A user's language is obscene. What should I do?
Re: I can't see any reason why women should drive
Hello Guest		   
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog		   • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels		   • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests		   • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search		   • Search
• Games
• Tests
• CarGuru		   • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online		  
Register!
CarGuru > Driving > Re: I can't see any reason why women should drive 3 May 2005 06:49:42
  Recent blog posts: 
95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

;-)
;-)­

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Saturn Sky Red Line
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. I noticed will driving yesterday that when I turned on the…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

  They have birthday today: 
Esther
  Forums:   
    topic feeds

• CarGuru  all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous
  Discuss: 
Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
On 28 Oct 2005 02:52:39 -0700, littleboyblu87@yaho­o.com wrote: What state is that? In TX, I…

Happy New Year!
Hi Viatologists, The Worldwide Highway Library would like to wish all viatologists a warm, happy New…

ETHANOL: HOW BRAZIL BEATS THE…
I guess America is so involved in fighting terrorism that forgets to prepare herself for a fuel crisis…
  Recent forum topics: 
Brake Lights won't work
brake lights on 1996 Grand Am won't work. Fuse and lights are fine. Suggestions?

honda civic 87 model problem
i would like some information on why my honda civic wont start at times after its hot when running it…

mazda premacy glowplug lights…
i have a mazda premacy 2litre diesel . have a problem at the moment ,glowplug light flashing with loss…

I have a 96 chrysler new york…
I have a 96 chrysler new york lhs but no owners manuel and on the message center there is a light that i…
  Recent forum comments:
RE: Ask How To Replace Headlight…
how do I release the locking ring on the headlamp bulb in a 99 dodge ram 2500?

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
who are you speaking to

RE: Re: Transmission shudder when…
I can feel something like a kick when I first hit the gas pedal when I take off.

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Heating problem in 1988 Honda…
well thats no always true!!! my husband replaced the thermostat/thermome­ter..... and the water…

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: 98 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems
I had the same problem with the instrument panel, after about a months worth of greif, and dollars…
  Ìîäåðàòîð:
 Administrator

Re: I can't see any reason why women should drive

Brent P 20 April 2005 19:06:53
 In article <1113967757.608805.­55320@o13g2000cwo.go­oglegroups.com>, Old Wolf wrote:>>From today's news:>
"A judge in Saudi Arabia has upheld a law banning women from> driving, after an accident in the city of Taif involving a> woman driver, reports Reuters. The judge said he couldn't see> any reason why women should drive. In 1990, about 50 women> defied the law and drove through Riyadh. Those caught lost> their jobs.">
Great stuff from the US's number one ally in the Middle East.> They wouldn't put up with that from any non-oil-producing> country, I'm sure..

And if the US did anything, we'd hear from democrats how bush was forcing
american values on the saudis. But if nothing is done, we'll keep hearing
about the horrible treatment of women. Isn't politics lovely?


Add comment
Arif Khokar 22 April 2005 22:21:57 [ permanent link ]
 Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
For him, yes to all of the above. In fact, anyone who doesn't look, think, > and act just like him is a furriner (sic).

Then again, my cat is more "furriner" than me ;)
Add comment
Arif Khokar 23 April 2005 06:57:16 [ permanent link ]
 223rem wrote:
Only an imbecile liberal (and you qualify) would lose any sleep over the> suffering of peoples that hate our guts.

The only reason they hate out guts is because our government keeps
sticking their "nose" into their business. If we just left them alone
(i.e., not invading countries, maintaining military bases in their
countries, using our veto power in the UN to stop resolutions that have
a broad consensus), etc., then they wouldn't have a problem with us.
I'd argue that we should *encourage*, not fight, the self-destructive > customs and customs that Muslim countries practice.

All areas have their share of stupid customs. Over here, binge drinking
and hazing come to mind.
Add comment
Arif Khokar 23 April 2005 21:22:07 [ permanent link ]
 Bernard farquart wrote:
OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self> destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not> be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,

The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a
military base in Saudi Arabia. IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his
hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed
in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a
long time. The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the
last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).
Add comment
Arif Khokar 24 April 2005 07:28:21 [ permanent link ]
 The Real Bev wrote:> Arif Khokar wrote:
Bernard farquart wrote:
OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self>>>destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not>>>be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,
The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a>>military base in Saudi Arabia.
No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to> destroy something.

Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit
mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of
parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason
behind the attacks.

The precipitating factors had been around for some time.
IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his>>hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed>>in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a>>long time.
Whose self-destructive practices? Ours?

Read the thread.
I seem to remember that the Saudis

The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a
democracy.
The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the>>last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).
Before that they could only throw rocks.

Before that they were fighting the Soviets on our behalf with much more
than rocks. Reread those history brooks before you make yourself the
laughingstock of this thread again.
Add comment
The Real Bev 24 April 2005 09:26:21 [ permanent link ]
 Arif Khokar wrote:>
The Real Bev wrote:> > Arif Khokar wrote:>
Bernard farquart wrote:>
OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self> >>>destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not> >>>be learing how to fly jets into our buildings,>
The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a> >>military base in Saudi Arabia.>
No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to> > destroy something.>
Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit> mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of> parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason> behind the attacks.

I didn't say no reason. I say that it's THEIR reason, not because of
something we did.
The precipitating factors had been around for some time.

Tough.
IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his> >>hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed> >>in that country. The self destructive practices have been around for a> >>long time.>
Whose self-destructive practices? Ours?>
Read the thread.

No. I read only the message I replied to.
I seem to remember that the Saudis>
The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a> democracy.

So?
The attacks on our country from Al-Qaida only started in the> >>last 15 years (i.e., the WTC bombing in 1993).>
Before that they could only throw rocks.>
Before that they were fighting the Soviets on our behalf with much more> than rocks. Reread those history brooks before you make yourself the> laughingstock of this thread again.

Those were the Afghans, not the Saudis. Did we start it, or just side with
the Afghans once the fighting started? Getting the US hooked on
opium-derivatives seems way smarter and less confrontational than smashing our
buildings.

I think that killing people and breaking stuff in the name of any religion at
all is sick and evil and stupid.

--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************­********************­******************
Warning: Objects in mirror appear smarter than they are.
Add comment
Arif Khokar 24 April 2005 11:35:43 [ permanent link ]
 The Real Bev wrote:> Arif Khokar wrote:
Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit>>mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of>>parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason>>behind the attacks.
I didn't say no reason. I say that it's THEIR reason, not because of> something we did.

They were maintaining our troops in Saudi Arabia? Yes, it was something
we did.
The precipitating factors had been around for some time.
Tough.

Tell that to the 3000+ people and their loved ones who were victims of
the WTC attack. People in the Middle East did not want our troops
stationed in Saudi Arabia. And to top it off, we were maintaining them
to defend against a figment of our imagination (those WMD that everyone
used to talk about).
No. I read only the message I replied to.

Then don't ask stupid questions. Either you know what it refers to or
you don't.
I seem to remember that the Saudis
The ruling family, not the population. Remember, they *don't* have a>>democracy.
So?

I made my point.
Those were the Afghans, not the Saudis.

Bin Laden was in Afghanistan and he is definitely a Saudi. Many
nationalities fought the Soviets there.
Did we start it, or just side with the Afghans once the fighting started?

That's not relevant to this thread. I was talking about people not
wanting us to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia. That had nothing to do
with Afghanistan until you brought it up.
I think that killing people and breaking stuff in the name of any religion at> all is sick and evil and stupid.

Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only
perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't
go away.
Add comment
Scott en Aztln 24 April 2005 22:08:13 [ permanent link ]
 On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:35:43 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>
wrote:
The Real Bev wrote:>> Arif Khokar wrote:>
Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit>>>mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of>>>parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason>>>behind the attacks.>
I didn't say no reason. I say that it's THEIR reason, not because of>> something we did.>
They were maintaining our troops in Saudi Arabia? Yes, it was something >we did.>
The precipitating factors had been around for some time.>
Tough.>
Tell that to the 3000+ people and their loved ones who were victims of >the WTC attack. People in the Middle East did not want our troops >stationed in Saudi Arabia. And to top it off, we were maintaining them >to defend against a figment of our imagination (those WMD that everyone >used to talk about).

How is Al Qaida blowing up the WTC any different than the guy who
parked his Jeep across the Metrolink tracks and got out to watch the
derailment? Or the suicidal people who off themselves at the junction
of two busy freeways durig rush hour? Did the people on those trains
and in those cars do something to cause what happened to them?
I think that killing people and breaking stuff in the name of any religion at>> all is sick and evil and stupid. >
Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only >perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't >go away.

