View Full Version : Forget 1938 -- How About 1998?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 05:35
Forget 1938 -- How About 1998?
By Philip Klein
Published 9/11/2006 12:07:59 AM
In recent weeks, both President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have warned against making the same mistake Nazi appeasers made during the 1930s by not taking the words of our enemies seriously. While it is certainly tempting to compare the attitudes of Nazi appeasers to those held by today's Left, there is, unfortunately, a much more recent, and more relevant, example of the danger of underestimating evil.
It doesn't take a fictionalized TV docudrama to know that during the 1990s, Americans didn't appreciate the magnitude of the threat posed by Islamic extremists, even as they carried out attacks with increasing boldness.
In a well-known fatwa issued on Feb. 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden declared that: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it..." A few months later, he told ABC's John Miller that: "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets..."
After the interview aired, Sandy Berger, the national security advisor, said that the Clinton administration was taking every necessary precaution in response to bin Laden's threats.
But those precautions weren't enough. That August -- more than three years before 9/11 -- bin Laden backed up his words when the simultaneous bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed over 300 people and injured thousands more.
Two weeks later, when President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, he told the American people that this would not be the end of the struggle against terrorism. "We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must," he said. He declared that, "there are no expendable American targets" and vowed that, "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists..."
But despite Clinton's tough talk, that was, in fact, the end of his struggle against terrorism as far as military action was concerned. An astute observer would have gotten a better sense of things to come by listening to Ambassador Bill Richardson justify America's actions to the UN that day. Richardson defended the attacks by saying they were designed to "comply with international law, including the rules of necessity and proportionality." He went on to say that, "It is the sincere hope of the United States government that these limited actions will deter and prevent the repetition of unlawful terrorist attacks against the United States and other countries."
Unfortunately, taking "limited actions" and "hoping" was not an effective policy for deterring terrorist attacks, as America found out all too well on Oct. 12, 2000, when the attack on the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 sailors and wounded 40 more. Clinton, on his way out of office and focused on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, did not respond militarily (he told the 9/11 Commission that there was inadequate evidence pointing to al Qaeda at the time).
The point is not that President Clinton completely ignored the threat of terrorism. More accurately, Clinton confronted it in much the same manner that today's liberals urge President Bush to approach it. The Clinton administration didn't "overreact," it made sure Americans were not too fearful of terrorism, it was conscious of "international law," it limited itself to low-scale military operations and was also actively involved in mediating a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Today's liberals want us to withdraw from Iraq out of a belief that the war is un-winnable and counterproductive. But that is precisely the same attitude that prompted the Clinton administration to withdraw from Somalia, an event of which bin Laden said, "our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger."
In the coming months and years, as we debate how to respond to the threat posed by Iran, the best parallel may not be that of Hitler in 1938, but of bin Laden in 1998. Responding to the Hitler parallel recently, Fareed Zakaria argued that Iran's current economic and military might pales in comparison to what Germany's was by World War II. But Hitler fought us conventionally. With the help of fewer than two-dozen men armed with box-cutters, Bin Laden was able to accomplish what Hitler never did -- bring the war to America. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shares the same apocalyptic worldview as bin Laden, has made similar statements about the destruction of the United States and Israel, and has the same willingness to employ asymmetrical warfare, reportedly controlling an army of 40,000 trained suicide bombers. Bin Laden was able to accomplish the Sept. 11 attacks operating out of a cave, what could Ahmadinejad accomplish as president of a country that possesses nuclear weapons?
Before that fateful day five years ago, it was arguably understandable for people to have underestimated the threat posed by radical Islam (President Bush certainly did). But after Sept. 11, it is simply inconceivable that anybody would want to return to the way things were done before. Comparing Nazi appeasers to today's liberals is unfair to the appeasers of the 1930s, because at least they spoke out of ignorance about how dangerous Hitler was-- they weren't still arguing for appeasement in 1943.
Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.
Yes Im back with one of my typical cut and paste jobs.:laugh4: But i do think it will make for interesting debate.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10335
Papewaio
09-12-2006, 05:49
Just use spoilers, it makes it easier to read the comments and if needed people can click on the spoiler to read the entire piece.
ie:
Forget 1938 -- How About 1998?
