muddysmind.com

This is the money part, you really can't put it any other way, any better.

"The post-9/11 world is on PC-overload. Fretting over the "Arab street," whatever that is, drives policy and message. We fight war on "terror," never on "militant Islam," because God forbid anyone should ever be offended. It's not enough to be right, we need to be loved too. But if you care too much about being loved — especially by those who despise you irredeemably — you've stopped caring enough about being right. And at a certain point, you have to start asking yourself, who's showing us the love, anyway?"

I think it is useless blaming the other's lies and wrongdoings ... the straw in the eye. Unless ready to see one's own.

The so apparent lies of the man of al jazzeera are no less apparent than those on WMD.

Unless you are truely commited to truth how can you convince anybody ?

Lies answer to lies on an everending chain.

This man loves islam, therefore he cannot believe an islamic person would do so blatantly wrong things. If he were to be forced to admit that islamics have killed Nick Berg, I guess he would label their acts as "unislamic", the act of a minority who will be punished, and never look hard at how things like this were to happen.

Besides
Doing what is right is no easier than getting loved.
And doing what is right when everybody around start hating you, might well be leaving these people alone.
Anybody here hates me ?

"This man loves islam, therefore he cannot believe an islamic person would do so blatantly wrong things."

Well, I love my wife and if someone told me she cut off some guys head and had proof (oh.. like a video of her doing it maybe) then I would not be so ignorant as to say, there is no way it's her.
That my friend is what we call a robot. To put it as the English do.. a mindless twit.
Commonsense must come into play at some point in this guys thought process.

"Unless you are truely commited to truth how can you convince anybody ?"

But first, DF, you have to be willing to *accept* the REAL truth.

"Anybody here hates me ?"

I don't waist my time hating anyone. However, I must add that you (and people like you...one track, narrow minded )DO agrivate the complete and total CRAP out of me. I hate actions, I hate beliefs, I hate points of views...but hating *people* is too toxic to the spirit and I don't do it - to *anyone*.

"That my friend is what we call a robot. To put it as the English do.. a mindless twit."

It's also called: Blind Faith

That's when all the facts and evidence are staring you in the face but you choose to ignore them anyway and just believe and follow anyway.

robot, mindless twit, blind faith....it all basically adds up to the same thing...a person who doesn't bother to pay attention to the common sence the good Lord gave them. But go ahead now....turn our statements around on us. Tell us how we're doing the same thing with *our* government. Keep up the bias now....I'd be almost dissapointed in you if you didn't.

"Unless you are truely commited to truth how can you convince anybody"

But DF. You fall into that catagory as well. You refuse to believe that the French Government was in Saddams back pocket. You refuse to believe that the reason your country was against this war was BECAUSE of the hugh amount of money (and Oil interests) that the French Governement was making from Saddam.

That is the definition of hypocrite.

AND the fact that if you follow your countries history you will learn that your country has a habit of going to war over money. You talk about how WE are going to war for the wrong reasons.

Nobody here hates you DF. But do I think that you secretly want to be American. I also think that you dont have a clue.

"Unless you are truely commited to truth how can you convince anybody"

"But DF. You fall into that catagory as well."

Actually, that was what I was implying myself.

talk about straw in the others eyes ...

Who's been unwilling to admit there are no WMD's in Irak ?
Who's been unwilling to admit GW Bush went there for no reason but pride, stupidity and say some cash for his ol' friend of the oil industry ?

Who's been unwilling to admit that your administration went on war with no plan for peace, facing now the result of it's inept policy.

You can say that france had interest in Irak. That is for sure. You can even say Saddam was an ally, the way he was for the US until 1990...
But you can not say the french government is in saddam's back pocket, that's about the same as saying the US are under UK control ...

I mean if there are some people completely out of reach with reality around on this website it is you guys.

Look around. Ask others. Read. You will see no one now believes there were WMD's in Irak, or that G W Bush had clear plans for the post saddam era...

That war is a plain failure as foretold only speeding american decay...
But you prefer blaming others for your own errors... The lame french ... Lousy europeans ...

I suppose you won't see the new film from Michael Moore.
He got the First price at the film festival in Cannes.
LMAO
Enjoy your dreams.

That Page is History.
Really comic.
That you could believe that you are right is ... Comic.
Preposterous ? (i think this is the right english word)

The case is supposed to be closed now. But it seems not here ... That last square of vigorous american fighters ... :-)

My point was, if you spend troops in a country to look for weapons. They spend one year, they come back and say "well there was next to nothing, and there probably was nothing from the start, this is a huge failure for our intelligence system ..."
This is what kay said.
And then you go on saying ... Well there are WMD's, there were WMD's (they just moved)... And so on.

How far is it from not admitting that your wife has committed the crime ?

I mean, may be the video is a make up, may be her boss wants her in jail because she was about to reveal sth ... May be she admitted it to you because at the time she was crazy...

There's no way out, if you want to be part of the realists, those with a clear view of the world, you have to admit that there are no wmd's there were no WMD's and your government had it wrong on this subject (I would had lied purposefully, but this is another matter, yet to be proven)

If not, then you simply are out of reach with the real world, and should not comment on other's errors lies and deceit.

