R
rlg94086
Guest
Woohoo! Problem solved. Now, we should just stop calling poverty “poverty” and abortion “abortion”, and life will greatly improve.Simple don’t call it Jihad.
Woohoo! Problem solved. Now, we should just stop calling poverty “poverty” and abortion “abortion”, and life will greatly improve.Simple don’t call it Jihad.
I understand that. I also know that aside from the time of the Civil War, there has never been an attack on American soil that has claimed so many lives as that of 9/11/2001. So why aren’t we concentrating our forces here and making America safer? We have terrorists entering the country that no one knows about. I sometimes think our troops would be better utilized here protecting our freedom on our OWN soil.The WTC attack in 1993 was INTENDED to produce 50,000 dead. it didn’t work out that way. The plan was to topple the North tower into the South tower. They actually came closer than you’d think. Because … although the two towers weren’t structurally damaged, the next door 22-story Vista Hotel had its structure severely damaged and it could have buckled and fallen into the North tower.
The WTC attack in 2001 was more successful. Still short of the 50,000 number. But the crater (16 square blocks and 70 feet deep after five years) is still there.
The U.N. could collaborate together and join their forces to fight the Jihad as ONE!!!What precisely might the UN do? How would the UN stop the Jihad?
With all due respect, we did not start this alone. There were a few countries who thought the terrorism was significant enough to join us. Spain left when the Islamic terrorists bombed a train there. France never finishes anything it starts, Italians ousted their president who believed the Islamists were a threat also.The U.N. could collaborate together and join their forces to fight the Jihad as ONE!!!
You know the saying, “united we stand, divided we fall”?
Well? I think we’ve definitely had our legs cut off from underneath us lately because we’ve tried to fix things solo without the aid of other countries. Why do you think people hate the United States so much? We try and play the hero alone and therefore it looks like we’re, in a way, a dictatorship trying to conform everyone to what works for us, even though it might not necessarily work for them.
I believe we should fight them since they fired on us first. Maybe it’s time we “stepped it up” a notch though and actively search for them and their leaders.I know there are many that say we should not fight Islamic terrorism. I am not one of them. They have made their intentions very clear and that is to have us DEAD. One just today has said he will not rest until they bomb the White House. I don’t think we can negotiate with people like this, try as we might.
I took the liberty of numbering your principal points.
- The U.N. could collaborate together and join their forces to fight the Jihad as ONE!!!
You know the saying, “united we stand, divided we fall”?
Well? I think we’ve definitely had our legs cut off from underneath us lately because we’ve tried to fix things solo without the aid of other countries.- Why do you think people hate the United States so much? We try and play the hero alone and therefore it looks like we’re, in a way, a dictatorship trying to conform everyone to what works for us, even though it might not necessarily work for them.
Ross Perot’s “people with pitchforks” statement was mere rhetoric. A bunch of angry, drunk blue collar Chicago area Republicans… NOW WE"RE TALKING!What was with Tony? I saw it on TV early on Wed. morning but when I woke up in the light of day on Wed. I was half concerned it had all been a surreal dream brought on by too much beer and pizza. Only to read Brown’s column in the Sun Times and laugh uproariously.
Honest to goodness all they needed were a couple of gardening implements.
The UN needs some serious revitalizing then, especially in this time of terrorism. It’s almost too late but it needs to be utilized for what it was created for: uniting the nations. Terrorists know that the U.S. is the only country in this war and they are trying to turn everyone against us. We all need to collaborate with other countries and end this war.I took the liberty of numbering your principal points.
- The UN has a TERRIBLE reputation for corruption and inaction. The UN simply doesn’t actually DO anything. (Actually they did do a couple of things, but not in the last few decades.)
- ENVY. Plain and simple. We “rescued” the French from the Germans in WW2 and they have never forgiven us. The French hate us for that.
Yes, the pro-life movement has suffered many setbacks but we must not give up hope and pray that we succed in future elections, not just in America but also Spain, Italy and South Africa.and the pro-life movement suffers another unfortunate setback
There are those so-called “scholars” in political science and Middle Eastern studies who insist the term “Islamic Fascism” is nonsense. However, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch thinks that such “scholars” like Carl Ernst ave a hidden agenda and are not honest to declare their conflict of interest.I’m wondering why, as a Catholic, you didn’t support Santorum. Solid on life issues, good family man. Perhaps you thought ‘Islamic Fascism’ was a little strongly-worded, but why waste a vote on a third party candidate (or not vote at all…) and remove such a solid pro-life leader from office?
Also-- how is the term ‘Islamic fascism’ nonsensical?
We’re talking about terrorists who ignore the value of reason in any sort of religious or political dialogue, following the violent commands of whatever version of God they are following.
I’m not a ‘scholar’, but I agree that it is nonsensical as a term. It’s a transparent attempt at trying to make these guys seem as bad as the really bad guys in the past, the Fascists. I very seriously doubt OBL is looking at a book of Mussolini in his cave and going ‘yes! that was the right way to do things! I want to be the next Mussolini!’There are those so-called “scholars” in political science and Middle Eastern studies who insist the term “Islamic Fascism” is nonsense.
I’m sure he’s objective, pointing on ‘JihadWatch’However, Robert Spencer of JihadWatch thinks that such “scholars” like Carl Ernst ave a hidden agenda and are not honest to declare their conflict of interest.
It’s certainly offensive to language, irrespective of whether it offends people. On a similar note, I think it’s a bit sad that usage of the term ‘neo-conservative’ has been made offensive by the political right (it’s got nothing at all to do with anti-Semitism, but that idea has got some traction now). You try and find someone who calls him or herself an ‘Islamic fascist’ - you won’t. That’s quite a good reason to suspect those using it are doing it to offend.Its sad that the usage of the term “Islamic fascism” is deliberately made offensive by the political left,
She takes her dog to the same veterinarian as I do, and she has the fattest beagle I’ve ever seen! Now, how does this relate to the elections? She had that commercial about how her dog was disgusted by the negative commercials by “Blago…Blago…Smith” and it ran out of the room. All I can say is that her dog must have lost a ton of weight or she is using a stunt double for her dog!I wasn’t crazy about Barr-Topinka,
Did you see this on “Daily Show”?but I absolutely loathe Blago.
You’re correct, it wasn’t.…wasn’t in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, now, was it?
From what I understand, Rahm EmanuelThe worst thing about the Republicans losing the House is that we will no longer have the Speaker from the State of Illinois to bring home bacon.
Too bad Bill Lipinski ain’t still around now that the Dems control things. He’d be sitting on a very nice perch right about this time.
Well, at least Durbin’s in the power structure.
Indeed. The first year, in fact, just like 9/11 with Bush43.You’re correct, it wasn’t.
It was in the first 4 years of his administration, as I recall.
Sounds like they favour the ‘corporate/economic’ conservatives over the ‘religious/social’ conservatives. Is the marriage of convenience between the two going to run into problems now?Pretty good article in the NY Sun:
Mike,Sounds like they favour the ‘corporate/economic’ conservatives over the ‘religious/social’ conservatives. Is the marriage of convenience between the two going to run into problems now?
Mike