12/4/2003 c6 14Admiral
I know I'm kinda late to this party but I haven't had a chance to weigh in until now.
First off, great history lesson on Al Qaeda, Osama and Saddam. I can see from some of the reviews that it fell on the usual deaf ears, though, so allow me to offer my take:
There's a history to the creation of a thorn, but when that thorn is digging into your side and you decide to remove it once and for all, do you seriously sit there while it's poking into you trying to understand its history before you grab a tweezer and yank it out?
There are lots of thorns around the world that need to be yanked out of America's side. Osama and Saddam were two of them. How they "grew up" to be thorns should make little difference.

12/4/2003 c9 James Jago
I admit that these things can be taken a bit far. But schools should keep the teacher's political views out of the classroom, and a kid who draws his father killing somebody is a kid who needs some help.
The DJ is a tricky one. I'm not sure what his contract might say about giving vent to personal beliefs on air as if the station supported them, but openly insulting another broadcaster is probably against some rule somewhere.
The nice thing about the BBC is it's legally obliged to be totally unbiased and impartial.

12/3/2003 c9 57tofujunky
Steve:
"Yep, I'll vote for a socialist. Wanna go get Osama's kid for VP?"
No, no, no! To win, Hillary will have to find a better Dick than the one Bush has.
"and by the way...credible sources would be TIME, Newsweek, established media which, though biased, isn't going to let me know why the Magic Bullet Theory is actually true."
For God's sake, would you guys make up your minds! Your friend, RCS, a while back, suggested this: "And, tofujunkie, try coming up with statements from sources outside the media. CNN, USA Today, AP, Reuters, the networks news agencies, etc. are not the most credible sources anymore."
So many contradicting restrictions . . . what's a girl to do?
"And better yet, it’s usually a specific group that fights for more political correctness: the liberals."
Yes, political correctness can be extremely annoying. But it's true what Raekwon said - that conservatives use them, too. The liberals would try to make matters look worse, while the conservatives use PC to make things look better. A couple of Examples:
"War on terrorism" - Using it to justify just about anything.
"Patriotism" - Not supporting the President suddenly made a person an anti-American who doesn't support our troops.
"Faith-based Organizations" - Separation of church and state? Problem solved.

Ethan (Mbwun):
Hmm . . . MbwunsMrandommbullshit.com? Sounds good to me. :)
Amanda (Restricted Thoughts):
Always a pleasure hearing from you . . . Steven appreciates your intellect, and I, too, have to admit that I enjoy reading comments from you; I'm glad you decided to join the discussion. If you get a chance, put up your bio because 'Enquiring minds want to know.'
-tofujunky

12/3/2003 c9 Raekwon
And who would you be training to be? Ann Coulter? Sounds like somethin pulled right out of "Slander" or "Treason".
I agree that PC is absolutely ridiculous, but let's be real: it would exist if no politician supported it or not, so don't try and act as though liberals are the driving force behind it. There's always going to be some overly-sensitive person out there who happens to get offended over the most trivial thing in the world, and it's not necessarily just because some liberal out there told her to get offended or anything like that.
One more thing that either you conveniently ignored or you are totally blind to (which I seriously doubt): conservativesd use PC, too. Maybe not the same way liberals do, but it's used nonetheless. So instead of trying to lay the problem squarely on the shoulders of the left, you might wanna look at the party that you so adore...
^_^

12/3/2003 c9 3spurs0405champs
Okay, I live for these kind of political debates where everyone can go back and forth for hours discussing views. However, that's not going to happen here because I am a Republican...plain and simple. Of course I can't vote yet, but that's besides the point.
I can honestly say that I agree with you on everything you have said or posted, though most of it is history based and high school history is stupid and doesn't go in that much depth. I guess I am somewhat guilty of looking at the surface of current issues and judging them that way, but hopefully with time this is not going to be so much of a problem.
Since I don't have much of a political say at this moment for this essay because I haven't read the other political views and I do agree with yours (as I was reading over the chapters...I was thinking about how great it would be if you were a liberal...then I would have opportunites to debate like crazy), I'm just going to leave it at the fact that I wished I had acutally bothered to look in the essay section for political essays a while ago.
Before I end this, do you have an suggestions for some liberal based political essays? :)

12/3/2003 c1 Steven Lawrence
My thanks goes out to whoever Restricted Thoughts is...hey liberals, look at what he said! He knows what he's talking about! (or she, since I'm guessing at your gender.) Hell, I might even post that review as a chapter!
Centavos, you are quite the...odd one if indeed I'm reading this correctly. You are against military action by the US in Iraq yet you're apart of JROTC-style unit. Very odd indeed my dear ;-)
Kim-LOL..Hiliary? Yep, I'll vote for a socialist. Wanna go get Osama's kid for VP? and by the way...credible sources would be TIME, Newsweek, established media which, though biased, isn't going to let me know why the Magic Bullet Theory is actually true.
-Steve

12/3/2003 c8 2Restricted Thoughts
Grr... I wanted to wait until I had something intelligent to say, but I'm tired, and my homework isn't going to do itself, so perhaps I'll add an addendum at a later date.
Unfortunatly, I only have a vague notion of what's going on, both in your essay and on the review board. I have an annoying tendancy to come across these interesting debates after they're seven or eight chapters in, so I have to skim and guess and try to take it all in very quickly, which sometimes leads to even more confusion. *sigh*. But I'm trying...
Okay, first off, I appreciate your *cough cough* "fair and unbiased" representation of the facts at hand. I too lean a smidge towards the Republican viewpoint, but I can tolerate, and even appreciate liberal views- there are a fair few that make some sense. I would list them here, for credibility's sake, but I can't think of any now.
I don't feel confident enough in my understanding of the Osama/Soviets/US drama to comment on it. Nor do I possess a great knowledge of the whole "Iran-contras" deal. I read your essays, but most of it went in one ear and out the other, for which I apologize. Nothing against you, it's just very late, and I couldn't concentrate.
I will however comment on the theme that seems to recur amongst your reviewers, which is that the US either started and/or contributed to the rise of such people as Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden, etc. I don't know exactly how much truth there is to these accusations, but I wouldn't doubt it. Of course the US has contributed to these men's rise to power. The difference is that at the time, Saddam or Osama or whoever was the lesser of god-knows-how-many evils the US may have had to deal with at that time. The reason global politics is so frustrating is that it's the most masochistic chess game man has ever created. You CANNOT beat all the bad guys all at once, and even if you could, there's no guarantee that the good guys right now aren't going to turn around and become bad guys 20 years down the road. You have to pick your battles and hope that your picking well; and if you pick a losing battle, you have to hope that future leadership will have the ability to deal with threats that may arise. I can definitely see why being the president for 8 years can age a man 20 years or more. I would never want to have to deal with that.
The problem that the US seems to constantly face, is that since we're the only real dominating power left in the world, other countries seem (to me, at least) to think that we should have all the answers, which anyone can tell you is utter bull. I think it goes beyond that, too. The US is looked upon with what I consider to be a "damned if they do, damned if they don't" attitude from other countries- that is to say, I have no doubts whatsoever that, if in 10, 15, 20 years, the leadership that we install in Iraq turns out to be another genocidal despot, naturally our critics will look on that as a sign of the US's failure to make good on it's promise to make democracy work in Iraq. And when I say the US, I don't mean Bush, because by then he will be gone. The blame will fall on him, but unfortunatly the negativity will be directed at the current president (perhaps one of his daughters). And I think that that's a shame. Not the idea of one of the Bush girls as our president, but that the world opinion of the US could swing so quickly based on something that happened in the past. I guess that's human nature though, we've all learned the past, but we have a much harder time learning FROM it.
Anyway, I know this has been a long commentary, so I'll try to pull it all together in an intelligent-sounding close. I've really enjoyed reading your essays, even if I didn't get very much from them. I'm starting to enjoy this whole big "drama" going on amongst the reviewers on this site- it's humorous to read, and even occasionally comment on.
I really hope to see an update soon. Keep writing.
~ ace ~

12/2/2003 c4 jk-89
I'd like to point out a few, rather silly, mistakes:
'The hadith is a book of 'laws' in Islam that are not covered in the Koran. it was written during the time of Muhammed'
What rubbish! Firstly, the hadith is certainly NOT a 'book'. A hadith is simply a saying of the prophet. It was NOT written down during his lifetime. The Prophets companions would remeber what he said, and it would be passed down to others. The ahadith (plural of one hadith) were finally written down centuries after the prophet's death.
There are many transmitters of hadith, the most reliable being Bukhari and Muslim. The science of hadith is extremely difficult, as only the most prominent scholars have sufficient knowledge to determine the 'state ' of a hadith, i.e. if it is relaible, weak, suspicious, or totally false.
And the arguments between Sunni and Shia started before Ali's death. After the Prophet died, Abu Bakr became the Caliph. But some people disagreed bcause they thought that Ali should be his successor - because he is closest by blood. This is whta they argue about - whether succession should be by blood or not.
No, sunni scholars did not 'create' the Sharia. The laws were already clearly defined in the Quran, no one created anthing. The four schools of thought differ on very small details they are not major arguments.
Get your facts right.
jk-89