And this is not my point of view, but a mere assesment of the facts.
Sorry.

hey DF, whose country wouldn't go because of the money they make off of their friends in the oil industry? Whose country wouldn't go cause Saddam was paying off its leaders?

Sides, it is a incontrovertible fact that Iraq had WMDs when inspectors pulled out in 1998. Do you mean to tell me that he got rid of them on his own, when no one was watching? That's not only naive, that's a sad world view.

DF:
Ya know, whatever drugs you are on.......you should really either:

a) get your money back and seek help as they are leading you to live in a *completely* delusional world. OR

b) share with the rest of the class.....then again - don't. I don't want *that* much of a break from reality....it sounds like the damage it has done to you is pretty permanent and totally irreversible. BTW...good luck with that.

an interresting side note, Iraq was an Opec nation, since we are in charge of Iraq for the last year the USA has a seat on OPEC (until jun 30th when we hand over the country to ???) funny how now that the US has a seat on OPEC prices of oil are at record highs for americans. Another big 'screw you' from GW and his saudi friends.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2100772/

In the G H Bush library there is a storage room with the thousands of gold plated gifts given to bush by the Bin Ladens over the years, one of them is an old portriat that shows a grinning Bush (Sr.) with Osama and Osama's father against a Suadi Backdrop. this is not available to the public to see of course but I was lucky to see it on a CSPAN 'behind the scenes' show in 1999. Unfortunately very few of Bush's gifts are available for view online.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/stategifts.html

benny: an interesting thing that I found out recently by taking an economics class (prior to this I'd have a agreed with you) OPEC doesn't set oil prices. They can try to stabilize prices through production cuts and raises (like the big raise about to come in June.) Every nation in OPEC has been producing more than OPEC to "allowing" them to produce EXCEPT the saudis, who we're producing the limit. Also, it takes more than 2 votes to cut production.

No, the biggest problem with oil is thing like terrorists destroying an Iraqi pipeline (probably cause they heard from people like you that we were only there to steal their oil) and all the ruckus in Venezuala - not to mention China's 33% increase in crude demand over the past year! Add tot hat that people like you have not allowed us to build nuclear power plants (thus reducing crude oil demand), new refineries (thus increasing production capacity) and have closed old refineries (thus decreasing production capacity!)

I don't doubt such a picture exists. The CIA didn't even think of bin Laden as a major player until the mid 90s, and during the Bush 41, presidency and vice-presidency, he was a wealthy Saudi philanthropist, who made (and spent) small fortunes building schools, and roads (and oil fields...)

Name a bin Laden related terrorist attack prior to 1993?

OPEC is indeed a tricky thing and it is not as simple as price fixing, but it is an unprecedented thing for the US to have the influence that comes with a seat on OPEC. and the price American gasoline is at a record high (partly due to markup from refineries, like Halliburton).

I have always thought nuclear is our best hope in fighting Global Warming and reducing our need to deal with Arab oil, too bad the president is an OIL MAN who can't even pronounce nuclear. Unfortunately in practice the private contractor$ who run the plants cut corners to maximize profits, with horrible consequences. (see Perry plant in northern Ohio for just one example of this). there is no incentive for the oil industry to allow nuclear to gain acceptance.

Im sure the CIA simply thought of bin laden as another agent until they pissed him off by double corossing him and permanantly garrisoning troops in his homeland despite the gulf war 1 promises otherwise, so then he began his revenge (apparently and Islam and Bush family value) and became a rogue agent called a terrorist.

Similar to the fate of CIA agent Noriega in 1980's http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/poli/soa/panama.htm

and just like the CIA turned on their good buddy Saddam who they trusted so much as to give him free chemical weapons (made in the USA, i knew we still made SOMETHING here) as long as he was killing Iranians for U.S.

I guess my point is that the propaganda masters want us to think that all of 'them' want to kill all of 'us' because they hate freedom or they hate american football or something... when in fact these are personal grudges that former CIA agents have against their old boss and his cronies who double cross them for drugs, oil or strategic reasons of hegemony.

Which do you think is more likely the real reason for "operation Iraqi 'Freedom'"?:

1)Bin Laden threatens to attack American soil again unless we do his dirty work and destroy/remove his lifelong sworn nemesis, Saddam (and Saddam's sons) something he has tried to do and failed.

2)Bush was tricked by Iranian double agent Ahmed Chalabi (the 'credible source' who lied when he said Iraq has WMD) into taking out Iran's arch enemy-state of Iraq and position Iran as the new secular progressive power in the arab world.

3)The terrorist were from Iraq so we went there to 'hunt down the evil-doers' or to make them be terrorists on 'their soil' (again what country were they from? not to mention how idiotic it is to imagine that there is a physical 'front' in terrorism.)

4)For the oil! (which we have not got any because the Iraq society is in no position to produce anything until the killing/pipeline bombing stops.)

