brave new world

[George Boutwell]

Just a followup. Since no one guessed. The author is Hubert H. Humphrey.

Just so no one has to guess about the part you left out with the convenient ellipsis, here it is:

"This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced."

[veritas]

Really?

Who said this?

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."

Just a followup. Since no one guessed. The author is Hubert H. Humphrey.

[TaxBird]

[QUOTE=Davc;38725]

Wrong, that was Rosi O'Donell.

I would have responded with just a smiley - but that would be most likely be too short to post.

Thanks for the welcome injection of humor. I was bumming myself out.

[Davc]

[QUOTE=TaxBird;38724]

some posts in this thread suggesting that Jose Padilla is innocent of wrongdoing and that he was tortured.

As to the innocent of wrongdoing, I vaguely remember a fellow who was tried for having been part of the 9/11 Plot when the best evidence suggested that the real plotters viewed him as too unstable to be part of what they were doing. Is that Padilla?

/QUOTE]


No. I believe that was Zaccarious Massoui (sp?).

Wrong, that was Rosi O'Donell.

[TaxBird]

[QUOTE=erchess;38704]some posts in this thread suggesting that Jose Padilla is innocent of wrongdoing and that he was tortured.

As to the innocent of wrongdoing, I vaguely remember a fellow who was tried for having been part of the 9/11 Plot when the best evidence suggested that the real plotters viewed him as too unstable to be part of what they were doing. Is that Padilla?

/QUOTE]


No. I believe that was Zaccarious Massoui (sp?).

[TaxBird]

Jainen, you are in a majority that now outnumbers the KoolAid drinkers by two-to-one. Debate is not going to overcome blind faith, and it gives those who refuse to admit the truth a legitimacy that just encourages them.

Outnumbering the KoolAid drinkers is poor comfort at this moment. But it's something, I suppose.

[TaxBird]

Until proven guilty? That's the kind of radical thinking that we surely don't want to spread to the rest of the world.

What we have done is trade Occam's razor for Saudi boxcutters. If 19 zealous opponents of a dictatorship we support use terrorism the same way it was used by the Stern Gang to establish another country we support, the response is to turn most of the Muslim world against us by starting a civil war we can't finish; and by collateral damage killing thousands of innocent civilians in the name of deposing a former ally who did the same when we once supported him.

Of course, you know I meant to infer 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Your analogy is interesting. Interesting in that history really does repeat itself, especially the 'man's inhumanity to man' part. I think it's only the real students of history that realize that throughout history, people haven't changed, just the technology.

[George Boutwell]

Jainen, you are in a majority that now outnumbers the KoolAid drinkers by two-to-one. Debate is not going to overcome blind faith, and it gives those who refuse to admit the truth a legitimacy that just encourages them.

[jainen]

It was not me

>>definition of a crusader<<

It was not me, but the president of the United States, George W. Bush, the commander in chief, who called it a crusade. Of course, that doesn't make it so--perhaps you think he was wrong about the war.

[JohnH]

So maybe

it's possible that you slept through the class where the definition of a crusader is someone who participates in a crusade.

[George Boutwell]

Before our president declared a "crusade" against Islam, they were among our staunchest allies in the world.

Watch out, Jainen. Someone is bound to change the subject by twisting your use of that word.

[JohnH]

More rubbish

Keep whistling

I suppose it's possible to be naive enough to convince oneself that George Bush could singlehandedly alter the opinions of millions of people by using the word "Crusade" in a comment. But of course that ignores the fact that the West in general has been referred to as Crusaders since... well, since the Crusades. That, and the "House of War" are very common terms applied to unbelievers & infidels throughout Muslim history. We could also ignore the name of the organization Bin Laden formed in 1998, which he called "The Islamic World Front for the Struggle Against the Jews and the Crusaders." But why consider history when it's much more fun to just blame it on Bush?

[jainen]

>>We didn't turn most of the Muslim world against us.<<

What do these Muslim countries have in common?

Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates...

Before our president declared a "crusade" against Islam, they were among our staunchest allies in the world.

[JohnH]

Rubbish

We didn't turn most of the Muslim world against us. Their own fanatics have been carrying out that task for decades - very effectively. Anything we do (short of conversion) will be used by them as an opportunity to continue their gruesome task.

Whenever they manage to turn up a few useful idiots in our society along the way, they do a pretty good job of employing them as well. Some of us are aware of the very real danger danger we face - others still choose to whistle past the graveyard.

[George Boutwell]

Innocent? I'm suggesting nothing of the kind.

Until proven guilty? That's the kind of radical thinking that we surely don't want to spread to the rest of the world.

What we have done is trade Occam's razor for Saudi boxcutters. If 19 zealous opponents of a dictatorship we support use terrorism the same way it was used by the Stern Gang to establish another country we support, the response is to turn most of the Muslim world against us by starting a civil war we can't finish; and by collateral damage killing thousands of innocent civilians in the name of deposing a former ally who did the same when we once supported him.