GifS A.V. Club: South Park on the Mohammed Cartoons
10 April 2006 by Sean
Aired last week. For those who missed it.
The Mohammed cartoons are one of the few issues that American right-wing and left-wing blogs mostly seem to agree on.
That bit in the clip is going to be my default facetious argument against defending free speech from now on. “I have the solution! We bury our heads… IN SAND.”
Now if only the American Xian Right would come to recognize free speech for Americans who aren’t right-wing Xians, we’d have some progress.
10 April 2006, on 9:12 pm
doesnt the existence of this website count as free speech?
i rest my case.
Jesus rules.
(bring on the firestorm!!!)
10 April 2006, on 9:25 pm
*sigh*
10 April 2006, on 9:52 pm
seriously though, bob, i dont comment to be difficult, i just dont understand how people dont think they have the right to free speech. maybe you can explain that to me. i watch the news, i see people protest on capitol hill of all places without incident, websites such as this exist,etc. when pat tillman got killed, a university student (i think it was maryland, cant remember) wrote a column saying tillman got what he deserved. i just dont understand the position of free speech being violated. almost everyone has an opinion and it isnt hard to get that opinion known. help me out man, i’m not trying to be confrontational.
10 April 2006, on 11:45 pm
seriously though, bob, i dont comment to be difficult, i just dont understand how people dont think they have the right to free speech. maybe you can explain that to me. i watch the news, i see people protest on capitol hill of all places without incident, websites such as this exist,etc. [...] i just dont understand the position of free speech being violated. almost everyone has an opinion and it isnt hard to get that opinion known. help me out man, i’m not trying to be confrontational.
No, I understand, James, and I appreciate the comment. And I’ll be perfectly honest: I have no idea what the parameters should be concerning hate speech. I just have no idea, and I’m completely torn. As I think I’ve said on some other thread somewhere (don’t remember exactly where — time passes, and the mind goes): If I turn to some female minority at a bus stop and I say, “You Fucking Spic Whore” for no reason, what should we say about that? Maybe nothing, I don’t know. And that’s where I am right now. (It’s incredibly frustrating, as you might guess.)
But (also, as you can probably guess) my problems in general have nothing to do with this overall attitude one should have toward hate speech. They have everything to do with some move to worry about it in some sense or other, and to then hold back due to the source of some specific text.
University students and their columns aside, if you have a problem with hate speech, then have a problem with it. If you don’t have a problem with it, then don’t. But don’t try to do both out of some bullshit impulse to save “god’s word.”
That’s the part that bugs me, because it’s just crap, and anyone should be able to see that.
If you want to let xians bark about gays because you think that anybody should be able to say whatever they want about anything, then fine; I can understand that position somewhat. But don’t claim that people shouldn’t be allowed to call someone “nigger,” “spic,” and “kike” while at the same time allowing other (xian) people to bark about “fags” because they happen to be holding some book in their hand.
You can see where my issue is on this.
11 April 2006, on 12:02 am
James. Strawman. When did I say this site was censored? When did I say there was no free speech occurring in America? I said that the Christian Right in this country wants to silence secularists, wants to deny them the right to free speech. What, are you disagreeing with that incredibly obvious truth?
Where have you been for the past five years, james? Do you see the people getting shouted down on Fox and being called traitors and anti-American, and yes, even terrorists, for daring to express dissent during our so-called “War on Terror”?
Do you hear people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh saying liberals should be locked up for their views?
Do you see editors and journalists being fired from their jobs for writing dissenting articles?
Do you see people calling for book burnings and the removal of certain texts from libraries?
Do you see professors being told what they can say in classrooms?
For that matter, where have you been for decades, for centuries?
I said the Christian Right in this country wants to quell free speech, just like the Islamic Right in the Middle East wants to, and like all religious fundies have since religious fundamentalism was invented. Are you denying this?
http://hrw.org/wr2k5/religion/8.htm
http://dailykos.com/tag/censorship%20of%20liberals
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001942.htm
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15184
http://aan.org/gyrobase/aan/viewArticle?oid=oid%3A5958
http://www.reason.com/0203/cr.jl.burning.shtml
Oh, I’m sorry. You’re the one who thinks links don’t back up arguments.
11 April 2006, on 7:43 am
sean,
) and FOX news i guess i should clear up a few things about other christians, such as myself. first, not a big bush fan, i voted for him only because he wasnt a puss like kerry and actually had positions on things. second, the people on FOX are incredibly right wing, bush=God conservatives (if this wasnt obvious enough), not so the case with a lot of christians including myself. i cant stand bill o’reilly or hannity and colmes. i dont like it when people use their free speech rights (like pretty much all of FOX news, pat robertson, jerry falwell, big rush, coulter, etc) and make people like me look like bigoted, pious pricks.
obviously since your only experience w/chistians is drive-by evangelism on this site (not me though, right?
what i do see though, sean, is people being fired for lying about military service in one of the nation’s biggest newspapers,
people getting fired for leaking info concerning matters of national security,
(the book burnings are stupid, i agree with you on that).
professors getting fired for calling bush hitler is well deserved. everybody in the world is hitler according to some liberals. bush is hitler, rumsfeld is hitler. The only guy who isn’t hitler is the nutcase former iraqi prez dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper. of course no one ever calls him hitler.
and lastly sean, i never said links dont back up arguments. if i linked everything i commented on would count my links as credible? or would they get written off as fundie/xian/right-wing/progressive hating lies by a bunch of atheists exercising their free speech w/a website?