5)To bring 'freedom to iraq' (Iraq was the only arab nation where women had freedom of movement and where there was freedom of religion)

Benny :
Though there was freedom of moovement for women, and some freedom of religion in Irak... I doubt any could consider there was a lot of freedom overthere ... Come on benny, you could at least admit that there is less repression now and more freedom now in Irak than there was ...
Which of course does not mean that it was the main goal of the Bush administration.

I would rather say : appear as a doer, hit on an ennemy small enough and famous enough (as a bad guy) to get some popularity out of an easy win.

For all the others ...
The good thing is that whatever you guys think, history books will say that there was no WMD in Irak, that bush govt realeased false informations on the subject, that they most likely lied purposefully and were very bad at it besides.

That you can not admit it is ridiculous. You just can not take the time to read the link I posted ... You just want to remain into your world of illusion and never reach out for sth else.
Get a brain.

DF:

"...history books will say that there was no WMD in Irak,"

DF....PAH-LEEZE! Have you SEEN our history books?! I can tell you that they *already* DON'T tell the truth. Well, not the WHOLE truth anyway. Our history books are too politically correct to even CARE about what history is truely trying to tell us. That's why whenever *my* kid comes home from school, we usually have to fill in the blanks from what they *didn't* get taught IN school.

"You just want to remain into your world of illusion and never reach out for sth else.
Get a brain."

So tell us, DF...are you the pot today or the kettle...or both?

"That's why it's good that there is public schools"

I was *TALKING* about public schools you idiot!!!

"They get to meet different people, hear different stories, and make up their own mind."

Oh trust me....my kids get plenty of that without the schools help. Muddy and I do NOT need the schools guide lines to "help" us with that. ....and btw, our kids *definately* have minds of their own. ...and when they ask me questions about anything, I tell them to "look it up" and then I ask what *they* think. Which is usually a hell of alot more than I can say for *any* school.

"Thus children can be protected from parents like you"

LOL...Ahhh DF....God knows I'm not the most perfect parent in the world - who is?! But let me say, YOU could only DREAM of becoming HALF the parent *I* am!!!

DF: so you're saying such things are only possible in a government school? If you are, then you're twice the idiot I thought you were. The government's job is not to protect children from their parents. Children shouldn't need that protection.

Some provocation is good.
Who's posted a story about some parents who ought to get sterelised ? And you say government should not protect children from parents ?

Freedom is not something inherited at birth, freedom is taught. And freedom of thought is the hardest to "teach".

I didn't post that story, nor did I say I agreed with it.

It's one thing to protect children from abusive parents. It's another to "protect" them from parent's ideas. That's called mind control and it was a prize idea of people like Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin. Are they your heroes? Government schools in the US teach anything BUT freedom of thought. In fact I can tell you first hand that in liberal arts colleges, they punish you if you think differently than them. (It tends to be encouraged in engineering schools and science schools since they have to think outside the box.) But I see it frequently: the kids who went to government schools have a harder time in classes that require free thinking, such as programming classes and design classes. They struggle to think on there own. Sounds like government shcools do a great job of teaching freedom of thought.

You want to call someone stupid, that's fine. You want to disagree over political views, that's fine. But when you attack someone's parenting abilities, that is disgusting and over the line. That is right up there with people saying Rumsfield should be taken out and shot.

Just out of curiousity, who erased DF's comment on "parental abilities"? Obviously, I'm not complaining...like I said ...just curious.:-)

DF:

"Who's posted a story about some parents who ought to get sterelised ?"

Actually, that was me (it was under - 'Judge orders couple not to have children'). I'm really NOT normally one for government control over people in that way but like Skywalker stated above:

"It's one thing to protect children from abusive parents. It's another to "protect" them from parent's ideas."

"Freedom is not something inherited at birth, freedom is taught. And freedom of thought is the hardest to "teach"."

It depends on what *freedom* you're talking about. Freedom of *choice*/ free-will is what we're ALL born with. Then again, you'd probably have to believe in God to believe in *and* to agree with that.

Plus, some people are NOT born *into* freedom because of the society/country they are born into BUT I *do* believe that we *are* born *with* the *desire* for freedom. Teaching someone about freedom just enhances ones desire to have and - YES - to fight to *keep* it.

I did, because voicing your opinion is one thing, flat out insulting your host is another.

"...flat out insulting your host is another."

Not to mention your host's wife.

Just for the record, I told muddy he should leave it up there.

And freedom of thought is the hardest to "teach"

Maybe thats why your country is so quick to surrender. Here in the United States, it does not need to be taught. In fact it is taken for granted.

"Just for the record, I told muddy he should leave it up there."

Why?

BTW...cwilli:

"Maybe thats why your country is so quick to surrender."

Yowch! Burn! hehe

"Here in the United States, it does not need to be taught. In fact it is taken for granted."

Seems that way, doesn't it? Sad...but true.

Because, not many people (except for the nut cases at democraticunderground.com) will respect a person who insults their host that way, much less take them seriously.

Just wondering. *I* didn't really mind one way or the other.

"Because, not many people...will respect a person who insults their host that way, much less take them seriously."

True, however, I don't think we have to worry about that in this case anyway.