Define conservatism

[palerider]

Palerider thank heaven you're back, now I can stop fighting with nice people on this board !



May I remind you that I already found an inaccuracy on one of your sites - although granted it was not specifically about Islam.

You have a tough row to hoe if you intend to assert here that five separate unrelated sources I brought ...are all inaccurate. I specifically chose all five with an eye to the bad blood in their history with Islam, so you could not claim they are biased in its favor.

More in a minute.

Sorry, I have been terribly ill for the past few days (some sort of virus) and am not more than 40% today but I will be around for a while lest someone think they have actually won an argument against me and driven me away.

As to your sources, Lilly, I don't claim bias. I simply claim inaccuracy since they neither reflect the history of islam, or present day islam. They do, however, reflect what what many of us WISH islam was like. Myself included.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

No lilly. The word islam existed in arabic before the religion islam was invented by mohammed. The word means to submit, submission, surrender.

And the context in which they use it connotes surrender to God.
Really palerider ! do you honestly think they named their religion for peoples' submission to other people ?
I know you don't think that.

Look in their history Lilly. Dhimmi laws haven't been gone for very long and there are still plenty of leading islamic scholars who want them brought back. And they really aren't necessary as jihad serves the purpose better than the dhimmi laws ever did.

That logic will just not do ...either they want us all dead, or they don't want us all dead and they want to collect tribute from us.
You cannot have it both ways -

There is a third choice of course and that is that they want us to get out of their area and mind our own business.

Any sort of concessions Lilly. Civilized people don't take hostages as diplomatic barganing chips. And don't you find it interesting that they would have taken brits since the brits have announced a timetable for getting out? One would think that they would leave the brits alone so they could exit if one really wanted them out of the area?

Yes I do find it interesting because it basically neutralizes your contention. If they were taking hostages strategically as you insist, then US seamen would clearly be the tactical choice.

And do you believe for a second that the brits were in iranian waters? With GPS technology, no one is ever "accidentally" anywhere anymore.

That is a particularly tricky waterway ...do a search and you will soon find that it is not typical.

I read your links Lilly. All of them. They require you to ignore great blocks of history and to ignore the present in order to believe them. They are fantasy Lilly, and if that is what floats your boat, then by all means believe it. Personally, I am not prepared to ignore reality in favor of a fantasy.

Well, I don't think you watched the video because a day or two ago you were still insisting that Andalusia was a myth.
But in any case,
I certainly can see that you think I'm deluding myself about Islam, along with the authors of these sites. The rest of your post to me is an elaboration of that. And I don't want to carry on for the next two years with "my site says/ your site says" ...
So,
I'm going to do just as I told you a few days ago. I'm going to proceed as though everything written on Winn's site is true.

That puts us - for the sake of argument - at a place where we have 1400 years of very aggressive and predatory behavior by Muslims.

Now let's go from there.
What do you want to do about it, and - coaxing this back to the thread topic - in what way is your strategy 'conservative' ?

 

[palerider]

disinformation. the British were in Iranian waters as confessed by captured british soldiers themselves.

By 1 of the soldiers and can you make any promise that she didn't make the admission under duress? What hostages say before a camera can hardly be taken seriously. The fact that you are willing to take what a hostage says about her captors says a great deal about your position.

wow, i don't know where to begin. you say a whole lot of nothing here, and claim some sort of intellectual high ground. nice job. and you want me to respond? how? should i write a book?

You might respond with an actual answer which I see, you do not have.

again, you say nothing and provide links to right wing propoganda sites. should i provide links to Alex Jones and Prisonplanet.com? would that be considered thoroughly researched and aedquate evidence... please.

Look in any actual history book at the history of islamic conquest, including spain.

And again, with the ad hominem attacks. Either you can demonstrate some inaccuracy or you can't. Which is it?

I have never looked at prison planet. Do they give verifiable names, dates and places to support the history of their position? Do they provide chapter and verse from the holy books of whatever religion they are analyzing to support their position? If they do, then whatever position they might hold becomes very difficult to successfully discount.

more of the same. "im right because i provided links to sites that I think are accurate"

But history shows that what you believe is accurate is not supported by fact in lieu of the long history of massacres, crucifictions, murders, assinations, etc.

bingo, you are a bigot.

Personal attacks now? That is the best you can muster? Look at the news. Exactly who is it that is killing people around the world every day because everyone is not practicing their religion?

i truely believe that religion is the worst man made creation in the world, look at what it has done to an intelligent man like Palerider.

No, bad debating skills are the worst and look what they have done to you. All that talking and you have yet to point out even the smallest inaccuracy of anything that I have said. It is looking like you have brought a knife to an intellectual gun fight. The source I use is completely irrelavent if it is accurate. Truth is truth. Can you prove anything I have said is untrue?

