Remember that lame shoe bomber? Judge shows his a$$ up in court.

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

Bingo. They despise individual freedom... especially religious freedom. They rightly fear that it is the future their countries are headed towards. They seek to keep or create theocracies and viciously fight any outside or inside influence that endangers that cause.

Folks, saying you "understand" their motivation is like saying you understand the loony religious right's motivations here in the US. Was Eric Rudolph's motivations for his terrorism "understandable?" If not, why is his motivation not understandable and the loony right wing Muslim's are???

The pentagon disagrees with you. Just because a murderer makes a point doesn't mean he's wrong.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

If osama bin laden made the point that 'bunnies are cute' and right after he says that, i say 'I agree with him, bunnies are cute', i'd be accused of being a terrorist by you imbecile nationalists.

This is why we can't have an objective discussion in this country.

When did I accuse you of being a terrorist?

Stop throwing up strawmen.

My point was objective. The radical religious right in the middle east has the SAME motivations as the radical religious right in the US.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[OulOat]

According to this study, anti-war bias is unfounded, but Bush bashing is very real in the media.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

Bingo. They despise individual freedom... especially religious freedom. They rightly fear that it is the future their countries are headed towards. They seek to keep or create theocracies and viciously fight any outside or inside influence that endangers that cause.

Folks, saying you "understand" their motivation is like saying you understand the loony religious right's motivations here in the US. Was Eric Rudolph's motivations for his terrorism "understandable?" If not, why is his motivation not understandable and the loony right wing Muslim's are???

The pentagon disagrees with you. Just because a murderer makes a point doesn't mean he's wrong.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

If osama bin laden made the point that 'bunnies are cute' and right after he says that, i say 'I agree with him, bunnies are cute', i'd be accused of being a terrorist by you imbecile nationalists.

This is why we can't have an objective discussion in this country.

When did I accuse you of being a terrorist?

Stop throwing up strawmen.

My point was objective. The radical religious right in the middle east has the SAME motivations as the radical religious right in the US.

Not nearly on the same scale. The US government interferes with the lives of americans every day, but not nearly as much as they've done to foreign countries. Look at the period during the time that iran was at war with iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein (ironic) during that war, but we secretly armed Iran as well. Did you know that hundreds of thousands of iranian and iraqis died in that war? Lots of them child soldiers? And when Saddam found out what we did, he became our enemy. Learn some history.


I didn't say you called me terrorist. I was referring to the general blind attitude in america.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

^--- exactly the attitude that i was referring to. And believe me, it's not limited to just israel, our support to shady countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Boy, we sure love freedom loving countries!

See? We can't have an honest discussion.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Again, isolationism is an abject failure as a foreign policy. It led to the deaths of millions in WWII and the USSR and dragged the US into a war it could have easily prevented had it not followed the path of isolationists in the 1930s. Ignoring oppression has ALWAYS cost more lives than fighting it.

Now, with weapons as they are, isolationism is an impossibly dangerous policy.

The US is targeted because it is the last remaining superpower with the largest influence of religious and economic freedom in the world.

In easier terms to understand, the US is targeted for the same reasons Microsoft, Walmart, AOL and a host of other #1 entities are targeted... because they are #1.

Oh, and if you see Israel, the ONLY true democracy in the ME, as a country not worth supporting, I dare say it is YOU who is falling for propaganda.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

Bingo. They despise individual freedom... especially religious freedom. They rightly fear that it is the future their countries are headed towards. They seek to keep or create theocracies and viciously fight any outside or inside influence that endangers that cause.

Folks, saying you "understand" their motivation is like saying you understand the loony religious right's motivations here in the US. Was Eric Rudolph's motivations for his terrorism "understandable?" If not, why is his motivation not understandable and the loony right wing Muslim's are???

The pentagon disagrees with you. Just because a murderer makes a point doesn't mean he's wrong.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

If osama bin laden made the point that 'bunnies are cute' and right after he says that, i say 'I agree with him, bunnies are cute', i'd be accused of being a terrorist by you imbecile nationalists.

