1) Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.
Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smokerâ(TM)s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana...
2) The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs...
3) It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.
So to summarize : 1) it partially disables the immune system of users 2) it damages (physically) the lungs, and creates infection points in them, which do not easily disappear 3) it causes, in the long term, lung cancer 4) while it doesn't cause psychological episodes, it triggers them. Giving marijuana to anyone with any type of brain malfunction whatsoever is dangerous in the extreme. 5) even in healthy people marijuana manages to cause so many different problems that the standard manual of psychological diagnostics grew about 20% to describe them all. 6) it is not good for the hearth, and increases (like any drug that exites neurons) the risk of heart attack. During smoking and up to 2 weeks after last use risk of heart attack is about 4x higher than normal....
Unfortunately there are many more side effects than just that. Tobacco really is a mild, tamed drug. Marijuana, as it's smoked today will release large burning particles into your lungs.
It's basically guaranteed to cause cancer before long, and quite a bit of mechanical and chemical damage even before that.
And yes, many medicines come from drug research. That's because obviously drugs have many active ingredients, and using some of them in isolation can have targeted beneficial effects. There are many, many such medicines.
Another type of substances many medicines originate from are poisons. Snake poison is a good example. Many components of snake poison are used in chemo treatments, because they kill just about anything.
You don't, however see anyone clamoring for the free sale of poisons. Even though they have many beneficial effects. Of course, 1 ml to much and you sleep with the fishes.
Right... it's all a conspiracy pushing "false" beliefs. Now why didn't I think of that.
In reality obviously people like to be in densities where you have about a square meter of personal space. That's real fun. Where the streets are barely walkable.
And the amount of energy that such an arrangement needs is just trivial. This whole claptrap about cities needing about 1000x or more their own area cultivated for food, and that's ignoring the obvious energy an oil needs, is just that : "claptrap".
The sewer system carries the absurd amounts of waste such cities produce into the municipal black hole, where there are zero environmental concerns.
Also the building materials for building the city in the first place are without environmental costs. Copper, Iron,... we don't need those ugly mines, God makes it rain down from heaven (but perhaps in a bit smaller chunks next time, big guy, I lost 2 good friends last time).
No obviously it's all just a conspiracy and living in huge density is just all fine and dandy, and much, much better for the environment than suburbs.
So you've claimed that you did more good for America's freedom than you would have in the military.
Now you state the exact opposite.
Which obviously validates my original point : you'd sell out the freedoms of americans, for mere money. If your life was threathened you would undoubtedly volunteer to shackle yourself.
All muslim sources, including the quran, are oral tradition of dubious reliability. They frequently massively contradict eachother.
Take the issue of alcohol for example. The quran states twice that it's okay and once that it's not. It also claims heaven is filled with rivers of wine.
In the other sources you will learn that the paedophile prophet did drink alcohol, but frequently forbade others to do so.
So exactly how you arrive at the conclusion that as a muslim alcohol is a no-go is a riddle I do not have the answer to.
Whether the sources are trustworthy, or even contradictory doesn't matter however. If people believe they're true, their contents will influence the behavior of people.
If you want despicable behavior of the paedophile prophet from a "reliable" source, just read the quran. Or here's a few
These are considered "reliable" (that's the meaning of "sahih") and are the most used source of shariah judgements. They're contradictory in the extreme obviously, but hey...
Tell me, are these the actions of a good, kind man, or are they the actions of a monster. Why don't you go out and ask a muslim whether or not these actions are to be imitated.
Pick your most moderate muslim ever, and ask. Do tell me what the response is.
The first of these examples is a doubly good example, since Jesus was confronted with the exact same situation, allowing an easy comparison point between these 2 religions.
Secure our freedom ? The last 100 persons whose freedom was secured by the ACLU were trying to kill us, and replace our government with something not all that conductive to freedom at all...
Please explain how that "protects our freedom", because I sure as hell am confused.
For every person whose "freedom was secured" by lawyers, there tend to be 1000 that lost it. You want to do good ? Go out and do it. Become a police officer. Get out and fix things. Don't cry "he's just a poor little victim-killer" in court, but put yourself on the street between your "victim's" gun and the innocent.
Perhaps I might contend that there are SOME in the ACLU that actually mean well. Most, however, do not mean well, they don't care, they want the status and flattery that monstrous thing brings. One day, long ago, there were problems, and the ACLU helped. That day, is long gone, and the ACLU has refused to die, instead choosing to join the enemy.
Just one example. I do not -NOT- expect you to just read and believe the above site. I would expect you to take 3 facts out of them at random, look at the references to muslim "holy" texts and see what they say.
Here's how one jew was treated by the paedophile prophet, just to give one example :
She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter [and another] were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly by putting a rope between her legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two). (Ibn Ishaq 980)
Now look up whether that's true or not, and look up the context. In an unprovoked attack the paedophile prophet raided their village, enslaved it's women, killed every man, child and elderly person in despicable ways. Look up the story, read. Then ask a "nice, moderate, upstanding,..." muslim if it was wrong to do so...
Of course once you to that last part, there will be no way back to the comfort zone of "everybody's basically a nice person".
Those are the actions muslims imitate. That is what is called for every friday when they stick their asses up.
These are, by the way, the core of the ideology. It is *NOT* comparable to e.g. raping prisoners by some far away soldier. It is comparable to the constitution. These stories are the rules muslims live by, nothing less.
You need to re-read history. Specifically a few "details" :
obviously the bible lands weren't muslim. Child molesting massacrers are mentioned a few times in the bible, but they didn't claim it was because of any prophet that they murder out entire kindergartens.
In fact, if you go back to the initial human settlement of "palestine" (of which Israel is about 2%), as close as we can get we find that those inhabitants were...
Jews. Oops. They're the ONLY middle eastern people that actually did not conquer it. The Saudi's are invaders (quite recent invaders at that). The Jordanians are invaders. The Iranians are invaders. The palestinians are invaders (the only natives are jews and berbers. They have 3 religions : judaism, and 2 brands of islam (specifically they are the druze, and the berbers). Neither of which matches the palestinians' death cult, which is sunni islam.
So I find your idea grand, truly I do. Let's give back all conquered lands. Of course, we'll first have to clean the entirety of northern africa, the middle east, turkey, Israel, gaza, "palestina", jordan, iraq... up to pakistan of every last muslim. All those lands are conquered.
Let's destroy Saudi arabia and replace it with the orinigal Jewish and Christian city-states. Capital idea !
The supreme irony would be, we'd have to replace them with the state structure that existed there before the conquest... which was a christian kingdom.
Now that seems like a grand idea... let's do it.
Now check history, check the facts, and check who are the conquerers.
The truth is that Europe's public transport system does indeed edge out America's. But it's also a total disaster, unreliable in the extreme, and that's in the countries where it's relatively well organized.
Those countries where they operate "somewhat better" are, and this is not at all a coincidence, the tiny european countries. In the larger ones, like Spain or Italy, public transportation is equally a disaster.
"the waste from growing food" is obviously the (minimum) 98% of power that is lost in the process of photosynthesis versus what a theoretically optimal solar panel could achieve. (practical solar panels can achieve 48%, or 24 TIMES more energy than plants, from the same sun)
And then you've simply got a bit of sugar, that has to be transported, converted, etc, before it becomes actual edible plant material.
And meat... let's just not talk about the efficiency of producing meat. It's just maddeningly sad.
That obviously means that humans themselves are maddeningly inefficient beings. From the energy that hits the earth surface, we can (maybe) use a trillionth.
A car, even a fossil-fueled car, is far more efficient than a human running the same distance. That's one thing progressives and greens will never admit to. Cars will use about 30% of the energy they consume for locomotion. A human will never get even 1% efficiency out of food.
The entirety of nature is frightningly inefficient. Al Gore will never admit to that, obviously, but plants' energy use is a total disaster, and animals... let's not talk about the efficiency of animals... it's just depressing (useful work versus solar energy that powers it)
Humans are amongst the most efficient animals, but that doesn't mean much at all.
Both socialists... they had quite a bit of common ground. They both kill everyone even slightly disagreeing with them, so yes, they would presumably have killed eachother. Or allied.
But not because of substantial differences in opinion. Merely out of principle.
People wouldn't even defend their freedom from money.
What would you prefer : no liberty, no freedom of speech, no free assembly. But you get 2500$ a month for nothing.
Or working as a farmer, totally free and independant... (if you can afford the land, but that's not really a problem yet in America).
You cannot work for a large corporation and have true freedom of expression. At least you cannot in Europe. After all you could offend the "tolerant" people.
"Trade restrictions" (meaning the country has to trade through China or Russia) versus bullets (atomic bombs).
Good luck with that...
And about that history reading : do you in some way deny that muslim's "prophet" committed 5 religious genocides ? Do you deny that muslims proclaim daily that they want to follow his example ? Do you claim that, when asked, they say that their prophet was a monster for committing those genocides and therefore that part of islam is evil ?
It is VERY clear who needs to read up on history. But you know very well that with an actual knowledge of history the point that muslims will give others human rights voluntarily is so ridiculous that noone would even attempt to do so, so you just claim you know better, then leave out any actual fact.
The UN has it's own army. There's just one problem. The whole institution is based on preventing war. They're not very big on ending a war with superior violence.
After all, that's what Bush would do. It's also the only thing that works.
The UN puts armies on the ground and instructs them to never attack anyone. Either the soldiers are bad (UN mission to katanga, the rape cases of the UN armies in Western Sahara (yes that regiment was a muslim regiment, and it's not an accident at all),...) or they don't do shit (UN mission to southern Lebanon,...)
Violence ends in one of two ways : -> either the agressor gets what he wants -> or he gets killed by superior firepower (or at the very least some serious wounds and destruction of property is involved)
The basic premise of the UN is that "sitting down and talking" is another option. The problem is simple : in many cases, that's not true. Many problems are indeed "zero-sum" problems. Therefore only ignoring the needs of one side can increase supply. And it's the way the entire middle east thinks.
NO war has ever been "proportional violence". No war will ever be : after all, if that's the case you're just going to hurt yourself by going to war. And the whole point is to hurt the other guy.
No amount of talking is going to erase the jew-hatred from the quran, and hamas will therefore never stop. Neither will "al qaeda". Actual violence *might* erase that hatred from the "mein quran" "holy" book.
The only reason that gaza even exists is an attempt by muslims to wipe Israel of the map. So what is the UN to do ? March in and deport those muslims for attempting to conquer another state, then leave the area empty like turkey did with Cyprus ?
So Hitler should have been left in power after WWII ? After all, he did get elected.
Don't you agree nazi's should have been allowed to decide what to do with europe's jews ? What have you got against those poor little victim nazi's ? Don't they have the right to have their own government too ?
Oh wait.
You can, obviously, fight non-plural ideologies without shame. Whether their religions, atheist ideologies, or whatever.
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
If they would execute their ideas, that would be much, much more disgusting than even appointing Marx himself president and congress of the united states, with Hitler as his right hand man. They do not reason, they do not even want to survive themselves. They just want death (like a certain prophet), theirs and others. Nothing more.
You just act all righteous because you don't live anywhere near them. That you don't have to live with the consequences of their "innocent little websites".
The problem is that they would use force against minorities, against everyone including themselves.
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
By your reasoning Iran, even with nuclear power, is carrying out the will of it's people during it's genocidal cleansings of various minorities inside it's borders. But they chose once to start this. Now they'd chose, in a heartbeat, to end it, but they can't.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple. And if Iran isn't contained soon, the same will happen.
But of course, if a few people "choose" this fate (for me and you), surely such a decision would be democratic, right ?
