 |
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
Ok, I'll explain myself.
Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article.
However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and letter the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism.
This is where he goes off the deep end, IMO, and why I think he's a fool. One fundy confronts another and suddenly he's a hero of secularism? No, he's not. And it's a mistake to paint him as such. He's a fundy fighting another fundy. He's our fundy, and I do grant Hitchens that rather have Bush than Osama, but the rest just doesn't compute.
It's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. Bush is the enemy of radical Islam, which is opposed to secularism, so therefore Bush is our friend. I reject that. The first mistake is to assume that there is only one way to confront radical islam - Bush's way. The second is to assume that Bush's confrontation w/radical islam will advance secularism.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll explain myself.
Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article.
However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and letter the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism.
This is where he goes off the deep end, IMO, and why I think he's a fool. One fundy confronts another and suddenly he's a hero of secularism? No, he's not. And it's a mistake to paint him as such. He's a fundy fighting another fundy. He's our fundy, and I do grant Hitchens that rather have Bush than Osama, but the rest just doesn't compute.
It's "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. Bush is the enemy of radical Islam, which is opposed to secularism, so therefore Bush is our friend. I reject that. The first mistake is to assume that there is only one way to confront radical islam - Bush's way. The second is to assume that Bush's confrontation w/radical islam will advance secularism.
-Arrian |
To say that bushes way is is the right way, and that it will advance secularism "George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled" is certainly arguable, and Hitch likes nothing better than provoking argument, but its not imbecile. What he is taking issue with is the assumption that ANYONE who supported Bush must be fundie, that one COULDNT have supported Bush out of secularism. As for why Hitch favors Bushs approach, he has argued for that in detail elsewhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
What he is taking issue with is the assumption that ANYONE who supported Bush must be fundie, that one COULDNT have supported Bush out of secularism. |
Clearly more than just the fundies supported Bush. There are a scary number of them, but not 59 million. There is, however, a category between "fundie" and "secularist" (is secularist a good term? meh). There are lots of "moderate" Christians who voted for Bush, and did so in whole or in part due to his faith (or rather their faith in his faith).
That being said, clearly a secularist could choose Bush. However, getting back to this:
"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled"
I think that is imbecile. Why? Let's assume for a minute that he's right and Bush *has* done more than the "American agnostic community" (whatever that is), and I certainly think it's argueable that he's done anything for secularism at all (much hinges on the eventual outcome of Iraq). Bush has been President of the USofA for four years and counting - the leader of the most powerful country in the world. The "American agnostic community" consists of what? 5% of the US population or something like that? We have how much power & influence? Perhaps an Agnostic, if given the Presidency, could have done a shitload more good for secularism (or good, period) if he/she had been President instead of Bush? But of course that hasn't happened. So let's look at what we've got... Bush, fundy Christian. He's, um, yeah, better than Osama.
That's what Hitchens is saying, and I find it silly.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Clearly more than just the fundies supported Bush. There are a scary number of them, but not 59 million. There is, however, a category between "fundie" and "secularist" (is secularist a good term? meh). There are lots of "moderate" Christians who voted for Bush, and did so in whole or in part due to his faith (or rather their faith in his faith).
That being said, clearly a secularist could choose Bush. However, getting back to this:
"George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled"
I think that is imbecile. Why? Let's assume for a minute that he's right and Bush *has* done more than the "American agnostic community" (whatever that is), and I certainly think it's argueable that he's done anything for secularism at all (much hinges on the eventual outcome of Iraq). Bush has been President of the USofA for four years and counting - the leader of the most powerful country in the world. The "American agnostic community" consists of what? 5% of the US population or something like that? We have how much power & influence? Perhaps an Agnostic, if given the Presidency, could have done a shitload more good for secularism (or good, period) if he/she had been President instead of Bush? But of course that hasn't happened. So let's look at what we've got... Bush, fundy Christian. He's, um, yeah, better than Osama.
That's what Hitchens is saying, and I find it silly.
-Arrian |
To add to what Arrian said. More laws are getting introduced with a christian/religous slant to them. Soemtimes laws are introduced to reinforce religion.
1. Marriage defined as between a man and a woman.
2. faith based iniatives.