This is why we can't have an objective discussion in this country.

When did I accuse you of being a terrorist?

Stop throwing up strawmen.

My point was objective. The radical religious right in the middle east has the SAME motivations as the radical religious right in the US.

Not nearly on the same scale. The US government interferes with the lives of americans every day, but not nearly as much as they've done to foreign countries. Look at the period during the time that iran was at war with iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein (ironic) during that war, but we secretly armed Iran as well. Did you know that hundreds of thousands of iranian and iraqis died in that war? Lots of them child soldiers? And when Saddam found out what we did, he became our enemy. Learn some history.


I didn't say you called me terrorist. I was referring to the general blind attitude in america.

I KNOW history. Sometimes we are forced to support the lesser of two evils. We supported Saddam because he was fighting Iran, a country recently taken over by religious extremists and who had taken 50+ American hostages for over a year. I was alive then. Were you?

We sold Iran arms to gain the freedom of other hostages. A bad policy decision, but understandable.

The terrorism of the RR in the US is not nearly the same scale because our culture does not support them. The culture of the ME DOES largely support terrorism, or at least, turns a blind eye to it. Do not think for a minute that if the RR loonies in the US had the backing, they would not be every bit as dangerous as the Islamic loonies.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Again, isolationism is an abject failure as a foreign policy. It led to the deaths of millions in WWII and the USSR and dragged the US into a war it could have easily prevented had it not followed the path of isolationists in the 1930s. Ignoring oppression has ALWAYS cost more lives than fighting it.

Now, with weapons as they are, isolationism is an impossibly dangerous policy.

The US it targeted because it is the last remaining superpower with the largest influence of religious and economic freedom in the world.

In easier terms to understand, the US is targeted for the same reasons Microsoft, Walmart, AOL and a host of other #1 entities are targeted... because they are #1.

Oh, and if you see Israel, the ONLY true democracy in the ME, as a country not worth supporting, I dare say it is YOU who is falling for propaganda.

It's not the job of the government to 'export democracy' to other countries. Our founding fathers made this very clear. If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Israel is not a 'true' democracy. It has some elements of democracy, but it's certainly not a 'free' nation. Perhaps you like sending weapons to israel using my tax dollars, but i don't. If you want, feel free to start your own private charity so you can buy weapons for israel using your own money. I certainly don't like my right to life threatened by terrorists because the US government decided to bow down to the israeli lobby and send them weapons to use against their enemies.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

Bingo. They despise individual freedom... especially religious freedom. They rightly fear that it is the future their countries are headed towards. They seek to keep or create theocracies and viciously fight any outside or inside influence that endangers that cause.

Folks, saying you "understand" their motivation is like saying you understand the loony religious right's motivations here in the US. Was Eric Rudolph's motivations for his terrorism "understandable?" If not, why is his motivation not understandable and the loony right wing Muslim's are???

The pentagon disagrees with you. Just because a murderer makes a point doesn't mean he's wrong.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html

If osama bin laden made the point that 'bunnies are cute' and right after he says that, i say 'I agree with him, bunnies are cute', i'd be accused of being a terrorist by you imbecile nationalists.

This is why we can't have an objective discussion in this country.

When did I accuse you of being a terrorist?

Stop throwing up strawmen.

My point was objective. The radical religious right in the middle east has the SAME motivations as the radical religious right in the US.

Not nearly on the same scale. The US government interferes with the lives of americans every day, but not nearly as much as they've done to foreign countries. Look at the period during the time that iran was at war with iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein (ironic) during that war, but we secretly armed Iran as well. Did you know that hundreds of thousands of iranian and iraqis died in that war? Lots of them child soldiers? And when Saddam found out what we did, he became our enemy. Learn some history.


I didn't say you called me terrorist. I was referring to the general blind attitude in america.

I KNOW history. Sometimes we are forced to support the lesser of two evils. We supported Saddam because he was fighting Iran, a country recently taken over by religious extremists and who had taken 50+ American hostages for over a year. I was alive then. Were you?

We sold Iran arms to gain the freedom of other hostages. A bad policy decision, but understandable.

The terrorism of the RR in the US is not nearly the same scale because our culture does not support them. The culture of the ME DOES largely support terrorism, or at least, turns a blind eye to it. Do not think for a minute that if the RR loonies in the US had the backing, they would not be every bit as dangerous as the Islamic loonies.

Yes, and we overthrew the iranian government prior to that and that led to the religious extremists going into power. Do you see a pattern here? But at least you recognize the EVIL in these actions.

Did you know president mushareff of pakistan had a little power grab coup recently? I can't wait 20 years from now when pakistan becomes our enemy and you sheep forgot why.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144206,00.html

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

^--- exactly the attitude that i was referring to. And believe me, it's not limited to just israel, our support to shady countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Boy, we sure love freedom loving countries!

See? We can't have an honest discussion.

Yeah, you can have an honest discussion, in P&N (you know, the forum made for political discussion). I forgot where in ATOT's rules it says that it is a completely free forum, perhaps you can be so kind as to point it out for me.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

^--- exactly the attitude that i was referring to. And believe me, it's not limited to just israel, our support to shady countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Boy, we sure love freedom loving countries!

See? We can't have an honest discussion.

Yeah, you can have an honest discussion, in P&N (you know, the forum made for political discussion). I forgot where in ATOT's rules it says that it is a completely free forum, perhaps you can be so kind as to point it out for me.

I was talking about the country as a whole. And that's funny, the thread wasn't started by me you know.

 

[OulOat]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

^--- exactly the attitude that i was referring to. And believe me, it's not limited to just israel, our support to shady countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Boy, we sure love freedom loving countries!

See? We can't have an honest discussion.

Yeah, you can have an honest discussion, in P&N (you know, the forum made for political discussion). I forgot where in ATOT's rules it says that it is a completely free forum, perhaps you can be so kind as to point it out for me.

I was talking about the country as a whole. And that's funny, the thread wasn't started by me you know.

What's even funnier is that this thread wasn't even a political thread until you turn it into one. The thread was on congratulating the judge on owning a terrorist who we all agreed is an asshole. So once again, I ask, take your political views to P&N and keep them there.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: OulOat

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: Phokus

And btw, muslims don't 'hate our freedom'... they hate our policies. Even the pentagon agrees:

Of course they hate our freedom. The islamic terrorists are nothing but fascist cowards. They hate the fact that we're spreading freedom and liberty in the middle east. The side effect of that liberty is that they can no longer impose their will on the people there.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them object to our practices. But when a douchebag politician says, 'the terrorists 'hate' our freedom', they're implying that's the reason why they attacked us.

Let me pose this question to you, if the terrorists 'hate our freedom', do you think they hate amsterdam more? They have more freedoms than America does (you can legally smoke weed, prostitution is legal, the age of consent is lower than america). Why aren't the terrorists getting a boner about all the social freedoms that they would most likely object to in Amsterdam, which happens to be greater than our freedom?

And stop this bullshit 'spreading freedom and liberty' tripe. You sound like a republican talking point memo.

Amsterdam isn't a worldwide influence on other cultures. The US is.

Again, they are attacking us for the same reasons Eric Rudolph and the loony religious right in the US did. Do you "understand" Rudolph's motivations?

And there's a reason why Amsterdam isn't threatened with terrorism. It's called logic, it'll help you.

So is it about freedom or not? And unilaterally invading countries that pose no threat to us, having pacts with shady countries like israel and giving weapons to them using my tax dollars, and meddling in the affairs of other countries is not 'freedom', in the sense that our founding fathers described it.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ? entangling alliances
with none." - Thomas Jefferson

Hey, take your Israel bashing to P&N. There is plenty of your kind there.

^--- exactly the attitude that i was referring to. And believe me, it's not limited to just israel, our support to shady countries include Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.

Boy, we sure love freedom loving countries!

See? We can't have an honest discussion.

Yeah, you can have an honest discussion, in P&N (you know, the forum made for political discussion). I forgot where in ATOT's rules it says that it is a completely free forum, perhaps you can be so kind as to point it out for me.

I was talking about the country as a whole. And that's funny, the thread wasn't started by me you know.

What's even funnier was this thread wasn't even a political thread until you turn it into one. The thread was on congratulating the judge on owning a terrorist who we all agreed is an asshole. So once again, I ask, take your political views to P&N and keep them there.

Technically speaking, under ATOT rules, this thread should've been in P&N in the first place, but since it turned out to be a congratulatory circle jerk, i guess they decided not to put it in P&N. The only reason why you're upset is because my arguments don't mix well with your worldview.

And btw, the judge didn't 'own' the terrorist, all the judge did was perpetuate a retarded nationalist myth rather than address the foreign policy issues reid put forth in order to look good in front of the idiots that don't know any better. The judge really owned himself.

 

[dabuddha]

:thumbsup:

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Phokus
If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Worst example ever.

Let's take a look at the Swiss:

Contains large essential strategic resources? No.
Geographically important? No.
Easily defensible terrain? Yes.
Compulsory military service for citizens? Yes
Armed citizens? Yes

Switzerland also figured out that neutrality could be extremely profitable by providing loans to belligerents.

 

[moshquerade]

the judge did own Reid. he let him know that even though he thought he was all that - he was in fact "no big deal".

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the judge did own Reid. he let him know that even though he thought he was all that - he was in fact "no big deal".

No, the judge did not own reid. All he did was repeat what a lot of politicians who like to pander to their constituents say. The judge's statement was prepared in advance. I could only imagine what was going through the judges head when reid listed his reasons why he attacked america.

"oh shit, i thought he was going to say he hated our freedom, i better make this good!"

It's like if i made a 'your mommas so fat' joke that was a real zinger, even though your mom might be a stick figure in reality and has no real application to your mom.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus
If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Worst example ever.

Let's take a look at the Swiss:

Contains large essential strategic resources? No.
Geographically important? No.
Easily defensible terrain? Yes.
Compulsory military service for citizens? Yes
Armed citizens? Yes

Switzerland also figured out that neutrality could be extremely profitable by providing loans to belligerents.

Contains large essential strategic resources? Not applicable, there's this thing, it's called 'free trade'. You don't have to have military personel stationed all over the world to guard other country's natural resources. It's not our job.

Geographically important? That has nothing to do with anything.

Easily defensible terrain? in the context of terrorism, that has nothing to do with anything, and we have the greatest military power in the world.

Compulsory military service for citizens? Irrelevant

Armed citizens? Oh, so you agree that civilians should be armed? I do too.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus
If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Worst example ever.

Let's take a look at the Swiss:

Contains large essential strategic resources? No.
Geographically important? No.
Easily defensible terrain? Yes.
Compulsory military service for citizens? Yes
Armed citizens? Yes

Switzerland also figured out that neutrality could be extremely profitable by providing loans to belligerents.

Contains large essential strategic resources? Not applicable, there's this thing, it's called 'free trade'. You don't have to have military personel stationed all over the world to guard other country's natural resources. It's not our job.

Geographically important? That has nothing to do with anything.

Easily defensible terrain? in the context of terrorism, that has nothing to do with anything, and we have the greatest military power in the world.

Compulsory military service for citizens? Irrelevant

Armed citizens? Oh, so you agree that civilians should be armed? I do too.

You made an argument that the Swiss' historic nutrality has protected them from several wars. I showed you why it worked for THEM.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the judge did own Reid. he let him know that even though he thought he was all that - he was in fact "no big deal".

No, the judge did not own reid. All he did was repeat what a lot of politicians who like to pander to their constituents say. The judge's statement was prepared in advance. I could only imagine what was going through the judges head when reid listed his reasons why he attacked america.

"oh shit, i thought he was going to say he hated our freedom, i better make this good!"

