Krauthammer: No one ever painted Islam with a ‘broad brush.’
Krauthammer: No one ever painted Islam with a ‘broad brush.’
Yesterday on Fox News Report, Charles Krauthammer complained that President Obama’s interview with Al-Arabiya was too “apologetic and defensive”:
KRAUTHAMMER: Conciliatory, but also apologetic and defensive, I thought needlessly. We heard him say that he we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad brush. Who does? That’s a straw man.
Watch it:
Krauthammer’s objections are ironic given the fact he’s guilty of the sort of “broad brush” thinking that Obama was warning against. In December 2002, for example, Krauthammer characterized Islam as violent and “hate-driven”:
From Nigeria to Sudan to Pakistan to Indonesia to the Philippines, some of the worst, most hate-driven violence in the world today is perpetrated by Muslims and in the name of Islam.
Krauthammer and those who share his views are, in part, responsible for the propagating the myth that Muslims “hate” the West. During his interview, Obama was rightly arguing that the U.S. must discredit such notions.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Then Krauthammer hid under the desk and said “there aren’t any conservatives here.”
January 28th, 2009 at 10:57 amWe heard him say that he we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad-brush. Who does? That’s a straw man.
– - And Krauthammer is Gort.
Klaatu barada nikto, eh Chuckie?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:00 am“Kra(u)thammer and those who share his views are, in part, responsible for the propagating the myth that Muslims “hate” the West. During his interview, Obama was rightly arguing that the U.S. must discredit such notions.”
Which is exactly why this neocon asshat is getting so defensive about his past inflammatory remarks. Did somebody mention a strawman Mr. K?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:01 amHate Radio.
Hate Television.
What’s next, Chuckie? I mean, I know you’re not Arabic, but are you a ‘good & decent family man’?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:01 amI would highlight some of Bush’s statements as among the worst in this respect. You’re either with us or against us. Evil doers. Those who hate freedom. Etc. Bush’s black and white worldview consistently used a broad brush to paint our allies as good and everyone else as evil.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:01 am“We heard him say that he we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad-brush. Who does?”
those who don’t know the different between arabs and persians, farsi and arabic, shia versus shiite-also known as repukelicans
January 28th, 2009 at 11:01 amWell, if anyone would know a “broad brush” when they see one, it would be right-winger.
Although they’re not usually that self-aware.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:02 amKrauthammer: I’m not saying all Muslims are evil but there is a danger of going down that road.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:03 amSo…how can you tell that a neocon is lying?
All together now: HIS MOUTH IS MOVING!!!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:03 amApparently Krauthammer doesn’t actually read what he writes.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 amI think that if you were to read the entire article, you would see it is far more nuanced than it is being represented in the teaser. He develops his thesis in the first coulple of paragraphs:
“Is Islam an inherently violent religion? A debate on this subject has received much attention in the United States. The question is absurd. It is like asking whether Christianity is a religion of peace. Well, there is Francis of Assisi. And there is the Thirty Years’ War. Which do you choose?
Religions are interpreted by the people of their time and thus change over time. Scripture can be invoked to support almost any position. Islam has its periods of violence and its periods of tolerance. The Ottomans gave refuge to the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain in 1492. Today the Arab world is the purveyor of the most vicious anti-Semitic propaganda since Nazi Germany. (Egyptian state television is currently showing a 41-part television series based on the notorious czarist forgery “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”)
Which stands for the real Islam? The question is not just unanswerable, it is irrelevant.”
I challenge anyone to refute the validity of these statements. ALL religions have had their moments of darkness and their moments of brilliance. The state of modern Islam is problematic; if 10% of a population of 1.3 billion believe martydom and jihad are virtuous things, that gives you around 100 million people who support violence in the name of religion. That is not a good situation.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am(shrug) That’s SOP for white folks – to be as racist as they can get away with while it’s popular, and then deny it ever happened when it’s not.
Exactly the same happened when gay white folks were blaming black folks for Prop 8. After that was debunked, they claimed it never happened.
It’s SOP.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:05 amyes, because repukelicans in general, specifically those sitting behind a fauz news desk are known for their cultural sensitivity.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:05 amUmm… now that i think about it, isn’t Kraut the Hammer himself engaging in a bit of a straw man?
By suggesting that Obama accused anyone of the offense mentioned (which he did not — at least not directly) and then taking offense at the accusation, isn’t that at least a bit of a straw child?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:05 amKRAUTHAMMER: We heard him say that he we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad-brush. Who does? That’s a straw man.
__________
I have to agree with Krauthammer on this one. The Islamophobe conservative pundits would never use a broad brush to paint anything – that’s far too much work. It’s far more accurate to say they painted Islam with one of these.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:07 amAnd I challenge both Krauthammer and you, Keltoi, to refute the validity of Obama’s statement that “we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad brush”.
It’s basically irrefutable, right?
And yet Krauthammer objects to it. Go figure.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:08 amKeltoi, sometimes you really piss me off.
KRAUTHAMMER: Conciliatory, but also apologetic and defensive, I thought needlessly.
Nuance this one. The President was “apologetic and defensive?”
January 28th, 2009 at 11:11 amKeltoi Says:
I think that if you were to read the entire article…
“Is Islam an inherently violent religion? A debate on this subject has received much attention in the United States”
Right there Krauthammer admits that Islam has been painted with a broad brush. If such a debate has received much attention, then some have been overgeneralizing.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:13 amralph the wonder llama Says:
And I challenge both Krauthammer and you, Keltoi, to refute the validity of Obama’s statement that “we shouldn’t paint Islam with a broad brush”.
It’s basically irrefutable, right?
As you know, I avoid defending pundits because it is almost never worth it. I just happened to see this interview so I have a sense of what he was actually saying.
I agree, we should not paint Islam with a broad brush; Krauthamer was also in agreement with Obama on this point. What he was objecting to was the assumption that we had been painting Islam with a broad brush up to this point and Obama was the first to realize we shouldn’t do so. He cites Bush going out of his way to not blame all Muslims in the wake of 911 and a general lack of anti-Muslim hate crime in the same period.
And again, if you read his thesis, he isn’t painting Islam with a broadbrush. He is painting all religions the same from a historic standpoint: Capable of greatness, capable of atrocity.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:14 amKeltoi Says:
The state of modern Islam is problematic; if 10% of a population of 1.3 billion believe martydom and jihad are virtuous things, that gives you around 100 million people who support violence in the name of religion. That is not a good situation.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
And when 51% of Americans think that attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are justified, that is also not a good situation.
We have no business lecturing Islam to clean up its own house when we have such a huge mess in our own.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:14 amHate radio and Faux Hate news talking heads have been calling ALL Muslims a religion of hate for years.
Repukes don’t have a problem with lying.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:14 amSo, Kelty, I daresay Christianity is every single bit as violent as Islam. And Judaism too, for that matter.
Why isn’t your pal Krauty screeching about those dangerous and violent Christian or Jewish extremists, eh…?
I used to respect you. But since you’ve shown yourself so willing to defend idiocy and bigotry…?
Not so much.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:15 amBuckie Boy Says: “Repukes don’t have a problem with lying.”
because repukelicans haven’t figured out the internets have a site called youtube where all their greatest hits are posted for all the world to see. over and over lest we forget.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:17 amKeltoi Says:
And again, if you read his thesis, he isn’t painting Islam with a broadbrush. He is painting all religions the same from a historic standpoint: Capable of greatness, capable of atrocity.
