http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/arab-spring-al-qaeda-flag-planted-above-the-libyan-courthouse-in-benghazi-video/

Really, I shouldn't be blaming just Obama for the West's useful idiot stupity displayed in this latest Libyan Revolution.

Virtually everyone in the West was on board, including most on the Right.

There's a fundamental lack of understanding in the world of islamic [lack of] culture and it's core teachings.

Fundamentalist islam simply CAN NOT be seperated from politics. Islam is a very legal and political religion.

Muhammad wasn't just some [fake] prophet discussing theology in a desert, he was the MILITARY and POLITICAL ruler of his early followers.

Imagine if Jesus and his early disciples invaded the entire region, beheaded people left and right, raped and enslaved everything in sight, declared it holy war sanctioned by God, and that any Christian soldier who killed and died in this Crusade was guaranteed eternal paradise.

That's the true nature of islam and always will be because that's how it was founded and codified.

Systematic oppression of non-islamic belief and aggressive expansionism are CORE islamic teachings.

Now, it's simply undeniable that most Libyans are fundamentalist muslimes.

So supporting a popular uprising in that country, or in any country with similar muslim demographics, is GUARANTEED to result in the ushering in of theocracy and islamic militancy.

That's why Bush's and the neo-con's idealistic "give democracy to everybody and all the world's problems will go away!" idea has been totally debunked by recent history in that region.

We need to understand that ISLAM should be our primary target - not their dictators who are a RESULT of islam.

Secularizing muslims is the ONLY WAY to ensure long term peace and human progress.

Unfortunately, the West is doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing.

We're trying to force a "liberal" (more like Christian) version of islam on devout muslims by playing along with their public relations propaganda that islam is a fundamentally tolerant religion of peace and that we have nothing to worry about from the "handful of extremists"; while we willfully ignore all the vomit inducing gross crimes against humanity committed by muslims globally on a daily basis.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.jihadwatch.org/

We need to start being frank with muslims. They need to be told point blank that their religion is totally fucked up and unacceptable, that they should leave it, or at the very least we should make them admit that their religion is fucked and convince them to totally overhaul it.

Nothing short of that will do I'm afraid.

They desperately need the same type of full blown secular assualt that Christianity received centuries ago.

And for God sakes, STOP DEFENDING ISLAM you demented politically correct leftists (and pathetic rightists).

Gaddafi sponsored the Pan Am bombing. Obama killed him.

Life's a bitch when your a terrorist and on the Obama hit list. Nuff said.

Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much greater threat to race.

Akbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much greater
> threat to race.

Obama has plenty of drones.

Americans are delusional to believe the group taking over in Libya is going to be change from Gaddafi. They will probably be as corrupt as the governments install on Afghanistan and Iraq. They will probably be more allegant to Islamic law. They will probably be more of a threat go Israel than gaddaffi.

Akbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans are delusional to believe the group
> taking over in Libya is going to be change from
> Gaddafi. They will probably be as corrupt as the
> governments install on Afghanistan and Iraq. They
> will probably be more allegant to Islamic law.
> They will probably be more of a threat go Israel
> than gaddaffi.

You obviously don't know a lot about Gaddafi's history. Read up on the all American scuffles between Libya and the US. You'll have a better understanding of why Gaddafi had to go. The CIA will manage the elections.

Funny how all these Bush-loving Neo-Cons had no problem spending a trillion bucks and ten years to replace thugs with Islamic radicals, but Obama takes out a thug in a matter of months for $1.5 billion and suddenly it's an issue.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Man, you sure love thegatewaypundit.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how all these Bush-loving Neo-Cons had no
> problem spending a trillion bucks and ten years to
> replace thugs with Islamic radicals, but Obama
> takes out a thug in a matter of months for $1.5
> billion and suddenly it's an issue.

LOL, Meanwhile we're still trying to get out of Iraq and Afgahnistan.

Operation Enduring Freedom

OFFICIAL DoD COUNT OF:

Troops Killed in Iraq: 4472
Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 1811
Wounded in Action: 46830

For less money Obama achieved the same regionally destabilizing effect.

Akbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much greater
> threat to race.


One thing I have learned, forward-looking thinking from conservatives is usually wrong.

And do not give me shit about me being wrong - you full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of the time correct.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Akbar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much
> greater
> > threat to race.
>
>
> One thing I have learned, forward-looking thinking
> from conservatives is usually wrong.
>
> And do not give me shit about me being wrong - you
> full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of the
> time correct.

No, you are wrong quite a bit and it has been proven. Or, you are a liar. Which is it?

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One thing I have learned, forward-looking thinking
> from conservatives is usually wrong.
>
> And do not give me shit about me being wrong - you
> full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of the
> time correct.

+10

I'd add most conservatives are good at directing the country back towards caveman days.

fact checker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Akbar Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much
> > greater
> > > threat to race.
> >
> >
> > One thing I have learned, forward-looking
> thinking
> > from conservatives is usually wrong.
> >
> > And do not give me shit about me being wrong -
> you
> > full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of
> the
> > time correct.
>
> No, you are wrong quite a bit and it has been
> proven. Or, you are a liar. Which is it?

You have never proved it. You found one post out of thousands I made a mistake. You do not even have the balls to register. You post BS everyday day anonymously and then move on. You are a worthless piece of trash.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Splash 2. 1989 - USA 2, Libya 0

Akbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans are delusional to believe the group
> taking over in Libya is going to be change from
> Gaddafi. They will probably be as corrupt as the
> governments install on Afghanistan and Iraq. They
> will probably be more allegant to Islamic law.
> They will probably be more of a threat go Israel
> than gaddaffi.


Well there will be one change. It will be a lot less stable and a lot more hostile towards America. Im perfectly fine with killing Gaddafi or how ever the hell you spell it for the Lockerbee bombing, but I completely agree that anyone who thinks these are a peaceful democracy loving people are sadly mistaken. As miserable of a human being as he was he was much more easily controlled and nullified then the new government will be.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how all these Bush-loving Neo-Cons had no
> problem spending a trillion bucks and ten years to
> replace thugs with Islamic radicals, but Obama
> takes out a thug in a matter of months for $1.5
> billion and suddenly it's an issue.


As usual youve missed the point. Saying the new government will be worse is just a fact not a condemnation of Obama. Plus the real issue is the double standard. Bush is evil for taking out Saddam but Obama who was against all those actions does the same thing and is a hero? Have some consistency from the left for once but as usual they just say whatever fits them best and everyone else is supposed to accept it as fact.

But I guess when you have a fake nobel peace prize you can do that.

As usual you miss the point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> Bush is evil for taking out
> Saddam but Obama who was against all those actions
> does the same thing and is a hero?


No, you re-wrote history. You are wrong when you forward-think and you are wrong on history as well.

Bush started a war on false pretenses. WMD's, links to terrorists, 911, etc. He pressured many nations to join us - remember the "coalition of the willing"?
It is true that US really did not a pony in the show when it comes to Libya - the Europeans did. And when they wanted to go and support the masses fighting Libya and what's his name, the said to Obama - "hey we helped you when you needed it and you screwed us. Help us out now." Obama had to because of George Bush. Imagine if he said no after we put the Europeans through in Iraq.

"Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;"

See?

We went to war with Iraq because we were told
1) Iraq has significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons (they did not)
2) Seeking nuclear weapon capability (they were not)
3) Supporting and harboring terrorists ((Not really true either)
4) Iraq posed a direct threat to the US (they did not)

So the Iran War Resolution above was most forward thinking and it was proven wrong. Which is typical.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fact checker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Akbar Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much
> > > greater
> > > > threat to race.
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I have learned, forward-looking
> > thinking
> > > from conservatives is usually wrong.
> > >
> > > And do not give me shit about me being wrong
> -
> > you
> > > full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of
> > the
> > > time correct.
> >
> > No, you are wrong quite a bit and it has been
> > proven. Or, you are a liar. Which is it?
>
> You have never proved it. You found one post out
> of thousands I made a mistake. You do not even
> have the balls to register. You post BS everyday
> day anonymously and then move on. You are a
> worthless piece of trash.

You have been proven wrong on numerous occasions. You only admit to one. See the difference?

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual you miss the point Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Bush is evil for taking out
> > Saddam but Obama who was against all those
> actions
> > does the same thing and is a hero?
>
>
> No, you re-wrote history. You are wrong when you
> forward-think and you are wrong on history as
> well.
>
> Bush started a war on false pretenses. WMD's,
> links to terrorists, 911, etc. He pressured many
> nations to join us - remember the "coalition of
> the willing"?
> It is true that US really did not a pony in the
> show when it comes to Libya - the Europeans did.
> And when they wanted to go and support the masses
> fighting Libya and what's his name, the said to
> Obama - "hey we helped you when you needed it and
> you screwed us. Help us out now." Obama had to
> because of George Bush. Imagine if he said no
> after we put the Europeans through in Iraq.
>
> "Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to
> the national security of the United States and
> international peace and security in the Persian
> Gulf region and remains in material and
> unacceptable breach of its international
> obligations by, among other things, continuing to
> possess and develop a significant chemical and
> biological weapons capability, actively seeking a
> nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and
> harboring terrorist organizations;"
>
> See?
>
> We went to war with Iraq because we were told
> 1) Iraq has significant amounts of chemical and
> biological weapons (they did not)
> 2) Seeking nuclear weapon capability (they were
> not)
> 3) Supporting and harboring terrorists ((Not
> really true either)
> 4) Iraq posed a direct threat to the US (they did
> not)
>
> So the Iran War Resolution above was most forward
> thinking and it was proven wrong. Which is
> typical.


