by Jack Lee
Since 9/11 we’ve learned a lot about the Muslim religion, some good and some not so good. We’ve been exposed to their inner most thoughts about politics, other religions and other forms of government. We’ve learned about Sharia Law, about honor killings, wife beatings/stoning’s, human rights abuses and in particular abuses of women’s rights. We’ve learned a lot about a new word, jihad, and how it defines a mandate for conquest and domination.
Everything we’ve learned (or should have learned) has been underscored by a long list of criminal offenses directed at mostly innocent people without regard to their age, race, or sex and all in the name of this one religion.
We know that even the most educated and worldly people can be drawn into deadly radicalism (see London bombings). We know that Islamic radicalism has turned U.S. servicemen into killers of their own kind. It’s turned medical doctors, the very healers we trust to save life, into terrorist leaders that take life.
We know that Islam has caused everyday Muslim people to become members of a blood thirsty mobs over nothing more than a silly cartoon they found offensive and people died. It’s caused our Muslim military allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the very people we were trying to help to build better lives, to suddenly turn on us and kill. And we’ve seen many cases where it’s caused American citizens to kill their fellow American citizens in the name of Islam.
Yes, we’ve learned a lot since 9/11 and there’s not a month that goes by that we don’t hear the warnings from some defector within the radical ranks that their global jihad was never really about sinful Hollywood or decadent lifestyles of westerners with too much privilege. Nor was it about our blundering foreign policies or about our military adventures, these were lesser motives behind the real motive. If it was only that we could fix it and there would be no genocide in African nations. Their would be no ethnic purges or persecutions Christians in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and many other nations. Their would be no Muslim mobs in Paris burning cars and fighting police and there would be no similar rampages in London, Amsterdam and elsewhere. And these are countries of tolerance that have opened their nation’s doors and given safe shelter to Muslims and now they are re-thinking what they have done.
We know only too well (we’re so frequently reminded by the far left) that not every Muslim is a terrorist or a threat to our way of life. We know many more Muslims just want to live in peace and enjoy the bounties of America like other free Americans. And I embrace them! But reality says, not every German was Nazi, not every Russian was a Communist. So, we get it. But, those that don’t want peace, those who choose the radical way, they’re big problem. They’re making life here and in many other places a living Hell.
Reality says that no amount of evidence will ever sway the opinions of those who choose never to see evil. We’ll never have a completely united front on this one, because we have terminally naïve people in every corner of the world, especially in America where they are safer from the Darwin effect.
Ironically, a number of high ranking elitists in the British government believed in Hitler’s vision right up to the Battle of Britain. Even our American Ambassador to England, Joe Kennedy, had fond feelings for Hitler…until war broke out and that shut him up and exposed his idiocy. Naivety exists and it gets in the way of truth.
Those naïve, bleeding hearts will always be among us and they may have some of the loudest voices too, but we’ve seen enough to know the truth. Shouting disinformation at us won’t work anymore, we can just dismiss them and we should.
We know the reality that we’re locked into, a reality that we did not chose, but one that sought us out! And we understand what trying to appease this enemy has done for others… they’re no longer alive.
This doesn’t mean we can’t stop trying to seek diplomatic solutions conflicts or bring isolated people into the modern world so there is mutual understanding and respect. We should do these things and more. However, it means that job of diplomacy is a whole lot harder and we’re mandated to raise the bar here and be smarter. It’s going to be harder than we might have ever imagined before 9/11! It also means we have to be less trusting, less eager to win friends, and more focused on doing what is best for America and Americans in order to preserve our security, our national identity and our standing among nations. This requires more rational thinking and less wishful thinking.
We generally don’t like to hear the truth when it scares us and/or demands we change, but the fact remains…we don’t really have any other good options. We are challenged to become better informed, more vigilant and to act proactively. The circumstances demand it. We can either wise up to our new reality or we will stay a soft target. So, by all means put a COEXIST bumper sticker on your car if that will make you feel better, but do it knowing the great challenge that goes with it.
” …but do it knowing the great challenge that goes with it.”
We do, and can live with it. It’s you who seems to be going off the deep end.
“We know that Islam has caused everyday Muslim people to become members of a blood thirsty mobs over nothing more than …”
We also know that America’s pop culture can send psychologically susceptible 22-year-old males off on a rampage.
That’s life in a free and open society. We deal with the rampages, but refrain from consigning all the 22-year-old males to the gulag on spec.
You gotta chill … dude.
Libby, you said a mouthful when you said, “That’s life in a free and open society. We deal with the rampages…” My point exactly. Rampages are for all intents anomalies within the great society. For all the crazies among us we’ve been able to keep the vast majority of them from going on rampages. However, there is room for improvement! Right now California law says a mental health worker has 24 hours to report a threat to public safety. 24 hours, really? We can’t do better than that? C’mon, the law should read they must immediately and without delay contact the police.