3. The law that a county in tennessee tried to passing that would make it illegal for gays to live there.
I for one do not want to change peoples personal values. I just want to foster a community that will let people practice their personal beliefs without interference.
On the subject, of terrorism/insurgency. People who say "You can't reason with them because they are blood-maddened thugs" are unreasonable. Not saying that you can reason with the"thugs" but you can't just dismiss them either. Let me give you two examples of how you can end a war short of genocide. 1. Take away the will to fight. 2. Take away the reason. I submit to you that killing the "blood-maddened thugs" does not take away the reason or will. It only nurtures an environment that will sprout more "blood-maddened thugs"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
You'll pardon me but I could give a rats ass regarding fundie vs. secular arguements. I don't buy them and I certainly don't buy them as THE largest contributor to a Bush victory.
The point where Hitch is spot on is the hard left self blame game. And if he overreaches his stereotyping it is no different than the overstereotyping done here and in the MSM depicting anyone voting for Bush as a right wing cracker low IQ Fundie loonies.
The so called moderates who placed their faith in Bush are no different than any other voter in any given year. Those who cast a vote place their faith in the candidates ability to lead. The decision to go with Bush was simply that. The whole values topic that was broguht to the forefront simply reflects the feeling that Bush will be consistant and principaled at least in contrast to the less than stellar alternative. |
1. I agree with your first point. Still even if they are not the largest block of voters, they could still be most responsible for Bush's victory. I believe that they are. Think about it. When attacked, he reverts back to his good ol christian values. You attack him. He's just doing the work god chose him for. Why do you hate god so much?
2. Why is it self blame. I think it's a look at the facts. America is here. Iraq is overthere. America army is overthere. Should it be here? The left wants the country to go in a different direction. Apart of democracy is allowing for that freedom of speech. Why does the right try so hard to muzzle it. Also, many people on the left, like me believe that the war in Iraq goes against basic american principles. How could we not speak out?
3. People who voted for Bush may not be fundies. They may not be neocons. They may not be low IQ rednecks. Most of them are not any of those. I believe that whatever else they maybe, most of them are misled.
4. Going back to the issues of values and morals. People on the left(me) would argue that kerry has more/better values than Bush. For example, Bush supports what I see as murder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Pax
1. I agree with your first point. Still even if they are not the largest block of voters, they could still be most responsible for Bush's victory. I believe that they are. Think about it. When attacked, he reverts back to his good ol christian values. You attack him. He's just doing the work god chose him for. Why do you hate god so much?
|
Come on. The fact that Bush may rely on a sense of faith in order to guide his judgements is no different than r\presidents past. First off, why is this a knock? Are we to impugn Lincoln, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt becuase they held strong religious convictions. A person is the composite of their experiences and religious convictions are but one facet thereof. I submit religion had little bearing on most peoples choice but moreover the perceived strength of character did. A character issue that you say is aided by religious bearing while I say is evidenced moreso by record. To those few who were swayed by the religious convictions of the President I say you are grossly overestimating.
quote:
2. Why is it self blame. I think it's a look at the facts. America is here. Iraq is overthere. America army is overthere. Should it be here? The left wants the country to go in a different direction. Apart of democracy is allowing for that freedom of speech. Why does the right try so hard to muzzle it. Also, many people on the left, like me believe that the war in Iraq goes against basic american principles. How could we not speak out?
|
Self blame is a fools game that serves no purpose. It does nothing to advance the resolution of the issues at hand. Crying over spilled milk as it were.
As for the effort to muzzle and or censor the hard left from espousing their view. I would be hard pressed to say that there has been any lack of voice from the hard left. I would suggest there has been plenty of effort by the right to discredit it which is a completely different matter and is part and parcel of a free speech based society that allows for give and take discussions.
quote:
3. People who voted for Bush may not be fundies. They may not be neocons. They may not be low IQ rednecks. Most of them are not any of those. I believe that whatever else they maybe, most of them are misled.
|
back atcha 
quote:
4. Going back to the issues of values and morals. People on the left(me) would argue that kerry has more/better values than Bush. For example, Bush supports what I see as murder. |
You are of course entitled to that view. A strange one considering it matches up entirely with the positions of Kerry 'cepting that he might not have the backbone to see things through. That is assuming you were voting Kerry and didn't go third party as I did.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:19
|
|
back to the topic of Fallujah
from the Gulf Daily News, about an argument in the Bahrain parliament. (hat tip, winds of change)
'MPs squabble over US attack on Fallujah
By MOHAMMED AL A'ALI
MANAMA
A FURIOUS row erupted in Parliament yesterday over a statement condemning the US attack on Fallujah, Iraq.
