The religion of peace strikes again...

wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
And the real gangster religion continues to kill innocents with the full support of it's loyal believers!

Just because a terrorist claims majority support in a system controlled by the power of a gun still doesn't relieve him/her of being a terrorist! If there is no moral or ethical reason that prohibits you from doing something and yet you don't out of fear that a large organization will harm you for doing so, how is that not terrorism in it's true sense?
 
bbsam

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Gaddafi came right out and said he intended to slaughter those who stood against him. Would that constitute a "moral or ethical reason that" compels us as a large organization to do something? World politics doesn't take place in a vaccuum.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
bbsam said:
Gaddafi came right out and said he intended to slaughter those who stood against him. Would that constitute a "moral or ethical reason that" compels us as a large organization to do something? World politics doesn't take place in a vaccuum.
Click to expand...

But what if we started by covert means the entire conflict to begin with? Gaddafi's reaction may be immoral and even before the conflict I didn't consider him or his rule moral but just because we contrived the whole thing doesn't mean now deep into it, we can morally justify ourselves and our actions to a reaction we instigated in the first place. Saddam was an "behind cavern" (another expression this will pass the site censor program) but going into that nation to overthrow on false grounds, are you saying this was right after the fact because you think you got some feelgood moment of charitable goodwill? Where is the limit of invasion if any falsehood is justified on the premise that our motive was of goodwill?

Provoking a punch and then decrying it thrown after the fact makes one a hypocrite. Ironic the rebels are openly flying the old 1951' neo-colonialist monarchy flag of the old European regime so I find much of that telling as well. IMO, neither side has the real intent or best interest of the Libyan people at heart. Getting rid of Gaddafi on one hand may be good just as you could say this about Saddam but in the longhaul, at what ultimate cost?

The history of US interventions are not only dripping in blood but far more often than not, a greater harm to the nation's folk and their real liberty. One the otherhand, we in the US get the economic benefit (we think) but just remember, it's stained with a lot of innocent blood and history is repeat with Karma always rebalancing the books!
 
bbsam

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
I am saying there is enough to praise or condemn any administration for interventions and in that context can only hazard educated guesses at the mindset behind the intervention.
 
Babagounj

Babagounj

Strength through joy
Following the lead of our governmedia, Apple is bending over backward to appease Islamists. First it banned the iSlam Muhammad app (without doing the same to Bible Thumper); now it has released a Muslim version of the iPhone:
muslim-iphone.jpg
Compliments of Merchant of Venom.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
bbsam said:
I am saying there is enough to praise or condemn any administration for interventions and in that context can only hazard educated guesses at the mindset behind the intervention.
Click to expand...

Article summary: THE FAKE ARAB SPRING
It’s true that Arab Spring is a good thing. It’s true Qaddafi is a bad guy. But connect the dots, and you will see that he is being set up. The evidence points to a plan to create an “Arab Spring” for the Good Old Boys—CIA, banks, oil companies. Read and see if you don’t agree.
​
In an earlier article, we posed the question, “Why are we in Libya?” We offered some thoughts.
Now, more pieces are falling into place. Those pieces have names of your favorite players: oil companies, banks like Goldman Sachs, and they paint a picture of endless corporate intrigue. The sort that never seems to come out in the corporate media.
Let’s go for a ride.

​
Click to expand...

On a further note, I find interventions not only dangerous but most often self serving of other interests (most often unseen) and with this comes consequences of the unintended, worse sort.
 
wkmac

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Communicated to the Senate May 26, 1797

Gentlemen of the Senate:

I lay before you, for your consideration and advice, a treaty for perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, concluded, at Tripoli, on the 4th day of November, 1796.

John Adams

Article 11. As the government of the United States of American is not, in any sense, founded on the christian religion; as it has in itself no character of emnity against the laws, religion or tranquility against the Musselmen; and, as the said states never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mohametan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext, arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Click to expand...

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796' and signed by President John Adams
 
Top