And this single thesis somehow proves that pundits and politicians haven’t been using a broad brush? He’s in as much denial as you.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:17 am300 million Christains just signed on to an illegal war of atrition in Iraq. They are different from Muslims in what way? They have stated repeatedly that the Muslim religion must be destroyed……
I don’t see that you have a point.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:17 amWHO CARES WHAT KIND OF PUTRID GAS THESE PEOPLE SPEW??
January 28th, 2009 at 11:18 amPleeeeease! Let’s stop wasting our energy on these people! The more we invest in cleaning this toxic speech the more relevant they become !
AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGG!
Krauthammer sort of scares me but it might just be his name
January 28th, 2009 at 11:18 amfletc3her Says:
I would highlight some of Bush’s statements as among the worst in this respect. You’re either with us or against us. Evil doers. Those who hate freedom. Etc. Bush’s black and white worldview consistently used a broad brush to paint our allies as good and everyone else as evil.
It wasn’t just Shrub; it was a majority of BushCo members and supporters. In the science of logic, using that “black or white” technique is called “false dilemma,” and the neocons have once again ramped up their rhetoric. Many, MANY of them do wish for President Obama and his team to improve life in the US and the US reputation abroad. Many others, defining only THEIR views as right and luxuriating in spite, don’t give a damn about what becomes of the rest of us. Verrrrry toddler-tantrumish.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:19 amThanks, Keltoi, for the larger view.
The extremist fringe elements of Islam are no more violent than the extremist elements of Judeo/Christianity.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:19 amThey just use different tactics. Islamic extremists use homemade bombs, Christian extremists make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks.
gummitch Says:
Keltoi, sometimes you really piss me off.
KRAUTHAMMER: Conciliatory, but also apologetic and defensive, I thought needlessly.
Nuance this one. The President was “apologetic and defensive?”
I think the tone of O.s interview was apologetic and defensive at times. “Too often the US begins by dictating.” As a tactic, being apologetic and defensive isn’t exactly bad,and to be fair, I think Obama does believe there is much for us to apologize for. Krauthamer doesn’t especially agree that we have been painting Islam with a broad brush and I think there is some validity to that argument.
Sorry to piss you off, gummitch, hopefully it is invigorating.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:20 amhussein toasterhead Says:
And when 51% of Americans think that attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are justified, that is also not a good situation.
Sorry, Toasterhead, a 40 page pdf from over a year ago on an ancillary point that never materialized – the bombing of Iran – does not a moral equivalency between modern Islam and America make.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 amKeltoi Says:
Krauthamer doesn’t especially agree that we have been painting Islam with a broad brush and I think there is some validity to that argument.
I have to assume, then, that neither of you has read a newspaper or magazine or listened to radio or television in at least the last eight years.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:25 amLeftside Annie Says:
——————————————————————————–
So, Kelty, I daresay Christianity is every single bit as violent as Islam. And Judaism too, for that matter.
Why isn’t your pal Krauty screeching about those dangerous and violent Christian or Jewish extremists, eh…?
I used to respect you. But since you’ve shown yourself so willing to defend idiocy and bigotry…?
Not so much.
I still respect you Annie. But your comment is not especially reality based. If you can see no difference between the Christian and Muslim attitudes toward religious violence today, which is the point of Krauts article, then we will not be able to discuss much. If we had the same view toward the legit use of violence as the radical elements of Islam, Mecca would have been a radioactive crater on 9-12.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 amKeltoi Says:
What he was objecting to was the assumption that we had been painting Islam with a broad brush up to this point and Obama was the first to realize we shouldn’t do so. He cites Bush going out of his way to not blame all Muslims in the wake of 911 and a general lack of anti-Muslim hate crime in the same period.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
____________
Sure, Bush made a few cursory statements about Islam being a religion of peace after 9/11, and cautioning against blaming all Muslims for the actions of one small group, but that was about it.
Obviously, it wasn’t enough. His statements paled in comparison to the mountain of hate speech coming from the right-wing pundits and the LGF segment of the blogosphere. There was no effort from the right wing to counter this Islamophobic tide with voices of reason.
Instead, Bush sent Karen Hughes to Saudi Arabia to tell them that America wasn’t so bad and that their women should be allowed to drive.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 amKeltoi Says: Since anything could have happened at one time or another, you can say anything and argue about the nuanced truth of it.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:26 amFred Says:
Keltoi Says:
The state of modern Islam is problematic; if 10% of a population of 1.3 billion believe martydom and jihad are virtuous things, that gives you around 100 million people who support violence in the name of religion. That is not a good situation.
300 million Christians just signed on to an illegal war of attrition in Iraq. They are different from Muslims in what way? They have stated repeatedly that the Muslim religion must be destroyed……
I don’t see that you have a point.
And WHICH 300 million Christians would that be, Fred? Got any examples? Been to any churches where the weekly sermon was “Destroy the Muslim Religion”? Has the New Testament been re-written to urge Christians to fight evil with evil, instead of with good? Been re-written to say “Go and overcome the Muslim religion” instead of “Fear not, for I have overcome the world”?
I don’t see that you have a point. [as lagniappe, I corrected your typos.]
January 28th, 2009 at 11:29 amKeltoi, explain to us why there was any cause for concern that Obama “may have been” an Arab or Muslim if these people weren’t painted with a broad brush as terrorists?
Thanks!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:31 amgummitch Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
And again, if you read his thesis, he isn’t painting Islam with a broadbrush. He is painting all religions the same from a historic standpoint: Capable of greatness, capable of atrocity.
And this single thesis somehow proves that pundits and politicians haven’t been using a broad brush? He’s in as much denial as you.
I am talking about this pundit, in the article linked, and yesterday’s interview. I have never posited there isn’t bigotry and bias in America, you should know me better than that.
“Pundits and politicians” of ALL political stripes paint with a broad brush all the time, that is a given. As any good gay activist could tell you, every last Catholic in the world is an anti-gay bigot, right? Any Code Pinker could tell you all soldiers are murderers, right?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:31 amKeltoi Says:
And again, if you read his thesis, he isn’t painting Islam with a broadbrush. He is painting all religions the same from a historic standpoint: Capable of greatness, capable of atrocity.
Sure, NOW he is. Where was such a “thesis” for the past eight years? Krauthammer is just jumping on the “Not My Fault Express”.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:32 amNevar Says:
——————————————————————————–
Thanks, Keltoi, for the larger view.
The extremist fringe elements of Islam are no more violent than the extremist elements of Judeo/Christianity.
They just use different tactics. Islamic extremists use homemade bombs, Christian extremists make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks.
Yeah, pretty much!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:33 amKeltoi Says:
Sorry, Toasterhead, a 40 page pdf from over a year ago on an ancillary point that never materialized – the bombing of Iran – does not a moral equivalency between modern Islam and America make.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
_________
It absolutely does. See page 10.
The same question was asked to Iranian and American respondents:
3% of Iranians said “Often.” 8% said “Sometimes.” 5% said “Rarely.” That leaves 80% who believe that violence against civilians is never justified.
To the same question, 5% of Americans said “Often.” 19% said “Sometimes.” 27% said “Rarely.” Only 46% of Americans believe that violence against civilians is never justified.