Slashdot Mirror
Just a few examples (source http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/evidence99/marijuana/Health_1.html) :
1) Smoking marijuana regularly (a joint a day) can damage the cells in the bronchial passages which protect the body against inhaled microorganisms and decrease the ability of the immune cells in the lungs to fight off fungi, bacteria, and tumor cells. For patients with already weakened immune systems, this means an increase in the possibility of dangerous pulmonary infections, including pneumonia, which often proves fatal in AIDS patients.
Studies further suggest that marijuana is a general "immunosuppressant" whose degenerative influence extends beyond the respiratory system. Regular smoking has been shown to materially affect the overall ability of the smokerâ(TM)s body to defend itself against infection by weakening various natural immune mechanisms, including macrophages (a.k.a. "killer cells") and the all-important T-cells. Obviously, this suggests the conclusion, which is well-supported by scientific studies, that the use of marijuana...
2) The main respiratory consequences of smoking marijuana regularly (one joint a day) are pulmonary infections and respiratory cancer, whose connection to marijuana use has been strongly suggested but not conclusively proven. The effects also include chronic bronchitis, impairment in the function of the smaller air passages, inflammation of the lung, the development of potentially pre-cancerous abnormalities in the bronchial lining and lungs, and, as discussed, a reduction in the capabilities of many defensive mechanisms within the lungs ...
3) It has been suggested that marijuana is at the root of many mental disorders, including acute toxic psychosis, panic attacks (one of the very conditions it is being used experimentally to treat), flashbacks, delusions, depersonalization, hallucinations, paranoia, depression, and uncontrollable aggressiveness. Marijuana has long been known to trigger attacks of mental illness, such as bipolar (manic-depressive) psychosis and schizophrenia. This connection with mental illness should make health care providers for terminally ill patients and the patients themselves, who may already be suffering from some form of clinical depression, weigh very carefully the pros and cons of adopting a therapeutic course of marijuana.
So to summarize : ...
1) it partially disables the immune system of users
2) it damages (physically) the lungs, and creates infection points in them, which do not easily disappear
3) it causes, in the long term, lung cancer
4) while it doesn't cause psychological episodes, it triggers them. Giving marijuana to anyone with any type of brain malfunction whatsoever is dangerous in the extreme.
5) even in healthy people marijuana manages to cause so many different problems that the standard manual of psychological diagnostics grew about 20% to describe them all.
6) it is not good for the hearth, and increases (like any drug that exites neurons) the risk of heart attack. During smoking and up to 2 weeks after last use risk of heart attack is about 4x higher than normal.
(look for yourself)
Unfortunately there are many more side effects than just that. Tobacco really is a mild, tamed drug. Marijuana, as it's smoked today will release large burning particles into your lungs.
It's basically guaranteed to cause cancer before long, and quite a bit of mechanical and chemical damage even before that.
And yes, many medicines come from drug research. That's because obviously drugs have many active ingredients, and using some of them in isolation can have targeted beneficial effects. There are many, many such medicines.
Another type of substances many medicines originate from are poisons. Snake poison is a good example. Many components of snake poison are used in chemo treatments, because they kill just about anything.
You don't, however see anyone clamoring for the free sale of poisons. Even though they have many beneficial effects. Of course, 1 ml to much and you sleep with the fishes.
Wow that's a seriously extraordinary claim, do you have any data whatsoever ?
Right ... it's all a conspiracy pushing "false" beliefs. Now why didn't I think of that.
In reality obviously people like to be in densities where you have about a square meter of personal space. That's real fun. Where the streets are barely walkable.
And the amount of energy that such an arrangement needs is just trivial. This whole claptrap about cities needing about 1000x or more their own area cultivated for food, and that's ignoring the obvious energy an oil needs, is just that : "claptrap".
The sewer system carries the absurd amounts of waste such cities produce into the municipal black hole, where there are zero environmental concerns.
Also the building materials for building the city in the first place are without environmental costs. Copper, Iron, ... we don't need those ugly mines, God makes it rain down from heaven (but perhaps in a bit smaller chunks next time, big guy, I lost 2 good friends last time).
No obviously it's all just a conspiracy and living in huge density is just all fine and dandy, and much, much better for the environment than suburbs.
So you've claimed that you did more good for America's freedom than you would have in the military.
Now you state the exact opposite.
Which obviously validates my original point : you'd sell out the freedoms of americans, for mere money. If your life was threathened you would undoubtedly volunteer to shackle yourself.
It's as simple as that.
All muslim sources, including the quran, are oral tradition of dubious reliability. They frequently massively contradict eachother.
Take the issue of alcohol for example. The quran states twice that it's okay and once that it's not. It also claims heaven is filled with rivers of wine.
In the other sources you will learn that the paedophile prophet did drink alcohol, but frequently forbade others to do so.
So exactly how you arrive at the conclusion that as a muslim alcohol is a no-go is a riddle I do not have the answer to.
Whether the sources are trustworthy, or even contradictory doesn't matter however. If people believe they're true, their contents will influence the behavior of people.
If you want despicable behavior of the paedophile prophet from a "reliable" source, just read the quran. Or here's a few
Stone any accused women, and stone anyone trying to protect her too
Here's how to deal with 9 year old girls if they have their period
What to do with defenseless enemies (ie. massacre them, then sell their women and property)
These are considered "reliable" (that's the meaning of "sahih") and are the most used source of shariah judgements. They're contradictory in the extreme obviously, but hey ...
Tell me, are these the actions of a good, kind man, or are they the actions of a monster. Why don't you go out and ask a muslim whether or not these actions are to be imitated.
Pick your most moderate muslim ever, and ask. Do tell me what the response is.
The first of these examples is a doubly good example, since Jesus was confronted with the exact same situation, allowing an easy comparison point between these 2 religions.
Secure our freedom ? The last 100 persons whose freedom was secured by the ACLU were trying to kill us, and replace our government with something not all that conductive to freedom at all ...
Please explain how that "protects our freedom", because I sure as hell am confused.
For every person whose "freedom was secured" by lawyers, there tend to be 1000 that lost it. You want to do good ? Go out and do it. Become a police officer. Get out and fix things. Don't cry "he's just a poor little victim-killer" in court, but put yourself on the street between your "victim's" gun and the innocent.
Perhaps I might contend that there are SOME in the ACLU that actually mean well. Most, however, do not mean well, they don't care, they want the status and flattery that monstrous thing brings. One day, long ago, there were problems, and the ACLU helped. That day, is long gone, and the ACLU has refused to die, instead choosing to join the enemy.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/History.htm
Just one example. I do not -NOT- expect you to just read and believe the above site. I would expect you to take 3 facts out of them at random, look at the references to muslim "holy" texts and see what they say.
Here's how one jew was treated by the paedophile prophet, just to give one example :
She was a very old woman, wife of Malik. Her daughter [and another] were also taken. Zayd ordered Qays to kill Umm Qirfa and he killed her cruelly by putting a rope between her legs and to two camels and driving them until they rent her in two). (Ibn Ishaq 980)
Now look up whether that's true or not, and look up the context. In an unprovoked attack the paedophile prophet raided their village, enslaved it's women, killed every man, child and elderly person in despicable ways. Look up the story, read. Then ask a "nice, moderate, upstanding, ..." muslim if it was wrong to do so ...
Of course once you to that last part, there will be no way back to the comfort zone of "everybody's basically a nice person".
Those are the actions muslims imitate. That is what is called for every friday when they stick their asses up.
These are, by the way, the core of the ideology. It is *NOT* comparable to e.g. raping prisoners by some far away soldier. It is comparable to the constitution. These stories are the rules muslims live by, nothing less.
in shaa allah nothing will happen. The only way things will change is if you MAKE them change.
And not with religious massacres like your paedophile prophet did.
Too bad there are so many, many, many UN "defeats". Rwanda, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Israel to name a few contemporary ones.
