, democracy and human rights, they better live it too otherwise the US government is seen as a hypocrite by much of the world.

How about more focus on intelligence and infiltration of extremist groups instead using hearsay to bomb the hell out of a house or building which is the wrong target? Investment and recruitment of Arabic speaking agents would be much more effective than the military options. The terrorists don't use conventional weapons nor mass upon a battlefield for a face to face war. Our recent discovery of an alleged plot in Canada was through an undercover agent and intelligence, not violence by the military.

How about stop using the grandiose rhetoric about "clash of civilizations" and "good vs evil"? The most powerful nation on the planet vs a handful of Islamic extremists is not a clash of civilizations. Some of Bush's statements sound like stuff Bin Laden would say to his footsoldiers, just switch the names around. Bin Laden is a grubby politician just like Bush continually changing and adjusting his arguments for attacking the US. He is in the business of terror and the more credence and attention given to him in speeches increases his power base. And the present policies of the Bush administration continue to give Bin Laden and his ilk arguments to convince people to join him.

As far as the present stategy, the last 5 years have seen more terrorist activity then the previous 5 years. Terrorism has been around since time began, extremists have been around since time began, all terrorists aren't Muslims, all terrorists don't hate freedom, all terrorists aren't the same, all the attacks in Iraq aren't from Al Qaeda. Yet everything this adminstration spouts out assumes one thing, it can defeat terrorism. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN no matter what strategy. However, if you can eliminate most of the reasons for the development of extremist positions, you reduce the number of extremists. This is one issue which is not being addressed.
__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 09:38 PM   #24
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


Start by asking the questions I just asked...


?
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-11-2006, 09:55 PM   #25
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,685
Local Time: 05:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport




?
Well without finding those answers we're just spinning a death wheel...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 01:12 AM   #26
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by trevster2k
How about a Manhattan Project designed to eliminate the dependency on oil?

How about massive conservation policies which will reduce the usage of oil and energy?

How about policies which don't contribute to the recruitment of young angry disenfranchised men and women? Or people who have nothing but hatred for America after having their families killed during an air raid? Every innocent killed by the military is more fuel for recruitment by extremist groups.

How about stop trying to force other countries to follow your government system and let them evolve on their own? Also, if the government preaches the concepts of freedom, democracy and human rights, they better live it too otherwise the US government is seen as a hypocrite by much of the world.

How about more focus on intelligence and infiltration of extremist groups instead using hearsay to bomb the hell out of a house or building which is the wrong target? Investment and recruitment of Arabic speaking agents would be much more effective than the military options. The terrorists don't use conventional weapons nor mass upon a battlefield for a face to face war. Our recent discovery of an alleged plot in Canada was through an undercover agent and intelligence, not violence by the military.

How about stop using the grandiose rhetoric about "clash of civilizations" and "good vs evil"? The most powerful nation on the planet vs a handful of Islamic extremists is not a clash of civilizations. Some of Bush's statements sound like stuff Bin Laden would say to his footsoldiers, just switch the names around. Bin Laden is a grubby politician just like Bush continually changing and adjusting his arguments for attacking the US. He is in the business of terror and the more credence and attention given to him in speeches increases his power base. And the present policies of the Bush administration continue to give Bin Laden and his ilk arguments to convince people to join him.

As far as the present stategy, the last 5 years have seen more terrorist activity then the previous 5 years. Terrorism has been around since time began, extremists have been around since time began, all terrorists aren't Muslims, all terrorists don't hate freedom, all terrorists aren't the same, all the attacks in Iraq aren't from Al Qaeda. Yet everything this adminstration spouts out assumes one thing, it can defeat terrorism. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN no matter what strategy. However, if you can eliminate most of the reasons for the development of extremist positions, you reduce the number of extremists. This is one issue which is not being addressed.

A handful of Islamic extremists?

I agree about the Manhattan project for various reasons but that won’t have an impact in changing their fatwa or overall objectives.

There is no doubt that in every way possible we are trying to infiltrate these groups. We’ll never hear about to what degree this is succeeding or failing.

And I agree that we will never defeat terrorism. Sadly, I believe that no matter what approach we take, we’ll most likely be defeated in this battle but I also believe that we must try not to be. The numbers are too great against us. The difference now at this time in history is the rapid development and portability of nuclear technology. The problem is that over centuries these countries have failed to evolve on their own. It just hasn’t happened. And now they don't have to evolve. It is Moore’s Law. A simple law of mathamatics and multiplication of population numbers. You just have to look forward a couple of generations. No matter what we do, we're most likely in a losing battle. Their extremist ideals and their numbers will control the planet.

And yes, we can slow it down or defuse limited numbers but we’re talking hundreds of thousands if not millions. But in order to eliminate “the development” of their top “extremist positions“….we have to allow for the complete destruction and annihilation of both the United States and Israel which are at the top of their list. That scenario is very feasible whether we go after them or whether we don't and it might happen quickly.

