babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Al-Qaeda boss denounces "Jews and homosexuals"

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Al-Qaeda boss denounces "Jews and homosexuals"
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Where have we heard these two groups singled out before?

OH yeah - The Nazis.

quote:
In a reference to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, Zawahiri said the West had committed deliberate blasphemy and was guilty of double standards.

"They did it on purpose and they continue to do it without apologising, even though no-one dares to harm Jews or to challenge Jewish claims about the Holocaust nor even to insult homosexuals."

He also singled out domestic Western policies he said discriminated against Muslims.



From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 March 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
No surprise here to most of us I assume
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 March 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Commies! Would-be Commies! We want to be denounced too!
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 March 2006 06:53 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Is that suppose to be an attempt at humour? The targeting of minorities by Al Quaeda is frankly not funny.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 05 March 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Commies! Would-be Commies! We want to be denounced too!

Don't worry, Bin Laden hates communists, socialists, liberals and secularists as well. Actually, since Bin Laden/al-Qaeda were CIA/Pakistani ISI creations to fight the then USSR in Afghanistan, one could say communists were his original enemy. In their infinite idiocy, his American and Pakistani handlers did not realize that his targets for hatred would grow.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Where have we heard these two groups singled out before?

OH yeah - The Nazis.


You can probably go down to your local bar and hear the same thing. Nazis everywhere, btu we only seem to hear about the Muslim ones. That is interseting, don't you think?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
ohara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7961

posted 05 March 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for ohara        Edit/Delete Post
Cue ae you comparing the redneck drunks at the local bar to Al Quaeda murderers?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess for all these apologists for Islamic fascists from Al-Qaeda it must be so embarrassing to have people like Zawahiri going "off message" and denouncing Jews and homosexuals. It would be so much more convenient if they stuck to attacking American imperialism, wouldn't it??
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I know that the people whom most often talk about "apologists" (aka fellow travelers -- people whom do not denounce vocally enough, or often enough) are the very same type sychophants who packed the halls of the the Iranian politcal trials after the 1979 revolution.

Mostly they are spitelful, morose, vein and stupid people, with personal issues.

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 05 March 2006 07:10 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess for all these apologists for Islamic fascists from Al-Qaeda it must be so embarrassing to have people like Zawahiri going "off message" and denouncing Jews and homosexuals. It would be so much more convenient if they stuck to attacking American imperialism, wouldn't it??

You raise an interesting point but your statement would be equally interesting if it read:

"I guess for all these apologists for United States foreign policy it must be so embarrassing to have people like Zawahiri going "off message" and denouncing Jews and homosexuals. It would be so much more convenient if they stuck to attacking the Soviet Union as the CIA and their Pakistani allies originally planned for them to do."


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 07:14 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Except that the Soviet Union no longer exists and most rightwing Republicans in the US who support Bush's foreign policy also hate Jews and homosexuals. Don't be fooled by the Republican support for Israel, those people would vomit in public if a child of theirs was going to marry a Jew (that might mean letting "those people" into the country club!)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly Stockholm but you only seem available for comment when Muslim people are being ignorant racist and bigoted. Are you suggesting that the people in the Bush adminstration whom don't like Jews and Homosexuals are also Nazis?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And you only seem available for comment when Americans and especially Israelis say anything bigotted or racist - why is that?

I suppose the reason I would equate Al-Qaeda with the Nazis is that they clearly believe that all Jews and homosexuals 9and various other people) should die. In countries where Islamic fundamentalism rules, ANYONE who is gay is murdered. Period. and anyone who is Jewish is murdered. Period.

There may be lost oif anti-semitic and hoimophobic people in positions of power in the US - but none of them have yet seen fit to advocate a genocide. Al-Qaeda and its adherents quite openly believe that anyone who is not a Sunni Islamic fundamentalist should die - and preferably in as painful a way as possible.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 08:14 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
And you only seem available for comment when Americans and especially Israelis say anything bigotted or racist - why is that?

Is that really the case? Where? Perhaps you should consider that you are projecting your own bigoted attitudes, and mode of discourse onto everyone else.

As far as I can remember the only time that I have ever made a reference to Israeli or American bigotry was to show the univesrality of the problem, in response to those who seem to get milage out of showing the bigotry of Arabs in order to justify their own.

This is exactly what I have done above.

Please find for me a thread which I started in this sensationalist and provocative form attacking the bigotry of Americans or Israelis, or began a discussion in the manner you have here?

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 March 2006 08:47 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are Islamic bigots???!!! NOOOOOO!!!! And Jewish bigots too????!!!! Oh, My God! Next someone will claim there are European bigots! I can't stand it! HOLY SHIT!!!!

If I have learned one thing and only one thing from my fellow humans, it is our infinite ability to select the most mundane aspect of our existence and then champion it as divinely inspired evidence of our true status as supreme, earthly, beings. And then in the process of putting all others in their rightful place of subservience, claiming a sole right to express suffering and grief. Because all other suffering and grief is brought upon the sufferers themselves.

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bonner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12160

posted 05 March 2006 08:51 PM      Profile for Bonner        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, Frustrated Mess, they had it coming! 9/11? had it coming. Hiroshima? Had it coming. Berlin in ruins? Had it coming. We've all got it coming!
From: Haven Hotel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 05 March 2006 09:01 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In countries where Islamic fundamentalism rules, ANYONE who is gay is murdered. Period. and anyone who is Jewish is murdered. Period.

There is no doubt that Islamic fundamentalism (like Christian, Jewish, or Hindu extremists) is homophobic and that gays suffer both legal and extra-judicial violence. However, I have to disagree with the statement about Jews. By my understanding Islam regards Jews as "people of the book" and affords them the same legal protection as given to Christians. There is a Jewish community today in Iran for example. Are they held to a subservient staus? Yes? Are they often spied on/persecuted? Yes. Are they however, killed for simply being Jewish? No.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 05 March 2006 09:26 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In countries where Islamic fundamentalism rules, ANYONE who is gay is murdered. Period. and anyone who is Jewish is murdered. Period.

Islamic fundamentalism inherited from the Judeo-Christian theological school its hatred for gays. No argument with that.

But Jews being killed for being Jewish ? Nonsense, Stockholm! It is not too late to withdraw this statement if you are interested in maintaining your credibility.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 09:57 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By my understanding Islam regards Jews as "people of the book" and affords them the same legal protection as given to Christians.

That's true, but I'm not talking about Islam in general. I'm talking specifically about Islamic fundamentalist fascism of the Taliban/Al-Qaeda variety. You know the guys who who happily behead people with blunt kitchen knives on video just for the fun of it. The ones who mudered Daniel Pearl for no other reason than being Jewish. The ones who would stone gays and lesbians to death in Afghanistan at every opportunity.

In any case the point I origibally wanted to make was that fascism of any kind almost invariably persecutes, Jews, homosexuals and often intellectuals and psychiatrists (in other words any people who encourage other people to think and question). Its no coincidence that when there weas a fascist dictatorship in Argentina in the 70s the first thing they did was persecute Jews, have death squads kill psychiatrists and hurled gays and lesbians alive out of helicopeters over the ocean. Its always the same pattern be in the Nazis, Stalinist Russia, Islamic fundamentaliosts, military dictatorships in South America...they all have a need to persecute and try to annhilate groups that represent the sub-conscience, that represent any question of tradition and authority...so over and over we see those kinds of regimes try to wipe out Jews, gays and anyone who believes in psychology...It usually stems from an obsession with racial or religious "purity" and a rejection of any "thinking".


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 05 March 2006 09:59 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What about when the fascists are also Zionists? Will they be targetting Jews, also? Or wil Palestinians substitute?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

That's true, but I'm not talking about Islam in general. I'm talking specifically about Islamic fundamentalist fascism of the Taliban/Al-Qaeda variety. You know the guys who who happily behead people with blunt kitchen knives on video just for the fun of it. The ones who mudered Daniel Pearl for no other reason than being Jewish. The ones who would stone gays and lesbians to death in Afghanistan at every opportunity..


That isn't why they killed him. If you had seen the video you would know they killed him because they believed that he was a Zionist CIA agent. They also killed him because they disliked what they felt was the Zinosit occupation of Palestine, and the US suport for that. There was also something about 13 fighter jest that Pakistan paid for but never recieved from the US, or something like that,

But if you want to pop-off and turn everything inot simple minded racial politics then you are propogating the mythologies of the very hell you say you oppose.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 05 March 2006 10:42 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But Jews being killed for being Jewish ? Nonsense, Stockholm! It is not too late to withdraw this statement if you are interested in maintaining your credibility.

hahahahaha


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 10:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He is new.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2006 10:56 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I guess for all these apologists for Islamic fascists from Al-Qaeda

Okay, one more comment like that and it's a time-out for you.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2006 10:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bonner:
Yeah, Frustrated Mess, they had it coming! 9/11? had it coming. Hiroshima? Had it coming. Berlin in ruins? Had it coming. We've all got it coming!

He didn't say that, and you too will be taking a vacation if you keep it up.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 March 2006 11:01 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I thought Bonner's point was a more general point about the morality of war in general.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 05 March 2006 11:11 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh. I read it as a sarcastic comment. If I was wrong, I apologize and take back the warning. Maybe bonner can clarify.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 05 March 2006 11:35 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
That isn't why they killed him. If you had seen the video you would know they killed him because they believed that he was a Zionist CIA agent.

I'm sorry, I guess that makes it OK. and if they were wrong "oops, we made a boo-boo, better luck next time"

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Saber
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10301

posted 06 March 2006 12:22 AM      Profile for Saber     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I imagine that there are a lot of Muslim people around the world who are as scared of the insane extremism they see developing around them as we are here in Canada - or as scared as thinking people in Texas feel when they listen to the State of the Union address by George Bush. Christ, that must be a frightening experience. I mean here, in a moderate democracy, I can take listening to George Bush. At least I’m still allowed to disagree with him – but in the States…That must be awful.

I’m scared of the extremism and the prejudice that I see taking hold in my own country. Look who won the last federal election! I can’t believe that people on this website are quoting racist extremist Muslim clerics as though they are representative of all Muslims when we have a right wing Christian extremist in the Prime Minister’s office! Look how easily it happens!

We have right wing Christian extremists operating as heads of state in both Canada and the Unites States! In both cases, they won with narrow minorities.

People keep saying, “Oh Harper only has a minority.” Like that’s any excuse. People talk all the time as though all Muslims are responsible for the extreme actions of a few, and yet look at who’s in power here in North America! We here on Rabble are about as responsible for the election of Steven Harper as your average Muslim man or woman is for the fatwas issued by a cleric in Afghanistan. In fact we are more responsible, if indeed we do still live in a democracy.

Before we start railing about how backward Muslims are, we better figure out a way to get the fundamentalist extremists out of power in our own country. Once we figured out how to do that…maybe then we can feel advanced.

I hope manage to do that.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2006 12:51 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
we have a right wing Christian extremist in the Prime Minister’s office!

I think you are getting very hyperbolic here. I dislike Harper as much as anyone, but it is absurd to claim that he is the Christian equivalent of fundamentalist Muslims in Al-Qaeda declaring fatwas and chopping peoples heads off on videotape. I don't recall Harper ever advocating the death penalty for gays and lesbians. I don't recall him denouncing non-Christians as being the "anti-Christ". I don't recall him wanting to make Christianity the state religion and openly persecuting people who are of other faiths.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 01:13 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
"...and chopping peoples heads off on videotape"

Yes, it's so much more humane and civilized when we send in flying gunships, or drop bombs on cities from thousands of feet up. Oh, and when we don't videotape it, either...

Come on. [You are both being equivocal and rationalizing.] *edit* Whoops. Sorry Sabre, I didn't mean you; I mixed up who Stock was responding to. But Stock, for you to accuse someone else of hyperbole, well that's just pot and kettle talk.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bonner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12160

posted 06 March 2006 02:19 AM      Profile for Bonner        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Maybe bonner can clarify.

I was reinforcing the Frustrated Mess's point, as I understood it, that

quote:
Because all other suffering and grief is brought upon the sufferers themselves.

Not very clearly, I see.


From: Haven Hotel | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 05:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

I'm sorry, I guess that makes it OK. and if they were wrong "oops, we made a boo-boo, better luck next time"

[ 05 March 2006: Message edited by: Stockholm ]


No it means that you were wrong on the facts and presenting a very stereotypical and biased representation of the people you were talking about. Something that makes your strident outburst seem hysterical and inflamatory fearmongering.

Pearl went out with dignity and never admitted the spy charge, which seemed largely to be based on associated guilt, being Jewish and having a strongly Zionist father, etc.

I had a lot of respect for Pearl. Pearl, an exacting journalist would not let your description of the event pass, since it is false and prejudicial, and in that light using his name as such is a diservice.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 March 2006 08:34 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"They did it on purpose and they continue to do it without apologising, even though no-one dares to harm Jews or to challenge Jewish claims about the Holocaust nor even to insult homosexuals."


Isn't this quote the purpose of the topic? "No one dares to harm Jews or challenge the Holocaust or insult homosexuals" Egads!!! Not insulting homosexuals and denying the Holocaust! Oh yes, he seems to have a clear handle on logic. And yes, let's please defend this so as not to appear anti-Islamic.

Tell me why, please, anyone is defending this guy? maybe I am missing something? Maybe their are excuses for this people think justify it? Help me out here. I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the defense of extremist shit like this. This is similar to attacking the progressives who dared speak out against the worker's strike in Iran. Since when did so many people become apologists for this shit?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 March 2006 09:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, Stargazer? Where do you see anyone being an apologist for that line?

Before the discussion got sidetracked because Stockholm wrongly accused people of being apologists, the first posters all made it clear that they think of the leadership of al-Qaeda as fascist. As do I.

Where do you see an apologist?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 06 March 2006 09:52 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is the impression I am getting rom Cueball.

Cueball, if I misread you, I apologize.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 March 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stargazer, I think some of us are getting hypersensitive to being called apologists for one thing or another, often on turf that we have been writing to in some depth and much more regularly than the baiters ever have.

It has been the so-called lefties around here who have been following developments in Central Asia and Iran, eg, in detail non-stop for years. The baiters only show up for the sensational quotes that finally make it into the msm.

That's why the baiters have never heard the lefties calling either bin Laden or, eg, Ahmadinejad fascists, although we often have.

So it just gets a li'l frustrating, y'know? I think that's what you're seeing in Cueball's defensiveness above.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2006 10:31 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Pearl went out with dignity and never admitted the spy charge, which seemed largely to be based on associated guilt, being Jewish and having a strongly Zionist father, etc.


This seems to imply that you think he actually was a spy but just wouldn't admit it...


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 March 2006 10:32 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How so? When he clearly goes on to cast doubt on the spy charge?

Stockholm, you are just looking for trouble.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 06 March 2006 10:35 AM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How so? When he clearly goes on to cast doubt on the spy charge?
Stockholm, you are just looking for trouble.


Perhaps Stockholm was reading too much into Cueball's use of the word "admitted", which is usually used when the charge that you confess to is true.

But the rest of the post indicates pretty clearly(to me anyway) that Cueball thinks the charges against Pearl were bogus.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
He also admits that in the eyes of Al-Qaeda just being Jewish is enough evidence to be executed for being a spy - which proves my original point.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 March 2006 10:47 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A point that has been contradicted by ... ?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 06 March 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Oh. My. Gawd! You mean Al-Qaeda are *bad guys*?!?!

I wonder if it's too late to back out of that Al-Qaeda hackey-sack tournament I was organizing...


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This whole thing is becoming way too reminisent of 1927.
From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 March 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"They did it on purpose and they continue to do it without apologising, even though no-one dares to harm Jews or to challenge Jewish claims about the Holocaust nor even to insult homosexuals."

I can't see any denunciation of the named groups in the remarks quoted in the OP--what I see is someone denouncing blasphemy, while pointing out the hypocricy of the "free speech" defense for that blasphemy: in the west, we are entirely willing to curtail free speech to protect OUR sacred cows, but stand on principle to protect our rights to slaughter other people's sacred cows.

Nowehere in the cited passage do I see either jews or homosexuals being denounced.

What am I missing?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BC NDPer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5369

posted 06 March 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for BC NDPer   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Saber:
Before we start railing about how backward Muslims are, we better figure out a way to get the fundamentalist extremists out of power in our own country. Once we figured out how to do that…maybe then we can feel advanced.

I hope manage to do that.


No, I won't wait. Muslim extremism under the Ayatollah and the Taliban cannot be compared to Shrub or Harper governments - really Sabre, you can't say that sort of stuff in the real world and be taken seriously . It seems some people will go to any lengths to delude themselves about the moral relativism of various governments and societies to maintain their PC web cred. Wake up people, how many muslims/atheists/homosexuals/jews/women/persons do you know that would rather live in Iran versus the Great Satan U.S.A?


From: Yes | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't read a direct denunciation either. Either way, though, it's likely that he doesn't like Jews or gays.

But his comments speak to bigotry in our own society. Jews and homosexuals are hated by many, but this hatred is largely "in the closet" - if I may. In the case of Muslims, bigots have been out and proud for some time.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
He also admits that in the eyes of Al-Qaeda just being Jewish is enough evidence to be executed for being a spy - which proves my original point.

Daniel Peral worked in the unlit corners of the world, looking into those places which most of us do not dare to tread. His apperently vein hope to enlighten people such as youself of the facts. Of this work, the work for which he died, you seem completely oblivious.

