jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (297 posts)

A British soldier attacked in London?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Is it a "terrorist" who attacked him? Or is it a covered operation?
    Now that we know that the horrors committed in Syria are signed indirectly by the US, now that we know that the "rebels" are mercenaries paid by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the US, England... Israel included, now that we know that the UNO is against any US intervention, knowing that NATO is burning of the desire to enter the conflict that they generated isn't it the perfect way to initiate it? A good British (is part of our allied) soldier (perfect target, he is "saving" us from deliquescence) is savagely (if it was not the case, we wouldn't be outraged) was murdered in the name of Islam. Isn't it the best reason for us to butcher the remnants of a baath democracy in Syria. As if we were living in one.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have you seen the video of these two animals? Who cares why they did it why didn't anybody standing around kill them?

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Probably because London is not populated by high street shoppers always at the ready to apply lethal force.

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And they are disarmed for their own protection....

          1. psycheskinner profile image80
            psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            They could have carried cleavers and knives like the murderers if they wanted to.  They chose not to.  That's their choice.

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because butcher knives and meat cleavers are reasonable things to carry around, I got ya.

              1. psycheskinner profile image80
                psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Why not?  It's what the murderers used, and it is freely available and legal. If anyone on that street wanted the option to use deadly force, they had it.

                1. 60
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "Why not?  It's what the murderers used"

                  Yeah, its what the murderers used. I think I understand you a little better.

                  They also carried guns.

                  Moving along hmm

                  1. psycheskinner profile image80
                    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Indeed, but they did not use the gun.

      2. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Those animals, as you rightly, underlined it, we are financing them, aren't we? Or are you going to deny the horrors we are committing now in Syria? We (the US intelligence I guess) successed in outraging "lie detector". Isn't it the response expected for such action. That every person reacts emotionally versus rationally. But whose interest is it to worsen the situation in the Arab? The US and its faithful cohort to strike any strong opiniated country. It's been two years now that we are trying to legitimize our intervention in Syria in vain. Russia and China are on the lookout, otherwise all the civilians would have been dead by now.
        The picture of my profile is in remembrance of all the children we are killing by our silence (she's from Palestine) or our indifference/denial (like in Syria).

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who is we? The U.S. Government? Then attack the head of that government and leave innocent people alone!

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Aren't the people who voted for the government responsible for their government's action? Then if they disagree why aren't they protesting? It is one way for me to protest. Nobody is innocent, one day or another we have to take a side. Who is innocent?
            As for your answers, you are like most of the people, you are avoiding the subject. If it is the case why are you pretending answering?

            1. 60
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really think protesting is going to stop anything? All attacking innocent people does is assure that other innocent people will be attacked. The terrorist was right yesterday when he said your government doesn't care about you, so why then attack people standing on a sidewalk, its not going to cause the British government to quit doing what it does. What it will do is cause British soldiers to kill MORE Muslims and the cycle continues.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Didn't it stop the Vietnam war? When the people decides to stop anything it succeeds. But I guess we are immersed in an unusual form of lethargy.
                First, the Boston marathon, then the killing in London, where will it be next? Spain? It reminds me of Sept11 in the US, then the bombing in London (involving MI6) to finish with explosions in Spain. Am I being a fantasist to draw such parallel?

    2. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      As horrendous as this murder is, because all are horrendous- this is yet another excuse for the balmy, right wing press in this country to perpetuate Islamophobia.

      Every week, two women die in the Uk at the hands of men. We only ever hear about it when it's an honor killing. Hundreds of kids die after joining gangs, we only ever hear about it when the need to tame our feral youth becomes a political hot potato. Until recently, we only heard about the grooming and abuse of young, vulnerable girls when the perps were of Asian origin. And so it goes.

      But the fact remains, unless there have been new updates which I have missed today, that as yet there has been no link or factual reporting to say the perps belonged to any kind of terror org.

      1. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Does somebody have to belong to a terror group to commit a terrorist attack?

        1. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Every murder is an act of terror, every violent attack is an act of terror- but that doesn't mean that all perps are Muslim fundamentalists- the press, in this country, would like to paint them as such before the facts have even emerged. That's my contention.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But this guy gave a mini interview espousing his reasons for hacking this guy to death. It isn't speculation when they tell you why!

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But is it beyond all reason that an insane Islamaphobe could commit such an atrocity and blame it on Islam?

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Two men? Is that the theory you're working on?

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, I'm not working on any theory.
                  I'm avoiding jumping to conclusions.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think what you are doing is trying your very best to find an alternative to radical Islam even though the suspects said why they did it. It is not jumping to conclusions when the suspect TOLD us why he did it.

            2. HollieT profile image87
              HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But that doesn't mean that he represents Islam, does it? Does every man that feels he has to control and beat his wife represent all men? Does Brevik represent every Conservative, white Christian?

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                No, but nobody said that either. In fact most politicians go out of there way to say just the opposite.

                1. HollieT profile image87
                  HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm afraid that the sensationalist press in this country have made such assumptions, all unfounded until we know the facts- but that doesn't seem to stop them, or the swarms of ill informed islamophobes jumping on the band wagon.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That may be, the term islamaphobe is kind of strange, why is it that "phobe" is added to words? If I told you I didn't like homosexuals does it follow that I have an irrational fear of them?

    3. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excuse you.......or maybe not?........
      Are you blaming the U.S. and/or Britian for the Islamic terrorists' acts?

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Who else then? The Boston marathon first killing Americans, then one brit in London. Aren't you outraged? Wasn't it their goal? Both perpetrated by "muslims". One massacre was linked to the FBI and the second hit a soldier (investigations in progress I guess). The killer definitely researched very well his victim. When muslims have access to sophisticated weapons (confer Syria), it doesn't surprise you that in both cases knives and a cooker pressure were used?
        London has cameras. How long does it take to an unexperienced killer to track one's victim? Several months? And they are telling me that his behavior was not suspicious? His ethnic type should be enough to raise suspicions in a time where every muslim is a potential danger to western societies.