Do you believe that they don’t want the entire world to be ruled under their laws of Allah? There is no peace plan to change fanatical religious ideologies…

-----


From “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels” ( a religious fatwa that Osama bin Laden secured from Shaykh Nasir bin Hamd al-Fahd a young and prominent Saudi cleric justifying the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against Americans:

Anyone who considers America’s aggressions against Muslims and their lands during the past decades will conclude that striking her is permissible on the basis of the rule of treating one as one has been treated. No other argument need be mentioned. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their weapons and come up with a figure of nearly ten million....If a bomb that killed ten million of them and burned as much of their land as they have burned Muslim land was dropped on them, it would be permissible, with no need to mention any other argument. We might need other arguments if we wanted to annihilate more than this number of them.

----------

From Ayman Al-Zawahir: “We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill four million Americans—two million of them children—and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans’] chemical and biological weapons.”
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 01:30 AM   #27
War Child
 
Iskra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 752
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Since when did so many "religious" people start wanting to kill so badly?
Oh - since always.
Never mind.
Hey Rush. Go enlist or go buy a rifle and become a mercenary. Go "protect" me.
__________________
Iskra is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 01:32 AM   #28
Refugee
 
Westport's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,151
Local Time: 03:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
[B]'



this attitude has done wonders for us so far.


wonders for us so far? What attitude is it that you believe would be more successful in this struggle? He should be a pollyanna? We should send it all to the United Nations, perhaps? Denounce Israel?


for Bush and his dedicated attitude. I don't agree with a lot of what he has done (I'm not happy with the handling of Iraq) and he can't speak worth a damn but I love that he doesn't respond or look at a popularity poll when deciding how to run our foreign policy. I love that he hasn't moved from the commitment he made in the days after 9/11. (And if you watched the repeated coverage today, nearly everyone else has - politicians and newscasters that day called it a declaration of war). I admire that he is addressing this with definition and a view that is based in reality no matter how unpopular it may be.

So people want to kill us on a mass scale. You have an appreciation thread saying that you love what this fledgling country is based on but is naive to the thought that all that we have can't be easily be wiped away, and assumes that our country, our short history, values and ideals will always be here no matter how many planes fly into our buildings or how many suitcases go off in our cities. Can we assume that no matter what occurs we will always have these freedoms and rights? Like I said in an earlier post, this is about Moore's law and nuclear technology and ten years from now and fifty years from now and our children and our grandkids. Your list probably doesn't change if there are 3 million dead in New York City yesterday or tomorrow morning or in D.C., Chicago, Boston...but do you fight back then or never? You mentioned this in another post....At what point do you actually fight? At what point do you believe that our rights and freedoms need protecting? At what point do you believe that they're going after Jews, Christians, women and gays?
__________________
Westport is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 02:05 AM   #29
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Westport
Sadly, I believe that no matter what approach we take, we’ll most likely be defeated in this battle but I also believe that we must try not to be. The numbers are too great against us. The difference now at this time in history is the rapid development and portability of nuclear technology. The problem is that over centuries these countries have failed to evolve on their own. It just hasn’t happened. And now they don't have to evolve. It is Moore’s Law. A simple law of mathamatics and multiplication of population numbers. You just have to look forward a couple of generations. No matter what we do, we're most likely in a losing battle. Their extremist ideals and their numbers will control the planet.
Could you elaborate a little on what sort of response it is that you prefer? You say that you like Bush's attitude and that he's approaching this "with definition," but then you also say you're not happy with the handling of Iraq, which would seem to be the standout exemplar of Bush's "attitude" to date--what is that you're not happy with, and what do you think should be changed about it? When you say "these countries have failed to evolve on their own," which ones do you mean? Iraq? Iran? Pakistan? Lebanon? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Afghanistan? Which of those do you believe pose the most danger, and what is your solution for responding to their failures to evolve? Do you believe they have no motivations of their own to prevent substate terrorist actors from gaining possession of nuclear weapons and using their territories as a launching pad for them? Or were you more thinking in terms of an attack carried out from here--in which case what is your preferred pre-emptive solution for that?
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 09-12-2006, 02:36 AM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 08:08 PM
Relatively speaking, it is or at least was a handful of fanatics. Out of the hundreds of millions, perhaps over a billion Muslims, the majority of the Muslim population is not out to destroy America, this the problem with the strategy. It just reinforces the extremists argument of an evil America. Instead of reducing the number of people who are willing to listen to the crazy talk, it is having an opposite effect. Even these so called "home grown terrorist cells" are probably young Arab men who have been disenfranchised from society whether it be through perceived mistreatment or racism or just feeling left out. For whatever reason, they connect with the radical teachings of extreme Islam and meet others with the same mind set. Somewhere along the way, they dicuss possible methods of harming society. I think it is similar to the thinking of a young bullyed kid in schools who feels like an outsider and then goes out shooting people. Is it right, of course not. Millions and millions of people around the world disagree with US foreign policy but don't want to kill anyone over it. Yes, there are millions of Muslims out there who may hate the US right now, but are they all willing to go join a suicide squad, nope, I didn't see all the US citizens joining the military after 9/11 despite the rage within the society. Talk and action are two different things. You don't have to look any further than politicians to see that.

So what fuels this willingness to hate a country so much you are willing to kill yourself to kill others? Again, nothing in the present US policy in the "war on terror" is even considering this. All we hear is "they hate freedom" and now how they want totatalitarian Islamist regimes, well, again the US presently supports dictatorships in the Middle East so this whole argument doesn't even hold water. The problem with the Bush administration is that it is taking an extremely complex issue and simplifying it and thinking that throwing weapons at it will solve it or by taking out individuals will solve it. This simply won't work.

Actually, it is likely that the present policies have taken what was once a tiny group of outcasts and given them a stronger voice and sympathy amongst the general Muslim population. The US has invaded and occupied two Muslim countries. If the average Muslim citizen in the Middle East is as ill-informed or ambivalent about international policies as the average North American citizen then it is easy to see them developing a hatred for the US. Is this helping decrease or increase terrorism? Also, this climate of fear and Bush saying the US is safer but still not safe is almost laughable. We in North America have no idea what it is like to live in fear. We don't have foreign soldiers driving around our neighbourhoods in military vehicles with live weapons drawn or have overhead flights by foreign jets which could blow up a nearby target at any time. People in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon are susceptible to any propaganda thrown their way due to the circumstances under which they are living. They feel totally vulnerable to the US. People are seeing the US as the aggressors, not defenders. Comments by the President such as "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is a perceived arrogance and a disregard for the civilian populations in the other countries. These things just add up to make people fear the US not sympathize with it.

In regards to reducing dependency on oil, where do you think the money for the funding of Islamic terrorists is coming from? Oil producing countries, it is their bankroll. Take it away, and you take away much of their economic power just as freezing the assets of suspected terrorist groups has diminished the abillities of these groups to fund themselves.

I don't think the "terrorists" will win. Taking away the root causes of extremist beliefs isn't done overnight. It also requires humility and goodwill and consistent policies towards other countries. If US policy is to condemn and have no ties with Communists, then China should be in the same boat as Cuba and North Korea. But no, economics trumps human rights and politics in this case. Same thing for the soft gloves treatment of Saudi Arabia. This just confuses people as to what does the US want? Dictators or no dictators, communism or no?

I don't think they want want the entire world to be ruled under their laws of Allah. Who knows what they want? Bin Laden keeps changing his statements to reflect current situations in the Middle East. Now, Al Qaeda says it will concentrate on the Middle East and Israel. Check out the book The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I haven't read it yet but it discusses the motivations of Al Qaeda. The reasons given by Bush for Islamist terrorists are his reasons, not the real reasons. We don't know their true motivations but it does involve not having the US in the Middle East. Also, I feel pretty sure that the radical Imams might be telling their students " Do you think that the US wants the entire world to be ruled under their laws of God?" Probably.

Right now, security is supposedly extremely tight on airlines. But it's possible to smuggle liquids aboard a plane using a plastic case similar to a Mr. Freezie container taped to your leg. Unless you are physically searched, the machine wouldn't pick it up. How about under a fake piece of skin like makeup artists use? What would the security response be if there is an attack on a US subway, bus or train? The economic effects would be incredibly draining. Are there enough resources to have the security for those modes of travel to make citizens feel "safe'? What if they poison a water supply, or commerical products like Coke or powdered milk or medicine? Then what the response be. Are authorities even thinking about their contingency plans for such scenarios? If I can think it up, I'm sure they can. Do you ban all Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent from the airline industry including groundcrews and catering services whom may have access to planes? What if a nuke was detonated in the mainland US by a terrorist? Whom would you attack if you don't know where the nuke was acquired? Having said that, I do think that having a heightened security is a good thing and people are more aware of suspicious activity, maybe even too suspicious in some instances, but this has created another obstacle for extremists to overcome.

I think that if the present administration believes that its' solution is the only effective one, then don't expect any of your soldiers to return home soon. If the US had stayed in Afghanistan and built up their nation with a competent Afghan military, eliminated the warlords, reconstructed civilian services and constructed a strong border to prevent the Taliban from crossing back and forth from Pakistan and allowing a stable national government which could speak without the fear of assassination, then I would have some faith in this administration but alas that didn't happen. Also, fatwas from guys in hiding don't justify a policy of coming out guns a blazing. Ann Coulter has said some outrageous things like ""[Canadians] better hope the United States does not roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent." or " We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" and she probably has a pretty large following too. The extremists are probably using her quotes too.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com