[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I can't escape the feeling that some members of this forum are arguing from an alternate dimension where it isn't the case that large numbers of people in the Middle East actually do think that the United States is at war with their religion. Whatever the good the United States has done in the Middle East (and I agree wholeheartedly that we've done some good) you have to deal with the facts on the ground, as it were.

That would require an empathetic response and the ability to cognitively "put one's self in someone else's shoes". If you look at the nature of the debates in these fora--and not just the PoliWar Lounge but all across the fora--I think this ability is lacking in most of our forums members.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

My sentiments exactly. What makes Islam and Mooslims so special that we have to kiss their asses every day?

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Probably all that oil they have.

Shhhh. Don't give away our secret. It's not polite to air one's dirty laundry in public and we don't want others to know about our addiction to oil.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Probably all that oil they have.

There is no religion that owns oil. Oil reserves are in countries whose primary religion is Islam.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you've actually been paying attention to what Obama was saying during his Cairo speech, you'd know that he wasn't just apologizing for the United States. He had sharp words for those who deny the Holocaust, for example.

But please, continue with your pre-programmed debate.

I am aware of that. But the person who denies the Holocaust is what religion?

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

That would require an empathetic response and the ability to cognitively "put one's self in someone else's shoes". If you look at the nature of the debates in these fora--and not just the PoliWar Lounge but all across the fora--I think this ability is lacking in most of our forums members.

So we have declared war against Islam? Can you tell me who said that? I seem to recall that it wasn't Southern Baptist militants or Catholic holy warriors on 9/11. Islam is at war with everyone who isn't Islam. It's a simple fact.

[ctt1wbw]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ummm, B&B guy, ebuddy is the first and only person to argue about this matter in the context of US imperialism. I have not argued in any way that the "bad" things we did in the Middle East were an example of US imperialism. So, where does the US imperialism argument come from? A straw-man perhaps?

B&B guy!

[SpaceMonkey]

What's a "mooslim"? Some kind of motorized moose?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I am aware of that. But the person who denies the Holocaust is what religion?

Say what you want to say so we can avoid the dance of rhetorical questions.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

I am aware of that. But the person who denies the Holocaust is what religion?

There's more than one person who denies the Holocaust and those who deny the Holocaust come from more than one religion.* If you want to talk about Ahmedinejad specifically then say so. Yes, he made comments calling into question the reality of the Holocaust. And yes he was roundly criticised by just about everyone in the world. In fact, our current President, on his trip to the Middle East, made some specific remarks critical of Ahmedinejad's previous Holocaust-denying remarks. But no religion has denied the existence of the Holocaust.


*Read some recent history to see what happened to white, Christian Holocaust deniers in England and Austria.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

There is no religion that owns oil. Oil reserves are in countries whose primary religion is Islam.

Your first statement is defeated by your second statement. What are you trying to say?

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ctt1wbw 

US imperialism... yeah. Like ending WW2. Or kicking out Hussein from Kuwait. Or dethroning him, such a nice guy he was. Yeah, US imperialism... those words get old.

If the US is imperialistic, why didn't the U.S. keep ALL of Mexico after the Mexican-American War?

BTW this is when my great-great grandparents became U.S. citizens

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

If the US is imperialistic, why didn't the U.S. keep ALL of Mexico after the Mexican-American War?

BTW this is when my great-great grandparents became U.S. citizens

Again with the talk of imperialism, eh?

No one else in this thread was talking about US imperialism until ebuddy mentioned it and B&B Guy latched onto the statements like a mean, vicious dog. Now, you are latching on to B&B Guy's statements like a mean, vicious dog.

What gives? Imperialism is not the topic under discussion. Unless it makes a good diversion from the actual topic at hand. You think that's it?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Probably because they don't have a lot of money.

Riiiight, that must be it.

Meanwhile, in actuality, because the Indian tribes with gaming are about the only form of government that hasn't squandered all their money, states like California are constantly trying to figure out how to back out of hundred-year old treaties and steal the money the tribes have to bail out the rest of the state.

After the huge budget deficit in 2003, Governor Gray Davis released a plan calling for the tribes donate $1.5 billion from their casino profits to help balance the books.

So there goes the "They don't have anything we need" non-arguments right out the window. Must be something else then.

But in the heyday of racial politics in America the 1960s and '70s, there were certainly some high-profile incidents.

Hmm... no innocent women and children killed, no planes crashed into buildings, no worthless battle that lasts for decades over protesting some grave injustice, no political leaders called on to go in and seek council, asskiss, and be assured no one is at war with their religion. Nice that you had to go back nearly 40 years to even find an example that comes close to native American violence.

Maybe, just maybe, could it be that theirs actually ARE religions of peace, and yet another far better known religion that sometimes gets billed as that actually..... *gasp!* ISN'T? NAHHH!

As I said originally, mine was but one of a million examples.

How about Japanese? Their cities were firebombed and they had atomic weapons dropped on them. That might even qualify as worse than having a Shah installed, possessing large amounts of the world's most valuable resource, and being picked on by a tiny nation. Where's the constant threat of Japanese terrorism and unfettered rage against the US? When do US leaders go and assure them that were not at war against the Shinto faith?

Feel free to pick your own example and further carry out the exercise.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Feel free to pick your own example and further carry out the exercise.

Feel free to continue lumping all religious and ethnic groups into neat, tidy little boxes that have no meaning or significance whatsoever for the purposes of logical debate.




WOOT!!! Post # 5000.

[dcmacdaddy]

@CRASH HARDDRIVE

Do you think members of the Islamic faith are intent on converting the whole world to their faith?
If so, do you think this goal is held to by all Muslims or just some Muslims?
And, if you think this goal is held to by just some Muslims, what percentage of them do you think have this goal in mind (of converting the whole world to the Islamic faith)?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Feel free to pick your own example and further carry out the exercise.

I have to agree with dcmacdaddy. I'm not sure what you are trying to "prove" here. People, societies, and cultures are different? I was simply pointing to an example of when Native American politics became militant, I wasn't trying to claim equivalency.

Moreover, you keep claiming that we're "asskissing" but so far I haven't seen it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

@CRASH HARDDRIVE

Do you think members of the Islamic faith are intent on converting the whole world to their faith?
If so, do you think this goal is held to by all Muslims or just some Muslims?
And, if you think this goal is held to by just some Muslims, what percentage of them do you think have this goal in mind (of converting the whole world to the Islamic faith)?

1. I don't really care. My whole point is, they aren't any more or less special vs. everybody else in the world. So focusing so much time, energy and effort on coddling their religion and whatever beliefs they may have is pointless. I care about as much as I care how many Hindus want to convert the rest of the world to Hinduism.

2. Again, they aren't really any more or less special than anyone else in the world, so I don't care.

3. See 1 and 2 above.


Feel free to go back to such "meaningful and significant" debate such as tallying your post count.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm not sure what you are trying to "prove" here. People, societies, and cultures are different?

No. Actually the opposite- that they are pretty much the same. Except for one notable exception that we're all supposed to focus so much attention and energy on, and play to silly beliefs they have, and assure them of the obvious all the time. But of course, you knew that.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

1. I don't really care. My whole point is, they aren't any more or less special vs. everybody else in the world. So focusing so much time, energy and effort on coddling their religion and whatever beliefs they may have is pointless. I care about as much as I care how many Hindus want to convert the rest of the world to Hinduism.

2. Again, they aren't really any more or less special than anyone else in the world, so I don't care.

3. See 1 and 2 above.


Feel free to go back to such "meaningful and significant" debate such as tallying your post count.

Who do you think is spending "so much time, energy and effort on coddling their religion"?
Do you think President Obama is doing that?
Do you think President Obama is spending too much "time, energy and effort on coddling [the Islamic] religion"?


And if you don't care about Islam why bother mentioning it at all? Why bother getting involved in the conversation about President Obama and his attitudes towards Middle East leaders and the Islamic faith if you don't care about the subject at all?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No. Actually the opposite- that they are pretty much the same. Except for one notable exception that we're all supposed to focus so much attention and energy on, and play to silly beliefs they have, and assure them of the obvious all the time. But of course, you knew that.

If you think "people, societies, and cultures are" pretty much the same, what is the one notable exception that you think is not the same? And why do you think it is not the same?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

No. Actually the opposite- that they are pretty much the same. Except for one notable exception that we're all supposed to focus so much attention and energy on, and play to silly beliefs they have, and assure them of the obvious all the time. But of course, you knew that.

Again, it seems like you're trying to wish away reality. The reality is that a sizable population in the Middle East doesn't like us very much, or is at least ambivalent about the role we have played in the region. That's the domestic constituency that Middle Eastern leaders (who we want stronger strategic relationships with) want the support of. It makes sense to tailor a message for that audience. It's not for you, so frankly your insistence on this issue comes across as bizarre.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

If you think "people, societies, and cultures are" pretty much the same,

I even invited you or whoever else to produce an example of societies/cultures/religions that aren't 'the same' with reguards to how much everybody else needs to focus on them. Why don't you try pointing out an example that's counter to this, rather than keep pretending you can't understand the point?

what is the one notable exception that you think is not the same? And why do you think it is not the same?

Once again, who else has wars fought on thier behalf constantly? Who else has world leaders assure them they aren't at war with their religion. I'm asking you to produce some actual examples, and then use FACTS to support the examples. Get on it.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Again, it seems like you're trying to wish away reality.

And again, it seems like you're not aware of reality. You insist things like Native Americans are all broke, when in fact the reality is the largest state economy in the US (one of the largest economies in the world) has looked to them for a financial bailout.

You've yet to produce a 'reality' where any other bunch of people on earth commands so much attention and coddling as the Islamic World. So please, if that's not the case, if there is some actual 'reality' that says otherwise, produce your examples, and cite facts.

The reality is that a sizable population in the Middle East doesn't like us very much, or is at least ambivalent about the role we have played in the region.

The reality of the Arab street is that some of the craziest conspiracy theories known to mankind are commonly held beliefs. Should we cater to those as well?

I've always said, if such a sizeable population of the Middle East doesn't like us, the feeling is somewhat mutual. We don't much like them either, other than they have a resource we need. The ONLY exchange for that resource we need give them is OUR MONEY AT THE PUMP, not any revernce for their religion or any crazy beliefs they have. That's it.

And the sooner we can avoid giving them our money at the pump as well, then the better off for everyone. Like I said, the oil producing Islamic nations can go back to doing whatever it was they were doing before being burdened with anything valuable to everyone else.

[SpaceMonkey]

What's your beef, specifically? It seems like you object to Obama talking about our relationship with the Middle East and Islam on his trip to the Middle East. What should he have talked about? Ireland's economic crisis? His actual speech in Cairo was not coddling at all. Different audiences demand different messages. Should he never go the Middle East? The reality is that it's a very important place, geo-strategically (no, I don't think I need to cite facts to back up that 'reality').

You might benefit from reading this old classic:

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I even invited you or whoever else to produce an example of societies/cultures/religions that aren't 'the same' with reguards to how much everybody else needs to focus on them. Why don't you try pointing out an example that's counter to this, rather than keep pretending you can't understand the point?

No pretending on my part. Just waiting to see if you would come out and explicitly state you think the Islamic religion and Islamic culture is unlike any other religion/culture in the world and the reasons why you think that. You accuse me of pretending, I will, in turn, accuse you of being evasive. It's really easy, a simple declarative sentence in the active voice is all that you would have needed. You could have said four or five posts ago that you think the Islamic religion and Islamic culture is unlike any other religion/culture in the world in that its leaders feel the need to be constantly assured of their value/significance. See how easy that would have been. So, why are you so evasive? Why don't you just come out and say what you think?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I've always said, if such a sizeable population of the Middle East doesn't like us, the feeling is somewhat mutual. We don't much like them either, other than they have a resource we need. The ONLY exchange for that resource we need give them is OUR MONEY AT THE PUMP, not any reverence for their religion or any crazy beliefs they have. That's it.

Why is the feeling of animosity from the West towards "a sizeable population of the Middle East somewhat mutual"? Why do you think the US has reason to harbor animosity against "a sizeable population of the Middle East"?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Once again, who else has wars fought on thier behalf constantly? Who else has world leaders assure them they aren't at war with their religion. I'm asking you to produce some actual examples, and then use FACTS to support the examples. Get on it.

What is your problem with clear, precise language? Who has fought wars on whose behalf? It's impossible to have a logical argument with you when you statements have nothing of substance to them. It's all pronouns and adverbs.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

If you've actually been paying attention to what Obama was saying during his Cairo speech, you'd know that he wasn't just apologizing for the United States. He had sharp words for those who deny the Holocaust, for example.

I realize the topic of discussion is Obama's perceived "subservience", but I'm not talking about the need for "harsh" words. There are a great many things to be said for the US' positive role around the world as well; a great deal of it in aide to Muslim regions and peoples. He did well to mention future commitment, but while mentioning our specific "interest in gas and oil in the region" was not specific enough about the history of sacrifice where the returns in "gas and oil" are not as apparent.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Did you actually hear Obama's speech or read the transcript? If so, you would see where he himself highlighted the sacrifices made by the US on behalf of those in the Middle East.

He "highlighted" little to nothing about our sacrifice, but led one to believe the actions in the Middle East were nothing more than an "interest in gas and oil". There have been a great many sacrifices as mentioned above where the returns in gas and oil were not apparent and to be honest, remain unapparent.

Of course this should come as no surprise as I've been critical of this President's lacking of substance and in that sense, he did not disappoint. I like the plan, not the execution.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Ummm, B&B guy, ebuddy is the first and only person to argue about this matter in the context of US imperialism. I have not argued in any way that the "bad" things we did in the Middle East were an example of US imperialism. So, where does the US imperialism argument come from? A straw-man perhaps?

If addressing the perception of "imperialism" was not the focus of Obama's speech in your opinion with words like colonialism and proxies or phrases like "Iraq's sovereignty is its own.", "we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan", and "We seek no military bases there"; then it is entirely possible you've not heard or availed yourself of a transcript of his speech.

It's not a strawman, it's at the core of mistrust between nations. If you're going to leave the impression that we've been lawless, barbaric, self-serving, and imperialistic I think you'd do well to include more details about our sacrifices and benevolence.