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I think the News said Britain HAD been tracking the two killers for about.....two years.
          What are you doing?   Is this a conspiracy theory you're proposing?   ...That the U.S. and Britain are setting up the terrorist attacks?

          Honestly,  I think if the Boston massacre had been set up by the government,  they would've kept the bombers' Mom from speaking on public television.   Don't you?     She would've been a loose end that needed to be done away with.    Oh but wait...........maybe she was a fake, dreamed up so that all Muslims would look bad! roll

          And even though I can rightly picture the current Administration in America doing almost anything to keep the power in its greedy hands,  I don't think even Obama has the ability to think up that complicated a plan.  Why?  Because his wimpy wrist and forked silver tongue are too busy inciting division and unrest on regular citizens & pushing pro-Islam propoganda;  he wouldn't take a chance on it backfiring on his beloved religion.   AND that kind of perpetuation that it would take to pull off such a hoax would require connection with a lot of different American groups like the secret service, FBI, etc., even some small local police forces, and I don't believe ALL of those are corrupt.   

          But hey, there's a whole list of people who've been either killed or supposedly killed themselves after specific occurences and scandals during his terms,  so indeed there's some reason to believe he's got some kind of force protecting his doings from detection and prosecution.  What that force is, I'm not sure.

    4. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There are theories brewing as to what motivates terrorists to harm people of other countries. Nothing solid but they are definitely looking into common denominators.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8cRvZZv44

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        On the surface the motivation of these two is pretty clear, they are fed up with our soldiers killing their women and children.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ah yes the ever popular liberal answer, "it's our fault, we deserve it" forget about the fact that people are responsible for their own actions, and Muslim extremists do the same thing to everyone who disagrees with them. But like the video says, it couldn't be because they are Muslim. Nope, that's a religion of peace.
          http://www.knightscrusaders.com/Knights_Crusaders/The_Myths_and_Lies_of_Islam_files/Muslim%20Protest%20Sign.jpg

          1. HollieT profile image87
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Are you suggesting that all Muslims are inherently violent and prone to actions of terrorism?

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't say that at all. Quite trying to paint me as an Islamaphobe.

              1. HollieT profile image87
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So, Muslim extremists are extremists because they are Muslim. Or, are they extremists because they have a warped view of the world (possibly through their experiences) and are like so many others that commit atrocities, devoid of any compassion for others?

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They are extremists because of their leadership, and there are a lot of leaders who want to see their caliphate come to fruition. And yes I think it is completely insane that our government sold F-15 fighter jets to the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt,

                  1. HollieT profile image87
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    There may be many reasons why they are extremists. It's a bit too simplistic to suggest that there is only reason- their leadership, don't you think? This is complex.

                    I wasn't talking about Egypt, Onusonus, see the link I've posted below.

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Was it insane when Reagan sold enormous quantities of arms to the Taliban?

          2. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, not the popular liberal answer, just a repeat of the murderers justification (unless of course in your confused mind the perpetrators were liberals!)

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, it's the popular liberal answer. I hear it from the left every time a Muslim decides to kill innocent civilians. Can't come to grips with the fact that they come from countries lead by violent extremists who hate America no matter what we do. Our constitution and way of life is in fundamental opposition to their beliefs and that's why their leaders are always chanting death to America, and provoking their people to cause destruction and death.
              Next someone will say that they are violent because they are poor, which is the fault of the very leaders who blame all their problems on every other country.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Just a reminder that it isn't all about you! This was a British soldier murdered on British soil and reported in the British media.

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's right it was a British soldier who was murdered by a Muslim extremist, and everybody just walked past them like a bunch of defenseless wussies.
                  And I was providing you with an example, I said earlier that they blame EVERYONE who disagrees with them.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No you didn't, you claimed that it was a typical liberal reaction!

              2. HollieT profile image87
                HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Doesn't it worry you that your country and mine are also funding these extremists in other countries?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image84
                  Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Would be if it were true.... but even if it is.... it's been going on for generations.

                  1. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I'm reminded of the rather different US reaction when reminded of their sponsoring of Irish terrorism down the centuries!

                  2. HollieT profile image87
                    HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well UV, it's certainly looking that way:

                    http://www.globalresearch.ca/arming-syr … ns/5325826

        2. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, well, then its ok!

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, it isn't OK but it is pretty clear though.

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    My condolences to Mr Rigby's family.  He was murdered for a delusional, selfish reason by poor excuses for human beings.  As is generally the case with any murder.

  3. 60
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    Why did it take 20 minutes for the police to arrive?

    1. John Holden profile image61
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ask them.

      1. psycheskinner profile image80
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        9 minutes, 14 for armed police.  I suspect London being f-ing hellacious to traverse by road had something to do with it.

        1. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, it probably did!

          Remembering as well that our police aren't routinely armed (by their choice) allow five minutes to draw arms.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If the police don't want to be armed then more power to them, but they sure used those firearms when they arrived.

        2. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well said, most people can't make it to the end of their street  in 14 minutes, let alone 9.

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It might have been better for the victim if they had been quicker, but when seconds count the police are minutes away.

            1. HollieT profile image87
              HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You have to understand the nature of London traffic, it's gridlocked practically all the time. To arrive at the scene in 9 minutes, in London, takes some doing. And I'm no fan of our police and their recent antics. But credit where it's due.

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm really not complaining about it I don't expect much from any department. I rely on my own personal protection and in the two circumstances it was needed it served me well.

                1. HollieT profile image87
                  HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well that's good. We just have enough problems in this country. My personal belief, is that guns would only add to them. We have a different culture here, guns are used by criminals and gangs- we haven't been reared with them and their use for self protection. If we were to legalize gun ownership, most law abiding citizens would not want to possess one, because of the way we have been conditioned, it's different. It would probably just mean that more guns would fall into the wrong hands.

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I can't really say anything about that, you are probably right.

