Who Said This: Falwell, Robertson, or bin Laden?
 

http://www.funnystrange.com/quiz/

I got an 11/20. :D

Funny stuff, but they had to manipulate the quotes to make it work. When you remove things like "Islam" and replace things like "We" with "America," it makes it more nebulous.

Quote manipulation to put those two douchebags on the same level as the Islamic douchebag. If it works for your political ideology, I guess (and I mean "your" in the abstract sense, not you specifically Sidd).

Well, I do put them on similar levels ;).

Some of the quote manipulation is needed though, to show that all three are basically saying the same things, if you take out self references or references to the enemy.

I really dislike Pat and Jerry and they do NOT represent the opinions of even conservative Christians (I could post evidence, but that's not really germaine), but what's wrong with this quote from Pat?

"There is no way that a United Nations, a League of Nations, peace treaties, disarmament treaties, or any other human instrument can bring about peace. Such things mean nothing when one nation desires the land and resources of another. A lasting peace will never be built upon man's efforts, because man is sinful, vicious, and wicked. Until men are changed and Satan's power is removed, there will not be peace on earth."


That's a fine statement by any Christian. That humanity, under our own power, cannot have peace, but that we must first find peace with God. It's a statement about humanity as a whole, not individuals, and therefore simply says that as long as we give ino to our darker natures, it doesn't matter what documents we sign or what we declare. That statment isn't bad.

-Anxiety

/bites tongue

:mad:

From an extremist standpoint, I'd agree with you. They're as much Christian nutjobs as bin Laden is an Islamist nutjob.


Why manipulate what they're saying, though? Are you saying that their wackiness isn't wacky enough without further manipulation to blur the line? That reasonable, rational people might take them at face value unless you can somehow anonymously compare them to bin Laden?

11/20

The point is that they have the same rhetoric. Making the identifying information murky does nothing to effect the rhetoric or the ideology of the speaker, so your critique doesn't really hold true. I don't know when this was written, but I saw one written to show the absurdity of Chris Matthews saying that OBL's speech sounded like 'an over the top Michael Moore', when Moore is pretty far from a theocratic fascist. In fact, OBL is a conservative Muslim, so he is much closer to the American right in terms of ideology than the American left (though definitely not the same).

8/20

Amen to the folks who disagree with the "edited" statements. I lost interest after that.

Depends on how you define Christian. From my viewpoint with a Catholic background, I don't find that statement to be representative of my religious beliefs. But I do think that your point is valid; I think the quiz author's implication is that this sounds like rhetoric that bin Laden might use.

I'm sure this will eventually reach flamewar levels and I certainly don't want to contribute to that. On a certain level, I think it's a poor analogy to compare people to types like Hitler and bin Laden because you're talking about two severe extremisms of people who are so devoid of humanity that they are on a whole other level by themselves. It's a poor comparison to link someone who has never killed someone to someon who has participated in acts of genocide.

That said, I have little use for people who expouse hatred, and I think Falwell and Robertson do that frequently. I certainly don't think they are representative of protestants anymore than I think bin Laden is representative of Islam.

Dola, I didn't find the quote manipulation for the intent of the quiz to be unfair. The only things that were really changed were words that clearly gave away the speaker.
I don't believe any of the changes altered the meaning or intent of the quote. The quiz then provided all of the quotes in their context, which I think was an appropriate thing to do so you can judge for yourself what you think of the editing.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks this 'quiz' is lunacy which proves nothing other than that some people will go to INSANE lengths to make people they disagree with politically look bad.

Their politics don't necessarily matter. The point is that they are both religious extremists that use the same kind of rhetoric. So much so that you can't tell them apart.

I think it's possible to tell them apart by the number of dead bodies they take credit fo.

You can't tell the quotes apart.

OBL: > 3,000

Iraq war, supported and cheered on by both Falwell and Robertson: > 30,000

It's dumb to compare body counts, because while their rhetoric and ideology are very similar, their methods and means of power are extremely different. Robertson especially has not been shy about advocating for the assassination of people around the globe. If you believe that they are honest in their rhetoric, if you switched the birth places of OBL and Robertson/Falwell, they would now occupy each other's roles.

Well, if you want to play hardball about it -

They're vehemently against abortion and resist progressive women's rights. They're anti-stem cell research, pro-creationism, and generally distrustful of science. They believe homosexualiy is a crime against nature and God. Seperation of the church and state is despised by these folks and they insist the nation is founded on the principles of their religion. They hate and deplore strong language, gay characters, and sexual content on the TV. They ignore the Geneva Convention when it suits their needs - including provisons against torture or due process. They're easily whipped into a state of frenzy with ideological manipulation against supposed enemies, foreign and domestic.

Now, was I just descriing the modern religious Right or Wahhabism?

That's the point. For all those on the right like to say liberals support Bin Laden, here's the truth. There are a whole bunch of eerie parallell between Osama bin Laden and/or fundamentalist Islam and the stated goals of the extremist Christian Right currently running the modern GOP. The extreme religious rightwing of the GOP is the closest thing to Islamo-fascism we have in our country, and no one is worried that Al Qaeda will be storming ashore on our beaches en masse, invasion style, anytime soon.

Look, I'm under no illusions that Democrats would never try to feather their own nest if they happened to control all three branches of power and could thus rig the game. But the threat is not coming from the democrats, it's coming from the GOP, infested with the radical religious right, who have somehow convinced a large segment of Christians in the US that cutting benefits and protection for the working class and poor, extending benefits to the wealthy at their expense, engaging in warfare based on lies and deception, and torture, are more central values to Christianity than mercy, civil rights, help for the poor and sick, and the shunning of wealth and power. It's a stunning achievement considering how backasswards that is to the Gospels and the entire New Testament.

George Washington could rise from the grave with Thomas Jefferson at his side, and if they disagreed with the agenda du jour of the WH or Tom DeLay, they'd be painted as cowards and traitors. The Neocons smeared John McCain, Max Cleland, and now John Murtha, and by proxy, the greatest generation. The religious right dutifully swallowed it all and spread it like a virus.

I don't think any member of Congress is in league with Bin Laden, but we liberals didn't start this bullshit.

They did.

So, if the shoe fits ... it's the Neocon, fundie dominated, GOP that is the closest thing to fanatical Wahhabism in our nation today and there's no major political faction anywhere near giving them a run for the money.

I'm afraid you never understood that point from the very beginning. If the questions ask you to identify the speaker of such quotations as, "My name is Jerry Falwell and I think God is awesome", the quiz pretty much just wastes everyone's damn time, doesn't it?

So, everybody who supported the war in Iraq is responsible for the deaths that resulted? As responsible as bin Laden is for the murders he planned? Are you drunk? Your powers of critical thinking are either non-existent, or are purposely suppressed in order to smear those whose politics you disagree with.

Look, there are probably one or two things that bin Laden has said that I would agree with. There are things that YOU have said that I agree with, and things that I disagree with. I don't agree with most of what Robertson and Falwell say. I suspect that one or both is perhaps insincere in their faith. There are LOTS of people I disagree with about things political. But I would NEVER stoop to the level of comparing somebody to a murderous sociopath to score a cheap point.

:confused:

why in the world would anybody think that, or think that you thought that?

It's possible to make your point without sounding crazy, you know.

Indirectly...yes. Sorry, but it's the truth. You can't support a war, then go - wait, innocent people died? I was never informed of that eventuality

War's a motherfucker. Supporting it means supporting the death of innocents, regardless of how noble that cause is. The question is, are the reasons for the war worth the deaths of innocents? In the case of this war, I don't think it is.

Hey, I'm not the member of the party that had ads morphing Senators faces into Saddam and Osama. Ask Max Cleland about that.

EDIT: Or ya' know, claim because you're against a war, you're _for_ Saddam Hussien.

BTW Dutch,

Let's not forget the guy your political crowd was cheering for.

I don't disagree with that, but the question was supposed to be, "everybody who supported the war is equally as responsible for the deaths that resulted as bin Laden is for the deaths he planned?"

Because THAT would be an ideological extreme.

Sorry for the poor writing.

I said right in my other post that it was dumb to look at body counts because of the differing ways in which they each wield their powers. If Robertson/Falwell were in the same position as OBL, they very well could be acting the same, because they share similar beliefs, and Robertson at least is not afraid of promoting violence. Dismissing OBL as a murderous sociopath is a major mistake. And this whole discussion was brought on because for 5 years now conservativs have been calling liberals traitors and 'on the other side' and talking about how 'Osama sounds like an over the top Michael Moore'. If you want to talk about someone scoring cheap political points by comparing someone to OBL, just look at Bush's recent speech where he accuses those who disagree with him of 'giving comfort to the enemy.'

Furthermore, is the invasion of Iraq and the killing of over 30,000 people for political gain morally better than the killing of 3,000 for political gain? Sure there are circumstances on both sides that effect the morality, but overall it's not a cut and dry issue. I could bring up philosophy that supports both sides of the issue. Because you declare war and use soldiers to kill people does not automatically trump sneak attacks by civilians.

Which I think is equally vile ... as do most of us here at the center. This is why people are turned off politics. If you want to attract people to the left, attacking the right in vicious and crazy ways will never get it done.

Thank you for making my point Dutch. Look how conservatives make any critique of the President out to be a love affair with the enemy. It's childish.

EDIT: And I'll also add that we were talking about bin Ladean, who is in no way connected to Saddam.

But it worked, Cronin. Because fear tends to work.

The problem is the right can attack the left all they want to no reprecussions. There's a reason why "liberal" is a dirty word now politically, but "conservative" isn't. Because conservatives fought and used a well-funded multi-billion network (Limbaugh, Fox News, the Limbaugh clone every single major city has now, etc.) to give themselves legitmacy, even the batshit insane ones like Coulter and Malkin.

Who is doing that, exactly? Read the statements! The highest score here posted was an 11, one more than would be expected just by flipping a coin. That underscores the point that they have the same rhetoric, which makes the claim that they have similar ideologies neither vicious nor crazy, but rather TRUE. On the other hand, when someone says that Moore and bin Laden have the same views, that's just crazy Dutch-like smear talk, because OBL is far from a leftist. At least saying a Dem sounds like Marx has SOME validity to it.

It could be said of MANY people that given the right circumstances that they COULD BE acting the same as bin Laden. It could be said of me and you, for example. And it would be incredibly vile.

We KNOW bin Laden is a murderous sociopath. Unless you know that about Falwell or Robertson, it is disgusting and cheap to compare them.

If you want to discuss bin Laden's 'politics' or Robertson's 'politics,' even to the point of suggesting that they are the same, it is entirely possible to do so and not come off like a fool or a loony.

This is kind of off the subject, but if you look at the 2004 election, Kerry ran something like 25% attack ads and had an almost completely positive convention to the point that Bush's name was barely mentioned. Bush ran something like 75% attack ads and had an angry, attacking convention "armed with what? spitballs?" Bush won, of course.
Not that it necessarily applies to our discussions here, but I think the Republicans have basically taken power by being more aggressive and attacking their opponents early and often.

No it doesn't, because first of all, I scored a 15, and second, it's 20 statements picked by somebody trying to make a point. Pick 20 statements at random and see what results you get. You could set up a test like this that would make you and JimGa impossible to tell apart. This is not science - it's political vitriol.

While that may literally be true, there was a real problem with the Democratic convention, which was that they didn't stake out a single position different from the Republicans. Most of my friends are liberal, and they stayed home because they didn't understand why they were being asked to vote at all.

What's your definition of a murderous sociopath? Because if you are so sure that OBL is one, you'd have to parse it pretty good to not have that same definition apply to Bush. Whatever you think, OBL thinks that he is acting in the best interests of Muslims. Whatever I think, Bush thinks he is acting in the best interests of Americans.

The only moral difference I see is that OBL targets innocent civilians, while Bush just doesn't care if innocent civilians get caught up along the way (see: recent Pakistan bombing, suspension of 4th amendment everywhere, etc). I think both are vile, though. I will admit though that it sounds kooky left wing to say that, so I am willing to listen to anyone that has a case for why Bush is so much more moral than OBL, assuming both believe that they are acting in the best interests of their 'people'. Everyone acts like it is so self-evidant, but looking at it from the POV of an outsider to both sides, I don't see it.

I will agree that it's not science. However, what would you say is the difference between Islamic fascism and American theocracy? They are actually very, very similar, holding most of the same views if you substitute God/Allah around, a point the authors of this quiz were trying to make.

I would have no problem with this line of thinking if you chose somebody other than bin Laden as your spokesman for Islamist thinking. My problem is NOT with the underlying argument here - my problem is with legitimizing bin Laden as a semi-serious thinker who, if we could only understand his point of view, we could come to some sort of an arrangement. His American analog is not Robertson or Falwell - it's Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber.

I would disagree. I don't think that bin Laden is a deep philosophical thinker, but I don't think that of Robertson or Falwell either. I think we are different in that I dislike bin Laden a bit less than you do, but dislike Robertson and Falwell a bit more. I actually think that Christian fundamentalism is a greater threat to our nation than Islamic fundamentalism, because any change in this country will be political and not militaristic (i.e., Islam won't conquer us). If the price of being able to watch the movies and TV I want, of not having to worry about being arrested and detained without reason, of being able to have pre-marital sex, etc, is to live with the miniscule risk of being killed in a terrorist attack, then I am willing to pay that price.

Bingo. I think people are missing the point entirely (and being very defensive, which I find interesting). This quiz is to showcase the rhetoric used and show how similar it is.

Wow, in what parallel universe is comparing someone to Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson a sign that you think they are a serious thinker?

a) I wouldn't be totally surprised if that were possible. I think the specific case of me & him would be more difficult than some similar pairings, but not impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

b) I can't think of too many more painful tasks to undertake.

Just out of curiosity, do you like bin Laden more than you like Robertson/Falwell? Or I guess to put it another way, do you dislike him less than you dislike the terrible twosome?

But some people don't care about the point, just performance on the quiz, and I'm not interested in taking a quiz that uses misquotes. Period.

He's already answered your question in the quote you referenced. Your question here serves only to get him to say "I like bin Laden more than Robertson/Falwell" so that you can feel safe to scorn & villify him.

I don't get the complaints about altering the quotes to genericize them, in general. How is it not a legitimate rhetorical device to show that Bin Laden, Robertson, and Falwell say the same kinds of things?


That's not to say that I don't have gripes... I haven't read through all of them yet (and I probably won't), but quote 4 at least was taken out of context.

For me, because I don't give a rat's butthole about what they say. I'm a competitive SOB who wants to maximize his results on any quiz he takes, and I therefore don't appreciate a doctored quiz one iota.

:D

Yeah, I'm the same way--I read through the Cosmo or whatever I'm stuck reading while waiting for my haircut appointment, and I try to "win" those fake quizzes that they have in there, knowing full well how ridiculous they are. I wonder if it is a guy thing.

As for the bin-Laden/Robertson one, I didn't really have a problem with it--the point being made seemed obvious to me. When they revealed the actual quotes in the "answers" section, many seemed just as repugnant as the masked quotes, if not more...

Have I told you lately how strange you are :D

I find anyone who takes anything said by Falwell, Robertson or bin Laden seriously anymore to be quite strange. Therefore, the only point would be to do well on the quiz.

Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition continues to be one of the more effective lobbying organizations in Washington. Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda continues to be one of the more effective terrorist organizations in the world.

They may be individuals with seriously warped views of the world, but they're influential individuals with seriously warped views of the world.

Agreed. See: Chris Matthews re: Bin Laden / Michael Moore.

:confused:

no, actually he said he disliked bin laden less than another poster, and disliked robertson/falwell more than the other poster. He never said who of the three he disliked least.

and, just for the record, i already feel safe to scorn and vilify mr. bigglesworth. :)

You really expect a political argument to be factual?:p

hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Coalition

Sure, he founded it nearly 2 decades ago, but I'm pretty sure he has very little influence there any more. It is much more political than he is.

That's speculation. Does Pat Robertson have some influence with one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC?


Link

I love it. A convention four years ago where he spoke on spiritual matters. Classic.

Does Pat Robertson have some influence with one of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington, DC?

Hehehe. I love it how when cornered, you tried to change from a statement of it being "his" group (implying pretty much complete control) to "some influence." Too funny. :)

Hehehe, and I love it how you don't bother to defend your initial comment, which was:


Fact is, neither of us know how much influence Pat Robertson still has with the Christian Coalition, but I think that since 1) they've recently listed him first in a list of speakers for an important conference and 2) I think we can safely assume many CC members & contributors are also viewers of his show, it's quite possible that he has somewhat more than "very little influence".

But maybe you have other information.

That was not my initial comment, but hey, I am fully aware that a liberal point of view requires a bit of a depature from things like "facts," so I'll let ya slide on that one as I head out the door.

I've laid out my reasoning in detail and you've evaded the question and nitpicked. Yep, seems like a fair trade.

Let's go back to the original comment, shall we?


In fact, in this sense Pat Robertson and bin Laden are probably more alike than not. Both founded quite influential organizations but both (apparently) are not greatly involved in those organizations' day-to-day activities anymore, though they continue to have great influence, whether directly or indirectly, over them.

In this sense the Christian Coalition is very much "Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition" in a similar way that Al-Qaeda is "Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda."

I think the point is valid, but if you'd rather not address the point, and nitpick at the semantics instead, be my guest.

As far as who do I think is a worse influence on America and my way of life, I have already said that it would be Christian fundamentalism, of which Falwell and Robertson are a part, which is what I think flere was referring to. By that criteria I guess I would say I dislike Robertson/Falwell more. That's not to say that they are worse people, just that they are more likely to have a negative effect on me.

And I realize that that opinion is just screaming to be attacked, because everyone's visceral reaction is hate the person that attacked us, but like I said before, I would rather live with a minuscule threat of terrorism than live in a country with rules set by Robertson and Falwell. As Patrick Henry would say, give me liberty or give me death. That does NOT mean that I want Osama to go free or that I want him to 'win' or that I am on his side. Every criminal should be brought to trial, whether it be OBL or Bush.

Thanks. I'm not going to attack you, at least not right now. :) I was just curious as to your opinion.

Bin Laden is connected to terror. Saddam is connected to terror. Good luck squirming you're way out of that one.

So is the IRA. So was Timothy McVeigh. So are eight billion different factions in Africa. "Terror" is a action, not an organization.

And al Qaeda and the Baath Party were two such organizations that directly influenced the death of Americans and threatened our interests and economic stability.

I am indeed way out of that one.

I fail to see how this info supports your contention that 'my political crowd' was cheering for Saddam, and I fail to see how it supports bringing Saddam up in a discussion about religious fundamentalists. And if you use the same criteria you used for Saddam, Bush is connected to terror (outsourcing torture, torture camps in Eastern Europe, missile attacks on Pakistan, kidnapping citizens on foreign soil, etc.).

NOTE: The above does not mean to say that Bush is as bad as Saddam. Saddam was a bad guy! Everyone knows that, and nobody disputes it. He just was not heavily into terrorism, despite what the Bush administration et al would like you to believe.

I'm brown. Saddamn was brown - therefore I am a terrorist. Got more along this line of "logical" reasoning ? Saddamn was a bastard, a point that no one disputes - but he was, for the most part, a fairly secular bastard, as military men in the Muslim world (see Turkey, see Pakistan) tend to lean, with some exceptions. Does Iraq now not help prove that Saddamn keep a lid on some of the Islamist and Ethnic tensions (by sheer fear) ?

If you can say I'm 'cheering' for the death of Iraqi's during the removal of Saddam Hussein, then right back at'cha.


Nobody has ever said that. With your strong belief that this is my "logic" then you are misinterpreting way too much information.


What is your statute of limitations on mass murder? When does somebody go from being responsible for mass genocide to being simply a "bastard that kept the lid on opponents."

The man was a mass murderer, not simply "a bastard". And he didn't keep the lid on extremists. He funded them. He paid for almost all suicide bombers in Israel for instance. The list above shows that he himself was a terrorist. He ruled by terror.

How some of you chose not see a link between Saddam Hussein and Terror is the most close-minded thinking I've ever seen.

Jesus Christ, I've stated ad nauseum that Saddam was a murderous bastard - but so was Mobotu, so was Pinochet - key American allies during the Cold War. I think (and thought) that getting rid of Saddamn was a reasonable idea, especially if he did have WMD's (you remember this part ? The crux of the arguement laid out by this administration ?).

The Americans are responsible for much of the weaponry in Afghanistan today - they armed those men with Stingers to take out Russians, they supplied them with guns, and funding. Does funding that make them terrorists ? Donald Rumsfield is seen shaking hands with Saddamn for god sakes - what is that all about? America supported Iraq in its war with Iran - did you give a flying fuck about him being a mass murderer then ? Hell, they sold him weapons! Did the statue of limitations not apply when he gassed the Iranians ? Genuine questions - this isn't about morality - that has never been a part of American foreign policy in the Middle East.

How you choose to view this as anything else astounds me - its willfull ignorance. I supported the removal of Saddamn - but I'm honest enough to admit it was based on on an alignment of interests, not because of revisionist horseshit that it was about terror, or that Saddam paid for 9-11 (do you know that something like 40% of Americans believe this ?). Humanitarian concerns are now and were not then the reason - have the courage of your convictions. Post-hoc reasoning is the mark of a poor arguement .

In what alternate reality can you make up a statement and attribute it to your opponent to score points in an argument? I said that Robertson and Falwell supported and cheered on the Iraq War.

Source? Your ass doesn't count.

Actually, Dutch is somewhat accurate on this one . Sadamm awarded money after the fact to the families of suicide bombers - he's been quoted on it.

But if we invaded every country where the ruling powers awarded money to suicide bombers - that'd be every county in the Mideast, including our "allies," so that's a dog that doesn't hunt.

Forget politics and terrorism. Hussein was a genocide practicing dictator and it's a shame we didn't go in sooner to clear him out.

-Anxiety

Is that what he meant? He made it sounds like Saddam was funding the entire terrorist movement in Isreal.

So, when do we go after the twenty-five other dictators who are practicing their own forms of crimes against humanity? What made Hussien such a priority instead of say - Sudan? Or Zimbabwe? Or the other random African country no one gives a fuck about?

We can't save the world by occupying it.

I do thank you for your service. What unit were you in?

This piece of crap test does not even calculate correctly. All of the questions had two choices. A - Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or B - Osama

On several of mine, I got it wrong and it the correction displayed:

America is polluting the whole world.
Your answer: Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson
Correct answer: Pat Robertson

How the heck did I get that wrong, Pat Robertson alone was not a choice? Your liberal test cheats!

As I've said ad nauseum, that is the not the point I'm arguing. I supported the invasion on the moral pretext (my interests aligned with theirs), but also because I thought he had WMD"s. The US government's entire plank was based on WMD's - and people like Dutch are engaged in an elaborate game of ass covering about the pretext - which is what bothers me.

Um... that means you got it right. LOL!

I like how you put that out as though 'lobbying' and 'terrorism' are on an equal moral plane. I've yet to see one liberal on this board come out and condemn this approach to scoring cheap points on Falwell/Robertson - neither one of whom, to my knowledge, has called for an overthrow of the constitution, as has been implied by more than one post here.

The intellectual bankruptcy of America's Left has never been quite so apparent to me.

I love this argument. Unless you've served in the military, you can never express support for military action.

By the same token, because I've never been a police officer, I can never root for law enforcement to make an arrest. And let's not even begin to apply this logic to sports. :rolleyes:

Spare me the over-the-top rhetoric. And by the way:

People compare them because they have close philosophies. They are all in favor of theocratic fascism, and it is clear in their writings. Is it your position that one or two of them are not theocratic fascists?

No - it is my position that one has murdered many, many people, more than enough for me to assume that whatever philosophy he subscribes to is base and perverse, and is unwelcome in pretty much every place on Earth. It is not necessary to compare Falwell and Robertson to bin Laden to make them look foolish, especially when doing so turns the stomach of typical Americans, thus sabotaging what you're trying to do.

I do not see where I have made that argument, as it is a stupid argument. I was for the Iraq war in the beginning (when I thought that the Bush administration knew what they were doing), I've never served. Anxiety was gung-ho about 'we' going in and taking out a dictator who posed no threat to us. By his tough-guy tone and inclusionary pronouns, I assume that he risked his life to do that, and wasn't just talking tough and risking someone else's life to do it. I think you should give him more credit than the latter, Cam.

If the "typical American" gets their stomach turned by this, then I really do fear for the future of our country.

The only stomachs that are getting turned by this are those so caught up in the rhetoric they can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't get your point at all. You just admitted that you think they have the same ideology, yet you think it is wrong to show that they have the same ideology, and doing so exposes the "intellectual bankruptcy of the left"? And in this same thread Dutch accused the entire left of cheering for Saddam and you said nothing? If you are trying to show the danger of an ideology, I think it is perfectly valid to show others with that same ideology.

I made no moral judgments.

Both lobbying and terrorism are vehicles of influence. End of story. You're putting meanings into my arguments that simply don't exist.

I love this counter-argument, because it totally misses the point.

What unit are you in? :rolleyes:

And before you fire back, I served six years in the Air Force. I was stationed at 16 AMXS in Hurlburt Fld, FL and 352 AMXS in Tinker AFB, OK.

I thank you for your service. Maybe read the whole thread though.

I was just making a point that neither side should be trying to shut down one opinion simply because they didn't serve in the military. Assuming that everyone in this thread has paid their taxes, they have an equal say of what our fighting men and women should be doing right now.

Did you work with or know my uncle, Lt. Col. Tye? He was a squadron commander at both of those places, as well as at Kadena and Kirtland. And I'm pretty certain he was AMXS.

If we started with the worst ones (The ones killing the most) and then worked our way down the list, I'd be quite happy.


-Anxiety

I would argue that my mercilessly killing off multitudes of his own people, he was posing a threat to us. I define us primarily as humanity, not as Americans. You wouldn't expect someone to stand by and watch as a neighbor killed his kids one by one, saying "It's not affecting me and my family." Why you don't apply the same ethic to an international standing must take serious manipulation of your own ethical framework.

Why you think I must be in error to not have twisted my own framework thusly boggles the imagination.


-Anxiety

His name doesn't ring a bell. What years was he commander? I was at Hurlburt from June 1998 to June 2001 and Tinker August 2001 to January 2004.

The rhetoric is the same. Basically it'd be like if I said that Charlie Chaplin and Hitler had similar mustaches, and then someone tried to shoot down that theory because Hitler killed more people than Chaplin. I think it's valid to point out the similarities, while recognizing there are differences.