<< EVIL HISTORY UNCOVERED ~ MAIN ~ KRUGMAN EYELESS >>
COALITION FORMED
Left-wingers would probably be offended if anyone from the right claimed that progressives and down-with-America Muslims shared the same anti-Western aims. So we’ll leave it to George Galloway instead:
Mohammad Basirul Haq Sinha: “You often call for uniting Muslim and progressive forces globally. How far is it possible under current situation?”
George Galloway: “Not only do I think it’s possible but I think it is vitally necessary and I think it is happening already. It is possible because the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. Their enemies are the Zionist occupation, American occupation, British occupation of poor countries mainly Muslim countries. They have the same interest in opposing savage capitalist globalization which is intent upon homogenizing the entire world turning us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture. And whose only role in life is to consume the things produced endlessly by the multinational corporations. And the progressive organizations & movements agree on that with the Muslims.
“Otherwise we believe that we should all have to speak as Texan and eat McDonalds and be ruled by Bush and Blair. So on the very grave big issues of the day—issues of war, occupation, justice, opposition to globalization—the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side.”
We’ll take your word for it, George.
How is the further the Left “progresses,” the farther back it slides?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 01 at 12:17 AM • permalinkAging Gamer,
Bt shamelessly pandering to an unassimilated Muslim-dominated constituency.
Or did you know that already?Posted by Spiny Norman on 2005 06 01 at 12:48 AM • permalinkOriginal disgusting interview: http://www.iraq-news.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=461&Itemid=113
George talks about Muslims and progressives.
Tim, it is you who says George shares aims with “down-with-America” Muslims. This just shows that you consider all Muslims “down-with-America”.
Bloody towelheads, all terrorists right?
Posted by finefurryfriend on 2005 06 01 at 01:39 AM • permalinkfinefurryfriend: George also says all Muslims want to fight “Zionism”, fight American influence, fight capitalism, fight globalizaion… Pardon, but it’s pretty clear that when George says “Muslims” he means “Islamofascists”.
Islamic tyranny and regular ole’ European tyrants like George having going way back as they do.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 06 01 at 01:43 AM • permalinkAaron: I just don’t think it makes you an Islamofascist because you oppose occupation and excessive influence from another country. This just seems rational to me. Aussies too often complain about “Americanisation” (are we fascists?)
Posted by finefurryfriend on 2005 06 01 at 02:02 AM • permalinkI just don’t think it makes you an Islamofascist because you oppose occupation and excessive influence from another country. This just seems rational to me. Aussies too often complain about “Americanisation” (are we fascists?)
Galloway’s common causes with “Muslims” include crippling the free market, driving out Western influence, and dealing with the looming “Zionist” (Jewish) threat that they both share a creepy obsession with.
Again, do you believe that this represents the mainstream interests of moderate Islam, or that it represents the goals of the radicals bent on keeping the Islamic world enslaved and backward? Further, you’ll note that leftists of George’s bent regularly use the word “Christian” to apply only to the radical Christian fundamentalist set, so logic follows that he’s using “Muslims” in the same way, warped view of religion that the far left tends to have.
Posted by Aaron - Freewill on 2005 06 01 at 02:34 AM • permalinkSpiny Norman, I already knew, but I’m still in disbelief
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 01 at 02:44 AM • permalinkI’m with Furry.
But good post anyway. Acceptable to the intended audience, taking aim at a previously identified target, putting words into his mouth (as Furry identified), and able to generalise about two given “enemies” in Muslims and leftists.
Next we can say that lefties are terrorists - and then you’re nearly all the way there. Good on you.
Galloway is sugar coating the totalitarian state message, he is a staunch fighter for The Worker and has little to show for it apart from his rhetoric. He uses the political stage to strut his own overly magnified eenie weenie ego - records show he does not attend parliament, will not make parliamentary speeches or debate and makes no effort to participate in the parliamentary process.
He spends most of his time swanning around the joint making outrageous statements whilst esconsed in 5-star digs.
Yet he bleats about the unfairness of it all.
Reminds me of an ex relation of mine, highly qualified business consultant sent into fits of jealous rage as his greek bricklaying neighbour built a mansion whilst he lived in a slowly collapsing hovel of his own unfinished DIY projects.
Furry, nwab, are you saying Galloway’s wrong?
Or just insisting it’s impolite to notice?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 06 01 at 07:17 AM • permalinkMelanie Phillips reports on the “progress” being made in Britain: Political correctness is turning lethal. Stockport Council is now using resource packs provided by the Muslim Council of Britain to teach schoolchildren about Islam.