By Philip Klein
Published 9/11/2006 12:07:59 AM
In recent weeks, both President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have warned against making the same mistake Nazi appeasers made during the 1930s by not taking the words of our enemies seriously. While it is certainly tempting to compare the attitudes of Nazi appeasers to those held by today's Left, there is, unfortunately, a much more recent, and more relevant, example of the danger of underestimating evil.
It doesn't take a fictionalized TV docudrama to know that during the 1990s, Americans didn't appreciate the magnitude of the threat posed by Islamic extremists, even as they carried out attacks with increasing boldness.
In a well-known fatwa issued on Feb. 23, 1998, Osama bin Laden declared that: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it..." A few months later, he told ABC's John Miller that: "We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets..."
After the interview aired, Sandy Berger, the national security advisor, said that the Clinton administration was taking every necessary precaution in response to bin Laden's threats.
But those precautions weren't enough. That August -- more than three years before 9/11 -- bin Laden backed up his words when the simultaneous bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania killed over 300 people and injured thousands more.
Two weeks later, when President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes against a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, he told the American people that this would not be the end of the struggle against terrorism. "We must be prepared to do all that we can for as long as we must," he said. He declared that, "there are no expendable American targets" and vowed that, "there will be no sanctuary for terrorists..."
But despite Clinton's tough talk, that was, in fact, the end of his struggle against terrorism as far as military action was concerned. An astute observer would have gotten a better sense of things to come by listening to Ambassador Bill Richardson justify America's actions to the UN that day. Richardson defended the attacks by saying they were designed to "comply with international law, including the rules of necessity and proportionality." He went on to say that, "It is the sincere hope of the United States government that these limited actions will deter and prevent the repetition of unlawful terrorist attacks against the United States and other countries."
Unfortunately, taking "limited actions" and "hoping" was not an effective policy for deterring terrorist attacks, as America found out all too well on Oct. 12, 2000, when the attack on the U.S.S. Cole killed 17 sailors and wounded 40 more. Clinton, on his way out of office and focused on Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, did not respond militarily (he told the 9/11 Commission that there was inadequate evidence pointing to al Qaeda at the time).
The point is not that President Clinton completely ignored the threat of terrorism. More accurately, Clinton confronted it in much the same manner that today's liberals urge President Bush to approach it. The Clinton administration didn't "overreact," it made sure Americans were not too fearful of terrorism, it was conscious of "international law," it limited itself to low-scale military operations and was also actively involved in mediating a negotiated peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Today's liberals want us to withdraw from Iraq out of a belief that the war is un-winnable and counterproductive. But that is precisely the same attitude that prompted the Clinton administration to withdraw from Somalia, an event of which bin Laden said, "our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger."
In the coming months and years, as we debate how to respond to the threat posed by Iran, the best parallel may not be that of Hitler in 1938, but of bin Laden in 1998. Responding to the Hitler parallel recently, Fareed Zakaria argued that Iran's current economic and military might pales in comparison to what Germany's was by World War II. But Hitler fought us conventionally. With the help of fewer than two-dozen men armed with box-cutters, Bin Laden was able to accomplish what Hitler never did -- bring the war to America. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shares the same apocalyptic worldview as bin Laden, has made similar statements about the destruction of the United States and Israel, and has the same willingness to employ asymmetrical warfare, reportedly controlling an army of 40,000 trained suicide bombers. Bin Laden was able to accomplish the Sept. 11 attacks operating out of a cave, what could Ahmadinejad accomplish as president of a country that possesses nuclear weapons?
Before that fateful day five years ago, it was arguably understandable for people to have underestimated the threat posed by radical Islam (President Bush certainly did). But after Sept. 11, it is simply inconceivable that anybody would want to return to the way things were done before. Comparing Nazi appeasers to today's liberals is unfair to the appeasers of the 1930s, because at least they spoke out of ignorance about how dangerous Hitler was-- they weren't still arguing for appeasement in 1943.
Philip Klein is a reporter for The American Spectator.
Far neater. :bow:
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 06:03
Far neater.
Except i dont know how to.
Hey Gawain, great to see you posting again. To begin a spoil, start with the code [spoil]
You end it by adding /spoil within the brackets.
[edit]
Oh, and reading the article, I'm not very clear on what the point is, please forgive my stupidity. Is the author recommending anything in regards to the maniacs in Iran? Does he have a course of action he's advocating?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 06:16
[spoil/spoil]yeah right
Does he have a course of action he's advocating?