I understand the reason behind the attitudes: it's called MENTAL
ILLNESS.

Now that I understand it, is it going to stop?

--
Sloth Kills!
http://www.geocitie­s.com/slothkills/
Add comment
Arif Khokar 25 April 2005 05:24:20 [ permanent link ]
 Scott en Aztlán wrote:> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 07:35:43 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>> wrote:
Tell that to the 3000+ people and their loved ones who were victims of >>the WTC attack. People in the Middle East did not want our troops >>stationed in Saudi Arabia. And to top it off, we were maintaining them >>to defend against a figment of our imagination (those WMD that everyone >>used to talk about).
How is Al Qaida blowing up the WTC any different than the guy who> parked his Jeep across the Metrolink tracks and got out to watch the> derailment?

The former took a lot more planning and the motives were made public
years before the actual event. In the latter, we (the public) do not
know the motive, but those who actually knew those people probably have
a much better idea as to what the actual reasons were.
Or the suicidal people who off themselves at the junction> of two busy freeways durig rush hour? Did the people on those trains> and in those cars do something to cause what happened to them?

No, but our government wasn't stationing troops in areas that were
deemed religiously sensitive in those cases.
Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only >>perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't >>go away.
I understand the reason behind the attitudes: it's called MENTAL> ILLNESS.

The people who actually carry out attacks and kill civilians have a
mental illness. The rest of us who object to aspects of foreign policy
do not share that condition.
Now that I understand it, is it going to stop?

Probably when we decide the take the same approach as Sweden and other
countries that don't bother maintaining military bases outside their own
territory.
Add comment
Scott en Aztln 25 April 2005 18:41:51 [ permanent link ]
 On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:24:20 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>
wrote:
How is Al Qaida blowing up the WTC any different than the guy who>> parked his Jeep across the Metrolink tracks and got out to watch the>> derailment?>
The former took a lot more planning and the motives were made public >years before the actual event.

So killing innocent people is OK as long as you plan it well and
announce it publicly in advance?
Or the suicidal people who off themselves at the junction>> of two busy freeways durig rush hour? Did the people on those trains>> and in those cars do something to cause what happened to them? >
No, but our government wasn't stationing troops in areas that were >deemed religiously sensitive in those cases.

Is the Oklahoma City bombing our fault, too, because our government
burned down a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas? Killers are
very good at rationalizing what they do - something which appears to
have escaped our notice.
Agreed. Also, not understanding the reasons behind those attitudes only >>>perpetuates them. Until people understand that, those behaviors won't >>>go away.>
I understand the reason behind the attitudes: it's called MENTAL>> ILLNESS.>
The people who actually carry out attacks and kill civilians have a >mental illness. The rest of us who object to aspects of foreign policy >do not share that condition.

And the rest of us don't kill innocent people, either. That's because
we're not homicidal maniacs.
Now that I understand it, is it going to stop?>
Probably when we decide the take the same approach as Sweden and other >countries that don't bother maintaining military bases outside their own >territory.

You're really naive if you think that removing a military base from
Saudi Arabia is going to stop these scum from hating us. They'll just
trump up some other excuse and attack us again.

--
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocitie­s.com/scottenaztlan/­about.html
Add comment
Matthew Russotto 25 April 2005 19:29:47 [ permanent link ]
 In article <3vvae.93$ra2.50@ne­ws02.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>
The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a >military base in Saudi Arabia. IIRC, Bin Laden stated several that his >hatred towards America was due to the fact that we had troops stationed >in that country.

And we're supposed to believe him?

And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires?
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Add comment
Arif Khokar 25 April 2005 19:42:34 [ permanent link ]
 Matthew Russotto wrote:
[Bin Laden]> And we're supposed to believe him?

Let's just say I trust him as much as I trust our government. Take that
as you wish.
And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires?

If we're pefectly willing to risk innocent lives, then we shouldn't.
The point of the matter is that deeply unpopular actions usually lead to
deadly results.
Add comment
223rem 25 April 2005 21:48:31 [ permanent link ]
 Bernard farquart wrote:

OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self> destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not> be learing how to fly jets into our buildings, they would be planning the> new kitchen in thier condo.

I doubt it. The 911 guys were Saudis from middle class families who had
endured no hardships.

Let them linger in the Middle Ages, I say.
Add comment
223rem 26 April 2005 01:43:28 [ permanent link ]
 Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote:
I guess with that sweeping generalization you are condemning as> imbeciles everybody that follows some of the West's most cherished> values. Whether you believe it's a Christian or a purely humanist> thing, the West value of human life and dignity is a great tradition.>

Great but foolish. Our planet is grossly overpopulated. The last think
we need is to contribute to population increases in fanatic-inhabited
shitholes like Somalia, etc.
Add comment
Dtj 26 April 2005 04:30:40 [ permanent link ]
 On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:28:21 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>
wrote:
The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a>>>military base in Saudi Arabia. >
No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to>> destroy something.>
Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit >mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of >parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason >behind the attacks.

You have got be kidding. Use your mind? Why don't you? The fact is
that your friends decided to attack us and used an excuse that we were
violating their land. Problem with that theory is that it wasn't
their land. See, bin laden had his citizenship revoked by Saudi
Arabia. He was living in Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - where ever
he could find mindless fucks like you to support him.
Add comment
Scott en Aztln 26 April 2005 06:30:26 [ permanent link ]
 On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:42:34 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>
wrote:
Matthew Russotto wrote:>[Bin Laden]>> And we're supposed to believe him?>
Let's just say I trust him as much as I trust our government. Take that >as you wish.>
And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires?>
If we're pefectly willing to risk innocent lives, then we shouldn't.

Even if we did appease BinLaden, those innocent lives would still be
at risk. Or have you forgoten how much good an appeasement policy did
when dealing with Hitler?
The point of the matter is that deeply unpopular actions usually lead to >deadly results.

Deeply unpopular with who? Obviously not the Saudi government...

--
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocitie­s.com/scottenaztlan/­about.html
Add comment
223rem 26 April 2005 07:57:48 [ permanent link ]
 DTJ wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:28:21 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>> wrote:>
The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a>>>>military base in Saudi Arabia. >>
No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to>>>destroy something.>>
Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit >>mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of >>parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason >>behind the attacks.>
You have got be kidding. Use your mind? Why don't you? The fact is> that your friends decided to attack us and used an excuse that we were> violating their land. Problem with that theory is that it wasn't> their land. See, bin laden had his citizenship revoked by Saudi> Arabia. He was living in Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - where ever> he could find mindless fucks like you to support him.

Where did you get the idea that Arif supports Bin Laden?
Just because he has an unusual name?
Add comment
Scott en Aztln 26 April 2005 17:49:24 [ permanent link ]
 On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:57:48 GMT, 223rem <223rem@sbcglobal.n­et> wrote:
Where did you get the idea that Arif supports Bin Laden?>Just because he has an unusual name?

He may not "support" Bin Laden, but one has to wonder about the source
of his anti-US rhetoric...

--
Life is short - drive fast!
http://www.geocitie­s.com/scottenaztlan/­about.html
Add comment
Bernard farquart 27 April 2005 08:34:11 [ permanent link ]
 
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote in message
news:7NDbe.268$O95.­83@news02.roc.ny...>­ Scott en Aztlán wrote:>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:54:59 GMT, Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u>>> wrote:>
You're missing the point.>>
Mentally ill people will use anything they like to "justify" their>> actions; that doesn't make their assignment of blame rational.>
Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been > going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA planned > a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the Shah back > in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to oppression under > the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's directing their hatred > towards our country.>

No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually
commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran?
For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and wonder > why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.>
No, I think the thing is that people can understand if some group has a
legitimate complaint against the actions of our government, but if we
station some troops on the ground (and hide the females and don't allow
and unnessesary outsid trips) and some group decides to take down two
major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A REASONABLE
RESPONSE and does not really merit serious consideration of their
views. They have moved any discussion of the merits of thier cause
from the "lets consider that" to the "f*ck 'em that's why we have an
army" realm.
Similar interference lead to similar consequences and similar attitudes > throughout the Middle East and Latin America and some parts of Africa.>
WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES???
What were they? Did I forget? I am getting kind of old.

Bernard


Add comment
Arif Khokar 27 April 2005 12:58:04 [ permanent link ]
 Bernard farquart wrote:> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:
Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been >>going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA planned >>a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the Shah back >>in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to oppression under >>the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's directing their hatred >>towards our country.
No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually> commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran?