Defeating prejudice and encouraging community cohesion, eh? Let us remind ourselves about some of the Muslim Council of Britain’s contributions to education and cultural harmony.
*It offered condolences to the family of the leading Hamas mass murderer Abdul Aziz al Rantissi after he was killed by the Israelis, and described the founder and chief strategist of that genocidal outfit Sheikh Ahmed Yassin as ‘the renowned Islamic scholar’.
*Its Secretary-General whips up anti-Israel hatred by branding it as a Nazi state and accusing it of ‘murderous leadership’, ‘Zionist brutality’ and the ‘ethnic cleansing of Palestine’.
*It brands as an ‘Islamophobe’ anyone who even uses the term ‘Islamic violence’.
*It issued a veiled threat to former Telegraph editor Charles Moore, who wrote a robust criticism of Islam, that he might suffer the same fate as Salman Rushdie who was subjected to a death-dealing fatwa over The Satanic Verses.
*It boycotted the ceremony commemorating the liberation of Auschwitz because it claimed it was not ‘racially inclusive ‘and did not commemorate the ‘victims of the Palestinian conflict’.
*It was one of the organisers of a recent demonstration in London at which demonstators chanted: ‘Kill, kill USA’, ‘Kill, kill George Bush’, ‘Bomb, bomb New York’and ‘Your so-called democracy will fall under the sword of Allah. The day of judgment is coming.’
Yet these are the people who are, in the words of the ‘diversity’ councillor for Stockport, to be enlisted to help defeat prejudice and ignorance in our schools. What kind of country is this where elected councillors have become panders for the peddlers of hatred and murderous prejudice, and are enabling them to turn the minds of our children? Where are the public protests? Where are the letters to MPs, the stories and outraged editorials in our newspapers? Where is there the slightest indication that anyone grasps what is going on here?
Plastic factory chickens?
O/T Bob Geldorf (sob) and Hearing Aid are top of the wozzer again.
As he attempts to revive his flagging almost career.
St sir Bob with St sir Paul and St Elton are all systems go to fire up again.
On ABC radio,{But not the evening t.v. news) Sir Bob was heard to shout ” If you don’t want to come to the party Fuck OFF”.
This was in reply to an interested observation suggesting he lobby African countries’ governments to help victims by being more (democratic).More Islamic Madness.
No one seems to have reported the latest events in Basrah. Not any of the news services or the blogs.Students of the Basrah and Shatt Al-Arab universities in Basrah city have been on strike for the last three days as a reaction to the attack last week by Sadrists and Mahdi Army militiamen on tens of students organising a field trip or a picnic at Al-Andalus park, downtown Basrah.
Hooded men assaulted the students with rubber cables and truncheons which resulted in the death of a Christian girl, Zahra Ashour, and another student who came to her rescue after militiamen had tore off her clothes and were beating her to death. He was shot in the head.
Students say that their belongings, such as mobile phones, cameras, stereo players and loudspeakers, were stolen or smashed to pieces by the militiamen. Girl students not wearing headscarves, most of them Christian, were severely beaten and at least 20 students were kidnapped and taken to Sadr’s office in Al-Tuwaisa for ‘interrogation’ and were only released late at night.
Students also say the police and British soldiers were nearby but did not intervene.
A Sheikh As’ad Al-Basri, one of Sadr’s aides in Basrah, stated that the ‘believers’ of the Mahdi Army did what they did in an act of ‘divine intervention’ in order to punish the students for their ‘immoral and outrageous behaviour’ during the ‘holy month of Muharram, while the blood of Imam Hussein is yet to dry.’ He added that he had sent the ‘group of believers’ to observe and photograph the students, and on witnessing them playing loud music, ‘the kind they play in bars and discos’, and openly talking to female students, the ‘believers had to straighten things out’.
No reaction yet from the Governorate council, the police, or the British forces in Basrah. Thousands of students have been demonstrating in front of the Basrah Governorate building in Asharr for the last three days, shouting ‘No to political Islam’, ‘No to the new tyranny’ and ‘No to Sadr’. The police (which is loyal to Da’wa in Basrah) reportedly attacked the students in order to disperse the demonstrations.
All this while some people are campaigning for Sistani to receive the Nobel peace prize. One can’t help but wonder if these kinds of events are what the Islamists have in store for us when they insist on ‘respecting the Islamic identity of Iraq’.
They can blame Jordan, Syria, the Ba’ath, Salifis, Wahhabis as much as they want, but they cannot utter a single word about the old new medieval Inquisition we have to deal with every day, under the sanctity of Sistani and his ilk. The new Taliban.
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/It’s true children are stupid and easily impressed, however there is a duality in them, they can surprise you with their grasp on the world. Simply put, they can surprise you, like when they voted for Howard against all ultra-left propaganda taught in schools.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 01 at 07:50 AM • permalinkFROM HUSSEIN SHIRAZI:
Schwartz constructed a virtual parallel universe of disinformation and propaganda based on the following core assertions:Sadr City was a “liberated zone” under the control of Muqtada al-Sadr’s “Mehdi Army”
the Mehdi Army had instituted a form of self-government which had broad support among the local population
similar developments had occurred in Sunni Arab towns such as Fallujah, which would co-exist peacefully as “nascent city-states” if left alone by the US military and Iraqi government forces.
In fact, the climate in Sadr City as of January 2005 was one of peaceful campaigning prior to the eagerly awaited national elections due at the end of the month. The Muqtada militia had surrendered its heavy weapons several months before in a deal brokered with the interim government, and its supporters were campaigning for their own party list, the Independent Nationalist Elites and Cadres, which ended up winning only three seats in the 275-member assembly – so much for its broad popular support.As for Schwarz’s depraved characterisation of insurgent-controlled Fallujah, the reign of terror that had existed in this “liberated zone” was revealed to the world after the insurgents were driven out in November – not local self-government or a “nascent city state”, but a base for fanatical terrorists intent on spreading mayhem throughout Iraq.
The current situation in Iraq is that of an elected government seeking to establish control over its national territory with the assistance of US and allied forces acting with its consent and under a United Nations mandate. This government has been recognised by all of Iraq’s neighbours, including regimes in Iran and Syria which are antagonistic to the US. The insurgents now fighting the Iraqi government draw their popular support almost entirely from within the Sunni Arab community, who are 20% of Iraq’s population. Even within this minority, support for the insurgency is declining as more Sunni Arabs choose to participate in politics and join the Iraqi security forces. The insurgents have no unified political program, and ever more of their attacks are terrorist outrages, often carried out by foreign jihadists who have no compunction about murdering and maiming innocent Iraqis.
The insurgents are gradually being defeated. Their former strongholds in Samarra, Fallujah and Haifa Street (in Baghdad) are now under the control of Iraqi government and coalition forces. Their only hope is for a premature withdrawal of the multinational force, before the Iraqi army and police are strong enough to defeat them unaided. Their only means of achieving this is by generating media coverage in the US that will undermine public support for the mission being carried out by the troops. The anti-American left is a de facto ally of the terrorists and insurgents now operating in Iraq. It spreads their propaganda, it shares their hatreds and it supports their main aim: the humiliation and defeat of America.
The author is a British academic of Iranian descent who lives in London.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18257I’m with Furry.
But good post anyway. Acceptable to the intended audience, taking aim at a previously identified target, putting words into his mouth (as Furry identified), and able to generalise about two given “enemies” in Muslims and leftists.
Next we can say that lefties are terrorists - and then you’re nearly all the way there. Good on you.
Talk about willful misreading. The only ‘words’ that tim puts in that asshole’s mouth are his own.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 06 01 at 09:49 AM • permalinkOtherwise we believe that we should all have to speak as Texan and eat McDonalds and be ruled by Bush and Blair.
I despise McDonalds. Cold hamburgers and wooden french fries. But I should be able to choose not to eat there, or to eat there if I desire it.
It’s all about choices. And the freedom to choose. In one respect, the Islamists and George Galloway have the same goal: to take away the people’s right to choose and to make the “correct and proper” decisions for them.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 01 at 10:08 AM • permalink“forced fed the American diet of everything from food to Coca-Cola to movies and TV culture.”
Question for the non-Americans out there - has anybody ever crammed a Big Mac down your throat? Tied you up and dragged you into a showing of “Titanic”? Broken into your home and forced you to watch “Dynasty” at gunpoint? Ever hear of it happening to a friend or relative?
I eat pizza, watch kung-fu movies, and ride a Suzuki because I choose to. I don’t recall any Italians, Chinese or Japanese forcing me. I assumed that was true everywhere.
“...and be ruled by Bush and Blair”
Funny that he think’s it so horrible that a country should be led by its leader.
Posted by tim maguire on 2005 06 01 at 10:35 AM • permalinkDave S. — Willie G. sent me. Get your ass back on that Sportster or you’ll never see your family again. God bless America!
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 01 at 10:42 AM • permalink#32 reply to #20
Next we can say that lefties are terrorists - and then you’re nearly all the way there. Good on you.
