They think their God is greater than ours, what do you think?

That there is only one God and that he loves us all.

They think their God is greater than ours, what do you think?

They believe their God is the God of Israel and the God of Christianity.

They also believe Jesus was a great prophet, born of a virgin, who did NOT rise from the dead (the same can be said of the beliefs of many branches of Christianity (though, obviously, not of the dominant Rome-based branch of Christianity and it's offshoots (among which offshoots you'd have to ironically include the Rapture Christians who believe the Rome-based church may be the whore of Babylon))).

I think you'd do well to stop thinking and start reading; you've got a lot of catching up to do.

We invade their country, killing tens or hundreds of thousands, on false pretenses, against the advice of 90% of the rest of the world.

And they are not fit for civilization?

Oh-kay. Got it.

Let me put it to you this way. While you're making enemies, we'll make friends. Fifty years from now, the loser buys the drinks.

-- William Timberman

Define winner and loser. Would the winner be praying to Mecca five times a day? Like I say, the only unilateral way to peace is surrender. Is that what you have in mind as a winning strategy? Just asking because I haven't heard any sort of strategy from your side other than blaming conservatives for all ills in the world.

haven't heard any sort of strategy from your side other than blaming conservatives for all ills in the world. -- shooter242

Earwax, that's it. Except that he reads all of Paul Rosenberg's posts and learns nothing -- the only member of a supposedly sentient species who could make that claim. Selective neuro-optical pathways? A billiard ball in place of a cerebral cortex? Until the vivisection is complete, we can only speculate.

Let me put it to you this way. While you're making enemies, we'll make friends. Fifty years from now, the loser buys the drinks.

-- William Timberman

Define winner and loser. Would the winner be praying to Mecca five times a day? Like I say, the only unilateral way to peace is surrender. Is that what you have in mind as a winning strategy? Just asking because I haven't heard any sort of strategy from your side other than blaming conservatives for all ills in the world.

-- shooter242

Is this what people need to be filling up these pages with? Debating with someone who actually perceives a risk that the U.S. is in danger of 'surrendering' to an Islamic Caliphate and we risk in 50 years being forced to pray to Mecca 5 times a day?

If someone here raises a truly interesting point worthy of debate, then by all means, debate it.

But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?

Shooter fears that someone is going to force him to practice a religion he doesn't beleive in. (Rumor has it he lives in NJ so of course the danger is imminent.) For that reason he insists that anyone who engages in dialog with someone of that faith is capitualting and thus failing to protect him from that heineous fate. Furthermore since he feels this imminent threat in his bones , he is ready to advocate that we use all the weaponry at our disposal to prevent this from happening which as a practical matter means that we invade countries in the Middle East and kill anyone who responds to the intrusion by fighting back.

All with nothing more to justify it than a phantom Muslim under the bed.

are just part of the dance, shooter.

Kissinger and Nixon understood that, else they'd never have gotten to China.

"Been there, done that" gets you nowhere. Go out and see the magnolia blossoms braving this morning's frost. Meditate on your bible, or Camus.

Peace.

Shooter, whatever makes you think you're a conservative? Perhaps if you set fire to all the libraries in the world, and executed all the people who've read the books contained in them, you might safely make that claim. As it is, you'd be more credible if you claimed to be Clarabelle.

Re: I do indeed know that the US did not sign the treaty banning napalm.

Napalm is not banned. It probably was a violation of international law to use it in Fallujah, however. The entry in wiki is not perfect, but that UK Mirror article was atrocious. I should check FAS but I'm being lazy. Try this...

http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/articles/napalm_phosphorus_iraq.htm

It's not quite accurate to say the U.S. did not sign the CCW. It did not sign on to all the protocols. It's complicated.

But if someone declares in a snide aside that "What are you liberals going to do when the mole-men hatch from their lava eggs and start forcing the human women to bear their larval children?", do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia?

It's Easter Sunday and most of us are too old to hunt for Easter eggs.

Are we to assume that Shooter would in favor of atheists using weapons and violence to prevent Christian prayer in our schools?

do the readers of this blog really have to fill up 50 pages to respond to such mentally ill paranoia? -- El Cid

It's a division of labor thing. Sometimes I feel like a nut, sometimes I don't. Is there really any harm in poking a hole here in there in what might otherwise be taken by the uninitiated as the seamless fabric of authoritarian bliss?

In what context?

As of the last election, and the next and the next, etc.:

Liberal Democrat (us) = Winner

Conservative Republican (you) = Loser