Laggerzero:

And with that said is our whole problem. Obama is too young for this kind of a job. He has only one term in the senate and THAT IS IT. Just because someone touts change these days makes them popular. We need to get our heads straight or our country will soon be overrun with Mexicans and then they will be running the show.

Lol... true dat :)

willardcw4:

Laggerzero:

And with that said is our whole problem. Obama is too young for this kind of a job. He has only one term in the senate and THAT IS IT. Just because someone touts change these days makes them popular. We need to get our heads straight or our country will soon be overrun with Mexicans and then they will be running the show.

Lol... true dat :)

 Out of curiosity what happend to give us your tired, your week, your huddled masses? We are all descendent's of immigrants you know.

I don't like Obama for a whole set of other reasons, mostly including his stance on gun control. Also whether he is or isn't Muslim should have no bearing on his qualifications for being president. Muslims are not an enemy of the state. Just as there are radical Muslims there are radical Christians and every other creed known to man. 

Savage Animal:

Muslims are not an enemy of the state. Just as there are radical Muslims there are radical Christians and every other creed known to man. 

Radical christians don't go out blowing up planes and buildings in western and judaic countries... radical muslims do. I consider them an enemy of the state. While Obama obviously isn't a radical muslim, the fact that radical muslims SUPPORT his run for candidacy worries me... plus, I disagree with most of the dem's policies anyway :)

I have a strong belief that obama saying that the people of flordia and michigan were not intelligent enough to know who they were voting for is an insult.   Everyone has the usa today, the internet, and the television they knew the issues.  If these two states were counted It would be a dead heat in delegates and popular votes and Clinton would have probably overtaken him in KY and WV also probably would have gotten more super's.  Is he saying about 1 million people randomly went to the polls and just randomly voted?  How insulting.

willardcw4:

Radical christians don't go out blowing up planes and buildings in western and judaic countries... radical muslims do. I consider them an enemy of the state. While Obama obviously isn't a radical muslim, the fact that radical muslims SUPPORT his run for candidacy worries me... plus, I disagree with most of the dem's policies anyway :)

Well I come from a developed country where in the north, the terrorists are christians, not the muslims. So the view that radical christians don't blow things up is wrong. What about America's domestic terrorism? Timothy McVeigh was christian and untill 9/11 was regarded as America's worst terrorist. Maybe there should have been back lash against the christian community. Perhaps a religion shouldn't be held responsible for it's so called followers.

In any event if a good presidential candidate was muslim I would have no heisitation to vote for him, why would I? Who cares if the muslims support Obama it doesn't mean he supports terrorism I can't beleive I have to argue this. If you don't like the democratic parties policies thats a different issue.

I can't beleive people still think Obama has some hidden past of being muslim like it was a crime. I suggest anybody who still thinks he is muslim read this.

-Dev

Dev2:

willardcw4:

Radical christians don't go out blowing up planes and buildings in western and judaic countries... radical muslims do. I consider them an enemy of the state. While Obama obviously isn't a radical muslim, the fact that radical muslims SUPPORT his run for candidacy worries me... plus, I disagree with most of the dem's policies anyway :)

 

Well I come from a developed country where in the north, the terrorists are christians, not the muslims. So the view that radical christians don't blow things up is wrong. What about America's domestic terrorism? Timothy McVeigh was christian and untill 9/11 was regarded as America's worst terrorist. Maybe there should have been back lash against the christian community. Perhaps a religion shouldn't be held responsible for it's so called followers.

In any event if a good presidential candidate was muslim I would have no heisitation to vote for him, why would I? Who cares if the muslims support Obama it doesn't mean he supports terrorism I can't beleive I have to argue this. If you don't like the democratic parties policies thats a different issue.

I can't beleive people still think Obama has some hidden past of being muslim like it was a crime. I suggest anybody who still thinks he is muslim read this.