I’m with you, Tempo. Lefties aren’t necessarily terrorists just because they are lefties. Lefties support terrorism by being idiots. Which creeps like Galloway exploit to the maximum extent possible.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 01 at 11:01 AM • permalinkBut they mean well Jeffs, and they like fluffy cuddly bunnies.
Posted by Mr. Bingley on 2005 06 01 at 12:06 PM • permalink#38
That’s a good point, such honesty is a rare trait in politics.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 01 at 12:17 PM • permalinkActually, forcing Islamofascists to eat a Happy Meal™ every once in awhile might do them some good.
God knows they need to lighten up a bit. I’ll take this up with Rove next meeting.
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 06 01 at 12:55 PM • permalinkTypical right-wingers. The man tries to make a nuanced, sophisticated argument showing we’re all going to capitalist oil-bigmac-hell under Bushitler and Haliburton, and you reactionary nitwits have to start painting the world in terms black and white. Why can’t you be more open and accepting and tolerant and tacitly condone the murder of those who disagree with you like liberals do?
Furry, nwab, are you saying Galloway’s wrong?
Nah, they’re playing the “this man’s opinions are not representative of either Muslims or progressives” card, just like I expected somebody would when I started reading this thread.
Mind you, for all the supposed total lack of congruence between their own positions and Galloway’s, they still can’t seem to get themselves to condemn the guy (Tim is so much better a target, I guess)...you’d think that honest progressives wouldn’t want anything to do with somebody who peddles “fighting the Zionest occupation” as one of his goals.
Then again, given that progressives have become the new realists, I’m not too surprised if they’d share an “enemy of my enemy is my friend” bond with Galloway, and just can’t find it in their bleeding hearts to censure him. Ironically, that’s exactly the same thing Galloway says about progressives and “Muslims”.
Strange times make strange bedfellows, so what. You go wrong when you make too make inferences “progressives and down-with-America Muslims shared the same anti-Western aims”, as Tim does.
I’m just concerned with the logic of the thinking. Because Muslims and progressives shares some aims it does not mean they share all aims. Both the USSR and the US were at war with Hitler for example. Some aims that they would not share that come to mind are women’s & gay rights etc
Also, pointing out lack of logic does not mean anyone endorses either George or Islamofascists either.
Posted by finefurryfriend on 2005 06 01 at 06:06 PM • permalinkStrange times make strange bedfellows, so what.
Are you admitting that Islamofascists and progressives are bedfellows?
You go wrong when you make too make inferences “progressives and down-with-America Muslims shared the same anti-Western aims”, as Tim does.
And one of these days you’ll actually tell us why it’s wrong, not just that it is? You still haven’t written one word that can be taken as actual disagreement with Galloway. I’m starting to think Rob Crawford got it right after all…your problem isn’t that Galloway links progressives and Islamofascists, it’s that people are actually impolite enough to pay attention and take him at his word.
I’m just concerned with the logic of the thinking.
Ah, you’re not concerned about the nutcase who thinks that it’s progressive to fight the “Zionist occupation” and who makes paranoid claims about how “savage capitalist globalization” tries to turn “us basically into factory chickens which can be forced fed the American diet of everything”?
That’s the problem right there…even if I’m being charitable and assume your own opinions are polarly opposite to his, your attitude to Galloway is roughly “aww, shucks, kids say the darndest things”. Until you start policing your own ranks, people will continue to not take progressives seriously, thank you very much.
Lastly…
Both the USSR and the US were at war with Hitler for example. Some aims that they would not share that come to mind are women’s & gay rights etc
...the hell? I know lefties can become a bit attached to their pet causes, but citing gay rights as something that differentiated WWII-era USA and USSR? Really, what the hell?
Furry,
You and your progressive mates are going to find it awfully hard to promote the womens’ and gay rights causes if your alliance with the islamofascists ever manages to defeat/overcome the mainstream western world (dare I say it, those of us who don’t walk through life with a chip permanently on our shoulder).Consider these two remarks.
1. - at #12 it is you who says George shares aims with “down-with-America” Muslims. This just shows that you consider all Muslims “down-with-America”.
And from the same person,
2. - at #52 I’m just concerned with the logic of the thinking. ... pointing out lack of logic !
fff, no doubt there’s someone reading this thread who can provide the correct name of the logical error you made in 1. I’m afraid my education has been deficient in this regard but I’m thinking that it may be a non sequitur. That is, just because Tim Blair says George Galloway shares aims with “down-with-America” Muslims it does not follow that Tim Blair considers all Muslims “down-with-America”.
If you’re going to accuse other people of making logical errors you should first make sure your own logic is impeccable.
FFF, I think the folks on the thread have read you correctly. You’re whining that we aren’t nice to George Galloway because he’s, well, not a right winger.
