# Muslims need a sense of humor



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I think they should stop taking themselves so seriously, what a bunch of party poopers. :lol:

What do you guys think about the way the Muslims are over-reacting by burning the embassy's? It seems even the regular day to day type Muslim is taking a part in this one. They were throwing rocks at a Catholic Church, I wish i would have been there :evil: It would have been a rock party 

This message has been approved by buckseye


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Well Buckseye I'm very concerned. 
In todays paper I read some of the quotes attributed to the administrations in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, etc,.... and became more than a little worried. Most of the quotes read the same, "Death to the infidels, etc,.." I wouldn't want to speak for anybody else, but I guess I would think that if a cartoonist drew some blasphemous cartoons of our/ my God, I'd think to myself that said cartoonist might have some trouble explaining away that one on Judgement Day and forget about it. 
I was wondering after I read all this bluster and bravado how we as a nation are supposed to negotiate/ treaty/ or anything else with people that hold such radically different ideas? I am a little bit of a Libertarian/ isolationist, so I wonder to myself if big walls and locked doors aren't the way to go. I know it isn't the way, and I know our Nation won't, but Holy Cow, what do you say to folks with that kind of mind set?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> what do you say to folks with that kind of mind set?


Bombs away!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I just wish there was some way to know the truth about what is happening. After all the baloney I've seen the media produce I sure don't believe a single word they write. If a cartoon/joke gets them this fired up we need to start telling the right jokes to those goofballs, maybe one about not killing people.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

arctic plainsman....exactly right.Which is what Buchanan said last week....What do we do?Negotiate,go to war,or get out altogether?

Right now we are trying to negotiate and go to war ....neither one seems to be working.And we depend on them so much for oil we can't just get out.

Time to REALLY go after alternate sources of energy,and pump as much oil ourselves as is possible,including the Artic Wildlife Refuge.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

two good reads on the subject

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cs ... eyn05.html

THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOME CARTOONS

The publication of these cartoons of Mohammed are not the reason for the rioting and violence. They are the excuse. Islamic protesters burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut in response to those cartoons making fun of Islam. Riots are ongoing, cars are being overturned and at least one person is dead in Afghanistan. Pakistan is boycotting prescription drugs from companies based in countries where the cartoons were published.

This is absolutely insane. What we are witnessing is the ultimate conclusion to militant political correctness. Many leftists would excuse this behavior...because these Muslims are "offended." *Know this: in the world of liberals, there is no greater crime known to man than offending Muslims. The more violent radical Islamists become the more the politically correct elements make excuses for them. * :eyeroll:

This religion is rapidly getting out of control. Muslims can murder 200 school children and their parents, shooting kids in the back, in Chechnya and the Muslim world hardly pauses a moment to notice. :******:

Let someone draw a cartoon of their so-called "prophet" and they start burning embassies and looking for Europeans to kidnap or murder. The more our Western leaders make excuses for their behavior, the bolder they become. These Muslims torching embassies and rioting around the world are not what we might consider highly educated. They have little or no understanding of Western culture and the concept of freedom of the press is entirely beyond the grasp of most of them. They believe that anything printed in any newspaper constitutes the official opinion of that country's government.

These riots and demonstrations are not about those cartoons, they are about freedom. One protestor was seen carrying a sign that said Freedom go hell. To these Islamic jihadist criminals freedom is an enemy. *A religion that says you must either convert, kill or enslave those who don't believe as you is not a religion that would embrace freedom. *Whether the politically correct like it or not, this is a religion that is anathema to our way of life and the liberties we hold dear.

There was another sign being carried by these Islamic rioters. It said "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11." I sure I don't have to explain the threat implicit in that sign.

Actually, this is a good thing. I wish the Islamic radicals would wave more of those "Europe. Take some lessons from 9/11" signs. The train bombings in Spain and the subway bombings in London apparently weren't enough. Maybe these riots will convince the Euro-snobs that Islamic fanatics and their myrmidons pose as much a threat to them, perhaps more of a threat, as they do to the people of the United States.

Who knows ... maybe even some Americans will wake up. Democrats, for instance. :wink:


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

I think I spelled pessimism wrong.
Never the less, thats how I feel about current events in the Middle East. Iran's President is running aroud spouting burn 'em kill 'em speeches, and,....oh, by the way, their going to be a nuclear power soon............ Oh, fantastic. 
The Palestanian Authority, North Korea, and Iran are starting or already do really look like a bad deal, and I'm not sure I see any other answer than Bobm's "Bombs away," quote. 
Boy, even as I see myself writing that I get a chill, but,..........I dunno.


----------



## natemil373 (Dec 3, 2005)

BobM-I liked the bombs away part. Personally I wouldn't mind having a large parking lot on that side of the world myself. I feel that the world is in for a lot of grief with these peoples mindset. Sooner or lator one of these Heathens is going to get their hands on a nuke and 09/11 is going to look like a B-Day party. I don't like the idea of us taking the lives of innocents but if necessary to exterminate these SOB's before they are capable of doing something to us I certainly would not lose much sleep over it. I do think that Iran would be an excellent place to test this [email protected]


----------



## Triple B (Mar 9, 2004)

you guys are cold heartless SOB's. but i couldn't agree more! KABOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!


----------



## aupeters (Jun 29, 2004)

Triple B said:


> you guys are cold heartless SOB's. but i couldn't agree more! KABOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!


