Tom Delay, American Taliban?

[BPSCG]

Yep. Haven't seen the left have much influence lately. Have you?

But much of your tarring of Delay as "American Taliban" has to do with what (you believe) he would like to do, not what he has done. So what would the Democrats like to do that you object to?

Now, of course, that's another deceptive statement. I don't see Dems running around with IED's. I don't see them hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings.

And I don't see Delay or any other Republicans sawing people's heads off or crushing them under walls or blowing up ancient statues of Buddha or giving aid and sanctuary to international terrorist organizations.

 

[jj]

And I don't see Delay or any other Republicans sawing people's heads off or crushing them under walls or blowing up ancient statues of Buddha

Um, they haven't seized power at the minute, remember?

Now, about John Ashcroft and that statue?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, we are not to take the person's words and actions as suggestive of their future behavior? What you suggest is purely and simply that we must forgive any action that Delay has taken in the past, including his sending supporters to break up a press conference for a competing candidate (ala brown-shirts) very recently, and give him a clean bill of health going forward?

Nothing of the sort. What I merely request is that the criticisms actually have a little perspective. I did not object to criticism of Delay, his goals, or his actions: I objected to the specific comparison to the Taliban, because it was quite frankly unwarranted. And Headscratcher conceded the point, saying:

"So, the argument shouldn't be over whether Mr. DeLay is a "Taliban," but whether modern Republicanism and its embrace of millenial politics and fundumentalist Christian vissions is good for America."

I did not attack Headscratcher for this argument, and not out of any oversight. I let that statement stand because I don't have a problem with him making that argument. I would not have a problem with you making a similar argument. But that criticism is a far cry from calling him the "American Taliban". I am not defending Delay, I'm trying to respect the actual victims of the Taliban by not trivializing the horror they lived through with stupid and unwarranted comparisons.

That's absurd, and you knew it when you said it. You would have everyone excuse all of his past behaviors, even though he is not in the least apologetic, and is clearly continuing in the same fashion as he's always continued.

You're ridiculous.

I'm ridiculous? Because you somehow think I did something (excused Delay's behavior) that I never did? Sorry, but I'm not the one with a problem here.

And, of course, you need to stop confuting the Taliban with Al-Quaida in your second paragraph, but of course, your doing so would completely put the lie to your confused apologia for Delay's brownshirts.

http://www.theestimate.com/public/092101_defense1.html

"If the attack on Mas'oud was a Bin Laden operation, and the use of Arabs to carry it out, as well as the suicide bomb, would seem to point in that direction, then it suggests that the Taliban have become not merely the protectors of Bin Laden, but perhaps that he has become a key operational planner for them as well. The fact that a Taliban offensive immediately followed the blast makes it unlikely that the Taliban (or at least Taliban Amir Mullah Muhammad 'Umar, who has a marriage link with Bin Laden) did not know about the attack on Mas'oud in advance."

I don't think I am confusing the two. I think the two were deeply intertwined on an operational level, and that the asassination should be thought of as a joint operation. But tell me: who are these Delay brownshirts of whom you speak? You presented them in a previous post as fictional (as a hypothetical example of what you thought Delay could do worse than the Taliban, not as an example of what he actually does), but now you're arguing as if they're real. Is your sanity derailing before our eyes, are you just spouting rubbish because you can, or what's the deal?

 

[Ziggurat]

Um, they haven't seized power at the minute, remember?

That's convenient.

John Kerry wants to force Americans to work on Stalinist collectivised farms. He's kept that agenda secret, and hasn't tried to implement it yet because he hasn't seized power at the minute.

It's a bad argument, both against Kerry and Delay.

 

[Tony]

That's convenient.

John Kerry wants to force Americans to work on Stalinist collectivised farms. He's kept that agenda secret, and hasn't tried to implement it yet because he hasn't seized power at the minute.

It's a bad argument, both against Kerry and Delay.

Except with Kerry, it's completely and totally unfounded. But you already knew that. This is just more of your shameless apologizing.

 

[nightwind]

DeLay

Yes, the analogy could be made, in that the Taliban and DeLay both represent extremes in the way that they think. It would have been people such as DeLay who presided over witchcraft trials and the burning of witches, etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except with Kerry, it's completely and totally unfounded. But you already knew that. This is just more of your shameless apologizing.

Comparing Delay to the Taliban is completely unfounded too - so I guess there is a difference, you apparently don't know that. The only evidence to that effect so far is your statements that you believe he would be willing to do things like execute homosexuals and adulterers - and sorry, but you're simply not credible on that. If you've got anything that resembles what I like to call "evidence" (look it up if you don't know the definition), then feel free to offer it. But that hasn't happened yet on this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, the analogy could be made,

The analogy WAS made, which rather obviously requires that it "could be made". My point is that it's not justified.

in that the Taliban and DeLay both represent extremes in the way that they think.

You think the mere fact that the word "extreme" gets used to describe both justifies the comparison? How little you understand the depravity of the Taliban or, if you do understand, how little respect you have for the millions of victims of the hell they created. It's the equivalent of calling the neighborhood bully "Hitler" because they both represent being mean, or your teacher a Nazi because she's too strict. I have little time for such shallow thinking.

 

[headscratcher4]

I have little time for such shallow thinking.

Well, I think we've shown that's not true...

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, I think we've shown that's not true...

OK, you've got me there. I have time, even though I should be doing something else.

 

[Tony]

Comparing Delay to the Taliban is completely unfounded too

No it's not. It's extremely appropriate to compare religious fundamentalists who want their religion to be law to religious fundamentalists who want their religion to be law.

If you've got anything that resembles what I like to call "evidence" (look it up if you don't know the definition), then feel free to offer it.

Translation: I'm gonna hide my head in the sand and apologize for republicans while pretending I'm being skeptical.

 

[Ziggurat]

No it's not. It's extremely appropriate to compare religious fundamentalists who want their religion to be law to religious fundamentalists who want their religion to be law.

And it's entirely appropriate to compare mean people to mean people. My second grade teacher was a Nazi.

Takes more than that, Tony. The Taliban were notable for much more than the fact that they turned their interpretations of religion into law. Tibet did the same thing too, before the Chinese came in. So does the Vatican (they're a sovereign country, after all). Even if you want a more direct comparison with other Islamic fundamentalist states, Saudi Arabia and Iran also implement Sharia, and while those two places are pretty miserable too, they're still much better off than the hellhole the Taliban created. So why isn't Delay being called the American Grand Ayatollah? Maybe because Taliban is a more extreme label, and hey, why not just throw out the most extreme label? Doesn't cost you anything to ratchet up the rhetoric.

Translation: I'm gonna hide my head in the sand and apologize for republicans while pretending I'm being skeptical.

Funny thing, I haven't offered any apologies or defense for ANYTHING Delay has done.

 

[jj]

And it's entirely appropriate to compare mean people to mean people. My second grade teacher was a Nazi.

Really, she touted a line of nationalistic superiority, the country's authority over other countries, "control" of dissent, and all that? Really?

So why isn't Delay being called the American Grand Ayatollah? Maybe because Taliban is a more extreme label, and hey, why not just throw out the most extreme label? Doesn't cost you anything to ratchet up the rhetoric.

Because an Ayatollah avows being a religious leader, and Delay hides behind religion, but claims to be a politican rather than a religious leader?

Funny thing, I haven't offered any apologies or defense for ANYTHING Delay has done.

So what do you think of his overt religiousity?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really, she touted a line of nationalistic superiority, the country's authority over other countries, "control" of dissent, and all that? Really?

Wait, are you finally catching on to my point? I can't quite tell.

Because an Ayatollah avows being a religious leader, and Delay hides behind religion, but claims to be a politican rather than a religious leader?

Which is also a difference between Delay and the Taliban, since the Taliban also proclaimed themselves openly as religious leaders. I can't quite tell if you're starting to see things my way (I don't think either comparison is good), or if you're just reflexively arguing against what I said because I wasn't clear enough.

So what do you think of his overt religiousity?

It kind of creeps me out. And I really, honestly, have absolutely no problem with people criticising it. It's the specific comparison to the Taliban which I think is unwarranted, and which I have been objecting to here.

 

[jj]

Which is also a difference between Delay and the Taliban, since the Taliban also proclaimed themselves openly as religious leaders. I can't quite tell if you're starting to see things my way (I don't think either comparison is good), or if you're just reflexively arguing against what I said because I wasn't clear enough.

Well, what's worse, an open Taliban or a covert one?

(Actually, the question is serious.)

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Well, what's worse, an open Taliban or a covert one?

(Actually, the question is serious.)

The point that is getting lost, here, though, is that it is a matter of degree.

A fundy might want to make it illegal for a teenaged mother to have an abortion, even in cases of rape and/or incest. This is bad.

For those fundie to be Taliban-esque, though, they would have to be proposing that not only should abortion be outlawed, but the girl should be executed publically for having sex out of wedlock. This is far worse.

This is why I think it is silly to call any politician an 'American Taliban' unless they actually propose such policies. DeLay, as bad as he may be, has to my knowledge, not sone so.

Hyperbolic rhetoric ultimately hurts the side making it more than it helps, imo.

 

[headscratcher4]

Hyperbolic rhetoric ultimately hurts the side making it more than it helps, imo.

Who said that? Former Senator Max Cleland?

 

[UserGoogol]

The analogy WAS made, which rather obviously requires that it "could be made". My point is that it's not justified.



You think the mere fact that the word "extreme" gets used to describe both justifies the comparison? How little you understand the depravity of the Taliban or, if you do understand, how little respect you have for the millions of victims of the hell they created. It's the equivalent of calling the neighborhood bully "Hitler" because they both represent being mean, or your teacher a Nazi because she's too strict. I have little time for such shallow thinking.

I'd say it's more like calling an anti-semite a Nazi. It's still hyperbolic, but it's not quite as hyperbolic as you describe. The defining characteristic of the Taliban was that they were a bunch of crazy religious fundamentalists who had a theocracy taken to the most despicable extreme. Thus, it is quite natural to extend religious fundamentalism to them.

It's also linguistically comparable to the phrase "witch-hunt." Not a whole lot of people were hanged during McCarthyism, but it's still a witch-hunt because of the whole atmosphere of the scene. Similarly, even in their wildest dreams the religious right probably doesn't imagine going quite as far as the Taliban did, but they're still a group which feels that religion should be a guiding force of government.

I suppose it all depends on how you look at the Taliban. If you think that the atrocities of the Taliban are so awful that the Taliban cannot be used as a metaphor without conjuring up memories of women being stoned for showing their shins, then yeah, it's a bad choice of words. If you can think of the Taliban without thinking of the atrocities, then the Taliban becomes simply a recent notorious theocracy, and using it as a metaphor becomes far more reasonable. Still an obvious appeal to emotion, but all poetic language involves some of that.