As an example, Daniel Pearl was killed by Pakistanti militants (some say with connections with the ISI,) not Al Queda. Al Queda was (is) more or less an Arab organization. He would want you to know that, and make that distinction, because I am sure that he believed like many of the braver journalists in the world that knowledge not the kind of ignorance you display is key to justice and peace.

As for the spy charge, I highly doubt that Pearl was a spy, however, it is also the case that in doing the kind of investigative journalism that he did, he met with a lot of unsavory folks, and no doubt a number of those were US and Israeli spooks. Many journalists often get involved in such affairs, and with such people, so it is very easy to see how some people might link these things together and discover a patern of behaviour very much similar to the kind engaged in by spys.

Robert Fisk's name appears in Oliver North's appointment book. What are we to make of that?

Journalist collect information and so do spies.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BC NDPer:

No, I won't wait. Muslim extremism under the Ayatollah and the Taliban cannot be compared to Shrub or Harper governments - really Sabre, you can't say that sort of stuff in the real world and be taken seriously . It seems some people will go to any lengths to delude themselves about the moral relativism of various governments and societies to maintain their PC web cred. Wake up people, how many muslims/atheists/homosexuals/jews/women/persons do you know that would rather live in Iran versus the Great Satan U.S.A?


I think the point is that from the point of view of Muslim people, the kind of bigotry displayed in western circles against Muslims, does not manifest itself in the rather benign form of opposition to such things as SSM between gay and Lesbian people, but as wholesale slaughter of Muslims, because they are Muslims, or so it seems to them.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 06 March 2006 03:58 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
What's unfortunate in the case of Pearl is that it's a matter of record that US special forces WERE operating in the region disguised as journalists. It's not difficult to imagine that this practise did make all honest journalists vulnerable, and maybe Pearl was the man who paid the price for it.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 03:58 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the Ayatollah and the Taliban cannot be compared to Shrub or Harper governments

Of course it can. Bush has just killed some 100,000 Iraqis on the basis of a lie and is running gulags all over the world. He is planning to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and perhaps use weapons of mass destruction (noo-clear) on the basis of another lie.

Harper is a lap dog licking his toes in the hopes of getting a pat on the head. You think Osama is worse than Bush? You must be white and driving an SUV. I see no significant difference other than Bush probably has a much larger death toll and a much fatter bank account.

This is like some sort of freak show: "Choose yer monster! Git yer monster here! Monsters! Going quick! Pick a side so's you know who yer killing!"

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 05:00 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[QB]

Of course they can. Bush has just killed some 100,000 Iraqis on the basis of a lie and is running gulags all over the world. He is planning to kill tens of thousands of Iranians and perhaps use weapons of mass destruction (noo-clear) on the basis of another lie.


Come on. There is no real comparison between the ideologies of the Bush and Osama. It could be argued Bush is responsible for more deaths/suffering then Bin Laden is, but this is because he has the most powerful and technologically advanced military/economy in the world, compared to crude suicide bombers. If Osama had that at his disposal, Israel, the USA and other Western countries would be a steaming pile of radioactivity.

quote:
You think Osama is worse than Bush? You must be white and driving an SUV. I see no significant difference other than Bush probably has a much larger death toll and a much fatter bank account.

What the f**k? I'm E-mailing mods for that one. You might not know this, but there was a time when Osama had a bank account near the order of Bush's.

I hate this sort of shit hyperbole your spouting. Stop it.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is your complaint? That Bush is richer than Osama? I will concede that.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 05:02 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The complaint is about:

quote:
You must be white and driving an SUV.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 05:04 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What is your complaint? That Bush is richer than Osama? I will concede that.

"You must be white and driving an SUV"


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 05:06 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Come on. There is no real comparison between the ideologies of the Bush and Osama.

Of course there is. You might not want to see it, but it is there. Both are seekiing world domination. Osama is seeking it for Islam and Bush is seeking it for Haliburton and friends. They even wrote a book about it: Project for a New American Century.

And to carry out that war, since most of it will be fought against poor people many of whom are Islamic, they need for us to fear and hate Islam. Thus the so-called War of Civilizations.

Bush and Osama are peas in a pod. You can deny it all you like but it is true.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You must be white and driving an SUV"

Oh, yes, sorry. Over the top, I admit. So what do you think it is? A mid-sized sedan?

From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 05:08 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, who would you rather have as president, FM? George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden? Think carefully....

P.S. I drive a small car.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]



From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


Does that run on Hydrogen fuel?