 :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would like another alternative, but I think Bob is right. I don't think they will allow us more than two alternatives. Kill them or they kill us. The ball is in their court.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I can't help but agree, mess with the bull and you'll get the horn. Speak softly and carry a big stick fits well here too.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The publication of these cartoons of Mohammed are not the reason for the rioting and violence. They are the excuse


That's exactly what it is. These cartoons first appeared in newspapers last September and there was no excitement about it then. And why didn't the radical Muslims complain back then? Because Syria and Iran is in hot water and they need to get attention away from them. About a half a dozen radical clerics printed the cartoons and traveled to the middle east and got the Muslim newspapers stirred up, who in turn now has groups of radical extremist all stirred up. You are seeing tens of thousands riot and burn buildings. What you are not seeing is the tens of millions that are not in the streets rioting. What the radicals want is a Jihad and to get that they have to turn the western world against all Muslims. From what I see in some of the posts here they are accomplishing just that. If we are not careful, we will become nothing more than what we hate about the radicals extremist. If we take our eye off the goal to fight and defeat the extremists and turn it on the entire Muslim world, they win.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Gohon, you are very wise.
I'm going to ask you to expand a little on your post. 
The concern that I expressed earlier was in regard to the statements made by heads of state in Iran, Palestine, and a few other Middle Eastern nations that have been containing death threats, vitriolic condemnation, eternal damnation, and a few other "ations," that I probably can't spell. 
I think that I have to assume that when a head of state calls for (as an example,) the destruction of the Zionist state, he speaks for the populace as a whole. If this is true, and if it is true that Iran is preparing the kind of weapons we think they are, is there another answer other than carpet bombing? I just can't imagine how to reason with a man who is interested in building nuclear weapons, destroying Israel, and claims the Danish government and newspapers are run by a Zionist conspiracy. (No kidding, Iran's president said that!)
I'll say it again, I get a chill and a shudder at that thought, and I certainly know little to nothing about global diplomacy, so tell me what you think we should do.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

arctic plainsman,

In my opinion we have a couple things going for us. One is the UN security commission is now taking a look at Iran which by the way means Russia and China are onboard. I don't think this would have ever happened if not for John Bolton being placed in the UN. This guy knows how to play hardball. He has managed to get the UN off their butts for at least the present. Second thing is I think I read somewhere that something like 50% of the population of Iran was under the age of 30. This young generation has become more westernized than Iran wants to admit. Iran is a little different in that they don't block out satellite transmission from news organizations into their country. They receive CNN, Fox and all the other news broadcast from the US. So with that in mind they are being fed the news that we see. This is a good thing for us as they know what is really going on and I don't necessarily think their leader speaks for the majority. As for carpet bombing I am not for anything like that but, if in the next 3 or 4 months if there is no dramatic change in the situation in Iran I would be for a pre empty launch of every cruise missile we had at all above ground nuclear sites in Iran. No ground troops involved, no planes to be shot down with captured pilots. This would result in two things, one of which though it would not destroy everything they have, it would set their program back at least 10 years. I think they are a lot closer to having the bomb than what has been published. We were wrong about India, we were wrong about Pakistan and North Korea and I think we are wrong about Iran. Second thing is when or if we did that we had better be ready for some $4.00 a gallon gas because you can be sure they would use their oil reserves as a weapon. Still, I think it would be worth it but the last thing we want to do is target civilians which would really turn the middle east against us with hatred like we have never seen before.

If we wait and Iran becomes nuclear we will have no choice but to arm Israel and everything will snowball from that point on. Anyway, that's how I see it.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon,
While I agree with you generally

I want to make it clear that no one especially me is in favor of killing innocent civilians but they will end up in the middle if the westernized part of the pop you mention does not rise up and change things and very fast.

There is no certain way to know the effect of such a strike without boots on the ground, the Iranians have spread out their nuclear develpment and placed it underground in areas of large populations of civilians. There is no way to be certain where to strike for the same reason. There is absolutley no guarantee that their program would be set back 10 years or any at all. Besides haveing the largest ballistic missle cashe in the region the Iranians are most dangerous to us as agent of supply of nukes to terroist groups that they openly and brazenly support.

Israel is already armed with Nukes and the ability to deliver them.
Read about it here
http://fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nuke/

Its a very complicated problem and one that I've been talking about on here for several years and this time I wish I was wrong. Now its coming to a head I hope our politicians and the rest of the worlds combined with the Iranian population have the guts to stand up to the Mullah extremeists. I don't have much faith in the european and many of our Democrats that are in the "peace at any price" crowd doing that. 
Hopefully Bush will have the guts to do so and ignore their whineing so far atleast Bush has shown to be a brave and great leader in that reguard.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> Still, I think it would be worth it but the last thing we want to do is target civilians which would really turn the middle east against us with hatred like we have never seen before


Hatred like we never seen before, lets see does cutting off civilian peoples heads fall into that department I think so.

