Some in the conspiracy camp (which includes me. sorry, no reference here, but most likely) have speculated that bin Laden’s death could serve as a ruse to get more votes come election day. My economics professor – in regards to oil prices – would tell you the same thing: people up top are simply manipulating prices to fit in with their political agendas. The main thing I’d like to point out here is that neither case is without its merits. As someone who believes bin Laden is a likely pawn used by the PTB to drum up support for the war(s) abroad, the bin Laden issue, even with Bush’s imminent retirement, is likely to continue indefinitely. Remember, it was being groomed as a much broader “War on Tyranny”, which, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld,
It will be a long, hard slog. Wikiquote: Donald Rumsfeld
Right. A hard slog that Americans like himself won’t have to go through, right? The neocons in the White House are turning the conservatives of this nation into an army of armchair generals. Allow me to close with this thought (if anyone could find a source on this, it would be appreciated): in the game of geopolitics, soldiers are seen only as throwaway pawns to achieve the objectives of the elite.
PARIS, Sept. 23 — French officials said Saturday that the government could not confirm intelligence information published in a French newspaper that the terrorist leader Osama bin Laden died in Pakistan last month. Continue reading
In the spirit of my two other posts I’d like to open up a discussion about the problems I see in neoconservatism (which I’m assuming you are).
I take it that you’re:
2. Pro Israel
3. Pro America (a nationalist)
I believe in neither 2 nor 3 due to the fleeting nature of civilization. Moreover, I firmly believe, as prophesied in the Bible and consistent throughout history, that mankind will meet its eventual end.
In the case #1, if you’re going to dictate Christian ethics to me, give me verse and context. Otherwise you’re just being dogmatic.
This is in reference to Comment Commandments revisited and the previous Pope to Muslim Fanatics: Why bother? posts in soccermomunplugged.
Cate implicates my comments in the “Pope…” post are inflammatory and purely malicious in nature.
– are inflammatory without addressing the issue of the blog
– are purely malicious in nature
Going by this definition of malicious, I fail to see where I am acting out of pure malice. Also, if the first few posts are any indication, I am sure that my characterization of your (Cate’s) generalized opinion of ME Arabs is on the mark.
I believe you (Cate) and I reached some sort of commonality of spirit at the “end” of our discussion, but judging by your last comment of the night, I believe it was built on false pretenses or a false unity, hence your post and following ban.
Allow me to illustrate:
No I didn’t forget that Jesus would know. But I am making the point that we all generalize. How aboutwe concede that we both reacted adversely to our triggers.
We are both probably on the same side of the issue anyway. You and I both want Muslims to be seen in a better light. Only I want the fanatics to stop doing everything in their power to reinforce negative stereotypes and you want President Bush and I not to generalize and create a hostile environment for innocent Muslims. Got it. I’ll make sure my Palestinian friend and her family feel welcome when they come for dinner on Tuesday evening.
Good night, Albert. (#97)