That train is never late!
Oh, America, rejoice. After you thought that the islamist crazies were starting to focus their attention towards Denmark and not you, they proved quickly to you that they will always go back to hating you, no matter who else they maybe mad at. Now that's loyalty.
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 2/07/2006 02:53:00 PM
35 Comments:
Ahh, I feel a cozy sense of nostalgia rising in my stomach..
Oh no wait, that's just the urge to throw up.
Always get those mixed up, the two are so similar.
I can understand other Muslim countries protesting and chanting "Death to America," but the fact that Aghanees protested pisses me off. Bastards.
Note to President Bush or the next POTUS:
Next time we liberate a country and kick out it's oppressive regime, let's make sure it's not a Muslim country. Sure they're grateful for our sacrifices, but if they even think we're insulting their prophet - regardless if the story is true or not -, they'll turn on us faster than we can write a check to help rebuild their country.
jonas
It's been, what, about two weeks now? That's not half bad considering that they haven't given us a break for years.
Sandmonkey, man, you're brilliant. I just wanted to get that out there. I fucking love your blog.
-Calenelhoss
It has been very interesting to see all the misguided hate directed at Europe for a change and the Europeans are Shocked! SHOCKED, I tell ya!
I guess it takes years of being called the Great Satan and having your President burned in effigy to get used to it.
Sandmonkey:
Hi, I'm unsure as to approach this.
I'm an atheist in California.
Please hear me out.
Recently (Sunday), there's been a coupla threads on the NoGodBlog about these frickin' cartoons.
Actually, this arrogant prick started saying incendiary shit, about 'putting down Islam', forbidding entry to the US for anyone who's Muslim, etc.
I laid into this asshole pretty hard.
Yeah, I'm an atheist. I got no religion.
Neither here, nor there.
But when someone starts talking trash, about discriminating against a specific group of people, whether it's skin color or belief, well, I was raised in the US, & our Bill of Rights prevents that sort of shit (I know, it's supposed to, but theory doesn't always jibe w/reality).
So I went after the sonuvabitch.
Because I don't approve of religion. At all.
I don't approve of discrimination even less.
But you can't tell the human heart what to do.
So what I propose, is that I invite you over to the Nogodblog to present a viewpoint from the other side, so to speak.
It's a small step. Might amount to nothing.
Or, it could change a lot of things.
If you choose not to, I'll understand completely.
If so, please email me. You can find my email at my blog. We can talk, I can lay the groundwork, introduce you, advance notice, that sort of thing.
I felt it necessary to make this gesture.
Because it's too easy to demonize.
It's harder still to reach out for understanding.
& we only got 1 world.
& we gotta learn to share.
The consequences of not learning how, are frightening.
Thanks for listening.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry:
"Iskandar said the protesters charged that the United States also was responsible for the caricatures, but he did not explain how."
Originally posted by RA
The consequences of not learning how, are frightening.
Just out of curiosity, are you an idealist or a pragmatist?
jonas
jonas:
Just out of curiosity, are you an idealist or a pragmatist?
A bit of both.
RA,
Given that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 were of Middle Easter descent, do you support our airports profiling people from that corner of the world? I'm just trying to understand what you would do if you were in charge of US immigration.
How about if you were someone with more power, say the President of the United States. Would you increase or decrease the number of people from Saudi Arabia to migrate to the US freely?
jonas
I'm really,really trying to be tolerant and patient,but it's getting more difficult by the day! At first I thought the cartoons were rather harmless and inane,but now people are dying because of them! Well,not because of them,but rather due to the ridiculous reaction to them.And I guess it was only a matter of time before the evil US was blamed for this.That's the same US that gives millions of dollars each year in aid to many muslim countries,and also greatly helped the relief efforts after the tsunami and earthquake.Sometimes I wonder why we even try... Dan
As a liberal jew dating an even more liberal muslim from Iran, I don't even want to think what my life would be like if we simply banned everyone from a specific religion or country from immegrating.
But...
I would support that ALL immegrants/refugees take a short essay quiz to determine how they feel about freedom, gay rights, women's rights, violence, diversity, etc...
Combine this with programs to help immagrents obtain good employment and infuse a sense of patratiosm (ie, the American model), then we will have nothing to fear.
It's sad but true. I was really starting to feel left out. Is that sick or what?
Actually, I was wondering when the reflex to go after the Great Satan would kick in . . .
However, where DID they find all those Danish flags so quickly??? That's what I really want to know. Must have turned the U.S. burning-flag factories to producing those a couple of weeks ago . . . and putting the effigy manufacturers onto "Danish PM" instead of "American President".
Anonymous:
Queries are appreciated.
Given that all 19 hijackers on 9/11 were of Middle Easter descent, do you support our airports profiling people from that corner of the world? I'm just trying to understand what you would do if you were in charge of US immigration.
That's a tough question. As I understand it, it's supposed to be a random choice, but that's just naive to take them at their word.
It would be foolish to say I don't support it, given the current clime, but I certainly would try to hire people who had a frickin' clue to do the job.
Currently, we have people who can't tell a Pakistani from a Sikh, who abuse the station (from what I've read).
I read somewhere 1 horror story where an Australian journalist was flying over to the US to interview Olivia Newton John (about breast cancer?).
She was put in a room for 12 hrs, treated like shit, never made it over.
The Tel Aviv airport, from what little I know, actually hire people who have military service records, & have training. So there's an experienced eyeball there.
Of course Richard Reid made it thru.
We have dimwits over here in all the wrong places.
How about if you were someone with more power, say the President of the United States. Would you increase or decrease the number of people from Saudi Arabia to migrate to the US freely?
What an interesting question. I have an answer, have given it some thought over the past few hrs., & the answer remains the same.
1st, Why would I decrease or increase the #? Unless there's some political/economic reason behind the query that I'm unaware of.
2nd, I would let anyone come over who could prove they have a track record of being a good neighbor.
It's a simplistic answer to a complex question, I know, & I apologize.
Allow me to top that off w/this quote:
"The nation, which indulges towards another, a habitual hatred, or a habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, May 8, 1796"
I hope that covers it.
RA said....
1st, Why would I decrease or increase the #? Unless there's some political/economic reason behind the query that I'm unaware of.
Saudi Arabia exports terrorists. Wahabism is being nurtured and grown in KSA. They have built and funded Muslim schools in the US with Islamic curriculars. That in and of itself is a problem waiting to happen. If I were in charge, I would limit the number of Saudi immigrants considerably, just because I don't want to invite terrorists into my country and mass murder my fellow Americans by the thousands, if not millions.
2nd, I would let anyone come over who could prove they have a track record of being a good neighbor.
This can't be done. There's no way to prove if they have a record of being anything from where they came from. Documents can be forged. Verbal allegiance can be faked. Being a good neighbor doesn't mean anything, for as you can see from this previous week, it doesn't take much to enrage Muslims.
As for GW, I bet if he was alive today, he'd do more than limit the # of immigrants from not just Saudi Arabia, but Muslim countries in general. He's a no nonsense, practical kind of guy. PLus, the time period in which he uttered these words is very different from what we are dealing with today.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
jonas
Jordan,
"Combine this with programs to help immagrents obtain good employment and infuse a sense of patratiosm (ie, the American model), then we will have nothing to fear."
Jordan, I support whatever immigration policy that will keep crazy people like this Iranian woman from becoming naturalized US citizens:
Another Irani Online
Because then they wouldn't be able to marry crazy Iraqi people like this:
Raed in the Middle
And get him a greencard to live with her in San Francisco. Tip to would be immigrants to America - if you hate the United States, DON'T FUCKING COME HERE. PERIOD. I don't give a flying fuck what scholarship you got, turn it down! Better yet, US Universities, screen your foreign students better! The guys who flew the planes into the world trade center were "students" - get with the fucking program already!
End rant. I can't think of that cheezball Raed in the US without losing my temper. These two are the POSTER CHILDREN of what's wrong with US immigration policy. We have enough homegrown lunatics without importing foreign lunatics.
jonas:
Saudi Arabia exports terrorists. Wahabism is being nurtured and grown in KSA. They have built and funded Muslim schools in the US with Islamic curriculars.
Now, I didn't know that (apparently, what I don't know could fill a book).
Now, is this the govt. of SA? I'd look it up, but I don't trust the media much these days.
This can't be done. There's no way to prove if they have a record of being anything from where they came from. Documents can be forged. Verbal allegiance can be faked.
Understood.
Being a good neighbor doesn't mean anything, for as you can see from this previous week, it doesn't take much to enrage Muslims.
True enough, but I've read some commentary where most Muslims in Europe are upset not just at the cartoons (they were apparently released in Sept. in Denmark, & in Oct. in Egypt w/o a murmur), but at an underlying theme of discrimination.
Unfortunately, from my delving into US history, we've had the same sort of thing here.
PLus, the time period in which he uttered these words is very different from what we are dealing with today.
But the words still stand. True today as they were then.
We are slaves to our passions, whether they are benign or malign. Whether we are nations or individuals.
RA says...
Now, is this the govt. of SA?
Yes, KSA stands for Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, same as SA.
...most Muslims in Europe are upset not just at the cartoons (they were apparently released in Sept. in Denmark, & in Oct. in Egypt w/o a murmur), but at an underlying theme of discrimination.
Followers of every major religion have had their prophets caricatured and depicted in satires. As far as I know, only the Muslims take to the streets and call for mass murder and death to the cartoonists. I can understand the boycott route, as many groups in the US do that, but to call for death and destruction is way overboard. Muslims are way too sensitive.
RA, I feel you aren't being practical enough. If you're in a boat in the middle of a sea and water starts leaking in, you would immediately plug the holes to stop the leaks. Well, our immigration policy is a proverbial leak as it allows many Muslims to come here, and we all know how effective the background checks performed by the INS is, don't we? They are overwhelmed and understaffed. I read somewhere that more immigrants from Saudi Arabia are being allowed into the US than before 9/11. I would strongly cut down on that number of immigrants if I had the power to do so. You may see that as discrimination or what not. I see it as an essential step to protecting our country, people, and economy. One more major terrorist attack on US soil and the stock market will go into a tailspin as it did on 9/11. The domino effect will hurt everyone. I wouldn't take that chance by allowing a large number of Muslims into this country.
jonas
jonas:
I feel you aren't being practical enough. If you're in a boat in the middle of a sea and water starts leaking in, you would immediately plug the holes to stop the leaks.
Interesting simile, except we're talking about people here.
Well, our immigration policy is a proverbial leak as it allows many Muslims to come here, and we all know how effective the background checks performed by the INS is, don't we?
Oh, yeah. The 19 hijackers were on temporary visas, weren't they?
Have you been thru the naturalization process?
I read somewhere that more immigrants from Saudi Arabia are being allowed into the US than before 9/11.
Links, please.
I would strongly cut down on that number of immigrants if I had the power to do so.
I'm curious at this point: are you Arabian, Muslim?
We can't discriminate against people because of their national identities, color, or religion.
It reeks of mass demonization.
It's hard living by the principles that founded our nation. It puts us at risk sometimes.
Franklin said:
"Those who would surrender their liberties for security deserve neither."
I'll take my chances, thank you.
The domino effect will hurt everyone.
That's actually the slippery slope argument. The Domino effect was coined by Nixon, in re: communism. & the slippery slope argument you're using is actually not a fallacy, in this instance.
I'd rather take my chances, thanks.
I wouldn't take that chance by allowing a large number of Muslims into this country.
Now that IS discriminatory.
Not every Muslim is my enemy, any more than every American my friend.
RA,
"We can't discriminate against people because of their national identities, color, or religion."
We most certainly can. In fact, we do.
BTW, the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas, not "temporary" visas... whatevr those are supposed to be.
RA,
1. Am most assuredly NOT Muslim, nor will I ever be, and
2. Am most assuredly NOT in favor of the recent riots in Europe over a bunch of stupid cartoons, and
3. Am not a Muslim apologist of any sort.
Interesting discliamer, on your blog, RA.... you seem to think your opinions are going to draw fire, eh?
Did you just discover this issue? You said twice that there "apparrently" riots in Europe!?
I read somewhere that more immigrants from Saudi Arabia are being allowed into the US than before 9/11.