God bless America
(by the way bob, i’m with you man, drawing the line is and will be difficult concerning hate speech. maybe if people dont have anything positive to contribute maybe we shouldnt say anything at all, but really, like that will ever happen. you and i both know that. the extremes are dennis miller to the right and michael moore to the left. people really need to just shut up)
11 April 2006, on 7:58 am
“obviously since your only experience w/chistians is drive-by evangelism on this site and FOX news ”
“everybody in the world is hitler according to some liberals. . . . The only guy who isn’t hitler is the nutcase former iraqi prez dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper. of course no one ever calls him hitler. ”
Theist debate tactic #17: When you have no argument, try to make wild, groundless, uninformed speculation sound like it’s not a desperate attempt to avoid sounding like a moron.
11 April 2006, on 8:06 am
james:
obviously since your only experience w/chistians is drive-by evangelism on this site (not me though, right?
) and FOX news
strawman. liar.
i voted for him only because he wasnt a puss like kerry
you’re a fuckin’ genius. while your non-puss was dodging the draft and getting drunk, kerry was fighting in Vietnam. if you believed Karl Rove’s slander campaign to the contrary, you deserve this current government. do some real research on that subject. clearly, YOU get your news from Fox.
and make people like me look like bigoted, pious pricks.
you mean… you’re NOT??
what i do see though, sean, is people being fired for lying about military service in one of the nation’s biggest newspapers,
people getting fired for leaking info concerning matters of national security
you lost me there. what specifically are you talking about, and what is your point? i have trouble keeping up with your twisted reasoning sometimes.
(the book burnings are stupid, i agree with you on that)
how graciously un-Nuremberg of you.
professors getting fired for calling bush hitler is well deserved
oops. i take it back.
everybody in the world is hitler according to some liberals. bush is hitler, rumsfeld is hitler
strawman. how does this connect to my earlier comment, which you orginally challenged, and now are conveniently evading? are right-wing fundies out to quell free speech by secularists? yes! have they always been? YES! ever heard of a place called spain and i guy named franco? what do you think right-wing fundies do when they get together, sing kumbaya?
also, like “some” right-wing whack-jobs don’t use the hitler card on a regular basis, too.
and lastly sean, i never said links dont back up arguments. if i linked everything i commented on would count my links as credible?
if you provided one fuckin’ source EVER, you might not look like the babbling idiot you have so far presented yourself to be.
or would they get written off as fundie/xian/right-wing/progressive hating lies by a bunch of atheists exercising their free speech w/a website?
depends on whether they were sources other than ranting subjective viewpoints. you clearly have no idea of the tradition i am discussing. wikipedia has a nice entry on talking out of your smelly ass vs. citing original sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOR
God bless America
gesundheit
lastly, jimmy-boy: since you don’t deem me worthy of using initial capitalization on your sentences, nor capitalizing your proper nouns (or maybe you are just intellectually lazy, which is more likely the case), i have not bothered to do so for you.
11 April 2006, on 8:11 am
Lya said:
Theist debate tactic #17: When you have no argument, try to make wild, groundless, uninformed speculation sound like it’s not a desperate attempt to avoid sounding like a moron.
Yup.
11 April 2006, on 8:17 am
professors getting fired for calling bush hitler is well deserved.
*sigh* [again]
11 April 2006, on 9:11 am
…first, not a big bush fan, i voted for him…
You ignorant fuck- then you are part of the problem even if you claim not to be. You realize that you don’t have to fill in a presidential candidate, right? Next time save humanity the trouble of your apathetic idiocy.
11 April 2006, on 9:15 am
first, not a big bush fan, i voted for him only because he wasnt a puss like kerry
Not a puss like Kerry. Not a puss.
A puss??!?! This is how you decide who to vote for? Jesus conman christ, this is why I’m torn on the idea of equal voting privelage for all.
11 April 2006, on 10:53 am
Funny that he calls WAR VETERAN Kerry a puss, but voted for AWOL Bush.
11 April 2006, on 9:10 pm
first, not a big bush fan, i voted for him only because he wasnt a puss like kerry
Not a puss like Kerry. Not a puss.
A puss??!?! This is how you decide who to vote for?
Sad, ain’t it?
11 April 2006, on 9:22 pm
By the way, as long as we are discussing subjects as stupid as testosterone levels in regards to presidential candidates, I would argue that GW is a total wimp — all bluster, no bite. You can see it in his shifty, fearful eyes.
But if you truly want to see his cowardice in action, check out a documentary from 2002 called Journeys With George, made by Nancy Pelosi’s daughter while travelling with Bush on the campaign trail. There is a bit at one of their whistle stops where a young kid (ironically, he looks Arab-American) shakes Bush’s hand — and won’t let go. When Bush manages to yank his hand free, the kid does a sort of gangsta gesture, pointing his finger in George’s face.
The absolute fear in Shrub’s eyes at that moment is priceless. His handlers grab the kid, pull his arm down, and the kid only raises his arm and points the other hand at Bushie the same way. The whole time, you will be riveted on Shrub. He looks like a mouse trying to figure out which way to flee. The handlers drag the kid away, who is perfectly articulate, unarmed and passive. Bush looks like he shit his pants.
The funniest part is, when the kid won’t let his hand go, Bush is trying to sign an autograph for some Hitler Youth. Bush’s temper flares and he goes “Let me sign the damn thing!” He pulls his hand free and then you see him do this monkey-like double-take, realizing people are watching. He turns back to the handshaker and goes “Thanks for coming.” That’s when the kid sticks his finger in his face.
If that second-thought “Thanks for coming” isn’t the epitome of a sleazeball politician in action, I don’t know what is!
12 April 2006, on 12:40 am
This atheist supports the Republicans because the Democrats ALWAYS give fascists a free pass if they happen to be of the Muslim faith. The left wants terrorists instead of democrats to run Iraq; they want al-queda members to make phone calls into the U.S. in secrecy, and most recently, they have been criticizing the administration for discussing the possibility of deliberating about making plans to send Iran a Strongly Worded Letter about its nuclear weapons program — nukes that will be used to incinerate Western cities, hence creating chaos and bringing the return of the Shiite messiah. Ahmadinejad is completely unhinged and has been very explicit about this.
Is the left that completely bankrupt as to advocate nuclear weapons for apocalyptic Mullahs?
Iran’s Ahmadinejad: Sharon dead and “others to follow suit”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5165
Iran’s President: Islam to dominate world in “near future”
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6032
Iran’s president sees “final war” between Muslims, West
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5409
Iran’s Ahmadinejad: West opposes our nukes to let Israel live on
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6286
12 April 2006, on 1:50 am
Note how jimbo never responded to this. Because, he realized, that asserting that right-wing religious fundamentalists don’t want to silence secular voices — the only affirmative statement I made in the first place — is like calling the sky plaid.
12 April 2006, on 6:10 am
Here we go again. Bowden stops by to remind us how evil and fascist the phantom liberals in his head are.
Interesting that DEMS always give “fasicsts of the Muslim faith” a free pass but it was BUSH who wanted to give control of our ports to them.
Bowden – try Free Conservative – there you can spend as much time as you like on your “libruls are gonna git us” fantasies.
Grow up already. Damn.
12 April 2006, on 2:52 pm
Shorter J.H. Bowden:
“I’m proof that some atheists are lacking critical thinking skills.”
12 April 2006, on 8:06 pm
Lya –
The United Arab Emirates as a nation is rapidly moving towards liberal democracy. To compare it to Iraq under Hussein’s cruel and ruthless oppresssion, or a suicidal theocracy like Ahmadinejad’s Iran, only illustrates a fundamental ignorance of the world we live in, regardless of where one comes down on port security.
Why do democrats oppose democracy in Iraq? Why do they insist the Mullahs of Iran have nuclear weapons? Why do they want to allow al-queda to make phone calls in the United States in secrecy? With all of the intellectual firepower Hollywood, Noam Chomsky, and the KOS kiddies have to offer, you certainly should be able to find a clear and reasonable answer, regardless if I’m an uneducated asshole or not.
13 April 2006, on 1:23 am
Pretentious Initials Bowden sez:
Why do democrats oppose democracy in Iraq?
Strawman. Do you always parrot right-wing radio hosts and the Bush Administration, or do you have your own thoughts? Find me a single Democrat who has said they are against democracy in Iraq. What many people are against is the idea of forced democratization as a viable foreign policy:
http://tinyurl.com/j9ogo
Why do they insist the Mullahs of Iran have nuclear weapons?
Strawman. Find me one Democrat who has said they want the mullahs of Iran to have nuclear weapons. What they are against is another military fuck-up on an order of magnitude that would make the horrendous disaster in Iraq look like a tip-toe through the tulip patch. These Neocon idiots are actually talking about nuclear weapons as “bunker busters” against Iran.
That’s it, folks. Learn NOTHING from the incredible resentment you have engendered around the world toward America. Nuke an Arab country and take us all to holocaust. Plus, only the most naive Americans would believe anything this administration has to say at this point. Are we really supposed to believe they know for certain Iran is developing nuclear weapons, when they blatantly lied to us about WMDs in Iraq? Do you like being beaten up by your government? Is this battered wife syndrome? When do you stop coming back for the flowers and sweet talk?
Here is Brent Scowcroft — former national security adviser for Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush — with some sound advice concerning a course we might take, rather than posturing and saber rattling. You know, something alien to the Neocons: THINKING.
Why do they want to allow al-queda to make phone calls in the United States in secrecy?
Strawman. Find me one Democrat who has said they want Al-Qaeda (I like your new-mangled spelling… Haven’t seen that one before!) to make phone calls from within the United States in secrecy. What people who care about our liberties want is our government to be held accountable when it comes to the surveillance of its own citizens. There was a program in place that would have made it very easy for this administration to obtain warrants to observe anyone they wanted. Instead, they chose to break the law. I’m sorry, but I don’t want to live in a country where the government has the unlimited right to watch and listen to my every move, with no oversight whatsoever. You would not be endorsing this, either, were the government currently in Democratic control. You would freak out completely if you knew Bill Clinton was running a secret domestic spying program. You would. Face it.
Man, when even Newt Gingrich is making more sense than you, your marbles have truly rolled down the street and into the drainpipe:
http://www.nysun.com/article/30844
13 April 2006, on 3:11 am
Bowden:
More lies from your boys are being revealed every day. Here’s the latest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060413/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq
13 April 2006, on 5:58 am
This building a house of strawmen is all Bowden ever does.
Free Conservative, Bowden. It’s calling you.
13 April 2006, on 9:12 am
Guys, I’ll plead guilty to petitio principii, but I have not been making strawmen.
Today’s liberals want to stop giving support to Iraq reformers and democrats, even though about 70% of Iraqis voted in the last election. If we leave too soon, the jihadists will take over and slaughter all of their opponents. So I’ll ask it again — why do Democrats oppose democracy in Iraq?
On Iran, don’t believe what Bush has been saying — go to the source. Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel off the map, and when called on it, he just repeats himself. Ahmadinejad says he has been appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels. This will create chaos, Ahmadinejad insists, but this chaos will prompt the return of the 12th Imam, the Shiite messiah, who’s return Ahmadinejad says is “imminent.” Iran’s government says they can win a nuclear war with the west, and while a western response to a nuclear attack will have “acceptable losses,” Israel, the size of New Jersey, would be gone forever.
I guess “God is for Suckers,” but only if you’re not a suicidal Muslim obsessed with genocide who wants nukes. Then doing Allah’s will is okay, because God is for Suckers only for Texan Methodists.
Lastly, I was a big fan of Bill Clinton. I didn’t vote for Bush either time. But look what Clinton did. He made regime change U.S. policy in 1998 by signing the Iraqi Liberation Act. Clinton didn’t take any chances with Hussein and robustly bombed any suspected WMD facilities during Desert Fox. I also voted for John Schmidt here in Illinois in 1998 when he ran for governor. Schmidt, Clinton’s associate Attorney General from 1994-1997 insists the NSA wiretaps are legal. This should not be a left or a right wing issue, but for the Kos kiddies and others, it is.
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
– Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
– Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table.” Al Gore, February 12, 2002.
Ever consider that maybe, just maybe, you have moved to the extreme?
13 April 2006, on 9:32 am
“Are we really supposed to believe they know for certain Iran is developing nuclear weapons, when they blatantly lied to us about WMDs in Iraq? Do you like being beaten up by your government? Is this battered wife syndrome? When do you stop coming back for the flowers and sweet talk?”
The answers to all your questions is 42.
or “yes”, if you’re a neo con.
13 April 2006, on 10:40 am
Re 24: J.H., can you point to a source for Ahmadinejad’s outlook? Thanks.
13 April 2006, on 10:51 am
It’s hilarious that he counters clear proof of Bush’s lying with statments from “liberals” that are based on Bush’s false “intelligence”.
Is this really all you’ve got? Ever consider that maybe, just maybe, YOU have moved to the extreme?
13 April 2006, on 3:30 pm
I guess “God is for Suckers,” but only if you’re not a suicidal Muslim obsessed with genocide who wants nukes. Then doing Allah’s will is okay, because God is for Suckers only for Texan Methodists.
You clearly have not spent much time on this site. We are not apologists for Muslim extremists. We attack them quite a bit. We just happen to live in the increasingly fundie Xian nation of the United States of America… And we have to fight that enemy, too.
I haven’t moved to any extreme. I have always been on it. I am an absolute radical. My views on war and history would so offend you at your dinner table, you’d probably stab me in the chest with a serving fork.
Stop building strawmen when you say that you aren’t. I never said Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric wasn’t extreme. I just think responding to extreme rhetoric with more extreme rhetoric is idiotic and exactly how pointless fucking wars happen (WWI being a shining example of bluster leading to the deaths of millions).
We live in a complex age and this cowboy diplomacy has already shown itself to be a disaster. When a child is screaming and having a temper tantrum, the big kid, or the adult, is supposed to use his superior emotional control to stabalize the situation, not jump up and down and scream in unison. Where is that going to get us? Leaks from the upper echelons of government that we are even *considering* nukes against Iran are just outrageous.
Saddam Hussein was nowhere near making WMDs, as Scott Ritter said all along. Don’t quote Hillary Clinton, Kerry or Gore to me. I don’t agree with any of those Republicrats. I haven’t been defending Democrats. I have been deflating your, as you call it petitio principii. I don’t call it circular argument, I call it Fox News Argument. Putting words in your opponents’ mouths. I’m just calling the spades where I see ‘em.
13 April 2006, on 3:39 pm
What’s ironic is that the very posting you are responding to and accusing us of being soft on Muslim extremists — this one about the Mohammed cartoons (which GifS reprinted in their entirety, by the way) — is not soft on Muslim extremists!
Also, the sad truth is that during the Clinton era, Iran was softening and the fundies were losing their grip on the popular consciousness there. The New Yorker did a great article on it (before Sept. 11 and our idiotic responses to it — “if you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists”), in which the leader of the student takeover of the American Embassy back during the Khomeini revolution spoke extensively of the fact that Khomeini came to power as extremists often come to power, in response to other extremists. But that now those who were once young idealists enthralled by Khomeini’s ego-boosting ideas of the strength of Islam, were now starting to see compromise, and friendship with the West as the only hope for Iran’s future.
Remember, these were educated, middle-class kids. And think about the hostage-taking itself. They didn’t kill anybody. They were so much less radicalized, and less ignorant, than your average jihadist in the Middle East is now. Why is that? Because they hadn’t been bitch-slapped by the U.S. enough yet. If you keep calling a nation evil, it’s only a matter of time before they fulfill your wish.
Well, all of that good will that was starting to be created is gone now. We have inflamed and radicalized the Muslim world like never before, and moderate voices are being silenced.
It’s fuckin’ sad.
13 April 2006, on 3:57 pm
More lies revealed:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5338995
Face it, the Iraq war has damaged the credibility of this nation in the extreme.
14 April 2006, on 5:54 am
I see Star’s blog has been invaded by the King of Strawmen as well.
14 April 2006, on 7:10 am
Another thing… As Lya pointed out. Don’t quote politicians back to me who were basing their opinions on this administration’s intelligence lies. They should have known better… I did, and took to the streets along with millions worldwide to protest the false pretenses for war… But from a political standpoint, you can’t go blaming politicians at that time for publicly standing with their president, who had chosen a poorly advised global war footing in response to a criminal act. Bush’s people squandered, both domestically and internationally, all credibility in their choice of action at that time.
They lied. We know they lied. If all three branches of government weren’t in the stranglehold of their party, they would long since be facing charges of high crimes against the American people. How much they lied, and the extent to which they manipulated every piece of information they got their hands on to achieve their fait accompli, becomes clearer by the day.
–
http://tinyurl.com/qqqyd
Americans Wary of Action on Iran, Gloomy on Iraq, Poll Shows
April 13 (Bloomberg) — American pessimism about the Iraq war has deepened and may be feeding doubts about President George W. Bush’s efforts to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the latest Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll found.
A majority of those surveyed — 56 percent — said Iraq is now in a civil war, and just 37 percent said they believe Bush when he says a lot of progress is being made there, down from 45 percent who said they believed him in January.
Forty-eight percent said they would support military action against Iran if it continues to produce material that can be used to develop a nuclear bomb, down from 57 percent in January. Forty percent oppose military action, up from 33 percent in January.
A majority — 54 percent — said they “don’t trust” Bush to make the right decision about whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran, compared with 42 percent who said they do trust him. Forty percent said the Iraq experience had made them less supportive of military action against Iran, while 38 percent said it had no impact. The poll surveyed 1,357 American adults by telephone April 8-11 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Analysts said negative perceptions of the war in Iraq are driving sentiment on Iran. “The Iraq experience is very sobering; it tells people that the military solution that looks so easy can be an illusion,” said Joseph Cirincione, director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
Every consider that maybe YOU have moved to the extreme?
14 April 2006, on 9:38 pm
If anybody is a group of suckers, it is us for not taking apocalyptic Islamist supremacists seriously.
Today, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a “permanent threat” to the Middle East that will “soon” be liberated. He also questioned again whether the Holocaust really happened.
“Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation,” Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. “The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm.”
We claim the fundies here in America want the apocalypse based on scant data, but here is Koran-thumping maniac, developing nuclear weapons and promising to use them. God is for Suckers? It should be — Christianity is for Suckers, but Islam is for people who have pure, peaceful souls that never have violent designs that match violent rhetoric and behavior.
Bullshit!
Get your heads out of the sand. The incineration of Israel is not only an extreme position, it is an evil position by any objective standard. Don’t let your hatred toward Bush blind you to what we must do in Iran.
14 April 2006, on 11:37 pm
If anybody is a group of suckers, it is us for not taking apocalyptic Islamist supremacists seriously.
And what is your good ol’ boy GW and his administration doing about it? They are the ones in control. If your buddies are in charge of things, and we are staying the course and all is getting better with a Republican right-winger in charge, what are you worried about?
14 April 2006, on 11:42 pm
What must we do in Iran, Mr. Bowden? Give us your armchair military solution, genius.
Christianity is for Suckers, but Islam is for people who have pure, peaceful souls that never have violent designs that match violent rhetoric and behavior.
Last time: STRAWMAN. Nobody said any such thing. This site is rife with postings on the violence being committed in the name of Islam. And guess what? If the fundie Xians in this country were swapped out with those maniacs, made to live in the same horrendous conditions, they would be just as openly violent. Except they’d be using the word “crusade” instead of the word “jihad.”
The point is: ignorant cowboy “diplomacy” doesn’t work. Case in point: the horrendous nightmare quagmire that is Iraq.
You clearly have an uncomplex mind, just like our president and his cronies.
If you are too willfully ignorant and flame-baiting to actually read our site and see where many of us really stand on these extremely complicated issues (issues that you try so hard to dumb-down into lying sound bytes), yet still claim the right to have a hateful opinion toward us, you can fuck off.
Do us a favor when it comes to the atheist thing. Stay off our side. We actually value critical thinking here.
I’m done with you, liar.
14 April 2006, on 11:44 pm
Than again, maybe you DO have something to worry about with GW in charge…(flashbacks of him sitting there reading a children’s book while the country was under attack. We were attacked on GWs watch,…who has his head in the sand????
15 April 2006, on 12:54 am
I have been doing some reading, and I am in no way taking the conservative side here, but I can see ONE point Bowden makes that Ahmadinejad is a real nutjob (see here), but how many nutjobs have been threatening Israel over the decades? It’s a way of life for Israeli’s to be threatened with destruction. They have lots and lots of enemies and we are their “bodyguard”. This sounds like scare tactics to me on the part of Ahmadinejad. He is a whacko psycho religious freak (he reminds me so much of Libya’s Gaddafi), and I have seen enough of these in my lifetime who threaten, blow smoke and I have seen the waves of panic from people who are afraid all for nothing. The ones you have to worry about are the ones who are already here on our soil…like with 9/11. If someone is going to attack us or our allies, they sure are not going to blow a trumpet and announce what they are going to do. The ones who blow smoke are the ones who are afraid. Ahmadinejad is very afraid of us and OUR nuclear weapons which are most likely aimed at him right this very moment…our nuclear subs are stationed everywhere. American, as always, has the upper hand in the bully department and lots of people hate us for it. For saying it like it is, does not make one anti-American. It’s just being realistic.
In reality, any president be it Democrat, Republican, (with the exception of GW as he has already shown us) is not going to sit back and let us be attacked, or let Israel be annhilated. However, I would like to see this Iran situation handled in a peaceful manner, without getting us into another war.
15 April 2006, on 1:26 am
Sean —
Again, I don’t understand why you guys insist religious fanatics are rational people. THEY ARE NOT. Sean insists that more talk and reason will make Ahmadinejad give up his apocalyptic delusions. This is not a strawman; this is Sean’s stated position. Stardust insists Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions. This means Ahmadinejad is enriching uranium while talking about wiping Israel off the map for peaceful purposes. Yet we have the nerve to call others “suckers!” Remember, in 1973 Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel; she also had to defend herself in 1948, 1956, and 1967. But now we’re all multiculturalists, and Muslims are incapable of evil. It is best to obsess about the dipshit Ned Flanders clone next-door who thinks government nativity scenes are okalie-dokalie.
Some will ignore what I have to say, but there is a reason why people are called ignorant.
And lastly guys, a “strawman” is not a false statement. It is a form of argument where one proposition is attacked in substitute of another. I’ve done nothing of the sort.
15 April 2006, on 7:55 am
Strawman fallacy:
In other words, a strawman is making an argument for your opponent that they never made, then dismantling that argument.
Here again are some examples of yours:
Why do democrats oppose democracy in Iraq?
Why do they insist the Mullahs of Iran have nuclear weapons?
Why do they want to allow al-queda to make phone calls in the United States in secrecy?
I have nothing more to say to Mr. Bowden directly, since he speaks in the deceptive, inflammatory rhetoric of the right. And clearly, he lies.
The danger of right-wing thinking is this: absolutism. Whole nations are labeled as “evil.” You are either “with us or against us.”
When John Kerry said during the campaign of ‘04 that we needed to fight a more sensitive “war on terror” (a phrase, by the way, that is in and of itself a form of thought control and utterly meaningless), introspective people knew what he meant. His enemies pounced on it as an example of his “weakness.” This is always the struggle that humanity faces. Looking at the world through a black-and-white lens is easy. Seeing all of the colors of the spectrum is hard. Demagogues, and those who, like Mr. Bowden, all-too-happily follow them, will always have an advantage, especially in guiding the thoughts of the intellectually lazy. Because their way of thinking is easy, and the other path is hard.
Well, we’d better start taking that other path, for the greater good of us all.
Star is right, many a tyrant in the Middle East has threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the map. As I have said, the adult in the situation should take charge and behave like an adult. America has the vastly superior upper-hand in terms of sheer might, but we have the cultural memory of a virtual pre-teenager. We have not experienced nearly as much war — and certainly not in recent memory — on our soil as much of the rest of the world. We throw our weight around mightily and don’t think much about the consequences… Then have the nerve to act shocked when violence lands on our doorstep, as it did on 9/11.
I am from New York. That day was a personal tragedy for me. I will never make light of it, nor suggest it wasn’t horribly tragic — as is all pointless violence. But I wasn’t surprised when it happened, because I had been following world events closely for long before.
When does thrashing about with a big stick become the least appealing scenario?
It’s time to grow up. To respond to Mr. Ahmadinejad with more demagoguery is to play right into his hands — to reward, as we did with Bin Laden, his bluster with arrogance and more bluster… Thereby gaining him sympathy in the Muslim population.
It is so easy to shout at your enemy and threaten to blow him away, especially when you have the superior weapon. It’s harder, as any good cop will tell you, to get him to put the gun down. But in the latter situation, everyone goes home alive. Which, again, as any good cop will tell you, is the perfect end to any day.
15 April 2006, on 8:38 am
Bow-den-takeitintheass,
The only sure way to save the Earth is with the nuclear extinction of our species.
heheheh…
15 April 2006, on 9:40 am
Stardust insists Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions.
I never said Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions…I said he is a religious wacko nutjob. (See comment #37 and read again:“ONE point Bowden makes that Ahmadinejad is a real nutjob” etc…etc… Don’t skim…read. There are several religious whackos in power…do we nuke them all? Mushroom clouds everywhere so we can have the upper hand on the situations?
I also said your RePUBICans are “in control” so why are you so paranoid if you support them? It’s as if you jumped aboard their ship because of fear, then you fear that your ship is sinking?
What is your proposal then? Nuke ‘em before they nuke Israel??? It would be like bringing biblical prophesy to reality. In this age of such weaponry (which could make the surface of our planet look like Mars)…wouldn’t it be better to try EVERY DIPLOMATIC MEASURE before using such dangerous methods?
We are all aware of the dangers and tensions in the middle east. In fact, we are all too aware.
15 April 2006, on 10:02 am
Star said
Stardust insists Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions.
I never said Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions…
And …
In this age of such weaponry (which could make the surface of our planet look like Mars)…wouldn’t it be better to try EVERY DIPLOMATIC MEASURE before using such dangerous methods?
Exactly.
Do you see the problem with debating with Mr. Bowden? He puts words in your mouth and creates his own versions of your arguments. He belongs in Bill O’Reilly’s chair. Not once did you say Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions.
You can’t debate with a person who is disingenuous at every turn. Who ignores your arguments — in fact doesn’t seem to read and/or comprehend them — and comes back with refutations of arguments you never made. It’s circular and crazy-making and futile.
As such, Bowden has proven himself a troll and should be ignored.
I leave you with these final thoughts on Mr. Bowden’s depressing mindset. In illustrating my point that right-wing ideology is crippled by its absolutism, I noted the number of times Mr. Bowden used the word “insist” — an absolutist term that leaves little room for rational discussion or compromise (”Why do you INSIST on insulting my wife??”) — which was inaccurately applied on almost every occasion:
Why do they [Democrats] insist the Mullahs of Iran have nuclear weapons?
Ahmadinejad says he has been appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels. This will create chaos, Ahmadinejad insists, but this chaos will prompt the return of the 12th Imam.
I also voted for John Schmidt here in Illinois in 1998 when he ran for governor. Schmidt, Clinton’s associate Attorney General from 1994-1997 insists the NSA wiretaps are legal.
Again, I don’t understand why you guys insist religious fanatics are rational people.
Again, I don’t understand why you guys insist religious fanatics are rational people. THEY ARE NOT. Sean insists that more talk and reason will make Ahmadinejad give up his apocalyptic delusions.
Stardust insists Ahmadinejad is incapable of delusions.
And I insist, contrary to the stereotypes often applied to doves and would-be peacemakers, that our world-view is the best hope for humanity’s future, and yours is nihilistic and weak… Doomed to failure as we evolve beyond tribalism into a brighter future.
15 April 2006, on 11:43 am
Sean, Dust –
I don’t deny my position is absolutist. It is absolutely correct. Christianity isn’t true for some people and false for others — it is false, period. People who have been duped by false propositions are suckers — that is the entire premise of this site. If truth did come in gradations — maybe Jeebus “kind of” walked on water, “sort of” rose from the dead, and and so forth — you have no grounds to criticize them. Do you really think we cannot “insist” virgins cannot give birth? Others may feel bad when they find out they’re holding incoherent positions, but error and ignorance have never been virtues. I don’t want Tel Aviv to have a “bright future” as a nuclear weapon burns it to a crisp. The infidels are fine the way they are.
J.S. Mill once noted that “a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.” If we agree with Mill, then reexamine your positions. If we stop giving support to the Iraqi democracy before it can stand on its own feet, we will be directly responsible for the slaughter that will ensue when the jihadists take over the government. Democrats today want the troops out, right? Our setbacks aren’t because of the American troops, they’re because Rumsfeld didn’t go in with enough troops, and reasonable people from General Shinseki to Colin Powell have made this clear. But by all means, please call me a partisan hack if it keeps you from facing what your proposals entail. About 70% of your “Muslim population” voted in the Iraqi elections in the face of terror a few weeks ago.
Ahmadinejad believes he was appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels to bring about the return of the 12th Imam at the end of times. He says this over and over and over again. Dust gave lip service that Ahmadinejad was religiously insane, but then said that we wouldn’t be as insane to sacrifice millions of people to wipe out the Jews. So Ahmadinejad does not believe that he was appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels to bring about the return of the 12th Imam at the end of times? Who is the “sucker” here?
I’ll support civilization if and when Iran’s nuclear program is destroyed. The question is — will you?
Here is the newsflash for you people: there can be no peace with an ideological entity that believes you are evil and they have an edict from God to kill you. This is irrational, and yes, it is shocking. The only reason why the left isn’t shocked is that they believe fundamentalism is limited to the United States, and fundamentalists overseas just want freedom from greedy corporations. That’s why today’s Democrats are so hard to support, even though I agree with them on science, the environment, energy, abortion, school prayer and so forth.
Get your heads out of the sand.
15 April 2006, on 12:27 pm
Sigh.
Bowden. You have not proposed a single thing. I never said I agree with what Democrats want. I have only refuted your misleading assertions when it comes to Democrats, most of which were outrageous (”Democrats want mullahs to have nuclear weapons” — welcome to Ann Coulterville, should we start locking up dissidents now?)
I didn’t want us to attack Iraq in the first place. See my above statements on forced democracy. What I am trying to speak against is doing the same stupid thing again.
Are you suggesting we should actually attack Iran?
Ahmadinejad believes he was appointed by Allah to lead the final jihad against the infidels to bring about the return of the 12th Imam at the end of times.
Stop repeating yourself. You have said that over and over again. It’s adding nothing to the discussion to say “But, Mom! She said (fill in the blank).” We have asked you to be the adult in this situation when it comes to dealing with a tiny, far weaker nation than Iran — that we could easily bend to our will given international support — yet you keep falling back into an adolescent stance.
Calm down and try to have an actual conversation. This is what diplomacy is.
Dust gave lip service that Ahmadinejad was religiously insane, but then said that we wouldn’t be as insane to sacrifice millions of people to wipe out the Jews.
This sentence makes no sense. Maybe there is a structural error to it?
What Star said was:
There are several religious whackos in power…do we nuke them all? Mushroom clouds everywhere so we can have the upper hand on the situations?
What I am saying is that military action should be an absolute last resort. Do you deny that? Again: are you saying we should attack Iran? With nuclear weapons even, as the Pentagon is currently pondering? What is your armchair military solution? How would this scenario play out, other than to the possible destruction of us all?
Why don’t you answer questions when they are posed to you? I have been answering questions you have asked based on statements I never even made, from the beginning of this so-called debate. You, like the theists who come here to debate their faith, have evaded every single one of them.
I have to admit: why am I still talking to you? I have posited dozens of positions and you have ignored them all, put words in my mouth (and Star’s) and fallen back on repeating yourself. Talk about feeling like one is debating with Bill O’Reilly.
Ugh.
15 April 2006, on 1:09 pm
I have stated my position and am not going to repeat myself. Having a differing opinion does not mean one has his “head in the sand”…we are just in disagreement about how to handle a problem that we ALL are aware of. Some of us don’t want to go into war with wars already going on in two other countries. Maybe there will be a way to get rid of the crazy guy in Iran without another war. If we do attack, it will only bring about GLOBAL Muslim unity against the “infidels” …just like Americans all rallied together after 9-11. If we attack, it will just make Muslims more united against us.
You have stated your opinion, we have stated ours…and out of all the other blogs in the blogsphere, maybe you can find someone who can make you feel more confident and secure…tell you what you want to hear and appease your fears.
15 April 2006, on 2:09 pm
Bowdown says “there can be no peace with an ideological entity that believes you are evil and they have an edict from God to kill you.”.
Bibble says: And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. (Leviticus 24:16)
Hmm.
15 April 2006, on 5:24 pm
Thank goodness for moderates everywhere:
Not All in Iran Back President’s Rhetoric
And see the last paragraphs. It’s all about bluster and pride. It always has been, since the dawn of man.
Like I said, time to grow up. All of us.
15 April 2006, on 5:35 pm
This will send even some centrists into convulsions. Warning, radical (and accurate) history ahead!
http://progressive.org/mag_zinn0406
Go get ‘em, Howard!
Now there is a man who knows war first hand, and look at the conclusions he has come to in half-century since he was bombing large numbers of civilians from 10s of thousands of feet in the air.
He has said many times of his service in WWII: It is a dangerous assumption to make… That just because the enemy is evil, your side is necessarily good.
15 April 2006, on 5:35 pm
Sean, I was just reading this article you linked to.
The president’s tough talk resounds with many Iranians.
“Ahmadinejad is a source of pride for resisting the U.S. and defending Iran’s nuclear rights,” said Ali Mahmoudi, a regular attendee of Friday prayers in this strongly religious nation.
Still, the president may have alienated potential allies with this enrichment announcement because he didn’t cite former Iranian leaders or thank them for their efforts in the program.
“Ahmadinejad spoke as if production of enriched uranium was his work. He didn’t mention that it was the outcome of more than two decades of clandestine work by previous governments,” said political analyst Saeed Leilaz.
Same thing happens here when the political leaders try to control with propaganda talk. (Like there was WMD’s in Iraq which still have not been found.)
15 April 2006, on 5:37 pm
And they never will be found, Star.
15 April 2006, on 5:40 pm
Yes, Ahmadinejad’s simple, angry rhetoric appeals to the bruised egos among many of his people… His bluster wins over sheeple with anger that has nowhere else to go. Just like Bush and other demagogues here accomplish that with “axis of evil” speeches, and people like Bowden get in line.
17 April 2006, on 8:39 am
“And lastly guys, a “strawman” is not a false statement. It is a form of argument where one proposition is attacked in substitute of another. I’ve done nothing of the sort. ”
As Sean has so nicely illustrated we can now add “LIAR” to Bowden’s list of attributes.