The statement was issued in response to a written request signed by 24 out of the 40 MPs.
But Islamic Bloc president and parliament legislative and legal affairs committee vice-chairman Ali Al Samahiji objected, branding the rebels in Fallujah as merciless killers and terrorists.
"We should be focusing on backing others who are in real distress and not a bunch of criminals, who are causing chaos and destruction in Iraq," he said.
Parliament chairman Khalifa Al Dhahrani then called an end to the session, but Independent Bloc president and parliament environment and public utilities committee chairman Abdulaziz Al Moosa demanded that Mr Al Samahiji first withdraw his "insulting" remarks.
MP Shaikh Abdulla Al A'ali, who is also a member of the Islamic Bloc, then jumped from his seat saying that no-one should withdraw or apologise for anything, especially when what had been said was true.
"You want us to support a group of thugs. Be quiet and leave," he said.
Mr Al Moosa reacted angrily, telling Shaikh Al A'ali to respect him and talk to him properly.
"Shut up! What do you know about heroic acts and heroism," he said.
Shaikh Al A'ali said that the gangsters in Fallujah were threatening the peace of Iraq rather than stabilising it.
"You shut up. Why are you saying something which is irrational and childish," he said.
MP Shaikh Jassim Al Saeedi then entered the fray, saying that what Mr Al Moosa was saying was the truth and that the Americans were massacring Iraqis, who had no other choice than to defend themselves by any means necessary.
Al Menbar Bloc member MP Shaikh Mohammed Khalid Mohammed told Shaikh Al A'ali to leave.
"The fighters in Fallujah are by far better than you, they are heroes whether you like it or not," he said.
"Is resisting occupation terrorism?
"Go away, I don't want to lose my temper."
Independent Bloc co-ordinator Yousif Al Hermi said that when Shaikh Al A'ali asked that a statement be issued last September, condemning US military action in Najaf, everyone agreed with him and the statement was issued.
"Is it because those in Fallujah are Sunnis and those in Najaf are Shi'ites?" he said.
Mr Al Dhahrani ended the meeting and the MPs later shook hands to end the row. '
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
apartheid bad. american occupation good.
Last edited by Pax on 11-11-2004 at 06:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll explain myself.
Hitchens starts off by asserting a bunch of stuff about "the Left" which is always dangerous (just like saying "The Right says this!"). Lots of people left-of-center do *not* support radical Islam. But Hitchens glosses over that, because that would get in the way of his article. |
Actually Communism and Islam have a lot in common. For instance the islamic organisation Hizb-ut-tahir argues for state control of all resources, and end to "democracy", and a universal order. Here I speak of democracy as in protective democracy which views people as hardly anything more than animals, and uses all means at the disposal to uphold private property for the powerful, while expropriating it from others.
quote:
However, even if that's true of the "hard left" - and I do not argue that some hardcore lefties are all about blaming the US for everything and let the Islamists off the hook - he then proceeds to claim that Bush is the defender of secularism simply because he confronts radical Islamic fundamentalism. |
The "hard" left finds many faults with the US because it is the champion of "democracy" and capitalism, not because it is simply the US.
It has never been a central critique by Communists that Bush is a fundamentalist. This criticism is promoted by "liberals", who themselves are of course Capitalists of a higher order. The central critique of Bush, if indeed any, should be that he is a Capitalist. Personally I don't think a critique of Bush serves any purpose but distracting from the real issue. Even bin Laden has never resorted to critizising Bush personally - except that he 'wonders' about his intentions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Pax
|
|
islamonline,
I checked the site out. I think it speaks to the audience. Some things may not be true. Some things on fox may not be true.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-11-2004 00:32
|