Links, please.
-------------
Ask and ye shall receive:
Saudi Scholarship program more than doubles the number of Saudi enrollments at American colleges and universities.
More links here.
I'm curious at this point: are you Arabian, Muslim?
No, not Arabian, Muslim, or Middle Eastern descent. I'm American, in the US.
We can't discriminate against people because of their national identities, color, or religion.
It reeks of mass demonization.
Oh, but we can. We see the problem of immigration from Muslim countries, and you're going to turn a blind eye and take your chances?
It's hard living by the principles that founded our nation. It puts us at risk sometimes.
Franklin said:
"Those who would surrender their liberties for security deserve neither."
I'll take my chances, thank you.
I'll see your Franklin and raise you a Curran:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (John Philpot Curran)
You have said several times that you would take your chances. That's not pragmatism; that's idealism and in this day and age of Islamic terrorism, you're just asking for trouble. No common sense in that.
jonas
programmer craig:
Interesting discliamer, on your blog, RA.... you seem to think your opinions are going to draw fire, eh?
Of course they are.
It was for the benefit of those who don't know me. Or would stoop to ad hominem/poisoning the well tactics.
I'm pro-humanity.
Did you just discover this issue? You said twice that there "apparrently" riots in Europe!?
No, I've been trying to keep up on current affairs.
I'm afraid I have an innate distrust of the news media in my own country.
I can always change it to 'obviously', if it suits you better.
Jonas:
Oh, but we can. We see the problem of immigration from Muslim countries, and you're going to turn a blind eye and take your chances?
Hey, only a fool would say "We've never done that."
US history is rife w/examples.
I find it terribly odd that we've not had any attacks since 9/11, BTW.
Some of that can indeed be attributed to 'Eternal vigilance'.
You have said several times that you would take your chances. That's not pragmatism; that's idealism and in this day and age of Islamic terrorism, you're just asking for trouble. No common sense in that.
Well, the 1st amendment states specifically, no 'establishment or prohibition of religion'.
You would perhaps amend that w/the escape clause, 'except for Muslims'?
Exclusion is the enemy of liberty.
Should we be more careful? Hell yes.
Should we err on the side of caution so much that we violate our principles?
Hell no.
Should we exclude, then, Chinese moslems, Mongolian, Phillipino, Indonesian, Canadian [insert country of choice] people of that faith?
Your inclusion of the KSA Wahhabis proves my earlier point, in re: 'good neighbors', BTW.
& the RR has such power in this country, that establishing discrimination against one faith can set a dangerous precedent.
programmer craig:
BTW, the 9/11 hijackers were here on student visas, not "temporary" visas... whatevr those are supposed to be.
My error. Point taken.
Hey, only a fool would say "We've never done that."
US history is rife w/examples.
We were asleep before and leading up to 9/11. If we do not learn from our mistakes and deal with the immigration issue, then shame on us.
I find it terribly odd that we've not had any attacks since 9/11, BTW.
Some of that can indeed be attributed to 'Eternal vigilance'.
Nothing odd about that. Our men and women in law enforcement are working around the clock to protect us. Much of their success are not publicly disclosed. While many are asleep comfortably in their beds at night, those people are crunching numbers and analyzing data they've gathered around the world. Such "eternal vigilance" is yielding good results.
I wholeheartedly believe your approach is erroneous, RA. Thank God you're not in charge of immigration. And you shouldn't feel proud for bashing that other fella who suggested a tightening on Muslim immgrating to the US. I agree with him.
jonas
jonas:
We were asleep before and leading up to 9/11. If we do not learn from our mistakes and deal with the immigration issue, then shame on us.
Agreed.
Nothing odd about that. Our men and women in law enforcement are working around the clock to protect us. Much of their success are not publicly disclosed.
Despite the findings of the 9/11 commission, who found us woefully unprepared.
Oh, & NOW the Shrub comes out w/a planned attack dating 2002, right around the whole cartoon issue?
Mighty convenient, I have to say.
I wholeheartedly believe your approach is erroneous, RA. Thank God you're not in charge of immigration. And you shouldn't feel proud for bashing that other fella who suggested a tightening on Muslim immgrating to the US. I agree with him.
