Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

The American Taliban

Page: 1(2)

nyarlathotep's shoe horn

21:48 / 13.06.05

Boboss,

why do you hate freedom?

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

07:23 / 14.06.05

Cheers for the explanation Fridge.

unheimlich manoeuvre

09:03 / 16.06.05

Well said fridge.

As much as I dislike and fear the fundamentalist christian right I still worry more about the Straussian neo-conservatives. They are the policy makers whispering words of advice from behind the throne.

Interesting article here

Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown

07:26 / 17.06.05

Timothy McViegh was a Muslim?

Liger...

...you must know me. lol. This is EXACTLY the same example I've been using with people.

13:54 / 17.06.05

All terrorists aren't Muslim but I think it's fair to say that Muslims make up an oddly large proportion of terrorists.

14:01 / 17.06.05

Possibly because of your - and the media's - understanding of the word 'terrorist'.

14:20 / 17.06.05

I am confident that I have a far better understanding of "terrorism" than just about everyone on this board.

However, I do realize that this convo is about to get seriously sidetracked. If anyone wants to take issue with my statement then I suggest that they start a new thread.

14:30 / 17.06.05

No, back it up here - you can't make a statement like that, completely fail to back it up in any way whatsoever and then attempt to weasel out of it by requesting that any further discussion on the matter be taken to a new thread.

Evidence for the claim, please.

Regrettable Juvenilia

14:31 / 17.06.05

And Slim, I am confident that all long-term regulars to political discussions on Barbelith remember that you are an apologist for right-wing imperialist neo-conservative warmongers.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:37 / 17.06.05

Actually, I'd forgotten. Having said which:

I am confident that I have a far better understanding of "terrorism" than just about everyone on this board and especially yourself.

Don't tell me... 'Nam?

21:04 / 17.06.05

No, back it up here - you can't make a statement like that, completely fail to back it up in any way whatsoever and then attempt to weasel out of it by requesting that any further discussion on the matter be taken to a new thread.

Evidence for the claim, please.

I will be glad to give my reasons once you explain to me what my definition of terrorism is.

As far as "weaseling" goes, I could have sworn that it's standard Barbelith policy not to derail a thread. Suggesting that we discuss the matter in a new thread is hardly running away. If you guys want to talk the talk here then that's fine. We have a guest at the house so I'm probably not going to post again until Monday. Be a good chap and try not to label me a coward while I'm gone.

And Slim, I am confident that all long-term regulars to political discussions on Barbelith remember that you are an apologist for right-wing imperialist neo-conservative warmongers.

As long as we're going to be insulting, I remember you as being a pretentious asshole. It's possible that we're both wrong, though. If I apologize for neo-conservatives it's only because some posters on this board force me to with their assertions. Above all, I try and remain objective about matters.

Not that it's anyone's business but I voted for Kerry and refused to vote Republican in my local elections. That hardly goes along with being a conservative apologist.

Don't tell me... 'Nam?

Fortunately not.

ONLY NICE THINGS

08:48 / 18.06.05

I will be glad to give my reasons once you explain to me what my definition of terrorism is.

Not the question, as far as I can tell. You asserted:

All terrorists aren't Muslim but I think it's fair to say that Muslims make up an oddly large proportion of terrorists.

That is, you have an idea of what constitutes a terrorist that means an oddly large proportion of terrorists are muslim. You have yet to explain what you define as a terrorist, therefore all we know about your defininition is that within its terms there are many muslims. You could start with explaining what your definition of a terrorist is and therefore how, for example, it excludes the many South American catholics or atheists who have at various times been identified as terrorists by the US government. All you have offered so far is an unsubstantiated claim of superior competence in the identification of what constitutes a terrorist:

I am confident that I have a far better understanding of "terrorism" than just about everyone on this board.

This is the sort of assertion that seems without substantiation a little ludicrous, and in particularly, perhaps, when read by people living in a country which experienced a surprising amount of what our governments have called terrorist action at the hands of people who were a) not Muslims and b) funded by contributions from Americans.

However, I agree that this may not be the place. I call new thread.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

18:34 / 19.06.05

And Slim, I am confident that all long-term regulars to political discussions on Barbelith remember that you are an apologist for right-wing imperialist neo-conservative warmongers.

I know it seems like that, but really, he's quite centered. Politically speaking. He only looks like that next to all of you. He, and I, would love to condemn Bush for all his mistakes. We'd do it all freakin' day, if every other person on this board wasn't already doing it. There needs to be some kind of balance.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

18:38 / 19.06.05

Uh, no, this is Rush Limbaugh.

Ah. Nevermind, then. Fuck that asshole.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

08:26 / 20.06.05

My understanding is that even post 9/11 the majority of terrorist attacks (in this case defined by American security forces) that happen against America anyway still come from central and South America. I would assume it's less reported because a). less easy to demonise and b). it would not be a good idea to have the American public look to deeply into why there are so many terrorist actions down there, a good vs. evil dichotomy would be less easy to spin.

For the last 30-40 years the vast majority of terrorist actions against the Britain has come from Northern Ireland, a place not renowned for it's Muslim population but maybe they're by the Real IRA, they could be the Really Real IRA or something.

Do you mind me asking where your special insight into terrorism comes from? Is it because you've studied the film Die Hard very carefully?

All Acting Regiment

09:12 / 20.06.05

I take it Slim's talking about the terrorists in the news, in places like Iraq. These are often Muslim. But, these are not the only terrorists in the world. In fact, at the moment, there are terrorists of just about every denomination from Religious Fundamentalist thru Fascist to Marxist. They're just not in the news.

09:34 / 20.06.05

Adding the (still slightly vague) qualifier, "in places like Iraq", to his original assertion might've been a good idea, then.

The resistable rise of Reidcourchie

09:43 / 20.06.05

And even then many "terrorists" in the Middle East aren't Muslims.

14:09 / 20.06.05

lots of them are american.

slim, is there any chance you would join in the fun over here, defining terrorism?

01:14 / 23.06.05

Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim?

allah be praised, niger - yes, he just didn't know it! and those irish arabs, begorrah...

i'd like to help out laura schlessinger: "I want to coin a phrase here, and I don't mind help. What would be the communication version of "ethnic cleansing?" Because that's what in particular the homosexual activists try to do."

i think the word already exists and it is 'censorship'; and you're already pretty good at that, aren't you?

my contention is that the american empire will eventually collapse through the rest of the world simply, after a while, ignoring it - and this is exactly the sort of drivel that will turn ears and minds away from their rhetoric, no?

03:33 / 23.06.05

slim, is there any chance you would join in the fun over here, defining terrorism?

Slowly but surely, buddy.

03:43 / 23.06.05

I know it seems like that, but really, he's quite centered. Politically speaking. He only looks like that next to all of you. He, and I, would love to condemn Bush for all his mistakes. We'd do it all freakin' day, if every other person on this board wasn't already doing it. There needs to be some kind of balance.

only if you concede that the likes of George W Bush has any legitimate or defensible role in the political system of any country which has the temerity to call itself civilized.

in any democracy, there's a realm of legitimately mainstream debate and there are fringe movements. anytime people argue that Bush deserves equal time on the grounds that he is part of the former, and not the latter, it's a victory for the profoundly anti-democratic forces at work in this country.

07:45 / 02.07.05

Vitriole and spite thrown casually about and yet so many people wonder why the victims of that spite often have a "chip on their shoulder." It's such a sad yet hilarious spectre to see so-called religious men and women spewing venom towards the gay community or athiests (for example), when the very teachings that they profess to follow promote tolerance and understanding. Jesus was a hippy and was all about "turning the other cheek" and loving your fellow man, yet these people (and I use that term loosely) would just as soon see everyone on the left side of the fence die away.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

05:29 / 04.07.05

only if you concede that the likes of George W Bush has any legitimate or defensible role in the political system of any country which has the temerity to call itself civilized.

His role as the president of the U.S. doesn't need to be defended. Nobody is challenging it. He was elected, albeit narrowly and contentiously. But I'd still call that ligitimate, and so does everybody else who matters.

I'm not trying to get anyone to respect Dubya, or his authority, or his anything. I couldn't anyway. I'm just one fella. I do the Devil's Advocate thing because that's just fair play, and Barbelith believes in fair play.

Besides, some of you sound like you don't even think anymore when you hear the words "George Bush" or "right wing" or "Republican", you just react with rage and contempt and conspiracy theories. A bit of "Knee-jerking", isn't it? That's fun and all, but it's not good policy because even though you may be right 99% of the time, you'll still look dumb as hell that 1%. That's what I'm trying to avoid. Barbelith looking dumb as hell.

in any democracy, there's a realm of legitimately mainstream debate and there are fringe movements. Anytime people argue...

Could you illustrate this a bit more, please?

08:38 / 04.07.05

A bit of "Knee-jerking", isn't it?

well, perhaps a bit.
not entirely, though.
bush's legitimacy is an exceptionally contentious issue, even before we get into the election fraud.
he, like any other recent american president, has undue infuluence on a world to whom he is not in any real way accountable.
i think the percieved anger is massively due to the frustration people feel at not having any control over a power that dictates so much global policy.

yeah, i know that is the system we have being used as it is legal to use it.
it still fucking sucks.

i think also it has to be pointed out that some of the things said at the end of that link are so verbally violent it would be strange if no one became hostile to the authors of the bile.

sure, they are people too. they have a right to their opinion, yeah.
but they and their opinions fucking suck, and i dont think i think that because they are on the wrong team.

i mean, "god doesnt hear the prayers of a jew"?
are you seriously suggesting i have a reaction to that based upon my personal grudges against american republican policy?
or was it the suggestion that aethists cannot be american citizens?

i'm not entirely convinced that is what you mean, but i'd like to know for sure.

All Acting Regiment

11:15 / 04.07.05

Hmm. "Hate The Sin And Not The Sinner". Is that a useful phrase here? Useful in that it's a way out of being reactionary?

I'm not religious and I'm not sure I agree with all the connotations of that phrase, especcially the idea of hating an action because it contravenes a religious code. The way I think we can apply the phrase here is, you know, I feel sorry for these people quoted on the first link. I am disgusted by their views, and disgusted that someone could hold those views, but in the same way that the Dalek is pitiful inside his metal case I pity people whom these views have "infected", and wish I could "cure" them.

11:25 / 05.07.05

cure, yeah.
i hear fire works.

Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero

19:53 / 05.07.05

bush's legitimacy is an exceptionally contentious issue, even before we get into the election fraud.

For you, perhaps, and the majority of members on this board. But not to anyone who matters on the global scene, or anybody who expects to make a difference. How far do you think "He's not even the real president" is going to get you?

are you seriously suggesting i have a reaction to that based upon my personal grudges against american republican policy?

No, nothing like that. It's easy to get angry (even sickened) in the face of massive ignorance. That's only natural (although hardly constructive).

This thread isn't what I was refering to as useless knee-jerking anyway. The problem of forming opinions before investing any thought into the matter isn't a problem I see in this particular thread, but many others. Sorry if I gave that impression. I guess I should've been more clear.

08:42 / 06.07.05

How far do you think "He's not even the real president" is going to get you?

not very.
which is why i dont say it.
i say instead that his global mandate is assumed not elected, and that he and the other g8 leaders put the frickin mock in democracy when they decide global fiscal policy for all of us.

foxes guarding chickens, paedophiles writing their own register, whatever.
it helps no one when the guardians of democracy seem to find democracy so repugnant, least of all the poor.

bush was elected by a system with flaws.
bush was elected by a minority of the voting block.
some even say bush stole the first election and won the second one unfairly.
all that pales into indsignificance when you realise that you are talking about a hundred million americans being ruled by a president they dont want and i am talking about over 5 billion people being subject to the whims of a man they not only didnt elect but couldnt have.

g208 would be a bit better, y'know?

08:51 / 06.07.05

(or g268 if you wanna include all the various principlaities and contentious territories)

Page: 1(2)