Only on Fox!

#1 (external - login to view)

I found the link above in a muslim forum. Boy they're not impressed by its content!
figurers fox would even consider such a facsist discussion. Oh yeah civil war, people die! must be good. f*cking retards! That's like saying, "hmmmm perhaps another plane should fly into some towers in the states... could be good". f*cking mucktards! I can't believe ignorance runs so deeply in American culture.
But you can immagine that if it's already being heatedly discussed in a Shi'a forum online, that it's going to spread. Now considering that Iraq is mostly Shi'a and averything they've been going through all these years with US involvement, the recent cartoon thing, Israel still goin' at it, Abu Ghraib and GITMO, etc. etc. etc., this is just goin' to add fuel to the fire big time! Now let's look at the Mosque incident recently and blame flying in all directions, one theory being that this could benefit the US (I don't know how, but anyway, this is what some Muslims are saying), and now this! Without a doubt some Muslims will take this as a confirmaiton of their suspicions.

I'm sure this could add one more terrorist recruit a monthg down the road, as if Iraq isn't recruiting enough of them already?

Way to go Fox. Keep up the good work!
Civil war would make things worse and more radicalized. Even though Shia muslims are in the magority the minority of Suni are still pretty big and concentraited in area's and the same goes for the Kurds in the north.

The Suni also tend to be a little more Seculer then the Shia who tend to be closer to the religous theocracy of Iran but are also supporting democracy and somewhat the USA because it gives them a chance at power. Even though the Suni tend to be more seculer those minority of fanatics among them are the same religion as Al-Qaeda (Suni -Wahabism). Also the Kurds tend to be a lot more seculer and somewhat ultra nationalistic too! The Ultra Nationalism does present a problem and a big one at that. But if we work (as the UN) towards a seculer Iraqi government we could avert a civil war. Civil war is never a good thing, WAR is not a good thing.
But Fox must be aware that in this modern age everything they present will reach Muslim ears, and that they can choose to pass the message on to their Iraqi brethren. What's Fox trying to do; avert civil war by presenting the US as a common enemy? Oh well, it just might work. Fox are a real buch of geniuses (sarcasm intended)!
#6 (external - login to view)

There goes Bill O'reilly again, saying starve those Afghans for their own good.

What a decent man. Can you immagine the ethics he must be instilling into his chidren right now?
I'd expect such ignorance from him.
But how many actually tune in to listen to this clown. I read that many in the US tune in to him. Any statistics on that?
A lot, when you consider we are talking about a country which elected G.W Bush jr even after he lied to them!

Personally I watch the daily show and the Cobear Report (which pocks fun at those extreme right wing shows)
Could very well be the reason Bush need's to pull out, it's an opportune time for him to save face for what is basically a failure for his administration...

The sad part of that though would be the legacy of those who died, believing they could affect change in Iraq.....
Bill O'Reilly actually is against the President on:

1. Pork projects. Adding irrelevant items to a bill
making it into a Christmas Tree bill, causing congress
to vote against the entire bill when some of it is
good and some of it is bad.

2. Border Security. The lack of controlling the border
is a big issue especially for the governors of the states
who have to handle the huge migration, full of poor
full of needy, and a lot of trans-border unchecked drug

3. Bill O'Reilly noted that Bush had no fire in his belly
to help the dis-advantaged.
In contact sports you have some games at home and some played away. Although we have an occassionaly scrimage at home, fortunately this one and many others have been fought away.

The sad part of that though would be the legacy of those who died, believing they could affect change in Iraq.....

Actually change has been effected in Iraq.

If you wanted Strong Man Saddam to stay in power so
that what you see today remain delayed and put off,
then perhaps that is just the ignorance of the west,
both liberal and conservative.

You saw this in Yugoslavia when Tito died, and all the
groups in the Balkans had to have their day against
Serbian hegemony.

You're seeing this now in Iraq, instead of waiting another
10 more years of false stability --- enough for the false
comfort zone of the West.
I think the underlying question is "does Iraq really exist?"

I would suggest that it is merely a "creation" of superpowers/colonialists.

Look at:

1. Yugoslavia
2. Belgian Congo
3. Nigeria
4. Pakistan/Bangladesh
5. Northern Ireland
And so on..................................

These "creations" frequently end up in bloodbaths?

Perhaps some sort of partitioning and a "federation" as opposed to a single state is the answer?

Hey, the "United Kingdom" now has a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. Devolution seems to be the in thing?.............power to the people?

I know that the USA doesn't like it because of their Civil War thinking?

This has nothing to do with many of those people doing this stuff have ever heard of the 12 Immams? and the rest..................

I certainly think that "Kurdistan" should be an entity in its own right....................the World's largest social grouping without its own state?

OK, that might be a bit radical, so call it "Vancatistan" after the beautiful swimming cats of Lake Van?

As for Iran and Iraq, the problems are political. A very good friend who introduced me to the Islamic faith is from Iran, but studied at Damascus first he did not know if it were permissible to give a copy of the Holy Koran to an infidel..............he asked his mullah,who supplied one, and told my friend that he would go to hell for denying the word of Allah to one who asked

I used to fast Ramadan with him as a jesture of ecumenical be brutally frank, the worst bit is the not smoking

Incidentally, I am a Christian (Roman Catholic) with a lot of Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, and a few Bhuddist and Sikh friends.............Guys, it is NOT religion it is politics, avarice, greed and megalomania that cause all the problems
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

I found the link above in a muslim forum. Boy they're not impressed by its content!

The biggest problem with this is that a lot of muslims already believe that the CIA/Mossad bombed the mosque in order "to make Muslims look bad". Bill O'reilly musing on how it could be a good thing for the Yanks is just going to solidify that absurd belief.

Plus, It can't be good for the US troops. This will mean more militants in the streets, enemies will be divided into two seperate factions, which will make it twice as hard to calm the country down. If the US gets a cease-fire, or makes a truce with one group, the other group will take it as an alliance and step up the attacks. Either way you're going to tick off a large majority of the country even further.

Plus, before this Iraq was kinda on the road to peace under a US friendly government, which would have probably favoured the US with trade agreements. Now? It's anyones guess how, when, and if it will end.
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

The biggest problem with this is that a lot of muslims already believe that the CIA/Mossad bombed the mosque in order "to make Muslims look bad". Bill O'reilly musing on how it could be a good thing for the Yanks is just going to solidify that absurd belief.

That's more or less what I was thinking. What Billy boy doesn't realise is that the media and current events influence on another. Sometimes the media thinks that is just reports on events, but doesn't actually influence them. What some don't realise is taht people also react to teh media itself, thus causing the events. So the media, whether they are aware of it or not, can sometimes make the news. They themselve, whether they realise this or not, are active participants in current events and not just reporters on the sidelines.

Just a few things Billy boy needs to realise.
Hey I'd argue that Yugoslavia was a strong and united country under Tito. It wasn't until after his death and the resurfacing the Serbian nationalism did things get ****ed up. Out of all the communist leaders there a handful which I like and or have some respect for and Tito is one of them. Che, Tito and Ho Che Mign (sp).

Tito really stood up to Stalin and that took balls, also forming the non-aligned alliance with India really put prospective to the cold war conflic and for a long time the NAM was just as impressive as the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Though China helped kill the NAM by invading India.... I can't stand moaists.
Hey, there's still a vestige of the whole Mao cult here, but mostly among the elderly, probably out of nostalgia.

The young are moving on.
no new posts