That's nice.
A. You're entitled to your opinion.
B. Don't believe in God.
C. I don't recall BASHING anyone here, as I've maintained something of a gentlemanly demeanor.
Am unclear where it was exactly that I 'bashed' anyone. You could perhaps point this out?
Unless you're pointing out the unnecessary quibbling over the use of the word 'apparently'?
Recently (Sunday), there's been a coupla threads on the NoGodBlog about these frickin' cartoons.
Actually, this arrogant prick started saying incendiary shit, about 'putting down Islam', forbidding entry to the US for anyone who's Muslim, etc. I laid into this asshole pretty hard.
That's the fella I was referring to.
Oh, & NOW the Shrub comes out w/a planned attack dating 2002, right around the whole cartoon issue?
Mighty convenient, I have to say.
This is nothing new. This planned attack was revealed then. The only new bit of info is the name of the Liberty Tower. I'm guessing you allow yourself to believe the worst about President Bush. That's fine. The point is that most of the successes of our fight against terrorism are not disclosed to the general public until years after the fact. Vigilance is paying off.
When I said this:
Saudi Arabia exports terrorists. Wahabism is being nurtured and grown in KSA. They have built and funded Muslim schools in the US with Islamic curriculars.
You responded with:
Now, I didn't know that (apparently, what I don't know could fill a book).
I'm surprised you didn't know this. This hurts your argument that we shouldn't tighten Muslim immigration into the US, especially from Saudi Arabia.
B. Don't believe in God.
Who cares; it's just a figure of speech. You shouldn't address these minute tangents as they divert attention away from the focal points at hand.
Regardless, I see now where we disagree on immigration. I will wager that most Amerians will side with me on this issue.
jonas
jonas:
That's the fella I was referring to.
Well, I wasn't BASHING him at 1st. If you actually kept up on the argument, I was the 1 trying to avoid personalizing the debate.
It carried over from another thread.
I don't like BASHING anyone.
& he, BTW, is advocating a WHOLESALE ban on allowing ANY Muslims from entering the country. I'm going to proceed to ASSUME that you agree w/him 100%, & sally forth from there.
I'm guessing you allow yourself to believe the worst about President Bush.
I look at results. I don't 'believe' anything according to my own conveniences.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770"
Get a refund on your armchair psychology degree, BTW.
This hurts your argument that we shouldn't tighten Muslim immigration into the US, especially from Saudi Arabia.
No, it supports my earlier statement of being able to prove being a good neighbor.
Who cares; it's just a figure of speech. You shouldn't address these minute tangents as they divert attention away from the focal points at hand.
Oh, like accusing me of 'bashing that other fella?'
pot.kettle.black.
I will wager that most Amerians will side with me on this issue.
Oh, great, an argument from popularity. That is so much a K-12 mindset.
See here, jonas.
Until you & your right-wing cronies can put thru a clause establishing that doesn't 'prohibit or establish' any religion besides 1 specific target, I'd say you're SOL.
I know we're talking emigration here. But we're also talking about ripples.
I have already put forth my rational views about all this.
You never answered this query:
Should we exclude, then, Chinese moslems, Mongolian, Phillipino, Indonesian, Canadian [insert country of choice] people of that faith?
satisfactorily.
Oh, & your quote, in its entirety, is "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt."
So I'll raise you another founder (Curan was an Irish statesman):
"It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803"
Furthermore, I will NOT condemn millions of people based on the actions of a few.
& I have stated this (more than once) that we should be more careful. I am in no ways advocating throwing open the gates to one & all. I've made myself sufficiently clear on this. It's not a 'black/white' situation.
It's that kind of thinking that brought this mess to critical mass.
We pass 1 law that sets a precedent for a whole slew of laws to be enacted. What happens after that? Clear indicators are the finger-pointing, the whispered accusations, & then?
1 doesn't need a degree in psychology to figure out the causal effects.
& if this is an unpopular opinion?
Tough shit.
Someone's got to point out the principles we founded this country by. We live by 'em. We die by 'em. We can amend them.
But in no way do we forsake them, for convenience's sake.