I think we should have a bit less concern for the privacy of the mentally ill if there is any hint of violence in play. We need more restrictive notifications from mental health professionals to keep crazies from buying guns.
Libby, nobody on this end of the line is going off the deep end… I’m just talking about being responsible, caring and proactive.
“We also know that America’s pop culture can send psychologically susceptible 22-year-old males off on a rampage.” Libby
We do? How often does that happen?
“Libby, nobody on this end of the line is going off the deep end… I’m just talking about being responsible, caring and proactive.”
Unless … the perpetrator is of the Islamic faith?
That was the point I was trying to make … I think you missed it. This is all the same crazy, but you go jumping up and down over the Islamic fundamentalist 22-year-old males, and react to our own … somewhat differently.
In fact, the parallels with regard to “women as property, possessions and entitlements” are just a little sickening.
But we’re not going to gulag either population.
(And nobody is going to come take away your guns.)
Libby, nobody is going to take away my guns, eh? Maybe-maybe not…but they can make it so expensive I couldn’t afford to buy a rifle or too complicated and costly that I can’t sell one, but nobody is going to outright take my guns…rrrright. No, they just neutralize my 2nd amendment as much as they can get away with. For example; For the tiniest little thing, like not installing a stupid bullet button release latch on my AR, I can now become a criminal! They didn’t take away my AR, they just made me into a criminal if I don’t comply with every silly, frivolous, do nothing law they can think up to mess with me. Doesn’t seem fair, does it to you? Maybe if we started working you over with little laws here and there about your bicycle or your car you might begin appreciate what I have been dealing with for the last decade.
Next, Islamic faith schmaith…what the heck are you talking about? I’m only discussing current events and if the shoe fits then they can wear it. Tuff. However, I believe in human rights…period. Faith has nothing to do with it. If it were the Irish I would be just as critical and so should you! Of all people, you the big liberal, the defender of women’s rights, you the hater of male chauvinist pigs, you m’dear Libby, you just can’t bring yourself to agree with me because I’m a conservative male, even though we share the same deeply held beliefs on this subject of basic human rights. Geez Libs…c’mon
It is time to stop appeasing that Muslim in the White House!
Well, here is one scandal he is not going to get away with.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/05/patrick-j-buchanan/another-god-that-failed/
And you people better listen up. This is where your healthcare is headed with obammie care.
Jack —
“IT’S SOCIETIES FAULT!”
Where have I heard that noxious juvenile whine before?
You have it correct, sir, a mentally deranged anomaly in a free and open society. As opposed to a society that is politically, socially, culturally, and morally dominated by the pervasive, intolerant, and malicious brutality of Islam.
Huge difference. Gargantuan. No equivalency whatsoever, except to fools.
There is no hypocrisy here.
Case in point —
http://www.steynonline.com/6374/the-death-row-maternity-ward
So, Jack, what are your actual suggestions for dealing with this problem? Your article has an attitude of contempt toward liberals, but there’s nothing in there that anyone could actually disagree with. What precisely do you believe liberals have done wrong that you would do differently? (And do you really have a problem with the “Coexist” bumper stickers?)
I don’t really see how articles like this, without specifics, really do any good–they just seem to bring out your own radicals, like Crazy Bob up above.
Chris, it was my intent to express some degree of frustration about our nation’s past practices. Could be from the left or the right, there’s plenty of blame to go around.
We’ve (dems, reps, and others) have all made our share of mistakes. However, when big government makes mistakes too often people die.
Okay, we’re not perfect! Perfection is not expected, but we can do better!
Change for the better, be it in government or in our private lives is not easy, but begins by acknowledging our mistakes, accepting responsibility and learning from our mistakes so we don’t repeat them! It’s simple to say, but implementing it another thing. Our current Administration does not want to take responsibility for anything…they never admit mistakes, they dismiss blunders with this arrogant attitude once expressed so perfectly by Hillary Clinton, “at this point what difference does it make?”
Chris I outlined what we needed to do. It was brief, but it covered the basics. Let me re-state it and maybe add a few things: We (as a society) need to be more educated, more informed so we can vote smarter. We need to stand up and demand better. We must hold people accountable in order to learn from our mistakes and set a higher standard for others to rise too. We must come to grips with our new reality (this dangerous world) and reflect it in our foreign policy all the way down to how we dole out welfare.
We need to be leaner, tougher, smarter, shrewder government that is laser focused on protecting our economy, our freedom and our security and in proper balance. How we get there could fill a book and those detailed methods will be left up to people like yourself…the educators, the new parents, the next generation inheriting what we have done. And sadly you are inheriting a horrible mess… before you even get to the starting line!
Reality tells us America is in a world that is as competitive as it is complex and dangerous. This has never been more true than at any other time in history. It stands to reason that political missteps or omissions will have profound consequences. We must do better!
America and Americans are big fat targets and on so many levels, from national economic fronts to lowly terrorists plots. By virtue of our future survival, we have a mandate to raise the bar and meet this challenge. Failure is not an option, for citizens and politicians alike.
An ignorant voter base can’t be expected to elect quality representation. And our representation at the moment says we have a dangerously ignorant voter base! We must do better!
Ironically, with all our tools and wealth, it should be easy for us to do better in this information age. But, actions say otherwise. We’re graduating some of the dumbest kids in history. The gap between rich and poor is growing. The level of ignorance in this country about damned near everything is growing, and the dependency on government to take care of the lazy and stupid is growing. Compare the need for government dependency in 1900 to now. That’s a shocker and it’s speaking to us about our future! Clearly, we are weaker, lazier, less motivated, less capable, and frankly we’re just less in almost everything…even freedom than in recent generations.
Our national core values, our American identity, our understanding of what made this country great, all these things are fuzzy and confused. This has to change and we need to get serious about that change, because like I keep saying the consequences if we don’t are incredibly serious! We must do better, lives are at stake.
Some people theorized, myself included, that if things got bad enough, then we might wake up and change would come quickly. No such luck. Instead, we see more bad examples, like the formerly great State of California acclimating to the lower standards that comes with poor administration. Apparently we’ve not suffered enough here to motive ourselves and effect change?
Chris this reply might seem long on complaining and short on answers, but that’s the way it shakes out, because we have this long list of complaints and a short list for solutions. The solutions are short because they are basic. They are tried and true principles that we’ve deviated from and we just need to get back on track.
Just think, if every one of us resolved to be better at everything we that do – then we will be better without any new government programs or tax increases. If we resolve to improve – we will improve, how simple is that and yet it’s true! Arguably this [improvement] is best accomplished with good leadership, but absent that, it’s really up to us as individuals. Why do you think I am here, why are any of us here? We’ve resolved to begin the process of improving by discussing, exchanging thoughts, educating ourselves, looking at problems, suggesting solutions and much more. It’s a small first step, but we’re trying and at least we’re not sitting on our butts thinking ignorance is bliss like so many others in this country. So you, Pie, Harriet, Pauline, Harold, Peggy, Libby, Tina, Toby, Jim, Bob, Mike, Casey and so many other contributors can take a bow!
So, there you have it – a highly abbreviated and very crudely written answer to your question…what do you think?
Hah! Crazy Bob? Radical? But what about Pie??? 🙂
Sometimes the truth is radical, Chris.
Here’s one that should send you into hyperbole, Chris.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/man-threatens-representative-of-extortion-syndicate-faces-20-years-in-prison/
bob: “Sometimes the truth is radical, Chris.”
Yes, but referring to the president as “that Muslim in the White House” is not the truth, it’s bigoted lunacy.
Saying, the Muslim in the White House doesn’t really help anything. I think it hurts us, so I don’t even want to go there.
Chris, why do you say my comment was “bigoted lunacy?”
I was not making a value judgement on whether being a Muslim is good or bad.
Are you going to deny that there is a VA scandal under this administration?
Re “I don’t really see how articles like this, without specifics, really do any good–they just seem to bring out your own radicals, like Crazy Bob up above.”
What a contemptible statement from a condescending ass.
Re: “Saying, the Muslim in the White House doesn’t really help anything. I think it hurts us, so I don’t even want to go there.”
I will. No problem! Barry Soetero is no Muslim. He is no Christian. His religion is Obama. It always has been and it always will be. He doesn’t even pass as a president and he was never even a community organizer, he just took credit for it. Obamism. That is his and Chris’ religion.
Too funny! Media Matters Chris, who parrots talking points from The Daily Kos and Salon, painting me as a radical.
A good little Soros brown shirt if ever there was one. March on, dude!
I wonder what history will say about Obama? Egomaniac or just arrogant? Narcissist or megalomaniac? Liar or deceiver? So many choices….
Pie, you said what was on my mind… lol -jack
Speaking of “radicals”, here some “radical” thoughts for today …
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.”
— Barry Goldwater
“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.”
“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
— Ronald Reagan
Wise words from wise men. Thanks for reminding us Pie!
Jack is sounding a warning bell. Listen or don’t. Escape is not an option. We will all be swept along regardless our level of awareness.
And this isn’t about race or religion but a brand of radical that gives the world no option save one…the world will be ruled under Sharia. Wise up and defeat them or surrender to their version of “world peace”.
Or…
History repeats. Weak leadership creates an opportune moment in time for repeat performances. The problems we face are not confined to the “jihadist problem”. Troubling alliances are forming. Bill Whittle reminds us that we should be aware of present events but also seek wisdom from the past. The “jihadist problem” could very easily develop into a useful tool for a megalomaniac of a totally different stripe.
How this ends depends on whether our citizens are willing to observe and learn and then act accordingly. We can handle this problem now or we can wait and watch the next terrible world war blow forth.