Gohan nothing personal against you but after reading many of your posts you are obviously a politician of some sort, either are one or want to be one. The reason I say this is you are so unattached to what the American people really think, it shows with every post you make.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Very good posts fellas and thank you. I appreciate the enlightened viewpoints. 
Bobm, it's true, Israel has had the bomb for a while, but I think that is the wrong answer. Like Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran sending missiles back and forth across the border would only yield mutual assured destruction. To preserve the species, (**** sapiens,) dissarmament is the only answer.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Buckseye I am no politician and have no desire to ever be one. I'm just a simple person that does my best to sort fact from fiction. As to what the American people think or desire I have to view that in the context of what the American people know and for the most part that is what they are fed by the news media on television every night. Sadly most Americans are content with only absorbing what they are spoon fed on the tube and do very little to really look into the issues. Maybe that is one of the reasons I try to give most politicians the benefit of the doubt because I know they are aware of things I will never have information on. Hard pill to swallow but necessary if approached with caution. Yes there are the radical extremist that kidnap, blow up and kill people but that is not the majority. We have some radical extremist that are burning churches in the south right now. Some of them blow up abortion clinics and have killed people inside. Is that what all Americans do......of course not. Do you remember a few months ago there was a rescue of an American hostage who was freed from the kidnappers. It wasn't American soldiers that rescued him, it was Iraqi soldiers. It's only a minority that is committing these atrocities and we should keep that in mind.

Bob you may be right that Israel may already have the bomb but I'm not so sure about that. If they do have one or some it is only because we gave them to them, and I'm not convinced that is really the case but, who knows. Yes you are right in that some of Iran's nuclear facilities are under ground, some of them. But just by the very nature of nuclear plants they can not put everything under ground. Most of the structures they need to produce the enriched uranium must be above ground. That's why I think if the above ground installations are destroyed it stops them from completing the making of the bomb. It would not stop them completely but it would put a damper on their plans and give us valuable time. And time we are running out of if we have any left at all.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You miss the whole point Israel is not going to allow Iran to get them and we shouldn't either. Israel has used their nukes as a deterrent the Iranian regime has delared they intend to wipe Israel off the face of the earth so its perfectly logical that Israel will have to do a preemptory strike and we should support that for the same reason, they will give nukes to terrorists to use in our cities or hold us hostage to the threat of using them in our cities once they have them.

Heres a simple analogy of our current situation

You and I are faceing off, you have a gun in your hand, my gun is laying on the ground 20 feet away. I have told you that I hate you and am going to kill you when I pick up the gun, and despite your warnings to me to stop approaching my gun I continue to walk toward my gun while threatening you and telling you I am not afraid of you. 
Are you going to let me pick up the gun????
If not at what point do you shoot me? 
Tough question without any good choices isn't it?
Well thats where we are now
Now throw this into the equation.
Your only hope is that one of my kids ( ie the Iranian public) is able to convince me not to pick up the gun, however I rule my family with an iron fist and am not listening to my kids because I hate you and I know that God wants me to kill you. And I'm using my kids as a shield to approach the gun I am going to use to kill you....
tough situation isn't it :eyeroll:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Sorry Gohan thinking you were a politician is pretty insulting I guess. I agree with you that the media is full of beans but who do you think controls the media, the FCC/government controls what we hear and see on TV. So to me that puts the feds on the hot seat as to what we are seeing and hearing on TV. If they don't want something on TV it isn't, and if they need to send mixed messages they do that all day too.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

February 7, 2006
The War Behind the Cartoon War
By Jack Kelly

The Cartoon War began innocently enough. Kare Bluitgen, a Danish writer of childrens' books, complained he couldn't find anyone to illustrate the book he was writing about the Prophet Mohammed. The Danish newspaper Jyllands Posten invited cartoonists to offer their own interpretations. A dozen accepted. Jyllands Posten published their work last Sept. 30th.

Extreme Muslim sects, such as the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia, regard any depiction of Mohammed as blasphemy. (The Koran prohibits only "idolatry," and throughout the last millenium Muslim artists have painted likenesses of the Prophet.) Radical Muslims in Denmark issued death threats, and the cartoonists went into hiding. On Oct. 20th, ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries asked for a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Andres Rasmussen to complain about the caricatures. Mr. Rasmussen said he was sorry the cartoons had given offense, but refused to meet with the ambassadors because "as prime minister I have no tool whatsoever to take actions against the media, and I don't want that kind of tool."

There matters rested until last month, when four Muslim clerics from Denmark, led by Abu Laban, who has terrorist connections, toured the Middle East. They had with them the 12 original cartoons, plus three truly vile ones (one depicts Mohammed with a pig's snout; another shows him as a pedophile) apparently of their own concoction.

On January 29th, gunmen in Gaza took over the offices of the European Union. In response, some newspapers in Norway, Germany and France published the cartoons to show solidarity with their Danish colleagues. This led to massive protests in the Middle East and among Muslims in Europe.

The editor of Jyllands Posten has apologized for publishing the cartoons, and the leader of the largest Muslim association in Denmark has accepted the apology. But it may be too late to put the genie back into the bottle, because radical Muslims seek to fan the flames.

"We want blood on the streets of England," said Muslim protestors in London, though no British newspaper has yet published the offending cartoons.

Saudi Arabia promoted the controversy to distract attention from the trampling deaths of 345 pilgrims in Mecca Jan. 12th, said "The Religious Policeman," a Saudi Web logger. The deaths attracted little attention in the West, but were big news in the Arab world.

Most of the anti-Western violence has taken place in Syria and Lebanon, where the Danish and Norwegian embassies were burned down.

Syria is a dictatorship. A mob could not have burned the building where the Danish and Norwegian embassies were located without the tacit permission, if not the encouragement, of the regime.

Syria also retains considerable influence in Beirut, where the rioting was not spontaneous. Syria would love to distract attention from the UN probe into the assassination of Lebanese politician Rafik Hariri, in which Syria is implicated.