That is the way of the indolent.
RA,
I'm guessing you allow yourself to believe the worst about President Bush.
I look at results. I don't 'believe' anything according to my own conveniences.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams, in Defense of the British Soldiers on trial for the Boston Massacre, December 4, 1770"
Get a refund on your armchair psychology degree, BTW.
The fact that you can't even call GW "President Bush" but rather "The Shrub" chips away at any logical argument you may put forth. Then you give me a quote from John Adams about facts. Well, here are the facts:
1) 9/11 resulted in over 3,000 deaths, tens of billions in indirect and direct financial loss, and a recession
2) 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They came here on student visas.
3) All 19 of them are Muslims
4) Saudi Arabia exports Wahabism, the most extreme version of Islam.
5) More than 80% of Muslim schools in the US have been radicalized by Saudi Arabia. Read it here
6) The global war on terror is against islamic terrorists.
Those are the facts. Given these facts, it is logical to conclude that immigration from Saudi Arabia and other muslim regions where radical islamic teachings are encouraged should be limited if not completed halted. Then, we have people like you coming along screaming discrimination because it violates the Constitution of the United States. From what I know, the COTUS does not apply to illegal immigrants or citizens of another country. It was written for and applies to citizens of the United States.
You also suggested the "Good Neighbor Policy." Well, that is pure hogwash and I already explained why. It's an idealistic fantasy that is neither practical nor applicable for all intents and purposes.
Oh, like accusing me of 'bashing that other fella? pot.kettle.black.
No, what that fella discussed with you was about immigration, which is relevant to this discussion. I opined that you shouldn't bash him [since your argument on immigration is so weak]. While I am not ready to slam the door on every Muslim country from sending their citizens here, Saudi Arabia must be dealt with immediately.
I have stated this (more than once) that we should be more careful.
Not limiting immigration to Saudi nationals and other muslim countries is your way of being careful?
I will wager that most Amerians will side with me on this issue.
Oh, great, an argument from popularity. That is so much a K-12 mindset.
Nope, not a popularity contest, but a practical approach to common sense issues. At least, that's how I and many americans see it.
jonas:
The fact that you can't even call GW "President Bush" but rather "The Shrub" chips away at any logical argument you may put forth.
Oh, kiss my ass.
What a stupid fucking statement. George W. Bush. There. You happy now? Cripes.
I've had about a bellyful of your smug bullshit. He's an incompetent fool. What are you, an FBI sock puppet?
I knew about facts 1-3. The other 3? Well thank you.
Now, listen up.
If you'd ACTUALLY been following my active 'bashing', you would've noted that I begrudged him KSA. Which I'm doing now. But he was propounding a complete & UTTER ban on ANY Muslims coming into this country AT ALL. Not to mention he made a deplorable statement, the equivalent of which was 'Religion of piece my ass. We should stamp them out' (his misspelling, not mine).
No, what that fella discussed with you was about immigration, which is relevant to this discussion.
No, it wasn't. That was a separate conversation, w/a separate person. Red herring. Muddying the waters.
But you come blaring out w/this, I wouldn't take that chance by allowing a large number of Muslims into this country. applying a BLANKET statement (which was HIS point in the 1st place), w/o qualifying it by nationality.
But THEN, you finally come to the point of my query about other countries w/ While I am not ready to slam the door on every Muslim country from sending their citizens here
& then you come out w/this little gem:
Then, we have people like you coming along screaming discrimination because it violates the Constitution of the United States.
My major protest, had you been listening, is blanket demonization. I have said more than once, we need to be careful. That was in response to We can't discriminate against people because of their national identities, color, or religion. to which you responded: Oh yes we can.
But of course, you only hear what you want to hear.
Given these facts, it is logical to conclude that immigration from Saudi Arabia and other muslim regions where radical islamic teachings are encouraged should be limited if not completed halted.
Hello? Able to prove they can be a good neighbor? Did I not say this? How does that weaken my argument in any way?
[since your argument on immigration is so weak] That's a logical fallacy. I forget which one.
it is logical to conclude that immigration from Saudi Arabia and other muslim regions where radical islamic teachings are encouraged should be limited if not completed halted.
Which still goes to my 'good neighbor' policy, had you been listening.
Not limiting immigration to Saudi nationals and other muslim countries is your way of being careful?
Which Muslim countries would those be, I wonder?
Oh yeah. The ones w/a definite track record of not being good neighbors, I reckon.
Nope, not a popularity contest
See, now that just shows how logical you are.
An argument from popularity is this: argumentum ad populum - "An argumentum ad populum, in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
& then we have THIS little gem:
I read somewhere that more immigrants from Saudi Arabia are being allowed into the US than before 9/11.
Which really puts a LOT more stress on Our men and women in law enforcement are working around the clock to protect us., not only that, but it really puts the kibosh on this statement: Such "eternal vigilance" is yielding good results.
I came here in an effort to see the other side of the issue. Engage in some meaningful dialogue w/someone from the ME. Try to see things from a different perspective.
Not get into a huge posting match w/some frickin' Republican in the US.
Hell, if I wanted to do that, I'd go to some right wing blog locally.
What are you, the guardian at the gate or something?
Should I be expecting a knock on my door very soon? When?
My whole point is............ you're a dumb ass. Your argument is pathetically weak, and you don't know jack.
jonas
jonas:
Ah, & here we have it.
Nanny nanny boo boo.
you're a dumb ass, Your argument is pathetically weak, and you don't know jack.
Ah, but thanks to you, I DO know jack now (he lives down the street from me).
You've helped me strengthen my argument, & I thank you.
"The weakness of my argument does not imply the strength of yours - Sigmund Freud"
You might also want to check out some of the original posts on your hero on the other thread, who is stipulating (& I kid you not), that 'Muslims disavow their religion before they enter this country' or somesuch thing.
Which contradicts the COTUS, citizen or not.
Apologies if I hurt your feelings.
But I still say you're wrong.
No, you didn't hurt my feelings as I have pretty thick skins. I don't have any hero that you're referring to, btw.
You've helped me strengthen my argument, & I thank you.
Your argument is still weak in my view. Head over to Faith Freedom International and read up on Islam. In order to critically analyze your own argument, you need to know who and what we're dealing with here. Then read up on the sociopolitical and religious atmosphere in the Middle East, especially in Saudi Arabia. If our foreign policy don't change for the better, it will be because of people like you who still hold onto your ideals with such zeal that it could very possibly be the death of the West. Yes, freedom is what we're all about, but in these trying times, we in the states must strike a balance between ideals and pragmatism. Your argument as presented in the previous posts are that of a pacifist and I fear that if there exist more people like you, it will mean the death of the West.
jonas
jonas, jonas, jonas:
No, you didn't hurt my feelings as I have pretty thick skins.
Well, you may want to exchange 1 for another. Oh, you meant SKIN. ;)
When you say something like so: My whole point is............ you're a dumb ass
well, easy to see where I got that impression.
I don't have any hero that you're referring to, btw.
Oh, don't be coy. You know who I mean.
Actually, this arrogant prick started saying incendiary shit, about 'putting down Islam',, me, you: That's the fella I was referring to.
Now, I'm inferring you only got a glimpse of the entire debate. That's fairly standard: in the US, we make snap judgments about quick glimpses. My pet theory is that we drive too much, but that's off-topic here.
I did qualify much of my commentary by stating that you agreed w/him 100%, & went from there.
You may want to go back, re-read BOTH threads, sit down, & ponder. He made a # of blanket statements. You yourself here, have said, While I am not ready to slam the door on every Muslim country from sending their citizens here, HIS statements don't sync up w/yours at all. He's advocating totally banning any & all muslims from muslim countries from coming over.
You show a degree of rationality. He most emphatically does not.
& while I did indeed open the door to the discussion w/that fella, you happened to agree w/him, w/o really doing any sort of objective analysis of the debate.
In order to critically analyze your own argument, you need to know who and what we're dealing with here.
Well, I did give the link a gander. & Asida (did I get that name right?) actually states that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, if memory serves. It's the religion that's violent, in his words.
& you know what? I agree w/him. I'm an atheist, so this is cogent. I'd as soon as see every religion vanish from the face of the earth. Will this happen in our lifetime? Let's be pragmatic: the chances are astronomical.
I could very well point to MANY scriptural references, in the OT & the NT that just as easily establish xtianity as a violent religion. Just because the Bible says 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live', does that mean every xtian goes about burning witches? Of course not. The bible espouses slavery. Does that mean every xtian has a slave? Of course not. The bible mentions that xtians will be immune from snake bites. Do all xtians then speak in tongues,& let rattlesnakes bite them? Of course not. There's a few that do. They get the press.
Most people are unaware of the multiple facets that lay beneath their holy books.
Even buddhism has its black eyes.
& truthfully, I've only touched the surface, but I note that there are parts of the Koran that get quoted out of context. I've seen atheists quote the bible out of context. Know what? I point that out to them. Happy to point out differences. Am I an apologist for any of it, because I do that?
No, what I am is fair. What I am is a Centrist. What I am, is empathic, far too much for my own good.
Now this:
If our foreign policy don't change for the better, it will be because of people like you who still hold onto your ideals with such zeal that it could very possibly be the death of the West
Well truthfully, I'm not sure how insisting we have a 'good neighbor' policy, railing against mass demonization, & suggesting we tread carefully actually fits into this egregious statement.
My ideals, BTW, are firmly rooted in what this country stands for. So that's not a bad thing.
Honestly, I'm not part of the problem. I have issues w/telling people that they can enter this country, but 1st, they have to disavow their religion. I have an issue w/demonizing 1/5th of the world's population due to the actions of a few. You want to sanction KSA? Hey, write a letter to GWB. I'm all for it. They show a distinct lack of the 'good neighbor' concept I've been mentioning all this time.
The ME has approx. 14% of the world's population of Muslims, last I checked. What % is that of the KSA? You tell me.
I'm walking the middle road.
Yes, freedom is what we're all about, but in these trying times, we in the states must strike a balance between ideals and pragmatism.
Sure, all for that. Reasonable. But banning people due to their religion? C'mon. "You can practice any religion you like, but 1st, DISAVOW that religion, before you touch our soil'? That other fella you keep defending, he's all for granting political asylum, but keeps ranting about how it's a 'murder cult'. Is it? I'll research.
Your argument as presented in the previous posts are that of a pacifist and I fear that if there exist more people like you, it will mean the death of the West.
I'm reading SO much into this sentence, I will gladly take correction if I'm off in my analysis.
First off, I'm not a pacifist. Pacifism is actually a worthwhile tool, & an effective political one. Unfortunately, so is terrorism. Don't forget, Sharon & the (Irgud? is that the right name?) bombed many civilian targets in the 40's, in an effort to oust the British. Gandhi used pacifism in India, to the same effect. Which would you prefer to use?
Again, I walk the middle road. I'd prefer some degree of diplomacy. Cowboy diplomacy is nothing more than social Darwinism in chaps & a ten-gallon hat. It ain't worked before, & IMHO, it's about time we tried something that works.
Second off, it's this 'us vs. them' mindset that's going to get us ALL killed.
"More people like me"? What, you're going to take me out back of the shed & shoot me? Of course you're not. You strike me as being somewhat rational.
But you've bought the 'Evil Empire' propaganda, apparently.
Have you noticed this? We always need an enemy. We always need mass demonization of a particular group/people/nation/worldview. When the USSR fell apart, there was a political vacuum. & nature abhors a vacuum, political or otherwise.
I realize that there are more complex issues beneath the surface. But if we get into some stupid global pissing match, the mushroom cloud looms.
I counsel caution. I counsel reason. I counsel communication. This is not weakness. This is strength.
We need to start LISTENING. Instead of proceeding from the premise that 'we're right, they're wrong, end of discussion'.
Because the full quote is this: "My country, right or wrong, right to keep right, wrong to make right."
& from what I can glean from my delvings into history, we got a LOT of wrongs to make right.
Because we need to strike a BALANCE.
If that makes me a pacifist?
Then so be it.
Library tower, not Liberty Tower. Apparently Bush is so busy fighting terror he forgets these details, you know. Stressful job and all.
Post a Comment
<< Home