-Dev

 

Well said. Also keep in mind that radical Christians do go around blowing up abortion clinics and shooting doctors who perform abortions. That could easily be construed as terrorism. What about scumbags like Fred Phelps and his church protesting the funerals of dead soldiers and Katrina victims. Do not blame an entire religion for the acts of a few zealots. I also agree whole heartedly that I would vote for a Muslim candidate if I liked what he stood for, or a woman for that matter, we just have no good candidate this time around. There is a separation of  church and state for a reason.

willardcw4:

Savage Animal:

Muslims are not an enemy of the state. Just as there are radical Muslims there are radical Christians and every other creed known to man. 

Radical christians don't go out blowing up planes and buildings in western and judaic countries... radical muslims do. I consider them an enemy of the state. While Obama obviously isn't a radical muslim, the fact that radical muslims SUPPORT his run for candidacy worries me... plus, I disagree with most of the dem's policies anyway :)

False. Extremely false. Want to talk about Christian Terrorism?

First examples of Christian Terrorism were the Crusades. It's estimated that the death toll from the Crusadesrange from 1.5 - 5 million. A few examples from a good source:

-Killing of 8,000 Jews in Rhineland. Circa 1096, it is well documented that 1,000 Jewish women committed mass suicide in Rhineland to avoid Christian mobs.

-Fall of Antioch, circa 1098: 100,000 Muslims massacred.

-1099: Fall of Jerusalem. 70,000 Muslims massacred.

But let's talk about contemporary times:

1. Army of God. Christian anti-abortion organization. In 1985, the leader, Reverand Mike Bray was convicted of destroying 7 abortion facilities in Delaware, Maryland, D.C., and Virginia causing over $1 million in damages. Another member of AoG, Reverand Paul Hill, shot and killed Dr. John Britton in 1994. In 1998, AoG member James Kopp shot and killed Dr. Barnett Slepian. 
1. In 2001 during the Anthrax scare, more than 140 abortion clinics in 14 states received white powder in letters which stated "You have been exposed to Anthrax. We are going to kill all of you. Army of God, Virginia DARE chapter."
2. According the the ATF (Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), Army of God, over a 12 year period, besieged clinics with a record of over 123 arson cases, 37 bombings in 33 states, and more than 1,500 cases of stalking, assault, sabotage and burglary.
   
2. The Christian Identity is an umbrella organization of affiliated churches and organizations devoted to radical Christian-based white supremacy. 
1. Eric Robert Rudolph carried out a series of bombings across the southern U.S. that killed 3 people and injured 150 more because he opposed abortion and homosexuality.
2. Christian Identity has been associated with Peter Kevin McGregor Langan and Richard 'Wild Bill' Guthrie, founders of the Aryan Republican Army (ARA), a paramilitary group that has been connected to hate fueled terrorist attacks involving train derailments, assassinations, bombings, and a string of professionally executed bank robberies planned to finance an overthrow of the U.S. Government.
   
3. South African branches of the Christian Identity have been accused of terrorist activity, including the 2002 Soweto Bombings.
   
3. Aryan Nations - Another Christian radical group with delusions of white supremacy. Tied to the Christian Identity as well. Their rap sheet is too long so I won't go into it. Look it up if you're interested. Let's just say they killed and terrorized lots of Americans.
   
4. Christian Patriots. You know these guys. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols who carried out the Oklahoma City Bombings. 168 dead, over 800 wounded, maimed, injured.
   
5. Lambs of Christ - another radical Christian anti-abortion group.
   
6. Nagaland Rebels - Based in India. Responsible for 10's of thousands of deaths and has been waging a continuous insurgency since 1947.
7. Christioslavism played a crucial role in the Yugoslav Wars and Bosnian genocide. 10's of thousands of people were killed and it has been concluded that the Serbs (Christians) were responsible for about 90% of war crimes and 100% of the genocidein Bosnia while the Croats and Muslims were responsible for just 10% of war crimes in Bosnia. But yeah...Islam is a violent religion, right?
8. Tsar Lazar Guard - Self-described as the first uniformed Christian militia squad composed of war veterans from Serbia. Threatened to attack the U.N. if Kosovo declared independence and has also stated a desire to acquire a nuclear bomb and detonate it in Kosovo. 
9. Let's not forget that hate mongering group we all know and love, the Ku Klux Klan. Because let's be clear; they are a radical Christian organization. I don't think I really need to go into the past 150 years of terror, rape, murder, and lynchings that the KKK are responsible for.
   
10. Baptist Church of Tripura - Accused of ethnic cleansing and bombings that have killed hundreds. Also known for their gunpoint conversions to Christianity.
    
11. Sons of Freedom - Have terrorized the Canadian government and stepped up their violence in the 60's when they bombed dozens of towns because they blamed the Canadian government for killing Peter Lordly in 1924.
    

There are dozens and dozens of Christian radical groups terrorizing the world but you get a general idea from that list. Needless to say, when we factor in the KKK's violence and death toll, The Oklahoma City Bombings, and the many smaller cases of Christian Terrorism committed on home soil, the body count SURPASSES that of 9/11. So if you want to point fingers at what religion's radical groups are responsible for American deaths on American soil, look to none other than Christianity my friend.

Also, I would love to see your sources for claiming that radical Muslim groups support Obama. Simply saying such a thing does not make it so. Please provide factual information and sources. 

In terms of Obama not being 'experienced enough', I say bollocks. Back in 2002 before he was even a Senator (but was a candidate for Senator), he was speaking out against the Iraq War vehemently while Clinton and McCain were in the Senate voting to approve the use of force in Iraq. Obama had the insight to oppose the war from the start so the insinuation that wisdom comes with job experience is a farce. It certainly didn't worked for McCain and Clinton. 

And don't even get me started on Hillary. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate, Lincoln-Bedroom gate, Monica Lewinsky, and Pardongate. The Clintons are the Prom King and Queen of bad decisions in the Democractic party. Voting her in is an absolution of her bad decisions and encourages more scandals from her. 

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist... but not in the same boat as radical muslims... they have camps where they train the young and old to kill people. Not to mention radical muslim groups are supported by almost every country in the middle east.

Obama obviously doesn't support terrorism... however, I have a grudge against those crazy bastards who insist on shooting at my family in Israel and blowing up buildings left and right in an attempt to annihilate all Jews and ultimately, all Americans. Sorry if i'm a bit pissed off... but considering their logic is f*cked up as it is (in most people's minds.... would you run around with a bomb on your back into a school? or a bus? and then think you will be rewarded?) I have trouble agreeing or believing that whay they say is true or beneficial to anyone but themselves. You have crazy people everywhere... but when those people get endorsed and are given enough weapons to support an Army (which is a legitimate comparison), their influence worries me.

There are countless groups of these people... not one crazy guy... and these individuals are literally willing to die for their beliefs...and they hold power in many countries in the middle east (with influence spreading)... do you agree with their beliefs and ideas? Will you side with radical islam on political, social, and economic ideologies? I definately do not, and thus, I QUESTION obama's support from some radical islamic groups... it isn't the deciding factor in my mind, but again, as I said, its something that should AT LEAST make you think. If reverend wright is getting so much attention (which I believe tells us someting about Obama), then so should this.

Fseven, you posted when I was posting...

 Ya, christian terrorist (like any terrorist) are a threat.. but tell me, in what country to chrisitan terrorists walk around with AK-47s in the streets, or shoot missiles at other countries... or walk around blowing themselves up every week... whose only goal is to kill innocent people, something radical muslims are fairly successful at. Its definately not the same. Radical islam has more governmental support and because of it, has more funding and weapons.

 Links:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/04/terroristsuppor.php

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_Fundraisers_Web_Page_-_Update-_Terror_Fundraisers_Page_Disappears!

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/hamas_mccain_obama/2008/04/26/91195.html

I'll look for more when I get the chance.

"In terms of Obama not being 'experienced enough', I say bollocks. Back in 2002 before he was even a Senator (but was a candidate for Senator), he was speaking out against the Iraq War vehemently while Clinton and McCain were in the Senate voting to approve the use of force in Iraq. Obama had the insight to oppose the war from the start so the insinuation that wisdom comes with job experience is a farce. It certainly didn't worked for McCain and Clinton. "

I don't see how that makes him experienced... his "insight" and "wisdom" opposed popular belief at the time... no one knew how it would turn out. I personally supported going into Iraq, but definately was/am against us staying in the fashion we are. The task was handled very poorly. Just because Obama had an opinion doesn't mean he knew the war would come crashing down and become a 'negative' war in American's eyes... I diagree in the attempt ignore the link between  job experience with wisdom... Also, it depends on whether you agree with being in Iraq or not. For me (since I support it), its not big deal, and since Obama wasn't in congress or any official position, I can't comment on his decision since he didn't make one. However, the fact that clinton and mccain voted for the war, since it falls in line with my opinion, is a plus.

Also, the decision one would make in and out of congress are probably very different. Its easy to have an opinion when your sitting on the sidelines...

Something's wrong with quoting, so I just put your words in bold and my words in normal case. 

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist... but not in the same boat as radical muslims... they have camps where they train the young and old to kill people. Not to mention radical muslim groups are supported by almost every country in the middle east

That's a matter of opinion. And how do you think Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols learned how to make a bomb? They were trained by a Christian fundamentalist paramilitary group. 

So yes, they're in the same boat. 

Obama obviously doesn't support terrorism... however, I have a grudge against those crazy bastards who insist on shooting at my family in Israel and blowing up buildings left and right in an attempt to annihilate all Jews and ultimately, all Americans. Sorry if i'm a bit pissed off... but considering their logic is f*cked up as it is (in most people's minds.... would you run around with a bomb on your back into a school? or a bus? and then think you will be rewarded?) I have trouble agreeing or believing that whay they say is true or beneficial to anyone but themselves. You have crazy people everywhere... but when those people get endorsed and are given enough weapons to support an Army (which is a legitimate comparison), their influence worries me.

Don't you think they have a grudge against Israel who bombs civilian buildings and kills innocent Palestinians just because they 'got word' that a radical Muslim terrorist was in the area?

And since American supports Israel, does that mean that America is supporting Israeli terrorism against innocent Palestinians?

There are two sides to every story my friend. 

There are countless groups of these people... not one crazy guy... and these individuals are literally willing to die for their beliefs...and they hold power in many countries in the middle east (with influence spreading)... do you agree with their beliefs and ideas? Will you side with radical islam on political, social, and economic ideologies? I definately do not, and thus, I QUESTION obama's support from some radical islamic groups... it isn't the deciding factor in my mind, but again, as I said, its something that should AT LEAST make you think. If reverend wright is getting so much attention (which I believe tells us someting about Obama), then so should this

What radical islamic groups are supporting Obama? Please cite some resources.

As for Reverand Wright, apart from his HIV comments, there was nothing wrong with his comments. 

It hardly amazes me that people get upset about what Jeremiah Wright said but...

No one vilified Jerry Falwell nor Pat Robertson both of whom never retracted or denounced their view that America provoked the 9/11 attacks by doing things to anger God.

John Hagee (who supports John McCain) continues to believe that the City of New Orleans got what it deserved when Katrina drowned its residents and devastated the lives of thousands of Americans. A comment which goes ignored in the wake of his tirade against Catholics.

James Inhofe - who happens to still be a Republican U.S. Senator - blamed America for the 9/11 attacks by arguing in a 2002 Senate floor speech that "the spiritual door was opened for an attack against the United States of America" because we pressured Israel to give away parts of the West Bank.

But Jeremiah Wright is attacked for HIS comments about 9/11? Here we have an elected SENATOR saying virtually the same thing yet nothing happens.

But where is the media when these white men speak out in a vile fashion? This speaks volumes about the double standard in this country and how white men are given free reign to spew venom but the second anything remotely controversial gets uttered from a black man's mouth, the media and white America run to the front of the line in the attempt to 'teach that boy his proper place in society.'. Disgusting.

Why aren't people like Falwell, Robertson, Hagee, Inhofe and other white Christian radicals ever described as anti-American or America-hating extremists? Never - because white Christian evangelicals who tie themselves to the political Right are intrinsically patriotic. A repulsive habit in this country.

Where was the media when George Bush had private conversations with Pat Robertson about matters such as whether to invade Iraq? Isn't that a big scandal? That the President is consulting with an American-hating minister, someone who believes God allowed the 9/11 attacks as punishment for our evil country, about vital foreign policy decisions?

What about the views of televangelist Rod Parsley, one of McCain's self-proclaimed "spiritual advisers,"? His opinions have received a fraction of the attention generated by Jeremiah Wright. Parley proclaimed that "America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed." Unlike Wright and Obama - for whom the former's controversial views are found nowhere near the latter's public or private conduct - both George Bush and John McCain's Middle Eastern militarism are perfectly consonant with the most maniacal and crazed views of Christian Rapture enthusiasts such as Hagee, Parsley, Inhofe, and Robertson. Yet the controversy created over their close ties is virtually non-existent. *Glenn Greenwald

Ya, christian terrorist (like any terrorist) are a threat.. but tell me, in what country to chrisitan terrorists walk around with AK-47s in the streets, or shoot missiles at other countries... or walk around blowing themselves up every week... whose only goal is to kill innocent people, something radical muslims are fairly successful at. Its definately not the same. Radical islam has more governmental support and because of it, has more funding and weapons.

Uhhh...Serbia. Bosnia. Yugoslavia. Lebanon. Northern Ireland. Uganda. Russia. Need more?

But terrorism is relative. 

To us, radical Muslims are terrorists. 

To Muslims, America and Israel are terrorists. 

So to radical Muslims, Israel is committing terrorism and is funded by America.

Life does not exist in a vacuum my friend.

Links:

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/04/terroristsuppor.php

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29729_Michelle_Obamas_Name_Removed_from_Terrorist_Fundraisers_Web_Page_-_Update-_Terror_Fundraisers_Page_Disappears! 

These are EXTREMELY biased websites. Anti-Islam, Pro-Israel. Right-Wing conservative. That's like citing a message on a Yankees messageboard about why the Red Sox are bad and trying to pass it off as a legitimate source of why the Red Sox are bad.

Please only used unbiased and objective resources.

It's rather absurd when a member of Hamas says he hopes Obama will win the election, and then the American fear-mongers insinuate that means that Obama is somehow tied in with Islamic fundamentalism. 

If these people actually did responsible journalism, they would have quoted the ENTIRE quote.  What Ahmed Yousef actually said was:

“Actually, we like Mr. Obama," Yousef said. "We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, a great man with great principle.” 

So he wants Obama in office because he believes he will have principles similar to John F. Kennedy. 

It amazes me at how people warp facts into fear propaganda. 

It amazes me even more at the people that believe it. 

Willard, if you are willing to hold comments from a man in a terrorist organization against Obama, then as a Republican, why wouldn't you hold it against the Bush's that their family supported Nazi's through the financial backing of Hitler sympathizers?Why wouldn't you condemn the Bush's since a great deal of their family fortune was made through the funding of German businesses that financed Hitler?

Unless of course, that's something you never knew.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

 Willard mate, you view the entire Muslim world as impoverist and desperate. This isn't true, there are some wealthy developed Muslim nations and like wise there are many thrid world Christian countries befitting the manner you described of the Muslim world. The Japanese also were once like parts of the Muslim world enemies of America and of course the Japanese have strong roots in suicide. They aren't Christian but they aren't Muslim either, not being what you said the only culture to commit it.

 -Dev

Savage Animal:

 Out of curiosity what happened to give us your tired, your week, your huddled masses? We are all descendant's of immigrants you know.

 If its legal I dont have a problem with it. Its still on the statue of liberty.

As far as which religio is more radical, I think that radical foe any religion is what i messed up in the world. Its just how many there are of each is what we should be discussing.  Like dev2 said with the IRA a few yeas back they were a real problem.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to continue the discussion on my end until Friday (finals end then)... its taking too much time out of my studying to formulate responses :)

However, a few comments:

There are more radical islamic individuals than christian radicals.. don't ask me for a number... but I can gurantee you that is true.

Israel's foreign policy is based on RE-ACTIVE response... no proactive. So those "innocent buildings" they bomb are in response to being attacked by the individuals they are attacking. Plus, there are innocents on all sides, I don't see how that is relavent. Think of it like this: Radical muslims target ALL jews, americans, etc... whereas Israel targets (to the best as it can) the groups that physically wage war or support those that wage war on them (thus, not innocent).

Good point on the other nations having internal struggles.. but I don't see Lebanon as a truly christian nation. You're right.. terrorism is relative.. and both sides are considered terrorists... but I don't see how that justifies anything than having a circular argument... WE STILL CALL THEM TERRORISTS!!!! Even if they do the same to us, they still want to kill us (and in many cases, likewise). The majority of American policy and Israeli policy in the last couple decades has been reactive policy (except for Iraq, that was definately proactive).

I never insinuated this : "It's rather absurd when a member of Hamas says he hopes Obama will win the election, and then the American fear-mongers insinuate that means that Obama is somehow tied in with Islamic fundamentalism." My concern was in the need to question  (at least what I consider a logical need) ourselves due to the beliefs carried by some radical islamists.

I googled those links, didn't have time to find sources... but here is one thing.. ALL NEWS IS BIASED. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/mccain-camp-uses-obamas-hamas-compliment-as-fundraising-fuel/ Another one... of course its fox.. therefore it must be biased.. right? The fact is, the Hamas support exists... i'm not saying Obama is a terrorist... i'm simply pointing out the fact that you are agreeing with one if agree with those statements... that also isn't a bad thing, just something worth thinking about.. which is what I have been saying all along.

I don't like Bush... and I don't see how Bush's grandfather helping the *** has anything to do with him... i'm not talking about Obama's grandfather.. i'm talking about a radical muslim who is trying to both kill americans and jews (right now, as we speak) supporting a presidential candidate... not history.

And I don't think I said anything that would say this " Willard mate, you view the entire Muslim world as impoverist and desperate." I've only really been referring to Radical Islam. Hell, a lot of those countries governments are filthy rich, but at the same time, how many of those countries are "First World"...? You say there are some developed countries... which ones? And how many are undeveloped? I have a feeling the majority are not first world countries... I'm not sure why thats relavent either. I'm focussing my current discussion on one specific issue on a specific set of comments. Like I said, if I busted out my history book, ok, almost every large culture massacred people... but i'm not talking about the past. There are other things going on in the world today, sure, but do you really think more money, time, effort, and people are going into terrorist groups OTHER than radical islam? I would disagree if you do.

Also, i'm not a Republican... :(

willardcw4:

Unfortunately, I don't have time to continue the discussion on my end until Friday (finals end then)... its taking too much time out of my studying to formulate responses :)

Good luck on those finals man! I know how much of a doozy they can be. :)

willardcw4:

There are more radical islamic individuals than christian radicals.. don't ask me for a number... but I can gurantee you that is true.

I disagree with this. There certainly are more Christian radicals in the U.S. than Islamic radicals. Also, how can you 'guarantee' anything without statistical information or resources?

willardcw4:

Israel's foreign policy is based on RE-ACTIVE response... no proactive. So those "innocent buildings" they bomb are in response to being attacked by the individuals they are attacking. Plus, there are innocents on all sides, I don't see how that is relavent. Think of it like this: Radical muslims target ALL jews, americans, etc... whereas Israel targets (to the best as it can) the groups that physically wage war or support those that wage war on them (thus, not innocent).

One major difference between Israel and Palestine is that Israel receives $3 billion A YEAR in aid from America. That's why you see Israeli forces using state of the art weaponry while Palestinians resort to suicide bombing and throwing rocks at Israeli troops. If you despise suicide bombing and are looking for more 'civilized' fighting, I'm sure with $3 billion in aid, Palestinians would be happy to hang up the suicide bomb packs and stow away the rocks and fight with more modern weaponry.

And again...you said Israel targets the groups that physically wage war or support those that wage war against it.

How is that different from radical Muslims targetting Israel (who is physically waging war) and America (who is funding Israel as well as physically waging war - Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.)?

I'm not condoning terrorism or anything, I'm just trying to show you that the mirror has two faces and they are extemely similar.

willardcw4:

Good point on the other nations having internal struggles.. but I don't see Lebanon as a truly christian nation. You're right.. terrorism is relative.. and both sides are considered terrorists... but I don't see how that justifies anything than having a circular argument... WE STILL CALL THEM TERRORISTS!!!! Even if they do the same to us, they still want to kill us (and in many cases, likewise). The majority of American policy and Israeli policy in the last couple decades has been reactive policy (except for Iraq, that was definately proactive).

Let's say you are a poor nation. You live next door to a rich nation with lots of weapons including nuclear ones. There's no doubt that if your two nations went to war, you would be wiped off the face of the Earth. However you're very angry with the other nation for encroaching on your territory and displacing thousands and thousands of your citizens. The only way to really fight is for small groups to make no national affiliation and make guerilla-esque attacks against the other country. That way the other country cannot outright attack your country because it is not your country that's waging war.

This is the predicament as it exists with Israel. They have such an advanced military for the Middle East and are backed both financially and militarily by the most powerful country on the planet so no Islamic country is going to be stupid and wage outright war against Israel. Which is why small radical groups exist. Because they understand this but still want to wage war. It's not right by any means but is inevitable when you have two countries next to each other, of two different religions that share ancient hatreds, and sprinkle modern weaponry on top.

That's why Israel can afford to maintain a defensive posture. If they were to attack an Arabic country, then ALL Arabic countries would in turn attack Israel. However, while Israel has the superior military force in the Middle East and is backed by the most powerful country on the Earth, no other country would dare attack Israel. So Israel sits and continues to build up it's own military.

willardcw4:

I never insinuated this : "It's rather absurd when a member of Hamas says he hopes Obama will win the election, and then the American fear-mongers insinuate that means that Obama is somehow tied in with Islamic fundamentalism." My concern was in the need to question  (at least what I consider a logical need) ourselves due to the beliefs carried by some radical islamists.

I think this link might help to quell your concern: http://factcheck.barackobama.com/

If you check that out, it states: "Barack Obama is Pro-Israel. Period."

willardcw4:

I googled those links, didn't have time to find sources... but here is one thing.. ALL NEWS IS BIASED. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/18/mccain-camp-uses-obamas-hamas-compliment-as-fundraising-fuel/ Another one... of course its fox.. therefore it must be biased.. right? The fact is, the Hamas support exists... i'm not saying Obama is a terrorist... i'm simply pointing out the fact that you are agreeing with one if agree with those statements... that also isn't a bad thing, just something worth thinking about.. which is what I have been saying all along.

I don't like Bush... and I don't see how Bush's grandfather helping the *** has anything to do with him... i'm not talking about Obama's grandfather.. i'm talking about a radical muslim who is trying to both kill americans and jews (right now, as we speak) supporting a presidential candidate... not history.

Again, as long as Obama is Pro-Israel, it doesn't concern me that a Hamas member likes Obama. Because there is absolutely nothing that indicates Obama sympathizes with terrorists, nothing to indicate that he would do anything to jeaopardize America's relations with Israel, and nothing to indicate that he would destabilize the Middle East by withdrawing support of Israel.

willardcw4:

Also, i'm not a Republican... :(

My bad, I assumed that you were when you said you don't agree with anything that Democrats have to say. :)

FSeven:

In terms of Obama not being 'experienced enough', I say bollocks. Back in 2002 before he was even a Senator (but was a candidate for Senator), he was speaking out against the Iraq War vehemently while Clinton and McCain were in the Senate voting to approve the use of force in Iraq. Obama had the insight to oppose the war from the start so the insinuation that wisdom comes with job experience is a farce. It certainly didn't worked for McCain and Clinton.

 

I agree, I like Obama's rebuttal to the argument. I think when people speak of experience what they really mean is does the candidate have good judgement. It's a needed concern, however Hillary touts her 35 years of experience but I fail to see how that discounts Obama's 20 years of political involvement. Sure she was the first lady, but does that make Yoko Ono a beetle. What policy reform or decision making did she engage herself in while she was in the white house? 

It's not that I don't like Clinton, I do. However the country needs change; I don't want to come across as regurgitating the Obama campaign. I wouldn't like to think that if Clinton was elected two families would have occupied the US presidency for a quarter of a century. I also don't like how Clinton takes money from special interest groups something Obama decided against in his current campaign. McCain is following the same suit of Bush, tax cuts which mostly benefit the rich. His health plan is old hat saying that Americans just need more competition amongst HMO's. Universal healthcare is needed badly.

-Dev