Iran has been, after Saudi Arabia, the nation most active in promoting the boycott. The International Atomic Energy Agency has referred Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions against its nuclear weapons program. The nation that will chair the Security Council when the IAEA recommendation is taken up, British Web logger David Conway noted, is Denmark.

"Suddenly the pieces fall into shape," he said. "The rumpus suddenly escalated, complete with fabricated offensive cartoons, to so inflame Muslim opinion that Denmark could be intimidated...into voting in favor of Iran."

Most of Europe's political leaders would like to respond with more appeasement. But ordinary Europeans wonder why they must accommodate the demands of bullying immigrants who have swollen their crime rates and welfare rolls.

Muslims deserve to have their faith respected, wrote Tony Parsons in the left wing British newspaper the Mirror.

"But when someone starts carrying placards in my city gloating about 9/11 and 7/7, when men with big mouths start promising death and destruction, when you tell us that we will be massacred if we offend you, then our tolerance is pushed to the breaking point," he said.

"If (the protestors) want a Muslim country, then perhaps they should go and live in one," Mr. Parsons said. :beer:

A Muslim member of the Danish parliament echoed that sentiment. :beer:

Speaking of the radical clerics who stirred up the cartoon controversy, Naser Khader asked: "If these imams think it is so terrible to live in Denmark, then why do they remain here?" :beer:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Good post Bob.....we don't always hear everything.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I agree Ken, good post Bob 

Bob, I like your post about the gun laying 20 feet away too, that was about as clear and cold as facts need to be.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No Bob I haven't missed the point at all. I'm fully aware that Israel may indeed be the first to strike but Israel isn't dumb enough to drop a bomb on Tehran and it is doubtful even more so that they would use anything nuclear in a strike on the plants. You're way off target on that one. Your analogy is misleading. You're assuming both parties already have a gun. Doesn't work that way if one party has a gun and the other a stack of rocks.

Let me make a simple analogy for you.

You and your neighbor are facing off. You have a gun, your neighbor does not. Your neighbor says as soon as he sells enough beans from his bean patch he is going to get a gun and kill you. Do you march across the yard, shoot the neighbors family and the neighbor. Or do you burn his bean patch.

Post Edit:

I want to make one thing clear and that is I am not in any manner supporting or defending Muslims or Islam or just arguing to be in a opposite view. What I would hope and want is for a alternative solution to fighting radical Islam, and I emphasize the word radical, other than setting the world on fire. That may very well come to pass and be the only alternative in the end. But until we reach that point where we have no alternative but to kill innocent people I will explore every opportunity available and I would hope we all do that. If anything the demonstrations and actions by the radical Muslims should be a wake up call to the western world that this is not a United States fight alone. I do understand why moderate Muslims are hesitate to speak out as they live in these countries, and know better than anyone else that they could have their heads shot off by the radicals if they do speak out. But without question the world is at the point that if the moderates don't take a stand now they will be dragged into a society they don't desire to be in.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Buckseys you're not serious that you think the FCC/government controls the media are you?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> No Bob I haven't missed the point at all.


That comment and my anology was addressing artics' comment about mutally assured destruction not commenting on anything you said :roll: I guess I have to be more specific, my bad...

As for you comments on my analogy both parties do not have a gun Irans "gun" is out of reach and they are "walking 20 feet to get it" ( ie developing nukes).

If your "fully aware" Israel has nukes and the capability to send them why did you say we would have to arm Israel??
Gohon said


> If we wait and Iran becomes nuclear we will have no choice but to arm Israel and everything will snowball from that point on.


Your quote


> Let me make a simple analogy for you.
> 
> You and your neighbor are facing off. You have a gun, your neighbor does not. Your neighbor says as soon as he sells enough beans from his bean patch he is going to get a gun and kill you. Do you march across the yard, shoot the neighbors family and the neighbor. Or do you burn his bean patch.


is the flawed one, his bean patch is hidden and if hes chosen to stand in it and place his family in it( purposely located the NUKE development facilities in residential areas) in an attempt to play on your humanity to keep you from burning it because of our respect for life just so he can use that same humanity to get advantage( time to finish their Nukes program) to kill us and Israel as IRAN HAS STATED PUBLICLY thats a choice he ( Iran) made!

What difference does it make?? The end result is going to be that you will either have to kill them without regard to civilian casualties or risk suffering massive and certain ( again they have publicly and repeatedly stated they will wipe Israel off the face of the map that they will kill all the infidels which is almost every american, european, ect ect) attack in the US, Isreal and maybe Europe also.

I'm am not willing to take that risk. :******:

*I am willing to kill every Iranian on earth if thats what if takes to stop them from getting nukes* and giving them to the various terrorist organizations that the mullahs that run the Islamic Jihadist theocracy in Iran are proven to be linked to, Al Quaida being one of them. They, Al Quaida, will without a doubt use it on one of our cities and remember we are dealing with fanatics that would hold it in their hand as they detonate it so don't try to make logical rational arguments about what they will or won't do, they don't think like westerners.

In short, I would shoot the guy walking to the gun in my analogy without hesitation.

They, Iran and Al Quaida, will kill thousands of Americans if they get Nukes, period.

We have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and not doing so is unacceptable, the one thing the federal govt is bound to do first and foremost is protect our country from foreign attack.

Its a nasty situation but I really don't think that we have a choice, if you're going to get in a nasy fight the one that throws the fist puch has a big advantage.

