3
   

Snubbing Dubai - Creating more terrorists

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 09:47 am
parados wrote:
It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.


So what do you propose, slap an embargo against UAE and quit doing all business with them? What is the policy you recommend? How does this fit into our trade and business policy on a case by case basis with all countries? Why did Congress pick this hill to die on? If somebody is from the UAE, can I do business with him, or is this now the basis of racial profiling in terms of how I do business? These are all legitimate and very pertinent questions.

OCCUM BILL, I enjoyed your post. You cite some very pertinent points.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 12:27 pm
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.


So what do you propose, slap an embargo against UAE and quit doing all business with them? What is the policy you recommend? How does this fit into our trade and business policy on a case by case basis with all countries? Why did Congress pick this hill to die on? If somebody is from the UAE, can I do business with him, or is this now the basis of racial profiling in terms of how I do business? These are all legitimate and very pertinent questions.

OCCUM BILL, I enjoyed your post. You cite some very pertinent points.
Don't bother to read what I write when you can just make up whatever you want to. This would be an example of the strawman fallacy okie.

Unlike Renault in Casablanca who was "shocked to find out gambling was going on", many RWers seem genuinely shocked to think that people would feel any animosity towards muslims or arabs after they have so heavily promoted just such an atmosphere.

Is it any wonder that Americans should question Why should Dubai have hearings whether they are actually terrorists or not? Others don't get those hearings. The well has been poisoned. Don't complain if you don't like the way the water tastes now.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 02:49 pm
parados wrote:
It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.
Non Sequitar. I recall no leader saying we should dislike or distrust Iraq because they are "Arabs".

I recall leaders, both Democrat and Republican in lockstep saying we should dislike and distrust Saddam because of his decade of deception in regards to WMD, after actually using them. The resumption of hostilities in Iraq had nothing to do with partisan loyalty and most certainly had nothing to do with bigotry.

To extrapolate an anti-Arab bias from the inconsequential fact that Saddam's Iraq was made up of Arabs is a sorry reflection of a lack of critical thinking skills. Before, during, and theoretically after our action in Iraq; the UAE have been our allies, and have allowed the use of their Ports and Air Space for our Anti-Saddam purposes. Where is the anti-Arab sentiment in this simple historical fact?

Your attempt to place the blame for your anti-Arab bigotry on the current administration is neither logical nor supported by the facts. The United States, and indeed this administration, has too many Arab allies for such unsubstantiated conclusions.

Yes, the United States does have Arab enemies who've been known to hijack airplanes; so paying particular attention to Arabs at our airports should be a simple reflection of common sense. One can't tell the difference between an Arab friend or foe in a line before a metal detector. However; one can damn sure distinguish which Arab leaders have been our allies from those who have not. (You're not likely to see our destroyers parked in enemy ports or F-16s lined up at an enemy airport.)

The bigotry being demonstrated now shows no partisan boundaries, nor had it in the past, so proclamations that it's the Republican's fault are demonstrative of even less coherence. I can't understand for the life of me how those convinced our actions against true Arab enemies reconcile their disagreement with same while promoting bigotry against our Arab allies. The hypocrisy is astoundingly inconsistent with the over-the-top sense of fair-play I'm grown accustomed to reading from the Left.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 03:45 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
parados wrote:
It is pretty funny after all the claims that "Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda" Now we find those claims about Iraq have less substance than the claims that UAE had ties to Al Qaeda. (The crown prince of UAE spent time in Afghanistan on hunting trips with OBL.)

Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere.
Non Sequitar. I recall no leader saying we should dislike or distrust Iraq because they are "Arabs".
Where you labeling your statement a non sequitar? Because it certainly has little bearing on my statement since I never said a thing about "arabs.

Quote:
"The hypocrisy is astoundingly inconsistent with the over-the-top sense of fair-play I'm grown accustomed to reading from the Left.
Something was over the top in the rest of your post Bill, but I don't think it had much to do with fair-play and certainly nothing to do with my post.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 03:59 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The hypocrisy is astoundingly inconsistent with the over-the-top sense of fair-play I'm grown accustomed to reading from the Left.


Considering the fact that many Righties oppose the deal and that many Lefties are in favor of the deal (and vice versa), this seems the wrong topic to accuse either party of acting in a way we have "grown accustomed" to. But have it your way, OB.

(Did I say I'd be in favor of the deal?)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:00 pm
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere." This Non Sequitar bears a striking resemblance to "I know you are, but what am I?". Attempting to cast blame on someone else's bigotry to justify your own makes no sense whatsoever. Especially, when the original bigotry you allude to doesn't exist. Deny your intentions to your heart's content; the point of your post remains as clear it is illogical.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:04 pm
old europe wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
The hypocrisy is astoundingly inconsistent with the over-the-top sense of fair-play I'm grown accustomed to reading from the Left.


Considering the fact that many Righties oppose the deal and that many Lefties are in favor of the deal (and vice versa), this seems the wrong topic to accuse either party of acting in a way we have "grown accustomed" to. But have it your way, OB.

(Did I say I'd be in favor of the deal?)
My point exactly, OE. Which is why Parados's "last 4 years" nonsense is just that.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:07 pm
Well, OB, I remember discussions about racial profiling, airport checks, subway checks, etc.... From what I have read, I wouldn't say that the original bigotry ("They are Arabs! We should specifically pay attention to them!!") doesn't exist.

However, if I'm opposing it in the one case, you'll find me opposing it in the other case as well.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:17 pm
Additional Airport scrutiny of Arabs would be coherent reflections of being minimally observant insofar as who might be a potential threat. Not so, a country with a track record of alliance to consider. But it sounds like we're on the same side of the present hypocrisy discussion anyway.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:20 pm
I have posted on several threads that I approve the UAE operation of US ports, business is business.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:22 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Additional Airport scrutiny of Arabs would be coherent reflections of being minimally observant insofar as who might be a potential threat. Not so, a country with a track record of alliance to consider. But it sounds like we're on the same side of the present hypocrisy discussion anyway.


Yeah. Wow. This feels weird.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:23 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 04:28 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I have posted on several threads that I approve the UAE operation of US ports, business is business.
Good on you Dys and is indicative that your normal agreement with the partisan left is just that. Agreement, not allegiance. Very good indeed.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 05:03 pm
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 06:50 pm
dyslexia wrote:
I have posted on several threads that I approve the UAE operation of US ports, business is business.


I apologize ahead of time if this bothers you, as you've indicated on another thread, but old okie here agrees with you again.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 07:02 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere." This Non Sequitar bears a striking resemblance to "I know you are, but what am I?". Attempting to cast blame on someone else's bigotry to justify your own makes no sense whatsoever. Especially, when the original bigotry you allude to doesn't exist. Deny your intentions to your heart's content; the point of your post remains as clear it is illogical.


um.. Bill.. in case you didn't realize it. I came out in support of the Dubai deal early on as have several other "liberals" on this board. See ebrowns thread on it. I'm just having fun at the expense of all those twisted in knots that can't understand why anyone would be opposed to Bush on this.

Your bigotry argument is a strawman of major proportion. Make it wave its arms. I like when you do that.. :wink:

And who said liberals aren't happy? I am having a blast.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 08:42 pm
I checked you Parados, and sure enough you did. Looks like we actually agree on something, perish the thought, except for your constant drumming on Republicans crying "wolf" and so forth and so on to create this scenario. I agree with Finn d Abuzz when he said:

Quote:

What they have sowed: Democrats jumping on an anti-Arab bandwagon for political purposes?

What does crying 9/11 mean?

9/11 didn't happen?

9/11 was not as bad as Republicans say it was?

9/11 should not alter our foreign policy?

This is the utter hypocrisy of the Left:

"We have been saying for years that the Right has fear mongered based on 9/11, and so now that we are doing the same, it's the fault of the Right."

What an utter crock.


As far as boogeymen, some do exist, but they need to be limited to the real ones. Boogeymen like terrorists and those that harbor and support terrorists, and may be a threat to pass WMD to terrorists. I do not believe Bush, Cheney, and Karl Rove are boogeymen.

Just curious, Parados, what do you have to say about some of your Democrats on this? For myself, Im not too happy about some Republicans, of course Peter King is not exactly a conservative anyway.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 09:30 pm
okie wrote:
Just curious, Parados, what do you have to say about some of your Democrats on this?


Can't answer for parados, but allow me an answer: idiots.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Mar, 2006 11:08 pm
Every once in a while, not often, an issue arises that cuts a swath across party lines at an oblique angle. Usually issues run rather parallel with the party line, but when the occasional one does not, I think it presents a rare opportunity to see a little deeper into the philosophies, commitment to principles, and intellectual capacity of the politicians. We see whether they simply moisten their fingers and stick them in the air to see which way the political winds are blowing or do they have enough smarts and principle to vote according to the facts of the issue?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Mar, 2006 12:12 am
parados wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
"Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years. They created the present atmosphere." This Non Sequitar bears a striking resemblance to "I know you are, but what am I?". Attempting to cast blame on someone else's bigotry to justify your own makes no sense whatsoever. Especially, when the original bigotry you allude to doesn't exist. Deny your intentions to your heart's content; the point of your post remains as clear it is illogical.


um.. Bill.. in case you didn't realize it. I came out in support of the Dubai deal early on as have several other "liberals" on this board. See ebrowns thread on it. I'm just having fun at the expense of all those twisted in knots that can't understand why anyone would be opposed to Bush on this.
Good for you. We agree on that, at least. However that has nothing to do with your parroting of the left's new favorite talking point; that they're irrational fear and bigotry is a result of the right's trumpeting of terrorist threats. When spokesman for the left pontificate such assertions; they are displaying Non Sequitar reasoning... as are you when you parrot it. Idea

parados wrote:
Your bigotry argument is a strawman of major proportion. Make it wave its arms. I like when you do that.. :wink:
My bigotry argument is as solid as Oak. You've done nothing to counter it. Nothing. If you don't like the way it reflects on you; perhaps instead of imagining ways to poke holes in it, to no effect, you should simply divorce yourself from the Left wing talking point you parroted to support your inclusion in it. I strongly suspect that was an erroneous alliance you volunteered for in the first place. But you suit yourself, retrospectively. :wink:

parados wrote:
And who said liberals aren't happy? I am having a blast.
I didn't... so party on. Cheers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 08:44:46