Groups vs. Individuals

[Schneibster]

That’s entirely different. The topic was racism. Pay attention.

Racism, prejudice, I see little difference. It's like complaining I called you a whore when you're really just a slut.

I don’t know who he or she is and I don’t care. I’m an atheist.

Ummmmm, Rupert Murdoch? Get out much?

Prove it.

So basically you're saying you don't read any newspaper printed farther than fifty miles from your house, have never been outside the US and most particularly never in a Muslim country, have never met and talked with any Muslims, don't watch any TV that isn't produced by the rightest of right wing pundits inside the US, and wouldn't know what an Imam was if he bit you on the ass. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'm sure everyone else will too. It's good to know who actually knows what they're talking about and who hasn't ever even seen the fleeing backside of a clue.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Racism, prejudice, I see little difference. It's like complaining I called you a whore when you're really just a slut.

Ummmmm, Rupert Murdoch? Get out much?

So basically you're saying you don't read any newspaper printed farther than fifty miles from your house, have never been outside the US and most particularly never in a Muslim country, have never met and talked with any Muslims, don't watch any TV that isn't produced by the rightest of right wing pundits inside the US, and wouldn't know what an Imam was if he bit you on the ass. Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. I'm sure everyone else will too. It's good to know who actually knows what they're talking about and who hasn't ever even seen the fleeing backside of a clue.

Schneibster: I don't see the big deal about the Olberman piece. What Scheuer discussed, and he is knowledgeable, is some rather old news.

The threat he describes has been extant since Paks got a nuke via Dr Q, and pressure on Musharraf only goes so far. (Zigs reply was pretty solid in that regard) The Pushtun don't cow easy. Whether or not we ever attacked Iraq, this was eventually going to be the state of play. A bunch of guys with a tude in Pakistan, and our only hope, due to Pak sensibilities, is to hope Paks can take them out in their own sweet time.

You will note the agreement last year where Musharraf basically backed off. That was when the risk went up, as it meant harassment would not disrupt Al Q operations in the Pak/Afg interface. Operations in that zone had previously done so.

He is also right about assymetrical capabilities, and the position the US will be in if his when not if, plausible, scenario pans out.

Check out articles on the crap being caught coming in along our border with Mexico in the past 6 months. The who as much as the what.

You won't sleep any better.

DR

 

[Schneibster]

Darth, I think you seriously misjudge the problem if you think that Musharraf would have anything to do with a nuke used on US soil. If this happens, he is scroon. What limitations do you think that the UN could put on any country against whom a nuke was used? Particularly if they are armed with seven thousand of them?

ETA: note that I asked what limitations they could put, not what limitations they think they could put, or what limitations they would try to put.

 

[Schneibster]

Further, the problem is Al Qaeda, and they are in Pakistan. What the flying ◊◊◊◊ are we doing in Iraq? Don't tell me "fighting terraism," the terrorists are in Pakistan, and the reason they are is because we kicked them out of Afghanistan. They're on their way back into Afghanistan, because we took our eye off the ball. Now numb nutz wants to attack Iran. Hey, I got a real neat idea, howzabout we go do something about the people who might actually DO SOMETHING with a nuclear weapon, as opposed to the people who want to LOOK LIKE they'd do something, and who are about to get totally hosed if they screw around with nuclear weapons in the first place without our help?