This puts Americans roughly equivalent to Jordanians and Egyptians when asked the same question, and makes us substantially more violent than Muslims in Turkey, Pakistan, and Indonesia.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:34 amBush’s “Crusade” comment just after 911.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:35 amEnough evidence.
**chug-a-chugga, whoo-whoo,Krauthammer**
This is modus operandi for extremist right-wing politicians and pundits, like Charles Krautheimer(I prefer the original spelling). They spend most of their time making heinous hate speeches against whatever group they happen to be trying to inflame their knuckle dragging followers against. Then, when later called on their disgusting rabble rousing, they say, “What? We weren’t doing anything.”
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 amTweedster Says:
Keltoi, explain to us why there was any cause for concern that Obama “may have been” an Arab or Muslim if these people weren’t painted with a broad brush as terrorists?
Thanks!
That concern was not a real issue on November 2nd, was it? And as I recall, it was the Hillary camp that bruited about the photo of Obama in his Kenyan garb.
Don’t get me wrong, LOTS of people are/were afraid Obama is a Muslim/Arab (which would be funny if it weren’t so stupid) but I don’t think in fairness you can accuse Krauthamer of being one of them or whipping up anti-Muslim sentiment with a “broad brush.” Al-Qaeda is a Muslim organization, I don’t think it is bigotry to acknowledge that.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 amtelestai2 Says:
It was approximate but still fairly accurate. They typo must have not been capitalizing christain.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:39 amTimothy McVeigh did a lot more than “make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks”.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:40 amKeltoi Says
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
I challenge anyone to refute the validity of these statements. ALL religions have had their moments of darkness and their moments of brilliance.
____________________________________________________________
You make a fair rebuttal for the accusation that Krauthammer himself characterized Islam as violent and hate-driven. However, Krauthammer appears to claim that NOBODY has ever “painted Islam with a broad brush” — a claim that’s easily refutable.
Ann Coulter: “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
Michael Savage: “You know, when I see a woman walking around with a burqa, I see a Nazi. That’s what I see, how-do-you-like-that? A hateful Nazi who would like to cut your throat and kill your children.”
Tom Tancredo: “Well, what if you said something like — if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites.”
And these are just some of the more direct hits, which I was able to google right away. Add to this the constant repeating of “Islam is the religion of peace” — said as sarcastically as possible in an effort to paint it as anything but. Or showing pictures of Muslim men wearing traditional dress to white suburbanites, asking them how they would feel about having such a man “in their back yard”. These are obvious efforts to paint Islam with a broad brush.
Krauthammer is merely executing a favorite wingnut tactic — throw out a turd and challenge others to refute it. He’s somehow banking that no one will, which allows his rather outrageous statement to stand as accepted truth. The only problem is that it only takes a LexisNexis search to prove him wrong.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:41 amhussein toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
Sorry, Toasterhead, a 40 page pdf from over a year ago on an ancillary point that never materialized – the bombing of Iran – does not a moral equivalency between modern Islam and America make.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
_________
It absolutely does. See page 10.
The same question was asked to Iranian and American respondents:
Some people think that bombing and other types of attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes justified while others think that this kind of violence is never justified. Do you personally feel that such attacks are…justified?
3% of Iranians said “Often.” 8% said “Sometimes.” 5% said “Rarely.” That leaves 80% who believe that violence against civilians is never justified.
Okay, thanks for the specific reference.
I won’t bother arguing the validity of this survey or this report. All I will say is the stats on the Iranian population do not ring true. If they are accurate, it only underscores what a totaliarian and repressive government the Islamic Republic is. 80% believe violence against civilians is never justified? Tell it to Salmon Rushdie. Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite militias and death squads galore in Iraq…the findings of your survey bear no resemblance to Iran’s behavior.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:44 ammisshusseinmolly, I guess you just showed that when Charles Krautheimer claimed that NOBODY has ever “painted Islam with a broad brush”, he was painting with too broad a brush.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:46 amKeltoi Says
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Al-Qaeda is a Muslim organization, I don’t think it is bigotry to acknowledge that.
_____________________________________________________________
Much in the way that the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church are “Christian” organizations. Yes — this is what they call themselves, but most Christians disavow them. So it is in the Muslim world. Extremists — particularly violent and hostile extremists — are seldom embraced by the larger mainstream group they claim to be a part of.
I suspect that if the KKK was making waves on a global level and the global media insisted on calling them a “Christian” group, a lot of Christians would get upset about that. So call Al Qaeda a “Muslim” group if you must, but don’t be surprised if this doesn’t win you too many friends among Muslims.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:47 amMissmolly at 48, thank you for actually reading what I write instead of projecting what you want me to be saying so you can call me names, a favored tactic among many of your TP colleagues.
Again, I saw the whole interview. Count Krautula was specifically comparing Bush’s public statments to Obamas; Savage, Rush et al never entered into the conversation. Krauthamer’s beef was that Obama seemed to be apologizing for Bush for things Bush didn’t do. I think it was a valid point.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:48 amDr. Matt, it was Nevar who used that particular broad brush, not me. If you notice, I was refuting his statement in #47.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:50 amThe current bunch of Republicans do not paint with a broad brush. They use an air compressor sprayer.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:50 amRemember when McCain corrected that woman who thought Obama was an Arab, a muslim?
“No, ma’am, he’s a good man.”
How much broader do brushes come?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:53 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
The only problem is that it only takes a LexisNexis search to prove him wrong.
____________
Dang… there you go again… using ‘the Google’ to make a point. Blaspehemer!
Perhaps the Hammer was simply misquoted… and actually said “no one ever painted Islam with a broadER brush!”
January 28th, 2009 at 11:54 ammisshusseinmolly Says:
Keltoi Says
January 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Al-Qaeda is a Muslim organization, I don’t think it is bigotry to acknowledge that.
_____________________________________________________________
Much in the way that the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church are “Christian” organizations. Yes — this is what they call themselves, but most Christians disavow them. So it is in the Muslim world. Extremists — particularly violent and hostile extremists — are seldom embraced by the larger mainstream group they claim to be a part of.
I suspect that if the KKK was making waves on a global level and the global media insisted on calling them a “Christian” group, a lot of Christians would get upset about that. So call Al Qaeda a “Muslim” group if you must, but don’t be surprised if this doesn’t win you too many friends among Muslims.
Touche. Though I think the percent of radical Christians who back the Tim McVeighs of the world is much, much small than the percentage of Muslims who back the Bin Ladens of the world. All the same, it is bad PR to point that out, and this is the penultimate PR campaign.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:56 amPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
They use an air compressor sprayer.
____________
I personally like to open a fresh 5 gallon bucket and toss in a lit cherry bomb.
I know… takes a little clean-up afterwards, but you get 80% of the room painted in 3 seconds…
January 28th, 2009 at 11:56 amshoeless Says: “Timothy McVeigh did a lot more than “make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks”.”
and..
Dr. Hussein Matt Says: “Tell that to the Family Planning Clinic victims that have been killed and permanently maimed by Christian extremists.”
Thanks guys, no terrorist left behind, eh?
The point I was trying to make is the blind and ignorant support your average self righteous religioso gives to war, poverty, and terrorism when they believe everything their preacher or their TV set tells them.
To be fair, Islamic extremists make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks as well.
As well, I was thanking Keltoi for bringing into view the big picture of the fact that religion itself is inherently violent, in that it implies a rigid set of beliefs to be adhered to. Those who do not adhere are punished persecuted, ostracized, or otherwise dealt with in a way that violates their lives.