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Maxoxam,
    The question of whether these cleaver-wielding jihadists (I believe that term applies here, right) acted on their own or were "planted" as part of a covert operation is a good one.
    Whenever there is an act of "terrorism" a very logical question is -- who were they working for and who were they funded by and what is the real goal here?

    I do not see the US and allies rushing into Syria on the basis of this action, however.
    Where would the demand for revenge come from?
    The British people?
    The American people?
    Congress?

    I could get into some dangerous opinions here. But I won't. Out of respect for the fallen solder.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Pretty funny how no one talks about the millions of Jewish and Christian terrorists just because we Westerners aren't the ones they're killing.

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You just did!

      1. Zelkiiro profile image83
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And now I've fulfilled my duty.

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          """Golf clap"""

  6. HollieT profile image87
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    @Superkev

    "He was murdered as a direct result of the UK's policies on immigration and gun control. One of them had a revolver and reportedly fired it at the police, resulting in him blowing his thumb off from what I read."

    And this, is exactly why you should be more discerning when it comes to " from what I read"

    The facts have yet to be completely established. If you're reading from a publication which "proffers" such evidence, then frankly, you have not been particularly discerning.

  7. 0
    Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago

    There may be a small minority of people who actually are "phobic" for no good reason.
    But not the majority.   Unless....of course, we're talking about far-Left liberals;  in which case, it's pretty obvious that THEY are phobic about conservatives, hating them for no good reason at all; afraid of them!   And why?   For no good reason at all.

    It's getting really old and really abusive, the way the "phobe" terminology is being used to attack decent patriotic Americans.    And it looks like it's being applied in Britain.   Maybe it has been all along, I dunno.   But I do hear that Britain wasn't afraid to call the killing of that soldier what it was---------terrorism.    What's wrong with America is that we have a phobic President and Cabinet who've perpetuated the idea that conservative America is "phobic",  when in fact it is they who are irrationally afraid of conservatives!    Case in point---the scandal where Holder okayed the secret investigation of the Fox reporter.    Holder should be labeled "phobic" and thrown in jail for harrassing a citizen.   Another case in point, something Obama tried long ago and got so much pressure he had to cancel it (supposedly cancel it anyway;  who knows if he really did...)-----the "FLAGG" project, where he wanted people to basically profile their conservative neighbors and report on them!    No one remember?    How quickly we forget,  when we're accused of hating Obama because he's black;  how fearful we get, when we know we're gonna be accused of being prejudiced and phobic.   But we're not phobic;  there's very good reason to be afraid of someone with that much power who really IS phobic himself.
    That "phobic" propoganda coming from the Left has succeeded in empowering terrorists, which has gotten a lot of innocent Americans killed so far, and left America as a whole taking the blame for it!    The pervading "phobe" terminology used in attack-mode like most of it is, is hate speech itself, and considering the consequences it has heaped upon America,  is inciting war and terrorism, and  needs to be recognized and fought against for what it is-------intolerant hate speech & treasonous speech.

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Brenda, before we go any further, I'd like to see the evidence for the "small minority and the majority" that you claim. Frankly, your opinion is of little value in serious debate- unless of course, you can substantiate your claims citing an authoritative source.

      It is your absolute right to have opinions, and the rest of us have the absolute right to dismiss them if they are unsubstantiated. That's not a liberal left or right issue, but the perspective of some who want to get past the complete and utter irrelevance of opinions- because we seek truth and facts.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If the majority of Americans were Islamophobic,  all Muslims (or the majority of them) would've already been harrassed, attacked, and run out of this Country.    The shop you mentioned wouldn't have just had graffiti drawn on it and the windows broken out;  the owners would've been harrassed or attacked or run out of the town.

        And LOLOL don't try to say my opinion is of little value in a serious debate unless you count YOUR opinion of little value in a serious debate!  LOL.     You didn't substantiate your claims with "an authoritative source"!   And I actually did!

        Sure, you have the right to "dismiss" my opinions!   I've already dismissed yours.   Because yours are the type that are full of misleading sentences like "it's not a liberal left or right issue", and "we seek truth and facts".    It most certainly IS a liberal Left-vs-Right issue!   That IS the truth and the facts.

        "Frankly",  if you're gonna reply to my posts,  it would show some evidence that you're looking for the "truth and facts" if you'd stop ignoring the truth and facts that are right in front of you.

        1. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the majority of Americans were Islamophobic,  all Muslims (or the majority of them) would've already been harrassed, attacked, and run out of this Country.    The shop you mentioned wouldn't have just had graffiti drawn on it and the windows broken out;  the owners would've been harrassed or attacked or run out of the town.

          Who said they weren't? Or are you reading between the lines again and deciding what happens before you're even presented with the evidence? Odd, you also appear to think that attacking one's property and writing racist slogans on walls is not harrassment. Can I ask, if they did the same to your property would you argue that you had every right to shoot them for that offence?

          And LOOL don't try to say my opinion is of little value in a serious debate unless you count YOUR opinion of little value in a serious debate!  LOL.     You didn't substantiate your claims with "an authoritative source"!   And I actually did!

          And LOLOL, I know that my opinion is of little value in serious debate, as it should be, which is why I made the point of stressing that it was "just my opinion" but there again, I didn't claim to speak for majorities or minorities. You did! Where's your data?

          Brenda, not sure how to put this to you, but I didn't make any claims! Bit embarrassing I know, yikes!. But when I discussed what had happened to my neighbours and friends, I made a point of saying "this is just my opinion" I didn't discuss a majority or minority, but talked about factions and "some" Muslims- See the difference? I didn't claim that a "majority are this" or a "minority are that" If you are going to make claims and profess to having knowledge about what the "majority or minority" of Muslims do or don't do, you need to back that up.

          Sure, you have the right to "dismiss" my opinions!   I've already dismissed yours.   Because yours are the type that are full of misleading sentences like "it's not a liberal left or right issue", and "we seek truth and facts".    It most certainly IS a liberal Left-vs-Right issue!   That IS the truth and the facts.