Well, he’s not. He saluted Saddam Hussein before the war, was kicked out of his party because he encourage the killing of British troops, and won his current seat in Parliment by playing the racist card in a pre-dominantly Muslim part of England. This completely ignores his involvement in the UN Oil-For-Food scandal, support of Palestinian terrorism, and God knows what else. To use a quaint American turn of phrase, Galloway is more crooked than a dog’s hind leg.
If you think Galloway is a fine fellow, say so, and say why. Some people may think you’re stupid, but so what? You’ll survive. If you think Galloway is a crook, say that as well. I’m sure that the planet will not tumble out of orbit as a consequence.
But if you sit there, perfectly content to let the world fall down around your ears because you might offend someone, do not complain if someone disagrees with your (incorrect, to me) worldview.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 01 at 08:41 PM • permalinkhmmmm
“Some aims that they would not share that come to mind are women’s & gay rights etc
.the hell?”
I was talking about Islam and progressives in that last comparison, like duh.
Don’t know where this stuff about whining about not being nice to George comes from, I don’t have that opinion at all, just that it is a major stretch to say that progressives share aims with Islamofascists. Sure, they share aims with Muslims who want an end to occupation etc. But the inference made here that this makes them the same as the “terrorists” just doesn’t add up. That’s all. Sorry if my hastily written comments were not always crystal clear.
Personally whilst I strongly disagree with George’s agenda in general, I happen to agree with him that the invasion was a mistake and a disaster.
Posted by finefurryfriend on 2005 06 01 at 10:54 PM • permalinkfinefurryfuckwit
So the USA is a greater enemy of the Left than Islamists and fascists are? And what are you going to do if your coalition wins? You’re then going to have to be prepared to fight your old allies as Churchill and Truman were with Stalin. With what are you going to fight them with? The left’s one and only unassisted fight against fascists was the Spanish Civil War where they, unfortunately but as expected, had their arses soundly ground into the dust.
Dave S. — Ha! Shows what you rice-grinders know. That’s a genyoowine US Cavalry Store Surplus Ranger Beret.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 01 at 11:18 PM • permalinkFFF:
Personally whilst I strongly disagree with George’s agenda in general, I happen to agree with him that the invasion was a mistake and a disaster.
It certainly appears to me, as PW put it, that:
...your attitude to Galloway is roughly “aww, shucks, kids say the darndest things”.
I mean, if you truly accept this postion of yours, perhaps you could accept the premise that while the invasion might be a “mistake and disaster”, some good can come out of it none the less. It’s the same sort of reasoning, after all. In fact, it’s an extrapolation of your own position.
I bring this up because many left leaning people have been largely inflexible in a moral sense. For example: “If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.” “All war is wrong.” “The end does not not justify the means.”
So if you don’t personally agree with Galloway’s general agenda, but do agree with his stance on the war (“taking the bad with the good”, as it were), surely it is possible that the “bad” Iraq war (which I don’t think that it is) can do some good?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 01 at 11:54 PM • permalinkMy earlier comment was intended to suggest that drawing links between peaceful war dissenters and “Islamofascism” (wouldn’t it just be fascism?) is unreasonable and unfair. If I have views which are contrary to the prevalent political pradigm, I am not necessarily a violent extremist. Some of you don’t seem to understand this.
How about this: I (or a media/blog personality) declare that all of you who openly opposed the verdict in the Corby trial - and especially those who verbally attacked the Indonesian judiciary (sometimes it’s government, too, and in some cases its people) - are in an unholy and violent alliance with those who executed a terrorist attack against the Indonesian embassy in Canberra.
Does that sound reasonable?
nwab — No, that was just wronwright.
And I don’t care how earnestly you discuss it over your decaf lattes, the real-world ground truth is, if the “peaceful war dissenters” have their way, the islamofascists are free to keep filling the mass graves and bombing the buildings and cutting their daughters’ throats for “honor” and stoning gays to death. You’re enabling their behavior as surely as if you were buying a six-pack for an alcoholic.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 12:57 AM • permalinkMy earlier comment was intended to suggest that drawing links between peaceful war dissenters and “Islamofascism” (wouldn’t it just be fascism?) is unreasonable and unfair.
Nice strawman, nobody talked about “peaceful war dissenters” here. And again, somehow both you and FFF still don’t seem to realize that it’s Galloway who does the linking between progressives and Islamofascists. You’re obviously upset about that link being made, but somehow it’s Tim who’s at fault for bringing it up. Ah, lefty logic.
Since when have the commenters on this blog taken the word of George Galloway as Gospel truth?