Mind you all the distinction between spirituality, and religion.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:58 amKeltoi Says:
80% believe violence against civilians is never justified? Tell it to Salmon Rushdie. Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, Shiite militias and death squads galore in Iraq…the findings of your survey bear no resemblance to Iran’s behavior.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:44 am
_____________
And in today’s lesson, you learn that sometimes governments govern without the consent of the governed.
The point still remains that the attitude towards violence against innocent people held by many Muslims is no more supportive – often substantially less – than that held by Americans.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:58 amshoeless Says: “…it was Nevar who used that particular broad brush,”
To put a thick coat on the extremist element.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pmWhat I hear him saying (and it seems to be becoming a real popular litany) is…This is what I’m saying today. That other stuff is so yesterday. Just forget it and move on.
Not bloody likely.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:14 pmThe key part of that statement is “I think”. A baselees opinion is worse than useless.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:15 pmtelestai2 Says:
And WHICH 300 million Christians would that be, Fred? Got any examples? Been to any churches where the weekly sermon was “Destroy the Muslim Religion”? Has the New Testament been re-written to urge Christians to fight evil with evil, instead of with good? Been re-written to say “Go and overcome the Muslim religion” instead of “Fear not, for I have overcome the world”?
The most vocal elements of Christianity typically espouse all of the views you have cited above, and behave as if this were a tenet of their religion. They do so frequently and loudly, as well as quietly and behind the backs of decent folk. I see few Christians who disagree shouting them down.
Admittedly, Fred’s painting Christianity with a broad brush there…
.
Keltoi Says:
And as I recall, it was the Hillary camp that bruited about the photo of Obama in his Kenyan garb.
Nope. One of her staffers forwarded it once. But it was being passed around like mad in Right Blogistan, all the while saying that Hillary was to blame for it. Interesting that what you recall is their lie instead of the facts of the matter.
.
Keltoi Says:
Missmolly at 48, thank you for actually reading what I write instead of projecting what you want me to be saying so you can call me names, a favored tactic among many of your TP colleagues.
How dare you support continued aggression by the filthy Hun, you rapscallion!
.
Keltoi Says:
Again, I saw the whole interview. Count Krautula was specifically comparing Bush’s public statments to Obamas; Savage, Rush et al never entered into the conversation. Krauthamer’s beef was that Obama seemed to be apologizing for Bush for things Bush didn’t do. I think it was a valid point.
Emphasis added by me.
To a lot of people Bush seemed to be vilifying all of Islam. Of course he never said so explicitly, but lots and lots of people affiliated with his party did, and he never said anything about their insults either. After a while it sorts of builds up so that an entire mass of people (in this case, Bush and his cadre of pet wingnuts) seem to be saying the most vile things imaginable with a single voice. Which is pretty much what the Muslim world seems to be doing from their perspective.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:16 pmshoeless Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi Says:
Touche. Though I think the percent of radical Christians who back the Tim McVeighs of the world is much, much small than the percentage of Muslims who back the Bin Ladens of the world.
The key part of that statement is “I think”. A baselees opinion is worse than useless.
It is hardly basesless. The left constantly throws up McVeigh and Randolph because they are the most famous Christian terrorists on a very small roster. There have been thousands and thousands of Muslim sucided bombers, it would be impossible to try to know their names. It is an empirical fact that extreme Islam has spawned more terrorists than extreme Christianity in the last half century.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pmIslam = scary brown people
January 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pmKeep the Mexicans, Deport the Fascists.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:22 pmKeltoi Says:
Touche. Though I think the percent of radical Christians who back the Tim McVeighs of the world is much, much small than the percentage of Muslims who back the Bin Ladens of the world.
____________
Perhaps this is because the Christian world pretty much won their wars over the last few centuries, and Moslems see themselves as being the “underdogs’ at this point.
I saw Richard Clark talk back in 2003 and at the time, he estimated the number of truly hardcore Islamic extremists around the world at about 100,000, if I remember correctly.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:25 pmElBruce Says:
To a lot of people Bush seemed to be vilifying all of Islam.
_____________
It prolly didn’t help any when the clueless nimrod made comments on camera about about crusades and such, huh?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:26 pmHow about the no-choice terrorist.
Some things that were named in the of the Lord/break it down — white Christian people, for the most part
January 28th, 2009 at 12:28 pmFamily Planning Centers
African-American Churches
Sports Events
Lunatics/serial killers
self-serving wars
killing civilians
looneybin dobson, limpydic
Keltoi Says:
Touche. Though I think the percent of radical Christians who back the Tim McVeighs of the world is much, much small than the percentage of Muslims who back the Bin Ladens of the world.
At present, I’d agree that’s the case. So the question becomes “not how do we defeat radical Islam,” but “how do we convince moderate Islam to turn its back on radical Islam?” Hint: bombs are counterproductive. Strategically, we should be looking at political rather than military approaches.
.
Hoodathunk Says:
What I hear him saying (and it seems to be becoming a real popular litany) is…This is what I’m saying today. That other stuff is so yesterday. Just forget it and move on.
Not bloody likely.
I’m willing to if they’ll shut the f**k up. Let’s have a general wingnut pundit amnesty. As soon as they tender their resignations and never speak in public again, we’ll stop pointing out that they’re wrong about everything and making with the insults and mockery.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:29 pmMore like one of those helicopters that drop water on wildfires.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
It prolly didn’t help any when the clueless nimrod made comments on camera about about crusades and such, huh?
It’s funny how casually most evangelical Christians throw around the word “crusade” and have no clue how alarming that is to the Muslim world. At the same time, if they hear the word “jihad” in any context they completely freak out.
Much as “crusade” today is used to refer to any group effort, “jihad” is used in Islam to refer to any struggle, whether collective or personal. One can have a jihad against their alchoholism, for instance.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:33 pmKrauthamer and his ilk are responsible for thousands and thousands of innocent people being killed. The only reason to listen to him is to get a sense of what their next move will be so it can be met and stopped.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pm——————————————————————————–
The Republic of Stupidity Says:
Perhaps this is because the Christian world pretty much won their wars over the last few centuries, and Moslems see themselves as being the “underdogs’ at this point.
Likely. That and the fact that while Western Europe was undergoing the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment the Middle East was undergoing conquests by the Mongols and then the Turks. Back to back invasions by Steppe Tribes will put a crimp in your millenia.
I saw Richard Clark talk back in 2003 and at the time, he estimated the number of truly hardcore Islamic extremists around the world at about 100,000, if I remember correctly.
Impossible to really know. That would be about a tenth of a percent of all Muslims in the world. I would find it very comforting to know it was that low.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:34 pmShayne Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
The current bunch of Republicans do not paint with a broad brush. They use an air compressor sprayer.
More like one of those helicopters that drop water on wildfires.
Or the raining down of White Phosphorus on the city of Falluja.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pmKeltoi, your comment about the roster of christian terrorists being a small one prompts me to ask one question.
Do you know the words to “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”?
No group is free of nutcases.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pmScuse me, Kelty – you want current events?
Let’s talk about the genocide committed by the Jews on the civilians of Gaza, shall we…?
And how about the “Crusade” born-again Christian Chimpy bragged about waging against the Muslim world…?