As to your attitude about the Israels' not willing to use nukes you don't know Israelis, I do. There is a visceral hatred of Arabs among many of the Israelis and they will fight like hell with whatever they have, if push comes to shove, they like us are rapidly not going to have any choice *if Iran gets Nukes Israel is history.* My best friend is an Israeli and he and his friends have discussed this with me many times. They really are very fatalistic about it and have been for about the last 10 years. They don't believe that Israel will be here in 10 years.
I'm not some bloodthirsty war monger but if its me our you, I will pick you, simple as that.
The Iranian people better get after and change their leadership and real quick or the poop is really going to hit the fan.

This isn't going to be some namby- pamby war like Iraq where we are tiptoeing around trying not to hurt civilians, its going to be a bloody conflict the likes of which the world has never seen.

Thats my opinion anyway.


----------



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

It is amazing. When Abu Graib prizoners abuse pictures went public, they were quite lethargic, but now they are going berserk because of the drawing! Perhaps language of torchurs of prisoners is most natural and understandable to their minds. Much more acceptable to then one funny oicture. We are dealing with crazy people.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sevendogs, I agree with you. The reason they didn't get so up tight about Abu Graib is because this is what the are used to. They also do not value human life. They are however religiously fanatic. 
I don't remember where I heard it (today), but some European Muslim clerics took the cartoons from that contest in Denmark to the mid east to stir up trouble. I also understand that they added cartoons of their own just for the purpose of getting blood boiling. One cartoon was of Mohammed with a pig nose, and another other was of Mohammed (edited 2/8/06) Bobs above post was right Mohanned was depicted as a pedophile.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Careful Bob, You're starting to muddy things up enough that even you are confused.

1. I stated that I didn't think Israel had a bomb 
2. You posted a link that strongly suggested they do but couldn't prove it.
3. You stated that Israel would strike first and nuke Iran
4. I stated I was aware that Israel would most likely strike first but 
disagreed they would use a nuke if they had one from the 
unsupported link that said they might have one.
5. As for the bean patch, it is not all hidden and the family doesn't
live there.

So now you have injected Al Quaida into the mix in a attempt to make a point that an entire race of people should be exterminated on a possible hypothesis. I'm sorry to see you reach that point Bob. I thought you were more level headed than that. Once we as a country start destroying a country and it's entire people, simply out of fear of a possibility that is driven by rumors we become no better than a Nazi Germany.

Let me leave you with something that I thought you would have discovered by now which is why I use the word "rumors" which we are being fed by our own media. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does not control the nuclear programs in Iran. Sorry but that job belongs to Ali Khamenei who is the commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. The Iranian President doesn't wield power like in the USA. Our President is determined to not allow Iran get nuclear weapons and I believe as long as he is President they will not. But at the same time our President is fully aware that the blustering of the Iranian President is mostly directed at strengthening the hard line supporters of his party. Bob, no disrespect but I'm glad you are not President as I'm sure you're glad I'm not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Israel manages to hide their nuclear capability very well. News papers and TV have reported that our intelligence acknowledges that Israel has had nuclear weapons longer than ten years. However, no where will you find concrete information that says yes they have it. I think if you have followed the Israeli arms escalation for the past 20 years it is one of those things you know.

I think Israel is reasonable enough to use nuclear weapons only as a last resort, but Iran with a nuclear weapon may be a last resort. I would guess they will try with the Masad first, and that failing will use none nuclear aircraft platform missiles. After that watch for a mushroom cloud.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Gohon you want me to show you a Isreali nuke before you believe they exist?? No surprise there I guess :eyeroll: . Believe what you want.

as for Al Quaida Iranian connections heres something for you to read

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articled ... icleid=460

of course you've made up your mind already so maybe you shouldn't bother, you would have to actually be in aAl Quaida/ Iranian meeting and see the proceedings with your own eyes like the hidden nukes issues

As for our media spreading rumors of an Al Quiada link with Iran with Iran? what planet are you on. They are so anti Bush and anti war they would tell us if they had concrete proof.

And if you can't admit their Nuclear program ( your Bean patch :roll: ) is hidden well I guess you just aren't informed enough to have this conversation.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Gohon you want me to show you a Isreali nuke before you believe they exist?? No surprise there I guess :eyeroll: . Believe what you want.
> 
> as for Al Quaida Iranian connections heres something for you to read
> 
> ...


Well I thought we had a good exchange of opinions and ideas going there for awhile but I guess I thought wrong. I said I didn't think Israel had nukes. Didn't take a position that they absolutely didn't have them. They may very well in fact have them but you can't show me that the positively do so how do you Mr. Bob propose to show me. I never said there was no Al Quaida Iranian connections and I don't need your link. I never said their nuclear programs were not hidden but even a blind person can see the plants that are above ground and it takes these plants to get the ingredients for enriched uranium to take under ground. My comment about the news media was not even in the same paragraph about Al Quiada so where is the connection there. You don't want to discuss the situation in the middle east or exchange opinions, you now simply want to argue so you are now taking everything out of context in a attempt to start a argument, so in that light you can do it by yourself. I know which planet I'm on Bob and as for being informed........ seems to me you are the one that has run out of excuses for your extermination wishes and that is exactly what you have been preaching whether you admit it or not and now you just want to argue because I don't agree with you. Let me know when you decide to continue a civil dialogue.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> My comment about the news media was not even in the same paragraph about Al Quiada so where is the connection there.


You are incorrect sir, you tied the thought together as highlighted below!



> So now you have injected Al Quaida into the mix in a attempt to make a point that an entire race of people should be exterminated on a possible hypothesis. I'm sorry to see you reach that point Bob. I thought you were more level headed than that. Once we as a country start destroying a country and it's entire people, simply out of fear of a possibility that is *driven by rumors *we become no better than a Nazi Germany.
> 
> Let me leave you with something that I thought you would have discovered by now which is why I use the word *"rumors" which we are being fed by our own media. *...


as for your comment


> seems to me you are the one that has run out of excuses for your extermination wishes and that is exactly what you have been preaching whether you admit it or not and now you just want to argue because I don't agree with you


.

I have clearly stated that I am not for killing civilians but am willing to if thats what it takes to prevent Iran from getting nukes, if you want to characterize that as preaching extermination that again is the typical tactics you use. :eyeroll:

As for how much is hidden and how much is not that isn't the question, the question is what is hidden and what do they already have....and if you want to wait for the proof in the form of a nuke in one of our cities well I'm willing to take their word for it their intentions are plainly stated. Again it doesn't suprise me that you wouldnt want a link about Al Quaida( " rumor :roll: ) the country is full of people that want to "whistle past the graveyard"instead of facing the problem head on

your comment


> and now you just want to argue because I don't agree with you


.

describes you in virtually every thread you participate in

heres the latest example
http://nodakoutdoors.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21551
oh I forgot you don't like links why was it you coundn't reveal the name of your insurance company again?? :lol:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Oh for Christ's sakes, have you really sunk that low or have I simply misjudged you all this time. I used the word rumor in context with your continued instance that a complete race of people should be removed from the planet because of media fed crap that all Muslims are terrible people that want to kill everyone. Something that you have bought into hook line and sinker. You can now start claiming you didn't mean that but your posts betray that so no need to try to now run from it. I don't need your damn link because it has nothing to do with anything I eluded to and you know it. It doesn't really matter now as your true colors are really showing now. You're no better than a couple other drug store cowboys around here that haven't clue what they are talking about but simply have watched to many gun-ho movies. You did prove one thing to me..... the words "civil dialogue" in the political forum is nothing more than a oxymoron. At least when you are involved.

Now as for your brilliant link to another thread..... I won't reveal the persons name as it was a PM from him but this is part of the PM from that person.
"Thanks for making that clear about the fight thing....It seems JD wanted to get into more of an argument". Just another example of you talking out of your ***.

No Bob, I haven't made up my mind about anything and I'll trust our leaders to handle this situation before I would take the advice/word of someone like you that insists on going out and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children over what may or may not be without first trying to find a alternative solution. If we can't find that solution in a reasonable amount of time which I have expressed a opinion as 4 months then we may very well choose to use military force but carpet bombing or dropping a nuclear bomb on a entire city which you advocate is simply damn stupid. It can be done without going that far. You proved you are not interested in a solution when you skipped right over my telling you who really controls the nuclear power in Iran. Their idiot President doesn't have a finger on button Bob but what the hell, go ahead an nuke then anyway huh. Unbelievable............


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm quote:
I want to make it clear that no one especially me is in favor of killing innocent civilians

I think many on here have already voiced that same opinion. We all feel this way, but some of us have faced the reality that before we are willing to role over and die for these radicals that we will take the ultimate step. None of us know our capabilities until we face death in the face. Israel is much closer to this and as I have said they will try other means before resorting to nuclear, but if it becomes their only option they will use it. We may condemn this now, but faced with the same threat many of us would do the same thing. Those of us who deny it lie to ourselves. Survival is a strong motivator and even those who consider themselves pacifists will become killers in short order faced with death themselves. At least this is what I have read in the responses on this thread. I have not seen that anyone has advocated annihilating anyone unless threatened.

I don't think there is anyone on here that would hurt anyone without provocation. If anyone believes otherwise they should read the threads again, and reevaluate their conclusions.


----------



## arctic plainsman (Aug 21, 2005)

Thankyou Plainsman for the moderation.
If you guy's don't mind, I'll return to the original subject.
Today's AP reported a continuation of violent demonstations in the West Bank, India, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Turkey, and Afganistan, all stemming from the cartoons. I find the fact that these demonstrations are occuring outside of the Middle East to be troubling. 
Get this, the French President, Jacques Chirac asked the French press to avoid offending religious beliefs. 
Aren't we all very glad that we live where we do, and like the dissagreement posted above shows, we can say what we want to say.
In Britan yesterday, (I think,) Abu Hanza al-Masiri was convicted for 11 charges of soliciting murder and racial hatred.
I guess this feller was the head cleric/ dude in Britan, and he'd been preaching from the podium the kill all the infidels routine. Like Gohon and I were discussing earlier, I just don't know how anyone could negotiate with this kind of character.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Yes plainsman, Bob has said "I want to make it clear that no one especially me is in favor of killing innocent civilians". Several times in fact. But then he turns right around and says "What difference does it make?? The end result is going to be that you will either have to kill them without regard to civilian casualties or risk suffering massive and certain ( again they have publicly and repeatedly stated they will wipe Israel off the face of the map that they will kill all the infidels which is almost every american, european, ect ect) attack in the US, Isreal and maybe Europe also". and "I am willing to kill every Iranian on earth if thats what if takes to stop them from getting nukes".

