OIL "DISCOVERY" IN DARFUR

Reuters,via Alertnet ^ | 06/15.05 | vanity

[OKIEDOC]

edcoil wrote:
Wh let people be free when you can control and kill them.

Silly Americans and silly people in Africa. If they wanted freedom, let them fight for it.

I don't get your drift or at least what you mean?

[OKIEDOC]

God felt sorry for them after giving them so many warts to live with.

[OKIEDOC]

Awe yes, tuck tail and run from 1 billion potential savages.

Who will we tuck tail and run from next and the next and the next until the only ones to run from would be our own shadows.

We don't have to be the bully but we damn well better stand up for what we believe in before some others start telling us what we should believe and enforcing it against our will.

[LexBaird]

Awe yes, tuck tail and run from 1 billion potential savages.

Oh, you're right. Much better to stupidly antagonize 1 billion potential savages in the way that morally offends them most. That'll show our mental and civilizational superiority. Bomb Mecca and sink ships full of oil for the Lord. Christ would certainly approve. Then, no doubt, Christians would be safe to walk anywhere.

That approach worked so flawlessly in the Crusades.

[OKIEDOC]

Your hypocritical self righteous ego is showing.

You mealy mouthed water carriers for CAIR and the ACLU look for any excuse to show your biased moral superiority.

I did not make such a post advocating violence against Mecca or Muslims.

Defending yourself and your country is not advocating violence or did you just miss that part of the correspondence course you took in getting your liberalized elementary diploma.

So why did you suggest bombing Mecca?

That kind of rhetoric would certainly antagonize anyone.

However, the way these fanatics are going, they will eventually get around to doing it themselves.

As for now, take your medication, suck on another sour persimmon and get back to me later.

[LexBaird]

Why not read the whole thread before jumping into the middle of a discussion? Then maybe you would realize that it was tahotdog that advocated bombing Mecca in post #17. My original comment, which you were so quick to jump on, was in response to him advocating US subs torpedoing oil tankers off the coast of Sudan and justifying it as defending Christians.

Now, perhaps you also think that would constitute "defending yourself and your country", instead of a braindead provocation. But you may wish to revise your thoughts after reading things in context.

So, before you spout off about others being hypocritical and self righteous, you may want to pause to look in a mirror; there's spittle running down your chin.

[Axenolith]

Hell is closer to the earths surface there and the noxious gasses and such (probably distilled from the cooking souls of the damned) migrating up from it condense out into oil.

On a side note, loving thy neighbor get's additional meaning here, do it, lest he be pumping part of you into his gas tank after you shuffle off this mortal coil... ;-)

[Axenolith]

That approach worked so flawlessly in the Crusades

Are you another one of the rubes who believes the Crusades were "Christian agression"? Better crack a history book...

[LexBaird]

Are you another one of the rubes who believes the Crusades were "Christian agression"? Better crack a history book...

Nope. They were the result of a whole lot of things, such as an excess of warrior-class second sons, an upsurge in attacks on Holy Land pilgrims by Muslims, a general Church indignation at being displaced by the Jihadis in the Med rim, etc. But they surely involved a whole lot of Christian aggression.

So, if it was such a successful strategy, where is the Kingdom of Outremer today? Seen the deserted remains of Krak de Chevalliers? How about the thriving nation of Antioch?

[OKIEDOC]

Why not reread the way you post your offensive comments.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Why is it that several liberal nitpickers and crank pots on this forum feel they must constantly advise and scold others on how to think and be politically correct when they make a post.

These numb nuts want to shape all conversation in the manner of their thinking. (Liberal Thought Police)

Thats classic progressive liberalism to it's truest form.

Yes, I reread you post again and it leads me to believe that you must be either a Muslim sympathizer and terrorist supporter or a politically correct apologists.

PS: Are you really Howard Dean or maybe Dick Durbin posing as Lexbaird in disguise?

[LexBaird]

Why not reread the way you post your offensive comments.

Okay, lets.

Post #8: tahotdog suggests declaring the USA an overtly Christian nation (and incidental violating the Constitution) and sinking oil tankers to punish oppression of Christians.

Post #14: I suggest that using warships to sink commerce very near to Mecca to overtly support Christianity would be ill advised. (was this what you find offensive? common sense?)

Post #17: tahotdog says "to bomb Mecca off the map first..." I assume he is being over-the-top sarcastic and drop it.

Post #23: You jump in, suggesting that I advocated "tucking tail" and then labeled a fifth of the globe's population as "potential savages."

Post #24: I heap scorn upon your dismissive attitude. Perhaps this is when you took offense. Tough crap. I attacked your ideas, not your person. If you can defend tahotdog's call for naval attack on Sudan and Mecca as being consistent with "stand up for what we believe in before some others start telling us what we should believe...", then do it. Otherwise, your comments to me were irrelevant. Which brings us to-

Post #25: Wherein you accuse me of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, being an ACLU or CAIR sympathizer, a generalized liberal, antagonistic (which I'll cop to- I like antagonizing idiots), and in need of medication. You also suddenly don't want to defend bombing Mecca, which was what tahotdog was advocating when you leaped to his defense. Make up your mind. Is antagonizing the 1 billion Muslims a good idea or not?

Post #26: Where I explain (somewhat patiently, considering the blasting you deserved after #25), that perhaps you should follow the thread before diatribing. But apparently not, because in...

Post #30: You accuse me of being offensive. Then go on to call me a pot/kettle hypocrite, a liberal nitpicker, a Muslim sympathizer, terror supporter, apologist for political correctness, and Howard Dean in disguise.

Now, you may render your apologies to me. Or, if you prefer, hit the abuse button, and we'll let the Admin Moderator decide.

[OKIEDOC]

Hum!

I suspect you are a valiant but naivete keyboard warrior suffering from computer rage.

OK,OK, I shouldn't have said that, please accept my humble apology.


LexBaird wrote:

Post #8: tahotdog suggests declaring the USA an overtly Christian nation (and incidental violating the Constitution) and sinking oil tankers to punish oppression of Christians.

Reply: We are a nation of Christians. That is where we get our greatness from and blessing from God almighty.

Post #14: I suggest that using warships to sink commerce very near to Mecca to overtly support Christianity would be ill advised. (was this what you find offensive? common sense?)

Reply: No

Post #17: tahotdog says "to bomb Mecca off the map first..." I assume he is being over-the-top sarcastic and drop it.

Reply: Just a tad over the top wouldn't you think.

Post #23: You jump in, suggesting that I advocated "tucking tail" and then labeled a fifth of the globe's population as "potential savages."

Reply: Yes your original post seemed like a liberal Dicky Durban tuck tail and run comment.

Reply: I did not realize it was a fifth of the worlds population but I will rely this one time on your word. They do possess the ability for being potential terrorists.

Post #24: I heap scorn upon your dismissive attitude. Perhaps this is when you took offense. Tough crap. I attacked your ideas, not your person. If you can defend tahotdog's call for naval attack on Sudan and Mecca as being consistent with "stand up for what we believe in before some others start telling us what we should believe...", then do it. Otherwise, your comments to me were irrelevant. Which brings us to-

Reply: I never defended anyones call for violence against any group, or did that little bit of information just slip over your head. I merely said that if we don't stand up for our ideas then someone will exert their ideas upon us. Just as your trying to do with posters on this thread.

Post #25: Wherein you accuse me of hypocrisy, self-righteousness, being an ACLU or CAIR sympathizer, a generalized liberal, , and in need of medication. You also suddenly don't want to defend bombing Mecca, which was what tahotdog was advocating when you leaped to his defense. Make up your mind. Is antagonizing the 1 billion Muslims a good idea or not?

Reply: Personally I could care less if someone who supports fanatical idiots that kill 3,000 plus of my countrymen gets angry with what I think of them.

Reply: You said "antagonistic (which I'll cop to- I like antagonizing idiots)" well it is obvious you have first hand experience with idiocy.

Post #26: Where I explain (somewhat patiently, considering the blasting you deserved after #25), that perhaps you should follow the thread before diatribing. But apparently not, because in...

Reply: I believe I was the second one to post on this thread or did you miss that in you hysteria to make your thoughts known.

Post #30: You accuse me of being offensive. Then go on to call me a pot/kettle hypocrite, a liberal nitpicker, a Muslim sympathizer, terror supporter, apologist for political correctness, and Howard Dean in disguise.

Reply: Yes I found what you said to be offensive.

Now, you may render your apologies to me. Or, if you prefer, hit the abuse button, and we'll let the Admin Moderator decide.

Reply:I don't need to push any buttons to get satisfaction.

Reply: However, you have my permission to contact the moderator, your partner or even your mother if that would make you happy.


Reply: Yes I accept your apology if you promise to be a good boy and take your meds as prescribed.

[LexBaird]

Reply: However, you have my permission to contact the moderator, your partner or even your mother if that would make you happy.

Your wish is my command.

[Axenolith]

But they surely involved a whole lot of Christian aggression.

Of course, better to be on offence than defence once you've been attacked.

In the Crusades though, Christian armies generally sucked, and they don't now. If you have 1 billion people following a religion whose general propensity anywhere they approach majority status is to go on killing sprees you hit them, after fair warning, where they think their "God" would never allow it to happen, their holy sites. They are far more connected to the material manifestations of their religion than the other major ones and to destroy those manifestation would seriously undermine their faith in their conquoror god and his conquest manual...

[LexBaird]

Perhaps. I just feel the approach we are currently undertaking, that of grafting on democratic ideals and opposition to authoriantarism, will go much further towards eliminating the threat of radical Islam than aggression to their holy sites.

I cannot see how such actions can fail to radicalize an even greater percentage of the world's Muslims. Remember, Pakistan already has the bomb, and their government is hardly out of the grasp of the radicals. Large areas that are relatively indifferent toward the west would shift overnight into the enemy camp.