You need to re-read history. Specifically a few "details" :
obviously the bible lands weren't muslim. Child molesting massacrers are mentioned a few times in the bible, but they didn't claim it was because of any prophet that they murder out entire kindergartens.
In fact, if you go back to the initial human settlement of "palestine" (of which Israel is about 2%), as close as we can get we find that those inhabitants were ...
Jews. Oops. They're the ONLY middle eastern people that actually did not conquer it. The Saudi's are invaders (quite recent invaders at that). The Jordanians are invaders. The Iranians are invaders. The palestinians are invaders (the only natives are jews and berbers. They have 3 religions : judaism, and 2 brands of islam (specifically they are the druze, and the berbers). Neither of which matches the palestinians' death cult, which is sunni islam.
So I find your idea grand, truly I do. Let's give back all conquered lands. Of course, we'll first have to clean the entirety of northern africa, the middle east, turkey, Israel, gaza, "palestina", jordan, iraq ... up to pakistan of every last muslim. All those lands are conquered.
Let's destroy Saudi arabia and replace it with the orinigal Jewish and Christian city-states. Capital idea !
The supreme irony would be, we'd have to replace them with the state structure that existed there before the conquest ... which was a christian kingdom.
Now that seems like a grand idea ... let's do it.
Now check history, check the facts, and check who are the conquerers.
Ow cool, you've risked your life for the freedom of America in other ways than the military.
You must truly be a great individual ... are you a christian missionary to somalia, perhaps ? Did you go and live 10 years amongst the Zimbabweans ?
You must truly be a grand person to have risked your life for your freedom in better ways than the military. Sorry to have doubted you.
The truth is that Europe's public transport system does indeed edge out America's. But it's also a total disaster, unreliable in the extreme, and that's in the countries where it's relatively well organized.
Those countries where they operate "somewhat better" are, and this is not at all a coincidence, the tiny european countries. In the larger ones, like Spain or Italy, public transportation is equally a disaster.
"the waste from growing food" is obviously the (minimum) 98% of power that is lost in the process of photosynthesis versus what a theoretically optimal solar panel could achieve. (practical solar panels can achieve 48%, or 24 TIMES more energy than plants, from the same sun)
And then you've simply got a bit of sugar, that has to be transported, converted, etc, before it becomes actual edible plant material.
And meat ... let's just not talk about the efficiency of producing meat. It's just maddeningly sad.
That obviously means that humans themselves are maddeningly inefficient beings. From the energy that hits the earth surface, we can (maybe) use a trillionth.
A car, even a fossil-fueled car, is far more efficient than a human running the same distance. That's one thing progressives and greens will never admit to. Cars will use about 30% of the energy they consume for locomotion. A human will never get even 1% efficiency out of food.
The entirety of nature is frightningly inefficient. Al Gore will never admit to that, obviously, but plants' energy use is a total disaster, and animals ... let's not talk about the efficiency of animals ... it's just depressing (useful work versus solar energy that powers it)
Humans are amongst the most efficient animals, but that doesn't mean much at all.
Lots of talk. But when the time comes to do the dying, you never see progressives turn up.
In fact you frequently hear something about moving to Canada in that type of case.
Imagine that, people having a big mouth and tiny balls ... who'd have thought ?
Both socialists ... they had quite a bit of common ground. They both kill everyone even slightly disagreeing with them, so yes, they would presumably have killed eachother. Or allied.
But not because of substantial differences in opinion. Merely out of principle.
People wouldn't even defend their freedom from money.
What would you prefer : no liberty, no freedom of speech, no free assembly. But you get 2500$ a month for nothing.
Or working as a farmer, totally free and independant ... (if you can afford the land, but that's not really a problem yet in America).
You cannot work for a large corporation and have true freedom of expression. At least you cannot in Europe. After all you could offend the "tolerant" people.
Now let's see you lay down your life for that freedom ... given claims like that, you've undoubtedly got at least 10 years in the military, right ?
After all, freedom is more important than life. So surely risking your life for american freedom is no sacrifice at all ...
