Unpatriotic

[Crazy Cooter]

Shmokes,

If you're looking for a direct reference like that, it probably doesn't exist. The current group of right-wing thugs aren't man enough to just come out and say it, instead they indirectly insult the opposition through a variety of means.

Like saying terrorist 80 times when talking about an exit stratergy for Iraq?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?  But then it would be a civil matter... so they must be terrorists...

It's all political BS.

[danny_galaga]

The Office is a larger concept than the man sitting in it.

phew!

[ChadTower]

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?

[Goz]

Either they're terrorists or they're insurgents... Iraq wants to talk with insurgents so they must be terrorists... but Saddam didn't deal with terrorists so then we brought them in?  But then it would be a civil matter... so they must be terrorists...

Really?  You sure about that?  Is it not possible to be one thing on one day, and then one thing on another?

When an Iraqi fights the US soldiers, that would make him an insurgent.

What is he when he kills other Iraqis?

Muslim? 

[ChadTower]

THAT I don't like.  I have quite a few Muslim friends and none of them are violent.  Hell, I'm more violent than they are.

Man, if anyone saw Dennis Leary's Merry F'ing Christmas on Comedy Central the other day... HOLY CRAP... they had this pseudo Charlie Brown skit where Charlie Brown and Linus went Muslim... it was so ridiculously intolerant I was disgusted.  And it was on a holiday comedy special.  It looked exactly like the animated racist films from the 40s that no one shows anymore.

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

[patrickl]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

[Goz]

THAT I don't like.  I have quite a few Muslim friends and none of them are violent.  Hell, I'm more violent than they are.

Man, if anyone saw Dennis Leary's Merry F'ing Christmas on Comedy Central the other day... HOLY CRAP... they had this pseudo Charlie Brown skit where Charlie Brown and Linus went Muslim... it was so ridiculously intolerant I was disgusted.  And it was on a holiday comedy special.  It looked exactly like the animated racist films from the 40s that no one shows anymore.

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

I hear ya Chad... It was for the most part an attempt at levity. I too know muslims who are very nice and non violent. I also know some that are extreme and are certifiable whack jobs. Muslims kill muslims every day and extemist kill people who have different beliefs and claim it as part of the Islamic religion. It is a religion based on idiology and with any idiology you have people at both ends of the spectrum. Not much unlike our own political parties. Extemist give a bad rep to any group or religion be it good or bad in nature. Unfortunately all you hear about is Muslims celebrating when someone blows some ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- up. You don't hear any good muslims denouncing the action so it's not surprising that muslims are generally lumped into one group.

-Goz

[mr.Curmudgeon]

How is that acceptable in modern America?  Here many of us thought we had moved somewhat beyond that crap when really all many people were doing was waiting for something else to openly hate.

I don't know what country you've been living in, but here in the U.S., racism and intolerance are still in healthy abundance, it's just hidden behind codewords and smokescreen agendas.

The latest codeword seems to be 'Cultural Discomfort'...it's safer than just saying "lynch 'em" or "run 'em out of town", but it's nothing but covert racism.

If you have friends with a skin color any darker than eggshell white, ask them how they think America sees them. Ask them if they feel they're being treated the same as you. Perception is everything. I've had Japanese, Brazilian, African-American, Indian, Pakistani and friends of other nationalities all confirm to me that they certainly do not feel as accepted in American cultural society as they imagine I am (being white).

Furthermore, if you want to talk about intolerance and bigotry, then look no further than how we treat individuals of the homosexual persuasion. The president of this country proposed creating a freakin' Amendment to the Constitution, in an unprecedented attempt to limit the rights of a minority. Bush basically won reelection by catering to the deep-seeded hatred of homosexuals in this country. It was no coincidence that legislation banning gay-marriage was placed on the ballot in at least a dozen highly contested states in the 2004 election, in order to bring out his base. It wasn't an illegal tactic, but I do find it morally reprehensible.

Anyhow, my point is, we may have come a long way with the legislation of equal rights and anti-discrimination laws, but we've got a looong way to go before the dark clouds of bigotry, fear and intolerance hovering over American society are sufficiently burned away.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately all you hear about is Muslims celebrating when someone blows some ---Cleveland steamer--- up. You don't hear any good muslims denouncing the action so it's not surprising that muslims are generally lumped into one group.

So, are you suggesting that this is because there are a lack of "good muslims" or are you willing to entertain the notion that our media and our society are not interested in hearing what they have to say?

For my part, spending even a limited amount of time searching, I've been able to find an overwhelming amount of condemnation by any number of Muslim groups, of the fundamentalism that has hijacked their religion. The problem is that I've had to "search"...why isn't our media reporting on this information? I mean, it's out there, I've found it myself. Are local Muslims supposed to hand out flowers and candy on every U.S. street corner every time some whack-job blows up an IED in Iraq?

The easiest solution, if you really want to know how Muslims feel, is to just go down to your local Mosque and talk to them. I guarantee it'll open your mind.

Quick reference of Muslim condemnation of Terrorist attacks: http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

mrC

[Goz]

If you search the net you will find referrences to articles this is true.

If you listen to mainstream media (pick any station on tv or radio) you only hear negative reports of Muslims activities and I have tried looking for and listening to what is being reported and haven't heard or seen anything on tv or radio.

[ChadTower]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

[Goz]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

Not sounding very tolerant Mr. C....  (yes again a joke)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This is not true. Time and again, I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans. To say you disagree with said plan, or that you find fault in them is one thing, but to say that they simply don't exist is a blatant lie. Or you are just being ignorant on purpose. There can be no other reason and I'm tired of pointing it out to you.

It's intellectually lazy of you and completely disingenuous. Stop saying it.

Or, perhaps, it is arrogant of you to think when I say such things I speak entirely about you.

There are several million people out there screaming the things I mentioned.  None of them are you, yet they exist, and in gigantic quantity.

I wasn't assuming you were speaking of just me, which is exactly why I said, "I've pointed out plan after plan, suggestion after suggestion, by either myself, other progressives, party Democrats, even Republicans."

The fact remains, you're spreading the "they don't have any ideas" meme, when it's nothing more than Republican spin. Very effective spin though, not because it's true necessarily - because the Democrats *have* offered alternatives - but effective because the Democrats have not been successful at marketing these ideas. Partly this is their fault for a lack of savvy, partly it's the Republicans fault because they have effectively shut out the minority party through various strong-arm tactics.

The ideas are out there, you may not like them, and they may not be as refined as you'd think they should be, but to say they don't exist is nothing but disingenuous spin.

If you were honest about it, you'd see that the Dems are in a precarious situation. Effectively locked out of power, yet forced to present a successful platform/agenda they wouldn't even be able to implement yet. Given this, I imagine we'll see a strong campaign in '06...and until then, it behooves the Dems to show their hand, less the Republicans adopt their strategies. Or worse yet, manipulate the truth surrounding the Dem platform.

That said, the Dems have been successful in some arenas, while only slightly tipping their hand. For example, they flat-out trounced Bush and his signature platform for '04, Privatization of Social Security; and they are winning the battle on the perception of Bush's war in Iraq. Murtha single-handedly changed the debate and now we see the Bush administration signaling all sorts of "pull-out" (ie: talking up the Iraqi Armed Forces, timelines for the vote in Iraq, etc). They'll still call the Dems plan the "cut n' run" strategy, all the while trying to figure out how to get us out all the same.

Lastly, Dems at the local level have seen a tremendously positive response to their "non-existent" ideas, some are finding support in the "reddest" of places. See: Hackett V. Schmidt, Kaine in Virginia (Red State). Expect more of this in '06.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Not sounding very tolerant Mr. C....  (yes again a joke)

Maybe because that wasn't me? That was Chad. Unless I'm missing the joke?!


mrC

[ChadTower]

You responded to my post and referred to Mr C.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

If you search the net you will find referrences to articles this is true.

If you listen to mainstream media (pick any station on tv or radio) you only hear negative reports of Muslims activities and I have tried looking for and listening to what is being reported and haven't heard or seen anything on tv or radio.

That's my POINT! You agree that this "good Muslim" sentiment exists, yet you'll blame them for the lack of media coverage of it? How does that make any sense?



mrC

[ChadTower]

I think if there were a more prominent, clear message from Muslim leaders denouncing the violence, there would be a lot less intolerance from many otherwise reasonable people.

The point that we have not heard much denunciation at all does happen to be a valid one.  It makes the logical leap from "they are people who hate and are muslim" to "they are muslims who hate" a very small one.

[Goz]

You responded to my post and referred to Mr C.  Mr C is someone else.

What we have with these radical muslims is really no different than the radical Christians that used to march across continents, murdering anyone who did not convert.  They are not doing it for their religion any more than those Christians were killing for their religion.

What we have is some very well funded people who hate someone else enough to kill them and are using their religion as an excuse.

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- happens.

I agree that it is a group of people playing the religion card.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I think if there were a more prominent, clear message from Muslim leaders denouncing the violence, there would be a lot less intolerance from many otherwise reasonable people.

You can't get more prominent than Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani...he's been pretty outspoken about violence being perpetrated by both sides, American and Muslim. As a side note to how important a figure Sistani is, let's reference the fact that he is the sole reason Iraqi elections ever took place. It seems to have fallen down the memory hole, but Bush's administration fought hard against direct elections in Iraq for a long, long time (they wanted appointments, rotating presidency)...If anyone is responsible for any potential Democratic outcome in Iraqi, it's Sistani. As hard as that may be to swallow. [LINK]

I'm sure Muslims everywhere *could* decide to spend millions of dollars trying to placate fearful Americans, but, in reality, why should they be forced to constantly battle against, what amounts to a very small handful of extremists in their midsts? Do I think it may help public perception? Maybe. Do I think they are obligated to do so? Not at all.

Do you think every Catholic needs to assert that they aren't child molesters?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---Cleveland steamer--- happens.

What scares me...is that you could even get us confused!?   


mrC

[ChadTower]

Do you think every Catholic needs to assert that they aren't child molesters?

Every Catholic official should.

[Goz]

Yeah I screwed up on the reply.... not been sleeping much; so ---Cleveland steamer--- happens.

What scares me...is that you could even get us confused!?   


mrC

It scares me too... I normally hold Chad with high regards.   The two of you are typically very different.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It scares me too... I normally hold Chad with high regards.   The two of you are typically very different.   

And it's apparent from your quoting him as if he were me (as well as those high regards), that you never read anything he actually says!   

Every Catholic official should.

Chad,

But they haven't, and yet almost every Muslim official, scholar, and spiritual leader *has* condemned terrorism. Now, I know you're advocating that they should do more. But what? Commercials? Broadway shows? What?



mrC

[fredster]

MrC,
No, I'm not joking about McCarthy. Not at all. He was right.

As far as intolernace and bigotry, I'm sorry people, it is a natural function of our species. It cannot be overcome completely.

[ChadTower]

Chad,

But they haven't, and yet almost every Muslim official, scholar, and spiritual leader *has* condemned terrorism. Now, I know you're advocating that they should do more. But what? Commercials? Broadway shows? What?

You are right, the Catholic officials have not done a damn thing except aid and abet child rapists.  The only way this relates to Muslim officials and terrorism is that it is analagous in that neither of them have done as much as could have been done to prevent and/or get the message out that it is not inherent in the faith itself.

You must have some direct line to thousands upon thousands of Muslim clergy (I don't know the Islamic term so I use clergy) that no one else seems to have.  I have heard some vague statements issued by some Islamic higher ups about how this or that particular act was bad.  I have yet to hear a major effort by the Muslim hierarchy to specifically distance themself from terrorism as a whole.

Much like the Catholic church, it isn't coming.  Why?  To a church/mosque, this is just a tiny blip of time.  We will all be dead in 75 years.  The religion will remain, just as it has for 2000+ years.  Let the issue fade and in 200 years no one will remember it. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You must have some direct line to thousands upon thousands of Muslim clergy (I don't know the Islamic term so I use clergy) that no one else seems to have.

Yeah, it's called Google. I just choose not to minimize and ignore what they have to say, simply because it isn't pre-packaged for safe consumption on our national airwaves.

I have heard some vague statements issued by some Islamic higher ups about how this or that particular act was bad.  I have yet to hear a major effort by the Muslim hierarchy to specifically distance themself from terrorism as a whole.

And you have yet to suggest what that 'major effort' might be?!  I'm serious about this, you're the self-appointed 'King of Solutions', and I'm going to hold you to that standard. What, pray-tell, should they do? What more can you reasonably expect them to do? Come to your house and wash your feet?

There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims worldwide. "Among every four humans in the world, one of them is Muslim. Muslims have increased by over 235 percent in the last fifty years up to nearly 1.6 billion. By comparison, Christians have increased by only 47 percent, Hinduism, 117 percent, and Buddhism by 63 percent."

It is the fastest growing religion in the world, second only to Christianity which has 2.1 billion adherents. [LINK]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Btw, Chad, you might want to consider that Islam isn't set up like the Catholic church. They don't have a "Pope" or a Vatican. So your call for a centralized, unified message, or grand pronouncement from Islam's highest spiritual leader, just isn't possible.

But, as I've pointed out to you earlier, some of the highest ranking Muslim scholars and Grand Ayatollah's (Spiritual Leaders) have spread the message and spoken out about the heresy of this notion of sanctioned murder/terrorism.



mrC

[ChadTower]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?

Because we are talking about the laws of public perception, not the laws of statistics.

[Stingray]

Abortions, flags.

-S

[fredster]

There are extremist sects in every religion, why should the generally law-abiding and moderate majority be held accountable for the actions of a few?

Yeah like Jim Jones or Waco.

I agree with Mr Cynical on this one. But what I think I, and perhaps others have a problem with, is that we don't really understand all of the different sects of this religion or even what a moderate is.

I don't even understand that for Christians to tell you the truth.  I know Baptists have a hard time with Methodists (at least from what I hear).

I'm sure that one or two muslim priests or clerics or whatever they call themselves condem the death of muslims, and of children, but not for the attack itself.

That google search you were talking about didn't turn up much. One or two.  The same story like 50 times. 

I'm not saying the muslims are bad. I have no opinion of Muslims per say.  Why isn't this being shown in the media?  There are major organizations of Muslims in the US and abroad that don't post anything about the attacks on Americans.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I work in a field with a very large proportion of muslims.  I do not hear "gee, those terrorists, they sure do suck" from them when something happens.  What I hear is silence, and silence is not the same as lack of a message.

See, now you're talking about a response at a very, very, personal level. Is that really fair?

Maybe they don't feel any more responsible than you do, for these attacks? Maybe they're intimidated, for example, by people like yourself, who might be staring at them hoping for a response? Maybe they just assume that the people around them don't suspect that they sympathize with the terrorists simply because they haven't pinned American flags on everything in their Cube?

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are.

Even as an atheist, I don't assume that the actions of the fringe right in America speak for the majority of Christians, and I certainly, in no way assume that the actions of some lunatic terrorist speaks for all of Islam.

mrC

[ChadTower]

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are.

I don't have solutions because I don't believe they intend to change such perception.  I honestly don't think they care, and as much as that is their right, it is not going to make things better.

This is a fundamental difference between the US execution of this war and the Islamic (a much broader distinction, I know) execution.  We are fighting both a military AND PR war and it is failing.  You can't point a gun at someone while shouting "please don't hate me" and expect it to work.  The other side of this war, self defined as Islamic, doesn't make that mistake and isn't going to do anything to change it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I don't have solutions because I don't believe they intend to change such perception. 

Well, now that's just a cop-out. You are hereby demoted from "King of Solutions" to "Prince of Solutions"...


mrC

[ChadTower]

I don't remember ever claiming all of my solutions are the best available.  Don't forget that often my solution is bend over while I swing my foot.

[fredster]

Seriously, I still haven't heard any ideas on how you expect them to turn the tide of public perception. Maybe your lack of ideas is a testament to how virtually impossible that task really is, and how unreasonably high your expectations are

My guess is you missed The President's entire campaign and his inaugrial address?

[ChadTower]

Well, Bush didn't win because he had a good plan, he won because his opponent was an even worse candidate than Bush.

[patrickl]

You can feign indignation, but the religion of these people is what sets them off. Odd thing is that both groups are muslims just one group is considered less muslim than the other.

So how would you compare this to the millions of people who have been killed in the name of Jesus?

Is it better or worse that modern Christianity is plagued by child rapists, and that the Vatican not only does not attempt to stop it, but rewards those who hide it with prestigious promotions?

I'm not sure where you are trying to go here. I don't care much for violent history (and present with Bush) of christianity either no.

You are right people shouldn't generalise, but the guy made a joke and I just get kinda miffed when people act all high and mighty about the use of the word "muslims".

[fredster]

Patrickl, where not you the one complaining about Muslim kids in your neighborhood recently?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

My guess is you missed The President's entire campaign and his inaugrial address?  Remember? Give them Freedom.  Keep them free and able to openly exchange ideas, spread freedom to the women.  Institue trade, etc.

No...I heard it alright. But like most everything he's done, it's "words speak louder than action."

I guess you missed that whole thing didn't you?  You know, the reason why Bush was elected AGAIN against Kerry?  It was a pretty Bold vision, and since it didn't involve redistriubtion of wealth or rights of seagulls, I guess you just missed that whole point huh?

Bush was elected because Kerry didn't run an effective campaign against the fear and hatred fermented by the right. Bush had about as bold a plan as he had a "mandate." (Which is a joke, btw, since he won by the smallest margin an incumbant has ever had, especially during war time)

The idea is to FIRST make sure they have a democratic government. Then let everybody have a chance to vote.  After people do that, then they can start having trade and exchange.  See? That was why BUSH won.

Did you forget that Bush, in the initial stages after he declared "mission accomplished", actually fought against having a democratic vote in Iraq? See my link upthread about Sistani. So you'll excuse me if I don't actually trust him on that mission. This whole "spreading Democracy" slogan only came into effect after the WMD/Al Qaeda search turned up squat. They had plans to turn that death trap over to Chalabi, and he, in turned promised rebuilding contracts and resources for us. Didn't work out, since he ended up being an Iranian spy who fed us intelligence gathered from a mentally handicap fabricator. Good times.

mrC

[patrickl]

Look at France.