          Oh, I will dismiss your opinions, most people will dismiss opinions- it's the way it is. And I'd certainly expect any right minded individual to dismiss my opinions, which is why I don't talk about "majorities" unless I have the data to back what I say. Ok, Brenda, if it makes you happy it's a left and right issue. That IS the truth and the facts, because you have said it is so. LOL.

          "Frankly",  if you're gonna reply to my posts,  it would show some evidence that you're looking for the "truth and facts" if you'd stop ignoring the truth and facts that are right in front of you.

          Frankly, if your gonna post opinionated nonsense, I will ask you to back up your claims. And if you want data from me to verify mine, then so be it. Little tip, always a good idea to ensure that I've made unsubstantiated claims first. I will always state if it's an opinion, or evidence which can be verified.

          Accuse me of ignoring truth and facts when you present me with some, and well, I ignore them. Until that time, only your bias and ethnocentrism are stood before me. Deal with that!

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Easy.
            We've established that neither of us likes the other's opinions.
            So be it.  I'm okay with that. 
            Until someone keeps talking about "phobes".   Then it gets involved.  Because I have a huge huge amount of evidence personally and via the stories of others on and off the internet to prove that MOST people who are accused of being "phobic" aren't phobic at all, and that it's tiresome and harrassing to constantly be accused of something that the accusers haven't even properly defined.

            A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone.   There is nothing irrational about being fearful of the religion and institutions of people who are avowed members of a religion that has bred the mentality of the majority of the most horrific terrorist attacks on our soil recently, starting with 9/11.

            AND there is huge National proof that our leader Obama is protecting Islamists at the sacrifice of American tradition and American life.   Our soldiers were commanded to burn Bibles just so Islamic terrorists wouldn't be ticked off.    An American Pastor who burned Korans (sp?) was harrassed and cautioned to NOT exercise his liberty to do so again on his own property,  just so the Muslims (not just the avowed terrorists!) wouldn't be ticked off at the U.S.     A man sits in prison right now because the Administration tried to blame the Benghazi terrorists' actions on an anti-Islam video he made.
            So don't try to accuse me of not having facts to back up my opinions.    Because if most Americans were as "phobic" as liberals claim conservatives are,  there would be riots in the streets at this Administration's support of Islam while taking away the rights of others.    It's a wonder it hasn't come to that yet!    Maybe it should.   Because his carp is getting soooo old.   I wonder how long he can depend on patriotic conservatives to be tolerant of his carp?   I wonder if they think the race card has no expiration date to common-sense Americans?  Because it isn't just Obama that needs to resign for the betterment and security of this Nation;  he needs to take his court jester Joe Biden with him, and his sidearm Hillary Clinton with him, and his buddy Holder, and his protegee Susan Rice, and the ditzy Pelosi, and the rest of his corrupt staff.

            1. HollieT profile image87
              HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              A phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone.  There is nothing irrational about being fearful of the religion and institutions of people who are avowed members of a religion that has bred the mentality of the majority of the most horrific terrorist attacks on our soil recently, starting with 9/11.

              Well, firstly Brenda the term homophobe is quite clearly defined and has been for the longest time. It refers to an individual who is afraid of, OR, has contempt for, a gay or lesbian. The term phobe is equally well defined and refers to an individual who exhibits fear, aversion OR dislike of a particular object or person. Again, that definition has been around forever.

              And as I said in an earlier post, those deeply affected by the atrocities of 9/11 7/7 or similar events have completely understandable fear or dislike, or both, of Muslims. And again, I said that wasn't irrational because it stems from pain and anger.

              Brenda, the world is huge and the subject is huge. If you'd said, most people that I know are not homophobes or Islamophobes or whatever, that would make sense. But you can't say say that the majority of people arnt, because you don't know this to be fact at all- none of us do. And when it comes to people you've spoken to on the internet they could be anyone. If you've never met them you certainly don't know enough about them to make such claims. 

              You've lost me with the rest, I'm afraid- I can't comment on what is or isn't happening in the US- but I can when it's about what's happening in the UK- like the death of this soldier.

              1. 60
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I think most Americans were deeply affected by what happened on 9/11, we didn't have to lose someone for that to be true. I don't hate Muslims, I do hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim. I also hate the KKK, Nazi's, and green terrorists.

                You know as well as I do that labeling someone as a "anyphobe" is simply a tactic to quell speech you dislike, it is an attempt to marginalize that person or group. The constant "you're a racist" for disagreeing with the president is the same thing.

                It really doesn't work on most of us anymore it just aggravates us.

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Rather than being aggravated I simply find the accusation to have lost all meaning, when anything you disagree with a liberal about is deemed racist.
                  Don't believe in global warming? Racist!
                  Don't like the president? Racist!
                  Don't like expansion of government? Racist!
                  Don't like Abortion? Misogynist!
                  Don't agree with redefining marriage? Homophobe!
                  Call it terrorism? Islamaphobe!
                  You believe countries should have borders? Racist!
                  You like the second amendment? Racist!
                  You like the first amendment? Racist!

                  Blah, blah, blah...

                  1. 60
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That is true.

                  2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    If you're going to globalize, at least be consistent.
                    The answer to all of your queries should be "racist" shouldn't it?
                    Why start and end your list with "racist" but break your perfectly good pattern in the
                    middle with terms that actually have some relationship to the subject matter?

                2. HollieT profile image87
                  HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think most Americans were deeply affected by what happened on 9/11, we didn't have to lose someone for that to be true. I don't hate Muslims, I do hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim. I also hate the KKK, Nazi's, and green terrorists.

                  I agree, I should have elaborated when I said traumatized. The world was in a state of shock, what right thinking individual could not see the footage of those people jumping from the towers and be totally shocked, saddened and disgusted. I think that's the difference, you hate terrorists who happen to be Muslim, or happen to be nazis or whatever. The group they belong to is secondary- it is the acts that they have committed that is in the forefront of the mind.