Yes. Eliminate liberalism :)
yeah right
Don't forget to add the closing [/spoil]
You surround the text you want to have in quotes with the spoil tags. Quote the following and you'll see how it works:
It's nice to have Gawain back.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 06:20
thanks
Yes. Eliminate liberalism :)
Ah, there's the Gawain we know and love. What do you think of the current administration's approach to Iran?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 06:28
What do you think of the current administration's approach to Iran?
Half assed just like most of their programs
Okay, so if liberalism were defeated once and for all, what approach to Iran do you think would work? Do you have any scenarios in mind?
Gawain of Orkeny
09-12-2006, 06:34
what approach to Iran do you think would work? Do you have any scenarios in mind?
Bring back the Shah :laugh4:
Paging Reza Pahlavi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Cyrus_Pahlavi) ... Reza Cyrus Pahlavi, white courtesy telephone, please ...
macsen rufus
09-12-2006, 09:23
That would be "Shah" as in the family that so p****d off Iranians that we ended up with the mad mullahs in the first place???
That would be "Shah" as in the family that so p****d off Iranians that we ended up with the mad mullahs in the first place???
hey...hey!!! There will be no logical thinking here!!!
our enemies enemy is our friend!!!....Even if they are rotten bastards themselfs!!! :wall:
why do you hate freedom? :inquisitive:
That would be "Shah" as in the family that so p****d off Iranians that we ended up with the mad mullahs in the first place??? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Banquo's Ghost
09-12-2006, 09:37
That would be "Shah" as in the family that so p****d off Iranians that we ended up with the mad mullahs in the first place???
That's because he was too liberal. Everything that goes wrong is the Liberal Elite's Fault®, can't you read?
:wink:
rory_20_uk
09-12-2006, 09:43
So, the article states that what Clinton was done was wrong, and implies that something stronger would have worked - without mentioning what that was.
Isn't hindsight great?
~:smoking:
macsen rufus
09-12-2006, 10:11
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Aw, shucks... I don't know what to say... obviously I'd like to thank the crew, my backers, erm, all the little people and the fans, of course. And if there's a prize, I'd like it to go to the good people of Persepolis... ~;)
Spetulhu
09-12-2006, 10:18
It's so much easier to compare the Neocons to Nazis. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer! Isn't that exactly what the Bush administration is saying? Shut up, cooperate and let the Great Leader handle everything according to his vision. Questions or <gasp!> outright disagreement means you're a traitor.
rotorgun
09-12-2006, 12:56
It's so much easier to compare the Neocons to Nazis. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer! Isn't that exactly what the Bush administration is saying? Shut up, cooperate and let the Great Leader handle everything according to his vision. Questions or <gasp!> outright disagreement means you're a traitor.
Indeed. Thatis how they originally got so many opponents in the Senate and Congress to vote their way on the responses to Al Quaeda's attacks in the first place-either show your support or we'll denounce you as unpatriotic. It worked quite well too, as the Democrats are now finding it difficult to seperate themselves from their earlier stance.
Just what was the response? Let's overthrow Saddam, they said. I hate to say it, but that is the equivelent of attacking Mexico because the Japenese attacked us at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Face it, they were completely wrong about all of their "causus belli" so far for this war. After lying to the world, they now ask me to just jump on board with their future plans? If they want to redraw the geo-political map of the middle east so bad, than let them do so without me. I say to Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, "Dubyah", Richard Perle, and all of the Neo (Nazi) Cons to have at it. I doubt you'll see many of these conservative warhawk warriors on the front lines though. That would be far too dangerous to risk their precious hides.
Lord Almighty,
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
09-12-2006, 15:59
I think America has a problem with moderation. Cruise missiles may be low key but they're big gun low key.
What Bush does may be high profile but its still just big gun.
We (the British) are now in a world of pain because we listened to the local governor in Helmand, abandoned the little gun turtle plan and now we're fighting American Style.
:shame:
Banquo's Ghost
09-12-2006, 16:14
We (the British) are now in a world of pain because we listened to the local governor in Helmand, abandoned the little gun turtle plan and now we're fighting American Style.
I think you'll find the British are coming unstuck in Afghanistan because of political incompetence and mission creep. (My, that's an understatement - let's try mission-jump-over-the-high-fence-and-run-like-b***ery).