Jack, I’d say the answer to your question at #20 is, “Yes to all of the above…there’s just no “or” about it!” But he’s no match for those that can and will use his weakness for their own arrogant aims.
Americans like Libby just aren’t happy unless they can find and defend a victim…and they usually defend them with such (self-congratulatory) indignance! This citizen doesn’t have to be aware because he sees himself as special…part of that rare breed with the knowledge/charm to deliver on the bumper sticker, “coexist”.
Unfortunately for America, too many of them have had a controlling hand in shaping America and American minds. History does repeat but not always as we’d expect. Bringing our citizenry to awareness is a big challenge. I prefer to be optimistic but I confess I’ve never seen mountain this high.
Pie: “Too funny! Media Matters Chris, who parrots talking points from The Daily Kos and Salon, painting me as a radical.”
I’ve said nothing to you or about you in this thread, Pie Guevara. But it’s funny that you made this comment right after accusing someone else of being pathologically self-absorbed.
Jack, your response is even more vague than the original post–actually, more so, because you’ve moved away from talking about our responses to terrorism and went on a tangent about pretty much everything else. The OP is pretty clearly a rebuke to liberals over their handling of the War on Terror; my question is, what SPECIFIC policies have been enacted that you disagree with, and what, specifically, would you do differently?
For instance, you imply that Obama’s strategy has been “appeasement,” but you don’t support this charge, and it seems unsupportable in an era of drone strikes, indefinite detentions and targeted assassinations of American citizens, all made legal by this administration. The first American citizen ever publicly assassinated without trial by the U.S. government was a radical Islamic cleric, and that act was ordered by the Obama administration–how can it be said that Obama is pursuing an appeasement strategy?
Chris this reply of yours is exactly why many people here find it so frustrating to engage you in conversation! You raise points that I never said and then demand that I defend them. I never once raised a specific policy decision, yet you want me to go back and find policy decisions that I disagree with and then explain myself. I don’t have time for your silly errands. My article was simply what we’ve learned since 9/11 and why we should make a concerted effort to be more aware of the dangers presented by radicalized Muslims and be smarter than we were before 9/11.
bob: “Chris, why do you say my comment was “bigoted lunacy?””
Because you not only identified the president by a religion he does not identify with, thus proving yourself to be a conspiracy theorist nutter, you also did so in an extremely hateful and bigoted manner.
“I was not making a value judgement on whether being a Muslim is good or bad.”
Bob, I’m a teacher; I know a bullshit excuse when I hear one, so please don’t insult the both of us by pulling this nonsense. The idea that you did not mean any insult when you referred to the president as “that Muslim in the White House” is impossible for any reasonable person to believe. If you did not believe that calling someone a Muslim was an insult, it would not have even occurred to you to call Obama “that Muslim in the White House.” If someone called Obama or Bush “that Christian in the White House” whilst criticizing of them, it would be crystal clear that this person had bigoted ideas about Christians, and does not believe that they are worthy of the same respect and dignity of other people.
It would honestly be more honorable for you to admit that you were using the term “Muslim” as an insult rather than retreat and pretend that you didn’t mean what you clearly meant. Your comment was not even subtle to qualify as a dogwhistle. It was just blatant bigotry. You can stand by it, or you can apologize for it, but don’t lie about what’s right there in black and white.
“Are you going to deny that there is a VA scandal under this administration?”
No, of course not. The VA scandal is atrocious. I do reject your implication that the VA scandal is in any way unique to the Obama administration. There was a similar scandal during the Bush years, and there have been many, many, many other examples of our veterans being mistreated by administrations literally going back to George Washington:
Blaming one president is comforting, because it gives you a convenient enemy and it reassures you that the problem can easily be solved if you just get your guy into office. Sorry, I fell for that in 2008; but as many liberals have realized in the come-down years since, most of our country’s problems are bigger than just one man. Mistreatment of our veterans is not only an uniquely bipartisan issue, it’s an issue that has existed since the inception of our nation. There are constructive things we can do to stop this 200-year-long trend, but pointing fingers and acting like it is TOTALLY UNPRECEDENTED BEFORE THE MUSLIM SOCIALIST USURPED THE WHITE HOUSE is not one of them.
Forgot the link:
http://www.thewire.com/entertainment/2014/05/jon-stewart-dissects-the-va-scandal-mistreating-our-veterans-is-a-fully-bipartisan-endeavor/371494/
“Blaming one president is comforting…”
Now that takes the cake, Chris.
There is NOTHING comforting in the VA scandal.
And the fact that VA scandals have occurred in previous administrations is not the point.
Obama has been in office over 6 years. Who the h@ll are we supposed to blame?
“Bob, I’m a teacher; I know a bullshit excuse when I hear one, so please don’t insult the both of us by pulling this nonsense…”
Well, I feel sorry for the children, then.
I could have just as easily said that man in the White House or that person in the White House or the current occupant of the White House.
Would that be bigotry againts men, people or current occupants?
Chris, just curious what you teach and at what grade level. Do you care to share that with us?
Jack, the title of your post is “COEXIST: When Appeasement Becomes a Death Sentence.” I don’t understand why you think it’s unreasonable for me to ask what specific policies you believe constitute “appeasement.” How is it a “silly errand” to ask you to explain what exactly you’re talking about? Of course I raised points that you never said–this article is so vague and noncommittal that it’s impossible to tell what it is you’re actually saying. “Be smarter” is not a real suggestion.
Re #22 Chris :
Ooops, my bad. Somehow I conflated you and Bob. Don’t know how that happened. Oh well, so it goes.
By the way Chris, if the vast majority of a person’s comments here consist of —
1) Telling the good folks who run of Post Scripts how awful they are …
and
2) Expressing how wonderful they themselves are …
I would venture to say that is a pretty good example of pathological self absorption.
Re #9 Chris : “I don’t really see how articles like this, without specifics, really do any good–they just seem to bring out your own radicals, like Crazy Bob up above.”
Just in case I was not clear above —
Well, LA DEE DA! The ever condescending, pompous, and arrogant Chris does not approve of Jack speaking his mind IN HIS OWN BLOG!
Jack, I hope you are properly contrite for your eggregious offense to the magnificent one.
Okay just for laughs, and off the top of my head, I will explain appeasement policy under the current administration:
In his inaugural address Obama set the tone of appeasement:
Read the entire article and wise up. Drone strikes without a strong foreign policy is just a lot of violence for show…just like killing Bin laden and quickly disposing of the body was about putting that feather in Obama’s cap.
Obama travels to Cairo to deliver a speech filled with hope that his change will make all the difference for peace.
Hillary trots off to Russia to “reset” relations. Obama follows through, dropping the missile defense system that would have deterred incursion by Russian activists in the Ukraine…he also agrees to get rid of more of our nukes without demanding a thing in return…tra la!
Red lines are drawn ineffectively. Obama kindly backs the Muslim Brotherhood extremists (after stating in Cairo that we have to defeat such as these) and demonstrates he’s a pushover for extremists.
Hagel announces more deep cuts to the military, celebrities cheer, Russia invades Ukraine.
Bill Gertz calls Obama’s policy, “appeasement-oriented”:
Obama allows China to raid and rape our nation:
Gotta go…glad to be almost back!
Jack, I am still waiting for you to express your remorse for bringing out “YOUR OWN RADICALS LIKE CRAZY BOB ABOVE.” (The emphasis of Chris’ ridiculous, absolutely asinine and abjectly specious and fallacious statement is mine.)
Jack, you owe us an apology for people who comment here as a result of your writings. Lets have it. The sooner the better.
Pie, after careful consideration I have decide it is entirely appropriate that issue a huge apology Chris, Libs, and anyone else I have offended with my highly biased partisan rhetoric and for bringing out all my radicals. The date I have selected for this moment is the day Harry Houdini returns from the dead.
Tina: “In his inaugural address Obama set the tone of appeasement:
At his inaugural address, Obama had declared, “the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve”, “as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself” and “America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.””
Tina, can you please explain to me which parts of those phrases you take issue with?
Are you against tribal lines being dissolved?
Are you against people recognizing their common humanity?
Are you against America playing a role in ushering in a new era of peace?
“Read the entire article and wise up.”
Sorry, I’ll have to decline this oh-so-generous offer. Telling someone to go read an article to “wise up” is not a very convincing or compelling plea, especially when the article comes from a partisan rag like Front Page Magazine.
“Drone strikes without a strong foreign policy is just a lot of violence for show…just like killing Bin laden and quickly disposing of the body was about putting that feather in Obama’s cap.”
I’m not about to defend drone strikes, Tina, but they are totally at odds with an “appeasement” strategy. Appeasement means giving the enemy what they want. I highly doubt drone strikes or killing bin Laden did any of that.
“Obama follows through, dropping the missile defense system that would have deterred incursion by Russian activists in the Ukraine…”
This is a common right-wing talking point, but it is highly misleading. The choice to “drop” the missile defense system in favor of a new one was recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under Bush:
“Obama delegated explaining the decision to an interesting source: Gates, the same official who recommended the missile defense plan to Bush in 2006 to combat the growing threat of Iranian ballistic missiles.
Gates explained why he urged Obama to change course in a 2009 New York Times op-ed and in his 2014 book Duty, in which he described the new strategy as necessary due to changing times, technology and threats. (And in which he said some not-so-nice things about Obama.)
“It was neither the first nor last time under Obama that I was used to provide political cover, but it was okay in this instance since I sincerely believed the new program was better — more in accord with the political realities in Europe and more effective against the emerging Iranian threat,” he wrote.
Gates wrote that Defense Department officials realized the Iranian government was putting more stock into building short- and medium-range missiles over long-range ones. The agency wanted to uproot the old plan to better counteract that threat, and the new tactic Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff recommended to Obama was not only cheaper, but the sea-based missiles could be more easily and quickly produced.
“While there certainly were some in the State Department and the White House who believed the third site in Europe was incompatible with the Russian ‘reset,’ we in Defense did not,” Gates wrote in Duty. “Making the Russians happy wasn’t exactly on my to-do list.”
Lost in the GOP fury, Gates wrote, was that Russians found Obama’s new approach to be an even bigger problem than the Bush-era plan as they worried about future adjustments that could make the short- and medium-range missiles a bigger threat to Russia.
“How ironic that U.S. critics of the new approach had portrayed it as a big concession to the Russians,” Gates wrote. “It would have been nice to hear a critic in Washington — just once in my career — say, Well I got that wrong.””
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/23/mitt-romney/romney-obama-stopped-missile-defense-shield-gift-r/
“he also agrees to get rid of more of our nukes without demanding a thing in return…tra la!”
Not true:
“Mr Obama repeated in Berlin an offer already made in private to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin: to reduce both sides’ deployed strategic nuclear weapons beyond cuts agreed in the 2010 New START Treaty. America could live with an arsenal reduced by up to a third, Mr Obama suggested. That would leave each country with just over 1,000 such weapons, if Mr Putin reciprocated.”
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21579830-president-wants-scrap-nuclear-weapons-other-powers-do-not-obamas-lonely-quest
“Red lines are drawn ineffectively.”
I’ll agree there, but that’s not “appeasement.”
“Obama kindly backs the Muslim Brotherhood extremists”
Obama never “backed” the Muslim Brotherhood. I really wish conservatives would stop telling this lie.
“Hagel announces more deep cuts to the military”
Also not “appeasement.”
Do you have any REAL examples of appeasement, Tina? Examples that actually match the definition of the word?
Re #34 Chris : “Sorry, I’ll have to decline this oh-so-generous offer. Telling someone to go read an article to “wise up” is not a very convincing or compelling plea, especially when the article comes from a partisan rag like Front Page Magazine.”
ROTHFLMAO! The s*** for brains radical left wing putz is afraid!
I was never afraid to read Ramparts when Horowitz was a communist (hell, I subscribed to it) and I have no problem reading Salon, Kos, Mother Jones (also subscribed to), The Nation, and the New York Times to this day.
Chris’ indoctrinators have done their job very well! My congratulations! He is now a self-indoctrinating moron. Such a good little goose-stepper. Sieg Obama!
Chris: “…can you please explain to me which parts of those phrases you take issue with?”
You mean in addition to the self-aggrandizing tone? How about all of it! It’s nonsense. Human beings are by nature combative. People can’t even live peacefully with themselves. It is embarrassing to have a leader that is so naive/cunning and so utterly full of himself.
“Are you against tribal lines being dissolved?
Are you against people recognizing their common humanity?
Are you against America playing a role in ushering in a new era of peace?”
Are you stupid enough to believe that a speech by Obama:
1. Has any power to dissolve tribal lines?
2. Could cause people to “recognize their humanity”?
3. Would usher in “a new era of peace”?
I assure you he did! Six years later everyone but him and his sycophant followers sees he’s a phony. Do you not hear the absolute arrogance, the total lack of humility, in his words? Ugh…the man is full of himself and has zero understanding of human nature. He is an expert in deception and lies.
David Horowitz has more humanity and experience in his discarded toe nails. Refuse my advice at your own peril.
“…but they are totally at odds with an “appeasement” strategy.”
Wrong…they are entirely consistent because they provide cover for the ego and a handy excuse for his failure. Appeasers will always grab something to make them appear tough. (In fact in retrospect it appears rather cowardly – Like Clinton and the Tylanol factory.)
“The choice to “drop” the missile defense system in favor of a new one was recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under Bush”
This is common left wing bull$#!+ and it isn’t the least bit misleading. It is typical of an administration that has blamed Bush for everything and taken responsibility for zot! We might call it the pass the buck administration.
“Not true:
“Mr Obama repeated in Berlin an offer already made in private to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin: to reduce both sides’ deployed strategic nuclear weapons beyond cuts agreed in the 2010 New START Treaty.
There are strong allegations of cheating by the Russians. Instead of trusting but varifying Obama has chosen to just cave.
AIM quotes Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerne and comments:
How indeed!
“but that’s not “appeasement.”
By what standard? How would your class work if you did this with students? Would they respect you? would they think they could walk all over you? You bet they would…its the worst kind of appeasement, pretending to be tough and then looking the other way.
“Obama never “backed” the Muslim Brotherhood.”
That would come as a big surprise to the Egyptians who believed he did and Raghida Dergham posting at Huffington Post:
“Do you have any REAL examples of appeasement, Tina?”
Do you have any REAL ability to get it?
Yahoo Finance:
“Examples that actually match the definition of the word?”
PJ Media:
You either see it or you don’t but even if you don’t see it, that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
Re #37 Tina : You might as well try to teach a cement block to think.
Tina, you call those phrases “self-aggrandazing nonsense,” “arrogant” with a “total lack humility” when they come out of Obama’s mouth, but I can guaran-damn-tee you I can find examples of Reagan and Bush making similar statements and you would use them as evidence of their amazing leadership and ability to inspire hope in people. It doesn’t actually matter to you what Obama says or does, it matters that he has a “D” next to his name. You’re a partisan hypocrite.
I never asked for an apology from Jack. I asked him to elaborate on why he believed America was employing an “appeasement” strategy and if he could give specific examples of how to change that strategy. He refused my request and called it a “silly errand.”
All you people have is strawman arguments and double standards.
David Horowitz was a lying propagandist and character assassin when he was a communist and he remains a lying propagandist and character assassin now that he is a neoconservative. He uses the same paranoid, fringe tactics as always, it’s just that now he’s appealing to the most base aspects of a different group of people.
Tina: “This is common left wing bull$#!+ and it isn’t the least bit misleading. It is typical of an administration that has blamed Bush for everything and taken responsibility for zot! We might call it the pass the buck administration.”
The issue is not “blame,” Tina. Did you read the Politifact piece? The missile defense system was abandoned for good reason, and will be replaced. It had nothing to do with appeasing the Russians–the Russians are even more against the new system!
“There are strong allegations of cheating by the Russians. Instead of trusting but varifying Obama has chosen to just cave.
AIM quotes Retired Air Force Lt. General Thomas McInerne and comments…”
Good for him. Do you have a source verifying McInerne’s claim who is not a McCarthyite birther who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated Congress? And is basically always wrong about everything?
http://www.mediaite.com/online/rachel-maddow-fox-news-lt-general-thomas-mcinerney-comes-out-as-a-birther/
Chris: “I can find examples of Reagan and Bush making similar statements and you would use them as evidence of their amazing leadership and ability to inspire hope in people.”
You don’t read people well at all; that’s the difference.
Find an example from Obama’s term in office when his erudite speech matched his performance or outcome. I guaran-damn-tee you they will be few and far between…if you can find them at all.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan had a D behind his name; I admired him. He was an honest man. I quote him often. President John F. Kennedy had a D after his name and I admired him. I have also quoted him. He too was honest. Ronald Reagan once had a D after his name…you know I admire him.
You are not partisan Chris; you have been brainwashed and you are to stubborn to admit it. You don’t debate or even converse! You deflect, you use misdirection tactics, you attack…just like a trained commie.
Wake up…grow up…your future depends on it.
It isn’t partisan and it isn’t racist. You can wsh it were true all day long but the truth is he is a , he is dishonest, and he is destroying our country and bringing great harm to your generation and minorities in particular!
You are an idiot not to see it.
Chris: “The missile defense system was abandoned for good reason, and will be replaced…”
The damage is already evident! Even if the replacement technology was a better idea it is obviously ineffective under the command of President appeasement!
“…the Russians are even more against the new system!”
Yeah, they’re quaking in their boots!
“Do you have a source verifying McInerne’s claim who is not a McCarthyite birther who believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated Congress? And is basically always wrong about everything?”
Do you have concrete evidence that he’s wrong or just a bunch of radical left propaganda telling you stories?
We have evidence that this administration embraces terrorists and attempt to make peace through appeasement. Hillary Clinton kissed Arafat on the cheek! Isn’t that sweet. Obama is a sneaking liar. He operates covertly. He will not announce ties to radical element; his posture betrays his intentions. Time:
One of the things that makes him so ineffective as a leader is that he does not lead! That was the job he signed on to do. Even if he were prepared to lead, which he is not, leadership would force him to declare a position and that would betray his true intentions. The man is not honest!
Israel National News
Clarion Project:
Obama talks about fundamentally transforming the United States. He has described our Constitution as limiting.
And you trust him?
The world is much bigger than your little collection of radical leftist bullsh*%%er sources, Chris, and you are their naive trusting dupe.
At Pie #38…it would appear so. I pray there might be uninformed others who are not blockheads.
“Do you have concrete evidence that he’s wrong”
Thank you for proving once again that you don’t have a logical bone in your body, Tina. It is no one’s job to prove that your wild claims are wrong. When you make wild claims, it is your job to provide concrete evidence that they are true. And when your wild claims come from people who believe Barack Obama was not born in the United States–despite widely available, concrete evidence that he was–then you have utterly failed to provide decent evidence for your case.
“or just a bunch of radical left propaganda telling you stories…The world is much bigger than your little collection of radical leftist bullsh*%%er sources, Chris, and you are their naive trusting dupe.”