                  Although I don't disagree that labels can be used to censor. I've  frequently been called an antisemite when I've criticized Israel for their treatment of Palestinians (I'm of Jewish decent, btw) But sometimes people are racist and are homophobes and Islamophobes- Not all, of course, but some. My son is also gay, he's been beaten up, called all the names under the sun because of his sexuality. Are these people not homophobes? If not, what are they?

                  Sometimes people do have an irrational fear OR dislike of other groups in society- I wish that was not the case but it is, and however much I might wish that was not the case, wishing does not make it so.

                  But I do agree that constructive criticism is not racist or sexist or any of the ists and phobes if it based on disagreement with policies etc. However, when it comes to the situation here, with this soldier, speculation is causing a lot of harm as we speak. Just today when I was driving I heard on the radio that attacks on Muslims have increased 5 fold since the events. Scaremongering, before we know the facts, is not helping anyone.

                  And, to explicate is not to justify- so I don't think it's wrong to analyse how our actions might help us push young, poor, uneducated men into the hands of extremists groups. Not because I'm saying that those who are guilty of such atrocities shouldn't be punished, they should- with the full force of the law, but because if we can understand this complex, historical mess that we find ourselves in, maybe we can, eventually, eradicate it.

  8. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Yesterday while I was reading le Monde what did I see that MI5 tried to recruit the London killer? Is it coincidental? What will be the odd that the Boston marathon killers being linked with the FBI and the London killer having been interviewed by MI5 and both actions from our service intelligence to end up by a bombing and a killing?Almost impossible and yet it happened twice a couple of weeks? Isn't it strange? It is to me.

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Trust me, if the Mi's are involved, even if it comes to an inquiry of sorts, it will only result in "Lessons need to be learnt, we apologise"

      Don't expect Mr and Mrs Average to question that, either. Sadly.

      Is odd though isn't it? That so many extremists have been involved with the security services, have been watched for years, using extensive technology and surveillance, yet, still manage to carry out these atrocities?

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    The recently released movie "The Reluctant Fundamentalist" provides some insights into what makes jihadists tick.

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Would you believe that this tragedy has sparked a political debate in this country? Could the murderers have been stopped if the "intelligence services " had been able to monitor their emails, aka, the snoopers charter?

      This idea has been introduced previously but the govt. were "vetoed" by the coalition partners. Now, quite surprisingly (?), the party which wanted to introduce these reforms (the Tories) are arguing that they should be implemented.

      So, basically, the intelligence services had contact with this man, were able to tap his phone (not legally of course but anyone can hack in the UK, it's the way it is) follow him, infiltrate his friends and family. But, they couldn't stop him. If only the snoopers charter had been passed!

    2. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      An excellent analysis of the situation here by Annie Machon, a former M15 intelligence officer:

      http://anniemachon.ch/annie_machon/2013 … vious.html

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks. That was helpful.

  10. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Why can't these mideast countries just be happy America came to liberate them and accept democracy peacefully, with no struggle, like we did?
    lol

    Seriously, I think part of this goes to the prevailing culture at the time (2005 -- support our troops, do not question what we are doing in Iraq).

    But realistically, I know, and I think we all know this example of military "overreach" was not an isolated incident. We have an epidemic of depression and suicide in Afghanistan.
    What exactly do you think our soldiers are seeing/participating in that breaks them so?

    1. 60
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Please enlighten me to all you know on the subject of Psychiatry.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There would be no point in that, Lie Detector.
        As whatever I might know, or think I know, you know infinitely more.

        I am certainly not going to introduce the differences between psychiatry and psychology.
        That would be the quickest way to reduce this to global warming/ice age debate.

        1. 60
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That is where you are wrong, I don't claim to know anything about psychiatry or psychology. But it seems you do, so enlighten me.

          1. HollieT profile image87
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            One is about illness/disorder the other is about behaviour. In a nutshell, although that's not necessarily an accurate description, but I'm tired and haven't got the energy.

  11. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    I made a mistake I thought Spain would be where the next killing would be, it is to forget how stupid they are. After all, the western superpowers involved are the US, England and France. Did you read the last news? A French so-called northern African tried to slaughter a military man in a camera filled environment? Another coincidence? That the killings are perpetrated in countries that are involved in Syria indirectly and that are urging the UNO to give them the freedom to slaughter the Syrians? Too coincidental for my brain.
    Then what does that mean? The presence of a pattern shows a conscious act from our governments to sacrifice people for their own interests or to be subservient to corporative interests. Instead of privileging the referendum to get our opinion (that will probably go against any military intervention since our people are suffering, the latest being the tornadoes in Oklahoma), they deliberately opted to attack a member of our, your community to score with Syria. They are deliberately instilling us fear and we are accepting it. When are we going to make them accountable for their sinister actions is the real question?

  12. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Obama is our commander in chief therefore he launched the attack. Every document is signed by our president making him the executive power in any decision. You wish it was a crackpot conspiracy theory.  Obama as the perfect puupet did not fail in anything. We are the idiots who believe that we are living in a democracy.
    Your blah, blah about our army is for uneducated. Everybody knows that they are sacrificed for no real reason but economical and strategic gains. Which banner of freedom are you referring to, the one that will drone me if I disagree or think differently from your mass unique mind?
    Where was your voice when the Bush administration killed 3000 innocent civilians? It doesn't bother you that they were Saudis and we invaded Iraq? It doesn't bother you that we are partners with the epitome of muslim radicalism? You see, your ignorance is speaking. Saudi Arabia endorses fundamentalism not Iraq.
    If I am a wussie, you are a dog obeying barked orders. Freedom of South Korea. Sure, invading at the same time its market, imposing our interests in the region... Nothing new there. Have you ever seen a 7/11 in France? No. In South Korea? Plenty. Can you explain me the discrepancy?
    What is your level of education?

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Now I know I'm talking to a crackpot. Allow me to educate you a little on military strategy. We go where the fighting is. During World War two did we send the ground troops to Japan after they bombed us? Nope, we went to Africa where the fighting was. For the same reason we went to Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden killed three thousand of us one morning, and in response we knocked his teeth in, in Afghanistan. He was building himself a palace there, in Kandahar – did you know that? Bin Laden was building the palace that he would run the worldwide caliphate from, out in the open, in the middle of Afghanistan – so confident was he that we would turn tail and go home. Well, that was a bad call.

      So bin laden decided to make Iraq the battlefield, and his commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, pleaded for bin Laden to send him reinforcements from anywhere! since the Americans that were handing him his butt every day weren't behaving as advertised. And he did send them.

      Al Qaeda may have lost 50,000 fighters in Mosul, and Fallujah, and Tikrit, and Basra, and Baghdad. Not in Disneyland, and not in the Mall of America. Mr. Obama, killing bin Laden was not the most significant milestone in the War on Terror, and he knows it. It’s just the only one that happened on his watch.
      You wouldn't understand that kind of thing though because your head is so filled with nut job propaganda that you would have to travel a mile upward through a big dung heap in order to step outside of the loony tune box you climbed into.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No, we did better in Japan. We nuked them. What a contribution to our history! Exemplary in our resume as a country!
        Yes, go ahead enlighten me. In which fronts were we in WW2? What is the correlation between WW2 and now? If we participated, it is because our economy needed it, it is beacuse it was the end of the war, it is beacuse we imposed our Marshall plan...
        Which country called us to intervene on their soil among the middle-easterns? I don't recall that turmoil existed in the Middle-East? TURMOIL CAME WITH US, DON'T LIE! You will say whatever to justify our actions and our killings!
        The only facts I registered about Bin Laden is that he was CIA, that his family has close ties with Bush. So don't start your pseudo revelations about Bin Laden. Like Saddam Hussein, we did not put him at the top. No, we never do that! Just ask people from Southern America, or Africa, Asia... Which continent didn't we abuse yet?
        When I listen to your rationale in your narrative, it reminds me of Goebbels's propaganda.

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Wow, the crackpot theories never end. So why are all of these Muslims in repressive regimes suddenly rising up for freedom and the right to vote? Why now, all of a sudden?
          I'll tell you; It's because of the glimpse of freedom that all the Muslim countries saw that was provided by our military. But don’t take my word for it, ask them. People in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran and Yemen look around the Middle East and they find one Arab country where they can vote in free elections; one place, where the bloodiest dictator of them all no longer has statues on every corner; one place where freedom has a chance to grow. And that place is Iraq.
          Alright so back to your goofball theories about Bin Laden being in the CIA, the president staging an attack against our own people, ferries and unicorns, and whatever mother goose rimes you want to spout out. People like you are why Libertarianism will never be taken seriously in this country. You dance on the graves of dead American civilians and military heroes.  Have a nice day.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I saw a ferry once.

            http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/10_hk/hk_star_ferry.jpg

          2. Josak profile image60
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Perfect demonstration of the complete and utter ignorance you are in over soooooo many issues. Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan were all democratic before the Iraq war.

            Read a book, use google do something the utter lack of knowledge is just increasingly tragic.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I'm talking about undemocratic dictatorships that were overthrown as a direct result of the war in Iraq. I never said it was the only place that democracy existed, however it is the one place that successfully changed for the better in recent history as a direct result. And people noticed that. They saw with their own eyes one of the biggest dictatorships in their region come tumbling down faster than the Berlin wall.

              1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Firstly we installed Saddam Hussein in power. Secondly, Iraqi people are poorer now since we privatized their economy. Why do I know that? Why don't you?

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, and I'm pretty sure there was a Democrat in office when they did it. And I suppose that their lives would be much better had that Republican president not undone what the Democrat did in the first place. O'h but their lives would be so much better with a crazed murderous dictator and his depraved family in power! lol And don't assume I don't know something just because I haven't said it.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    To your contrary I hold both parties responsible for their coward actions. When I blame Obama for the Benghazi attack, you blame Iraq for Sept 11 instead of Bush. It is the difference between a rational mind and a propagandist mind. You are the perfect subject/tool of your puppeted government and I am the perfect subject to be framed by my government because of my independent thinking.
                    So far you said nothing that was relevant to the context. You speak like a tabloid, hammering mainstream propaganda.
                    By murderous dictatorship, I guess you were referring to the Bush dynasty! 12 years in total at the reins of the government who did better in the US? Are rigged elections synonymous with democracy? We are pointing fingers at other countries when there's a blatant fraud and we are closing our eyes when it comes to ours. What a country of hypocrits!

                  2. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Actually it was a Republican (Ford) under whom he was helped to become leader of the Baathists in Iraq and thus leader of the country when the Baathists came to power.

                    Also Reagan gave Saddam crazy amounts of weapons.

              2. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Nope also false, several previously dictatorial nations which we Islamic (like Lebanon) had become democratic within ten years of the Iraq war.

                "I'll tell you; It's because of the glimpse of freedom that all the Muslim countries saw that was provided by our military. But don’t take my word for it, ask them. People in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Iran and Yemen look around the Middle East and they find one Arab country where they can vote in free elections; one place, where the bloodiest dictator of them all no longer has statues on every corner; one place where freedom has a chance to grow. And that place is Iraq. "

                All of this is false.

                The Libyan revolution was not inspired by Iraq (ask any Libyan) it was over a housing crisis protest that was forcibly repressed.
                The rest of the Arab Spring was inspired by Libya.

                If you look at the Middle eastern Arab nations before the Arab spring there were already several democratic ones to give an example. So that was false too.

                Again read a book before commenting with absolutely no knowledge.