Take note the *"they"* he refers to is the radicals extremists and a puppet leader that doesn't have the power so many thinks he does. The they is not the majority of Muslims in the world. "The end result" you think he hasn't already made up his mind to bomb now? "Every Iranian on earth", that's a tall order, where is he going to start? Here in American, maybe in Europe then move on to Iran. Hamas has been trying to wipe Israel from the face of the earth for over 50 years. There is nothing new there. I don't think he is looking for a solution but instead a excuse. In the end we may very well have to go to war with Iran and somewhere along the line a nuclear bomb might be used but we haven't reached that point yet or are even close yet. However if we do get to that situation, someone else had it right when they said Armageddon.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This has become a personal argument, and I normally stay out of those, but I think there is some misinterpretation. I perhaps take things wrong at times also, but I think I see where things went awry here.

First Bob prefaced his arguments with "I want to make it clear that no one especially me is in favor of killing innocent civilians". I couldn't find the comment you mentioned, but I think I remember it, so this is how I understand that statement. It sounds like Bob doesn't want to hurt anyone innocent, but if the world is about to enter the World War III he would be willing to take drastic action.

I liked Bob's gun analogy in that it fit exactly the situation we find ourselves in. As to willingness to bomb well that is why I said "Survival is a strong motivator and even those who consider themselves pacifists will become killers in short order faced with death themselves".

I think Bob is just admitting to himself something that not all of us are willing to admit. We don't admit it because we don't want to think of those things. However, we may all be surprised what we are capable of if it comes to kill or be killed. Some of the most kind people find they are far more capable of violence than they ever imagined when they are fighting for their life.

I'm not trying to put anyone down here just clear up what I perceive as misinterpretation of one single point.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

One 30-06 round to the head puts them with 70 virgins?  
Hummmm...................... :sniper:
No wonder they have sooo many ****'s, their saving the women for when they die! :lol:


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Maybe they need a few of those special chickens that are showing up around the world. That's a lot sneakier than a nuke.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Okay Bob, I guess it is time to put out the peace sign and cool off. I am sorry though that the **** information in the last post wasn't posted about 15 posts ago............that damn sure would have killed the thread as everyone would have been to busy throwing up. :beer:


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You have misread my the intent of my comments,

I don't want to hurt anyone or really anything. I can't even bring myself to shoot deer any more ( although I have no objection to anyone else shooting deer). As I age I have a much greater appreciation for the sanctity of life and no longer enjoy the kill in any form. I hunt now exclusively because of my life long love of training and watching bird dogs. If my dogs didn't need the kill as part of the hunt I would use a camera. For the last 10 years, at least, I have never killed anything in my life without a pang of regret. I have never held a pheasant in my hand and not wished I could breathe life back in it and release it. I know this admission is strange on a hunting web site but its candidly how I have begun to feel about the whole thing and I can't explain it, its just how I feel.

My point is I most certainly don't regard taking a life lightly, and hate the thought that all those poor innocent children and impoverished ignorant civilians that are in large part clueless to freedom and Western values, would be the unwitting victims of the madmen that drive the Jihadist movement in Iran and elsewhere.

I am fairly well read especailly about political stuff and have studied this topic, although I have to admit before 9/11 I like most Americans paid almost no attention the middle east conflicts.

Currently the biggest threat to US, European and most certainly Israeli security is the Jihadists running Iran slipping a nuke to some lunatic terrorist.

I absolutely do not trust the Islamic Jihadist crowd that runs Iran and have no faith that any particular part of the existing Iranian govt could keep that from happening no matter how well intended and even handed the person in charge of the Irans nukes is. I believe that if Iran had nukes the Jihadists among them (who no one can argue are rational) would stop at nothing to get the nukes under their control. The Jihadists would simply kill the good Iranians that got in the way and then they would have the whole world at their mercy. Any rational person recognizes that if you can bring truck loads of drugs into the US smuggling in a nuke would be doable, probably easy.
So we cannot let them have nukes whatever the cost as regrettable as it may be for the innocents caught in the middle.....
Gohon no harm done things get a little heated here, and often misunderstood :beer: 
thanks though


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

> Currently the biggest threat to US, European and most certainly Israeli security is the Jihadists running Iran slipping a nuke to some lunatic terrorist.
> 
> I absolutely do not trust the Islamic Jihadist crowd that runs Iran and have no faith that any particular part of the existing Iranian govt could keep that from happening no matter how well intended and even handed the person in charge of the Irans nukes is. I believe that if Iran had nukes the Jihadists among them (who no one can argue are rational) would stop at nothing to get the nukes under their control. The Jihadists would simply kill the good Iranians that got in the way and then they would have the whole world at their mercy. Any rational person recognizes that if you can bring truck loads of drugs into the US smuggling in a nuke would be doable, probably easy.
> So we cannot let them have nukes whatever the cost as regrettable as it may be for the innocents caught in the middle.....


Good post Bob, makes sense to me.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

arctic plainsman, your right in that it is disheartening, scary and a little confusing as to what is going on in the Muslim world with all the riots. Below I have pasted short blurbs from three different blogs that I was reading through today. Couple things that stand out clear to me is these riots are well organized by Syria and Iran. Even more is the fact that nothing takes place on the streets of Syria without government approval and I can't help but wonder where all those little Danish flags came from on a moments notice that were being burned by the hundreds. Everyone knows that Syria left hundreds of agents behind in Lebanon when they were run out last year so no surprise there. Anyway, I found the below most interesting.

Jakarta Post notes, perhaps this wasn't the best time to use this particular vehicle to make a point about free speech. Others, including the Guardian, suggested the riots may be examples of "well-planned spontaneity," a charge echoed by Muslim leaders in Lebanon.

The Lebanese government has apologized to Denmark after protesters ransacked its Beirut embassy

The interior minister quit after the attack and the commander of the army has offered to step down.

"Things got out of hand... but I was not prepared to order the troops to shoot Lebanese citizens," outgoing Interior Minister Hassan Sabei told reporters.

The Lebanese cabinet met in emergency session. It said there would be a comprehensive investigation into the violence, including into what it called the role of outside intelligence agencies.
A BBC correspondent in Beirut says this is a thinly veiled reference to the widespread accusations that neighboring Syria, through its links with fundamentalist Sunni groups, orchestrated the violence.

"If you think about Syria, what kind of state Syria is, how much freedom of expression there is in Syria and the ability to mobilize mass movements, that doesn't just happen by accident," said US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Volker.

QALAT, Afghanistan - Police killed four people Wednesday as Afghans enraged over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad marched on a U.S. military base in a volatile southern province, directing their anger not against Europe but America.

Wednesday's violence began when hundreds of protesters tried to storm the U.S. base, said Ghulam Nabi Malakhail, a provincial police chief. When warning shots failed to deter them, police shot into the crowd, killing four and wounding 11, he said.

Afghans who rioted Wednesday said they heard about the cartoons on the radio but none questioned had seen printed versions.
"The radio is talking about them all the time. Everybody heard about them this way," said 28-year-old shopkeeper Ramatullah, who uses only name.

In Baghdad, Iraq's top Shiite political leader criticized attacks on foreign embassies by Muslims.
"We value and appreciate peaceful Islamic protests," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. "But we are against the idea of attacking embassies and other official sites."

"Islam says it's all right to demonstrate but not to resort to violence. This must stop," senior cleric Mohammed Usman told The Associated Press. "We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence. These rioters are defaming the name of Islam."


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Got this off yahoo news



> In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah urged Muslims worldwide to keep demonstrating until there is an apology over the drawings and Europe passes laws forbidding insults to the prophet.


They should file that law right where they file the laws about killing people.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Wonder why this isn't talked about ,but you have to wonder about a mentality that will let their people drown rather than get help from Israel
even the soviets would ask us for help and visa versa during the cold war.
How will they ever achieve peace :eyeroll:

Titanic Disaster in the Red Sea

A disaster like one of the world's biggest ferry tragedies, The Titanic, took place in the Red Sea yesterday. A cruise ship carrying 1,272 passengers and 96 crew members en route to Egypt from Saudi Arabia's Duba, sank in the Red Sea.

Most of the passengers were Muslims returning home after completing their hajj duty, and Egyptian workers and Saudis.

The Al Salam Boccaccio 98 of the Egyptian Al Salam Maritime Transport Co. went down nearly 70 km away from the Hurgado port in the south of the country.

Three hundred passengers have been rescued so far, but hopes to find survivors are fading.

Many of the passengers managed to survive by getting on lifeboats. So far, 185 bodies have been recovered, but the death toll may increase as the sea water gets colder at night, officials reported.

The cause of the sink is unclear and radar contact was, reportedly, lost shortly after departure.

Authorities say the last contact was made at 10:00 p.m. on Thursday and no distress signal was received from the vessel.

The only information on the cause of the disaster is high waves and bad weather in the western coast of Saudi Arabia where the vessel left. It is also claimed the overloading in the 35-year ferry may have caused the accident, but Al Salam Maritime Transport Co. Officials reject the claim and underline the capacity was already for 1,400 people. There were also 220 vehicles aboard.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has ordered an immediate inquiry into the circumstances in which the boat sank to determine whether it fulfilled the security criteria or not.

Mubarak's spokesman, Suleiman Awad, stressed there was not enough life rafts on board, "Our researches confirm that there was a safety problem, but we cannot anticipate the results of the investigation".

As opposed to Mubarak, Transport Minister Mohammed Lutfy Mansour emphasized he has no doubt about the vessel's stability. Red Sea Governor Abu Bakr al-Rashidi announced the formation of a crisis center in the Safaga town of Egypt and an emergency declaration at hospitals in the region.

Egyptians who rushed to Safaga in order to find about their relatives continue waiting in anxiety. They prayed in tears throughout the night for the survival of their relatives. Ahmad Abdul Hamid, a survivor relative, said the vessel was old and asked "How can they make them board such unsuitable vessel?" Several eye witnesses in Safaga said they saw corpses that hit the shore.

Rescue efforts have been difficult because of the unsound weather. The officials relentlessly continued their efforts into the night to find any survivors. Britain also dispatched a war ship to the region. *Egypt refused the offer of the aid coming from Israeli Fleet. *The news reflected in the Israeli media reported Egypt thanked Israel for the offer, but declared the country would overcome the rescue operations of the fleet and air forces. Al Salam 95 ship, the member of the same company, crashed into another ship under the Greek Cypriot part flag in October in the Red Sea, where two people lost their lives and 40 were injured.

MENA (Egyptian State News Agency) revealed 1,158 of 1,272 passengers on board were Egyptians. No Turkish citizens were reported, but one Omani, Canadian and Yemeni and Sudanese and 99 Syrian, four Palestinian and one Arab was included among the passengers.

While Egypt and Saudi Arabia announced they received no distress signal from the ship last night, British Defense Ministry announced they did. The spokesman released: "Rescue Coordination Center received a signal for danger at 11:58 p.m. in the Red Sea. The signal was delivered to France in order to reach Egyptian officials.

04.02.2006
Cumali Onal
Safaca
http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=29381


----------