Try again.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:39 pmp.s. I’m an atheist, and I see ALL religions as dangerous luncacy.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pmVirtually all the terrorist acts committed BY Americans have been by white christian males. Almost all mass murderers in this country have been white christian males. In the last few years there has been a rash of white christian males killing their wives or worse, wives carrying unborn children. And those acts of terrorism against abortion clinics, ALL CHRISTIANS.
Is their no right wing stooge too heinous for you to defend?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pmAnd the Renaissance in Western Europe is typically dated from the 14th to the 17th century. The Mongol invasions were in the early 13th.
And if we are going historical here…check what the Inquisition did to the Moors and Jews in Europe, Spain in particular.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:43 pm@60:
January 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pmI would propose that at least regionally, many, even most Christians in the south supported the KKK for centuries. I would propose that most Muslims today would agree that Al Qaeda is Muslim, if a radical, sharia touting minority. When Krauthammer gave the example of Thirty Years War as a radical Christian failing, the point is that it was 400 years ago. Christianity has for the most part mellowed since that time. Islam must do the same. Sharia is not acceptable in the wide world, nor for that matter much accepted in the Muslim world. But do the moderates speak up? Mostly not. Mostly out of justifiable fear. The moderation and mellowing of Islam, with emphasis on its peaceful aspects, must obtain before there will be peace and understanding among religions. It will take brave moderates to do that. And lots of time. I am neither christian or muslim. The arguments of both respondents at 60 are well said, and without name calling, so thanks….
IRS Complaint Process For Tax Exempt Organizations
We are working on our 34th complaint for preaching politics from the pulpit in our state. We have had some sucess and some failure but will continue the fight. This is not an isolated violation.
If christains oppose the activities of their religious organizations it is very hard to hear. They usually react with threats……
I have already stated that I respect individual spirituality but I will do all I can to destroy what churches are doing to move their agenda to a legislation that affects me.
We are joining churches and recording sermons and using them against them…….
guess we should wait for the church to police itself like the corporations did but that didn’t work so well did it?
If telestai2 were a true cristian she/he would be on board for putting a stop to this practice instead of attacking someone for pointing out what is obvious to so many.
It is indefensible.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm——————————————————————————–
Hoodathunk Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi, your comment about the roster of christian terrorists being a small one prompts me to ask one question.
Do you know the words to “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling”?
No group is free of nutcases.
True, no group is free of nutcases. It is all a matter of scale, as is so often said here. But if you compare the violence in North Ireland to Saddam’s sectarian oppression of Kurds and Shia, and the current Sunni-Shia sectarian violence, I think you’d have to agree the “Troubles” pale in comparison.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pmLeftside Annie Says:
p.s. I’m an atheist, and I see ALL religions as dangerous luncacy.
Sheesh. That would be LUNACY. I hate typos!!
January 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pmLeftside Annie Says:
Scuse me, Kelty – you want current events?
Let’s talk about the genocide committed by the Jews on the civilians of Gaza, shall we…?
You cheapen the word genocide to call what happened in Gaza that.
And how about the “Crusade” born-again Christian Chimpy bragged about waging against the Muslim world…?
The one where 50 million Muslims went from murderous despotic regimes to Constitutional democracies? Again, to compare what we have done to the actual Crusades cheapens the evil of the real Crusades.
p.s. I’m an atheist, and I see ALL religions as dangerous luncacy.
I am an agnostic, I see them as puzzling lunacies.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pmIt seems to me that Christianity has been getting more radical for many years now. It also seems that Bush’s policies in the middle east increased the number of terrorists exponentially. I don’t know what world you live in.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pmReligion is powerful stuff and it’s very difficult to think clearly while under its influence, Religion is all too commonly used to sway people into doing or supporting ideas they would normally find offensive. Religion seems to help some people cope with their lot in life which is fine for them, but they need to be very careful.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:56 pmShayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
HighPlainsJoker Says:
When Krauthammer gave the example of Thirty Years War as a radical Christian failing, the point is that it was 400 years ago. Christianity has for the most part mellowed since that time. Islam must do the same.
It seems to me that Christianity has been getting more radical for many years now. It also seems that Bush’s policies in the middle east increased the number of terrorists exponentially. I don’t know what world you live in.
Compared to the 30 years war??? Are you serious?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pmThe Iraq War killed somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 innocent Muslims. This was the worse act of terror in recent memory and it was fully supported by the Christian-right.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThe Christyuns are pretty efficient in there killing when they have the US Military doing the dirty work.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pmSorry, Keltoi, I have this little quirk…violence is violence. Someone smacking someone around gets even ranking in my book with genocidal maniacs.
I don’t think there is such a thing as a little bit dead. Except in the Princess Bride and the last time I checked, that was fantasy.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pmYou are the only agnostic I know who unfailingly attacks Islam while consistantly defending Christianity.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:03 pmKeltoi Says:
I saw Richard Clark talk back in 2003 and at the time, he estimated the number of truly hardcore Islamic extremists around the world at about 100,000, if I remember correctly.
Impossible to really know. That would be about a tenth of a percent of all Muslims in the world. I would find it very comforting to know it was that low.
_______________
Impossible to really know? True, and I would give Clark’s views a lot of credence. He studied this for a couple of decades. Why the Botchies sidelined him deliberately? Who knows? Their, and our, loss.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pmshoeless Says: “This was the worse act of terror in recent memory and it was fully supported by the Christian-right.”
This is precisely what I was trying to say earlier. I guess all you saw was my appreciation to Keltoi for recognizing this very fact, and you lunged.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:05 pmSometimes you’re like a junk yard dog reacting to the creaking of rusty hulks in the sun.
Keltoi Says:
It seems to me that Christianity has been getting more radical for many years now.
____________
As evinced by Tim LaHay’s “Left Behind” nonsense, wherein young Christians are being taught they must KILL anyone who won’t convert.
Yes… it’s just a silly game… today…
January 28th, 2009 at 1:07 pmIt would be interesting to see what current estimates would be today on the number of Islamic extremists. I’m willing to bet a drunken beef pizza its noticeably higher than in 2003.
Can’t imagine why (snark)
January 28th, 2009 at 1:09 pmYou recall wrong.
The photo was distributed by a friend of Obama.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:11 pmOBL lost his best recruiter when Dubya boarded Marine One and headed back to Texas.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pmSettle down Nevar.
All I did was point out that Christian extremists do a lot more than “make phone calls, push buttons, and write checks”.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:13 pmBush is rumored to be holed up in a cave in Tora Texas, very difficult terrain.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pmwoof
January 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm;0
Shayne@ 90
surely you are not saying that even radical christians of today are worse in action and number than the 30 Years War. What history book have you been reading? You could fit the Inquisition into the mix by way of comparison.
Lets agree that both religions could use a lot more tolerance. Throw the Jews into that as well.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pmHas christianity, thier way of life and yes their very existance been under assult from outside for the last half century as has been occuring in Muslim countries? Your comparison lacks credence.
Just because they are fairly safe right now and have the upper hand does not remove the potential for just as heinous behavior…..history tells us so.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:17 pm——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
Keltoi Says:
——————————————————————————–
I am an agnostic,
You are the only agnostic I know who unfailingly attacks Islam while consistantly defending Christianity.
A completely inaccurate assessment, but think what you like.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:18 pmKeltoi Says
January 28th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
It is an empirical fact that extreme Islam has spawned more terrorists than extreme Christianity in the last half century.
_____________________________________________________________
You skew your statement with two factors in order to stack your argument in your favor. First, by limiting yourself to “the last half century”, you get to throw out a great deal of historical Christian bullying. Second, our media have pretty much redefined the word “terrorist” to mean “Muslim terrorist”, in that non-Muslims who commit acts that cause terror in the population aren’t terrorists, they’re generally called something else.
To suggest that extreme Christianity doesn’t spawn terrorism is to completely ignore what’s been going on in Northern Ireland over the past half century, for example. Christian terrorist groups have also committed violence in Lebanon, India, and Serbia — although the media seldom use the word “terrorism” to describe their violent activities. Furthermore, domestic terrorism in the name of Christianity doesn’t begin and end with Eric Rudolph — he’s just the one who became a household word.
So no — I don’t see your statement as an “empirical fact”.
But the point here is that even with all the violence done in the name of Christianity over the years, it’s still unfair to react to that by painting Christianity negatively with a broad brush. It would be even more insane to invade mostly Christian countries and drop bombs on the general population (an act that would only serve to spawn more Christian terrorists). Obama realizes it’s just as stupid to do that to the Muslim world, so he’s attempting to reach out and mend fences.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pmWhy is it that the term ‘terrorist’ only seems to apply to those on the losing side?
Maybe because the winners get to write the history?
January 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm“Why is it that the term ‘terrorist’ only seems to apply to those on the losing side?”
“Maybe because the winners get to write the history?”
As one of our more sagacious posters points out, the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter is whether you win or lose.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:29 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
_____________________________________________________________
You skew your statement with two factors in order to stack your argument in your favor. First, by limiting yourself to “the last half century”, you get to throw out a great deal of historical Christian bullying. Second, our media have pretty much redefined the word “terrorist” to mean “Muslim terrorist”, in that non-Muslims who commit acts that cause terror in the population aren’t terrorists, they’re generally called something else.
I chose the last half century because it was the subject of Krauts article and is also the century in which we live.
To suggest that extreme Christianity doesn’t spawn terrorism is to completely ignore what’s been going on in Northern Ireland over the past half century, for example. Christian terrorist groups have also committed violence in Lebanon, India, and Serbia — although the media seldom use the word “terrorism” to describe their violent activities. Furthermore, domestic terrorism in the name of Christianity doesn’t begin and end with Eric Rudolph — he’s just the one who became a household word.
I don’t believe I said there was NO extreme Christian terrorism, it is just less prevalent than Muslim extreme terrorism.
So no — I don’t see your statement as an “empirical fact”.
But the point here is that even with all the violence done in the name of Christianity over the years, it’s still unfair to react to that by painting Christianity negatively with a broad brush. It would be even more insane to invade mostly Christian countries and drop bombs on the general population (an act that would only serve to spawn more Christian terrorists). Obama realizes it’s just as stupid to do that to the Muslim world, so he’s attempting to reach out and mend fences.
I applaud Obama’s efforts. I think Krauthamer had a point, but they can both be right. Often, when we have fought with someone in our lives and want to make up, we say “I am sorry, that was my fault”, even if we don’t necessarily believe it was our fault. In a sense, that is what Obama is doing – I hope it works. But the problem is, sometimes people – and nations – don’t want to make up and they twist your words and apologies against you. There was a press release from Iran today that made me think nothing O. says will be good enough.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pmAh. The hypocrisy abounds over on the conservative end.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pmThe only one that comes to mind is israel.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pmMissMolly, Shayne – you guys said what I was trying to say…only a LOT better.
And I’ll toss this out to Keltoi: George Bush and Dick Cheney are the worst terrorists of “the last half century.”
And,- those two Christian terrorists are responsible for the exponential rise in Muslim terrorists over the last 5 years.
If you go back 75 years, you can sweep up another Christian – Adolph Hitler – and add him to your list of Christian terrorists…
January 28th, 2009 at 1:54 pmBy this logic, they win because if we abandon our principles because they won’t play nice, they aren’t principles. Just mouth noise.
Either our Constitution is valid and we stand by it, easy or difficult, or we become just a nation of blowhards and posers.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:56 pmCalm down boys, Keltoi and HighPlainsJoker, I wasn’t comparing today’s Christians to the 30 Year War. I was comparing them to pre-Reagan Christians. Because they’re not the most crazed they’ve ever been that let’s give them a big attaboy and let them have their fun. Remember to give Israel a big high five while you’re at it.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:29 pmKeltoi, there’s a post on Limbaugh up above. Don’t you have to run over there and defend him?
January 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pmKeltoi, you seem to have been relatively moderate in this thread so far, I must say.
.
Keltoi Says:
Likely. That and the fact that while Western Europe was undergoing the Renaissance and then the Enlightenment the Middle East was undergoing conquests by the Mongols and then the Turks. Back to back invasions by Steppe Tribes will put a crimp in your millenia.
I don’t think so. In the modern age, societies don’t need to go through the same level of growing pains in order to become fully modernized themselves – and in many ways the Arabic world back then was ahead of Europe, culturally speaking. I think more is involved with the fact that since the 1800’s, the U.S. and Europe have been constantly shuffling around their borders, governments and populations. That might have a little more to do with why there’s instability there today.
.
Keltoi Says:
Impossible to really know. That would be about a tenth of a percent of all Muslims in the world. I would find it very comforting to know it was that low.
I’d be alarmed to hear it was that high! Our estimates of it tend to be affected significantly by confirmation bias – we mostly only see Muslims on TV when they’re being terrorists. Or at least, a significant proportion of them are. The brain naturally estimates ratios based on what it sees, not always on what it knows. It’s hard to get a proper sense of scale unless you’re actually surrounded by a real Muslim population – you know, reasonable people everywhere going to work, taking care of their families, etc.
.
Keltoi Says:
But if you compare the violence in North Ireland to Saddam’s sectarian oppression of Kurds and Shia, and the current Sunni-Shia sectarian violence, I think you’d have to agree the “Troubles” pale in comparison.
Saddam’s oppression isn’t relevant to that – he’s being a dictator there. That left aside, Sunni/Shia violence is actually less than the “troubles” were overall. Northern Ireland is actually much more comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, which is why it’s gratifying to see Obama sending someone with experience dealing with the “troubles” to the Middle East now.
.
Keltoi Says:
The one where 50 million Muslims went from murderous despotic regimes to Constitutional democracies?
Are you talking about Iraq only or some other countries that Bush had nothing to do with? The plural throws me off there.
.
Keltoi Says:
Again, to compare what we have done to the actual Crusades cheapens the evil of the real Crusades.
Bush is the one who used the word. But as I pointed out previously, Christians don’t see that word as loaded, much like a lot of Muslims don’t see “jihad” as being a loaded word. Still, he should have been more careful.
.
Hoodathunk Says:
Why is it that the term ‘terrorist’ only seems to apply to those on the losing side?
Maybe because the winners get to write the history?
Oh yeah. I just wish somebody would come up with a definition and stick to it. It used to mean using violence for the purpose of influencing a larger population. Now it just means using violence if you’re not working on behalf of a recognized government.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:36 pmShayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi, there’s a post on Limbaugh up above. Don’t you have to run over there and defend him?
I hope you are being deliberately faceatious in light of our talk about this last week…otherwise, I am worried about you.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:37 pmSpeak for Krauthammer if you want but how dare you speak for Obama. If you were one of us you would know that we feel the general population of Muslims have been treated unfairly the last 8 years.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:38 pmSorry Keltoi but you don’t make a big enough impression for me to remember what you said about Limbaugh last week. But while you stop speaking for Obama why don’t you not worry about me.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pmKeltoi Says:
Again, to compare what we have done to the actual Crusades cheapens the evil of the real Crusades.