                1. Onusonus profile image86
                  Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually the defeat of Hussein in Iraq was unique to the rest of the Muslim world, we didn't hear about these uprisings before the war but after the war. No not immediately, and of course no biased Muslim country would ever actually admit to the fact that they were helped by the United States. Of course not! Only Allah's chosen people could ever possibly help them out of their predicament.
                  Just the fact that about a dozen uprisings came out of the knowledge that one of the most repressed dictatorships in history could inspire millions of Muslims to break out of their repressive regimes as well.
                  I'm sorry it didn't end up the way you wanted it, with the Commies taking over Afghanistan. It's sort of another big kick in the face for the whole Communist thing, so I understand why you are so bitter about it. wink

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    No you mean YOU did not hear about these uprisings because YOU are ignorant. But there were plenty of them all the time.

                    A housing crisis has nothing to do with the Iraq war and that is what caused the Arab spring. If anything the Iraq war was a disincentive to rebel given that hundreds of thousands died in Iraq and the violence continues to this day, the economy has also collapsed and the average lifespan was reduced by 25%.

                    Repressive dictatorships in the area fall and rise near continuously. 

                    Further ignorance displayed in the last sentence.

                    #1 Afghanistan was already communist before the Soviet invasion as a the communist party had seized power years before.

                    #2 I am not a communist and celebrated when the USSR collapsed (I was there when the war was torn down).

                    #3 It has absolutely nothing to do with any of the discussion.

            2. maxoxam41 profile image80
              maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I guess their truth is convenient enough. But to come and blatantly tell me that I am living in lala land it is daring, at least you gave him a good advice that he will never follow, hit books. To be honest I am tired to educate people or direct them to independent sources of info.

  13. HollieT profile image87
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    We can talk about history and the left and right all we want, bu the fact remains that whilst US, UK et.al are supposed to be fighting Al-Qaeda on our own turf, we're also funding those who have connections (and loyalties) to the very same group abroad.

    Smell a rat anyone?

    1. maxoxam41 profile image80
      maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Supposed is the right word. Then where does the money go when we are harangued to support the war on terror, our homeland security? Exactly. The same ones. Is it a coincidence? Another one?

  14. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    Speaking of indoctrination, the army is the place to be isn't it? One, two, one, two. Self-degradation, denial of a personality, you melt in one common idiot, the collective mind (mind in this context is pleonasm obviously), a family that rapes its females, that poisons its military bases and keeps it secret...
    I don't cry on their deaths because after all they go anywhere in the world with weapons (they don't bring cookies to children and technology to civilians), ready to slaughter or ridicule any autochtone they will meet on their way. I am going to cry because navy seals (the best killers in our army) are going to die, you are joking right.
    You picked the army over any other uneducated jobs that were offered to you, that's all. If it's your own choice then it is worst since you consciously set yourself up to kill. You are a killing machine. Your superior says so and, you obey. If I have a gun and I am in Iraq and someone tells me to kill a family inside a building, I would say no.
    MSNBC and Jazeera are for you. MSNBC is mainstream media and Al-Jazeera is Qatari, the same ones that are financing radical muslim brotherhood. You are the one who supports Saudi Arabia. I don't. You are supporting the ones who "orchestrated" Sept11, the Saudis, right? Therefore, you are a pro-muslim and an anti-America. Patriot is too vulgarized nowadays to be the appropriate word.

    1. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The words of a coward hiding behind the face of a Syrian military general, and living off the dole in the good old U.S.of A. Sad and ironic.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image80
        maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You unmasked me. You are really good.
        Once again, the same old cliche, you represent the good (hidden behind your soldier mask). It isn't without a good reason that this man killed a british soldier. You see he represented the good ones like you. The ones that butcher people and come come back home to abuse drugs in order to forget the atrocities that they've committed. Although the ones that I am depicting are humans. For the ones like you any evil has its rationalization, its justification.
        In this manichean vision of your world, I would be evil because I don't think like you, because I am not a blind patriot like you, because I love too much life to remove someone's only one.
        The coward is the one that carries ultra-sophisticated weapons against their stones!

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah right, like the London killer who hacked an unsuspecting man to pieces in the name of Allah?  Interesting that he makes claims to other countries yet he's just a piece of crap gang banger from Lambeth.
          I think somebody slipped some of grandpa's cough medicine into your Virgin Mary.
          http://www.seo-chicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/conspiracy-theory-meme-300x300.jpg

          1. maxoxam41 profile image80
            maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Exactly like the Boston marathon bombing. Their uncle was working for the CIA and he was married with Graham Fuller's daughter. He was a former CIA official. Those kids were set up for us to believe the fairy about those "angry muslims who want our deaths". It is funny that all of them as I said it precedently, were/are connected with the intelligence services. Even the Merah affair/case in France. Too many coincidences to avoid a possible pattern. And if there's a pattern, there's a conscience behind the actions. Perfect puppets for our governments' misdeeds.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              What? More violence from people who have nothing in common? What is it that makes some people want to blow stuff up? What could the common link possibly be? It couldn't be because they are Islamic extremists, because that's a peaceful religion. roll

      2. HollieT profile image87
        HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Onusonus, you hide behind a shotgun in your own avatar, if that does not reek of coward I don't know what does. Sad and ironic, that that as a father of four you reduce the debate to your assumptions about the financial situation of another, because you have absolutely nothing further to offer.

        Although that shouldn't surprise me. Aren't you the man who once thought that your hubscore went down because you'd written about Obama negatively? lol

        1. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Actually I call that standing up for my constitutional rights. I think it is sad and biased that you point out my shortcomings while giving a pass to the blatant lies this man has been spouting out over the last two days.
          And I have no recollection of saying that about my hubscore, although I'm sure it might be upsetting for the Obamabots to hear the truth about their dear leader. I personally could care less what my score is.

          1. HollieT profile image87
            HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'll find the post for you, re your hub or hubberscore- it was funny, still makes me laugh lol

            So you believe that you have shortcomings too, this we can agree on, most of us do. Still, you don't expand on why you appear to know so much about the financial circumstances of another. But there again, you don't know that much about his economic position, do you? In fact, you know absolutely nothing about his financial position. Why do you people feel that you can derail a debate by making such nonsense claims?