No idiot its now you rewriting history. First of all the Europeans have and always will do very little in any military operation. Even Nato and UN operations are overwhelmingly US forces with minimal support from Europe aside from the British.

Yea this crap all over again that Bush lied. Great were back onto this dumb argument. Yea clearly he just made it all up despite everyone having the same intel. Theres no chance that in the months leading up to war that Saddam could have gotten rid of the weapons through another country or terrorist group or even just buried them in the desert and shot anyone who knew where they were. He only had months and vast spaces to bury/destroy them and many willing places to unload them. They were there. He had used them period.

Yea its conservatives that are wrong about forward thinking right. Howd appeasing Hitler work out for you libs. Carter did a great job with all his ideas about how to handle terrorists. Clinton letting Osama walk when we had him worked out great too. Its also funny how now that Clinton doesnt care what voter thinks most of his economic ideas are in line with conservatives. The koolaid must be real good

How about this: Just like we had no control over what will eventually become the government of Iraq or Afghanistan, we have no control of what eventually becomes the government of Libya, but at least we're not spending a decade down there pretending we do.

We don't know if what comes out of this will be "worse" or "better" than what was there before. We can hope they won't be terribly anti-American, since our bombs helped their internal revolution become successful and our presence is much less heavy-handed than in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we don't know. Anyone that says they do are lying. And let's face facts: we don't have a good image there. That is both right in some ways and unfortunate in others, but it is what it is.

Anyways, if we're going to put our hopes in democracy being the best possible way of governing we have to accept that people in other countries will duly elect people that don't have a high opinion of our government and its actions because neither do the voters there.

As usual you miss the point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No idiot its now you rewriting history. First of
> all the Europeans have and always will do very
> little in any military operation. Even Nato and
> UN operations are overwhelmingly US forces with
> minimal support from Europe aside from the
> British.


If you look up Gulf War I, they at least paid for it.

Helping the Afghans against the Russians in the 80's turned out terribly.

Johnny Walker Wrote:

>
>
> If you look up Gulf War I, they at least paid for
> it.


I agree with the point you made before above. I wasnt even saying the action was wrong in Lybia, just thats its time to get rid of this romantic image of the Lybian people that we have like they are some democracy loving pro american culture. It is what it is.

As for the above point Europe didnt pay for it, but at least the Kuwaitis gave us free oil greatly reducing the cost.

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Funny how all these Bush-loving Neo-Cons had no
> problem spending a trillion bucks and ten years to
> replace thugs with Islamic radicals, but Obama
> takes out a thug in a matter of months for $1.5
> billion and suddenly it's an issue.

It's a problem with Obama has no war skilz.

As usual you miss the point Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> No idiot its now you rewriting history. First of
> all the Europeans have and always will do very
> little in any military operation. Even Nato and
> UN operations are overwhelmingly US forces with
> minimal support from Europe aside from the British

Unless you and I have a different definition of the word "minimal", this is just not true. Yes the US leads most cases but to say the Europeans response is minimal is just not true.


>>
> Yea this crap all over again that Bush lied.
> Great were back onto this dumb argument. Yea
> clearly he just made it all up despite everyone
> having the same intel.

He "cherry picked" the intel. There were so many operatives and the UN inspectors who kept saying no. He just chose who to listen to.

> Theres no chance that in
> the months leading up to war that Saddam could
> have gotten rid of the weapons through another
> country or terrorist group or even just buried
> them in the desert and shot anyone who knew where
> they were.

The UN weapons inspectors, armed with US satellite intelligence would have found them.

He only had months and vast spaces to
> bury/destroy them and many willing places to
> unload them. They were there. He had used them
> period.

He got rid of them after the first gulf war. There is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise. Again, forward-thinking from conservatives is usually wrong.
>
> Yea its conservatives that are wrong about forward
> thinking right. Howd appeasing Hitler work out
> for you libs.

How did the Bush Doctrine work for you?

> Carter did a great job with all his
> ideas about how to handle terrorists.

How many of the hostages were killed? Not one. They were afraid of Carter and when the hostages were taken, he sent a secret message saying something to the effect of "if one hostage is harmed, you're ass is grass. They took him seriously and all hostages were eventually returned unharmed.

> Clinton
> letting Osama walk when we had him worked out
> great too. Its also funny how now that Clinton
> doesnt care what voter thinks most of his economic
> ideas are in line with conservatives. The koolaid
> must be real good

Man you are a nut case. Learn some facts. Look at all the recent books written by the Bush administration officials. Discounting Cheney's re-written history, they all say what the "libs" have been saying all along about the Bush administration.

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

I'm not a lib or right wing whacko.

The whole issue of whether Bush lied, etc, etc, etc is moot.

The original post addressed the concept if Muslims can be good neighbors. Clearly history has proven they cannot. Regardless of the mistakes already made by many administrations does it make sense to hope that Libya will turn into an ally? Does any rational person actually think we will now have a government in the middle east that is interested in contributing to world peace?

I think the OP stated it clearly. To think otherwise is folly

BushWhacked Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Funny how all these Bush-loving Neo-Cons had no
> > problem spending a trillion bucks and ten years
> to
> > replace thugs with Islamic radicals, but Obama
> > takes out a thug in a matter of months for $1.5
> > billion and suddenly it's an issue.
>
> LOL, Meanwhile we're still trying to get out of
> Iraq and Afgahnistan.
>
> Operation Enduring Freedom
>
> OFFICIAL DoD COUNT OF:
>
> Troops Killed in Iraq: 4472
> Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 1811
> Wounded in Action: 46830


ROFL @ thinking a measly 6,000 fatalities in TEN years of TWO wars is something to be concerned about.

Looks like you desperately need some perspective, you sky is falling nigga:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Wars_and_armed_conflicts

If you thought our global defense against muslime aggression was going to be bloodless, you're hella dumb.

And LMAO @ you leftist nigs pretending to care about our soldiers.

You pretend to care about them out of one side of your mouf and then bash them out of the other side of your mouf.

Welcome to the world of mass pathological schizophrenia called liberalism.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fact checker Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Akbar Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Whoever replaces Gaddafi may prove a much
> > > greater
> > > > threat to race.
> > >
> > >
> > > One thing I have learned, forward-looking
> > thinking
> > > from conservatives is usually wrong.
> > >
> > > And do not give me shit about me being wrong
> -
> > you
> > > full of crap anonymous poster. I am 99.9% of
> > the
> > > time correct.
> >
> > No, you are wrong quite a bit and it has been
> > proven. Or, you are a liar. Which is it?
>
> You have never proved it. You found one post out
> of thousands I made a mistake. You do not even
> have the balls to register. You post BS everyday
> day anonymously and then move on. You are a
> worthless piece of trash.

It has been proven over and over again. In fact, it is safe to assume that when you post, it is erroneous and/or a lie. It is as if the truth is some foreign concept to you. The evidence is in multiple threads. You are either forgetful or lying. I think we both know the answer.

Yucky24. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > LOL, Meanwhile we're still trying to get out of
> > Iraq and Afgahnistan.
> >
> > Operation Enduring Freedom
> >
> > OFFICIAL DoD COUNT OF:
> >
> > Troops Killed in Iraq: 4472
> > Troops Killed in Afghanistan: 1811
> > Wounded in Action: 46830
>
>
> ROFL @ thinking a measly 6,000 fatalities in TEN
> years of TWO wars is something to be concerned
> about.
>
> Looks like you desperately need some perspective,
> you sky is falling nigga:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anth
> ropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll#Wars_and_armed_c
> onflicts
>
> If you thought our global defense against muslime
> aggression was going to be bloodless, you're hella
> dumb.
>
> And LMAO @ you leftist nigs pretending to care
> about our soldiers.
>
> You pretend to care about them out of one side of
> your mouf and then bash them out of the other side
> of your mouf.
>
> Welcome to the world of mass pathological
> schizophrenia called liberalism.


Well first of all, fuck you.

Second, a "mere" 6000 may not rank up high with other wars, but it is significantly more than 0.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As usual you miss the point Wrote:

>
> Unless you and I have a different definition of
> the word "minimal", this is just not true. Yes the
> US leads most cases but to say the Europeans
> response is minimal is just not true.
>
>

>
> He "cherry picked" the intel. There were so many
> operatives and the UN inspectors who kept saying
> no. He just chose who to listen to.

>
> The UN weapons inspectors, armed with US satellite
> intelligence would have found them.

> He got rid of them after the first gulf war. There
> is absolutely no evidence to prove otherwise.
> Again, forward-thinking from conservatives is
> usually wrong.

>
> How did the Bush Doctrine work for you?

>
> How many of the hostages were killed? Not one.
> They were afraid of Carter and when the hostages
> were taken, he sent a secret message saying
> something to the effect of "if one hostage is
> harmed, you're ass is grass. They took him
> seriously and all hostages were eventually
> returned unharmed.

Im glad your perfectly fine with making them spend over a year having empty guns put to their head and and pulling the trigger. You really are just without a doubt one of the dumbest people on the planet if you honestly believe any of that paragraph you just wrote. Theres no point in arguing with someone that will just make shit up and talk out of their ass like you do.

Literally everything you said is wrong.

Dont do drugs kids youll turn out like Radiophile