People tend to do that when criminals talk about their goals and intentions. We only discount what they claim to say about verifiable facts.
You know, kind of like you’d probably take a knife-wielding murder suspect seriously when he announces that he’s going to kill you too, but wouldn’t take him so seriously on his claim that he didn’t kill the first guy.
PW, if the term “peaceful war dissenters” gets your goat, how do you define a leftist? If I am a supporter of refugees’ rights and oppose the use of WMD against third world countries like Afghanistan am I automatically an anti-American fascist?
And if you want to talk about strawmen (for fuck’s sake) then show me where Galloway has mentioned “Islamofascism”. From my reading, the term first appeared in the comments section. Saying that progressives are in alliance with Islamofascists is a deliberate misrepresentation to allow for anyone you disagree with to be tainted with the same brush.
None of the families who marched in the anti-war demos in Sydney a couple of years ago would support extremist terrorist groups. In fact, I’d say very few of them would even know who Galloway is.
nwab — Never mind what they “would,” the fact is, in the real world, they did, however they rationalized it. And until the “progressives” of this world can bring themselves to honestly look at the consequences of the poses they strike in their morally-superior little voguing, they will remain a corrupt and ultimately futile movement.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 01:35 AM • permalinkPW, if the term “peaceful war dissenters” gets your goat, how do you define a leftist? If I am a supporter of refugees’ rights and oppose the use of WMD against third world countries like Afghanistan am I automatically an anti-American fascist?
Strawman again, nwab. No one here has suggesting nuking Afghanistan, or opposing refugee rights in this thread. That some folks may have done so in other threads is immaterial….unless you have a a similar problem telling the difference right wing nuts and relatively middle-of-the-road conservatives.
But to answer your question (from my perspective, PW may have a different definition, given his background)...a leftist tends to envision the world as they think it should be, and resists any efforts to demonstrate that the world is what it is.
A peaceful war dissenter sincerely believes that the war is bad, and that we shouldn’t fight. However, the peaceful war dissenters ignore the fact that many people are perfectly happy to make war simply because they can.
The peace war dissenter indirectly tells the war monger “I am not going to fight.” Because the war monger does not share the same warm-and-fuzzy world view, that’s an invitation to fight. In this context, it’s a display of weakness, not strength.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you.”
On the “Islamofacism” whinge…..for fucks sake, can you give us some credit?
You have complained here and in other threads that we lump Muslims together as “all bad”. Well, a long time ago, someone coined the term “Islamofacist” to specifically identify the part of the Muslim world directly engaged in terrorism. bin Laden and Zarqwai come to mind. Hussein as well, by default.
The fact that Galloway said “Muslim” and we say “Islamofacist” ought to tell you that we do not see Muslims as “all bad”, since we narrowed the focus down considerably. This follows from the observation that Galloway is a bad apple unto himself.
I can’t tell if you are being ignorant, obtuse, or just plain contrary. Not that it matters, since the results are that you look ignorant.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 02 at 02:03 AM • permalinkPW, if the term “peaceful war dissenters” gets your goat, how do you define a leftist?
That is utterly irrelevant to both the strawman you incompetently tried to build and the actual topic at hand. Go try to divert threads elsewhere. The topic here was Galloway’s definition of “progressives”, the fact that he obviously includes himself in it, the demented goals that he considers appropriate for progressives, and the additional fact that many other such-described progressives don’t seem to have any problem with any of that.
If I am a supporter of refugees’ rights and oppose the use of WMD against third world countries like Afghanistan am I automatically an anti-American fascist?
And now we’re entering downright bizarro strawman territory. As I’ve posted elsewhere before, is this really the level of argument that you consider capable of persuading anyone? If you do, that’s rather sad. If you don’t, I’ll have to ticket you for trolling.
I’ll be charitable (again) and assume it’s the former, in which case I’d like to ask you to please stop disintegrating like that, as it’s not pretty to watch. I suggest a good night’s sleep to take care of the cognitive dissonance, temporarily anyway.
“peaceful war dissenters” sounds like those that peacefully sabotage in the name of peace - Stalin called them his “useful idiots” and fff, nwab & co are just that.
Whilst “useful idiots” were doing their level best to derail western democracy Stalin was murdering by the million, approx 21. “Useful idiots” are still unable to condemn the Soviet killing machine.
If it wasnt for the US Stalin would have taken over Europe. As it stands Europe is still unable to defend itself, big on ideals short on action. We owe the US for the freedoms enjoyed today - and the US gets precious little thanks for it.
Refugees rights are upheld, those that cant prove that they are refugees need to be kept safe until such time as evidence can be furnished. We dont want any more “useful idiots”
galloway always was, is, and always will be a slimy hypocrite eager only to promote the cause of galloway - his track record shows absolutely no evidence of any program other than total commitment to feeding his own ego by hogging the spotlight reserved for provocative socialist outbursts and maintaining a luxe lifestyle courtesy of patrons such as saddam
unfortunately the bugger is actually reasonbly articulate, when the thought processes that produce statements such as the one above should lead to nothing but noises like ooga booga boo issuing from his flapping gums
Gary,
He certainly masses enough to count as one…
Posted by Cybrludite on 2005 06 02 at 04:19 AM • permalinkSo people who follow a loose version of a flawed 19th century industrial economic theory as if it were a dogmatic religion are “progressives”?
Next you’ll be telling me these “progressives” are joining forces with tribalist quasi-savages who murderously follow the dictates of a 7th century warlord and pray towards a meteorite 5 times a day.
Oh, wait…
nwab — I was never a subaltern. I was US infantry and made Captain. Excellent research… and a great example of proving my point.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 09:59 AM • permalinkI’d noticed that the term “progressive” had entered the lexicon here. Where did that come from? The left is about as progressive as a bowl of pudding. Hereafter, I will use the term “liberal”, with a lower case “l”. Or leftie.
Richard, in the spirit of nwab making up facts, I will ignore the low rank of subaltern, and hereby promote you to Grand Moff, vice the former Grand Moff Tarkin. Arise, Grand Moff Richard! Go Forth and Crush Dissent!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 02 at 10:21 AM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeff_S — There are no liberals; if you call them one, they insist they are “moderates.” Jeff Jarvis is one of the few left-of-center types I know who insists he is a “liberal”, but his definition of the term seems to be that of the 60’s liberal whose worldview even the Democratic party moved left from decades ago,
And there are no lefties; if you call them one, they accuse you of being a red-baiting McCarthyite.
They like “progressive,” though. That way, if progress is made, they can take credit for it even if they obstructed it. That’s why they love the revisionist memes such as “The Soviet Union was ready to collapse, Reagan had nothing to do with it,” and “The Middle East was ready to move to democracy.”
And close that bloody thermal exhaust port right now.Look! See? Progress happened! and we’re Progressives! Yay, us!</i>
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 10:41 AM • permalinkOh, and what WMD’s did we use on Afghanistan?
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 10:43 AM • permalinkrichard, all the more reason to calls ‘em liberal and leftie! Gets their blood pressure up.
And the only thing even remotely related to a WMD that we employed in Afghanistan were the Rangers. And even they have a highly localized (but extremely effective) impact.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 02 at 10:52 AM • permalinkThe_Real_Jeff_S — Yeah, your house is on firer, your daughter’s missing and your dog’s pregnant…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 11:09 AM • permalink“I’d noticed that the term “progressive” had entered the lexicon here. Where did that come from?”
In the 1800’s, when indoor commodes were invented, they needed a polite name. So they were called “water closets.” However, in a development that proves the utter wrongness of deconstructionist theory, the term “water closet” eventually became associated with defecation, so a new polite term for it was needed. Something that brought to mind cleanliness and sweet smells. So they used a word that, at the time, meant washing oneself and using an applied fragrance. A nice classy French word. And thus the water closet became the “toilet.”
We all know how that went. Have you splashed any “toilet water” on your face lately?
So, we needed a new word. And along came “bathroom.” Ahhhh. A place where you bathe. Of course, now “go to the bathroom” means “take a shit”, and scatological humor is “bathroom humor.” So bathroom will be on its way out, and even now in real estate listings it often becomes the nicer “bath” - to the point that a “half-bath” is a room with no bath at all, but a toilet.
The point of this preamble - “progressive” was chosen as the polite substitute for “liberal”, which has become, like “toilet”, associated with being smelly and full of shit.
And thanks to the power of the INTERNET, anyone calling themselves “progressive” is instantly labeled as being full of shit.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 02 at 12:23 PM • permalinkAlso thanks to the power of the Internet.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 02 at 12:46 PM • permalinkYeah, now I remember those DU sabots my M16 fired as I blew up T-55 tanks with my .22 caliber bullets. How could I have forgotten? ;D
Hell, if we wanted to give them radiation poisoning, we could have just burned coal all over their country. MUCH more radioactive than DU…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 01:28 PM • permalinkCoal Heck! We’re having trouble coming up with a nuke waste facility. We have a winner! No need for fancy and expensive construction techniques. This would also clear the way for new nuke sites in the states. We can spin this as community service in the fight against global warming. You know-for the greater good.
. . . after all you are a subaltern.
Wasn’t that a rank for Romulan officers in the original Star Trek? What are you saying nwab? Are you accusing Richard of being a Romulan spy?
Richard, I think it best to take a blood sample, if you don’t mind. We must put these rumors to rest you know.
(one of my handlers, a Romulan? Just what is Dave S then? A Klingon? Achillea, an Orion dancer perhaps? Damn, what have I gotten myself into?)
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 02 at 03:50 PM • permalinkDisappointing the level of argument put forward by perennial forum stalker “nwab”. The snide remarks which fall flat because of incorrect assumptions; false attributions in riposts and structured but purely sematic jabs leave this smug person - who seems to see [him/her]self as an adversary to a percieved bloc of conservatives - looking a little empty. Report: could do better. But obviously can’t (been tryin’ long enough). Time to return to familiar fields perhaps…
Trotsky would have labelled Galloway a pseudo communist, a “lieutenant of capital in the intensified exploitation of the workers.”
Stereotypes, stereosmtyes. I like Orion dancing women. You know, the green skinned, yellow eye types, holding the grapes, swaying the hips. PW, if you’ve never seen the original Star Trek episode in which the Orion dancing woman serves grapes, you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about.
Please understand, for the record I am NOT accusing Achillea of being an Orion. She’s probably a fairly ordinary Anglo. But it was nwab who brought up “subaltern”, you know. Which makes me think she knows something. About Richard. And maybe about others. Maybe here on this very blog. There are conspiracies a foot, I can smell them. Damn, I’m beginning to feel like a liberal.
So if I was to guess, I would say Achillea is an Orion. If she was an alien, which I’m fairly sure she’s not. But if she is, yes, an Orion. Cleverly wearing make up, possibly Estee Lauder, to hide her green skin.
As far as a Klingon woman warrior, that would have to be Andrea Harris. Who else?
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 02 at 08:38 PM • permalinkOne thing we can all agree on, Kirk would have tried to seduce her regardless.
Posted by Aging Gamer on 2005 06 02 at 09:06 PM • permalinkwronwright — A subaltern is the British military equivalent of a second lieutenant, i.e., a defenseless child provided for the amusement of sergeants.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 09:37 PM • permalinkYes, well, that’s the official line, eh?
Well may that be, I think a blood test is still a good idea. It doesn’t have to require a lab analysis. Just a minor cut to see whether your veins spout red blood, or green.
Of course, even if it was green, I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do about it. For all I know, Karl Rove has green blood. Which I suppose would be just fine.
And “for the amusement of sergeants”, uh, I think we’re thinking of Orion dancing girls again. I certainly know I am.
(nwab, thanks for the heads up on this one)
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 02 at 10:00 PM • permalinkwronwright — Real Americans preferred Yeoman Rand. This will not look good on your evaluation…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 06 02 at 11:31 PM • permalinkNo, Richard, you’ve got it wrong. Real Americans, like Kirk, like any bodacious dame. Yes, Yeoman Rand. And Uhura. And well actually any dame with great legs and wearing a red mini skirt uniform and boots. (Talking about improving the morale in the military).
But we don’t limit our appreciation to only women of our world. We like Orion dancing girls too. And if you don’t, it makes me wonder where appreciation gravitates, possibly towards the pointy ear types, eh?
I can quite imagine that the subject has gotten off the path a bit from where nwab was taking it. I certainly hope she didn’t expect any sterling analysis from the likes of me.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 02 at 11:54 PM • permalinkHow about we discuss cars driven by green women wearing read mini-skirts and boots?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 03 at 01:46 PM • permalinkAhem. I meant “red”, not “read”. Sheesh!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 06 03 at 01:46 PM • permalinkYes of course Sortilli. The term ‘reality’ is a noun representing the quality or state of being true, whilst the term ‘reality-based’ evidently means to be prone to attacks of liberal hystera, ala Brad Delong. The definitions are incompatible.
Oh I see, Dave S. You want to change the subject. Hmmmm. And Richard McEnroe seems anxious to do likewise. Hmmmm.
No wonder you guys are so hard to please. Alien task masters. Dang, just my luck.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 03 at 10:20 PM • permalinkDave, if I was a Trekkie, which I certainly am not, oh no, I would be able to instantaneously comment that Tribbles only flip out around Klingons.
So maybe we should get you around Andrea to check this out.
But actually I got word yesterday to just drop the matter inconspicuously. So evidently, whatever you are, it’s OK with the powers that be. Maybe they like the flipping out and killing part.
Posted by wronwright on 2005 06 04 at 11:38 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Clears everything up, kinda.