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Sorry, I have been terribly ill for the past few days (some sort of virus) and am not more than 40% today but I will be around for a while lest someone think they have actually won an argument against me and driven me away.

I'm sorry to hear of your illness Palerider ... we had flu going around this community awhile ago too and it took out a lot of people for days.

As to your sources, Lilly, I don't claim bias. I simply claim inaccuracy since they neither reflect the history of islam, or present day islam. They do, however, reflect what what many of us WISH islam was like. Myself included.

I think we really need to get at that on a profound level but maybe I should start a new thread on the religion section.
I have to take a conference call now but I'll be back in a bit.
Hope you begin to feel a lot better today !

 

[palerider]

And the context in which they use it connotes surrender to God.
Really palerider ! do you honestly think they named their religion for peoples' submission to other people ?
I know you don't think that.[/quote]

Read their holy books. There are over a thousand admonitions to submit to mohammed.

That logic will just not do ...either they want us all dead, or they don't want us all dead and they want to collect tribute from us.
You cannot have it both ways -

Their books say that if the infidel will pay the protection tax, he may keep his life and property. Now, are you willing to pay the tax?

There is a third choice of course and that is that they want us to get out of their area and mind our own business.

Of course you would like that wouldn't you? Leave israel hanging? The fact is that what goes on there is our business in the geopolitical climate we live in today. The world has gotten so small that whatever goes on anywhere is everyone else's business.

Yes I do find it interesting because it basically neutralizes your contention. If they were taking hostages strategically as you insist, then US seamen would clearly be the tactical choice.

Unless, of course, they don't want britan out of the picture. And of course they have taken hostages. Are you going to argue that they haven't?

That is a particularly tricky waterway ...do a search and you will soon find that it is not typical.

Modern warships have GPS technology that will tell them where they are down to the square foot.

Well, I don't think you watched the video because a day or two ago you were still insisting that Andalusia was a myth.

Andalusia in which muslims were tolerant rulers of spain is a myth. The constant uprisings and resulting massacres put the lie to that fantasy.

Now let's go from there.
What do you want to do about it, and - coaxing this back to the thread topic - in what way is your strategy 'conservative' ?

Look at the history and realize that their pattern in the past is identical to their pattern in the present. Realize that they are not just fighting over political borders, or natural resources, or trade imbalances, they are fighting because their religion demands they fight until no one is worshipped except allah.

As a conservative, I see two options. Submit or fight. I am not prepared to submit. I don't favor the limp wristed sort of fight we are in at present however that will go on for decades. I favor unleashing the full might of the US war machine on them wherever they are found. I favor fighting to win and when our enemy is on the ground with our foot on his throat begging for mercy, I favor delivering a merciful stroke.

This is us or them Lilly. They have made it so.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

By 1 of the soldiers and can you make any promise that she didn't make the admission under duress? What hostages say before a camera can hardly be taken seriously. The fact that you are willing to take what a hostage says about her captors says a great deal about your position.

You might respond with an actual answer which I see, you do not have.

Look in any actual history book at the history of islamic conquest, including spain.

And again, with the ad hominem attacks. Either you can demonstrate some inaccuracy or you can't. Which is it?

I have never looked at prison planet. Do they give verifiable names, dates and places to support the history of their position? Do they provide chapter and verse from the holy books of whatever religion they are analyzing to support their position? If they do, then whatever position they might hold becomes very difficult to successfully discount.

But history shows that what you believe is accurate is not supported by fact in lieu of the long history of massacres, crucifictions, murders, assinations, etc.

Personal attacks now? That is the best you can muster? Look at the news. Exactly who is it that is killing people around the world every day because everyone is not practicing their religion?

No, bad debating skills are the worst and look what they have done to you. All that talking and you have yet to point out even the smallest inaccuracy of anything that I have said. It is looking like you have brought a knife to an intellectual gun fight. The source I use is completely irrelavent if it is accurate. Truth is truth. Can you prove anything I have said is untrue?

It's not about inaccuracies in historical fact, it's your neo-christian interpretations of history. The majority of your posts in this thread is filled with Quran quotes and the concept that Muslims and Islamic people intend to kill "westerners" because of their freedom and religion.

why they hate us? it's not the teachings of a book, it's our nation's actions in the middle east. it's that simple.

http://www.zmag.org/shalomhate.htm

If they truely hated us simply because of an interpretation of the Qu'ran, why hasn't a single muslim suicide bomber walked into a movie theater in america and blown himself up? there are 6 million muslims in america...the world trade center wasn't just a building, it represented american neo colonialism and globalization. It represented what we do economically and covertly around the 3rd world.

Your "jihadist" worries are just a cover for the fact that you do not want to look at the true picture of american interventionism and global hegemony. and you need an excuse to focus the attention of what's going on in the world to a place of moral superiority for christian americans. and that is what i mean when i referred to your previous posts as disinformation.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

"Thank you for the good wishes in regards to my illness, Lilly."

"You're welcome, palerider."

Read their holy books. There are over a thousand admonitions to submit to mohammed.

Over a thousand, eh ?
Well I am not going to count them so maybe yes maybe no.

Their books say that if the infidel will pay the protection tax, he may keep his life and property. Now, are you willing to pay the tax?

No, I'm not. THAT is where they would start incurring consequences from us, if I were queen of the world.

Of course you would like that wouldn't you? Leave israel hanging? The fact is that what goes on there is our business in the geopolitical climate we live in today. The world has gotten so small that whatever goes on anywhere is everyone else's business.

Nonsense. You show me exactly what we as a nation gain by bolstering up Israel the way we have for so many years.
And I want to see a quantifiable gain palerider ...don't give me religion since you are perfectly willing to put down other peoples' religions.

Unless, of course, they don't want britan out of the picture. And of course they have taken hostages. Are you going to argue that they haven't?

I can't believe you are asking if I'm going to argue that they haven't. Do I have "IDIOT" carved into my forehead ?
Now I'm curious ... why EXACTLY do you think they would not want Britain out of the picture ?

Modern warships have GPS technology that will tell them where they are down to the square foot.

I still contend that the waterway is tricky and that area is in dispute, which you will see when you do a search.
But of course their hostage-taking is strategic. How does that support your argument in any way whatsoever, please ?

As a conservative, I see two options. Submit or fight. I am not prepared to submit. I don't favor the limp wristed sort of fight we are in at present however that will go on for decades. I favor unleashing the full might of the US war machine on them wherever they are found. I favor fighting to win and when our enemy is on the ground with our foot on his throat begging for mercy, I favor delivering a merciful stroke.

This is us or them Lilly. They have made it so.

They have NOT "made it so."
And your projected solution is neither liberal nor conservative; it is draconian. You have basically reiterated the loathesome mantra "Kill them all and let God sort them out."
And,
you know what ? I refuse to believe that you truly embrace that as a policy.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

legal status of territorial sea

http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

map of British ship's location, based on coordinates release by the British Ministry of Defense. Here's a map provided by the MoD.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09D090E9-66DD-4951-9774-AC88983AF4CD/0/Slide2.JPG

here's the same map with 2 additions...

http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/mod.jpg

The British ship was in Iranian waters as it was closer to Iranian land.

How could this happen with GPS you ask? Well if you want a war with Iran, this is how you start it.

 

[palerider]

"Thank you for the good wishes in regards to my illness, Lilly."

"You're welcome, palerider."

Why thank you ever so much Lilly.

No disrespect intended, at the best of times, cordial hardly describes me. That is just who I am.

I will get to the rest later, I believe I have overdone it today.

 

[Friendindeed]

What exactly do you believe we should "do" about it?

I disagree with both your solution and Lily's about this.

I don't think we should launch preemptive wars against them, as you would like.
And I don't think we should leave them to their own devices unless they harass us first, as Lily would like.

I think we need to start talking to them and do a lot of talking to them.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

Why thank you ever so much Lilly.

No disrespect intended, at the best of times, cordial hardly describes me. That is just who I am.

Thanks for clarifying, palerider ...seriously.

 

[Lilly Marlene]

I disagree with both your solution and Lily's about this.

I don't think we should launch preemptive wars against them, as you would like.
And I don't think we should leave them to their own devices unless they harass us first, as Lily would like.

I think we need to start talking to them and do a lot of talking to them.

Friendindeed, I am not averse to our talking with them. In fact,
I remember back in 2001 hearing that the Taliban wanted to talk to us and the US government said No Way.
I remember thinking, "How could it hurt to talk to them?"

 

[palerider]

I disagree with both your solution and Lily's about this.

I don't think we should launch preemptive wars against them, as you would like.
And I don't think we should leave them to their own devices unless they harass us first, as Lily would like.

I think we need to start talking to them and do a lot of talking to them.

Their own holy books suggest that it is perfectly fine to lie to the enemy in order to gain advantage over him and that treaties mean nothing if a better deal comes along. And our enemy goes by his book.

It is long past time to wake up and have a discussion here about the nature of our enemy. If you know that your enemy is encouraged to lie to you to gain an advantage, of what use, exactly, is talking? And keep in mind that talking to the "good" muslims is pointless because they are as afraid of the "true" muslims as everyone else.

 

[Friendindeed]

That is a useless generalization. The same thing can be said of Jews, they even have a verse about how it is alright to lie and they repeat it in a ceremony.

 

[Friendindeed]

Friendindeed, I am not averse to our talking with them. In fact,
I remember back in 2001 hearing that the Taliban wanted to talk to us and the US government said No Way.
I remember thinking, "How could it hurt to talk to them?"

Exactly my point.