It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: First Lady Mobbed in Holy Land

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
It didn't spark it..and me throwing gasoline onto a campfire that I didn't start, means I'm absolved of arson?


Why are you quoting my post at the bottom of yours?

Usually I'm keen enough to understand where a person stands in relations to myself, but if your post was meant to address my statement(s), you are sorely mistaken.
Such dense rhetoric compels one to believe that you may not intend to have a serious discussion.

Anyway, I'll rant for a second.
As has been shown above, the protests would have happened despite Newsweek. If it wasn't a Newsweek article, it would be torture in Afghanistan, if it wasn't torture in afghanistan, it would be US presence in Iraq.

You may also be mistaken in your assessment that the Moors had a major impact on the extremist state of Islam today. The current extremist idealogy among the Muslims is of a fairly recent occurence with such Muslim scholars as Wahhabi. As well, much of this extremist idealogy contains overtunes from Western philosophy. But while the Muslims secretly embrace these newER ideas, they are openly revolting against Western practices and customs.

I'm not sure why you are considering that this hostility from the Middle East started with our current president. Perhaps it would do you good to research on the history of US-Middle East relations.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by Jamuhn]




posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Quoted because, of some determination on your part to absolve the irresponsible acts of Newsweak, and continuing to add in the supposed problem being US "meddling" overseas.

To claim Islamic incursions against the rest of the world (Christian or otherwise) has little to do with history. The first major conflict between the "West" and Islam was long before this "recent" sect of Wahabism, or US "meddling", or the existance of the US even. Nor can it be blamed on the Crusades, which is as far as most historians dare to go. The history of hatred between the Middle East and Eauropean society goes back even further. Sorry to say it, but Islam "shot first".

The rest is sarcasm-for those who think that 9-11, Arab hatreds and so-called "insurgency" are symptoms of current administration, policies, or official visits.

And another interesting historical tidbit. Many leaders, monarchs, etc. would send their wives to territories to allow dialog. Whenever the leader wishes to create an opening without apparing "weak to his enemy, the princess, the queen, the priestess, etc would be sent in. Unable to make "official" policy, wives of leadership set up back channels. Just like Nancy and Hillary did during their administrations.

Really love the "no right to go there" rants from the "tolerant" relgious types. Bah.




Originally posted by Jamuhn

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
It didn't spark it..and me throwing gasoline onto a campfire that I didn't start, means I'm absolved of arson?


Why are you quoting my post at the bottom of yours?

Usually I'm keen enough to understand where a person stands in relations to myself, but if your post was meant to address my statement(s), you are sorely mistaken.
Such dense rhetoric compels one to believe that you may not intend to have a serious discussion.

Anyway, I'll rant for a second.
As has been shown above, the protests would have happened despite Newsweek. If it wasn't a Newsweek article, it would be torture in Afghanistan, if it wasn't torture in afghanistan, it would be US presence in Iraq.

You may also be mistaken in your assessment that the Moors had a major impact on the extremist state of Islam today. The current extremist idealogy among the Muslims is of a fairly recent occurence with such Muslim scholars as Wahhabi. As well, much of this extremist idealogy contains overtunes from Western philosophy. But while the Muslims secretly embrace these newER ideas, they are openly revolting against Western practices and customs.

I'm not sure why you are considering that this hostility from the Middle East started with our current president. Perhaps it would do you good to research on the history of US-Middle East relations.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by Jamuhn] [/quo

te]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Ah, ok, now I understood. I thought your entire post was meant to address me, and I was like, "Where'd you get that from?"

But, I am vociferous in my claim that the ends do not justify the means and that the Bush adminstration is a major problem. As well, your attempt to directly connect millenia-old wars to our present day is somewhat amusing. While they were a part of its evolution, they were certainly directly connected as many other more recents events are. I know you might disagree with such beliefs, but that isn't new around here.

I guess if you had cared to read further along the thread though, you would see my statement that Newsweek did help to enflame already tense spirits. So much for your claim of absolution.


