I can't see any reason why women should drive

223rem wrote:

> Only an imbecile liberal (and you qualify) would lose any sleep over the
> suffering of peoples that hate our guts.

The only reason they hate out guts is because our government keeps
sticking their "nose" into their business. If we just left them alone
(i.e., not invading countries, maintaining military bases in their
countries, using our veto power in the UN to stop resolutions that have
a broad consensus), etc., then they wouldn't have a problem with us.

> I'd argue that we should *encourage*, not fight, the self-destructive
> customs and customs that Muslim countries practice.

All areas have their share of stupid customs. Over here, binge drinking
and hazing come to mind.

"223rem" > wrote in message
...
> Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm so respectful that I even respect pieces oif **** like you.
>
> So you respect someone you think is a POS? You are an idiot.
>
>> So where does your definition of "furriner" star? Is it at any
>> passport requesting border? Your state? The edge of your county, town,
>> neighborhood?
>>
>
> Foreigners, to me, are people from countries not friendly to the West.
> Europeans, Canadians, Aussies, New Zeelanders are our natural friends.
>
> Only an imbecile liberal (and you qualify) would lose any sleep over the
> suffering of peoples that hate our guts.
>
> I'd argue that we should *encourage*, not fight, the self-destructive
> customs and customs that Muslim countries practice.

OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self
destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not
be learing how to fly jets into our buildings, they would be planning the
new kitchen in thier condo.

Bernard

Bernard farquart wrote:

> OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self
> destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not
> be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,

The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
military base in Saudi Arabia. IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a
long time. The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the
last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).

Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> Bernard farquart wrote:
>
> > OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self
> > destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not
> > be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,
>
> The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
> military base in Saudi Arabia.

No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to
destroy something. The fact that it was something that they couldn't build
themselves in their wildest dreams may have played a part, as may the fact
that they supposedly believe that their god wants them to do **** like that.

> IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
> hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
> in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a
> long time.

Whose self-destructive practices? Ours? I seem to remember that the Saudis
thought it was perfectly fine for us to die kicking Saddam back to his palaces
to the point that they were actually willing to write checks.

> The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the
> last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).

Before that they could only throw rocks.

--
Cheers,
Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
"Even Islamic terrorists don't hate America like liberals do.
They don't have the energy. If they had that much energy,
they'd have indoor plumbing by now." -- Ann Coulter

The Real Bev wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>>Bernard farquart wrote:

>>>OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self
>>>destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not
>>>be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,

>>The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
>>military base in Saudi Arabia.

> No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to
> destroy something.

Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit
mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of
parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason
behind the attacks.

The precipitating factors had been around for some time.

>>IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
>>hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
>>in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a
>>long time.

> Whose self-destructive practices? Ours?

Read the thread.

> I seem to remember that the Saudis

The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a
democracy.

>>The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the
>>last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).

> Before that they could only throw rocks.

Before that they were fighting the Soviets on our behalf with much more
than rocks. Reread those history brooks before you make yourself the
laughingstock of this thread again.

Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> >>Bernard farquart wrote:
>
> >>>OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self
> >>>destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not
> >>>be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,
>
> >>The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
> >>military base in Saudi Arabia.
>
> > No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to
> > destroy something.
>
> Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit
> mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of
> parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason
> behind the attacks.

I didn't say no reason. I say that it's THEIR reason, not because of
something we did.

> The precipitating factors had been around for some time.

Tough.

> >>IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
> >>hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
> >>in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a
> >>long time.
>
> > Whose self-destructive practices? Ours?
>
> Read the thread.

No. I read only the message I replied to.

> > I seem to remember that the Saudis
>
> The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a
> democracy.

So?

> >>The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the
> >>last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).
>
> > Before that they could only throw rocks.
>
> Before that they were fighting the Soviets on our behalf with much more
> than rocks. Reread those history brooks before you make yourself the
> laughingstock of this thread again.

Those were the Afghans, not the Saudis. Did we start it, or just side with
the Afghans once the fighting started? Getting the US hooked on
opium-derivatives seems way smarter and less confrontational than smashing our
buildings.

I think that killing people and breaking stuff in the name of any religion at
all is sick and evil and stupid.

--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************** *******
Warning: Objects in mirror appear smarter than they are.

The Real Bev wrote:
> Arif Khokar wrote:

>>Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit
>>mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of
>>parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason
>>behind the attacks.

> I didn't say no reason. I say that it's THEIR reason, not because of
> something we did.

They were maintaining our troops in Saudi Arabia? Yes, it was something
we did.

>>The precipitating factors had been around for some time.

> Tough.

Tell that to the 3000+ people and their loved ones who were victims of
the WTC attack. People in the Middle East did not want our troops
stationed in Saudi Arabia. And to top it off, we were maintaining them
to defend against a figment of our imagination (those WMD that everyone
used to talk about).

> No. I read only the message I replied to.

Then don't ask stupid questions. Either you know what it refers to or
you don't.

>>>I seem to remember that the Saudis

>>The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a
>>democracy.

> So?

I made my point.

> Those were the Afghans, not the Saudis.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and he is definitely a Saudi. Many
nationalities fought the Soviets there.

> Did we start it, or just side with the Afghans once the fighting started?

That's not relevant to this thread. I was talking about people not
wanting us to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia. That had nothing to do
with Afghanistan until you brought it up.

> I think that killing people and breaking stuff in the name of any religion at
> all is sick and evil and stupid.

Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only
perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't
go away.

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:35:43 GMT, Arif Khokar >
> wrote:

>>Tell that to the 3000+ people and their loved ones who were victims of
>>the WTC attack. People in the Middle East did not want our troops
>>stationed in Saudi Arabia. And to top it off, we were maintaining them
>>to defend against a figment of our imagination (those WMD that everyone
>>used to talk about).

> How is Al Qaida blowing up the WTC any different than the guy who
> parked his Jeep across the Metrolink tracks and got out to watch the
> derailment?

The former took a lot more planning and the motives were made public
years before the actual event. In the latter, we (the public) do not
know the motive, but those who actually knew those people probably have
a much better idea as to what the actual reasons were.

> Or the suicidal people who off themselves at the junction
> of two busy freeways durig rush hour? Did the people on those trains
> and in those cars do something to cause what happened to them?

No, but our government wasn't stationing troops in areas that were
deemed religiously sensitive in those cases.

>>Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only
>>perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't
>>go away.

> I understand the reason behind the attitudes: it's called MENTAL
> ILLNESS.

The people who actually carry out attacks and kill civilians have a
mental illness. The rest of us who object to aspects of foreign policy
do not share that condition.

> Now that I understand it, is it going to stop?

Probably when we decide the take the same approach as Sweden and other
countries that don't bother maintaining military bases outside their own
territory.

In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote:
>
>The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
>military base in Saudi Arabia. IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
>hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
>in that country.

And we're supposed to believe him?

And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Matthew Russotto wrote:
[Bin Laden]
> And we're supposed to believe him?

Let's just say I trust him as much as I trust our government. Take that
as you wish.

> And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires?

If we're pefectly willing to risk innocent lives, then we shouldn't.
The point of the matter is that deeply unpopular actions usually lead to
deadly results.