Now there is a real loaded comment…cheapen the evil. Multiple crusades called for by both political and religious leaders to ‘free the Holy Land’. Outside of the fact that the end result was no change in the Holy Land (with the exception of lots of dead people…war as population control is over rated), just what is the difference today other than substituting oil for Holy?
January 28th, 2009 at 2:49 pmJust ask the Muslims here in America what Faux News and other Reich Wingers said about them.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pmAnd I am really including the ‘Children’s Crusade’ here since a great number of our fighting force do not have full legal rights as adults in most of the US.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:54 pmShayne Says:
——————————————————————————–
Sorry Keltoi but you don’t make a big enough impression for me to remember what you said about Limbaugh last week.
Meow to you too. We spent 5-10 posts debating whether Rush was important; I tried to convince you he is irrelevant and paying any attention to him is a waste of time, so you won’t find me on that thread.
Speak for Krauthammer if you want but how dare you speak for Obama.
I am analyzing what he is doing, not speaking for him. And he is my President too, I have as much right to opine about him as you.
If you were one of us you would know that we feel the general population of Muslims have been treated unfairly the last 8 years.
One of “us”…didn’t this thread start with decrying broad brushes?
But while you stop speaking for Obama why don’t you not worry about me.
Okay. If you don’t want me to respond to your posts, just quit addressing them to me and I will worry over you no more.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pmElBruce Says:
Keltoi, you seem to have been relatively moderate in this thread so far, I must say.
That is because I AM a moderate, though right of center. But to be a moderate at TP makes you Atilla the Hun on a relative scale.
Saddam’s oppression isn’t relevant to that – he’s being a dictator there.
But along sectarian/ethnic lines. The Brits and Protestants in Ireland were oppressing over the same issue.
That left aside, Sunni/Shia violence is actually less than the “troubles” were overall. Northern Ireland is actually much more comparable to the Israeli/Palestinian situation, which is why it’s gratifying to see Obama sending someone with experience dealing with the “troubles” to the Middle East now.
No perfect analogies in either direction, and media coverage has gone hyper-spastic since the worst days of the Troubles, so any current conflict is skewed. I don’t know if there is a reliable body count for the IRA – UDL war.
Are you talking about Iraq only or some other countries that Bush had nothing to do with? The plural throws me off there.
Um, Afghanistan? Theocratic fanatic Taliban murderers out, democratically elected government in?
Bush is the one who used the word. But as I pointed out previously, Christians don’t see that word as loaded, much like a lot of Muslims don’t see “jihad” as being a loaded word. Still, he should have been more careful.
Total agreement. That was a wince-worth moment when he said that.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pmHoodathunk Says:
Now there is a real loaded comment…cheapen the evil. Multiple crusades called for by both political and religious leaders to ‘free the Holy Land’. Outside of the fact that the end result was no change in the Holy Land (with the exception of lots of dead people…war as population control is over rated), just what is the difference today other than substituting oil for Holy?
I have read enough of your posts to know you know your history. I doubt I really have to point out to you the many ways the Crusades differ from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Crusaders were religious fanatics who thought very much like the Jihadis of today. They wanted to either forcibly convert or exterminate the Muslims. I really don’t think you can make that comparison with any seriousness.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pmBullshit
January 28th, 2009 at 3:32 pmYou weren’t opining. You were assigning a motive to him. Something none of us, least of all you, are able to do.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:36 pmI don’t need your patronizing. And poor you, are we painting conservatives with a broad brush? Poor you.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:37 pmYou seem to think you have to kill them with a gun or a knife for it to be lethal. While denying millions of cheap birth control in Africa they have also condemned millions to death by std’s that are just as deadly as a gun….
once again, you are a fool on a fools errand.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pmShayne Says:
You weren’t opining. You were assigning a motive to him. Something none of us, least of all you, are able to do.
Yeah – and the motive I assigned him was he wanted to end our fight with the Muslim world! Which, I think, is what he wants! Why is it that just because it is me saying something it has to be wrong, offensive, reactionary, fill in the insulting term. Why?
Actually, never mind, I’ll retract the question and spare us both.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:46 pmFred Says:
You seem to think you have to kill them with a gun or a knife for it to be lethal. While denying millions of cheap birth control in Africa they have also condemned millions to death by std’s that are just as deadly as a gun….
Odd you should bring up Africa, since Bush is revered there, probably the only place on Earth where he will be missed.
And to say we “denied” cheap birth control and treatment for STD’s – I forget, to Pope Urban send condemns to the Saracens?
Any attempt at conflate the Crusades with the last 8 years is simple myopic Bush-hate combined with no grasp of what the Crusades really were.
once again, you are a fool on a fools errand.
Once again, you result to childish name calling. Bilbo should be showing up any minute.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:56 pmKeltoi, you missed the part about substituting oil for Holy. And if you really believe the driving cause of the Crusades was ‘religious fervor’ you have never studied the period.
Always has been about politics and power. Religion is just an excuse. Sort of like today.
January 28th, 2009 at 3:58 pmHoodathunk Says:
Keltoi, you missed the part about substituting oil for Holy. And if you really believe the driving cause of the Crusades was ‘religious fervor’ you have never studied the period.
Always has been about politics and power. Religion is just an excuse. Sort of like today.
Okay, I think are agreeing and not realizing it. I was refering to the scale and viciousness of the violence. If the Crusaders had had the techonological advantage we do, they’d have used it. Like modern Jihadis, the Crusaders deliberately killed innocent non-combatants. Their religious fanaticism did not allow them to see the Muslims as humans. We, on the other hand, have tried to give them the franchise and self-determination. Maybe that is window dressing to justify controlling the oil, but the methods are so different they are apples and oranges.
BTW, for every robber baron like Bohemund, there was a true believer like Godfrey of Bouillon. Actually, I find the avaracious gold grabbers less scary than the wide eyed fanatics, at least their motives are remotely rational.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pmKeltoi Says:
Any attempt at conflate the Crusades with the last 8 years is simple myopic Bush-hate combined with no grasp of what the Crusades really were.
You mean when the Church led a crusade against the Cathars in France? Or when they called on the children of Europe to go to the Holy Land because they thought maybe the heathens would take pity on them? Just which of the numerous Crusades are you saying don’t ‘conflate’ with the Bush idea of invading a land for fallacious reasons for the express purpose of establishing economic gain?
Explain plz.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:05 pmKeltoi Says:
You’re not only an idiot, you’re a santimonious idiot.
To bring up the pope and the Saracens as a legitimate discourse makes you look like you don’t understand plain English, which you do but you have a nasty little agenda don’t you?
The religious right is condemning people to death by demanding that condomns not be supplied to populations who are dying of sexually transmitted diseases. It is no different than putting them on their knees and cutting their throats.
The name calling is deserved. You have earned it.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:11 pmKeltoi, if you really believe that apples and oranges bit, you should seek counseling. Our soldiers today (with the possible exception of a very minuscule number of delusional types) are fighting because they are told to. Why do you even think that people back then were any different?
As a student of history, I have seen very damn few examples where more than a minor fraction of fighting forces were more than average human beings. Meaning they had enough belief in their commanders that they took up arms.
