Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cpwm17

cpwm17's Journal
cpwm17's Journal
November 18, 2015

If she gains the presidency

we all should post pictures of the results of her military leadership, which will predictably be mangled bodies of dead and injured brown people. Since that is the known results of her past and future aggressive wars, then obviously that is what many here must want.

I'll start with a predictable result of the past aggressive war she enthusiastically supported:

Her family was massacred by US troops.

November 16, 2015

What's Sam Harris' excuse for being such a blood thirsty bigot?

He's clearly a fundie nut-case.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

Islam, more than any other religion human beings have devised, has all the makings of a thoroughgoing cult of death.

Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas.

I am one of the few people I know of who has argued in print that torture may be an ethical necessity in our war on terror.

The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization. We are at war with Islam. It may not serve our immediate foreign policy objectives for our political leaders to openly acknowledge this fact, but it is unambiguously so. It is not merely that we are at war with an otherwise peaceful religion that has been hijacked by extremists. We are at war with precisely the vision of life that is prescribed to all Muslims in the Koran.”

We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it.

Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so (LIE). Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

We cannot let our qualms over collateral damage paralyze us because our enemies know no such qualms. Theirs is a kill-the-children-first approach to war, and we ignore the fundamental difference between their violence and our own at our peril. Given the proliferation of weaponry in our world, we no longer have the option of waging this war with swords. It seems certain that collateral damage, of various sorts, will be a part of our future for many years to come.


Nobody is more dangerous than one who is so full of himself, such as this ignorant "new atheist" war-mongering bigot.
November 15, 2015

We target Israel's neighbors where it had been/is safe to be a religious minority

since those nations are the biggest threat to Israel's total dominance. Other pro-war interests find the neocons, and other Israel worshipers, convenient allies in their war-making wealth-acquiring schemes.

November 13, 2015

If you don't want the results of aggressive wars supported by your candidate exposed

don't support candidates that support aggressive wars.

November 13, 2015

We know that what one observes in chemistry, biochemistry and physiology

exists, so obviously what we observe is possible. It's self-contradictory to claim what we know is real is too complex to be possible, and then claim that an undefined something much more complex must have made it.

We have zero evidence for any god and no precise definition for what this god is or what it does.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against specific claim about a god. You can claim that your definition for a god is different than what Neil deGrasse Tyson is arguing against. That doesn't invalidate Neil deGrasse Tyson argument.

You do seem to be using an intelligent design argument so Neil deGrasse Tyson still seems to apply.

Our Universe may be infinite and there is very likely much more beyond. In our Universe there are trillions of planets in the visible Universe. That's a lot of lottery tickets to produce a planet that can evolve intelligent life. Likely there are enumerable universes and perhaps other realms unknowable to us beyond our Universe. A lot is going to happen in such a large reality, obviously including life.

Profile Information

Name: Paul
Gender: Male
Hometown: Florida
Home country: USA
Member since: Wed Mar 31, 2010, 03:20 PM
Number of posts: 3,829
Latest Discussions»cpwm17's Journal