Something must have happened, since they're part of the "axis of evil."
For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and wonder >>why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.
and some group decides to take down two> major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A REASONABLE> RESPONSE

I never said the response was "reasonable." That doesn't mean that such
a response didn't happen. Keep in mind that there were several other
responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing,
the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).

Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops
from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).
WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES???

Lots of people dying.
Add comment
Bernard farquart 27 April 2005 21:21:02 [ permanent link ]
 
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote in message
news:wuIbe.4668$hg.­3729@news01.roc.ny..­.> Bernard farquart wrote:>> "Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>
Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been >>>going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA >>>planned a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the >>>Shah back in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to >>>oppression under the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's >>>directing their hatred towards our country.>
No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually>> commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran?>
Something must have happened, since they're part of the "axis of evil."

No, that's just rhetoric, I thought you were equating what happened in Iran
(totally out of line activities by the cia) with us stationing troops in
Saudi Arabia
For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and >>>wonder why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand.>
and some group decides to take down two>> major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A >> REASONABLE>> RESPONSE>
I never said the response was "reasonable." That doesn't mean that such a > response didn't happen.

No, but it means that we can not plan our nations posture in the world
on the possible reaction of irrational people.

Keep in mind that there were several other> responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing, > the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).

All due to the anger at us over simply being in the wrong place?
Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops > from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).

Really? I heard there was a border dispute over near there.>
WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES???>
Lots of people dying.

That was in response to your assertation that we had enimies
due to our actions in Latin America, so I repeat the question,
what similar consequences have we endured due to our actions
in Latin america? Or Iran? Or pretty much anywhere else in the
world? Just the Saudi's.

Seems pretty obvious where the problem is..


Add comment


Arif Khokar 29 April 2005 03:26:21 [ permanent link ]
 Bernard farquart wrote:
No, but it means that we can not plan our nations posture in the world> on the possible reaction of irrational people.

The "possible" reaction has become reality and has lead to many
unnecessary deaths. The point of the matter is that these actions took
place in response to actions on our part to defend against a nonexistant
threat.

Perhaps our government should consider the attitudes of people living in
the countries that they plan to establish a military base in rather than
listening to a non-representative government whose only motivation is to
get more money and weapons.

Most people in the area have a similar view in which there was no need
for our government to establish a military base there. Bin Laden had a
similar point of view. Most people would not consider planning and
actually carrying out actions that result in the murder of thousands of
people. Bin Laden did.

Since our government went against the will of the people there, the
extremists from that population decided to "punish" us with the means
they had available to them.
responses that predated the WTC attacks (the Kobar (sp?) towers bombing, >>the USS Cole attack, the attack on 2 of our embassies in Africa).
All due to the anger at us over simply being in the wrong place?

Read what I wrote above. It was well known that we were not wanted
there by the local population.
Our government should have been paying attention and removing the troops >>from Saudi Arabia (they weren't defending against anything anyway).
Really? I heard there was a border dispute over near there.

Which had what to do with us? You might also want to consider the fact
that those borders were arbitrary decisions made by the British and
French nearly a century ago.
That was in response to your assertation that we had enimies> due to our actions in Latin America,

I don't really keep up with international politics with regards to
Central and South America. I do know that we have some institution
called the "School of the Americas" (or something like that) which is
alleged to train people to act as "death squads," for controlling rebel
orgainizations, or so it is alleged.

I would imagine that such actions would lead to general hatred towards
us. This can be considered a consequence. Whether an extremist from
that population will attempt to do something in this country remains to
be seen.
Add comment
Dtj 2 May 2005 06:07:35 [ permanent link ]
 On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 04:30:02 GMT, "Bernard farquart"
<Bernardfarquart@de­letehotmail.com> wrote:
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote in message >news:wusce.124$8g.­23@news01.roc.ny...>­> No, but if the majority is against abortion, then that should be our >> national policy (and vice versa).>
Please look up the phrase "the tyranny of the majority"

I guess he would support us if the majority thought we should kill all
sunni muslims.
Add comment


Bernard farquart 3 May 2005 01:52:38 [ permanent link ]
 
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote in message
news:faEce.174$Qh1.­52@news02.roc.ny...>­ Bernard farquart wrote:>
Most of whom had not been in Iraq for the last 3 decades. If the >>>attitude that "we need a foreign power to liberate us" was near >>>universal, there would be no "insurgency" now.>
There isn't in the north, it seems that some are happy to see the way the >> cards have fallen.>
Maintaining the no-fly zone (which was never sanctioned by the UN or in > the cease fire agreement) would have sufficed. Besides, why is the will > of the Kurdish people in Iraq more important than their will in Syria or > Turkey?>
General attitude of Sunni Muslims with regards to land that contains the >>>two holiest cities of Islam. I'll cite myself as a reputable source >>>since I am a Sunni Muslim.>
OK, so do you think that we are *more* culpable, or the House of Saud >> that>> invited us?>
Both are equally culpable, though I'd be inclined to think that our > government's culpability increased after the local attitude became more > apparent.>
But it does say that his view was not unique (not what he did about it).>
Again, I must say, wrong target for actual change to be effected.>
Unfortunately, the target has been destroyed. I'd rather not be a target > in the first place.>

Look, in my opinion, the reason that no one in the US is seriously
calling for a withdrawl from Saudi soil, is not onlywere we invited
by the government of the country, the objection to our presence is
one most americans can not comprehend. You see, many people
who live in the US are not of the same homogenious background, in
fact we are taught (some better than others) that it is wrong of us
to deny anyone who may seek it the chance for a new life here. So you
see, to those of us who welcome others into our cities and towns, we
find the notion of a whole country as "too good" for an "infidel" to
sully with his footprint as a noxious idea. Much like the ethnic hatreds
that tore apart Bosnia, no one over here was saying "yeah, that is a
fine ideal, to live in a 'pure' nation" we were of course horrified, and
look at such an idea as not civilized.

I am sorry if it offends you, but the argument that we can not
walk the dirt in a certain country because it has two holy places
is not going to gain any traction, because it is the sort of idea we
have been taught is not a reasonable position to take.

My view is the product of an entirely west coast liberal
family upbringing, so I imagine that many in this country
(most according to the last election) would have even less
understanding for the whole concept of our unsuitability
to set foot in that part of the world.

Bernard


Add comment
Bernard farquart 3 May 2005 06:49:42 [ permanent link ]
 
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote in message
news:2DAde.344$c74.­34@news02.roc.ny...
Less than 40 years ago, certain people couldn't eat at certain restaurants > or drink at certain fountains.

Exactly right, and it is universally accepted that that
was an ugly thing, and not a notion to be cherished.

Bernard


Add comment


Matthew Russotto 3 May 2005 19:56:02 [ permanent link ]
 In article <2DAde.344$c74.34@n­ews02.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the culture here is superior >to the rest of the world (and that applies to people from all cultures).

Do not fall into the trap of thinking that all cultures are equivalent
and none is superior to any other.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Add comment
Arif Khokar 3 May 2005 23:56:45 [ permanent link ]
 Matthew Russotto wrote:> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the culture here is superior >>to the rest of the world (and that applies to people from all cultures).
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that all cultures are equivalent> and none is superior to any other.

Overall, they are equivalent (some aspects may be "inferior" to other
cultures while other aspects are "superior" to other cultures). If they
weren't, then that is effectively saying that certain races of people
are inferior other races.
Add comment
Matthew Russotto 4 May 2005 19:41:06 [ permanent link ]
 In article <1IQde.386$dC4.162@­news02.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>Matthew Russotto wrote:>> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.ed­u> wrote:>
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that the culture here is superior >>>to the rest of the world (and that applies to people from all cultures).>
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that all cultures are equivalent>> and none is superior to any other.>
Overall, they are equivalent (some aspects may be "inferior" to other >cultures while other aspects are "superior" to other cultures). If they >weren't, then that is effectively saying that certain races of people >are inferior other races.

Certainly not; culture and race aren't equivalent either.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

CarGuru > Driving > Re: I can't see any reason why women should drive 3 May 2005 06:49:42
see also:
Logitech Momo (Red) Steering…
rFactor pitboard?
RSC behavior UNACCEPTABLE
pass tests:
see also:
XyweXYWExywe.com???????????????????...
X____Y____W____E
Ja xotel by chto by jeto byl XYWE-C...
  Copyright © 2001—2009 Car-Guru
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.car-guru.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.car-guru.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.car-guru.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .