Antagony
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 278
- Reaction score
- 82
- Location
- Northern England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I only have your word for it that it was the original author who changed it. And even if he did, so what? All he's done is add another element to the joke. It was clearly never intended to be an accurate portrayal of the world; in fact its entire point was to portray the exact opposite.LOL wow. I give you the author of the pic actually changing it when its pointed out and you still claim its deliberate.
Pretty sad.
I am absolutely not confused. Now perhaps cncerning Bush I am a tad confised on your stance, but, calling Cheney and Rumsfeld thugs and talking of satisfying their 'armchair Gen's sexual desires', didn't strike me as a Bush supporter.
Nonsense. This pretend game where your argument is being taken wrong here isn't accurate. It's summed up rather easily in your previous post. "Fair enough. I realized that my proposal was one of covert influence. I think that is fair enough and would have to ask what the alternative is. That we demonize the 1.2 billion muslims in the world. Actually I never hear a specific program from the islamophobes."
I asked you for suggestions. And we began to debate those. Your initial suggestion was broad as have your follow up suggestions. And I think your alternatives here are unsound...and so I mention that. Again, you're clearly asking here what the alternatives are. You then answer your own question with demonizing 1.2 billion people and them some comment about no specific alternative from "Islamophobes"(that I'm certainly certain you'll point out one when one is exposed.)
And this is laughable. You're saying your proposals are "covert influence" and "vague", but then, any alternative is demonization. Please.
Where am I from? Why? Do you want to launch an attack on that country?
Congratulations, England one of my favorites. Spent an entire year there in Wimbledon as a matter of fact. Dreadful weather. Depressing to an older teen, unable to handle us, our parents set my brother and I off to Europe for three months before Universities started. I almost didn't make it back.:shock:
We used my father's VW Bug, met 4 members of the opposite gender who were tired of the Eurail waits and stations. Two English chicks, two French. If VW bugs could talk...........anyway...
I did read what you wrote. And I'm going to start a new thread as well. Not to bash your nation, I'm interested in analogies and comparisons.
I only have your word for it that it was the original author who changed it. And even if he did, so what? All he's done is add another element to the joke. It was clearly never intended to be an accurate portrayal of the world; in fact its entire point was to portray the exact opposite.
Ok Charles I accept you olive branch
He is a politician who manages through those he surrounds himself with.
He is a clever opportunist with no real vision or deep values - he leaves that for others.
In his second term he corrected that error, getting rid of Rumsfeld, sidelining Cheney and appointing Rice. This led to the surge, a proper counter insurgency strategy and some success, which Obama is continuing.
Those with a political agenda will misjudge and poorly calibrate, more often than not.
I will think about how to set these up for discussion in the future.
What I do think is an important base though is to stop demonizing muslims.
That doesn't mean I am not hostile to extremist islam becaise I am.
As for moderate mislims I came across this one today:
Charles Martel said:It's a carrot actually. Use it for negotiation, all of my olive branches have thorns and I didn't want you to get pricked.I keep the carrot in my back pocket for use in debate and banter with the opposite political persuasion. My other pocket has a big stick in it and when the carrot fails. I just bring the stick out. The carrot/stick diplomacy my preference.
Charles Martel said:Nearly lost his second election by sticking to those values, you're not accurate...not even close here.
Charles Martel said:He launched Rumsfeld after the 2006 election. And chose the surge strategy amongst many other alternatives he was given, many many many...including the ENTIRE LEFT, both leaders in Congress, and the majority of the American People didn't want to surge in Iraq...remember? And Obama is continuing Bush's exact strategy in Iraq, this is true, remember, he ran on a campaign of "change", not continuing Bush policy. Plato Sir, you're debating with someone here as up on facts as you, stop pretending otherwise...or I'll take the carrot back.
Wikipedia said:In an unprecedented move in modern U.S. history,[60] eight retired generals and admirals called for Rumsfeld to resign in early 2006 in what was called the "Generals Revolt," accusing him of "abysmal" military planning and lack of strategic competence
Charles Martel said:No question about it, but...political agendas are a reality, we have civilian leadership of the military in this country. The leader of the Party(Obama or Bush or Kennedy or Nixon), is also Commander in Chief. It's up to that man to know the difference between politics and reality. And Bush...to his own political peril...made the proper decisions for Iraq. Remember, this new current CiC would have already been out of Iraq leaving God knows what for a reality.
Charles Martel said:You do that and please keep in mind my previous suggestion. Debate me as if I'm your equal, you'll find me less "difficult."
Charles Martel said:does pointing out the fact that ALL of these terror attacks have as a common denominator a devout Muslim carry any weight at all then? Did you...Plato...have any doubt who was responsible for the Christmas attempted bombing of an American airliner? Did you need to wait for religious affiliation? 23 years old......a Nigerian.....coming from Yemen......paying in cash......did you have to wait for al-Qaeda to take credit.
No...you knew who it was right off. That profiling...or experience?
The primary common denominator is they were ALL devout Muslims...now...is it shocking I'd take a look at such a common denominator? Would it be demonizing if I did? Would it be remiss if I didn't?
Without an inept Dem candidate he would have lost.
Not so. I seem to be debating with someone who knows his facts better. When I look into it, it seems that Bush gave into other pressure, not least a drubbing in the 2006 elections:
I debate what you write. As an individual I am sure we could sink a beer together.
By your reasoning the common denominator could be that they are all men.
It is utter trash. Sorry if that gets your stick twitching.
I just think it should be done by cool heads, who are unmotivated by religious hatred, and who remember that predictability in how you act is a weakness to a cunning and "nimble" enemy.
Of course your whole "common denominator" argument is nothing less than bollocks.
Their justification was often biblical.
Thirdly your approach demonizes all muslims by equating devoutness in their religion with murder.
Igniting a global civil war between muslims and Christians is an explicit Al Q aim. Why do you collaborate with them in this?
This episode, it is now clear, is about a failure of intelligance on our part.
but the carrot is the superiority of our values, not least our tolerance, should be the basis of our soft power.
Just look at Iran.
But I'm sure you know all that, what with being my equal and all that. So why do you post such drivel?
Charles Martel said:Show me where these men being devout Muslims isn't a common denominator.
Charles Martel said:Yer gonna decide who is "unmotivatd by religious hatred?" Please.
Charles Martel said:It's dead on accurate. And there is a way you do this, you aren't afraid..number one..to pull this man out of line. He set off several red flags no one argues he never should have been permitted on that plane.
Charles Martel said:Many nations speak right to you. Ask you questions, where are you going, where have you been. If you are the exact replica and situation as Alhafi..you are seriously cased and even searched.
Charles Martel said:Rather than keep harping on my common denominator theme you cannot dismiss, provide substance. Show me where attacks from the ME on Americans or our allies that haven't the religion of Islam as a common denominator.
Charles Martel said:Poppycock, the were not Christian extremists, no Christian teaching was inspiring to kill, the IRA were terrorists, not jihadists. Sorry.
Charles Martel said:It's an undeniable fact that this religion has been unequaled in its ability to send young men heedless of death into battle to kill the infidel in a number of different ways. Today, there are no Christian or Jewish Jihads. Sorry, I'm dead n correct, here.
Charles Martel said:Bring it on. Their goals are that we leave Arabia and stop supporting Israel. To leave Iraq and end our influence on the ME. Who indeed is collaborating? Now, you can sit here and turn the other cheek and pretend its all gonna go away if you close your eyes and pray...I'm not that naive. Inaction our biggest enemy leading to 9-11.
Charles Martel said:Failure of intelligence...and an initial error believing this an isolated incident, correct?
Charles Martel said:They hate your carrot and your values. They hate self determination and everything about it. You can soft power all you'd like, I think that got us attacked on 9-11 and while you claim Obama and crew are doing so well.....this is another example of extreme hate coming from this Jihad. Promise to cloise Gitmo, Cairo speech away telling them were not their enemy, what has it done? We seem to be under assault more today than yesterday, why is that?
Charles Martel said:You can call truth and reality drivel, what you cannot do is prove me wrong. If the common denominator isn't there, prove it. Major Hasan...an Army Officer, 5 late teen Virginia lads, Alhaji the inderwear bomber who is raised wealthy, the Jordanian Doctor who detonates himself on a CIA base in Afghansitan, Osama Bin Laden, KSM, Richard Reid, The Doctor who drove his car into the English airport, Moqtada al-Sadr the Shia militia leader in Iraq/Iran, the Iranian Mullahs, Bashar Assad, Al-qaeda in Yemen, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, the list goes on and on, all walks of life, stretching several different nations, the one solid and always present comoon denominator. They are devout Muslims. They are involved in militant Jihad within the Islamic faith. It it's not so, cease with your tirades of inaccuracy and show me where this isn't true.
The common denominator argument is a fallacy. I have dealt with it. Deal with my extensive refutation of this fallacy. I am not going to repeat myself.
I gave you three alterntaives for how profiling could work. Choose one or give me a fourth.
