[J m HofMarN]

So what do you guys think of Lieberman, the senator who, having lost to an anti war candidate in his own party primary, has decided to run as an independent? I don't think he's sabotaging his party's chances at victory, mainly because most people already think he's a Republican. And how could you not when he reads shit right out of George Bush's playbook:

"He[Lieberman] seized on the terror plot in Britain to criticize Lamont's opposition to the war in Iraq.

"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us _ more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said."

Lieberman, just give up this democratic bullshit and get a job as Bush's full time apple polisher. Not that he dosn't have enough these days.

[Jordan]

I kind of agree with him on his last statement there. Terrorists have really fucked up the Airline business and border crossings.

The latest escapde with liquid explosives are a reminder that Islamic fuckers are still trying to blow up our travel plans, along with the London bombings and the "Canada Plot".

Moslems currently living our our glorious country are some how buying into the radical mumbo jumbo thats suppose to only exist inside the caves of backward Islamic countries, not here.

It is serious. They are scattered about the world and are pretty elusive. Maybe it's not the average North Americans concern, but some department out there is working on the clock to locate these scum bags.

Are you saying it's not a problem? Soviets never once launched a missle at us or even so much as lit off a jumping jack on North American home base.

Islamic terrorists have had 2 foiled plots and one succesful hit on home soil. That's not taking into account their past actions outside of North America.

Is confronting this as a serious threat "republican" in nature? What would democrats do?

Islamic governments and Islamic terror organizations are peas in a pod. Over throwing one government is as good as taking out a terrorist base camp. They're all the same man.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 11 August 2006 - 03:19 PM

[J m HofMarN]

So, are there any non ignorant non racists people who have comments?

[StarWarsIsUs]

Actually, Hoffman, Islam isn't a race. It is a religion. If anything, Jordan would be bias or bigotted. Lol.

This post has been edited by StarWarsIsUs: 12 August 2006 - 02:34 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Yes but you see those are happy words, whereas racism is a sad word that expresses the true ugliness of what is being done. The thinking that can condemn an entire religion and people (Arabs, who ARE a race) Is the same that can condemn blacks, etc.

You can't look at a person and realize they're Islamic if they don't have a head cap or a beard, etc. I've heard racist people refer to people from India as terrorists even though they were Hindu. When you judge people as terrorists by skin color you're a racist, and when you make statements that all Muslims (read, people with olive toned skin) are terrorists, you're a racist who has no place in intelligent debate since the only motivation for your utterly inane and baseless arguments is "they look different, let's kill em."

Edit: During a conversation with Slade I discovered just how fun fear mongering can be. So here's my gift to the world. I've edited Lieberman's statement into a mad libs:

"I'm worried that ________, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the _________ that face us, more evil or as evil as _______ and probably more dangerous than the _________ we fought during the long Cold War,"

Here's mine:

"I'm worried that Slade, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the Athlete's Foot that face us, more evil or as evil as Male Thongs and probably more dangerous than the Godzilla we fought during the long Cold War,"

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 12 August 2006 - 12:12 PM

[Slade]

Islamic governments and Islamic terror organizations are peas in a pod. Over throwing one government is as good as taking out a terrorist base camp. They're all the same man.

The US is friendly with the government of Saudi Arabia, you know, Jordan. They aren't all the same, and it's an ignorant statement to make that they are.

Lieberman's an arrogant ass on a play for power, attempting to capitalize on national fear. I think that comparing terrorism to the National Socialist party (spelled out because I think Nazism looks weird) or the Soviet Union and the Cold War is absurd political melodramatics and Joe being bitter about losing the election. Oh noes! Teh terrorists are going to rule the world!!!!!!1111 Get real. I'm quite happy that he lost this election, because anyone who talks like that shouldn't be in power.

There's a difference between confronting terrorism as a serious threat and pandering to the fears of the huddled masses and speaking in grossly exaggerated terms

[Deepsycher]

Well it seems little match for the many people who have basic jobs in stores and the frenzy commercialism compared to the terrorists who are taking up physical training whilst bush colours his speech for enticement to make everyone feel safe maybe.

Bush said something about that it would be a mistake to assume that it is safe. I agree that nowhere is safe but I don't feel safe with someone who listens to my phone calls and is influenced by other forces according to an articles I read. I am beginning to wonder if he really is a muppet on strings pulled by the businessmen who owns large plots of land there who hire groups of mafias.

In the end some care about getting a job but it seems to me from Lieberman's statement that this strings were also pulled.

Isn't it as racist for bibles to say to their followers to kill other people that are not their kind?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 12 August 2006 - 12:44 PM

[J m HofMarN]

There's a difference between confronting terrorism as a serious threat and pandering to the fears of the huddled masses and speaking in grossly exaggerated terms

Right you are, your holiness. Just because I talk about creating a war on right wing imperio-racists and whip everyone who will listen into a terrified frenzy about them it dosn't mean I'm doing a damned thing to stop them.

Shock and Awe, massive invasions, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, untold hundreds of thousands more raped tortured or imprisoned. This was all to capture at most 1000 men who are currently hiding in caves. Tell me how Bush's war on terror had any effect on the plot to blow up those planes in Britain.

The answer is that it fucking caused that plot. Britain got involved in the war on terror despite the opposition of most of its citizens and certainly of its Muslim community. Disenfranchising people and comitting genocide against their ethnic or religious group breeds terrorism. There have been more terror attacks globally since the war on terror started than before it began. Rather than smoking the bee's nest we've just thrown rocks at it haphazardly until they scattered and started stinging.

A democrat might well have done the same, but at least they wouldn't hide behind some macho bullshit "bring em on dead or alive" attitude. They would view this as a war, wherein people are accountable and the enemy is human, not a nigh invincible monster of doom. Bush views it as nothing less than a cruscade. And let's face it, bad things happen during cruscades.

[Deepsycher]

How about the secret torture planes travelling to Britain to carry off suspects to Guantanamo Bay. Isn't that hidden terror?

This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 13 August 2006 - 11:59 AM

[civilian_number_two]

When you judge people as terrorists by skin color you're a racist, and when you make statements that all Muslims (read, people with olive toned skin) are terrorists, you're a racist who has no place in intelligent debate since the only motivation for your utterly inane and baseless arguments is "they look different, let's kill em."

In all fairness, Hoff, and I agree with you about the "War on terror" actually causing terror (anyone care to reference the Irish troubles at the turn of the century?), but you're citing statements that Jordan never made.

1) Jordan did NOT say that Muslims shall be identified as all people with olive skin. He therefore can't be criticised for having done so. That leap of racism is being made by you, in proxy. It is in fact possible to criticise a religion without making blanket assumptions about a race, and Jordan was careful there. Even when he talkes about "Moslems in NOrth America," he wasn't making any statements about ALL Muslims, and certainly not about olive-skinned folk. I'm sure he meant Black people and also Cat Stevens. You criticise Christianity all the time. I suppose it's convenient that Christianity allows folks from all races to join, so you won't be accused of racsim. Just because Islam attrracts pretty much only Arabs and Black people, and many of its proponents shriek "die whitey" on a semi-regular basis, well, you can't blame Jordan for that. In fact you're committing a common PC mistake, of assuming that any resistance to anything is based on racism. I don't like Islam, and wish all Muslims would turn in their cards. I don't like Christianity either, and wish Christians would turn in their cards. I don't mind Judaism, but would like those folks to turn in their cards as well, out of fairness.

2) For the record, the offensive phrase was this: "Islamic governments and Islamic terror organizations are peas in a pod. Over throwing one government is as good as taking out a terrorist base camp. They're all the same man." You see, Jordan made a blanket statement about those governments that have allowed Islam to be a part of the party platform. You can argue that American Democracy uses Christianity as a platform to support its wars, and go ahead. But I dare say that when you say a thing like that, you're condemning the practice. Jordan was condemning vertical integration of Islam into governments. And for good reason, since all of those governments are dictatorships and all of those governments support terrorists.

Slade: Yes, America is allied with Saudi Arabia. It's also true that the Saudis are an Islamic government, and it is certainly true that they fund terror organisations. America's alliance with them is there only because it's convenient; those fuckers want you dead as much as the rest of them, and it's only a matter of time, if the US is allowed to keep invading countries, before something happens to turn them against you.

Jordan: Toppling a government would hurt the terror organisations it supported, but would not destroy them. It would also likely create more terror organisations. Wholesale slaughter or conquest are really the only ways to end wars of aggression; this idea that you can conquer a people and then rescind power is a goofy illusion. The moment the aggressor backs off, the allegedly conquered people are free to reclaim their land. If the problem is that religion has taught people to hate the US, then it would be in the US's best interest to convince the people otherwise. Dropping bombs on them 24/7 will only confirm their suspicions. Doing business and interacting with the people there would be more productive in terms of a peace effort than the nonsense that's going on now. To return to the analogy I brought up earlier, all Britain had to do was to change a few racist laws and they could have kept the whole of Ireland, without any civil war or terrorism. It was the way the people were treated that activated all the terrorist nutbags. I suggest the same is true in the Middle East. If we treated those people better, they wouldn't be so desperate as to blow themselves up to hurt us. We could just go back to buying and selling things, and allying with them in our efforts to prevent the manufacture or discovery of any alternate fuel supplies.

Rest of the world: Can we just get back to the business of exploration and curiosity and commerce, and forget about the superpowered eternal beings we invented 80000 years ago to explain the lightning? Can we stop fighting wars over that shit, and at least admit we're fighting so that some companies and individuals can make money? That our Marines are not dying for "freedom," but so that some other folks (mostly white, already rich) can get richer?

[Slade]

Civ: What? Negotiate? Use diplomacy? Reason??? You're mad! And my Saudi comment was mostly sarcastic.

I'm worried that Civilian 2, does't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the telephones that face us, more evil or as evil as loan interest and probably more dangerous than the armadillos we fought during the long Cold War.

[J m HofMarN]

Civ: Good of you to stop in. You're right Jordan didn't produce any particular slurs against Arabs in this one, but in previous threads he's called them, I believe the word used was "psychopaths", and so on and so forth. Therefore I don't believe I'm being assumptive to state that Jordan is a racist.

The fact that Jordan calls for the destruction of all Islamic governments is another bit of proof that racism taints his political ideas. People would surely die if the US were to overthrow an Islamic government (See Iraq, Afghanistan) which any fool would have to understand. Necessity could be VERY loosely argued for those two wars, but other Islamic nations? It's simple callousness. To call for the destruction of more or less harmless Islamic states displays a great deal of racism because anyone doing so has to view the lives of the Arabs under those regimes as inferior. So until Jordan starts calling for the overthrow of, say, France (those damned peace niks who wouldnt join our war team) I'm going to feel perfectly fine saying he's a racist.

And for good reason, since all of those governments are dictatorships and all of those governments support terrorists.

I could easily point to Palestine, an elected government. The fact that the governments support "Terrorists" Is simply a nod to the vox populae. The people support the resistance, and dictators can again and again come to power as long as they A: Support the US agenda and are cunning and evil enough to keep their populations down or B: Oppose the US and keep their populations (rightly) in fear of them. Even in Al Qaeda they're more worried with the, as Bin Laden put it in an argument with Al-Zawahri, "far enemy" than the "near enemy" the near enemy being their own oppressive regimes and the far enemy being the US.

Until the US stops dicking the middle east you can't very well blame them for having governments that aren't always the best. The very worst governments in the mideast, Israel and Saudi Arabia, are both funded by the US, so how are you going to say it's the Muslims fault? The US and its adherents have to be defeated and dispelled from the mideast before change can occur. To blame Muslims for their political woes is like pointing a finger at slaves and complaining that their living conditions are bad.

[Cobnat]

So what do you guys think of Lieberman, the senator who, having lost to an anti war candidate in his own party primary, has decided to run as an independent? I don't think he's sabotaging his party's chances at victory, mainly because most people already think he's a Republican. And how could you not when he reads shit right out of George Bush's playbook:

"He[Lieberman] seized on the terror plot in Britain to criticize Lamont's opposition to the war in Iraq.

"I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us _ more evil or as evil as Nazism and probably more dangerous than the Soviet communists we fought during the long Cold War," Lieberman said."

Lieberman, just give up this democratic bullshit and get a job as Bush's full time apple polisher. Not that he dosn't have enough these days.

Thats not fair on Republicans... Democrats are evil too.

[civilian_number_two]

Until the US stops dicking the middle east you can't very well blame them for having governments that aren't always the best.

Oh I agree. But again, Jordan is complaining about ISLAMIC governments, not ARAB ones. You are the one blurring the distinction. An ISLAMIC government would be one controlled by religious idealism, while and ARAB government would be one made up of Arabs. You can't call Jordan RACIST for not liking a RELIGIOUS government. And if he calls MUSLIM governments and terror organisations psychopathic, then he is displaying a religious bigotry, not racism. I don't disagree with him on this point; I say religious regimes are horrible, always have been horrible, and will be horrible in the future. I agree that the best way to ensure their survival is to throw around rhetoric about the inferiority of their religion, to bomb the shit out of them on a daily basis, and to support their enemies. The US is not working to defeat terrorists; she is emboldening them. But my attitude towards the US doesn't change my atitude towards those regimes.

You also don't disagree by the way, since the two nations you hate the most in that region have religion well integrated into their government. You oppose them I am sure on religious grounds as well, since virtually all of their human rights violations stem from religious fanaticism. So you are also bigoted against religious folks, something you've shown time and time again on your site. Your soft spot for the underdog is clouding your judgment, and putting you in support of folks you'd hate were the power roles reversed.

[Slade]

Indeed, theocratic governments are rather universally awful. It's funny how some rules about how people should get along with one another can be ignored, while the angry/bitter rantings of ancient people are praised and people killed because of that. And then, as mentioned, it's all fueled even more by the actions of foreign powers in the area. >< Bleh, bleh, BLEH. People are dumb. I need to go be a hermit in some neutral country in Europe.