It's like if i made a 'your mommas so fat' joke that was a real zinger, even though your mom might be a stick figure in reality and has no real application to your mom.

yeh, now you think you know what was going on in the judge's head. like you are a freakin' mind reader.

you think far too highly of yourself :roll:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus
If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Worst example ever.

Let's take a look at the Swiss:

Contains large essential strategic resources? No.
Geographically important? No.
Easily defensible terrain? Yes.
Compulsory military service for citizens? Yes
Armed citizens? Yes

Switzerland also figured out that neutrality could be extremely profitable by providing loans to belligerents.

Contains large essential strategic resources? Not applicable, there's this thing, it's called 'free trade'. You don't have to have military personel stationed all over the world to guard other country's natural resources. It's not our job.

Geographically important? That has nothing to do with anything.

Easily defensible terrain? in the context of terrorism, that has nothing to do with anything, and we have the greatest military power in the world.

Compulsory military service for citizens? Irrelevant

Armed citizens? Oh, so you agree that civilians should be armed? I do too.

You made an argument that the Swiss' historic nutrality has protected them from several wars. I showed you why it worked for THEM.

And i was explaining why your points has nothing to do with comparing them to America.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Phokus
If isolationism is so dangerous, then switzerland would've gotten it's ass handed many times over.

Worst example ever.

Let's take a look at the Swiss:

Contains large essential strategic resources? No.
Geographically important? No.
Easily defensible terrain? Yes.
Compulsory military service for citizens? Yes
Armed citizens? Yes

Switzerland also figured out that neutrality could be extremely profitable by providing loans to belligerents.

Contains large essential strategic resources? Not applicable, there's this thing, it's called 'free trade'. You don't have to have military personel stationed all over the world to guard other country's natural resources. It's not our job.

Geographically important? That has nothing to do with anything.

Easily defensible terrain? in the context of terrorism, that has nothing to do with anything, and we have the greatest military power in the world.

Compulsory military service for citizens? Irrelevant

Armed citizens? Oh, so you agree that civilians should be armed? I do too.

You made an argument that the Swiss' historic nutrality has protected them from several wars. I showed you why it worked for THEM.

And i was explaining why your points has nothing to do with comparing them to America.

try: points have nothing to do 😕

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the judge did own Reid. he let him know that even though he thought he was all that - he was in fact "no big deal".

No, the judge did not own reid. All he did was repeat what a lot of politicians who like to pander to their constituents say. The judge's statement was prepared in advance. I could only imagine what was going through the judges head when reid listed his reasons why he attacked america.

"oh shit, i thought he was going to say he hated our freedom, i better make this good!"

It's like if i made a 'your mommas so fat' joke that was a real zinger, even though your mom might be a stick figure in reality and has no real application to your mom.

yeh, now you think you know what was going on in the judge's head. like you are a freakin' mind reader.

you think far too highly of yourself :roll:

Any rational human being who read reid's transcript and the judge's transcript would be scratching their head as to what the judge's statement had to do with anything.

And anyone who follows politics/current events would know that the 'you hate our freedom' argument is complete bullshit to begin with (just read the pentagon study that i linked before).

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: moshquerade
the judge did own Reid. he let him know that even though he thought he was all that - he was in fact "no big deal".

No, the judge did not own reid. All he did was repeat what a lot of politicians who like to pander to their constituents say. The judge's statement was prepared in advance. I could only imagine what was going through the judges head when reid listed his reasons why he attacked america.

"oh shit, i thought he was going to say he hated our freedom, i better make this good!"

It's like if i made a 'your mommas so fat' joke that was a real zinger, even though your mom might be a stick figure in reality and has no real application to your mom.

yeh, now you think you know what was going on in the judge's head. like you are a freakin' mind reader.

you think far too highly of yourself :roll:

Any rational human being who read reid's transcript and the judge's transcript would be scratching their head as to what the judge's statement had to do with anything.

And anyone who follows politics/current events would know that the 'you hate our freedom' argument is complete bullshit to begin with (just read the pentagon study that i linked before).

yadda-yadda-yadda. you are a windbag.