Most people have to be forced into killing.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pmFred Says:
The religious right is condemning people to death by demanding that condomns not be supplied to populations who are dying of sexually transmitted diseases. It is no different than putting them on their knees and cutting their throats.
Wow. The scary thing is that you probably believe this.
Yep, no difference at all, totally the same situation.
But hey, you’re Fred, if you can’t say something smart, say something radical.
January 28th, 2009 at 4:38 pmKeltoi, so you contend that dead at their hands is not dead or that no one is dying. Either way you are wrong.
You’re original argument was that the crusades killed more people……I don’t agree. radical or logical?
Radical, I guess when you are losing you always fall back on that for a way out, right?
January 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pmKeltoi Says:
But along sectarian/ethnic lines. The Brits and Protestants in Ireland were oppressing over the same issue.
Then we can throw in every sectarian/ethnic conflict in the world, which includes most wars. Also, most all dictators brutalize at least one specific ethnicity within their overall population, so we can throw in all the dictators too.
To be fair, we should restrict such comparisons to “grassroots” sectarian conflict, rather than one side being ordered to be in conflict by the government. Northern Ireland would qualify, as would Rwanda.
.
Keltoi Says:
Odd you should bring up Africa, since Bush is revered there, probably the only place on Earth where he will be missed.
I credit Bono. But I don’t think Africans are going to wish Bush was back, given who his replacement is.
.
Keltoi Says:
Wow. The scary thing is that you probably believe this.
If you see credible reports that policy X will cause Y% of a given population to die, and you institute policy X, and Y% of the population dies, then you killed them. In terms of your moral culpability, it isn’t much different whether they ended up dying via decapitation or STD transmission. The critical point here is your choice to let it happen.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:04 pmHey Keltoi, its been an hour. I got the dishes done and supper started and I am still waiting for an explanation.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:06 pmKeltoi says:
If the Crusaders had had the techonological advantage we do, they’d have used it.
Oh, you mean like armor and siege engines? Horses the size of Sherman tanks (also with armor)? And all those poor benighted heathens had were blades made of steel Europe never has been able to equal and cavalry tactics that 2 times out of 3 sent the Crusaders running?
Or have you glossed over the fact that the Crusades failed and the Holy land remained under Arab control until 1948?
January 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pmAnd is this a precursor to the riff about how the Native Americans were terrorists?
January 28th, 2009 at 5:18 pmJust curious.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:20 pm——————————————————————————–
Hoodathunk Says:
——————————————————————————–
Keltoi says:
If the Crusaders had had the techonological advantage we do, they’d have used it.
Oh, you mean like armor and siege engines? Horses the size of Sherman tanks (also with armor)? And all those poor benighted heathens had were blades made of steel Europe never has been able to equal and cavalry tactics that 2 times out of 3 sent the Crusaders running?
No, I meant WMD. If the Crusdaders had had them, they’d have used them because to them Muslims were not even people, they were Satan spawn.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:39 pmHoodathunk Says:
Or have you glossed over the fact that the Crusades failed and the Holy land remained under Arab control until 1948?
The same way you glossed over the existence of the Ottoman Empire and World War I? The Arabs never really recovered from the Mongols…not all Muslims are Arabs, of course you realize.
I gotta jam, I am out of time and I feel like we are just bandying about select pieces of history and faux moral comparisons instead of actually debating. Better luck tomorrow.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:44 pmSorry Keltoi, not into that. What I described is the equivalent of WMD’s a few hundred years ago.
You best go down to the dock so you can tell the boss when the plane comes in.
Later folks, got other things to do.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pmNettles Says:
“We have no business lecturing Islam to clean up its own house when we have such a huge mess in our own.” -Toasterhead
This is hogwash. if that’s the case, then why are we even involved in the peace process to begin with?
___________
Actually, it’s not hogwash. But if it makes you feel, well, more “manly”, you can call it that. Could be the country’s reputation now precedes it wherever Americans go and that’s why we’re no longer trusted like we once were.
January 28th, 2009 at 9:05 pmKeltoi Says:
No, I meant WMD. If the Crusdaders had had them, they’d have used them because to them Muslims were not even people, they were Satan spawn.
OK, that just spun of into fruitcake-ville – crusaders with WMD’s totally sounds like a science-fantasy wargame of some sort. Anyhoo, there’s no shortage of people today calling for entire Middle Eastern countries to be nuked left and right. They’re called “neocons.”
.
Nettles Says:
Keltoi’s original point that all religions have their moments of “darkness and brilliance” is spot on. From a PR perspective, Islam has been highjacked from the moderates by its fanatical minority (one can argue this same point about the Republican Party). Until the moderates take their religion back, the chasm will deepen.
But that’s only their PR with us. What about our PR with them? Who hijacked us, and how can we take it back?
.
Nettles Says:
I applaud President Obama’s olive branch to the Muslim world. I too found it on the overly apologetic side, but it was a ballsy, controversial move that i believe will serve the peace process well.
Brace yourself, I have a feeling he’s going to get more apologetic before he’s through. You can’t move forward until you recognize what you’ve done wrong. I hope we can get some apologies from them eventually as well, but somebody has to be the bigger person and go first.
.
Nettles Says:
if that’s the case, then why are we even involved in the peace process to begin with?
Because we sure as hell were involved in the war process.
.
Keltoi Says:
The Arabs never really recovered from the Mongols…
This totally smells of “white guy talking out his ass.” I can tell, I’m guilty of it myself sometimes.
.
Nettles Says:
Maybe you two can ROTFL together and make fun of retarded people.
It’s called just another day of TP troll-thumping.
By the way, ROTFL.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:46 amKeltoi Says:
No group is free of nutcases.
True, no group is free of nutcases. It is all a matter of scale, as is so often said here. But if you compare the violence in North Ireland to Saddam’s sectarian oppression of Kurds and Shia, and the current Sunni-Shia sectarian violence, I think you’d have to agree the “Troubles” pale in comparison.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is a false comparison. A better one would be say Rios Montt who was a Christian and a butcher in Guatemala and at LEAST as bad as Saddam who was fiercely sectarian when he attacked the Kurds. Perhaps Hitler who was Catholic and put Christian symbolism all over Nazi paraphenalia and used Christian rhetoric all over his speeches and Mein Kampf. The facts is the troubles are most of the problems are POLITICAL and not religious. In THAT way they are like Northern Ireland. When the worst terrorists in the world were Jews trying to get a homeland. When they were blowing up the King David and Semiramis Hotels, the SS Patria, the Cairo to Haifa railroad, assasinating Lord Moyne and Folke Burnadotte. no one blamed Judaism. When the Catholics in Northern Ireland were setting off bombs and killing civilians quite regularly no one blamed Catholicism and rightly so. No one blamed Hinduism for the Tamil Tigers who have done more suicide bombings than ANY GROUP IN THE WORLD. Today Islam IS being blamed for the terrorism that is clearly political in its nature. Drauthammer is a tool and he is outright LYING to say that NO ONE EVER painted Islam with a broad brush. Micheal Weinerdog Savage and Ann Coulter to just name two did it quite often
January 29th, 2009 at 11:48 amI have followed Krauthammer’s commentaries for years. He is synonymous with conservative arrogance. That’s about the only way I can comment on him. Really not worth investing too much energy on him, so that’s it.
January 31st, 2009 at 3:06 pm