            I don't give pass to blatant lies, there you go again trying to derail the points of the debate- quite funny though. Thanks for the free Saturday night entertainment.

  15. HollieT profile image87
    HollieTposted 3 years ago

    I would hope that I've raised both my son and daughter to always question blind patriotism. I certainly didn't bring them into the world to be cheap, cannon fodder for those who would go to war on a whim, or a sexed up dossier. That said, I feel as saddened by the death of a solider as I do at the death of an Afghan, Syrian, Iraqi or Palestinian. 

    I'm also sick of the rhetoric "We go to war to keep you safe here" TPTB haven't done a particularly good job at keeping us safe. Perhaps the new rhetoric should be "Keep us safe here by minding your own business"

    But minding their own business isn't that profitable! But what do they care, it isn't their sons and daughters on the front line, sat on buses rigged with explosives, or "calateral damage" in a drone strike.

  16. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    "Keep us safe here by minding your own business", very good, it could be a nice slogan for a campaign of demilitarization.
    I am not saddened given that to our contrary Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians... did not choose the occupation. It was forced upon them.
    You are right, it is not their sons. If I have to go to defend my country, I want my president who is the commander in chief of the army to be in the frontline like Alexander the Great and co. If I have to defend my country it would be against the presence of their army on my territory not as you rightly said it upon a whim (Iran has the nuclear weapon).

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I am not saddened given that to our contrary Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians... did not choose the occupation

      They didn't, and I hate what has happened to them in my name. Not in my name, I've always been against these occupations. As to the death of soldiers, you have to remember that in many ways they are also victims. Often these young men and women are jobless, uneducated and they do not realize what they are entering into to. They watch the news, are fed by propaganda, they believe that they are doing the right thing, even when it gets ugly.

      If we begin to hate soldiers and not be saddened by their deaths, we have become what the real monsters want us to be; divided. Then they rule!

      Remember that, then remind yourself that you're playing into their hands.

  17. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    I use to feel for them but not anymore when I see Onusonus. He is the archetype of a soldier, nothing else matters but him and his squadron.
    With the development of the internet nobody can stay indefinitely uneducated. It becomes their choice. They dream of killing muslims or whoever else is the convenient enemy in front of their consoles, then be my guest. It is the natural selection. Idiots have to die for intelligents to live. The less idiots a society will contain, the more opportunity to democracy we will give. Sad reality.

    1. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I use to feel for them but not anymore when I see Onusonus. He is the archetype of a soldier, nothing else matters but him and his squadron.
      With the development of the internet nobody can stay indefinitely uneducated

      Yes, but the thing is there is an abundance of material on the internet. Someone who is so blind to what's going on around them is also blind to balance. They don't question or analyse.

      It is the natural selection. Idiots have to die for intelligents to live.

      I really disagree with this statement Max. Young, vulnerable girls in the Congo are raped and mutilated because men believe that they are in some way sub human, less than them. Children in third world countries slave in sweat shops and dangerous conditions because they are believed to be inferior by those who are out to make a profit at any costs. Aren't we better that, people may not be equally educated or equally discerning- but they all should all have the right to life.

      1. Onusonus profile image86
        Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know, there are two of you who agree with each other so I must be wrong. It must be hard to hear a different perspective on how things go down when you are an idiotic liberal ideologue. It's hard to think that Americans actually do good things in other parts of the world when you want so bad to abolish the whole concept so you can be a world citizen.

        1. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          idiotic liberal ideologue

          You'd have to ask a liberal, I'm not a liberal. It appears that in your world there are only two ideologies. The others are right, you should either read or get out more.

          You really do talk nonsense. Afraid I'm not as patient as the others. I'll leave you with your two ideologies, after all that's all that there is: the world according to Onusonus. Shotguns, the bible and Liberals!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            liberal, progressive, socialist, whatever.

        2. maxoxam41 profile image80
          maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately for the latent democratic (as in democracy) system, most of the Americans "think" like you, therefore the step to democracy is slowed down. Don't they want us to think in unison? NEVER. Now that I tried independent news, I'll never go back to...?
          You are wrong not because we are majoritary but beacuse you don't make sense, because you don't reason.
          Americans do good? Last week USAID was expulsed from Bolivia because they tried to destabilize the democratically elected president. In which world are you living? Not mine for sure!

          1. Onusonus profile image86
            Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah forget about all that foreign aid we give to other countries. Just give them the free money and get out.
            http://www.thecongressmansdinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Screen-Shot-2011-08-08-at-4.40.08-PM-1024x616.png

            1. maxoxam41 profile image80
              maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The question is what does it hide? Power of influence.
              Why were we in Koweit? Why didn't we help the hutus and the tutsis to solve their difference? Why are we financing a devastated country if not to end up with contracts privileging the reconstruction? We give to receive. The World Bank, the IMF, USAID have their personal interests in the back of their minds. And you who thought we were giving away candies for free. Sorry to disappoint you!

              1. Onusonus profile image86
                Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Well it isn't UNICEF we don't just hand out stuff for free. They have to learn to help themselves, and learn not to blow each other up as well. Obviously they have a long way to go. And sorry to disappoint you but the whole freedom thing comes with its risks.

                1. maxoxam41 profile image80
                  maxoxam41posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Everybody else in the world blow each other up except western societies, why is it so? Which privileged genes do we have that they don't?
                  Josak was right, it's time for you to hit the books and read the world history and, then, will come as a revelation that most of the destabilization comes from our intempestive interventions.

                  1. Onusonus profile image86
                    Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Usually spearheaded by Democrats. But I do think it is interesting that the other countries that we haven't intervened in are killing each other in the name of Allah (peace be upon him) just the same. With the exception that they are not as well funded of course.

    2. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      More projecting, more lies. I've never dreamed of killing Muslims. Your assumptions are dead wrong as usual.

 
working