Are you starting to misrepresent my view because you find its so difficult to refute?
I have the advantage on you being a non US citizen. US immigration ask you this. Every time.
Who keeps repeating the "common denominator"?
The IRA believed themsleves to be involved in a just war against tyranny and supported by God in the same way that the American revolutionists did.
They were fighting for their inalienable God given rights. Priests presided over their funerals as the military salues were given.
Nearly all warriors claim their war to be holy and supported by God.
Most muslims on the other hand belive that islamofascist terrorism is terrorism, not jihad, no matter how much you may misrepresent them.
Unequaled when? Now? Probably. So what? In history? Back to school mate!
Yup. This is islamophobia. Of course the terrorists hate liberalism. You are right there.
It is us liberals with our secular evil ways that are the real threat to them.
So your argument is that all muslims are terrorists. This is of course hate speech and bigotry. But no matter. Follow through your hate. Give us some concrete proposals as to how you are going to deal with these 1.2 billion potential terrorists.
None of them were white Americans. Round up all the blacks and shoot them eh? Your common denominator argument has been refuted. Deal with my refutation or continue to fart this bigoted drivel.
Why are you so vague about what you want to do with muslims? Is this deliberate?
Charles Martel said:I already gave you my fourth, but I will repeat myself. Any 23 year old paying cash for an international flight wiht recent travel to Yemen using a one way ticket....is going to get flagged and searched on my airline. Not being afraid to profile is indeed my fourth alternative. I already said, should ANY of the profiling I mentioned...including skin color, ethnicity, religion, faith, hair color, fingernails, heavyset, Arab, Persian, White, Blue, Green, alien, have positive effect...then use it. DO not be afraid to pull a white, black, asian, latino, out of line for questioning, ask direct face to face question, be suspicious and not have to give any excuses why. Give our security all the tools they needa dn the benefit of the doubt. Should they lock onto anyone, the excuse or reason needed to do so should be irrelevant.
Charles Martel said:IT was the LACK of profiling or the FEAR of profiling that I believe harms us. Again, I use the Israelis as a stark example. Is there anyway Alhaji gets on an Israeli jetliner? Anyway at all?
Charles Martel said:What view?That "profiling doesn't work cause I said so" view? Please. I don't have to refute what's never been close to substantiated.
Charles Martel said:You've no advantage, I've been through Customs several times, used to fly Freddie Laker from England, yes they do ask these questions. Why did no one ask Alhaji?
Charles Martel said:I do and it remains unrefuted. To do this one would have to give me a terrorist attempt or action out of the ME or Muslim world if you will, that doesn't have this common denominator. And then if you can dig that up, show me where in the examples I gave...notably the recent Pakistani 5, Major Hasan, Alhaji Fruit of the Loom, the CIA killings in Afghansitan, 9-11....show me where militant Islam didn't have a massive influence, show me which one of these Cats wasn't a devout Muslim.
Charles Martel said:Sorry, the IRA stuggled against tyranny and occupation by the English...not the infidel. Many of the English and Irish they were killing were protestant and Catholic, religion wasn't their target. British involvement was the target and did the IRA bombers claim God told them to kill children? Give me examples of these bombers in the IRA Plato, it's time to dismiss your rubbish right now. Show me the common denominator there was religious fanaticism.
Charles Martel said::rollriesnts preside over ALL funerals....Plato. C'mon!
Charles Martel said:What? What is this on the other hand, you're comparing "warriors" above for the IRA and then "most Muslims" here. Nearly all Christians...Plato.....believe terrorism immoral, the warriors you speak to in the IRA were the exception. As has been pointed out and linked to, high percentages of Muslims believe Jihad warranted in some cases.
Charles Martel said:Both today and back in history. The meteroic expansion of Islam was energy more than skill, religious fanaticism rather than a superior military, and a missionary zeal, an organized recruitment system built on the foundation of eternal life if your earthly one was lost slaying the infidel. No other religion has been able to inspire so many men to be completely heedless of death or personal danger. I'm well up on my history, Plato. Facts are facts.
Charles Martel said:Really...s well as the Jews and their secular way too, huh?:roll:
Charles Martel said::roll:It is a sure sign of losing the argument when you have to misrepresent.
His name was John Walker Lindh. A white American. And a terrorist Taliban member. Baptized Catholic, born in Wash DC.
Oops, your argument now not only refuted, but destroyed. This WAS a white American. Who went to Afghansitan, who attended a lecture by Osama the day before 9-11, was captured on the battlefield.
