Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 02:43 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Damn, you guys are a bunch of petty morons. The fact that Obama had lead-in remarks to his comments on the shooting is immaterial.

Is it possible for you to find something less material than this to complain about? I doubt it. Sad what the right-wing punditry has been reduced to.

Cycloptichorn

The fact is that if this was a fanatical guy carrying around a Bible, or somebody that ranted about Islam, or ranted about abortion, or something along those lines, I have a good idea about what we would be reading in the news today. It would be something along the lines of the fanaticism of the right, of Christianity, and maybe they would even connect it to people like Glenn Beck or Limbaugh, and then be proposing ideas about why and how they should be silenced for the good of the country. Clinton made noises about that after the Oklahoma City bombing. We also know that if it had been something like that, Christians and conservatives would roundly be condemning that person for being nuts as he is, but strangely all we hear today from the left side of the aisle and from the world of Islam is that we should not rush to judgment, and comments about what might have driven this man to do what he did.


What the **** are you talking about, Okie?

Here's CAIR's statement on the attack:

Quote:
We condemn this cowardly attack in the strongest terms possible and ask that the perpetrators be punished to the full extent of the law. No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted the all-volunteer army that protects our nation. American Muslims stand with our fellow citizens in offering both prayers for the victims and sincere condolences to the families of those killed or injured.


http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26126&&name=n&&currPage=1

Here's the Muslim Public Affairs Council:

Quote:
MPAC and the Muslim American community unequivocally condemn this heinous incident. We share the sentiment of our President, who called the Fort Hood attack "a horrific outburst of violence." We are in contact with law enforcement and U.S. federal government officials to gain more facts from this tragic incident and work together in dealing its aftermath.

"Our entire organization extends its heartfelt condolences to the families of those killed as well as to those wounded and their loved ones," said Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati. "We stand in solidarity with law enforcement and the US military to maintain the safety and security of all Americans."

MPAC reaffirms its call to all members of American Muslim communities to be in contact with local law enforcement for the safety and security of their communities, their institutions, and their country.


http://www.mpac.org/article.php?id=957

Who says the 'left' and 'Muslims' haven't condemned this? Specifically, I'd like to know who said that. I think you straight made that up.

Quote:
There will be a concerted effort to find some justification for what he did. Oddly, we even heard that about Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 perpetrators, fact is Obama's own religious and political mentor, Jeremiah Wright said "the chickens have come home to roost." Who knows, he may think the same thing about this guy as well? It would fit his mindset, and those who think like he does.


The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11. That is an entirely accurate statement, for US meddling in the Middle East is part of the reason 9/11 happened. This isn't even debatable.

But guys who have a giant hard-on for America and defend it no matter what we do wrong, like yourself, don't want to hear that our actions actually have consequences. It's much easier to demonize people than it is to examine the truth of their statements.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 02:45 pm
@okie,
My credibility is gone? Who says so? You? ROFL

Since you have me on Ignore, how in the world would you know what I'm writing? Using your lost imagination again?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11. That is an entirely accurate statement, for US meddling in the Middle East is part of the reason 9/11 happened. This isn't even debatable.

But guys who have a giant hard-on for America and defend it no matter what we do wrong, like yourself, don't want to hear that our actions actually have consequences. It's much easier to demonize people than it is to examine the truth of their statements.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, interesting opinion, confirming what I said, and are you now going to go ahead and make the same argument for the guy responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:24 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11. That is an entirely accurate statement, for US meddling in the Middle East is part of the reason 9/11 happened. This isn't even debatable.

But guys who have a giant hard-on for America and defend it no matter what we do wrong, like yourself, don't want to hear that our actions actually have consequences. It's much easier to demonize people than it is to examine the truth of their statements.

Cycloptichorn

Okay, interesting opinion, confirming what I said, and are you now going to go ahead and make the same argument for the guy responsible for the massacre at Fort Hood?


No, and why would I? The situations are completely different. A US Soldier who goes crazy and opens fire on his fellow servicemen is not comparable to 9/11 in any way. Or perhaps you can explain how it is?

Cycloptichorn
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:44 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
We do not know all the details, but I suspect there may be parallels. For example, I think we may find the guy may be connected with terrorist connections, also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam, perhaps, I am guessing here but I think I might be close. And it is entirely possible and maybe probable that they guy did it for Allah and he did it because of the perceived past wrongs of the United States, which are in fact the similar reasons given for the actions of the guys that flew the airplanes on 9/11.

If I turn out to be totally wrong, I will acknowledge it, but only somebody in denial would fail to see the possible parallels right now, cyclops. Of course we will need to find out more, but my guesses are pretty good ones I think. You can say the guy just went nuts, thats all, but I can also point out the guys on 9/11 just went nuts too, but that misses the larger point about what might be going on here, including the possible and probably parallels involved.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 03:58 pm
@okie,
Your guessing and being close is only coincidental; not much except your over-salivated imagination at work - as usual. Quit being an arse all the time!
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 04:16 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

We do not know all the details, but I suspect there may be parallels. For example, I think we may find the guy may be connected with terrorist connections, also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam, perhaps, I am guessing here but I think I might be close. And it is entirely possible and maybe probable that they guy did it for Allah and he did it because of the perceived past wrongs of the United States, which are in fact the similar reasons given for the actions of the guys that flew the airplanes on 9/11.

If I turn out to be totally wrong, I will acknowledge it, but only somebody in denial would fail to see the possible parallels right now, cyclops. Of course we will need to find out more, but my guesses are pretty good ones I think. You can say the guy just went nuts, thats all, but I can also point out the guys on 9/11 just went nuts too, but that misses the larger point about what might be going on here, including the possible and probably parallels involved.


But, the guys on 9/11 didn't go nuts. They planned it way in advance, we know the planning took years. There's no indication of that here.

I would stay away from guesses like this, if I were you. You have no data to back any of your guesses up, so what it really reflects is your prejudices. That's not flattering.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 04:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
It's a respectable argument that an ideological agenda was involved at Fort Hood of a similar background to that of 9/11. It can't just be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

And condemnations by American Islam are of little use where lone wolf terrorism is in play. There is a self-serving possibility in those condemnations. They could hardly done anything else.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 04:29 pm
@spendius,
No different than American born and bred terrorists; there's no way to catch them before their dastardly deeds if we don't have any warnings.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 04:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would stay away from guesses like this, if I were you. You have no data to back any of your guesses up, so what it really reflects is your prejudices. That's not flattering.

Cycloptichorn

Fascinating comment, cyclops. So I'll bite, what are my prejudices that are so unflattering? Since you seem to know that I have them and what they are, I am intrested in what you think they are and how you seem to think you know?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 04:33 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would stay away from guesses like this, if I were you. You have no data to back any of your guesses up, so what it really reflects is your prejudices. That's not flattering.

Cycloptichorn

Fascinating comment, cyclops. So I'll bite, what are my prejudices that are so unflattering? Since you seem to know that I have them and what they are, I am intrested in what you think they are and how you seem to think you know?


Well, I'd start with 'because the guy is Muslim, he probably did this in concert with terrorists or because he Hates America.' That prejudice.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 05:35 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
I'd say that the biggest difference, is that Obama is a smart guy who is dealing with a Congress which resists his plans


But I thought having a dem president and a dem controlled congress was supposed to get thing done.
It was supposed to be a good thing.

What happened?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 05:40 pm
@mysteryman,
What happened? The insurance company bought the souls of congress with money.

The Daily Koss:
Quote:
The most notorious example of money for hire is Montana's own Max Baucus, who took in $1.17 million from the healthcare industry during the 2008 election cycle.
Blanche Lincoln has already taken in $353k from the healthcare lobby this cycle.
Money from the defense industry flows in for Rep. Ike Skelton.
The financial sector is already throwing big money at three Democratic challengers, Ginnoulias (IL), White (TX) and Fisher (IL), ensuring another wave of corporate Democrats.
John Dingell, the House Chair of the Energy Committee until Waxman iced him this year, took in $493k last election cycle despite cruising to re-election.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 06:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, I'd start with 'because the guy is Muslim, he probably did this in concert with terrorists or because he Hates America.' That prejudice.

Cycloptichorn

I think you need to look up the word, prejudice, and re-examine what you wrote.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 06:22 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, I'd start with 'because the guy is Muslim, he probably did this in concert with terrorists or because he Hates America.' That prejudice.

Cycloptichorn

I think you need to look up the word, prejudice, and re-examine what you wrote.


Done - from Wikipedia:

Quote:

A prejudice is a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment toward a group of people characterized by their race, social class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability or religion. It also means a priori beliefs (without knowledge of the facts) and includes "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence."[1] Although positive and negative prejudice both exist, when used negatively, "prejudice" implies fear and antipathy toward such a group.


I stand by my earlier comment. Your jumping to conclusions based on the guys' religion is an example of prejudicial behavior. You are displaying a priori beliefs.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 06:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
They have been discussing this "prejudice" all day today on Sky News and CNN.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 09:25 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I would agree with you if we knew nothing about who committed the crime and also nothing about him. However, that is not the case, we already have the beginnings of a general description of him, his religion, some of his history, and preliminary description of what he may have done or shouted as he began the carnage. So it turns out it is not prejudiced, we do in fact have some information already. To try to explain it to you, if a bank was robbed in your hometown, and it was well documented that the robber drove a white 2000 model Taurus, and we just learned that another bank had been robbed and the preliminary information indicated the robber drove a white Taurus, I suppose you would accuse the police of prejudice if they suggested the robbery could have been committed by the same criminal as the prior one?

Prejudice might be an accurate term if you knew nothing at all about the crime at all and no description of the guilty party, but in this case we do have some information to start forming some ideas. Those ideas are therefore not prejudice, they are better defined as suspicions, and pretty sound ones at that, cyclops. Do you wish to bet a large amount that I am totally and absolutely wrong in my suspicions about the guy that did it? Remember, I made no iron clad guarantees, all I did was lay out some suspicions or theories. Am I prohibited from doing that?

Cyclops, you might make a good lawyer, but I think you would make a lousy investigator or detective.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 10:35 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam,

Hell, I opposed the war in Iraq because we were the aggressor. Are you saying that makes me a terrorist?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 10:46 pm
@DrewDad,
I guess I'm a terrorist too! I was against the war, and even wrote my congress woman, but she said they had intel information that required her to vote for war.
It turned out she was wrong.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Fri 6 Nov, 2009 11:05 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

okie wrote:
also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam,

Hell, I opposed the war in Iraq because we were the aggressor. Are you saying that makes me a terrorist?

Obviously not. I don't think you read my post very well, either that or you mis-interpreted it. The point of my post is that you need to look at the man's mindset in totality, taken together, in context. You can oppose the war, thats fine, but if you oppose it for various reasons over other reasons, it could mean that you have sympathies for terrorists.

For example, I will take a friend of mine as an example, he opposed the war from the very beginning, because he thought Iraq was a minimal threat to us, and he thought it would be a budgetary drain, also that it could become a quagmire, basically an unwise place and time to become involved. He also opposed it before the resolution was voted by Congress, he was consistent and did not change his opinion after the war began. He is a very patriotic person and an upright person, and he is entitled to his opinion. Obviously he is as far from being a terrorist as can be possible, as hopefully you probably are.

In contrast however, the shooter in Texas not only opposed the wars, but he opposed them for alot of different motivations, and he apparently had sympathies with revolutionary jihadists, and that is a completely different scenario, as we are now beginning to find out more about.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1467
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 05/19/2025 at 02:36:56