Posted on 12/09/2006 7:59:56 AM PST by veronica
How does a public figure infiltrate the oppostion?
you're ready to pull a FDR and put them behind figurative barbed wire
There is a big difference between disqualifying someone for a position of some authority in our federal government, versus internment behind barbed wire, even figuratively.
Your response to my post borders hysterical in it's lack of logic...maybe the picture in post #313 is merely a reflection?
LOL!
Yah, I know, you are one of the bigots I was talking about.
Nice liberal tactic. No facts, just name calling. How insightful.
I guess I'm proven to be right. You didn't (can't) refute my points.
What facts did you present?
Your 'facts' were "Muslims are untrustworthy."
If that's a 'fact', I'm the King of England.
Matter of fact, you made a point of rejecting factual analisys, saying the guy should be rejected, "Out of hand."
I don't disagree with anything you say here, the question I would ask is there anything in Zalmay Khalilzad's resume that makes you doubt that he is an "Americanized Muslims, who share our values and are fully red, white and blue"?
Because his reusme, working for Reagan, Bush and Bush, working closely with Wolfowitz, who's a Jew, etc. seems to indicate very strongly that he is just that. Do you have any evidence to suggest otherwise?
I also think it's fair to ask of Zalmay Khalilzad, even taking into account his stellar resume, which I fully acknowledge - why now?
Fair question, I suppose, but I really don't think the answer is difficult. If he's been a successful Ambassador to Iraq, the place that is of paramount importance to us that we would like the international community to help us with, or at the very least, not obstruct us, why wouldn't we send him to deal with them? It only makes sense. Send your most successful Ambassador in the Middle East to the U.N. when the Middle East is your main concern.
Accordingly, you must be opposed to our current goal in Iraq, which is to modernize and democratize an islamic nation.
If my analysis is wrong, please explain why.
It's not wrong, it's dead on.
If my analysis is wrong, please explain why.
Islam is not a nation. It is a belief system. As is/was fascism, socialism (Nazi's), communism. In all cases where we fought against those belief systems, we fought to destroy the governments that enforced those belief systems, not the individual people or race in any given nation. We could have had a person of German descent in a position of power during WWII, or a person of Russian descent during the Cold War. We would never have appointed a person of the Nazi or Communist belief system in a position of power or inclusion.
It may be hard for some to swallow, but Islam is in the same position as our enemy, when compared to Judeo/Christian civilization, just as Nazi's and Communism was. And not just today, but has been for centuries.
I would be more comfortable with someone from Afghanistan or Iraq who has publicly renounced Islam and has a track record to back it up.
If we can help introduce freedom into Islamic dominated nations, there is a chance they will renounce Islam and move to a different model. We didn't have to destroy every Nazi or every Commie to defeat them, and it could be the same with Islam.
Your factual analysis is that I am a bigot, something which is false and is unprovable either way by you, as you do not know me or what is in my heart, and that is what is required to "prove" someone is a bigot.
Meanwhile, I have posted as logical and factual conclusions as possible, i.e. ' would we have have appointed a communist to this position during the cold war'?
We, western civilization, are the sworn enemies of all Islam. Infidels, non-believers, are to submit to the Koran or submit to the sword. You may not believe that, or you may not have a problem with that, but the majority of the American people have no plans to submit to Islam. Thus, having someone who believes what our enemy believes by association of choice, cannot be considered for a position that represents our Judeo/Christian founded nation to the rest of the world.
Having said all that, my preference would be to dissolve the UN or withdraw and kick them out of the US.
You are equating the religion of Islam with a political ideology like communism, and that's a fundamental misperception. The notion that we could introduce democracy in an islamic area which we lead to large scale renouncements of the islamic religion is unrealistic in the extreme.
I suppose some theoretical islamic army which conquered America might force some conversions at the point of a sword, but we're not going to do the same to the islamic world. We're not going to eliminate Islam, so forget that goal. Our choice is either to surrender to it or foster a moderation in Islam where they are willing to peacefully co-exist with other religions.
Surrender is not an attractive option, which only leaves you with one.
adjective 1. having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous.
2. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous: She's so naive she believes everything she reads. He has a very naive attitude toward politics.
===============================================
Just to correct your reply, for the record, I did not state or write or recommend to introduce democracy in an islamic area. I did state 'introduce freedom'. Big difference.
I would describe the rest of your post as appeasement. You may not recognize the 14 century long war by Islam on Judeo/Christian civilization, but many do, and more need to.
Oh, I see. You'd rather be an ass than discuss this.
Suits me.
You are making the incorrect assumption that communism and islam are essentially the same. They aren't.
We, western civilization, are the sworn enemies of all Islam.
Complete nonsense. Sworn enemies of Some muslims, true. All is completely wrong.
Your factual analysis is that I am a bigot,
It isn't a hard fact, proving that someone is a bigot in a scientific sense is impossible.
However, there is such a thing as 'soft facts'. If I see a white guy wearing a pointy hat and burning crosses, and saying that black people are an 'infestation' of white America, I think it's pretty safe to say he has an issue with black people. I can't prove that in a scientific sense, but no reasonable person would disagree.
The evidence of your bigotry is there for people to see, and I don't think you'd get many reasonable people to disagree with me on this one.
He's not completely wrong, in that Communism did act like a psudo-religion, and that it is certainly possible for religious beliefs to operate politically.
Where he is wrong is that Islam can and is interpreted many different ways, and it is bigotry to assume that all muslims believe the same thing. It would be like saying David Koresh represents all Christians, when in fact, he represented none to speak of.
Of course, the problem is much deeper and broader in Islam, but that isn't to say that there are not muslims that can and should be allies, friends, and even powerful Americans in Government.
That does it for me. I distrust Muslims and will not support any of them for a government post.
Did I miss your specific ideas somewhere? Or did I just see rock throwing?
You, on the other hand, have a very clear record of name calling and foul language, which can be found through your home page and 'in forum'.
Let all the lurkers start with both of ours and come to their own conclusions.
Bye.
Yes, you missed some things.
Just forget it. You're too angry or too hardheaded to engage in friendly discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.