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 06 March 2006 05:16 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Comic Relief
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 05:20 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Okay, who would you rather have as president, FM? George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden? Think carefully....

Maybe it would be fairer to ask an Iraqi who he would rather have as president: Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush?

From a North American perspective, what do we have to complain about? W.'s wars kill mostly muslims somehwere else and we get to continue our comfortable, consumerist culture, consuming 80% of the world's resources unabated? What is wrong with that?

And we get the added benefit of feeling all morally superior to those people who are in the war zone who get all personal and far less sterile when they kill.

It's just all aces in our hand isn't it?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 06 March 2006 05:21 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Okay, who would you rather have as president, FM? George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden?

Ah, yes...., the straw man dichotomy argument.

Things are going well here, I see.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 05:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Okay, who would you rather have as president, FM? George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden? Think carefully....

P.S. I drive a small car.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


Capacity for criminal behaviour only affects the degree of criminality not the potential.

The US presidency is to a certain extent limited by traditional modes of American governance. Human rights as enshrined in the constitution and are not the result of George Bush's work, but rather the obeject of his attack. There is no way to determine how GWB would act under circumstances were he infettered from what remains of US civil society.

However, it seems that GWB is doing everything in his power to extend his ability to commit attrrocity, and violate human rights, issuing himself a universally applicable declaration of "war against terror," as well as the right to undermine due process in the name of that war. He just doesn't call it his edicts Fatwas.

I have read reports of Russians today saying that they would vote for Joseph Stalin as long as his powers were constitutionally limited.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2006 05:23 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I think the point is that from the point of view of Muslim people, the kind of bigotry displayed in western circles against Muslims, does not manifest itself in the rather benign form of opposition to such things as SSM between gay and Lesbian people, but as wholesale slaughter of Muslims, because they are Muslims, or so it seems to them.


Since when is there "wholesale slaughter" of Muslims going on in the western world? I don't recall reading about Kristallnacht like pogroms going on in the Arab neighbourhoods of Detroit? I don't recall reading of about any explicit government policies within western country calling for the mass murder of anyone who believes in the Muslim religion.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 06 March 2006 05:32 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
Since when is there "wholesale slaughter" of Muslims going on in the western world?

Fallujah isn't in the western world.

These "my side is not as atrocious as their side" arguments are so tiring.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 March 2006 05:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Neither is the person whose statement begins this thread.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 06 March 2006 06:46 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
These "my side is not as atrocious as their side" arguments are so tiring.


I agree. I mean what right have we to criticize Auschwitz when the Allies were JUST AS BAD for having bombed Dresden.

Since we can all agree that everyone is JUST AS BAD as everyone else, i guess we should all just stop criticizing anyone or anything at all in the world. Next time that anyone complains about what the US is doing at Guantanamo, they shoudl be reminded that what happens in Iranian prisons is JUST AS BAD - so we have no right to criticize.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Transplant
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9960

posted 06 March 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Transplant     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
I agree.

And yet you keep right on making them.


From: Free North America | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 06 March 2006 07:20 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
AlQaeda is not a government, it is a murderous terrorist group. They have been particularly successful, but they are not a government.

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find some racist/xenophobic groups in the West advocating for pogroms and racial extermination, probably with a quick Google search (not that I am willing to do one). They aren't governments either, and we as a whole are no more responsible for their actions than Muslims, or Iraqis as a whole are responsible for the words of a wingnut murderer from Al Qaeda.*

It is only in the minds of the simplistic that this is difficult to understand. Iraq is not Al Qaeda. Most of the insurgents in Iraq have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. The overwhelming majority of people in Iraq have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Until this thread, I hadn't thought of Stockholm as simplistic, but apparently I was wrong.

Using the logic applied in the his first post, Stockholm is an apologist for the Klan, Fred Phelps, gay bashers, lynchings and the rest. He is an apologist because he says 'our culture isn't as bad as theirs'. Therefore, using his logic, he supports the absolute worst elements of our culture. Because he has not explicitly condemned each and every one of those appalling elements of our culture, he is a supporter of them. Am I starting to get through to you here Stock?

*As a culture we have some responsibility for the murderous assholes among us, but not to the point that we should be bombed or killed for it.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: arborman ]


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 07:36 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Come on. There is no real comparison between the ideologies of the Bush and Osama. It could be argued Bush is responsible for more deaths/suffering then Bin Laden is, but this is because he has the most powerful and technologically advanced military/economy in the world, compared to crude suicide bombers.

