Mosque going up in NYC building

[dre]

More cyptic penile commentary...

Classy as always,kiddo...

Funny, you seemed to like it when I was the target. Even joined in.

[Jack Weber]

Funny, you seemed to like it when I was the target. Even joined in.

Mine was a juvenile back up to someone elses comment...And I admitted it...

His is a continuation of his cryptically claiming I might be gay...

When someone plays the "You're probably gay!" card,they've got nothing left to add to anything being discussed...

Truthy does'nt like the fact that I keep bringing up his believe in the race baiting scum,Andrew Breitbart...So he thinks I have a crush on Mr.Breitbart to deflect the fact that he wholeheartedly backs a scumbag he lines up with ideologically...

[dre]

Mine was a juvenile back up to someone elses comment...And I admitted it...

His is a continuation of his cryptically claiming I might be gay...

When someone plays the "You're probably gay!" card,they've got nothing left to add to anything being discussed...

Truthy does'nt like the fact that I keep bringing up his believe in the race baiting scum,Andrew Breitbart...So he thinks I have a crush on Mr.Breitbart to deflect the fact that he wholeheartedly backs a scumbag he lines up with ideologically...

Thats what happens when you try to debate Cory, Trevor, or Randy.

[Shady]

Funny, you seemed to like it when I was the target. Even joined in.

Good point. He's one of those people who love to dish it out, but then get a serious case of the vapors when he's on the recieving end of his own behavior.

But clearly the catholic church should have "empathy" for the thousands of little kids raped by catholic priests and their families, and not build any churches for a while.

Thousands of kids is a bit inflated, but yes, depending on where a church is proposed to be built. It's possible that some sensitivity may need to be used in specific situations.

So not all Muslims are terrorists. So stop blanket treating them as such.

I see you're now back to the original incorrect assessment. Nobody has said that all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, many people in this thread, including me, have gone out of our way to specifically state that all Muslims aren't terrorists. But it's the obtuseness of retards like you, who continue to ignore them, and instead press on with your McCarthy-like tactics. I'm fairly certain that 50 pages from now, you'll still be asking why we think all Muslims are terrorists.

But what happened to your promise of not posting in this thread anymore? Do us all a favour and stick to your word.

[dre]

Contratulations folks!

This is now officially the worst thread in the history of the entire internet! God have mercy on our souls.

[Shady]

Contratulations folks!

This is now officially the worst thread in the history of the entire internet! God have mercy on our souls.

Who cares. People are having some fun, while discussing some issues.

[DogOnPorch]

Who cares. People are having some fun, while discussing some issues.

Yup...that's the ticket. Dre is attempting his 'supreme leader' routine.

[dre]

Yup...that's the ticket. Dre is attempting his 'supreme leader' routine.

Ahhh yes. My supreme leader routine.

[DogOnPorch]

Ahhh yes. My supreme leader routine.

Yup...you make these proclamations from time to time in attempts to shut-down conversation.

Edited August 26, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[bloodyminded]

It most certainly does. You don't expect the same standards from "those brown people." Why not?

It has nothing to do with anyone's standards but one's own; and race couldn't be less relevant to what I'm saying.

I repeat: people should be more concerned, and more critical of the actions of their own government (first) and its close allies (second) than they are about the actions of others.

It's harder to stare critically into the mirror than it is to rail agaisnt the iniquities of Hamas. That's why our governments and a large part of our intellectual culture does so little of it, preferring the easy and self-indulgent pleasures of holding ourselves to lower standards than we do our offcial enemies.

We should hold ourselves to the same standards--at the very least.

Jeesh. I make an elementary point about an obvious moral truism...and you play the "racist" card?

I was under the misapprehension--thanks to your repeated claims--that you don't like political correctness. I was mistaken.

There are several laws in existence regarding the support of terrorist groups.

There are no laws demanding ritual and repeated denunication of them.

Political opinions need no restrictions. He's free to have whatever opinions on Hamas he wishes.

Unless he wants to build a community centre. In which case he must loudly proclaim the Party line. Correct, Comrade?

By the way, Shady, you have so far restrained from commenting on the surely serious issue of Western-backed mass terrorism which I pointed out, as a response to your outraged denial and "disgust" that anyone could hold such views. So what do you think? You a terror supporter, or not?

Edited August 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Guest American Woman]

I repeat: people should be more concerned, and more critical of the actions of their own government (first) and its close allies (second) than they are about the actions of others.

I disagree. Our governments generally aren't allies with the worst leaders/dictators, so you're essentially saying we shouldn't be as concerned about them as we are our own governments and allies -- even though our own governments and allies are doing nothing to compare to the atrociousness of said leaders/dictators. By your line of thought, we shouldn't have been as concerned about Hitler's actions as we were about, say, Great Britain's; we shouldn't be as concerned about genocide as we are about Canada's actions.

[Jack Weber]

I disagree. Our governments generally aren't allies with the worst leaders/dictators, so you're essentially saying we shouldn't be as concerned about them as we are our own governments and allies -- even though our own governments and allies are doing nothing to compare to the atrociousness of said leaders/dictators. By your line of thought, we shouldn't have been as concerned about Hitler's actions as we were about, say, Great Britain's; we shouldn't be as concerned about genocide as we are about Canada's actions.

Interesting...

So I take it you don't think the Eisenhower/CIA sponsored coup in Iran,known as Operation Ajax,to oust the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadiq(all over oil,by the way),and installing the Shah and all that was wrong with his leadership...

Has nothing to do with the Islamic Revolution of 1979,and the current state of Iran vis a vis US/and Israeli relations??

History tells us that we should be extremely concerned with who the west allies with..

[Guest American Woman]

Interesting...

So I take it you don't think the Eisenhower/CIA sponsored coup in Iran,known as Operation Ajax,to oust the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadiq(all over oil,by the way),and installing the Shah and all that was wrong with his leadership...

Has nothing to do with the Islamic Revolution of 1979,and the current state of Iran vis a vis US/and Israeli relations??

History tells us that we should be extremely concerned with who the west allies with..

What's interesting is how in God's name you came to your off-the-wall "take" as to what I "don't think" from what I said.

What I said is I disagree that we should have more concern for what our governments and our allies do than we have for the actions of others.

Did I say we should dismiss what our governments and allies do?? Did I say we should be less concerned with our governments and allies?? No. I didn't. I said I don't think we should be more concerned than we are with the actions of others. And I gave reasons why.

History also tells us that we damn well better be just as concerned with "the actions of others."

Edited August 26, 2010 by American Woman

[ToadBrother]

Interesting...

So I take it you don't think the Eisenhower/CIA sponsored coup in Iran,known as Operation Ajax,to oust the democratically elected Mohammad Mossadiq(all over oil,by the way),and installing the Shah and all that was wrong with his leadership...

Has nothing to do with the Islamic Revolution of 1979,and the current state of Iran vis a vis US/and Israeli relations??

History tells us that we should be extremely concerned with who the west allies with..

As much as it's a good example of how tampering can go horribly wrong, there are times when alliances with nasty people are beneficial. I think back on detente with China being a rather important policy, that in my mind more than makes up for all the madness and venom of Nixon's tenure. Mao was a bad dude, no doubt about it, but it gave the West some important leverage.

Even better is the alliance with Stalin during WWII. Maybe we could have beat the Germans without them, but it would have been a longer slog, and if the Soviet Union fell or was driven east of the Urals, it would have given Germany a tremendous advantage.

And that, I suspect, is how those partaking of these decisions often looked at things. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that Communism was such a vast threat that it meant choosing lesser evils. There's no doubt that these decisions were influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, but even more impure motives like greed, but before I outright condemn the West for its alliances with unsavory types, I have to put myself in the shoes of the planners, strategists and leaders of the time.

[Jack Weber]

What's interesting is how in God's name you came to your off-the-wall "take" as to what I "don't think" from what I said.

What I said is I disagree that we should have more concern for what our governments and our allies do than we have for the actions of others.

Did I say we should dismiss what our governments and allies do?? Did I say we should be less concerned with our governments and allies?? No. I didn't. I said I don't think we should be more concerned than we are with the actions of others. And I gave reasons why.

History also tells us that we damn well better be just as concerned with "the actions of others."

Both concerns are interlinked,are they not?

I'll bet Mr.Ahmedinejhad certainly thinks they are linked.And he's the guy making wild genocidal claims...

[Shady]

What's interesting is how in God's name you came to your off-the-wall "take" as to what I "don't think" from what I said.

It's pretty evident by now that people like Jack and his ilk have on intentions of a meaningful discussion. Their pattern is quite clear. Erect a strawman. Tie somebody they disagree with to that strawman. Attack the strawman. Rinse and repeat for dozens, and dozens of pages.

[Bonam]

I repeat: people should be more concerned, and more critical of the actions of their own government (first) and its close allies (second) than they are about the actions of others.

Why?

The "morally correct" inclination from my point of view would be for people to be equally critical of actions they believe are wrong whoever is the perpetrator: their own government or a foreign one. The "natural" inclination I would assume would be to be more critical of actions that are adverse to one's self and people one knows: I would be more against a government that attacked my village than a government that attacked a village that wasn't mine. This is just instinctive to humans and a matter of self-preservation.

Your viewpoint seems to be directly contrary to both.

[Jack Weber]

As much as it's a good example of how tampering can go horribly wrong, there are times when alliances with nasty people are beneficial. I think back on detente with China being a rather important policy, that in my mind more than makes up for all the madness and venom of Nixon's tenure. Mao was a bad dude, no doubt about it, but it gave the West some important leverage.

Even better is the alliance with Stalin during WWII. Maybe we could have beat the Germans without them, but it would have been a longer slog, and if the Soviet Union fell or was driven east of the Urals, it would have given Germany a tremendous advantage.

And that, I suspect, is how those partaking of these decisions often looked at things. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that Communism was such a vast threat that it meant choosing lesser evils. There's no doubt that these decisions were influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, but even more impure motives like greed, but before I outright condemn the West for its alliances with unsavory types, I have to put myself in the shoes of the planners, strategists and leaders of the time.

Very true...

In the case of China and the USSR,it was basically playing both sides off against the middle by taking advantage of the relatively poor level of Sino/Soviet relations...

In tha case of Stalin,it was a case of starting 2 fronts to defeat the NAZI's and the fact that evry little was known abot the pogroms going on in the Ukraine...

The problem is that dealing with totalitarian regimes,particularily Fascist regimes,is that it's quite easy...Simply provide money and guns,and, a free reign to kill anyone who opposes them and they'll pretty much do what you want them to do.The problem with that is that it's incredibly short sighted...The cases of Iran and Afghanistan bring that home very clearly...

[ToadBrother]

Very true...

In the case of China and the USSR,it was basically playing both sides off against the middle by taking advantage of the relatively poor level of Sino/Soviet relations...

In tha case of Stalin,it was a case of starting 2 fronts to defeat the NAZI's and the fact that evry little was known abot the pogroms going on in the Ukraine...

Churchill knew plenty about what Stalin was up to. Even if the pogroms and all the other madness of Stalin's reign had been known, simply put, Britain had no choice. To stand on ideological grounds and say "No, we won't work with these guys because they're really bad" would have been suicidal. They might as well have handed Hitler the keys to Westminster and walked away.

The problem is that dealing with totalitarian regimes,particularily Fascist regimes,is that it's quite easy...Simply provide money and guns,and, a free reign to kill anyone who opposes them and they'll pretty much do what you want them to do.The problem with that is that it's incredibly short sighted...The cases of Iran and Afghanistan bring that home very clearly...

I don't know how short-sighted some of it was. Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet regime, and I don't care how many nasty things the US ends up being revealed to have been behind, I think toppling the Soviet Empire was a damned good thing. They overreached in some cases like Iran, and in helping out butchers like Pinochet and doing the nudge-nudge-wink-wink with Franco. But if you're staring down the barrel of the gun against an expansionist empire, what do you do? Again, it becomes a matter of survival vs. principal. It's very easy, nearly twenty years after the Soviet Union fell to condemn Western, and in particular American involvement in nasty regimes, but place yourself in the 1960s and 1970s, with the USSR moving a helluva lot of resources around to fund Shining Path types all over Latin America, which is pretty much your backyard. What are you going to do?

What I'm glad of, at the end of the day, is what I stated in the atomic bomb thread, is that I wasn't the guy that had to make those decisions, because in a lot of cases, I might do what they did. You don't have the benefit of hindsight, and I'm sure a lot of guys in the CIA wished they hadn't reinstalled the Shah, because the blowback was just about as bad as it could get.

[bloodyminded]

I disagree. Our governments generally aren't allies with the worst leaders/dictators, so you're essentially saying we shouldn't be as concerned about them as we are our own governments and allies -- even though our own governments and allies are doing nothing to compare to the atrociousness of said leaders/dictators. By your line of thought, we shouldn't have been as concerned about Hitler's actions as we were about, say, Great Britain's; we shouldn't be as concerned about genocide as we are about Canada's actions.

No. I'm saying that we should be more concerned with our complicity in massive state terrorism on a terrible scale than we should be concerned about others' crimes.

Without the in-the-way oversensitivities of patriotism, I doubt such an assertion would be the least bit controversial.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

And that, I suspect, is how those partaking of these decisions often looked at things. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that Communism was such a vast threat that it meant choosing lesser evils. There's no doubt that these decisions were influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, but even more impure motives like greed, but before I outright condemn the West for its alliances with unsavory types, I have to put myself in the shoes of the planners, strategists and leaders of the time.

Sure, but each case must be analyzed on its own, not under some "lesser evilism" rubric that doesn't always work.

For example, our material help for Indonesia's state terrorism was not "tampering gone horribly wrong," as you put it; it went "right," in that we intentionally did it.

And the "communist threat" is not an excuse once 1999 hit, surely.

There was no "greater evil." We were on the side of the greater evil.

[Jack Weber]

Sure, but each case must be analyzed on its own, not under some "lesser evilism" rubric that doesn't always work.

For example, our material help for Indonesia's state terrorism was not "tampering gone horribly wrong," as you put it; it went "right," in that we intentionally did it.

And the "communist threat" is not an excuse once 1999 hit, surely.

There was no "greater evil." We were on the side of the greater evil.

The case of Indonesia is incredibly salient because Suharto's regime was similarily brutal to dissention as the Shah was in Iran...

Al Quaeda,and other Islmaofascist organizations,are active in Indonesia as well and use many of the same rationalizations for their bloodthirsty games...

Edited August 27, 2010 by Jack Weber

[dre]

Sure, but each case must be analyzed on its own, not under some "lesser evilism" rubric that doesn't always work.

For example, our material help for Indonesia's state terrorism was not "tampering gone horribly wrong," as you put it; it went "right," in that we intentionally did it.

And the "communist threat" is not an excuse once 1999 hit, surely.

There was no "greater evil." We were on the side of the greater evil.

There's no doubt that these decisions were influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, but even more impure motives like greed, but before I outright condemn the West for its alliances with unsavory types, I have to put myself in the shoes of the planners, strategists and leaders of the time.

That cuts both ways though.

[bloodyminded]

Why?

The "morally correct" inclination from my point of view would be for people to be equally critical of actions they believe are wrong whoever is the perpetrator: their own government or a foreign one.

I disagree. I can criticize the Sudanese government--and there's nothing at all wrong with criticizing such a deserving target. But this has less moral weight than criticizing my own government, over which I can have some small effect.

Further, I was talking in context of Canada, the US, et al being utterly and intentionally complicit in massive terrorism.

The "natural" inclination I would assume would be to be more critical of actions that are adverse to one's self and people one knows: I would be more against a government that attacked my village than a government that attacked a village that wasn't mine. This is just instinctive to humans and a matter of self-preservation

sure, with hypotheticals, many conclusions must change, not least for reasons of self-preservation, as you say.

But forgive me if I consider that my actually-existing example slightly trumps your non-existing example.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

That cuts both ways though.

The quote to which you seem to be responding wasn't mine, but Toadbrother's. That is, the first one, attributed to me, is mine; the second, unattributed, is not. Just to clarify.

Edited August 27, 2010 by bloodyminded