What are you talking about? What “radical leftist” sources are your referring to? In this thread, I have cited Politifact, the Economist, the Wire, and Mediaite. None of those are partisan sources. Meanwhile, you have cited a couple of left-wing sources (Huffington Post and Time) but the majority have been far to the right. The source I took issue with was a proud birther.
So I’ll ask again: do you have evidence confirming your claims that does not come from a birther?
Tina: “Hillary Clinton kissed Arafat on the cheek!”
I’m almost convinced at this point that your partisan hypocrisy is a medical condition. I have no other explanation for how you could condemn Clinton for kissing Arafat’s wife on the cheek, but you have absolutely no problem with George W. Bush kissing King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/01/14/bush-visits-saudi-arabia-for-talks-with-king-abdullah/
It’s a sickness, is what it is.
Chris I didn’t ask you because I expected you to prove the accuracy of McInerne’s position. But my question to you certainly demonstrate, once again, your incredible lack of curiosity about the truth of any matter. You repeatedly refuse to explore possibilities, preferring to just believe accusations and explanations the radical left Media Matters or other source puts out. Then you have the nerve to accuse me of partisanship. You are as phony as the rest off the radical you hang with.
As for Arafat:
Jerusalem Post:
nd King Abdullah? His cooperation and support after 911 reflected a long standing:
From the article you cited:
Bush followed protocol while graciously receiving the “King Abdul Aziz Order of Merit,” Jordon’s “highest honor”.
Geez Chris…there’s a difference. I’d look to your own medical condition if I were you. the inability to tell friend from foe can be quite dangerous.
One less idiot of the left —
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2014/05/31/the-idiots-lose-their-religion/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Re #40 Chris : “I never asked for an apology from Jack … ”
No one said you did, you idiot.
“We have evidence that this administration embraces terrorists and attempt to make peace through appeasement.”
You have no such thing. You have evidence that this democratically elected government communicated with democratically elected government of Egypt (at the time … alas, no longer).
You know, nobody is denying that Islamic extremism is a threat. All extremisms are. But you carry on like the imposition of Sharia Law in Butte County is imminent … which is paranoid idiocy.
And the fact that many millions of people ARE willing to be so lorded over … is not something you can fix … not with an army anyway. So … just … settle down.
Tina: “Chris I didn’t ask you because I expected you to prove the accuracy of McInerne’s position. But my question to you certainly demonstrate, once again, your incredible lack of curiosity about the truth of any matter. You repeatedly refuse to explore possibilities, preferring to just believe accusations and explanations the radical left Media Matters or other source puts out.”
You are being extremely dishonest. Again, look at the actual sources I have used in this thread. Fox News was the most recent one. None of them are left-wing. To say that I just eat up whatever Media Matters gives me, and that I am not open to sources which are not left-wing, is absurd even if you look only at this conversation, especially from someone who sees no problem with citing birthers.
But while we’re on the subject, can you tell me what, exactly, Media Matters has misreported that is on the level of spreading birther nonsense and other ridiculous conspiracy theories as your sources do on the daily? Can you show me what errors they have made that are on par with the absolutely insane crap peddled by the laughably named “Accuracy in Media,” a group so radical that it literally supports laws in foreign countries making homosexuality a crime punishable by death?
http://www.aim.org/aim-report/homosexual-media-target-christians/
You constantly attack Media Matters even when I have not even cited it as a source (such as in this conversation), but you never explain what’s actually wrong with it, other than the fact that it is liberal. Since you can’t explain what the site actually gets wrong, one is left with the impression that you despise it so much because it tells you things you don’t want to hear.
“the inability to tell friend from foe can be quite dangerous.”
Indeed it can, which makes your Saudi-cheerleading pretty damn scary:
“Families who lost loved ones in the Sept. 11 attacks and insurers who lost billions of dollars covering damaged businesses have alleged Saudi Arabia bankrolled al-Qaeda, knowing the money would be used for terrorism.
The lawsuit, filed a decade ago by the Philadelphia firm Cozen O’Connor, accuses the Saudi government and members of the royal family of serving on charities that financed al-Qaeda operations.”
http://abcnews.go.com/US/911-families-ecstatic-finally-sue-saudi-arabia/story?id=21290177
Re #41 Chris :
David Horowitz is an intelligent, experienced, wise, and sincere human being. You, sir, are an ignorant nobody. An extreme left wing ass from hell whose only claim to fame is that the good folks who run the Post Scripts blog tolerate and enable your sorry and sad posts.
Re Insane Chris: “… the absolutely insane crap peddled by the laughably named “Accuracy in Media,” a group so radical that it literally supports laws in foreign countries making homosexuality a crime punishable by death?”
Supports? Is THAT what you gleaned from that article. Man, you really are a hopeless idiot.
Pie Guevara: “David Horowitz is an intelligent, experienced, wise, and sincere human being.”
OK. The fact that you believe that reveals volumes about you. But OK.