History demonstrates the futility of trying to control Afghans. The Brits tried it once, gave up and now some fool of a government minister thought it would be a good thing to try again. The forces were equipped for a mission that 'no shot would be fired.' There's no hearts and minds to be won in Afghanistan, only loot to be distributed.
Karzai has the right idea, keeping the northern warlords quiet with loads of money. For a while, till they get better offers. The Taleban are increasing in popularity. NATO claimed 2,000 killed in the last month - yet only a few months before we were being told there were less than 2,000 Taleban in the entire country.
The Americans actually had the right idea at first, smash up the terrorist networks and Taleban government with severe force. They were close to getting bin Laden and then they should have got the hell out of Dodge. The Afghans love to fight amongst themselves, the US could have made merry hell by sponsoring each warlord in turn.
It's rediculous to compare the two, nazi germany was the biggest economy and had the biggest army, and actually had the ability to kick some major butt. Al Quaida and the other puppies are only dangerous because of our own muslim communities, there is no military threat to our homelands whatsoever.
Gawain of Orkeny
09-13-2006, 17:06
there is no military threat to our homelands whatsoever.
Kind of ironic you say that only a few days after the aniversary of 911.
Kind of ironic you say that only a few days after the aniversary of 911.
Terrorism is the way of those without a military, do you honestly feel vulnerable for a military attack by these people? In 1938 the USA had an army roughly the size of a small european nation, then you were vulnerable, but not now. There isn't a single nation in the world that could confront the USA, sure you don't see the difference? Intention is just that, intention. They can want all they want.
You guys are safe, we aren't
yesdachi
09-13-2006, 18:15
You guys are safe, we aren't
Everyone in your country knows what needs to be done if you truly wanted a “safe” country but your country doesn’t have the stomach to do it. Not unlike the US’s possible future. Rampant, uncontrolled immigration will topple our ivory tower but we ignore it like it doesn’t even exist.
Everyone in your country knows what needs to be done if you truly wanted a “safe” country but your country doesn’t have the stomach to do it.
We will have to come to terms somehow, what do you suggest? I would rather not have muslims here, but I will vote against any party that wants to kick them out just because they are muslims. Not sure what you mean but if it refers to european history I sure as hell don't have the stomach for that either. It are the muslims that need to realise that they will have to adopt to us, but it's of no use if leftist dominated agencies want to keep the dream alive. The intellectual battle within the islam has been brought to europe, and I don't like that at all. Whoever decided it was a good idea to import them, thank you very much.
yesdachi
09-13-2006, 18:56
We will have to come to terms somehow, what do you suggest? I would rather not have muslims here, but I will vote against any party that wants to kick them out just because they are muslims. Not sure what you mean but if it refers to european history I sure as hell don't have the stomach for that either. It are the muslims that need to realise that they will have to adopt to us, but it's of no use if leftist dominated agencies want to keep the dream alive. The intellectual battle within the islam has been brought to europe, and I don't like that at all. Whoever decided it was a good idea to import them, thank you very much.
I haven’t got a plan or anything for you, but I do know that the biggest issue is the culture clash and it won’t go away until there is only one culture left and it doesn’t seem like the Muslims are willing to adapt to yours. If anything it appears they are determined to not conform. The Muslims not willing to conform to your culture need to go just like the Mexicans that are unwilling to integrate into the US culture must go. Go where and how is the big question, the options seem to be many years of persistent and increasing trouble or one big conflict with many social/political repercussions. You admit your problem (it is similar to many Americans) that you don’t want them there but are unwilling to kick them out. Kicking them out and reclaiming your country is the only real option but there is no stomach to do it. Interesting comparison between our countries and our countries responses, time will tell and hindsight will be 20/20 but inactivity now will no doubt be disastrous in the future. :bow:
Mithrandir
09-13-2006, 19:43
to keep it cleanworded :
I strongly disagree with you.
People talk all to easily in general terms. In real life how much of a nuisiance are other cultures to you, how often have you been threatened because you are white, or christian or something like that ?
The ongoing polarisation, of which your post is a nice example, is,in my opinion, a bigger problem since it drives people away from eachother rather than getting to know eachother cultures and showing respect to one another.
The media and politicians blow things out of proportion,it's their job. But again, in your everyday life, how often do you really have a problem with people from other cultures 'because they won't adept to our lifestyle' ?
yesdachi
09-13-2006, 21:04
to keep it cleanworded :
I strongly disagree with you.