So, if I was really for rounding up all blacks, we would have missed this Cat huh?
Charloes Martel said:Your garbage so easily destroyed, do your homework, Plato. Don't come in here unprepared, I'll roast your lame arguments like a Boxing Day London Broil.
What's vague about this. I look harder at those traveling from Muslim countries. I don't profile by skin color or ehtnicity, I profile religion. I look where the passenger has traveled, when deciding on no fly lists I focus on Muslim nations, when I see a young man traveling alone, with a one way ticket...paid for in cash....with no luggage off to a 3 week stay in the US....I open the curtain and I ask Alhaji to step behind. If he sparks on about being targeted as he's a Muslim or Black, I tell him I don't care for his attitude and search him throroughly. I might not care about the Muslim behind him in line, the businessman on travel with a long list of voyages to the US and elsewhere on his well used passport...however....I might choose to searh him anyway.....and don't care for his opposition at all. Don't care if he accuses me of profiling, don't care about ctriticism or political correctness or fear. I ask all the questions a trained and experienced security employee wants to ask.
So your going to profile everyone?
This individual was known to US Immigration as a risk and they were planning to pull him aside when he landed in Detroit.
I didn't say profiling doesn't work.
You are right in pointing out that Israelis get their intelligence better organized.
They are no more devout muslims than the IRA Hunger Strikers (who committed suicide) were devout catholics.
That description by you is a slur.
What is the point of you identifying this common denominator?
.Ah don't start showing your symapthy for Irish terrorism now
Of course this was religiously inspired.
Jihad is justified in some cases. Just not in any of the circumstances we have today. Jihad means war. Muslims are entitloed to a just war defence where it is appropriate.
This is ignorant bollocks. Which history? Chinese history? Russian history? the military history of Sparta, Greece or Macedonia? The Crusades? The Spanish inquisition? .
What's this? An attempt at trolling?
So you would profile everybody.
What a laughable pile of garbage.
But then it's not profiling, is it? The whole point of profiling is to single out individuals with certain distinguishing features and/or behaviour patterns for special attention, being as they're deemed higher risk. If you give everyone special attention all you're doing is increasing the overall security level. That may or may not be a rational response to the threat of terrorism, but it isn't profiling.You finally get it.So your going to profile everyone?
But then it's not profiling, is it? The whole point of profiling is to single out individuals with certain distinguishing features and/or behaviour patterns for special attention, being as they're deemed higher risk. If you give everyone special attention all you're doing is increasing the overall security level. That may or may not be a rational response to the threat of terrorism, but it isn't profiling.
But then it's not profiling, is it? The whole point of profiling is to single out individuals with certain distinguishing features and/or behaviour patterns for special attention, being as they're deemed higher risk. If you give everyone special attention all you're doing is increasing the overall security level. That may or may not be a rational response to the threat of terrorism, but it isn't profiling.
Charles had only two ways to go. To descend inot bigotry or to end up here with a proposal for a "profiling" which is not really "profiling" at all. Being a reasonable chap he ended up with the latter. This guy had been profiled. The profile had not been acted on.
Hang on, you gave Plato a broad list of people who should be profiled--your words: "DO not be afraid to pull a white, black, asian, latino, out of line for questioning"--to which he then asked, not unreasonably, "so you're going to profile everyone?" and then you, in a roundabout way, said 'yes.' That's what I was referring to. If you scrutinise everyone more closely, that's just increased security; whereas if you single out one particular group and the others get a cursory glance, that's profiling.So, when you yank this Cat out of line....as he's alone....he's 23 years old.....one way ticket....paid for in cash....coming from Yemen...with no luggage like the Shoe Bomber...Muslim religion...black enthnicity...then what is being profiled? All of these ingredients together and even minus a few should see this Cat searched at the airport, should have at least fostered some questioning.....but is that profiling by YOUR definition? I'm saying profile for every reason above, you tell me if I use every reason...it's not profiling?
Wrong.
No, it means holy war.
it does not mean holy war
Hang on, you gave Plato a broad list of people who should be profiled--your words: "DO not be afraid to pull a white, black, asian, latino, out of line for questioning"--to which he then asked, not unreasonably, "so you're going to profile everyone?" and then you, in a roundabout way, said 'yes.' That's what I was referring to. If you scrutinise everyone more closely, that's just increased security; whereas if you single out one particular group and the others get a cursory glance, that's profiling.
Jihad is resistance to something for a goal. Means struggle. An Islamic resistance is inspired by and motivated by religion. A religious struggle. And so you're not correct.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?