Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 16, 2019, 09:43:34 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Both Sides™)
  Iran 'behind attacks on British'
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Author Topic: Iran 'behind attacks on British'  (Read 2155 times)
DanielX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5,130
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 06, 2005, 06:43:32 pm »

2. Saddam... was as anti-Jew as any middle eastern thug.

Well of course, what else would any arab muslim be, considering the actions of the jewish theocracy?  That's like calling a black racist for hating white people.

Hee hee... most of the Zionists weren't particularly religious at all; just as often they were secular Jews or even Communists. And some of the real nutty Hassidic Jews are actually anti-Israel; they don't believe it should exist until the Messiah comes.  Plus, did you know that hundreds of thousands of Jews all over the Middle East were expelled or killed after Israel was formed, even if they had nothing to do with it? I must say, you are very taken with the concept of grouping people by groups (race, class, gender, etc) which inevitably mean you are a racist, classist, bigoted, etc. You of course claim you are not, and that you criticize those who do; but using race as a negative is commonplace amongst all political persuasions that are not respective of individualism.

And yes, It is perfectly valid to call a black person who hates white people a racist. The term racist is neutral; it simply means someone who has a bias toward people of another so-called racial group. Genuinely, race does not exist save as a cultural construct - usually among feudal societies like the Roman Empire, the pre-1960s American South, and the modern-day Middle East.

Quote
Quote
3. This is more for other islamic terror-mongerers then Saddam  - especially the Iranians and Al-Qaeda. The US army that pacified the Phillipines did the same thing with Islamic militants there - they rubbed bullets in pigfat, shot a whole large group of militants, and left one alive to tell the other communities. There wasn't a lot of islamic resistance after that... not that I support mass pig-smearing random muslims or even random terrorists. Smiting Saddam and the Ayatollah and Osama and Mullah Mohammed Omar and those guys with the pig would suffice.

Hah, you don't even know who to shoot.  Just go home and stop meddling, and all will be well.  Actually the Philippines is a great example - what the hell were we doing beating up on that poor country?  American imperialism is a frightful embarrassment.

Who would you shoot, btw? Everyone? No one? I would shoot their leaders.

BTW, Thailand is a capitalist society, in some respects moreso then the United States (moral prudishness is not an aspect of libertarian capitalism; indeed most religious types are populist-socialists ie William Jennings Bryan).  Capitalism is a very important reason why Africa is worse then South/East Asia (excluding North Korea, which is a fundamentally Marxist-Feudalist state). In 1950, South Korea was one of the world's poorest nations, Hong Kong was poorer then Ghana, Taiwan was destitute, and pretty much the whole area was worse off then most of Africa. Even Japan was poor, as a result of the damages of World War II. What happened? Capitalism revived the area. Japan's economic rise in the 1950s-1980s was due to capitalism, and its economic stagnation from that point forward largely due to massive spending on social programs and a subsidized banking system that did not handle bad loans very well. Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia became centers of banking and commerce. South Korea and Taiwan went from 3rd world nations to the 1st world. Even India, after reforming its massive bureaucracy and deregulating its formerly socialist economy, experienced massive growth. Capitalism is also responsible for massive economic gains in the post-Cold-War Baltic States, in Ireland (which is now one of the wealthiest countries in Europe), and in Chile. Socialism == Feudalism == State-sponsored looting == bad for economies. The United States could not have redistributed during the mid-20th centuries without the capitalist booms in the late 19th-early 20th centuries, which resulted in massive increases of capital via new technologies and materials. That's what doomed a large part of Africa - the European-educated first leaders of independent African states tended to believe the redistributionist hooey they were taught, and applied it - to nations which utterly lacked capital to redistribute (thanks in part to the Europeans, and in part to past economic mismanagement by both the Euros and by natives) - usually this meant that they seized colonial properties, and established corrupt public entities 'for the greater good'. These often failed, and the leaders eventually decided to 'redistribute' other people's income.
Logged
Jake
dubya2004
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,667
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -0.90, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 06, 2005, 06:53:48 pm »

It's not terribly hard to cripple Iran's economy at all if that is the step that must being taken. A few quick and easy strikes by naval air from carriers in the Arabian Sea could utterly destroy Iran's oil platforms and shipping centers and pipelines leaving them without any fuel to move. This would also (obviously) hurt the world economy as a whole pretty badly too. This type of crap cannot be allowed to take place though.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC