Al-Zarqawi: Democracy a lie

The BBC has published a similar news report. Imagine someone describing democracy in this way - what sane person would think of it!!

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

The BBC has published a similar news report. Imagine someone describing democracy in this way - what sane person would think of it!!

And whats so democratic about a western country invading a sovereign nation to ENFORCE democracy?

Oh, and if you're gonna hold up the US as the beacon for democracy and freedom - well, no wonder they think "democracy is a lie". When was the last time there was a vote without question in the States?

I'm not defending what this latest release is saying I'm just saying if you're looking for a logic behind it, it ain't too hard to find.

Bibliophile the BibleGuru wrote:

The BBC has published a similar news report. Imagine someone describing democracy in this way - what sane person would think of it!!

And whats so democratic about a western country invading a sovereign nation to ENFORCE democracy?

Oh, and if you're gonna hold up the US as the beacon for democracy and freedom - well, no wonder they think "democracy is a lie". When was the last time there was a vote without question in the States?

I'm not defending what this latest release is saying I'm just saying if you're looking for a logic behind it, it ain't too hard to find.

So you see the logic behind the man's comments?

What is it?

Please enlighten us.

This butcher is a Jordanian disciple of a Saudi madman. If you believe he is killing Iraqis and Americans because he is a freedom loving idealist who has made it his mission to liberate Iraq, you are, at best, sadly mistaken.

And what do you mean by "a vote without question?"

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Clearly you have some antipathy for the US which you're certainly free to nurse, but you are allowing it to get in the way of clear thinking.

It was the US who gave Al-Zarqawi his power.

How ironic.

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

candidone1 wrote:

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

Only the losers.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

candidone1 wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

Unless you care to present some actual, compelling evidence that there was a major, successful effort to win the election dishonestly, and not some absurd listing of minor, isolated incidents, this is nothing more than the sour grapes of a bad loser. What kind of a person calls the oppositon dirty, rotten cheaters when he loses?

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

Unless you care to present some actual, compelling evidence that there was a major, successful effort to win the election dishonestly, and not some absurd listing of minor, isolated incidents, this is nothing more than the sour grapes of a bad loser. What kind of a person calls the oppositon dirty, rotten cheaters when he loses?

I never made anmy claim that such evidence existed. I simply reiterated what I read in the news, and saw in the papers at them time.
It has long been maintained by the left that there were suspicious characteristics of both bush elections.
Sour grapes, maybe. But I am well aware of your intellectual and newsgathering capacties Brandon, and you have seen the arguments without me having to cite them 4 years, or 2 months after the fact.

Your last sentence implies that there is some evidence you will not waste your time presenting. You have implied that the election you lost was stolen unfairly. Cite your source or stop talking about it.

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

....I'm sure you have either read or commented on news of this very nature:
DBT voting irregularitiesBumbleBeeBoogie's own thread....
Florida Voting Fraud....
Various comments on 2000 election
Disenfrancised Blacks....More.....

candidone1 wrote:

....I'm sure you have either read or commented on news of this very nature:

DBT voting irregularities
BumbleBeeBoogie's own thread....
Florida Voting Fraud....
Various comments on 2000 election
Disenfrancised Blacks....More.....

Of these, only the link to BBB's post contains after the fact descriptions of the 2004 election, and even that one contains only logical analyses of the results, and speculation about what might have happened. None of these links contains evidence that large scale systematic pro-Republican fraud gave Bush the presidency in 2004.

I think there was implicit reference the 2000 and 2004 elections vis a vis exit polls in 2004, Florida in 2000 etc.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

....I'm sure you have either read or commented on news of this very nature:

DBT voting irregularities
BumbleBeeBoogie's own thread....
Florida Voting Fraud....
Various comments on 2000 election
Disenfrancised Blacks....More.....

Of these, only the link to BBB's post contains after the fact descriptions of the 2004 election, and even that one contains only logical analyses of the results, and speculation about what might have happened. None of these links contains evidence that large scale systematic pro-Republican fraud gave Bush the presidency in 2004.

Now that you've completely hijacked the thread Brandon, I'll request that you either begin a new thread, or continue along the lines of the original topic.
But I'll leave with this, and I'll reiterate:

candidone1 wrote:

I think there was implicit reference the 2000 and 2004 elections vis a vis exit polls in 2004, Florida in 2000 etc.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

You're boxing in a ring with no opponent here Brandon.
You wanna nit-pick at what has largely been regarded as a widely accepted leftist American sentiment toward the Bush administration and the Republican party. I know what side of the spectrum you throw your clothes--it should come as no surprise that some Americans found the results of two elections fishy.
If you're so sheltered to have had all the bitching and complaining over the past 4 years fall on deaf ears, then I don't feel it's my obligation to continue in this back-and-forth banter in a thread completely unrelated.
I concede Brandon.
The results of both elections were widely accepted and honored by every American participant and every international observer. Nothing fishy here.
What was I thinking.

[
First of all, it's my thread.
Secondly, if you can imply that Bush stole the election, I can ask you to provide supportive evidence.
And finally, but most importantly, your appeal to the fact that it's widely accepted leftist American sentiment is no substitute for evidence. I'm sure that, as always, there was election tampering on both sides and that there were imperfections in the process, but that is a far cry from the idea that Bush only won becuase he and/or his supporters cheated, and that he would have lost otherwise. No, you don't say this outright, but you dance around the idea, which is just an unfair way of slinging dirt on Bush when you have no evidence that amounts to anything.

The differences between the final exit poll results and the vote count revived criticisms of the exit polls fueled by consecutive election-night debacles in 2000 and 2002. They also fueled assertions that the exit poll results were accurate and that it was the vote count that was flawed or deliberately manipulated to deliver the election to Bush.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

So you see the logic behind the man's comments?

I can see the logic, although western democracies would contend it's illogical. Writing it off as rubbish just makes understanding what other people want more difficult.

It's not rubbish, it's toxic waste. I have no trouble understanding what this fiend and his gang want and neither should anyone else. Frankly, what is amazing is that he is making no attempt to hide his naked lust for power. The notion that we need to empathize with or understand the motivations of a man who saws off the heads of innocent hostages is absurd. I agree we need to learn all we can about the man, but only so that we can catch or kill him, and in either way, stop him.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What is it?

Please enlighten us.

I think his logic has been bade clear. He opposes democracy, expecially an American imposed democracy. Clearly, this man is not an island. There seems to be quite a bit of support for his ideology (and, to be fair, there seems to be support for the US and democracy in Iraq as well).

Twisted logic at best.

Since America is not the only democratic nation on earth, identifying it as the Great American Lie is either nonsense or implies that democracy is an American invention. Either way it's not logical.

If, for the sake of discussion, we accept that democracy is based on the right to choose your own religion it doesn't follow that people will, because of having the choice, choose the way of the infidel. It is not logical to assert that providing someone with the right to make a bad choice creates a responsibility for a bad choice.

I don't have a problem with the notion that evil men can be logical. In fact it can be argued that an overreliance on logic to the exclusion of all other considerations can create a path to evil, but that a subject for another thread.

There is not, however, any logic to Al-zarqawi's pronouncements because they are either the ravings of a lunatic, or the lies of a sociopath. His logic is actually very simple. He can not have his way if Iraq becomes a democracy and therefore he must attack democracy. It has nothing to do with America or its version of democracy. His antipathy for democracy would exist no matter how it was introduced to Iraq.

You and gav seem compelled to ascribe to this man some element of legitimacy either because you are not happy with American actions, or because he has followers. It is a misguided attempt at being fairminded.

Any number of bloody handed murderers have led large numbers of equally bloody handed murders throughout history. That evil men can attract other men of evil intent and desire does not establish legitimacy.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

This butcher is a Jordanian disciple of a Saudi madman. If you believe he is killing Iraqis and Americans because he is a freedom loving idealist who has made it his mission to liberate Iraq, you are, at best, sadly mistaken.

No, the idealistic freedom loving madman killing and "liberating" Iraqis and Americans is the President of the United States....and I don't believe I'm mistaken.

You have dodged the central point to take a gratuitous swipe at Bush. Even if we were to agree that Bush is an evil madman, it would have no bearing on whether Al-Zarqawi is one as well or whether or not there is any logic behind his pronouncements.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

And what do you mean by "a vote without question?"

I think there was implicit reference the 2000 and 2004 elections vis a vis exit polls in 2004, Florida in 2000 etc.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting that American elections are rigged?

Perhaps not rigged....but the 2000 election sure seemed fishy to a great deal of Americans.

True enough, but that clearly doesn't prove there was actually anything fishy about them. Something like 90% of Americans believe in God. Does that prove he exists. In any case, even if there has never been a democratic election on earth (let alone in America) that has not had someone on the losing side questioning the legitimacy of the election, this would certainly not be an ipso facto condemnation of democracy. There is no logic behind the notion that because some people are unhappy with the results of a democratic election, that democracy is so flawed as to require violent resistance.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Clearly you have some antipathy for the US which you're certainly free to nurse, but you are allowing it to get in the way of clear thinking.

I think the misconception that one must have an aversion to the US in order to simply empathize, or simply understand what tehse "madmen" want when their country is being occupied by foreign soldiers, attmepting to implement their ideals and form of government.

What is a misconception is that my conclusion that gav has antipathy for the US is based on his professed understanding for Al-Zarqawi's position. I think his understanding is a product of that antipathy, but the antipathy is revealed by any number of other comments he has made.

I come from a province that has never voted liberal. If Ottawa "invaded" Alberta and tried to implement a liberal permiership...there would be some major objections from the conservatives who loathe liberalism to the core.
Magnify that several hundred times.
I can understand it, but not necessarily agree with it.