People talk all to easily in general terms. In real life how much of a nuisiance are other cultures to you, how often have you been threatened because you are white, or christian or something like that ?
The ongoing polarisation, of which your post is a nice example, is,in my opinion, a bigger problem since it drives people away from eachother rather than getting to know eachother cultures and showing respect to one another.
The media and politicians blow things out of proportion,it's their job. But again, in your everyday life, how often do you really have a problem with people from other cultures 'because they won't adept to our lifestyle' ?
I like cleanworded. :bow:
Personally I have some limited interaction with other cultures, Michigan is far from the southern boarder and typically not a destination for someone to move to, but we are accepting to many “refugee” type cultures (Bosnian in particular and the east side of the state has a very high concentration of Muslims relatively speaking), but what I have has been mixed with a strong sense of being proud of becoming American where the other is very antagonistic and could care less about “our” culture as long as they can sneak their family in too. the latter still speaks predominantly Spanish and seems to go out of their way to segregate themselves from even their neighbors. I could tell you some fun stories about many of my neighbors and friends.
I actually find myself more and more accepting of other cultures, mostly because my curiosity grows, as I think most of America is but it is the people that clearly fight against the culture that should not be here, the ones that refuse to speak the language or even learn the language, the ones that refuse to follow the proper procedures to enter the country then constantly break laws while here that need to be sent away from here. America is the most accepting place one earth (aside from some places in the hood or the south ~D), if you can’t become an integrated part of our society, or if you refuse to be part of our culture then you should not be here. I think the problem we have with Mexicans and some others, percentage wise, is far less then the problems they suffer in France and in other European countries because a greater percentage of the “invading” culture is even less accepting of the hosting countries cultures and are there out of desperation rather than choosing to go there because they want to be “French”. They clearly want to be “Muslim” but are stuck in France because their homeland sucks. Most Mexicans want to be Americans and enjoy the country and participate as Americans, a smaller minority I think, just want to live like they would in Mexico but here where they can enjoy the benefits the US offers, perhaps more similar to the situation in France??
All the “getting to know each other” in the world wont change some peoples minds especially when programmed with religious superiority dogma and dedicated ignorance. Sometimes, you have to remove the rotten to preserve the good, if not it will all turn rotten.
I don’t think I am being uncaring only realistic.
rory_20_uk
09-13-2006, 21:11
The media and politicians blow things out of proportion, it's their job. But again, in your everyday life, how often do you really have a problem with people from other cultures 'because they won't adept to our lifestyle' ?
Today. I was going down a street and it does irritate me when there are people around that merely because of their gender have to have a piece of cloth over their face. They can't even get it off to drink! It may be a small thing, but it does irritate me.
A couple of days ago. We had to deliver a baby who'se mother had had female genital mutilation. She had to be cut open to give birth due to the disfigurement her culture had inflicted on her.
I've had some great mates who are Asian / Indian and a variety of religions. Yes, they have different backgrounds to me, but we are all English. I had one islamic mate who was the designated sober driver. He was one of the funniest people I've ever met.
If I went to Pakistan, ordered a ham sandwich and tried to convert people to Christianity I'd go to joil for a long time, resident or not. All I expect is a wish for integration into British society - which is in turn altered by those that join it.
~:smoking:
Seamus Fermanagh
09-13-2006, 21:19
When immigrants come, legally, to the United States with the intent of assimilating, we and they gain much from the richness they bring. US culture absorbs some of that difference and profits thereby.
When immigrants come, legally, to the United States, maintain a sense of separateness and a separate culture, but accomodate/cope with the basic nature of US culture, we lose nothing and all may gain somewhat.
When immigrants come, legally, to the United States, but attack and try to force US culture to remold itself in the image of their own, assimilation becomes difficult and neither side gains the benefits they should.
When foreigners come, illegally or legally, to the United States to use/profit from resources while attacking US culture and calling for its dismemberment or dissolution, no benefit can be had by US culture. Why in heaven's name would we tolerate this...but we do.:no: :shame:
Samurai Waki
09-13-2006, 21:30
I know a guy a couple of blocks down from my place that came to the US illegally a couple of years back. He hung a Mexican Flag on his porch, and is a janitor at a nearby school.