Apparently we subscribe to very different notions of what "ideology" is. For me, that we are not only capable of, but regularly carry out, large-scale technological violence is not a seperate issue from ideology. It's part-and-parcel of our ideology that we ought to create the biggest, baddest weapons imaginable and then use them on people in order to get our "democratic" way. We do it all the time. In fact, there is something quite insidious about an ideology that is so self-congratulatory, and so deftly denies itself any share of responsibility in the face of so many thousands dying.

quote:
If Osama had that at his disposal, Israel, the USA and other Western countries would be a steaming pile of radioactivity.

If, if, if, if, if.... We do have a massive arsenal at our disposal and tens-of-thousands of Iraqis became under-reported statistics due to the ideology we espouse.

You can't have it both ways - i.e. "THEY kill BECAUSE of their ideology while WE kill IN SPITE of ours." Unless you have some reason to believe that ideology effects Muslims differently than other humans.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 07:40 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
Okay, who would you rather have as president, FM? George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden? Think carefully....

None of the above. BTW, when was the last time you asked this question of someone whose family was recently blown to bits by an American bomb?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:

Since when is there "wholesale slaughter" of Muslims going on in the western world? I don't recall reading about Kristallnacht like pogroms going on in the Arab neighbourhoods of Detroit? I don't recall reading of about any explicit government policies within western country calling for the mass murder of anyone who believes in the Muslim religion.


And yet on about the same amount of evidence, you began this thread comparing Al Qaeda with Nazis. Apparently spurious comparisons based on a limited and questionably relevent catagories are only good for the goose (you). When the gander wants some action, well....

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Transplant:

Ah, yes...., the straw man dichotomy argument.

Things are going well here, I see.


Well, I asked that question because Frustrated Mess took up the argument that if I think Osama is worse then Bush, I must be white and driving an SUV.

But, whatever...

Cueball brings up an interesting point that "Capacity for criminal behaviour only affects the degree of criminality not the potential". That is true.

And also, while I do still maintain that Bin Laden has more potential for criminality than Bush, please understand that I don't support Bush.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 06 March 2006 08:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. Interesting to begin with as I was responding to BC NDPer. Well, whatever ...

Second, given Bush's undisputed role in an illegal war killing tens of thousands of innocents, his use of torture, illegal spying, and now his intent to launch another illegal war, on what grounds would you conclude he has less a capacity for criminality than his buddy in bloodshed, Osama?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 06 March 2006 08:17 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
And also, while I do still maintain that Bin Laden has more potential for criminality than Bush, please understand that I don't support Bush.

How are you measuring potential? Moreover, how are you defining "criminality" - i.e. is "criminality" simply a transgressing of codified black-letter laws, or are we talking about some kind of objective moral code here?


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 08:19 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

None of the above. BTW, when was the last time you asked this question of someone whose family was recently blown to bits by an American bomb?

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]


Well, none of the above is probably the smart answer, but I see what your getting at here though. Suffering is one (I argue thee) major cause of extremeism. When people face extreme circumstances they will tend to opt for extreme solutions. The foriegn policies of the United States and the USSR in the last 20 years are responsible for Al-Qaeda today. US forign policy today will be largely responsible for the rise of more terrorist organizations in the future.


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 06 March 2006 08:32 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:

How are you measuring potential? Moreover, how are you defining "criminality" - i.e. is "criminality" simply a transgressing of codified black-letter laws, or are we talking about some kind of objective moral code here?


The 2nd one, really, just my own opinion. It's really based on the idea that Bin Laden has essentially called for the wipeout of countries, while Bush has called for the wipeout of regimes.

Bin Laden's motivations are fundamentalist, alagous to the motiviations of the crusades, while Bush's are economic.


Bush... Bush is more delusional than anything else. His forign policy is based on that if the US swoops in to the Arab world, rids them of the despots (only the ones working against him), and bring forth democracy, so that the Arabs will be liberated (and export oil more safely to the US, bringing prices down, and productivity up). The casualties of this liberation are sad, but in the end, it's all justified. All of this mind you, is very simple minded, and (as Bush is starting to find out) doesn't work.

quote:
Posted by Frustrated mess: Second, given Bush's undisputed role in an illegal war killing tens of thousands of innocents, his use of torture, illegal spying, and now his intent to launch another illegal war, on what grounds would you conclude he has less a capacity for criminality than his buddy in bloodshed, Osama?