Thanks for laying it clear though as you were first attempting to hide behind your sarcasm. It's hard to communicate back to sarcasm aimed in no particular direction.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I don't get it. The Bush Administration gets blaimed for not using diplomacy. Then when they send the First Lady to the Middle East in an act of diplomacy, they get blaimed for doing so! You can't have it both ways. How anyone can criticize the First Lady for visiting countries overseas, not to mention Palestinian womens' groups, is beyond me.

When it comes to the liberals and the anti-war activists, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It just shows the logic that us Republicans are up against!



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Phugedaboudet,

I think when you buck the convention of posting a quote before you address it you should expect people to be confused. I know every time I read a post from you I dont know who youre talking about till after it. Very confusing.

Also you can trace the modern conflict between Islam and the West directly to the British decision to partition Palestine. Before then you could of gone to any middle-eastern country and been treated with the traditionally welcoming nature of Islam. Something I've experienced first hand and respect immensely.

The Moors and Crusades are Ancient history and those wounds had healed until the creation of Israel by the United Nations and the reason the United States cops flak for it is due to its staunch support of Israel. No one can say the Bush administration is responsible for Islamic mistrust of the United States but your analogy of pouring gasolene onto a fire is more than an apt analogy for the Bush administration.

What other U.S administration has invaded 2 muslim countries since the creation of Israel?



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Whether or not the Newsweek article increased the likelyhood of protests and or violence......it was rather bad judgement to send the first lady to such a 'hot' spot.

Do you suppose they thought she would draw less ire that other members of the administration? Were they totally clueless as to the heat she would get? Seems like they still have a gross problem with intel, if this were the case.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Name should be changed to NewsWEAK.

What would the idiot publishers have said if something would have happened to Mrs. Bush?

My guess is nothing, AND they would have spent the next week, coming up with more semi-believable tripe, to support the previous weeks tripe..



THere's been nothing wrong done by the magazine - except be cowardered into an apology; what's wrong is that people like yourself are so mired in responding to phantom afronts, you're blind to the deception in front of your eyes.
Much like the issues/materials key to "Rathergate", the Pentagon signed off on this Newsweek article. So, this goverment saw first hand what was going to be printed. Here are the connected dots - media manipulation via "un named sources" to prop up the strawman of "liberal media" being responsible for our dire straights in Iraq, so a culpable & responsible administration can not be held accountable. And again, as with Rathergate, it's all true - Bush , the Senator's son did get candy azz treatment, Interrogators did defile the Quran. Hell, reports on that sort of action are years old already.

About Laura being assailed vis a vis Newsweeks article - ah, no, as already stated eloquently by others.

But hey, let me say on behalf of the reasonable minded board members - thanks for not posting as much!



Originally posted by Rasputin13
I don't get it. The Bush Administration gets blaimed for not using diplomacy. Then when they send the First Lady to the Middle East in an act of diplomacy, they get blaimed for doing so! You can't have it both ways. How anyone can criticize the First Lady for visiting countries overseas, not to mention Palestinian womens' groups, is beyond me.

When it comes to the liberals and the anti-war activists, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It just shows the logic that us Republicans are up against!


You're up against the "ill logic" of your team's actions, nothing more. To honor your positions as being participant in anything remotely resembling a reasonable debate of logical points, is to give yourself unwarranted credit.
If Laura "Prescription Eyes" Bush is the face of US diplomacy, to THAT region of the world in particular, we are truely fooked.

[edit on 23-5-2005 by Bout Time]



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Remember the latest Palestinian intifada? That was sparked by Ariel Sharon visiting the Temple Mount.

If it was a diplomatic mission being undertaken by Laura Bush then why did she need to visit muslim holy sites? Regardless of how noble her intentions might of been her advisors should of told her how the visit would be viewed.

She should of known better and should of stuck to visiting government buildings and officials.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Remember the latest Palestinian intifada? That was sparked by Ariel Sharon visiting the Temple Mount.



EXACTLY... I think we are trying to stir the pot up for some reason... (not that it needs stirring)
otherwise, I am forced to admit that this administration is truely as dumb as I feared.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
How in the hell does anyone figure Laura bush is gonna fix anything in the middle east. Yeah she was funny at the press corp briefing, [I thought so,] but it was scripted--that doesn't make her any smarter. She's as dumb as her husband and they need to pull the nickel bag out of there before she f---- it up worse than what our stupid president has.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
When it comes to the liberals and the anti-war activists, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It just shows the logic that us Republicans are up against!


Yes, I do blame the Bush administration for not using diplomacy and I while I think that was not the purpose of Laura's visit, I also think that it is too late for Bush.

I think it's unfair to blame solely Bush though, as his administration and members of Congress are the real culprits. Bush is merely a pawn for big business and its advocates. You know why free market was such a good idea? Because it involved almost no government intervention. Now we have to worry about the govermnent about having little or no corporate intervention.

Honestly though, I don't see why it's a big deal for Laura Bush to go to other countries. People obviously have their opinions about her and her representation of America, but I really don't understand if there will be any ramifications positive or negative of her visit.

You say that Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't? Do you know why this is?

It is because Bush and his regime DID do wrong and people aren't apt to quickly forget his and his administration's actions. Memory can be a cruel mistress for the closet liberals....errrr.....I mean Bush administration supporters, well they are the same.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Palestinians and Israelis have a fragile truce at the moment. Its starting to fray and is really close to crumbling.

There are people who wouldnt like to see peace breaking out in that part of the middle east. Its contrary to a lot of peoples beliefs including extremist muslims, christians and jews.

It smacks of incitement to me.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
I don't get it. The Bush Administration gets blaimed for not using diplomacy. Then when they send the First Lady to the Middle East in an act of diplomacy, they get blaimed for doing so! You can't have it both ways. How anyone can criticize the First Lady for visiting countries overseas, not to mention Palestinian womens' groups, is beyond me.

When it comes to the liberals and the anti-war activists, Bush is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. It just shows the logic that us Republicans are up against!


Mrs. Bush is not a diplomat. She is on a "Good will " trip. Talk about stirring the fire.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Bush's ratings as president are at an all time low, everytime he gets a low rating they drag her out for publicity hoping that she can somehow make him look better.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 05:40 PM
link   
That's odd because all of the pre-trip intelligence said that Laura would be greeted with flowers and candy. Those protestors just hate her freedoms, but Laura is on the march! It's hard work.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 05:48 PM
link   
The piece of garbage was SPYING ON THE US. If it weren't for the US, Israel would be a smoldering hole in the ground, yet they continue to spy on us - I think they should kill the S.O.B.



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hmm...I gotta problem. I don't find anything particularly intriguing in this snippet from the orginal story, and the link doesn't seem to work right now, Sooo....it's "In my not-so-humble opinion" time!

Laura Bush need not EVER venture outside the U.S.. "Good Will" missions are rubbish. Send someone with full Diplomatic powers over so the protesters at least THINK they're being heard, and that something can come out of it. Who knows? Just maybe something WILL come out of it.

As for Pollard, hey, isn't he already in Prison? 'Nuff said.

BTW, has any told these protesters that Newsweek recanted their story?? Certainly not Al Jeezera!



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:06 AM
link   
Hmm...I gotta problem. I don't find anything particularly intriguing in this snippet from the orginal story, and the link doesn't seem to work right now, Sooo....it's "In my not-so-humble opinion" time!

Laura Bush need not EVER venture outside the U.S.. "Good Will" missions are rubbish. Send someone with full Diplomatic powers over so the protesters at least THINK they're being heard, and that something can come out of it. Who knows? Just maybe something WILL come out of it.

As for Pollard, hey, isn't he already in Prison? 'Nuff said.

BTW, has anybody told these protesters that Newsweek recanted their story?? Certainly not Al Jeezera!



posted on May, 24 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
That's odd because all of the pre-trip intelligence said that Laura would be greeted with flowers and candy. Those protestors just hate her freedoms, but Laura is on the march! It's hard work.


ROFLMAO



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join