A Few Months ago he swapped the Mexican Flag for an American Flag, much to his fellow illegal friends and families disgust. When his brother asked him why he was forsaking the Mexican Flag for the American Flag, he responded "because Mexico never gave me a **** thing, but America has given me everything."
Mithrandir
09-13-2006, 22:52
[QUOTE=yesdachi]....QUOTE]
Why see it as an us vs them issue ? Culture? who give's a banana... they too are humans. All humans strive to reach one goal, to find happiness..
why not accept that as a fact and work from there? In that way you'd welcome them and you'd get respect back in return. This may sound too easy,but it's true. I've found out in real life, treat people with respect and always remember that everyone wants to avoid suffering and be happy, try to help them and they'll show you a likewise attitude.
Don't see it as a group coming to destroy the culture you love so much, see it as people coming to fnid happiness as well...
AntiochusIII
09-13-2006, 23:06
Don't see it as a group coming to destroy the culture you love so much, see it as people coming to fnid happiness as well...I'm destroying American culture. ~;) I'm here and is a bloody [repeat after me] liberal hippy tree-hugging weed-smoking (no, I don't do drugs) America-hating Bush-bashing elitist traitorous atheistic terrorist-sympathizing stereotypical smartass animated-porn loving (not really) Asian arsehead who refuses to consider the American flag more than just a flag. But all that is but little trivia when you consider the fact that I'm going take away one of the precious seats of the hard-to-enter US Universities that could've rightfully been sat upon by a true blue-white-and-red native of the USA. I think they can hate me all they want.
:balloon2:
Seriously, though, the matter of cultural "us" and "them" can be pretty polarizing when manipulated by skilled politicians. I believe anyway that many concerns are pretty legitimate when one considers the fundamental of a free society, and how such practices as masking ladies behind the heavy dress, not out of fashion sense, but to essentially repress them into a subordinate role, should not happen in it.
But to associate the practice with a group of people and start condemning them like that is just not the way. Simple sensibilities and courtesy could easily bridge many a gap in society; besides, from my own personal experience: the experience of freedom can eventually be intoxicatingly wonderful after a slow buildup towards its appreciation. It takes time, you know, to realize that what was taboo in your life -- and notice, too, and taboo has always been more effective in keeping mouths shut than most things -- is no longer one.
All humans strive to reach one goal, to find happiness..
bit late, sorry for necromancing.
Problem is they don't want to do anything for it, they want it thrown in their laps with a big golden wrap around it. It is always us that have to change, now we have some muslim teacher for example that decided she can no longer shake hands with men (an enlightment that came similtaniously with her getting a lifetime contract), and she insists that it is not respectless, and we should understand that. Well, the smoke you see above the Netherlands is me being angry, our country our ways. Here you shake hands basta. Or a muslima who can't get a job because she wants to live in a tent all day, yet she still demands that we feed her. Here we don't wear tents all day in the office, but they simply won't understand that. They always demand, but they never give.
rory_20_uk
09-15-2006, 16:19
Just for the record:there are loads of WHITE people that I detest. Education here is free, yet still thousands screw it up. There are some that would be unemployed however hard they try. But why bother? Better be a low level criminal as the state can only take away what it gave yo in the first place.
~:smoking:
Mithrandir
09-15-2006, 18:39
Problem is they don't want to do anything for it, they want it thrown in their laps with a big golden wrap around it.
now we have some muslim teacher for example
teaching isn't a proffession anymore ?
"they" ...try not to generalise when talking about immigrants for once, it may help you to stop me from replying :laugh4:.
A handshake... who cares ? touching of hands ... I'd be glad to get all of the formal nonsense out of the way, a kiss, 2 kisses, 3? Just a handshake ? Good riddens, a simple bow would be my preffered greeting.
Seamus Fermanagh
09-15-2006, 21:45
Education here is free
Impossible. Paid for through taxes perhaps, but "free" is hogwash virtually every time somebody tries to use it as a label of value.
Sorry, Rory, pet peeve of mine.
TANSTAAFL!
I like cleanworded. :bow:
All the “getting to know each other” in the world wont change some peoples minds especially when programmed with religious superiority dogma and dedicated ignorance. Sometimes, you have to remove the rotten to preserve the good, if not it will all turn rotten.
I don’t think I am being uncaring only realistic.
Do you concede that "getting to know each other" will change the majoritys minds ?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.