Bush is more going along with all of these illegalities than perpetrating them. When I talk about torture and the illegal war, I tend to look at Cheney and Rumsfeld as the main perpetrators. Bush kind of just serves as the fall guy for them.

However, Bush is ultimately responsible for more suffering than Osama is.

Talking about "less evil" or "less criminal" is not generally a good idea. Like arborman said, it's often used to excuse the "less evil/criminal" guy from his crimes. I'm really caught between trying to get people to see the perspective that I see of between Osama and Bush, and trying not to sound like a Bush apologist.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited thrice by: West Coast Greeny ]

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 06 March 2006 08:44 PM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WCG, I think I understand the distinction you're trying to make, and I've made some of my own semi-devil's-advocate arguments in the past. But one noteworthy parallel between Bush and bin Laden -- or perhaps a better comparison would be of Bush and Ahmadinejad -- is that they're pandering to a base to a certain extent.

Do they believe the bulk of what they say? I wouldn't rule out that possibility. I suspect they believe a frightening amount of it. But on the other hand, Ahmadinejad's ranting about Israel seems to satisfy a particular constituency in his country, just as much of Bush's war-on-terror rhetoric seems to be geared more for domestic consumption than anything else. Bin Laden is perhaps a bit different, not being a national leader, but he does have a movement that he's trying to keep together and recruit new members to.

Edited to add: Admittedly, pandering to a base is something that all political leaders have to do. I just brought it up to illustrate that bin Laden might not necessarily be that much more of a fundamentalist than Bush. Both have political and economic objectives in the Middle East, and both appeal to religious fundamentalists in order to achieve those objectives.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Evil Twin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11561

posted 06 March 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for The Evil Twin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Posted by Cueball: As an example, Daniel Pearl was killed by Pakistanti militants (some say with connections with the ISI,) not Al Queda.

You're absolutely correct. I definately believe that he was killed with the aid/knowledge of rogue elements within the ISI. If you watched the video, at the end of it, the terrorists make some demands: among them is the delivery of F-16 bombers that the US sold to Pakistan and then did not deliver (as a result of sanctions due to their nuclear program). Why ANYONE other than the Pakistani establishment would care about this escapes me. Al-Quaeda certainly wouldn't give a shit about F-16s going to Pakistan. Nevertheless, the MSM and average people seem to believe that Al-Qaeda had omething to do with this atrocity.

[ 06 March 2006: Message edited by: The Evil Twin ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 07 March 2006 02:20 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It's really based on the idea that Bin Laden has essentially called for the wipeout of countries, while Bush has called for the wipeout of regimes.

When did Bin Laden call for the wipeout of countries?

He did say,"When God blessed one of the groups of Islam, vanguards of Islam, they destroyed America. " I'm not sure if that means the same thing as the "wipeout of countries," given that "destroyed" is in the past tense.

His aims seem much more modest:

"To America, I say only a few words to it and its people. I swear by God, who has elevated the skies without pillars, neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad, peace by upon him. "


quote:
Bush... Bush is more delusional than anything else. His forign policy is based on that if the US swoops in to the Arab world, rids them of the despots (only the ones working against him), and bring forth democracy, so that the Arabs will be liberated (and export oil more safely to the US, bringing prices down, and productivity up). The casualties of this liberation are sad, but in the end, it's all justified. All of this mind you, is very simple minded, and (as Bush is starting to find out) doesn't work.

Anyone who thinks that Bush genuinely believes that line about him attacking Arabs to bring them democracy is himself delusional.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
West Coast Greeny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6874

posted 07 March 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for West Coast Greeny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Anyone who thinks that Bush genuinely believes that line about him attacking Arabs to bring them democracy is himself delusional.


That's the level I honestly see him working at. I guess I'm delusional. *shrugs*


From: Ewe of eh. | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
B.L. Zeebub LLD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6914

posted 07 March 2006 01:54 PM      Profile for B.L. Zeebub LLD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Al-Q:

I've often thought that one of the reasons that "we" have declared war against a method (essentially confusing means and ends) is that if we were to declare war on what Al-Qaeda actually wants we would open up a problematic kettle of fish. Sure, we could get some mileage out of fighting against Taliban-style repression, but once you get to the actual demands of Al-Qaeda you start to get into issues of colonialism and imperialism that would actually have some resonance with a lot of middle-of-the-road voters in the West.

It's as if the US simply took the Israeli party-line ("terror" is the problem, not occupation, etc.) and took it to globalitarian heights.


From: A Devil of an Advocate | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca