Duende wrote:     By Cindy Sheehan     t r u t h o u t | Perspective     Friday 04 August 2006 Speaking peace while making war is not a sustainable policy.     My trip to Jordan from JFK Airport in New York City started out with a Middle Eastern flavor the other day. A group of us came here to meet with Iraqi Parliamentarians and human rights groups to find out what the people of Iraq who don't live in the Green Zone and who do not get their paychecks from the White House think and feel about the occupation and what their hearts' desires are for their country.     While I was still in JFK, an Iraqi gentleman approached me who is now displaced and living in Jordan. He recognized me and was "honored" to meet me and grateful for my work but wanted to convey something to me. He said that while what the peace movement is doing in the US to end the occupation is very gratifying to the people of Iraq, it is "too late" for his country. He said everyone who could leave, has left, and that most of the country is beyond repair. The miraculous Babylon, which has been in existence for thousands of years, didn't even last three years after the Americans got there. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, added to the over a million who died during the sanctions ... He sadly informed me that the Americans are not stopping the sectarian violence, only encouraging it in his country, and he holds little hope for any future for the land that he was born in and loves.     We were picked up at Queen Alia airport in Amman by Munther who has worked in and out of the government of Jordan and consulting for NGOs for years. He helped broker the 1999 peace agreement between Jordan and Israel - as his specialty is water and agriculture. He is so fortunate to live in Jordan with his family, but he has been shot and been the target of rockets in his home for his work for peace. Munther realizes that a true and lasting peace cannot be achieved by eternal war and killing and has paid some tough prices for his beliefs.     The most horrifying testimony of the day was when we met with "Dr. Nada," an Iraqi doctor who stayed in Baghdad to help her people during the sanctions and the invasion. She didn't abandon her country, or sell it out like many privileged people who exited during the Baathist regime (like Iyad Allawi or Ahmed Chalabi) or the sanctions ... which she, as a supervisory physician at a major Baghdad hospital, said killed two million children. The children died of pollution and sicknesses from depleted uranium during the first gulf mistake of George the First. The babies died because of the war, but also because there is no medicine and very limited medical facilities to treat them. Dr. Nada brought the daughter of a friend, three-year-old Farrah, who had short brown hair and big brown eyes. There were so many young children playing in Queen airport yesterday when I got here and dozens running around the hotel. My heart almost bursts with sorrow when I think of all of the children in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan who have had such horrible lives and had many of their lives cut short by the evil war machine that seems to be running our world.     US General Abizaid said to a Senate committee yesterday that Lebanon could be an effective government and US partner in the war on terror if only their equipment could be "upgraded" and their troops "trained" properly and that the US would be happy to "assist" them. With all of the degraded and spent Israeli equipment and bombs and the billions of upgrading the US military equipment needs, it looks like it is going to be another banner year for the war profiteers!     Dr. Nada also told us about seven harrowing days she spent working in an emergency room in Baghdad between April 2 and April 9 in 2003. She said that over 100 casualties PER HOUR were coming through her hospital alone and that many died because they could not be helped in time. She was responsible for the triage and she had to work knowing that number 100 that hour would almost certainly die. The people her hospital operated on at that time were just rolled out into the halls with no histories or IDs. She said that she remembers that time as "amputated body parts swimming in a sea of blood."     Dr. Nada stayed in Iraq all of those years but now lives in Jordan because of the continuing violence of the militias and death squads and kidnappings in her homeland. She says that the Americans, even though they don't kill every innocent Iraqi, are responsible for "100 percent of the deaths," because they are not protecting the Iraqi people, and the occupation is fueling the violence.     I will be leaving Jordan tomorrow to head to Camp Casey III to confront George with the horrors of his failed policies in the Middle East. We just got an update that he will be leaving town on the 9th now, instead of earlier published reports that said the 14th. Munther also commented to me yesterday that he couldn't believe that George didn't have the "courage or courtesy" to meet with me. I responded: "He doesn't even have the courage to be in the same town with me, anymore." This cowardly cowboy and his minions who are so quick to condemn children to early deaths need to face up to the reality of their crimes. We need to be as relentless and as ruthless for peace, and in peace, as they are for war.     I can't bear to stand by and watch more innocent Farrahs and Caseys be killed. So I will be sitting in the ditch on Sunday to ask the same question: "Why?     Camp Casey Three will run this summer between August 6th and September 2nd. Everyone is welcome. -Come on Patty! tell us how fat she looks! And for those who maintain she's just a self promoter, just look at what lengths she goes to to sell her books! Now THAT'S a book tour.

Bismillah,

Jazzak Allah Khayr for this lovely, informative article.  (I almost didn't read it because of the subject title you gave it though!  Could it be for people who want to know more about her maybe?)

Salaamu Alaykum

Yeah I'm sure the sanctions are what caused all the problems in Iraq. Let's not even acknowledge the palaces that were being built or the millions wasted on Sadam, yeah they had nothing to do with peoples hardship. I think that bugs me the most is how the same people who rant about America are the first to forget what their own leaders have done to them.

It's all America's fault!!! CIA and MASSOUD is causing all the problems in the world!!! (had to say this because I'm tired of not fitting in on this board)

Edit: Wonder how many books she will sell while over there.

ops154 wrote: Yeah I'm sure the sanctions are what caused all the problems in Iraq. Let's not even acknowledge the palaces that were being built or the millions wasted on Sadam, yeah they had nothing to do with peoples hardship. I think that bugs me the most is how the same people who rant about America are the first to forget what their own leaders have done to them.   It's all America's fault!!! CIA and MASSOUD is causing all the problems in the world!!! (had to say this because I'm tired of not fitting in on this board)   Edit: Wonder how many books she will sell while over there.

Peace,

Why do you feel you don't "fit" at this board OPs. If you feel that way, what keeps you coming here? There must be some reason, think about it...

Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Yeah I'm sure the sanctions are what caused all the problems in Iraq. Let's not even acknowledge the palaces that were being built or the millions wasted on Sadam, yeah they had nothing to do with peoples hardship. I think that bugs me the most is how the same people who rant about America are the first to forget what their own leaders have done to them.   It's all America's fault!!! CIA and MASSOUD is causing all the problems in the world!!! (had to say this because I'm tired of not fitting in on this board)   Edit: Wonder how many books she will sell while over there. Peace, Why do you feel you don't "fit" at this board OPs. If you feel that way, what keeps you coming here? There must be some reason, think about it...

Bismillah,

Good point, Sister Maryah.  Muslims and friends of muslims are so welcome, you know.

Salaamu Alaykum

Cindy Sheehan has numerous problems that place doubt on her credibility. First and foremost is that she comes across like a "nut". She muddles through waters of world politics without even the slightest background or education on the issues she feels she represents. She fails to mention that it was not the US lead embargo which was the cause of shortages, but the deals made between Saddam Hussein and governments such as France and Germany and members of the UN. Cindy Sheehan further looses any serious credibility when she first met with Bush and accepted his usual lines, but then later, she is the rising star in the left wing liberal groups leading the way for the opposite side of the spectrum.

Her conversion to left wing politics is the move of a lost soul. She has allowed herself to be used by the opposite spectrum of the status quo paradigm. The left/right wing political paradigm is something created by the same authors and both parties have the same agenda and is kept in place to give the cattle/herd mentality and character that now makes up 95% of western thought something to do. All in all the woman comes across like a nit job, and her writings only relfect the attitudes of her newly found group.    

Duende wrote:     By Cindy Sheehan     t r u t h o u t | Perspective     Friday 04 August 2006 Speaking peace while making war is not a sustainable policy.     My trip to Jordan from JFK Airport in New York City started out with a Middle Eastern flavor the other day. A group of us came here to meet with Iraqi Parliamentarians and human rights groups to find out what the people of Iraq who don't live in the Green Zone and who do not get their paychecks from the White House think and feel about the occupation and what their hearts' desires are for their country.     While I was still in JFK, an Iraqi gentleman approached me who is now displaced and living in Jordan. He recognized me and was "honored" to meet me and grateful for my work but wanted to convey something to me. He said that while what the peace movement is doing in the US to end the occupation is very gratifying to the people of Iraq, it is "too late" for his country. He said everyone who could leave, has left, and that most of the country is beyond repair. The miraculous Babylon, which has been in existence for thousands of years, didn't even last three years after the Americans got there. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, added to the over a million who died during the sanctions ... He sadly informed me that the Americans are not stopping the sectarian violence, only encouraging it in his country, and he holds little hope for any future for the land that he was born in and loves.     We were picked up at Queen Alia airport in Amman by Munther who has worked in and out of the government of Jordan and consulting for NGOs for years. He helped broker the 1999 peace agreement between Jordan and Israel - as his specialty is water and agriculture. He is so fortunate to live in Jordan with his family, but he has been shot and been the target of rockets in his home for his work for peace. Munther realizes that a true and lasting peace cannot be achieved by eternal war and killing and has paid some tough prices for his beliefs.     The most horrifying testimony of the day was when we met with "Dr. Nada," an Iraqi doctor who stayed in Baghdad to help her people during the sanctions and the invasion. She didn't abandon her country, or sell it out like many privileged people who exited during the Baathist regime (like Iyad Allawi or Ahmed Chalabi) or the sanctions ... which she, as a supervisory physician at a major Baghdad hospital, said killed two million children. The children died of pollution and sicknesses from depleted uranium during the first gulf mistake of George the First. The babies died because of the war, but also because there is no medicine and very limited medical facilities to treat them. Dr. Nada brought the daughter of a friend, three-year-old Farrah, who had short brown hair and big brown eyes. There were so many young children playing in Queen airport yesterday when I got here and dozens running around the hotel. My heart almost bursts with sorrow when I think of all of the children in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan who have had such horrible lives and had many of their lives cut short by the evil war machine that seems to be running our world.     US General Abizaid said to a Senate committee yesterday that Lebanon could be an effective government and US partner in the war on terror if only their equipment could be "upgraded" and their troops "trained" properly and that the US would be happy to "assist" them. With all of the degraded and spent Israeli equipment and bombs and the billions of upgrading the US military equipment needs, it looks like it is going to be another banner year for the war profiteers!     Dr. Nada also told us about seven harrowing days she spent working in an emergency room in Baghdad between April 2 and April 9 in 2003. She said that over 100 casualties PER HOUR were coming through her hospital alone and that many died because they could not be helped in time. She was responsible for the triage and she had to work knowing that number 100 that hour would almost certainly die. The people her hospital operated on at that time were just rolled out into the halls with no histories or IDs. She said that she remembers that time as "amputated body parts swimming in a sea of blood."     Dr. Nada stayed in Iraq all of those years but now lives in Jordan because of the continuing violence of the militias and death squads and kidnappings in her homeland. She says that the Americans, even though they don't kill every innocent Iraqi, are responsible for "100 percent of the deaths," because they are not protecting the Iraqi people, and the occupation is fueling the violence.     I will be leaving Jordan tomorrow to head to Camp Casey III to confront George with the horrors of his failed policies in the Middle East. We just got an update that he will be leaving town on the 9th now, instead of earlier published reports that said the 14th. Munther also commented to me yesterday that he couldn't believe that George didn't have the "courage or courtesy" to meet with me. I responded: "He doesn't even have the courage to be in the same town with me, anymore." This cowardly cowboy and his minions who are so quick to condemn children to early deaths need to face up to the reality of their crimes. We need to be as relentless and as ruthless for peace, and in peace, as they are for war.     I can't bear to stand by and watch more innocent Farrahs and Caseys be killed. So I will be sitting in the ditch on Sunday to ask the same question: "Why?     Camp Casey Three will run this summer between August 6th and September 2nd. Everyone is welcome. -Come on Patty! tell us how fat she looks! And for those who maintain she's just a self promoter, just look at what lengths she goes to to sell her books! Now THAT'S a book tour.

Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Yeah I'm sure the sanctions are what caused all the problems in Iraq. Let's not even acknowledge the palaces that were being built or the millions wasted on Sadam, yeah they had nothing to do with peoples hardship. I think that bugs me the most is how the same people who rant about America are the first to forget what their own leaders have done to them.   It's all America's fault!!! CIA and MASSOUD is causing all the problems in the world!!! (had to say this because I'm tired of not fitting in on this board)   Edit: Wonder how many books she will sell while over there. Peace, Why do you feel you don't "fit" at this board OPs. If you feel that way, what keeps you coming here? There must be some reason, think about it...

Because I don't blindly support militants and I don't hate with a passion every American and Israeli in this world. I know and CAN acknowledge their are good people on all sides, we just all have idiots in charge of our countries who can't seem to pull their head out from  their back side to do what is best for the nation instead of their own private agenda.

What keeps me coming back? Whisper and all that hate he has. When he acknowledges he doesn't know as much as he claims he does about America I may move on.

Really though, I like knowing other peoples opinions of the world and places like this have people from all over the world so I think that is the main reason for me coming back. Sorry I just can't sit back and read some of the dribble that is posted sometimes without making a reply. I'm sure when the mods think I have gone to far I will be banned but that hasn't happened yet and I hope it doesn't. I also don't go around questioning peoples faith and religion, I don't even post in those forums as I know it's not my place but in the general, current events and world events forums they seem to be for everyone and so those are the three I stick too.

What keeps me coming back? Whisper and all that hate he has. When he acknowledges he doesn't know as much as he claims he does about America I may move on.

I am really honoured, the fact remains that I hold no hate for the Americans, just simple sheer pity for their failure to stop their admin from butchering people every day of the week.

Duende wrote: ops154, you speak as though this were your private battle against Whisper. What's more, you use the same approach as Israel against the Palestinians: i.e when he acknowledges he is wrong, you'll move on. When you wipe out Hezbollah, Hamas and ETA, will you move on? Please? You don't seem to have gathered here that hatred for America is quite well justified and therefore, it is Americans and America who must do the work and search for the reasons and try to make it better. Expecting those who hate America to change their minds after reading your posts is like expecting the population of an occupied territory to accept peace through putting pressure and demands ON THEM rather than on the aggresor/occupier. If you like to read opinions from people in other parts of the world there are hundreds of other places you could go. If you want the opinions of Moslems, you should come here, and expect to get what you get.

Mashallah, It is sad, but true.

When my parents moved us back to the US when I was fifteen, I could speak the language but was shattered by the culture. Leaving Instanbul, a city rich in heritage and tradition was one thing, but getting hit in the face with the reality of what is in the US is another.

Sad thing is, I was born an American by the virtue of my father being  a long term assignment to the embassy, I also am a Turkish citizen by virtue of my mothers being a national and my physical birth there. What a mess!

For years I went along with this American rah rah hoopla culture, trying to fit in. but my little wall came crashing down one day in September when an airplane hit double towers in the City of New York. Seems interesting that several nieghbors of mine whom I do not even know called the authorities on my husband and myself, even though at the time we were rather inactive Muslims. Seems they had "security concerns" because of my son in the navy, and that my mother was a turk, and I held dual citizenship. How sad. I spent 3 weeks being visited daily by the local police and even spent a night in an overnight "interview room" being questioned why my father, an american Air Force Major associated with the US Embassy in Turkey and later other countries, would have converted to Islam..Well, I told the gent he needed to ask my father that for himself, but he would need to make a long distance call to Jannah..They finally left us alone after 6 weeks of harrassment. But they still stop by. I am a registered nurse and even had the state board of nursing on my back! So we are in the process of relocating to Mexico. WE will be safer there!

Ops. does that sound like the "America" you claim to know? My lineage on my fathers side traces back to Palmyra NY and to just after the Mayflower, do I deserve this treatment? Those innocents in Lebanon, Israel and Palestine have no choice, they are being obliterated, And for what? Nationalism!

Think about it, we need to become a world community and throw away boundaries! We need to stop the leader dogs of the countries from trying to fight over each other's trees.

Put away the mantle of nationalism, see the humans outside your space, and welcome to the family of man.

I was galncing at a book about US and peoples' view of themselves and the rest of the world. It was a worldwide poll.  And it fact the US is not looked very kindly around the world these days is solely due to the current administration's policies. Though it could be argued that it also happens to be partially attributed to world-wide media access is greater. We see the effects of the US foreign policy. To think that we have helped three countries (Afganistan, Iraq and Lebenon) get attacked in the last 5 years is indefensible. They are of course predominantly Moslem. We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions.

At least Cindy S is speaking out. Somebody ought to. And maybe she does have some mental issues. Who really knows. Better that then sitting on one's hands with the mouth closed as thousands of people continue to die needlessly.

Duende wrote: Andalus, surely, nut job and naive as she may be, you do support her efforts to get the troops out of Iraq, don't you? Or is that the real reason why you suspect her of just dabbling in politics: because you don't support her aims? I'm sure we can dig some dirt on Martin Luther King, and Ghandi too, just to mention a couple of other peace activists. Please don't judge the message by the messenger!

Greetings Duende.

Not only do I disagree with Cindy Sheehan as being anything more than a mother who lost her son and is now on a personal crusade to resurrect the memory of her son by being a pawn for the opposite spectrum of US politics, but I also disagree with her assesment and overly "trivial" solutions to complex problems. She is no better than Rush Limbah or Sean Hannity with easy solutions and sacred cows.

Because I disagree with the neocons does not imply that the left is any more correct. They are all the same thing, the false left/right paradigm.

I think she is a nut and I would not support her regardless of her political affiliation. I feel bad for her loss, but her current path is simply irrational and without merit.  

Kindest Regards!

Hayfa wrote: I was galncing at a book about US and peoples' view of themselves and the rest of the world. It was a worldwide poll.  And it fact the US is not looked very kindly around the world these days is solely due to the current administration's policies. Though it could be argued that it also happens to be partially attributed to world-wide media access is greater. We see the effects of the US foreign policy. To think that we have helped three countries (Afganistan, Iraq and Lebenon) get attacked in the last 5 years is indefensible. They are of course predominantly Moslem. We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions.

The US has admitted its involvement in false flag operations in Iran to cause popular hate for the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Operation Ajax) as a way to put in the late Shah. And Americans think the current government is beyond recent false flag operations. It is all terrorism!

Hayfa wrote:   At least Cindy S is speaking out. Somebody ought to. And maybe she does have some mental issues. Who really knows. Better that then sitting on one's hands with the mouth closed as thousands of people continue to die needlessly.

Not really. Raving endlessly with incoherent left wing rhetoric is worse than doing nothing. Now any opposing view to the right wing is scene as nothing more than a left wing lunatic frindge, and serious discourse is tainted. I do not blame OPS for having his attitude, with the Cindy Sheehans and MIchael Moors of the left wing come forth make fools of themselves. Everytime I try and have a conversation with neocons, they jump off the deep end and begin verbally assaulting me as if I am on the left.

The left/right fighting just keeps people busy while those who truly hold power can remove our liberties. Cindy Sheehan is simply a good diversion from the reality of the world.   

Andalus wrote: Hayfa wrote: I was galncing at a book about US and peoples' view of themselves and the rest of the world. It was a worldwide poll.  And it fact the US is not looked very kindly around the world these days is solely due to the current administration's policies. Though it could be argued that it also happens to be partially attributed to world-wide media access is greater. We see the effects of the US foreign policy. To think that we have helped three countries (Afganistan, Iraq and Lebenon) get attacked in the last 5 years is indefensible. They are of course predominantly Moslem. We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions. The US has admitted its involvement in false flag operations in Iran to cause popular hate for the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Operation Ajax) as a way to put in the late Shah. And Americans think the current government is beyond recent false flag operations. It is all terrorism!   Hayfa wrote:   At least Cindy S is speaking out. Somebody ought to. And maybe she does have some mental issues. Who really knows. Better that then sitting on one's hands with the mouth closed as thousands of people continue to die needlessly. Not really. Raving endlessly with incoherent left wing rhetoric is worse than doing nothing. Now any opposing view to the right wing is scene as nothing more than a left wing lunatic frindge, and serious discourse is tainted. I do not blame OPS for having his attitude, with the Cindy Sheehans and MIchael Moors of the left wing come forth make fools of themselves. Everytime I try and have a conversation with neocons, they jump off the deep end and begin verbally assaulting me as if I am on the left. The left/right fighting just keeps people busy while those who truly hold power can remove our liberties. Cindy Sheehan is simply a good diversion from the reality of the world.

Bismillah,

I appreciate Cindy's pain, efforts, and mission.  ISA, she will be strong and learn more each day and share her journey with us all.

Salaamu Alaykum

Mashallah, It is sad, but true.

I am lost, shall we deal with the world or just get lost in the magic that's Istanbul, Ayup Sultan and Jami Sultan Ahmet?

It's a drop more than sad. Cap It All itis for ever needs an enemy. It has to keep its victims, the folks, engaged in threats of one kind or the other - lest they start to find time to think about theri rights, powers and freedom from this mother of all parasites.

What a system?

Human effort that creates capital means a nought - but Capital is sacred?And, for our bottom lines - profits, share values and keeping supply lines open, we can bomb human lives out of existence.

What a gaad we have found?

We have been trained to bark all hours if anyone as much as asked if we were ever allowed to know any other system? We knuckleduster anyone's teeth who dare point out the reality of our Plastic Temples and Tin Gods.

Cap It All itis can't survive without the threat of an enemy. The US is known to have invented enemies whenever it lacked one. The Cap It All parasite can't survive freedom of thought, fresh air. Freedom, democracies in the world and American agenda simply don't mix.

We all know the freedoms Americans hold at home! We see a brigade of Americans apologising for the loss of life here, there and everywhere, but be honest you are all powerless fodder for your war machine?

If it suddenly turned profitable Lebanon will have a ceasefire in 23 minutes. The poor 19 years olds will bake no longer in Iraq desert. The Kabul heroine dens begin to look empty with loss of 73% custom of sobbing, crying poor Michigan lads. I wish I hadn't seen some from such a close range in the past few weeks - being dried up, at a US facility in NWFP.

Are you ever allowed to know about it? Or, do you hold any right to know with your lack of qualifying Capital?

Good luck to all our Americans friends and their absolute impotence. Please note; no one hates you, today, the world has just come to pity the US and the Americans - 300 million bags of impotence.

We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions.

My friend, American interests and democracy simply don't mix. Be honest, what democracy do you have at home? Can you stop a war? Unless it suits AIPAC? Can you bring your lover, your son or your brother home just by your right as an American national?

You are held to ransom by abusive patriotism and a piece of cloth with a few stripes on it.

Because I disagree with the neocons does not imply that the left is any more correct. They are all the same thing, the false left/right paradigm.

If that's your disagree with NeoCons may God save us from your agreement with them! Are you a student? Doing a doctorate? In disinformation or in plain simple hypocrisy?

I think she is a nut and I would not support her regardless of her political affiliation

My son I will take you for serious and get you cited for a Nobel Prize the day you manage to deliver even a mouse sized baby. Be honest - has the lady lost her son - in a war that was sold with a dodgy prospectus?

Or not?

 I do not blame OPS for having his attitude, with the Cindy Sheehans and MIchael Moors

A well known English proverb comes to mind . . . come on . . . what's it. It has something to be with feathers, birds, whatever. Please someone 'elp, English not mi first linguaje.

I think the point that needs consideration here is as follows:

Cindy Sheehan is trying to do something.  The very fact that we are all discussing what she is doing regardless of our viewpoints, shows that her plan is effective!"

Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little" Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797

Duende wrote: Maryah, I was very moved by your story. And saddened you have been forced to move, what a terrible experience. I hope you will be able to come to terms with your mixed heritage, I have a special affinity with you as I also come from mixed parentage. It is a uniquely enriching addition to our lives, as long as we are not forced to renounce either one! To be exiled from your home because of your beliefs is something which has happened to cultures throughout the ages. Who would have guessed that at this stage of man's so-called 'evolution', at the start of the oh-so-advanced 21st Century, we would be repeating patterns of behaviour dating back to the Dark Ages! Personally, I would have chosen to move to Turkey

That is not so easy, my husband has dual citizenship with the US and Mexico. I need to live in Mexico for 6 months for resident status. (after I pay the Mordida..that is another story, third world country, amazing how the "richest" country in the world has one of the poorest on its southern doorstep). I will then apply for a Mexican passport, so that we may move freely in the world. We have people in the state dept that do not want us to move so freely.

  After they finish this Iron Berlin type wall that they are erecting on the southern border of the US/Mexico border, I fear it will be harder to get in or out of the US through the southern route. The "national guard" are now patrolling or "helping" the border patrol erect this fence. ( Ihttp://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/frontpage/21086.php ) have seen them with weapons, even though the Dept of "homeland security" denies that. Military on the borders, Iron impenetrable fences, Prelude to a dictatorship? Of course they are citing this wall as a matter of national security to "keep terrorists out", but I feel uncomfortable. And I have seen the wreckage of some of your soldier boys who would have been better off coming home in a body bag! as a nurse I have helped heal what was left of their mangled bodies and have listened to the horror stories. I have calmed them in the middle of the night when they are screaming out in terror from the nightmares. People of America, do you know where your children are and how they are pressed into service to the neocon war machine to satisfy the lusts and greed of the neocon war machine? People who live in America should invoke whatever constitutional power may be left and oust the neocons from power...You will not know what hit you until it is too late. Americans, please wake up! You may well be headed for the Orwellian world of the 1984 novel!

And for those who would judge Cindy Sheehan, may I remind you that many of those who have spoken against her have never borne a child, had its life conceived within you, carried it for 9 months, and then sent it off to be killed in an unjustifled war. May Allah (swt) have mercy on those who judge others! Who is the judge of any being but Him?

Whisper wrote: What keeps me coming back? Whisper and all that hate he has. When he acknowledges he doesn't know as much as he claims he does about America I may move on. I am really honoured, the fact remains that I hold no hate for the Americans, just simple sheer pity for their failure to stop their admin from butchering people every day of the week.

Ameen to that Brother, see the wall in my last post folks? that is your southern border! it is such a pity that there are those in the world that may hate Americans so much that you have to build such a barrier to "keep them out" or are they planning to keep you in?

Maryah wrote: Whisper wrote: What keeps me coming back? Whisper and all that hate he has. When he acknowledges he doesn't know as much as he claims he does about America I may move on. I am really honoured, the fact remains that I hold no hate for the Americans, just simple sheer pity for their failure to stop their admin from butchering people every day of the week. Ameen to that Brother, see the wall in my last post folks? that is your southern border! it is such a pity that there are those in the world that may hate Americans so much that you have to build such a barrier to "keep them out" or are they planning to keep you in?

Nice spin you put on that fence!!! In reality though that fence is to keep millions of illegal immigrants from crossing the border to come here and do jobs for half or even less than what Americans can charge for the same service. Criminals and drug runners also cross that border by the thousands each day yet you think it's only to keep the terrorist out? Trust me there are plenty of other ways they could still get in if they wanted. And before I get jumped on for being a racist as that is the first thing people accuse you of if you support the fence I will say I am not. If they want to come here and work, so be it, but you better do it legally. I'm all for allowing more people to come here so maybe we need to change the immigration procedure at the same time of building this fence but not to do anything would be even worse. The fence is not the idea of the government, it's more from reaction to what the citizens want. It was already being built by the minutemen (citizens) that have been monitoring the border for some time now. If anything the corporate owned administration we have now would want it free and clear so that many more cheap workers can cross so that corporate america can make even more money.

Whisper wrote: Mashallah, It is sad, but true. I am lost, shall we deal with the world or just get lost in the magic that's Istanbul, Ayup Sultan and Jami Sultan Ahmet? It's a drop more than sad. Cap It All itis for ever needs an enemy. It has to keep its victims, the folks, engaged in threats of one kind or the other - lest they start to find time to think about theri rights, powers and freedom from this mother of all parasites. What a system? Human effort that creates capital means a nought - but Capital is sacred?And, for our bottom lines - profits, share values and keeping supply lines open, we can bomb human lives out of existence. What a gaad we have found? We have been trained to bark all hours if anyone as much as asked if we were ever allowed to know any other system? We knuckleduster anyone's teeth who dare point out the reality of our Plastic Temples and Tin Gods. Cap It All itis can't survive without the threat of an enemy. The US is known to have invented enemies whenever it lacked one. The Cap It All parasite can't survive freedom of thought, fresh air. Freedom, democracies in the world and American agenda simply don't mix. We all know the freedoms Americans hold at home! We see a brigade of Americans apologising for the loss of life here, there and everywhere, but be honest you are all powerless fodder for your war machine?

Greetings.

Due to the nature of your seeming endless diatribe and generalzations, it becomes more difficult to try and find a specific point to comment on. To set the record straight, in the last century, the US has been a team player in wrecking havoc on parts of the world, and not a lone player. To give this award alone to the US would be dishonest.

whisper wrote:   If it suddenly turned profitable Lebanon will have a ceasefire in 23 minutes. The poor 19 years olds will bake no longer in Iraq desert. The Kabul heroine dens begin to look empty with loss of 73% custom of sobbing, crying poor Michigan lads. I wish I hadn't seen some from such a close range in the past few weeks - being dried up, at a US facility in NWFP. Are you ever allowed to know about it? Or, do you hold any right to know with your lack of qualifying Capital?

You will have to be a bit more coherent.

whisper wrote: Good luck to all our Americans friends and their absolute impotence. Please note; no one hates you, today, the world has just come to pity the US and the Americans - 300 million bags of impotence.

Good luck to all of the western countries that have absolute impotence, including the Arab League, its members, and the majority of the MIddle East. Your desire to single out the US is a symptom of your ignorance, not hatred, so I do not judge you. 

Keep in mind that understanding your ignorance is not the same as agreeing with you, as you have sought an equivicational fallacy between myself and OPS. Understanding why you make ignorant remarks doe not equate to my agreeing with your remarks. Just like my understanding of why OPS feels the way he does not mean I am a part of his poltics.

We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions. My friend, American interests and democracy simply don't mix. Be honest, what democracy do you have at home? Can you stop a war? Unless it suits AIPAC? Can you bring your lover, your son or your brother home just by your right as an American national? You are held to ransom by abusive patriotism and a piece of cloth with a few stripes on it.

Perhaps you are unaware that the US is a representative republic, not "democracy". As far as your question, it is not coherent given the numerous "red herrings" that are at the bases of your question. Instead of pounding relentlessly with assertions and unargued notions followed up with a question or two, why not take the time to provide a clear and concise representation of your views. I am not concerned with your feelings and expressions of resentment, I only want an argument.   

Because I disagree with the neocons does not imply that the left is any more correct. They are all the same thing, the false left/right paradigm. If that's your disagree with NeoCons may God save us from your agreement with them! Are you a student? Doing a doctorate? In disinformation or in plain simple hypocrisy?

1) I urge you to take a basic course in critical thinking. Perhaps an introductory course.

Lets look at what you are accusing me of:

hypcrisy:

1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/hypocrisy - http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/hypocr isy

Please do show us based upon what I have given you, how you have conlcuded that 1 and 2 has occured.

a) what beliefs, feelings or virtues have I proclaimed

b) and what have I stated, or what is the evidence that I do not really hold these beliefs, feelings, and virtues.

[please do not give a 1000 word rambling, belligerent essay on what you like or dislike, just the facts and a point please]

whisper wrote: I think she is a nut and I would not support her regardless of her political affiliation My son I will take you for serious and get you cited for a Nobel Prize the day you manage to deliver even a mouse sized baby. Be honest - has the lady lost her son - in a war that was sold with a dodgy prospectus? Or not?

And yet another complex question followed by sophomoric sophistry.

(in case you do not know, a complex quesiton is not a valid question, and since I have already acknowledged that she lost a son, it is obvious your question does not truly seek my background information about her or her son)

I do not blame OPS for having his attitude, with the Cindy Sheehans and MIchael Moors A well known English proverb comes to mind . . . come on . . . what's it. It has something to be with feathers, birds, whatever. Please someone 'elp, English not mi first linguaje.

I shall assist you with your lack of language skills. The quote is, "Birds of the same feather flock together". Now that you know the quote, the next task at hand is to actually understand quotes and apply them with accuracy.

Understanding OPS and knowing that most of the "OPSes" of the world are simply products of the constant conditioning of the western political models/paradigms, many of which also exist in non-western lands, and that their views are defined by many of the fringe ideas of the opposite side of the political spectrum, is far different than agreeing with OPS, and sharing his beliefs.

The fluf filled diatribe you lambaste the forum with is a symptom of your bellicose nature, along with your constant derogatory remarks about Americans and they are somehow the stepchildren to blame all the world's ills on, while the rest of the world is enlightened and has no part of the blame.

Here is another western saying that you might want to study and ponder:

Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -Carl G. Jung

I appreciate Cindy's pain, efforts, and mission.  ISA, she will be strong and learn more each day and share her journey with us all. Plus, why must she be packaged in some box of our great friend's or, for that matter, anyone's else's choice? I love this game. People stand in front of us, claim to disagree with NeoCons and force huge helpings of their anti-human agenda on us. What would it be like if they happened to agree with these thugs? Our very dear Andalus, we will still love you even if you levelled out with us an outright NeoCon. It's the Mixed Double variety we kill with absolute passion.

herjihad wrote: Andalus wrote: Hayfa wrote: I was galncing at a book about US and peoples' view of themselves and the rest of the world. It was a worldwide poll.  And it fact the US is not looked very kindly around the world these days is solely due to the current administration's policies. Though it could be argued that it also happens to be partially attributed to world-wide media access is greater. We see the effects of the US foreign policy. To think that we have helped three countries (Afganistan, Iraq and Lebenon) get attacked in the last 5 years is indefensible. They are of course predominantly Moslem. We are known to have supported rather rotten people such as the Shah in Iran and Saddam himself. We say we support "democracy" but do not follow it up with our actions. The US has admitted its involvement in false flag operations in Iran to cause popular hate for the democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh (Operation Ajax) as a way to put in the late Shah. And Americans think the current government is beyond recent false flag operations. It is all terrorism!   Hayfa wrote:   At least Cindy S is speaking out. Somebody ought to. And maybe she does have some mental issues. Who really knows. Better that then sitting on one's hands with the mouth closed as thousands of people continue to die needlessly. Not really. Raving endlessly with incoherent left wing rhetoric is worse than doing nothing. Now any opposing view to the right wing is scene as nothing more than a left wing lunatic frindge, and serious discourse is tainted. I do not blame OPS for having his attitude, with the Cindy Sheehans and MIchael Moors of the left wing come forth make fools of themselves. Everytime I try and have a conversation with neocons, they jump off the deep end and begin verbally assaulting me as if I am on the left. The left/right fighting just keeps people busy while those who truly hold power can remove our liberties. Cindy Sheehan is simply a good diversion from the reality of the world.    Bismillah, I appreciate Cindy's pain, efforts, and mission.  ISA, she will be strong and learn more each day and share her journey with us all. Salaamu Alaykum

Asslaam Aleikum Sr.

I feel bad for hundreds of mothers who have lost children due to the war in Iraq. I also feel sorry for Cindy because she has become such a symbol for left wing, fringe, nutty political ideas, due to non other than her own efforts.

Cassandra wrote: I think the point that needs consideration here is as follows: Cindy Sheehan is trying to do something.  The very fact that we are all discussing what she is doing regardless of our viewpoints, shows that her plan is effective!" Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little" Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797

And what plan is that? In the discussion of Cindy in the wider sense, the only thing that has been done is the revealing of an image of a woman who is loony. So far, that has been the only thing effectivly shown, and I doubt that was a part of her agenda (I say agenda because her plan is simply unknown). The problem with Cindy is that she raves and complains and makes odd comments, but she does not offer solutions, or try and create the first steps of a solution. The reason that she probably does not actually follow through with any real plan is that she is lost. I think Gilbert Chesterton sums up her life best: �People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�                         

Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing, as it depens upon what it is that id done. Abraham Lincoln once said,  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

So sometimes doing nothing is better, and doing something of quality is even better! 

ops154 wrote: Maryah wrote: Whisper wrote: What keeps me coming back? Whisper and all that hate he has. When he acknowledges he doesn't know as much as he claims he does about America I may move on. I am really honoured, the fact remains that I hold no hate for the Americans, just simple sheer pity for their failure to stop their admin from butchering people every day of the week. Ameen to that Brother, see the wall in my last post folks? that is your southern border! it is such a pity that there are those in the world that may hate Americans so much that you have to build such a barrier to "keep them out" or are they planning to keep you in?     Nice spin you put on that fence!!! In reality though that fence is to keep millions of illegal immigrants from crossing the border to come here and do jobs for half or even less than what Americans can charge for the same service. Criminals and drug runners also cross that border by the thousands each day yet you think it's only to keep the terrorist out? Trust me there are plenty of other ways they could still get in if they wanted. And before I get jumped on for being a racist as that is the first thing people accuse you of if you support the fence I will say I am not. If they want to come here and work, so be it, but you better do it legally. I'm all for allowing more people to come here so maybe we need to change the immigration procedure at the same time of building this fence but not to do anything would be even worse. The fence is not the idea of the government, it's more from reaction to what the citizens want. It was already being built by the minutemen (citizens) that have been monitoring the border for some time now. If anything the corporate owned administration we have now would want it free and clear so that many more cheap workers can cross so that corporate america can make even more money.

Oh really? do you live near that fence, do you live in a southern community? have you attempted to cross that border lately? Are you hispanic? Have you ever been "profiled" and detained for 1-2 hours because of your skin coloration or the fact that you wear a head scarf? It seems that we did not have a problem until all the light skinned people from other parts of this country moved in and started building condos and communities that this desert does NOT have the water to support. Does being Anglo Saxon make you more American that the peoples that have inhabited this part of the country for centuries? The ones that had this land forcibly taken from them by the war in the mid 1800's? It seems that Anglo Saxon aggression and land grabbing have been going on for centuries. The original peoples that have lived in this desert have to leave because of the greedy land grabbing immigrants from California and elsewhere  have driven the taxes up so high that the natives cannot afford to keep their own land. People have been going across that border for centuries before you came along, Who do you think they are running the drugs to anyway? Think again! We are moving south because of the invaders, my husband's people predate the Anglos here by Centuries! It is funny how we are treated with more respect than we are in the US south of the border! Entiende usted? You even steal their language from them. The native peoples see that border as a demarcation in the land. And it is the greedy southwesterners that pay the illegal immigrants the dirt wages that keep them coming here to look for work. I am sure the great Presidential tumbleweed hires illegal immigrant labor to run his south Texas ranch. Too cheap to hire Americans! But anyway, the original conversation was Cindy. And if she continues to picket the president for the pullout of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan i am all for it. If your troops were here doing their job defending their own country then you would not need your fences!

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: Cassandra wrote: I think the point that needs consideration here is as follows: Cindy Sheehan is trying to do something.  The very fact that we are all discussing what she is doing regardless of our viewpoints, shows that her plan is effective!" Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little" Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797 And what plan is that? In the discussion of Cindy in the wider sense, the only thing that has been done is the revealing of an image of a woman who is loony. So far, that has been the only thing effectivly shown, and I doubt that was a part of her agenda (I say agenda because her plan is simply unknown). The problem with Cindy is that she raves and complains and makes odd comments, but she does not offer solutions, or try and create the first steps of a solution. The reason that she probably does not actually follow through with any real plan is that she is lost. I think Gilbert Chesterton sums up her life best: �People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�                          Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing, as it depens upon what it is that id done. Abraham Lincoln once said,  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." So sometimes doing nothing is better, and doing something of quality is even better!  Andalus: Compare following with yours and find true in each case. And what plan is that? In the discussion of George in the wider sense, the only thing that has been done is the revealing of an image of a man who is loony. So far, that has been the only thing effectivly shown, and I doubt that was a part of his agenda (I say agenda because his plan is simply unknown). The problem with George is that he raves and complains and makes odd comments, but he does not offer solutions, or try and create the first steps of a solution. The reason that he probably does not actually follow through with any real plan is that he is lost. I think Gilbert Chesterton sums up his life best: �People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.� SO WHAT DO YOU SEE COMMON BETWEEN THEM? GIVE YOU 3 GUESSES !!

Greetings sign.

Your contribution was interesting, but I am not sure how to comment given it is a bit irrelevant. What exactly is the point you are drawing and how does it relate to the thread? Is it simply a left wing knee jerk reaction aimed at the right wing? Keep in mind I do not follow the herd right/left wing US distraction.   

Keep in mind I do not follow the herd right/left wing US distraction. 

Really? In my experience, all moles claim that when infilitrating into new territory. You mean we are Americans and we can't see whats what?

Andalus (you are quoted below),

To me, this seems harsh.  Have you considered the possibility that she didn�t actually �convert� to left wing politics but progressed there logically and is learning whilst on the job?   By way of parallel, I am reminded of four American widows who lost their husbands on 9/11, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.  As I see it, and despite the fact that they have been dubbed the (of course!) self-serving �witches of East Brunswick� by pundit Ann Coulter (in what passes as political commentary here in the Colonies), theirs was and remains less a conversion than a response to the tragedies of the moment.

This may be so.  But, one wonders, is there any public (political) personality of whom this could not be said?

I think this point of yours has been largely overlooked and perhaps misunderstood.  Could you please elaborate?  Even as it is, and at least up to a point, I do tend to agree.  At any rate, please explain this in more detail. 

Thank you.

Serv

___________________________

I always vote, but all of my votes are votes of �no confidence.�  

Hanan wrote: Andalus, Over the past few days I've read many forum posts and even more newspaper articles. I�ve become increasingly confused, angry, foggy and also hopeless. I couldn�t find a clear, defined line within myself. Your 3 posts today appeared out of nowhere and saved me. It doesn�t matter who your replies were addressed to, you were talking to me. You reminded me that it is all right to have nothing to say, and that, if I do speak, I should consider my words carefully. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." I also remembered that �Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.� Thank you, Brother, for providing clarity for me, I'm not angry and confused anymore.

Assalam Aleikum Br.

Thank you for your words of encouragement brother. Please make dua for Guidance of Allah for all of us. 

Duende wrote: Andalus said: �To set the record straight, in the last century, the US has been a team player in wrecking havoc on parts of the world, and not a lone player. To give this award alone to the US would be dishonest.� It is not dishonest, it may be simplifying the fact, but not dishonest. Whether or not America has wrecked havoc single handedly in Panama, Nicaragua, Honduras, Vietnam, the Phillipines, Afghanistan or Iraq is not the point. The FACT remains that America should be held accountable for its actions, whether or not it persuaded some �coalition of the willing� to provide air bases, troops or backup. Those who participated in American imperialistic war mongering should also be held to account

But it is dishonest, as it supposes that it is the US alone that is the problem and responsilbe for problems. Your attempt to brand the US for the "cause" of problems in the countries you mentioned does not take into effect the inital causes, which takes into play the actions of other countries, thus the US is simply a team player and at times have picked up where other countires have left off. It is almost vogue in left wing leanings of poltics to be at odds with the US, and uphold the ideals of the "other party", which is no better, and simply part of a false dichtomoy, a Hegelian dialectic, where any meaningful, and new ideas are brushed aside for the sacred cows of status quo politics.

Iraq is the failure of western politics, and we shall lump in the UN, the US, Germany, France, and Russia. To say that it is the US alone is dishonest, as it assumes the opposite end of the poltical specturm, where branding the US is the vogue thing. Is US foriegn policy terrible? Yes. Is the US soley responsible, absolutely not.

duende wrote:     Andalus said: �Good luck to all of the western countries that have absolute impotence, including the Arab League, its members, and the majority of the MIddle East. Your desire to single out the US is a symptom of your ignorance, not hatred, so I do not judge you.� In case you didn�t notice, the Arab League does not qualify for inclusion with The West. You should not confuse impassioned statement with ignorance. Indeed your effort here to show us how America is not soley responsible, is indicative of your own lack of knowledge as to responsibility.

In case you have not noticed, the cause of the "problem" is not defined by the west alone, which is the point I am making, and which it is dishonest to say that the US is soley responsible. You should not confuse "original cause" of problems only to one hemisphere. Your biased attempt at trying to pass off the problems of the world soley on the US is part of the ignorance of the false dichotomy, left/right wing paradigm, where any real though and insight is suppressed, which is why you want to limit the "primary cause" of problems only to a particular hemisphere, simply because you have been conditioned to assume this. You and whisper's failure to show that my thesis is wrong, is proof that the Hegelian like atmosphere of maintstream politics is for cattle/herd like mentality, and seeks to force people to think a certain way, and is intellectually bankrupt

duende wrote: . What do you mean by �good luck to�? This is a presumptious, throw away comment which I translate to mean you have no interest in those countries you list, and their helplessness in the face of America�s domination of global politics, it�s economic and cultural hegemony, and its bullying tactics. Good luck to them, meaning: they don�t stand a chance? Are irrelevant players on the global poplitical scene?

It is presumptuous to render my use of words in the worst way, as your political conditioning will not allow you to assume "the principle of charity" in rendering a meaning, and to not recognize that I repeated what whisper stated, but added in everything he forgot.

duende wrote: Andalus said: Perhaps you are unaware that the US is a representative republic, not "democracy". -Wow! That�s news to me! I thought the US was not only a democracy, but a champion of democracy all over the world. This explains a lot. For quite some time now, America has looked more like a dictator�s state, since GW has instilled the doctrine: You�re either with us or irrelevant.

It is news to a lot of people. Democracy is "mob rules". Only the ignorant or anarchists would want it. The US is, and always has been a Constitutional Republic with representation. I agree that in the 20th cenutry the rights of the US citizen have been chipped away. As far as I know, the US is not the only western country that has chipped away at its freedoms. To single out the US as the only western country to have its freedome slowly taken is "dishonest".

The ultimatum given by Bush is a false dichotomy, and part of the status quo of poltics. Thats not new.

duende wrote: Andalus: �what beliefs, feelings or virtues have I proclaimed� Indeed, you seem to be so firmly screwed to the fence that you are unclear as to what you support, what you think is right or wrong, good/bad. It is not a comfortable place to be, the fence, and can lead to deep confusion and indecision. Reading your response here, I am left feeling you are either a �closet� right winger or trying desperately hard to be �neutral�.

More of the cattle/herd mentality. I find it almost scary that most of the world has gone so far into the deep end that they can only think in terms of the given paradigm, which, in my opinion, is not an accident. Not agreeing with the left or the right does not make me on the fence. To say that there are only two choices is a "false dichotomy", and I find it astonishing just how uncomfortable it makes people. You have your "sacred cows", just as the right does. I do not have any sacred cows. People are so conditioned to their sacred cows, that if someone rejects their poltical spectrum, then it is a rejection of their sarced cows, and they become labled as the opposite end of the spectrum. And the opposite end of the specturm does the same. In the end, you are no different than Bush saying you are for me or against me, when you feel that I must choose or I am on the fence. I have chosen, I have chosen to remove myself from both evils, and both wrongs, and if I die alone with my views, then I die with a clear heart and mind. I am a Muslim, and I am also a believer in the actual ideals of the faounding fathers, which means I am against the interference in the affairs of foriegn governments, I am for free markets, but not "capitalism", which was also a "hegelian" like dialectic which as as its antithesis "communism". I believe in limited governent, and the rights of the individual.

I choose my own path, based upon my faith, and I am not cow or part of a herd forced into one of the boxes of a false and designed paradigm. I am a rational, thinking agent, not defined by vogue politics or what looks right or wrong. My mind is free, a gift from my Creator, and my soul is of Gd, and I shall fully use all my Gd given gifts to try and live a good life. I shall not be opressed, nor shall I opress.  

duende wrote: It is not possible to defend the US�s recent foreign policy without appearing to be a right-winger.

I have never defeded US foriegn policy. Quote me if I am wrong.

The problem is that in todays poltical spectrum, decent from the given paradigm is not tolerated. You feel I have defneded US policy, when indeed I have not. Why? Because you are so conditioned to argue with the anti-thesis of your beliefs.

duende wrote:  The so-called �left� does not exist politically in the US, where it is still considered to be a pinkish left over from the blood red communist days of the Soviet Union.

Opinionated and nit picking, and completely debatable. But given its irrelevance to the thread, I will simply pass.

duende wrote: Anywhere else but America, you may be surprised to know, �left- wing�, �socialist� and �liberal� are respectable terms. I can understand your inability to identify clearly with the right/left paradigm as you call it, since in America, the Republicans and Democrats share almost identical shades of capitalism.

You may be suprised to know that "liberal" and left wing are also respectable here as well, as the US is nearly divided in half on the issues defined by these nomenclatures, which means that nearly half associate with the label. Hardly "disrepected". And "liberalism" is closer to "socialism" then "capitalism", and they both are bankrupt.

So I can understand your confusion when I discuss "left wing", "right wing" paradigm.

Every western country has its "paradigm", and those with slave mentalities who fall into line with their respective party, and Gd forbid those who dissent. Liberalsim in the US is a cousin to "socialism", the few differences are used to blind some into think they are completely different.

The Conservatives also follow their sacred cows, and with their eyes wide open, their very beloved politicians lead them slowly into a new "US" where their rights and liberties are being taken. I have no love for either parties, nor for socialism, or communism, or any of the other created parties.

duende wrote: Andalus said: �Understanding OPS and knowing that most of the "OPSes" of the world are simply products of the constant conditioning of the western political models/paradigms, many of which also exist in non-western lands, and that their views are defined by many of the fringe ideas of the opposite side of the political spectrum, is far different than agreeing with OPS, and sharing his beliefs� So, being informed by the fringe ideas from the opposite side of the political spectrum means what exactly?

I did not say informed, you said it. I said their views are defined by those who are their anti-thesis. Your views are defined by those whom you dislike. COmmunism, Capitalism, left, right, conservarism, liberalism, etc, etc, etc.

Proof: You and whisper have difficulty with my position, because your backgrounds and assumptions no longer work. As an exmaple, someone could not help but take a swipe at Bush after something was stated about Cindy Sheehan. It was astonishing. Why? Because when your views are defined only by your antithesis, then your vision becomes clouded and responses become meaningless, and we all become mindless automotons. I am not defined by what you think, or the sacred cows of OPS, or whisper. But I do not fit into this big " hegelian" hodgepodge, and so I become the fence sitter, and the one who is bad, and the one who is not willing to be a team player.  

duende wrote: And finally Andalus, since you haven�t been able to openly state you DO NOT support immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, should we take it that you think that the one country responsible for devastating Iraqi infrastructure today, the country which encouraged and supported destructive UN sanctions on Iraq, the country which is responsible for thousands of Iraqi deaths in this last decade, who has failed to provide support, infrastructure and basic requirements as the occupier, the country which is the source of the instability in Iraq today, is the country which has the will to protect Iraqis from hunger and anarchy?

Thats a HUGE question. And a complex quesiton at that (you have buried assumptions that are not argued, hence it is not a valid question).

Your reply about Iraq is also a typical, programmed respone, with all of the bells and whistles built into it by a poltical affiliation.

US troops have no business being in Iraq. I think almost everyone here agrees with that. The problem is that I have yet to see a single solid, responsible plane, on how to get them out without making more of a mess. I do not like US troops being used, and I think their deaths are being wasted. But I do not concur with all of the other assumptions you just tried to bury into your question.  

duende wrote: This is indeed a right wing, fringe, nutty political idea.

And another sign of pradigm conditioning. I am not part of the right. If that is not aimed at me, then I must tell you that I believe OPS to be the only true blue rightwinger here.

Due to the nature of your seeming endless diatribe and generalzations

My son, I will deal with you the day you grow to read my whole piece on Cap It All itis instead of getting bogged down in the construction, the technology or such other measurements of just its words.

While at that let me repeat my claim that Cap It All itis is a bogus exploitation of humans and human rights. And, If it suddenly turned profitable Lebanon will have a ceasefire in 23 minutes. The poor 19 years olds will bake no longer in the Iraq desert. The Kabul heroine dens will begin to look empty with loss of 73% custom of sobbing, crying poor Michigan lads.

Plus, I believe that any American who is not actively involved in opposing his government, at this hour, is directly supporting crimes against humanity.

As a plain simple Afghan, I believe that, I hate to mince my words. If I only followed reasons, I won't recognise Allah Kareem. I believe in unreasons. Your smell of a NeoCon to quite a few of us. What shall I do? Be diplomatic with you? Tell you some lies? Never needed to do that in my life, why would I start now and that too just to keep some American quiet?

. . . whisper's failure to show that my thesis is wrong,

Could I inform you, Sir, that failure can only happen after at least an attempt at something. Whisper has not started with you as yet.

I have begun to enjoy your posts, you seem to go all the length to prove your points, but with mere skill, interestingly limited pet words, phrases and borrowed quotes. I may not find much joy in fighting some dried up Paper-tiger.

Good luck to you. It may take you an entire lifetime to begin feeling the essence of anything. Please, don't get me wrong, I just find you excessively boring.

Hmm seems we can just change laws to suit mien emperor's needs:

Aug 8, 6:26 PM EDT

Judge OKs Camping Ban Near Bush Ranch

By ANGELA K. BROWN
Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Roadside camping and parking bans are constitutional, a federal judge ruled, blocking protesters from pitching tents or placing portable toilets in ditches near President Bush's ranch.

Protesters sought to make a smaller makeshift campsite than what Cindy Sheehan set up a year ago off the winding, two-lane road leading to Bush's ranch, said attorney David Broiles, who sued on behalf of Sheehan and four other anti-war demonstrators.

But less than a week after asking the protesters and McLennan County officials to try to reach a compromise, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith ruled unexpectedly late Monday that the county ordinances enacted last fall are constitutional.

"I can't speculate about why," Broiles said, adding that his clients may appeal
the ruling or continue trying to reach a compromise with the county.

Herbert S. Bristow, one of the attorneys who represented the county in the lawsuit, said he was not surprised by the judge's ruling because the ordinances - banning parking on parts of 14 roads near Bush's ranch and prohibiting camping in any county ditch - were well-researched.

Last fall, county commissioners banned roadside camping and parking after Sheehan's small group of protesters swelled to several thousand people on weekends and locals complained of the noise, traffic and odor from portable toilets.

Sheehan and a handful of protesters sat in chairs across from a roadblock near Bush's ranch again Tuesday, where she also released 18 balloons with postcards saying she wanted to meet with the president.

Sheehan kicked off her summer protest Sunday on a 5-acre lot she bought last month. The land near downtown is more than 7 miles from the ranch, much farther from the group's second protest site, a 1-acre lot a sympathetic landowner let the group use until recently.

Even funnier? Need a good laugh, look at Bush's "hometown" webpage, seems he didn't even call it home until 1999...what a farce he is!

http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html - http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html

Whisper wrote: Due to the nature of your seeming endless diatribe and generalzations My son, I will deal with you the day you grow to read my whole piece on Cap It All itis instead of getting bogged down in the construction, the technology or such other measurements of just its words. While at that let me repeat my claim that Cap It All itis is a bogus exploitation of humans and human rights. And, If it suddenly turned profitable Lebanon will have a ceasefire in 23 minutes. The poor 19 years olds will bake no longer in the Iraq desert. The Kabul heroine dens will begin to look empty with loss of 73% custom of sobbing, crying poor Michigan lads.

I agree that capitalism is exploitive. So what? How is it irrevant to your claims about me? I asked you to make a point, but you cannot resist grandstadning with an editorial.

whisper wrote: Plus, I believe that any American who is not actively involved in opposing his government, at this hour, is directly supporting crimes against humanity.

SO who should Americans support? Please explain how the resistance should work and who should they support? Solutions please, not empty howlers.

And what about Great Britain? Gemrany? Russia? China? Saudi Arabia? france? Pakistan?

whisper wrote: As a plain simple Afghan, I believe that, I hate to mince my words. If I only followed reasons, I won't recognise Allah Kareem. I believe in unreasons.

You just stated abolsute nonsense. The turh is, you have no argument, only confrontation. Nice attempt to deflect with theoglical triva.

WHisper wrote:   Your smell of a NeoCon to quite a few of us. What shall I do? Be diplomatic with you? Tell you some lies?

Thats because you have been conditioned and your ignorance, and arrogance, born out of the delusion that has conditioned you, prevents you from thinking beyond the crude paradigm that you revel in, and worship like a gd.

If you think I am a neocon, then demonstrate it. I already aksed you to. But so far, you only repsond with empty, and wreckless dribble.

whisper wrote:   Never needed to do that in my life, why would I start now and that too just to keep some American quiet?

Maryah wrote: Hmm seems we can just change laws to suit mien emperor's needs: Aug 8, 6:26 PM EDT Judge OKs Camping Ban Near Bush Ranch By ANGELA K. BROWN Associated Press Writer CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) -- Roadside camping and parking bans are constitutional, a federal judge ruled, blocking protesters from pitching tents or placing portable toilets in ditches near President Bush's ranch. Protesters sought to make a smaller makeshift campsite than what Cindy Sheehan set up a year ago off the winding, two-lane road leading to Bush's ranch, said attorney David Broiles, who sued on behalf of Sheehan and four other anti-war demonstrators. But less than a week after asking the protesters and McLennan County officials to try to reach a compromise, U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith ruled unexpectedly late Monday that the county ordinances enacted last fall are constitutional. "I can't speculate about why," Broiles said, adding that his clients may appeal the ruling or continue trying to reach a compromise with the county. Herbert S. Bristow, one of the attorneys who represented the county in the lawsuit, said he was not surprised by the judge's ruling because the ordinances - banning parking on parts of 14 roads near Bush's ranch and prohibiting camping in any county ditch - were well-researched. Last fall, county commissioners banned roadside camping and parking after Sheehan's small group of protesters swelled to several thousand people on weekends and locals complained of the noise, traffic and odor from portable toilets. Sheehan and a handful of protesters sat in chairs across from a roadblock near Bush's ranch again Tuesday, where she also released 18 balloons with postcards saying she wanted to meet with the president. Sheehan kicked off her summer protest Sunday on a 5-acre lot she bought last month. The land near downtown is more than 7 miles from the ranch, much farther from the group's second protest site, a 1-acre lot a sympathetic landowner let the group use until recently. Even funnier? Need a good laugh, look at Bush's "hometown" webpage, seems he didn't even call it home until 1999...what a farce he is! http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html - http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html

Vicinte Fox, who is also close with Bush, like wise had a government that craps on civil rights, and the British government is also reducing the ability for people to protest close to the Parliment building, and will provide "protest zones". So for sure we now have three emperors! Will you also agree that Fox would not have allowed a Mexican Cindy (Cynthia) to set up a shanty town next to Fox's home? 

And you are also right on about Bush and his created personification. He has little to do with Texas, and reports suggest that he is affraid of horses. All that matters is that the people are given his "appearance" to vote for, as opposed to the Kerry image. Two choices to fit the two parties. Reality dictates that there was no real choice. Only the illusion.

Andalus wrote: Maryah wrote: . Even funnier? Need a good laugh, look at Bush's "hometown" webpage, seems he didn't even call it home until 1999...what a farce he is! http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html - http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html Vicinte Fox, who is also close with Bush, like wise had a government that craps on civil rights, and the British government is also reducing the ability for people to protest close to the Parliment building, and will provide "protest zones". So for sure we now have three emperors! Will you also agree that Fox would not have allowed a Mexican Cindy (Cynthia) to set up a shanty town next to Fox's home?  And you are also right on about Bush and his created personification. He has little to do with Texas, and reports suggest that he is affraid of horses. All that matters is that the people are given his "appearance" to vote for, as opposed to the Kerry image. Two choices to fit the two parties. Reality dictates that there was no real choice. Only the illusion.

LOL you are so right!

And what I can gather from the mexican news here is that they have created a "no protest zone" around El presidente's palace in Cuidad de Mexico...that is old news.. but the new presidente will not be feasting in the Bush thicket  from what I am gathering....Much of Amerika del Sur is already against the Bush.

Maryah wrote: Andalus wrote: Maryah wrote: . Even funnier? Need a good laugh, look at Bush's "hometown" webpage, seems he didn't even call it home until 1999...what a farce he is! http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html - http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html Vicinte Fox, who is also close with Bush, like wise had a government that craps on civil rights, and the British government is also reducing the ability for people to protest close to the Parliment building, and will provide "protest zones". So for sure we now have three emperors! Will you also agree that Fox would not have allowed a Mexican Cindy (Cynthia) to set up a shanty town next to Fox's home?  And you are also right on about Bush and his created personification. He has little to do with Texas, and reports suggest that he is affraid of horses. All that matters is that the people are given his "appearance" to vote for, as opposed to the Kerry image. Two choices to fit the two parties. Reality dictates that there was no real choice. Only the illusion. LOL you are so right! And what I can gather from the mexican news here is that they have created a "no protest zone" around El presidente's palace in Cuidad de Mexico...that is old news.. but the new presidente will not be feasting in the Bush thicket  from what I am gathering....Much of Amerika del Sur is already against the Bush.

I have to laugh everytime I see Bush with his cowboy hat. Apparently Fox offered to have a saddle made for Bush but her refused. I am not sure if that is true or not.

.

Hanan wrote: The Five-Bovine Emporer I've always wondered why news reporters are forced to broadcast their spin in front of an old bale of hay and a rusty, crooked barn, instead of a herd of wild-roaming longhorn steers and their wives. Five cows! Is this really truethiness, or just brilliant strateegery by the Homeland Security guys? Maybe only five of his huge herd of bovines have security clearance? Or maybe it has something to do with nuckyeelar arms? ________________________________________________ President Bush takes a walk on his 1,583-acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. The ranch has few cattle these days. But is it really a ranch? Here's a clue: Secret Service agents now outnumber the cows. "There are some guys that are all hat and no cattle. The president's not that way; he's hat and five cattle," joked Austin attorney and former Rep. Kent Hance, a Democrat who beat Bush in a 1978 congressional race by portraying him as an Ivy League interloper. The White House declined to let a reporter take a look at the grounds or interview ranch hands while the president and first lady were finishing their August vacation. But Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino confirmed the bovine population had fallen sharply since former ranch foreman Kenneth Engelbrecht left a few months ago. Engelbrecht, a member of the family who sold the ranch to Bush in 1999, had been leasing back pasture and tending a herd that numbered about 200. Perino initially said the president still kept "a few" cattle on the ranch. Pressed for a more precise head count, she said "four or five." Bush prefers bicycles to horses, and he never claimed to be a cattleman. He has described himself as a "windshield rancher" who likes to drive visitors, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, around in a pickup. Source: The Seattle Times

Good observation Br!

Make no bones about it, his entire personification is an illusion. The right really buy into it.

Also keep in mind that Bush comes from three generations of skull and bones (as Kerry was also), and one should also keep in mind that Bush is also a member of Bohemian Grove. The Christian right enjoy down playing that fact.

Servetus wrote: Andalus (you are quoted below), Quote: Her [Cindy Sheehan�s] conversion to left wing politics is the move of a lost soul. To me, this seems harsh.  Have you considered the possibility that she didn�t actually �convert� to left wing politics but progressed there logically and is learning whilst on the job?

Cindy has not displayed any real rational thought or dialopgue that allows one to describe her as making a logical progression to the left. She is a lost soul who is trying to make sense of the death of her son, and her far extreme move to the left was guided by radicals wliing to make full use of her. Her rhetoric is really incoherent. This alone removes herself from any real discussion or anyone really taking her serious.

servetus wrote:  By way of parallel, I am reminded of four American widows who lost their husbands on 9/11, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.  As I see it, and despite the fact that they have been dubbed the (of course!) self-serving �witches of East Brunswick� by pundit Ann Coulter (in what passes as political commentary here in the Colonies), theirs was and remains less a conversion than a response to the tragedies of the moment.

Ann Coulter is a pit bull of the right wing, probably a Machiavellian (I would bet all the tea in CHina on that), I have no like for her and do not follower her much. The widows of 9/11 I do not see as a parallel given that have not gone on the deep end, ranting and raving and establishing shanty towns.

sevetus wrote: Quote: She has allowed herself to be used by the opposite spectrum of the status quo paradigm. This may be so.  But, one wonders, is there any public (political) personality of whom this could not be said?

In terms of predominant attributes, one could answer yes, but since the thread is not about general cases,but about Cindy Sheehan, I will pass on further comment.

servetus wrote: Quote: The left/right wing political paradigm is something created by the same authors and both parties have the same agenda and is kept in place to give the cattle/herd mentality and character that now makes up 95% of western thought something to do. I think this point of yours has been largely overlooked and perhaps misunderstood.  Could you please elaborate?  Even as it is, and at least up to a point, I do tend to agree.  At any rate, please explain this in more detail.  Thank you. Serv ___________________________ I always vote, but all of my votes are votes of �no confidence.�

Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: Sign*Reader wrote: Andalus wrote: Cassandra wrote: I think the point that needs consideration here is as follows: Cindy Sheehan is trying to do something.  The very fact that we are all discussing what she is doing regardless of our viewpoints, shows that her plan is effective!" Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little" Edmund Burke, 1729 - 1797 And what plan is that? In the discussion of Cindy in the wider sense, the only thing that has been done is the revealing of an image of a woman who is loony. So far, that has been the only thing effectivly shown, and I doubt that was a part of her agenda (I say agenda because her plan is simply unknown). The problem with Cindy is that she raves and complains and makes odd comments, but she does not offer solutions, or try and create the first steps of a solution. The reason that she probably does not actually follow through with any real plan is that she is lost. I think Gilbert Chesterton sums up her life best: �People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.�                          Doing something is not necessarily better than doing nothing, as it depens upon what it is that id done. Abraham Lincoln once said,  "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." So sometimes doing nothing is better, and doing something of quality is even better!  Andalus: Compare following with yours and find true in each case. And what plan is that? In the discussion of George in the wider sense, the only thing that has been done is the revealing of an image of a man who is loony. So far, that has been the only thing effectivly shown, and I doubt that was a part of his agenda (I say agenda because his plan is simply unknown). The problem with George is that he raves and complains and makes odd comments, but he does not offer solutions, or try and create the first steps of a solution. The reason that he probably does not actually follow through with any real plan is that he is lost. I think Gilbert Chesterton sums up his life best: �People generally quarrel because they cannot argue.� SO WHAT DO YOU SEE COMMON BETWEEN THEM? GIVE YOU 3 GUESSES !! Greetings sign. Your contribution was interesting, but I am not sure how to comment given it is a bit irrelevant. What exactly is the point you are drawing and how does it relate to the thread? Is it simply a left wing knee jerk reaction aimed at the right wing? Keep in mind I do not follow the herd right/left wing US distraction.    I have noticed so many on this forum analysing Cindy's personality including yourself. What I did was switched Cindy with George (the POTUS). In reality your description for Cindy fit perfectly on George bcs both were born under the same sign of Cancer. If you can put up with George performance, why can't U with Cindy's hue n cry where as George hasn't lost any of his family member in this mess.

I have not put up with Bush. The thread was Cindy Sheehan. Your reply was the knee jerk reaction of a conditioned democrat, or a Bush hater. I am not a hater. I simply call a spade a spade. I am no supporter of Bush. I have no stake in him or his cabinet.

Cindy Sheehan is a nutty woman who is trying to make order for her loss. Anyone who places any stake in CIndy's cause is nutty. No one takes her serious because she has nothing substantual to say. She has never offered one solution. She rants. Bush is not a nut, but he is dangerous. Keep that in mind. The left want to bash Bush and they do him a favor by superimposing the character of an idiot. This is the greatest thing anyone could do for him, as it reinforces the constructed personification he has been given.

One could put John Kerry into what I wrote and make the same argument. So what? Whats the point. The thread is not about Kerry either. 

I understand you hate Bush.

sign wrote:  And look how much lunacy (luna is the controling planet-- alongwith Rummy another lunatic on board) he has displayed so far. Trust me, I know a lot about them.

I agree but the thread was not about them. I do not support the left or right. So when I crack on a scared cow of one of the parties, they some how feel they need to crack on a personality of the opposing party.

The best thing you can do for his cabinet is equate them to being more of a lunatic than Sheehan. This is the gift and blessing from the left. These people are dangerous, not Shehaan nutty. Sheehan does not represent anything but an avenue to bash Bush. Personally I am not interested in this dialectic.

sign wrote:  In my assessment Cindy's behavior is normal where as George and Rummy are going thru their full spectrum in the statistical error +-3 sigmas bcs they are in politics so they lie and make it looking like truth. If you need to worry, it should be about the lunatics who are going around with the biggest guns in their hand and not a poor mom with a few friends with banners.

I do not worry about CIndy. I worry about those who take her serious and support her "cause", whatever that cause may be. Choosing the symbol of your cause is as important as the cause itself. Cindy is on a self proclaimed "crusade", but her foolish behavior reveals her ignorance, and she is way in over her head. The left like her as an avenue to bash Bush.

I agree that Bush is dangerous, and he does worry me. But CIndy Sheehan does not have anything to offer that will allow me to understand the isues at hand, nor do I agree with her rantings.

sign wrote: I had warned my friends and family about the calamities inherent about the convergence of a Cancer POTUS with Cancer nation USA.

The possible calamaties are inherent whether the dems or the repubs get their man in. They are both dangerous. And anyone with any abilty to think should be very aware that the liberties in the US are slowly being stripped away.

Sheehan is simply a side show, like the ones in the old carnivales, as a side distraction so people can have fun venting their hate at Bush.

Good observation Br!

Isn't Hanan a feminine name in the Middle East?

Wonder if it should be "Good observation Sis".

No?

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

Andalus:  It is the mark of a cultured mind to be able to do so without finding it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks.

We have already seen how you dispatched Aquinian just because the two of you were having a cat fight, after only a few posts almost completely between the two of you, while it had taken almost 800 posts before a concerted boycott managed to get Muslima banned.  I wrote a "report" about it at the time displaying my disgust.

As a moderator, I would have thought that it would behoove you to set an example, not refer to a long standing member as "sophomoric"  etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Andalus wrote: Servetus wrote: Andalus (you are quoted below), Quote: Her [Cindy Sheehan�s] conversion to left wing politics is the move of a lost soul. To me, this seems harsh.  Have you considered the possibility that she didn�t actually �convert� to left wing politics but progressed there logically and is learning whilst on the job?   Cindy has not displayed any real rational thought or dialopgue that allows one to describe her as making a logical progression to the left. She is a lost soul who is trying to make sense of the death of her son, and her far extreme move to the left was guided by radicals wliing to make full use of her. Her rhetoric is really incoherent. This alone removes herself from any real discussion or anyone really taking her serious. servetus wrote:  By way of parallel, I am reminded of four American widows who lost their husbands on 9/11, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Patty Casazza.  As I see it, and despite the fact that they have been dubbed the (of course!) self-serving �witches of East Brunswick� by pundit Ann Coulter (in what passes as political commentary here in the Colonies), theirs was and remains less a conversion than a response to the tragedies of the moment. Ann Coulter is a pit bull of the right wing, probably a Machiavellian (I would bet all the tea in CHina on that), I have no like for her and do not follower her much. The widows of 9/11 I do not see as a parallel given that have not gone on the deep end, ranting and raving and establishing shanty towns. sevetus wrote: Quote: She has allowed herself to be used by the opposite spectrum of the status quo paradigm. This may be so.  But, one wonders, is there any public (political) personality of whom this could not be said? In terms of predominant attributes, one could answer yes, but since the thread is not about general cases,but about Cindy Sheehan, I will pass on further comment. servetus wrote: Quote: The left/right wing political paradigm is something created by the same authors and both parties have the same agenda and is kept in place to give the cattle/herd mentality and character that now makes up 95% of western thought something to do. I think this point of yours has been largely overlooked and perhaps misunderstood.  Could you please elaborate?  Even as it is, and at least up to a point, I do tend to agree.  At any rate, please explain this in more detail.  Thank you. Serv ___________________________ I always vote, but all of my votes are votes of �no confidence.�   We live in a system, a hegelian dialectic, such that we are always presented with an idea, and its antithesis. Never anything in between. To go inbetween is considered "bad". Let me give you examples: The energy debate. One side is about producing more oil, finding new reserves, increasing the influence of the oil moguls, trying to build more refineries, etc, etc, etc. The other side is about the government buying up public land to save it from drilling, making it harder for anyone wanting to build new refineries (nearly impossibe), anti corporate and anti big business (they are under the impression they are in the "buck the system" rebel crowd), etc, etc. But no one is having the serious discussion about any of the new alternative technologies and the time line for implementation. You might have a few small discussions, and brief mentions, but the lions share of the issue goes to these two opposite poles, backed by the two opposite parties. In the end, the two groups will achieve the same agenda. The people in the lower realms of participation really think they are fighting evil (the other side). The last presidential election. Out of all of the possible candidates for president, we are presented with two. Skull and bones only chooses like 14 or 17 people per year out of the junior classes at Yale. And the two candidates presented just happen, by accident, to be skull and bones initiates. The republican choice is the image of a Texas rancher, which is far from the real truth. This is not by accident. He is also third generation skull and bones. The democrats are given the staunch new englander, who is connected with old family money, and a skull and bones. Between the two, the only difference are shallow, but enough to allow the herd like faithful polarize and believe they are really fighting a battle of evil against one another. Reality: The two are no different. Servetus, a few years ago I realized that the left/right paradigm is a scam, and the examples I gave you are only simple exmaples that allow me to conclude that the best path is the one I choose based upon my belief in Gd and not what has been handed to me.    Best Wishes

Bismillah,

Cindy is just a person, a mother, a daugher, an ex-wife, living her life with the cards she has been dealt doing the best that she can.

I can see right away that if I were in her place that I would be attacked as quickly as she.  Why define her?  Why say she is trying to be the symbol against Bush? She has feelings and beliefs that she is acting on and some people decided to help her.  But she still is valid because she is again, just a person living her life.  What could be invalid about that?

Salaamu Alaykum

I agree that capitalism is exploitive. So what? How is it irrevant to your claims about me? I asked you to make a point, but you cannot resist grandstadning with an editorial.

I am really sorry.

I didn�t mean to cause such typing tremors with my post.

My friend, my post had just covered Cap It Allitis and a mothers� dignity, which you seem to be trashing with some hard Right Winger�s tools. Please, step out of your box and read it with a bit of cool instead of playing a total American.

SO who should Americans support?

Peace, Human Rights and the International Law.

You just stated abolsute nonsense. The turh is, you have no argument, only confrontation. Nice attempt to deflect with theoglical triva.

Sir, one day, you might grow out of these industrial formats and realise that in older, mature cultures, people work wonders just with this essence that you are quick to bin as �nonsense�.

Thats because you have been conditioned and your ignorance, and arrogance, born out of the delusion that has conditioned you, prevents you from thinking beyond the crude paradigm that you revel in, and worship like a gd.

Are you trying to lay claim to being the only specimen on our earth that has, for one reason or another, been left unconditioned?

Let�s stop punishing the poor key-board and keep people from thinking what they have started to think of our moderators.

Please have a look at your post below and at least try and cover it with something a bit decent if not entirely sensible.

If you think I am a neocon, then demonstrate it. I already aksed you to. But so far, you only repsond with empty, and wreckless dribble.

More meaningless rantings. Yes, I am American. Now what?

Cassandra wrote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle Andalus:  It is the mark of a cultured mind to be able to do so without finding it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks. We have already seen how you dispatched Aquinian just because the two of you were having a cat fight, after only a few posts almost completely between the two of you, while it had taken almost 800 posts before a concerted boycott managed to get Muslima banned.  I wrote a "report" about it at the time displaying my disgust.

The two were completely different.

Aquinian was "dispatched" due to his patterns of "bad intentions", using the threads to insult the Prophet (saw) when he was unable to make good on his claims. He was not Muslim, his pattern was not to learn but to hurl "propoganda". I was one of others who wanted him gone.

cassandra wrote: As a moderator, I would have thought that it would behoove you to set an example, not refer to a long standing member as "sophomoric"  etc., etc., ad nauseum.

Andalus,

Thank you for responding.

That was funny (and the mistake in this case is mine).  It may have been a poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean to be overly generous and to actually impute logic to Ms. Sheehan [smile].  Please allow me to rephrase my statement: have you considered the possibility that Cindy Sheehan naturally moved to the left and is learning whilst on the job?  I know very little about her or the scandals that surround her (I killed my television in '91 and severely restrict my mass media intake).  How many of us had heard of Paul Wolfowitz, for example, before 9/11 and the subsequent American forays first into Afghanistan and then into Iraq?  I don't think I had.  We've all had to educate ourselves and some of us, I think Cindy Sheehan is an example, are doing it, perhaps at times even messily, on the job. 

Again, to me, this seems harsh.

I read this opening post of hers and wouldn't call it incoherent, though the points she makes are obviously arguable.  Beyond that, I read her letter in the thread entitled "Mamas don't" and would rate it both coherent and impassioned (these are the only two things from her that I have read). 

I agree with your view of Ann Coulter and, as I said, this is what passes for political commentary at times here in the States.  But still, from what I understand, Ann Coulter would take issue with your assessment of the widows and thinks the "witches of East Brunswick" are more than a bit off.  She has gone so far as to suggest that the troublesome widows, who had the gall to push for an official investigation into 9/11 and who have since expressed their concerns about the results, are simply self-serving and grand-standing.  What's more, says Ann Coulter, they probably were glad to lose their husbands in the flames of the WTC because, had it not been for their husbands' deaths, the widows themselves would not have been brought into the political spotlight, etc., etc.  I may have gotten some of this political gossip and pig manure wrong, but that is the gist of it.

I have to sign off now, but, at some point, I would like to further discuss the Hegelian dialectic.  I think we are rather close in our viewpoints.

Thank you, again, for responding and I am pleased to meet you and to become better acquainted.

Best regards,

Serv

Duende wrote: Assalamu aleikum Andalus. I think much of our disagreement is over misunderstanding. I am not saying the US is soley responsible for the problems in these countries at the time of US intervention, I am saying the US is soley responsible for its own interventions in these countries and is therefore soley responsible for the results of its interventions. Like most people in the world today, I see the US is soley responsible for the present state of chaos in Iraq. It alone moved to invade and remove Saddam Hussein, it alone decided to gather support from the coalition of the willing, by lying convincingly to them, and perhaps offering them large bounties in return for their participation.

I agree that the US is the culprit for these problems, but problems go beyond this, and countries like France and Germany and RUssia all had their hand in bolstering Saddam Hussein and greatly profiting on the scam "food for oil". The notion that somehow other western countries are enlightened and removed from the problems of Iraq is a joke.

And lets not forget that Muslim Arabs were also complicit who completely went along with the regime and aided him and torturing and murdering their own people. I agree that the US has created a terrible set of events, but I also know that finger pointing need not stay with the US.

Lets not forget that the British set into motion many of the problems seen today. When I point my fingers for problems in Iraq, I have many targets to "point at". 

duende wrote: I�m glad you think the US is not a democracy. I wish you could prove it and at the same time define for us what exactly a democracy is, and why the US is so keen to spread it all over the rest of the world.

In this case, I cannot prove a negative. It would be impossible, logically.

I can tell you that no one will find the word "democracy" in the Constitution or the Decleration of Independence. I can also tell you that you will find in Article IV, Section 4, "....to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."

Furthermore, I can tell you that James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, "Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/1/federalist/10.htm - http://www.worldnewsstand.net/1/federalist/10.htm

As a child when I would take the pledge of allegiance, I think about the statement, "..to the Republic for which it stands".

The Battle Hym of the Republic, is not "of the Democracy".

There is ample evidence to suggest that the founding fathers of the US were against "democracy".

John Adams stated, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide." (1814)

To anyone who says that the US is a democracy, I say "rubbish", and if it is a "democracy", then the founding fathers are greatly dissapointed.

To anyone who says there is not difference between a Republic, in terms of what the framers intended, and democracy, I also say "rubbish".

duende wrote: �I have chosen, I have chosen to remove myself from both evils, and both wrongs, and if I die alone with my views, then I die with a clear heart and mind.� I find this very interesting, since you have found a way to remove yourself from the present hegellian false dichotomy of political paradigms, and since you believe you have no sacred cows, please tell us why are you bothering to reply to any of these posts?

You deny disparity where it exists. Denying a sacred cow does not imply denying what is right or wrong, or giving up your responsibility for distinguishing. Once more, I believe you are having trouble with the idea that one does not have to choose left or right. Your notion that refusing the false dichotomy means one gives up perception of right and wrong is gien to a misunderstanding of reality.

duende wrote:     If you have found a way to remove yourself from both evils, in theory shouldn�t you be helping us to do the same? I mean, wouldn�t it be a wonderful world if we could all sit back and say; �ah yes, it is just another manifestation of those dread hegellian false dichotomies� �?

You have buried your assumption that there is no false dichotomy, and not choosing between the two means you have somehow chosen nothing. With that premise in mind while formulating your question and comment, I will move on.

duende wrote:   �The problem is that in todays poltical spectrum, decent [sic] from the given paradigm is not tolerated. You feel I have defneded [sic] US policy, when indeed I have not. Why? Because you are so conditioned to argue with the anti-thesis of your beliefs.� -Good point, I�ll watch out for those antithesis kneejerk reactions, if you�ll watch out for your spelling.

Now you are quibbling.

duende wrote: �Opinionated and nit picking, and completely debatable. But given its irrelevance to the thread, I will simply pass.� I used to think being opinionated was a bad thing. Then I realised that having no opinion at all was worse. And please, if you decide to just �pass�, then pass, meaning: don�t bother even acknowledging the statement. It wastes space.

Interesting reponse, although cryptic and irrelevant.

duende wrote: �Proof: You and whisper have difficulty with my position, because your backgrounds and assumptions no longer work� -Mashallah I wish this were true. Because if it were, we would have reached the much yearned for �something� which must replace the present political right-left parqadigm.

Something is "common sense". You are so conditioned that your beliefs have to have a single party of affiliation, one of the few that are offered. Even some of the founding fathers of the US did not think a two party system would be a good idea.

Choosing right and wrong has become a chore and a bore, without a poltical wing to give alliegance to, it seems you are lost without hope? Come Duende, you are a very intelligent person. You cannot truly believe what you just responded with.

duende wrote:    But you see, Andalus, our problem is that we cannot DEFINE your position. If you are free from the clutches of hegellian false dichotomies then you would also be free from the language which defines them, and presumably be able to define EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR POSITION? Because if you are neither with one nor the other, then I think you are in purgatory, heaven or well, sitting on the fence and observing the rest of us stuck in our hegellian false dichotomies.

Once more you comments take the assumption that there is no false dichotomy, meaning that no other choice exists.

My position has been present in the dialogue I have had on this thread. If you want to know more, ask me questions. I have a brain and a mind, and I do not need a "collective" to represent me. I am an individual.

duende wrote: Now, Andalus I must ask you to abide by your own recommendations and not post when you are inflamed, since the misspellings in your reply to Whisper are too numerous and infantile, and are very distracting. E.g: Irrevant, grandstadning, abolsute, turh, theoglical triva, aksed, repsond, wreckless, naitonality

Now duende, you are quibbling. Misspellings have nothing to do with inflammation.

Misspellings are a function of time. When I have time, I check, when I have no time, I could care less.

duende wrote: �We live in a system, a hegelian dialectic, such that we are always presented with an idea, and its antithesis. Never anything in between. To go inbetween is considered "bad".� -Andalus, please, define the bit in the middle, what is in between? Once you have progressed further than your readings on Hegel, perhaps you could add something more constructive to the debate. At the moment, it is as though you just reached the subject in your studies and have been seduced by it (Hegel).

More irrelevant quibbling. It is as if you have nothing of substance to offer, that you must look for spelling mistakes, and ideas you dislike. 

My time line for reading Hegel, or at what part of y life I have read him, or any other thinker, is now in the spotlight for you, as if it is an actual issue, when it is simply a deflection.  

Middle of the road is that path that does not touch either side. left or right. It is not middle of the fence, it is "common sense". If you want me to define common sense, then you truly are lost.

duende wrote: �Let me give you examples: The energy debate. One side is about producing more oil, finding new reserves, increasing the influence of the oil moguls, trying to build more refineries, etc, etc, etc. The other side is about the government buying up public land to save it from drilling, making it harder for anyone wanting to build new refineries (nearly impossibe), anti corporate and anti big business (they are under the impression they are in the "buck the system" rebel crowd), etc, etc. But no one is having the serious discussion about any of the new alternative technologies and the time line for implementation. You might have a few small discussions, and brief mentions, but the lions share of the issue goes to these two opposite poles, backed by the two opposite parties.� -Here, you are completely wrong, and have definitely fallen into the trap of false dichotomies by simplifying the present debate on energy. If you were a participant on any of the related forums, I could take you up on these assumptions, but since you only seem to know as much about the energy crisis as you have gathered from main stream American media, I shall have to recommend you do a little extra research: www.peakoil.com for example, and http://www.energybulletin.net - www.energybulletin.net

False assumption. I did not claim that the example was a detalied analysis taking the rest of the world into account. You are trying to quibble again. I stated a general example, including only the domintating attributes, and it was addressed to servetus, and it was about the US. Please take time to study what is claimed and what is implied, and be mindful of the context. The example is accurate in the general sense of what I wanted to demonstrate, in its context.

duende wrote: And finally, Andalus, I have noted with interest Cassandra�s post. I too am questioning your ability to hold the post of Moderator.

No, the real issue at hand is my views. Lets be honest. You are questioning my ability to go along with the world views of the click which permeates this forum. My time is becoming scarce, and in the next two weeks I will be isolated to simply "moderating" and less participation. So the thread will once more be free to make any unchallenged, unquestioned, biased assertions it wishes, and high five one another for the best "The US is the sole cause of problems for the rest of the world"  one liners.

Cassarda is mad because of my thread with her friend, and her willingness to excuse Aquinian as some kind of victim is riotous. Not to mention her lop sided view of Muslimah also sums up her biased view.

Their expulsions were done appropriately with discussion.

I will take your views on my position of moderator under advisement.

.

Incredible antics. From someone who makes such grand claims and puts forth such pretenses and airs of sophistication and all you can do is surround your response with spelling errors and attempt to make light of such trivial, irrelevancies. Congratulations, you have reduced the thread to your true abilities. A far difference from the pretenses you try and surround yourself with. Indeed, you are the epitome of masterful obfuscation. Let us wade through this�..

Whisper wrote: I agree that capitalism is exploitive. So what? How is it irrevant to your claims about me? I asked you to make a point, but you cannot resist grandstadning with an editorial. I am really sorry. I didn�t mean to cause such typing tremors with my post. My friend, my post had just covered Cap It Allitis and a mothers� dignity, which you seem to be trashing with some hard Right Winger�s tools. Please, step out of your box and read it with a bit of cool instead of playing a total American.

I am sorry, I was unaware that you attention span could not withstand violated spelling etiquette. I will take more care for your fragile ability to focus in the future.

My observations about Cindy are based upon observations. Your implication that if a conclusion is given by the right, then that conclusion must not be spoken unless you are of the right, is �rubbish�. If the observation is wrong, then it must be wrong by its very nature, not due to the �genetic fallacy� you are attempting to brand it as. What is �total American�, and how does being �total American� make the observation given about Cindy wrong, and associated with the right?

whisper wrote:       SO who should Americans support? Peace, Human Rights and the International Law.

I said who, not what. So once again, who should the Americans support? I suppose my defiance of spelling etiquette is causing you some lapses in your overall attention such that you overlook the details of the question.

The �concepts� you propose are general ideas that still do not guide Americans, according to whisper, as to what they should do. Please be more specific as to how Americans should behave and think and act.

Since you feel Americans should be more like you, then I hope that you could provide me with that plan. Telling me we should want world peace is a deflection, not the answer to the question. I want world peace also, and harmony, etc, etc.

whisper wrote: You just stated abolsute nonsense. The turh is, you have no argument, only confrontation. Nice attempt to deflect with theoglical triva. Sir, one day, you might grow out of these industrial formats and realise that in older, mature cultures, people work wonders just with this essence that you are quick to bin as �nonsense�.

Mature cultures? Please give me the �sophisticated� mature model that I should more like? Where is this older culture that is the gem of your standards?

And your response was nonsense. You made a reference to theology, which is irrelevant to what I had said.

Oh yea. Could you refer me to the great achievement, and the culture, which used this essence?

whisper wrote:   Thats because you have been conditioned and your ignorance, and arrogance, born out of the delusion that has conditioned you, prevents you from thinking beyond the crude paradigm that you revel in, and worship like a gd. Are you trying to lay claim to being the only specimen on our earth that has, for one reason or another, been left unconditioned?

No, I am laying claim that you are conditioned. It is not about me, it is about you and your �knee jerk� responses. I have never made the claim that you are trying to credit me for.

whisper wrote: Let�s stop punishing the poor key-board and keep people from thinking what they have started to think of our moderators.

I am completely, utterly in awe of what you think of moderation. Really. I am. I am torn up about it. Where did this come from? I would not have ever though you would have bad thoughts about moderation, especially mine. This is such a surprise. I feel so let down. This truly bothers me and I will put it first on my list of personal growth changes. Thanks.

whisper wrote: Please have a look at your post below and at least try and cover it with something a bit decent if not entirely sensible. If you think I am a neocon, then demonstrate it. I already aksed you to. But so far, you only repsond with empty, and wreckless dribble. More meaningless rantings. Yes, I am American. Now what? What naitonality would you like for the world? British? Afhgan? Saudi? French? Anything but Amreican?

I understand.  I think it can be said that this is a type of programmed response on their part.  Actually, and as you probably know, some of the best, most articulate, critics of the neo-conservatives are paleo-conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan, Claes Ryn, et. al.  There is a deep division on the political right.  Even that grand-daddy of  intellectual conservatives and publishers, William F. Buckley, has recently said, concerning George W. Bush, that "if you had a European prime minister who experienced what we've experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign."

Serv
Ref:  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main1826838.shtml - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/22/eveningnews/main18 26838.shtml     

Assalamu Alaikum,

Re: Banning of Aquinian and Muslima

It is imperative to clarify the matter here, that was raised, though, going off topic. All matters related to banning any user are discussed before making final decision. In line with this methodology were , Aquinian and Muslima, discussed prior to the ban.

It also goes against guidelines to accuse a particular moderator in connection with a ban whereas decision was not his/her alone, it was, rather as usual, a task discussed and decided by moderator/administrator group.

Please stick to the thread under discussion.

Peace

Please stick to the thread under discussion.

Though I am really tempted (in fact, intrigued) to ask how a moderator is chosen after experiencing some fresh specimens?

Better go back to the thread.

Duende wrote: �The notion that somehow other western countries are enlightened and removed from the problems of Iraq is a joke.� Brother, again, you are misunderstanding me. When did I say any western country was enlightened?

It is not what has been said, it is what has not been said. I agree that the US has created a huge problem, and Bush is dangerous, but I also acknowledge the other countries involved that are entirely as guilty for the mess. People in this circle seem to leave out the other �agents of chaos�.

denude wrote:   �In this case, I cannot prove a negative. It would be impossible, logically.� I�m sorry, please tell me the logic behind the inability to describe a democracy? I thought it was something to do with �universal sufferage�?

Sister, you asked me to prove that the US is not a democracy. You stated:

I�m glad you think the US is not a democracy. I wish you could prove
it and at the same time define for us what exactly a democracy is,.

I cannot prove that the US is NOT a democracy. In this case, one cannot prove the negative to be true.  Not nit picking, just point this out so you will understand why I did not fulfill your request.

Answering the question: What is a democracy? This would be tantamount to writing a thesis statement. I will make some brief remarks.

1)      The founding fathers of the US made it clear to distinguish between a democracy and a Republic. So indeed, one must understand their understanding of a democracy. Their view was that the differences rested in the amount of influence of the majority on the rule of law. Hence, there must be a way to prevent the majority from pushing their views on the minority. In the last 30 years, we see more and more citizens complaining because the rule of law goes against their personal will, and that voters should be able to decide if X or Y should be allowed or prevented, even if the minority pays the price. A democracy does not have this ability. The idea of �one man one vote�, a mantra during the Bush/Gore fiasco, is a pipe dream. Popular vote does not actually choose the president, nor should it.    

2)      Democracy literally means �rule of (by) the people�

3)      The founding fathers, the framers of the documents that define the US, took elements of �democracy�, but also knew of its dangers. Hence, the Republic, in principle, does not allow for the �will of the people� to impose a majority. The common calls for �the will of the people� is an idea that is against the purpose of this Republic.   

duende wrote: And because it is a Republic means it is not a democracy? From what I can tell, I�m sure the founding father�s you Americans are so fond of are rolling, high-speed in their graves.

That�s correct. They extolled the virtues of protecting and safeguarding the minority against any tyrannical majority. The republic has some elements of �democracy�, but it is not about �the will of the people�, or �one man one vote�. The US was designed as a Constitutional Republic.

duende wrote: �You deny disparity where it exists. Denying a sacred cow does not imply denying what is right or wrong, or giving up your responsibility for distinguishing. Once more, I believe you are having trouble with the idea that one does not have to choose left or right. Your notion that refusing the false dichotomy means one gives up perception of right and wrong is gien to a misunderstanding of reality.� Please enlighten me, where, when and how did I deny dichotomy exists? I agree with you, that the dichotomy exists, that it is false, I can not argue, you seem convinced of it yet unnable to explain it to the rest of us. And please stop using this hackneyed phrase �sacred cow� and herd mentality. These days, it�s called �sheeples� as in sheep+people.

I am curious. You agree yet you feel I have not explained it.

1)      I have explained why it is false. If that explanation is not sufficient, then you must be more �particular� about what you want.

2)      If you agree that a false dichotomy exists, then my rejection of this dichotomy does not require me to have another �party�. If two people fight, and I disagree with both parties, walking off and not taking action is a legitimate choice not requiring that I have �something else�. I rejected both Bush and Kerry, I did not have to write a thesis about what I was or what I should be in order to understand that both sides were bad.

Perhaps you are trying to be �highbrow�, but the terms �sacred cow� and �herd mentality� are quite common here in the lesser cultured, new world. J

dunde wrote: �You have buried your assumption that there is no false dichotomy, and not choosing between the two means you have somehow chosen nothing. With that premise in mind while formulating your question and comment, I will move on.� -I�ve asked you several times to please tell us what there is if you refuse the false dichotomy. I know you have a narrow choice in the US, between Republicans and Democrats. In most other �democracies� and quite a few republics (Germany, and France come to mind) there are several groups to choose from. Obviously (?) if you want to stick with the idea that everything boils down to a false dichotomy, then they are simply shades of each other.

There is your conscience, and your faith. I did not vote for either Bush or Kerry. That did not require me to find something else that exists. I simply made a moral choice. Sometimes all there is is to refrain. There are other parties, with varying degrees of attributes of the two main parties mixed in. If you are asking me what party is �the party�, then you will be disappointed to know that I have no party affiliation, and do not recognize any party that I should give my loyalty to.

duende wrote: Seriously, Andalus, I want to know, I don�t understand how there can be �something� or �nothing� if you do not subscribe to the left/right paradigm

I do not understand your question. It appears you have an unstated �assumption� buried in your request, and I cannot understand what you want of me. I reject the left/right paradigm, it is that simple. Your question seems as if you feel it is impossible to reject it? That we have no choice but to accept it?

duende wrote: I sincerely believe the present day system of politics is decadent: meaning it has reached the end of its natural life. I think most of the world sees this, and what�s more, FEELS it. We all know intuitively that the present economic/capitalist/consumerist/materialist/ democratic system is utterly corrupt but we do not see what can replace it. Is it anarchy? I do not know and I await with baited breath and hopefull that it will be a more equitable, balanced, harmonious society where the teachings of Jesus, The Kuran and the Talmud (as well as the Sikhs) are brought to life in a harmonious existence. I see and feel that this flawed system we�ve created and sold world wide will have a slow and ugly death and that only in time will the results be visible and attainable. I hope, with that, I have made my participation in this post-Hegelian, false dichotomy a little clearer. I am truly open to being shown the falseness of my assumptions, but I need a clearer response from you, if I am to join you in The Middle Of the Road where � what happens exactly?

My dear humble duende, we are all born of false assumptions, and I am not sophist. My intention is never to convince anyone to think as I do, only to exchange beliefs. If you believe in the left, I can respect you for it, just as I hold no ill will to OPS for his beliefs.

I do not have answers, I only see that problems exist, and I simply make a choice not to participate. At the local level, if I think that a politician is doing some good, or has good ideas, I will vote, without care of their political affiliation.

My �road� is simple: Make a difference when I can. The Prophet (saw) told of times when things would be extremely bad, and times when the best thing to do would be to draw closer to Gd and place more emphasis on our religious obligations. I believe that things are out of control, and I have no power to change any of it. If the left invokes the UN to do something that favors a group of Muslims, I am not moved to tears and run to the left because the UN is, at its core, un-Islamic. If the US right wing does something like remove Sadaam Hussein, I am not moved to join them, regardless of how brutal he was, simply because the west helped him to power, and its was a pretense for the west to manipulate the country. I am already making plans to move from the US sometime in the next five years. The direction my country is taking disturbs me. Then again, maybe that is cowardly. I recall a story when the Mongols had swept Muslim lands, creating great destruction and death. It must have seemed like the end of the world.

Many Naqshabandis did not run and migrate from the conquered territories to the safety of the Seljuks in the Middle East. Many stayed behind, to act as beacons of light for anyone who might be lost in the dark. One such man had an encounter with a Mongol (of the Chaghatay line if memory serves). The  Naqshbandi man unknowingly trespassed on a hunting preserve of Prince Tuqluq Timur Khan. This brought forth a meeting that would have great ramifications on the history of Islam. This meeting lead to the conversion of Timur to Islam, and this conversion energized many other conversions. The grandson of Timur, the Mongol turned Muslim, started a grand civilization in central Asia, and left of legacy His grandson Ulugh Beg, was a great scholar of mathematics and astronomy and made contributions to the sciences (although the western history texts have remained silent on his achievements and only credit western Christians who used Muslim works). I have seen the ruins of this once great civilization, and remind myself that sometimes small efforts can beget great change.      

duende wrote: Have a nice break!

I am not leaving just yet! I was told today that my clinical rotation will not begin until October, so I will have some time when the actual semester starts again, but not like I have now (in Europe they call my current field of study Physiotherapy, although my current degree and background is in Physics with a concentration in mathematics).

Take care!

Andalus wrote: Maryah wrote: Andalus wrote: Maryah wrote: . Even funnier? Need a good laugh, look at Bush's "hometown" webpage, seems he didn't even call it home until 1999...what a farce he is! http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html - http://www.crawford-texas.org/index.html Vicinte Fox, who is also close with Bush, like wise had a government that craps on civil rights, and the British government is also reducing the ability for people to protest close to the Parliment building, and will provide "protest zones". So for sure we now have three emperors! Will you also agree that Fox would not have allowed a Mexican Cindy (Cynthia) to set up a shanty town next to Fox's home?  And you are also right on about Bush and his created personification. He has little to do with Texas, and reports suggest that he is affraid of horses. All that matters is that the people are given his "appearance" to vote for, as opposed to the Kerry image. Two choices to fit the two parties. Reality dictates that there was no real choice. Only the illusion. LOL you are so right! And what I can gather from the mexican news here is that they have created a "no protest zone" around El presidente's palace in Cuidad de Mexico...that is old news.. but the new presidente will not be feasting in the Bush thicket  from what I am gathering....Much of Amerika del Sur is already against the Bush. I have to laugh everytime I see Bush with his cowboy hat. Apparently Fox offered to have a saddle made for Bush but her refused. I am not sure if that is true or not.

 Brother he cannot even sit on his Golf cart correctly..besides, he would have to screen the horse, it might be an Arab.. a covert al qaida 0perative. You will find Mr. Bush most likely in the henhouse chasing the banties!

.

Hanan wrote: From Tony Snow to Cindy Sheehan: Drink Gatorade 8.10.2006 -- This is what one of my children said years ago when we drove past a military cemetery. Row after row of stone people, standing on mounds of dirt, covering the flag-draped coffins of real people. Real people now numbering 2,822 in this war that is beyond catastrophic. Almost 2,600 of these are US soldiers. Thousands of Iraqis are dying each month. Coalition troops are not perceived as liberators of grateful Iraqis free at last from the grip of a tyrant. Instead, we are occupiers, and our incursion has unleashed sectarian violence that shows no sign of abating. Life is so bad in Iraq that its citizens long for the days when Saddam Hussein was in power. Just last week, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, the US commander for the Middle East, General John Abizaid, uttered the reality: "civil war." This must strike revulsion in Donald Rumsfeld, that pompous war pimp who is denying he ever painted a rosy picture of war. Certainly, George Bush couldn't have been pleased with Abizaid's admission. After all, in nearly every speech the puppet president reads, he says "total victory" over and over to his hypnotized base while so many "apathetics" tune to America's next top something or other. Bush has said that there are days when we don't hear the good news about the war in Iraq. Is it because the only news out of Iraq is horrendous? And that this news is matched only by the atrocities in Lebanon? Meanwhile, George is vacationing in Crawford. While charging a hill during an almost hour-and-a-half bicycle ride, the president yelled, "Air assault!" As our troops ride in poorly armored vehicles, susceptible countless times a day to improvised explosive devices, George, surrounded by Secret Service agents, is impersonating a soldier on his 1,600 acre ranch. His new neighbor, Cindy Sheehan has returned to Crawford, hoping to ask, face to face, the question she posed last year when she sparked the anti-war movement: "For what noble cause did my son Casey die in Iraq?" White House press secretary Tony Snow, in Crawford with Bush, was talking to reporters about Israel and Lebanon when someone said: "What are the plans for either meeting or not meeting with Cindy Sheehan?" Snow's dismissive answer characterizes the condescension of the Bush administration. "I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade, or both." One of the reporters should have reminded Snow about his first televised briefing when he assumed his post-Fox News assignment. Tony wept while discussing his recovery from cancer and his mother's death from the same disease when he was 17. Seems Tony becomes emotional when he talks about his own misfortune, a bout with an illness from which his physicians say he has completely recovered. For Cindy Sheehan, who suffers a loss for which there is no healing, he shows not a scrap of compassion - only the flip suggestion, let her drink "water" and "Gatorade." It is Tony who requires his liquids. He has to be dehydrated after the long bicycle ride with his boss. And after all the tears he's cried over the lemons life has tossed his way. As the Bush team vacations in Texas, they occasionally appear in suits to convince us that they respect the seriousness, if not the dead, of their foreign policy cauldron. To each, I quote Dr. Elton Trueblood: "A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit." Bush should be planting shade trees for Cindy Sheehan in Crawford. Sadly, George won't. Instead, he may clear a little brush on his property and again ride his bike with shouts of "air assault" while the Middle East boils and those of us who mourn the dead, and the dead to come, wonder what country will next feel the wrath of his ice-cold heart. "Look at all the stone people." There will be many more before George Bush leaves office. TruthOut http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081006B.shtml

She had the chance to ask that question when he met with her but she didn't ask it until the press was around.

And for Snows advice, well Cindy was put in the hospital for dehydration so maybe she should have listened to him. Seems he cared more than you think.

ops154 wrote: Hanan wrote: Snow's dismissive answer characterizes the condescension of the Bush administration. "I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade, or both." Seems Tony becomes emotional when he talks about his own misfortune, a bout with an illness from which his physicians say he has completely recovered. For Cindy Sheehan, who suffers a loss for which there is no healing, he shows not a scrap of compassion - only the flip suggestion, let her drink "water" and "Gatorade." Ithttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081006B.shtml   She had the chance to ask that question when he met with her but she didn't ask it until the press was around.   And for Snows advice, well Cindy was put in the hospital for dehydration so maybe she should have listened to him. Seems he cared more than you think.

Ops evidently you are not a reader of snide people, the guy was being facetious. (If you do not know what that means I suggest you look it up!) Basically, it was a way to say that they, the Bush team,  would speak to Cindy Sheehan "when hell freezes over" . Snow cared about as much about Cindy in the same sense as a famous French Queen  in history who once made a statement when she heard that her subjects were starving in the streets and were clamoring at the gates of the palace for bread. She stated "Well, then let them eat cake". Which was a contributing factor in the start of the French Revolution. She went headless shortly after that.

Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Hanan wrote: Snow's dismissive answer characterizes the condescension of the Bush administration. "I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade, or both." Seems Tony becomes emotional when he talks about his own misfortune, a bout with an illness from which his physicians say he has completely recovered. For Cindy Sheehan, who suffers a loss for which there is no healing, he shows not a scrap of compassion - only the flip suggestion, let her drink "water" and "Gatorade." Ithttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081006B.shtml   She had the chance to ask that question when he met with her but she didn't ask it until the press was around.   And for Snows advice, well Cindy was put in the hospital for dehydration so maybe she should have listened to him. Seems he cared more than you think. Ops evidently you are not a reader of snide people

And apparently you are not either, I was being sarcastic.

ops154 wrote: Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Hanan wrote: Snow's dismissive answer characterizes the condescension of the Bush administration. "I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade, or both." Seems Tony becomes emotional when he talks about his own misfortune, a bout with an illness from which his physicians say he has completely recovered. For Cindy Sheehan, who suffers a loss for which there is no healing, he shows not a scrap of compassion - only the flip suggestion, let her drink "water" and "Gatorade." Ithttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081006B.shtml   She had the chance to ask that question when he met with her but she didn't ask it until the press was around.   And for Snows advice, well Cindy was put in the hospital for dehydration so maybe she should have listened to him. Seems he cared more than you think. Ops evidently you are not a reader of snide people   And apparently you are not either, I was being sarcastic.

And if you had an ounce of courtesy, you would know better than spitting on your hosts..After all, you are posting on a Muslim forum, and I am a Muslim. Please refrain from your rudeness...

and save it for your chest thumping, burly guy forums. You  are tiresome. 

Maryah
Senior Member


Joined: 29 March 2006
Location: Mexico
Online Status: Online
Posts: 454

Zindabaad, sister, F R E E D O M!! Best wishes and dua for this change.

Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Maryah wrote: ops154 wrote: Hanan wrote: Snow's dismissive answer characterizes the condescension of the Bush administration. "I would advise her to bring water, Gatorade, or both." Seems Tony becomes emotional when he talks about his own misfortune, a bout with an illness from which his physicians say he has completely recovered. For Cindy Sheehan, who suffers a loss for which there is no healing, he shows not a scrap of compassion - only the flip suggestion, let her drink "water" and "Gatorade." Ithttp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081006B.shtml   She had the chance to ask that question when he met with her but she didn't ask it until the press was around.   And for Snows advice, well Cindy was put in the hospital for dehydration so maybe she should have listened to him. Seems he cared more than you think. Ops evidently you are not a reader of snide people   And apparently you are not either, I was being sarcastic. And if you had an ounce of courtesy, you would know better than spitting on your hosts..After all, you are posting on a Muslim forum, and I am a Muslim. Please refrain from your rudeness... and save it for your chest thumping, burly guy forums. You  are tiresome.

Oh please tell me where I "spit" on you. All I did was say the same thing back to you and then you post about my rudeness with "save it for your chest thumping, burly guy forums. You  are tiresome. " Did you not just "spit" on me with your reply? You should only demand as much respect as you give!!!

Whisper wrote: Maryah Senior Member Joined: 29 March 2006 Location: Mexico Online Status: Online Posts: 454 Zindabaad, sister, F R E E D O M!! Best wishes and dua for this change.

shukran jaziilan raha

.

Hanan wrote:   a famous French Queen  in history who once made a statement when she heard that her subjects were starving in the streets and were clamoring at the gates of the palace for bread. She stated "Well, then let them eat cake". Which was a contributing factor in the start of the French Revolution. She went headless shortly after that.

And an in-famous american Queen said on a tour of hurricane relief centers in Houston: �What I�m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this [she chuckles slightly] is working very well for them."

 Look out OPS will get you for that! Beware of those who have nothing better to do that harass Muslims in their home!

Not really connected to the theme of this thread, but perhaps so, since we are talking about freedom of speech........

Have been "away" for a few days.  I notice things are getting interesting in this thread.  Forgive me for going backwards, but this one can't be let go.........

Re:  Andalus and Aquinian's alleged cat fight:  my allegations that is............Just out of interest, and despite very limited time right now, I went back over some of Aquinian's posts.  I found them fair-minded, reasonable, logical, a fresh viewpoint when perhaps one was needed. Although I don't believe I ever responded to them, which now I see is a pity. I didn't agree with everything, but he (she?) was new, after all.  It took me awhile to learn the "vibes" of Islamicity.  Now I feel quite at home.  (Hence...............)

However, when I posted recently against Andalus - and my view of his high minded carryings on (in my relatively humble opinion) - and referred to my perceptions of his "ad-hominem" attacks, I did not remember seeing this:

Aquinian wrote:

Andalus, you are making an ad hominem fallacy.  I'm sorry you are failing to see that:

1. A makes claim X.
2. There is something objectionable about A.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1.  Aquinian makes the claim that Islam is false (based on the creation timeline contradiction)

2.  There is something objectionable about Aquinian; namely, his faith has a creation timeline contradiction as well.

3.  Therefore, Aquinian's claim against Islam is false.

This is the argument you are making and it is failing, Andalus.  I'm sorry.

The objectionable part about me is that my faith supposedly has the same problem with the timeline of creation.  You are attacking the messenger, Andalus.  If I was an atheist, you could not make the argument you are making because Christianity comes into the equation.  Do you understand?  I will say it again.  If I was an atheist, then you could make the claim about Christianity and I would agree.  "Yes, that goes for Christianity too.  Both Islam and Christianity are untrue because their Creation timelines don't make sense."  Do you understand what I am saying?

Unfortunately, you failed to correctly argue why the timeline of creation in Islam is without error.  You seem insistent on attacking Christianity in response to my arguments against Islam rather than defending your faith.  This only indicates that you find your faith indefensible. 

(Cassie's note:  why should we be called upon to "defend faith?".  This to me personally is just plain silly.  However..............) 

As for Christianity, I make no defense of it on any rational basis.  How can one argue rationally for Jesus Christ walking on water?  How does one make logical sense of the blind being healed with water and dirt?  Make all the arguments against Christianity that you want.  It will still be true and Islam will still be false.  The miracles of Christ and Christendom are proof enough for me. (Same God though?  One God?  Different prophets?  Correct me if I am wrong, in all seriousness.)

Curiouser and curiouser!

Following the post below, I see that Duende and others agreed with me about your suitability, perhaps your level of maturity and control, or simply your time, to continue to moderate this Forum:  Vis.............

The two were completely different.

Aquinian was "dispatched" due to his patterns of "bad intentions", using the threads to insult the Prophet (saw) when he was unable to make good on his claims. He was not Muslim, his pattern was not to learn but to hurl "propoganda"(sp). I was one of others who wanted him gone.  (My purple. hmmm...............? )

Yet, again on looking back, I see a topic, started by Andalus, closed with a last post by Andalus (but not commented on beyond that) entitled:  Why Aquinian should be banned? or words to that effect.  Eliciting support for your own point of view from other forum members? Perhaps I have no idea as I was told when I tried to investigate further that I lacked the necessary authority to find out!

Please don't start at our poor Andalus, he is alright, in fact we can really start to enjoy him.

It's just that we all run through this phase of trying to find a little corner in some intellectual light as soon as we happen to discover a philospher or two and get equiped with half a dozen mod phrases. 

Please spare him, I promise, he will grow out of it and start to sound quite human, soon. I have recently seen one of his very good posts.

.

Cassandra wrote: Not really connected to the theme of this thread, but perhaps so, since we are talking about freedom of speech........

Actually it is completely irrelevant to the thread. Your need to return to covered ground and argue over what you think is right or wrong about it speaks volumes of your desire to waste time, and you love to try and gain some victory over �nothing�.

 Also, keep in mind that the method for banning people here went beyond my �argument� with aquinian. In fact, what I find totally ignorant is your desire to see muslimah banned and your patience for aquinain. Your priorities and your outlook are clouded by your dubious ego you feel you must somehow �save�.

Aquinian put up material that was removed, and cannot be seen, which was extremely insulting to the Prophet and Muslims. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to say what ever you want, and only the thoughtless and uneducated think this is so.

I am actually honored that the you feel such a need to �get at me�, even after days after my last contribution. I did not realize I had such an effect on you.

Furthermore, if you continue to post out of topic, I will ask another moderator to intervene to have your posts deleted (if they see it needs to be done), since I know you will cry out for the injustice that you feel has been done to you if I act. Also, this thread is moving out of bounds from the topic, and if it becomes an eyesore with your relentless trying to �get one up� on me, I will have admin intervene, for possible �lock down� of the thread, if they see fit. If you want to take a swipe at me, then bring forth an issue and debate. I am not interested in entering into a �cat fight� to see who has th last word, who gets the best insult in. There is no benefit in it.

cas wrote: Have been "away" for a few days.  I notice things are getting interesting in this thread.  Forgive me for going backwards, but this one can't be let go.........

No, your desire to justify the participation of aquinian, who has put up some of the filthiest material about Islam and the prophet, is phenomenal. Your problem is that you think you know more than you actually do. That is your weakness.

cas wrote: Re:  Andalus and Aquinian's alleged cat fight:  my allegations that is............Just out of interest, and despite very limited time right now, I went back over some of Aquinian's posts.  I found them fair-minded, reasonable, logical, a fresh viewpoint when perhaps one was needed.  Although I don't believe I ever responded to them, which now I see is a pity. I didn't agree with everything, but he (she?) was new, after all.  It took me awhile to learn the "vibes" of Islamicity.  Now I feel quite at home.  (Hence...............) However, when I posted recently against Andalus - and my view of his high minded carryings on (in my relatively humble opinion) - and referred to my perceptions of his "ad-hominem" attacks, I did not remember seeing this: Aquinian wrote: Andalus, you are making an ad hominem fallacy.  I'm sorry you are failing to see that: 1.       A makes claim X. 2.       There is something objectionable about A. 3.       Therefore claim X is false. 1.  Aquinian makes the claim that Islam is false (based on the creation timeline contradiction) 2.  There is something objectionable about Aquinian; namely, his faith has a creation timeline contradiction as well. 3.  Therefore, Aquinian's claim against Islam is false. This is the argument you are making and it is failing, Andalus.  I'm sorry. The objectionable part about me is that my faith supposedly has the same problem with the timeline of creation.  You are attacking the messenger, Andalus.  If I was an atheist, you could not make the argument you are making because Christianity comes into the equation.  Do you understand?  I will say it again.  If I was an atheist, then you could make the claim about Christianity and I would agree.  "Yes, that goes for Christianity too.  Both Islam and Christianity are untrue because their Creation timelines don't make sense."  Do you understand what I am saying? Unfortunately, you failed to correctly argue why the timeline of creation in Islam is without error.  You seem insistent on attacking Christianity in response to my arguments against Islam rather than defending your faith.  This only indicates that you find your faith indefensible.  (Cassie's note:  why should we be called upon to "defend faith?".  This to me personally is just plain silly.  However..............)

I do not know. Maybe you should email aquinian and ask him, if you are so preoccupied by him.

cas wrote: As for Christianity, I make no defense of it on any rational basis.  How can one argue rationally for Jesus Christ walking on water?  How does one make logical sense of the blind being healed with water and dirt?  Make all the arguments against Christianity that you want.  It will still be true and Islam will still be false.  The miracles of Christ and Christendom are proof enough for me. (Same God though?  One God?  Different prophets?  Correct me if I am wrong, in all seriousness.) Curiouser and curiouser! Following the post below, I see that Duende and others agreed with me about your suitability, perhaps your level of maturity and control, or simply your time, to continue to moderate this Forum:  Vis............. Cassandra wrote: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle Andalus:  It is the mark of a cultured mind to be able to do so without finding it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks. We have already seen how you dispatched Aquinian just because the two of you were having a cat fight, after only a few posts almost completely between the two of you, while it had taken almost 800 posts before a concerted boycott managed to get Muslima banned.  I wrote a "report" about it at the time displaying my disgust. The two were completely different. Aquinian was "dispatched" due to his patterns of "bad intentions", using the threads to insult the Prophet (saw) when he was unable to make good on his claims. He was not Muslim, his pattern was not to learn but to hurl "propoganda"(sp). I was one of others who wanted him gone.  (My purple. hmmm...............? ) Yet, again on looking back, I see a topic, started by Andalus, closed with a last post by Andalus (but not commented on beyond that) entitled:  Why Aquinian should be banned? or words to that effect.  Eliciting support for your own point of view from other forum members? Perhaps I have no idea as I was told when I tried to investigate further that I lacked the necessary authority to find out!

Once more your weakness is your undoing. Your conclusion is false, given that the claim, �I was one of others who wanted him gone.� is not contradicted by your ability to observe a thread in the "moderators section�, since �others� does not imply that it may only arrive through a thread in the �moderators only� forum. This is the folly of your arrogance, and why your conclusion is bad.   

 So you may see what you want, but as long as you are unable to think things through and just �assume�, then what you see means nothing, except of course by you.

If you have so many problems with the absence of aquinian, then please support your love for him in the �comments and complaints� section. Another moderator has already commented that this topic is not relevant to the thread. Yet here you are.

cas wrote: cassandra wrote: As a moderator, I would have thought that it would behoove you to set an example, not refer to a long standing member as "sophomoric"  etc., etc., ad nauseum. As a moderator, I am also a participant. I call a spade a spade. My labeling was correct. My title (role?) as moderator does not imply that I must agree with you and your poltics(sp). This is the real issue, hidden under the guise of disatisfaction ("). (ad nauseum is interesting term as in logic, one could directly apply it to posts of the one who I referred to as "sophmororic" (sp) .)  (and perhaps, but I didn't did I?) (Do I detect a first year philosophy major here?  Have I marked some of your papers?Servetus, what is your opinion on this?) duende wrote: And finally, Andalus, I have noted with interest Cassandra�s post. I too am questioning your ability to hold the post of Moderator. No, the real issue at hand is my views.  (No, as far as I am concerned it is your presentation of your views which is at issue.  Your views, my views, Whisper's views, Duende's views, Aquinian's views (?) are and should be welcomed here unless they disturb the majority of members, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Gnostic, Agnostic......(yes, it's an Islamic Forum, but surely no-one, no religion can afford to be insular in this day and age), as was the case with the Muslima boycott).

I am not the one who has stopped anyone�s views here. My views were attacked by the regular "click"  (yes it is misspelled, I thought I would throw you a tid bit so you can a little something to feel good about yourself with) here. That is what happened. I even left things alone, and you are still nagging me about it. Nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag. Seriously, look at this post of yours. It is one big , non coherent, nag fest. Normally I do not mind, but you are trying to unfairly, place me at the center of your emotional rant.

You do not make up the rules of Islamicity. I will take your �feelings� about them, and place them �under advisement�, since emotional complaints about them does not add anything useful to the discourse. If you do not like them, then purpose a change in rules on comments and complaints. I did not invent them (rules).

If what someone intentionally says something that disrespects the prophet, or Islam, or Muslims, then they will be warned, and if the behavior continues, then they will be removed. Islamcity also recognizes other faiths and will remove someone for bashing their faiths. That�s how it is.  

Someone disrespecting  the Prophet may not offend someone of another faith.

cas wrote:  Lets be honest. (Yes, let's.  I believe in honesty.  Have been much warmed by it lately...) You are questioning my ability to go along with the world views of the click  (sic:  another one - that's "clique" folks!) which permeates this forum. My time is becoming scarce, and in the next two weeks I will be isolated to simply "moderating" and less participation. So the thread will once more be free to make any unchallenged, unquestioned, biased assertions it wishes (logic here?)  (my we are important are we not?), and high five one another for the best "The US is the sole cause of problems for the rest of the world"  one liners.  (In actuality, most posts of any worth are much, longer, but occasionally brevity works best.  Take a course in Chinese philosophy.  Well worth while. Logic is good, but even Aristotle was reluctant to use it.)

More nagging! You are now�lol making issues about spelling. Pretty desperate ay? It seems you cannot make a single rational point and back it up, but you love to point out spelling errors. Nag, nag, nag, nag.

I really think you should take a course in �logic�. Chinese philosophy has some interesting points, but in all, scientific formulation is based upon the ideas of logic, as is the pillars of fiqh. Not that I am professing that logic is the end of everything, but it is in the context of this thread.

I cannot find anything else that even hints at being worthy of a serious reply.    

cass wrote: Cassarda (at least get my name right, Aladnus, please) is mad (perfectly sane actually, though on occasion a little eccentric, but my friends love me, nevertheless) because of my thread with her friend (fellow Forum member actually, but, whatever turns you on, as they say.in CAL-IF- OR-NI-A....), and her willingness to excuse Aquinian as some kind of victim is riotous.  (Hmm, do I suspect a potential militant here too?) Not to mention her lop-sided view of Muslimah also sums up her biased view. (Note from the English professor:  Before advising others on the taking of Critical Thinking Skills Courses, Introductory, or any other, it is advised that you take a course in basic spelling and English usage.  This is clearly an unclear pronoun reference. )

More nagging, and silly juvenile comments. You cannot seem to make a reasonable point, and so you quibble about insignificant spelling errors. Let me ask you: What difference does it make if you care so much for spelling if you have no ability to make any sense. I do not worry about my misuse of spelling technique, because I get across my point. Something you fall short of.  

cas wrote: Or is it?  Wasn't it Muslima's view which was lopsided?

Are you asking me or telling me? Again, your care of spelling does help you when you cannot put across a basic point.  

cas wrote:  Wasn't it the beautiful and deafening silence of the members, deafening because of their absence, which resulted in the decision to ban Muslima...? Oh, no, of course not...excuse me, it was simply a coincidence after many, many members responded to Patty's post asking for her banning, and mine, very tongue in cheek, with the result that at the very least, our little suicide bomber brought the real and human decency of the members of this Forum to a fore.  A show of force of arms, so to speak, against such horrors as she presented.  You were just about to ban her anyway, weren't you? Or are you perhaps still an afficionado of her bravado?

"Still" is an assumption that is false. Perhaps you can take time from your love of spelling and pick up a book on critical thinking?

Islamcity is not a �democracy�, the mob does not rule. Muslimah, as compared to your love aquinian, was a �muslim�. Keep that in mind. At least she accepts the basic tenants of a Muslim. This I can work with, as can other Muslims. That is the most important thing to remember. She was not educated in Islam and its principle ideas, and her interpretations were regurgitated from bad sources. Still, she is �muslim�, and worth the time to try and talk to. Aquinian had posted trash from polemical sites that were irrelevant to the thread, simply as a way to take swipes. He had been given several chances. He was not Muslim (as compared to Muslimah), and his intentions were not honest.

I gave other mods my support in their aim to talk with her. It failed. She was banned.

cas wrote:   Who's next?  Cassandra?  Their expulsions were done appropriately with discussion. I will take your views on my position of moderator under advisement.     duende wrote: And finally, Andalus, I have noted with interest Cassandra�s post. I too am questioning your ability to hold the post of Moderator. Not just my view, Andalus.

Casandra, your well thought out, highly intellectual, effective, inspiring words, and coherent points have inspired me to take your words deeply. I am very taken aback by your dislike of my post as moderator. Really. I will not sleep tonight, or tomorrow night based upon your dislike of me. I will write this down in my journal and place it on my list of �positive growth� goals for the summer. I will keep you posted on my personal development. Thanks

 

cas wrote: (BTW: I am left wondering whether one who claims quite openly that he "couldn't care less" about certain things,

Sure, about what you think. And what? :lol: You think too highly of yourself. You really are not that central to the internet or Islamicity. Seriously. I hate to break it to you.

Where does it say I have to care about your thoughts on my moderation title? So far, your thoughts have been less than able to show anything of value that discredits me as a moderator.

cas wrote: and admits to having very little time right now, may not be giving certain posts, certain members perhaps enough time to develop their views;

Interesting. You are proud of your care for spelling, but your comprehension is horrid. Since you have trouble with thinking through things in a comprehensive manner, I shall, for the record, spell it out for you.

1)       Due to an upcoming event, I stated I will spend less time participating, and will only moderate. (this means I will only be able to moderate, did you get that point?)

2)       I then later stated I would be able to participate and moderate as the event in question was put on a later date. (this means I will be able to participate and moderate, is this ok for you to understand?)

3)       Your last two claims are derived from bad thinking. Besides, when did you need time to develop your views? So far, you have no views on anything I have been involved with. This entire thread is witless, and a waste of time.

cas wrote:  perhaps, as in Aquinian's case, a little more time might have allowed the aforesaid banned member to learn that Islamicity is a beautiful place, with good and reasonable people.  But on Aquinian's last post, no-one got a word in edgewise, Andalus.  You dominated the board.)

postamble();

Your great hope, aquinian, had blatantly violated the rules, not small minor rules as you have habit in looking into, but larger ones, and I was not the only one who had to remove the garbage he would place in threads (which, even if we allowed vile material about the Prophet (saw) to be posted, was still irrelevant to the thread). Aquinian was not here to learn, and the decision was made, not just by me, but others, to remove him. Your access to a thread in moderator discussion still only gives you part of the picture, and your attempt to draw a conclusion from this thread is laughable and displays your willingness to jump to conclusions as long as you feel your irrational thoughts are validated. I do not owe you any more of an explanation about him, and I did not dominate anything. Your ignorance of how and why he was removed is not an item that �must� be educated nor does the entire process have to be disclosed to you. You are not owed anything. If I had been in the wrong, the admin would not have backed me. I was not the only one who wanted him gone. I am reminding you that this is not part of this thread and is out of place, and this is the final word I will give you about this topic. If you feel you must rant and rave about aquinian, then please do it in comments and complaints. If you continue to use aquinian as a way to try and target me on this thread, or other threads, I will turn the matter over to the other mods, and let you deal with them. I have nothing more to say on this thread about the matter. There is no benefit in continuing this with you.  

Good luck.  

 

-------------
A feeling of discouragement when you slip up is a sure sign that you put your faith in deeds. -Ibn 'Ata'llah
http://www.sunnipath.com
http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/
http://www.pt-go.com/

Whisper wrote:   Brother Andalus, (though its supposed to be El Andalus)

No, it is intentionally "andalus", without the accurate transliteration "AL", not "El". Your assumtion that I must have made a mistake is more of your arrogance.

whisper wrote:   I wish you luck with your games of such innocence; of technologically crafted words, jargon, phrases and, at times, passing down to us other peoples� (often run past their �say by dates�) quotes, as if some gospel truths. I understand, all of us are prone to running through such phases, of needing to see us through an intellectual light. Normally, such innocence strikes us during or soon after our uni days when the excitement of discovering �phrases� and a philosopher or two is still bouncing fresh within us. Brother, I look back and find myself running through my phase just a few decades ago. But, luckily, I was allowed to hold allegiance to nothing other than Huqqooq el Ibaad � not to some flag or nationality. I was also lucky to see that our planet holds a thousand shades of culture in quite early years of my life. Had it not been for this fact, I would have also sworn by MacCulture alone and trashed anything, any shade different to mine. I have grown to learn that this trivia has proven to be far more powerful than all the Intel pooled together by our les reasonables. My friend, since reading My observations about Cindy are based upon observations I have come to accept that only your observations can count, perhaps, only because you happen to be wrapped in Stars and Stripes. And, observations of all others who see you in any particular light have to go the way most Security Council resolutions on Israel go! I had pointed to the state of mind you had while keying-in your message to me, which had reflected in your spellings, I have no problem with anyone�s spellings. I wish you luck my friend, one day you might grow to think and feel like a human being instead of being trapped in your nationality and calling a mother all sorts of names � instead of telling us what she should be doing. In most older cultures, it�s motherhood that counts more than industry, stock exchange or even some theories of obsolete authors or fee low sopers. And, if you know the Quran, you would also know what sacred rights a mother holds. Cindy Sheehan deserves all the respect we can afford. Dispute that with any mean tools and I will tear you apart through to your real colours � despite the fact that right now I am already into a 25 hours a day � 8 days a week sort of a calendar with three huge global projects. I will do that as a mere tribute to my most beautiful mother�s memory.

I really think you should take a course in �logic�.

I promise, she will, from the day you prove to us that logic is the end all and be all of Life. And, nothing exists beyond or this side of it.

It would also greatly help if you found a good locker for your terribly fragile ego when you arrive for your "moderation assignments" at such a mob of heavy intellect.

to somehow paint yourself in some untouchable ivroy tower, and any criticism I have posed is somehow "beneath you". You are only hiding behind your charade of snobbery.

You couldn't be more right. A painter thinks everyone else to be just a painter like himself! Must thank you for proving my point. I know, it must be extremely hard for you to realise that some of us can be actually struck by a genuine misfortune of being locked up in some Ivory Towers of fate's making.

You are only hiding behind your charade of snobbery.

I am sad, it will disappoint you to know that my snobbery is not some American product or spin. It's a simple genuine item, miled through some 630 odd years of a certain type of genetic engineering.

I might explain it once you have invested in a new pair of gogles for recognising culture and, particularly, the ones which exist beyond reasoning and its plastic temples. 

I do not readily give repsect,

I do understand. I also know that it's not easy for us to give something that has been refused to us in our early years.

I have my sympathy with you, your behaviour is in fact your heritage of some very strong, very deep reasons. I will sincerely apologise for any words I may have used about you or for you. You are already so badly hurt. I will pray for you in earnest.