Oh wait ... you haven't ? Now who would have thought that ?
"Trade restrictions" (meaning the country has to trade through China or Russia) versus bullets (atomic bombs).
Good luck with that ...
And about that history reading : do you in some way deny that muslim's "prophet" committed 5 religious genocides ? Do you deny that muslims proclaim daily that they want to follow his example ? Do you claim that, when asked, they say that their prophet was a monster for committing those genocides and therefore that part of islam is evil ?
It is VERY clear who needs to read up on history. But you know very well that with an actual knowledge of history the point that muslims will give others human rights voluntarily is so ridiculous that noone would even attempt to do so, so you just claim you know better, then leave out any actual fact.
The UN has it's own army. There's just one problem. The whole institution is based on preventing war. They're not very big on ending a war with superior violence.
After all, that's what Bush would do. It's also the only thing that works.
The UN puts armies on the ground and instructs them to never attack anyone. Either the soldiers are bad (UN mission to katanga, the rape cases of the UN armies in Western Sahara (yes that regiment was a muslim regiment, and it's not an accident at all), ...) or they don't do shit (UN mission to southern Lebanon, ...)
Violence ends in one of two ways :
-> either the agressor gets what he wants
-> or he gets killed by superior firepower (or at the very least some serious wounds and destruction of property is involved)
The basic premise of the UN is that "sitting down and talking" is another option. The problem is simple : in many cases, that's not true. Many problems are indeed "zero-sum" problems. Therefore only ignoring the needs of one side can increase supply. And it's the way the entire middle east thinks.
NO war has ever been "proportional violence". No war will ever be : after all, if that's the case you're just going to hurt yourself by going to war. And the whole point is to hurt the other guy.
No amount of talking is going to erase the jew-hatred from the quran, and hamas will therefore never stop. Neither will "al qaeda". Actual violence *might* erase that hatred from the "mein quran" "holy" book.
The only reason that gaza even exists is an attempt by muslims to wipe Israel of the map. So what is the UN to do ? March in and deport those muslims for attempting to conquer another state, then leave the area empty like turkey did with Cyprus ?
Of course, let's just apply muslim values, after all they're "just". Know any gays that I can kill ?
Do you have a sister perhaps ? I feel my stone throwing arm needs some practice.
Are you against that ? Why do you impose your values on me ?
So Hitler should have been left in power after WWII ? After all, he did get elected.
Don't you agree nazi's should have been allowed to decide what to do with europe's jews ? What have you got against those poor little victim nazi's ? Don't they have the right to have their own government too ?
Oh wait.
You can, obviously, fight non-plural ideologies without shame. Whether their religions, atheist ideologies, or whatever.
Because you don't get to take his human rights away, not even if you have the power to change the constitution.
Not at all. Get your priorities in line, man. It is MORE important that people survive than that they're free.
If they would execute their ideas, that would be much, much more disgusting than even appointing Marx himself president and congress of the united states, with Hitler as his right hand man. They do not reason, they do not even want to survive themselves. They just want death (like a certain prophet), theirs and others. Nothing more.
You just act all righteous because you don't live anywhere near them. That you don't have to live with the consequences of their "innocent little websites".
The problem is that they would use force against minorities, against everyone including themselves.
By your reasoning Hitler was the "rightful ruler" of Germany, and could not be opposed on the basis of what he did to his people, after all, he got their permission once.
By your reasoning Iran, even with nuclear power, is carrying out the will of it's people during it's genocidal cleansings of various minorities inside it's borders. But they chose once to start this. Now they'd chose, in a heartbeat, to end it, but they can't.
Muslims think mohamed was a good guy, THE example of a leader. Read his biography once and you'll see the problem with that. Hitler and Stalin were but cute poodles, sweet and innocent, compared to him.
If the muslim brotherhood gets control over the state of Egypt, world war III starts. It's that simple. And if Iran isn't contained soon, the same will happen.
But of course, if a few people "choose" this fate (for me and you), surely such a decision would be democratic, right ?