Cindy's own words

[Mark]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words?

Really? Let's take a look at this claim. Saddam killed tens of thousands of his own people, putting many of them in mass graves.

And guess which country---and political party---was supplying him with weapons when he was doing it.

If the rest of your arguments held water, why did the Bush administration have to make up so much stuff? Because even they didn't believe Hussein was a real threat, obviously.

 

[Manny]

Mornin', Mark.

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one? I kind of hope for an answer since this thread is about Ms. Sheehan and not the Iraq war generally but somehow the questions keep slipping through the cracks.

 

[Ziggurat]

And guess which country---and political party---was supplying him with weapons when he was doing it.

Nice change of subject. But there's no need to guess, it's quite well known: Saddam's primary weapons suppliers were the USSR and China (with France in third place). Which would make the political party in question the Communist Party, the greatest force for evil in the second half of the 20th century.

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but if you want to talk weapons suppliers, a little perspective helps.

 

[Tony]

Which would make the political party in question the Communist Party, the greatest force for evil in the second half of the 20th century.

That's not true, the greatest source of evil in the second half of the 20th century, AND the last 2000 years has been the Christian religion.

Saddam's primary weapons suppliers were the USSR and China (with France in third place).

Notice the evasive tactic here. With the "primary" qualifier, Zigg is able to excuse and dodge accounting for the Republican Party and US government's support of Saddam's regime at the apex of its brutality.

 

[Tony]

Mornin', Mark.

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one?

You tell us, you voted for one in the last election.

 

[Jocko]

You tell us, you voted for one in the last election.

Another sterling contribution. Well done, Tony. I presume this comment is intended to put the thread back on track, since you're parroting Cindy's own words, which you may have noticed are the subject of the OP.

So... apart from Cindy Sheehan and our own Tony, anyone else want to call Bush a terrorist? Better hurry up so you can say you were doing it before it became such a cliche.

 

[tofu]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Cindi's own words? You want Cindi's own words

And guess which country---and political party---was supplying him with weapons when he was doing it.

It's true. Every one of those Soviet T-72 tanks, and those Soviet AK-47s, and those Soviet Scud missiles came from the US of A.

oh wait... no, that doesn't make sense. Does it?

I know! I bet the chipper-shredders that he dropped people into (feet first I might add) I bet those were made in America. Damn Americans. It's all their fault!

(in case you can't tell, I don't think any of your arguments is logically sound)

 

[Tony]

Another sterling contribution. Well done, Tony. I presume this comment is intended to put the thread back on track, since you're parroting Cindy's own words, which you may have noticed are the subject of the OP.

So... apart from Cindy Sheehan and our own Tony, anyone else want to call Bush a terrorist? Better hurry up so you can say you were doing it before it became such a cliche.

It's no more cliché to call Bush a terrorist than it is to call Bin Laden and his ilk terrorists. It's becoming more and more apparent that "terrorist" is simple a point of view. All governments, rebels, militaries, and warlords terrorize someone somewhere. In reality, Bush and Bin laden are two sides of the same religio-fascist coin. The fact that Bush is one you agree with doesn't change that.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not true, the greatest source of evil in the second half of the 20th century, AND the last 2000 years has been the Christian religion.

Really? That's an interesting point of view. On what do you base it? Is it that Stalin and Mao, two of the biggest mass murderers ever, were devout christians? Or perhaps Pol Pot was actually acting on orders of the Pope? Or is there some genocidal christian theocracy responsible for the deaths of millions you've got in mind that I'm not familiar with?

More people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by war. And that killing was dominated by communist governments, not by christian theocracies. Even Islamofascism, which arrose during that same period, could not compete with communism in the horror it wrought. And you want to claim that Christianity was the greatest source of evil for the 2nd half of the 20th century? You're either ignorant of history or you've got a really warped sense of what constitutes evil.

Notice the evasive tactic here. With the "primary" qualifier, Zigg is able to excuse and dodge accounting for the Republican Party and US government's support of Saddam's regime at the apex of its brutality.

Who said I excused anything? I'm just putting things in perspective. We shouldn't have supported Saddam, but our support was never nearly as important as that of the USSR, China, and France. But unlike those countries, we actually acted to correct that past mistake. You, though? You like to denounce us for ever having supported him, but when the decision came to whether or not to remove him, you would have none of it, you wanted him left in power. Sorry if I don't take your criticism of our past mistakes seriously.

 

[Mark]

Really? That's an interesting point of view. On what do you base it? Is it that Stalin and Mao, two of the biggest mass murderers ever, were devout christians? Or perhaps Pol Pot was actually acting on orders of the Pope? Or is there some genocidal christian theocracy responsible for the deaths of millions you've got in mind that I'm not familiar with?

More people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by war. And that killing was dominated by communist governments, not by christian theocracies. Even Islamofascism, which arrose during that same period, could not compete with communism in the horror it wrought. And you want to claim that Christianity was the greatest source of evil for the 2nd half of the 20th century? You're either ignorant of history or you've got a really warped sense of what constitutes evil.

Well, the Spanish Inquisition was certainly not a cause for good! Not to mention the Crusades. Or scores of other Christian holy wars. Over the last 2,000 years Christians have spent a LOT of time killing and torturing people.

As far as the 20th Century, not so much. Although Hitler (I am NOT playing the Hitler card! It's pertinent to the topic! So lay off, will yuh?) is said to have considered himself a Christian.

 

[Manny]

It's no more cliché to call Bush a terrorist than it is to call Bin Laden and his ilk terrorists. It's becoming more and more apparent that "terrorist" is simple a point of view. All governments, rebels, militaries, and warlords terrorize someone somewhere. In reality, Bush and Bin laden are two sides of the same religio-fascist coin. The fact that Bush is one you agree with doesn't change that.

Does someone have a better answer to my questions than this? Something morally serious, perhaps? I'm trying very hard to come to a conclusion other than "all or substantially all 'anti-war' activists are in fact terrorist supporters whose reflexively anti-American opinions should be given no weight whatsoever in the national conversation and who in fact should be shunned by all civilized people and deported if they are not citizens," but right now I am failing in that endeavor.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's no more cliché to call Bush a terrorist than it is to call Bin Laden and his ilk terrorists. It's becoming more and more apparent that "terrorist" is simple a point of view. All governments, rebels, militaries, and warlords terrorize someone somewhere. In reality, Bush and Bin laden are two sides of the same religio-fascist coin. The fact that Bush is one you agree with doesn't change that.

What a fine example of moral relativism! Why, it's got everything: Bush = bin Laden, everyone is a terrorist, it's all just different points of views. It's really hard to get this morally vacuous, but you managed it spectacularly.

I think I'll put you on ignore until I start seeing some video of our military cutting the heads off of muslims while chanting "Jesus saves!". When that day comes, I'll know you were right.

 

[Mark]

Does someone have a better answer to my questions than this? Something morally serious, perhaps? I'm trying very hard to come to a conclusion other than "all or substantially all 'anti-war' activists are in fact terrorist supporters whose reflexively anti-American opinions should be given no weight whatsoever in the national conversation and who in fact should be shunned by all civilized people and deported if they are not citizens," but right now I am failing in that endeavor.

Well, that would be a pretty dumb thing to say. Not that it doesn't get said a lot. But it's still dumb...

I don't know, it's probably good to remember that England saw our own revolutionary heroes as terrorists. Point of view does have something to do with it.

Although I think we can all agree that Bin Laden and Al Qaida are terrorists, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

Well, the Spanish Inquisition was certainly not a cause for good! Not to mention the Crusades. Or scores of other Christian holy wars. Over the last 2,000 years Christians have spent a LOT of time killing and torturing people.

Over the last 2,000 years, a lot of people spent a lot of time killing and torturing other people. And there were scores of Islamic holy wars too, and brutal conquests of quite a few lands (including christian lands - that played no small role in motivating the crusades). The Mongol conquests were likewise pretty damned horrific, and stretched across a damned big chunk of the earth. Christianity doesn't stand out for being any worse than various other historical forces that have swept across the past 2,000 years, only for being, in the end, successful at modernizing.

As far as the 20th Century, not so much.

Glad you agree.

 

[Manny]

I don't know, it's probably good to remember that England saw our own revolutionary heroes as terrorists. Point of view does have something to do with it.

Ah, you're back. I'll try again.

Mornin', Mark.

Any word on how much weight I'm supposed to assign to a terrorist supporter or to a movement which so eagerly lines up behind one? I kind of hope for an answer since this thread is about Ms. Sheehan and not the Iraq war generally but somehow the questions keep slipping through the cracks.

 

[Ziggurat]

I don't know, it's probably good to remember that England saw our own revolutionary heroes as terrorists. Point of view does have something to do with it.

Sure. And I have no problem with regarding some points of view as being simply wrong. If you aren't willing to make that call, then you sink into a tar pit of moral relativism:

Although I think we can all agree that Bin Laden and Al Qaida are terrorists, right?

I'd like to believe that, but what to make of Tony saying:
"It's no more cliché to call Bush a terrorist than it is to call Bin Laden and his ilk terrorists."

I don't mean to tar you with Tony's words, but if you want to prove that manny is wrong about his generalization, it might help to know where you stand on Tony's statement.

 

[Tony]

Really? That's an interesting point of view. On what do you base it?

History. The fact that Christianity was somewhat tempered in the 20th century doesn't change the fact that is was the greatest source of evil in the last 2000 years. Because of it's 2000 bloody year history, it remained the greatest source of evil in the second half of the 20th century. However, I will say that commie-totalitarianism, for a breif period, overshadowed the evils of Christianity.

Ohh and the role Christianity played in creating the brutal and inhumane conditions under which communism gained acceptance shouldn't be ignored. If not for the evils of christianity, we woudn't have the evils of communism.

Is it that Stalin and Mao, two of the biggest mass murderers ever, were devout christians?

I thought you said the second half of the 20th century? With regards to Stalin, it appears you're moving the goal posts.

More people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments than by war.

Can I please see a source on that? I was under the impression that WW2 alone accounted for 50+ million deaths.

And that killing was dominated by communist governments, not by christian theocracies.

I don't think communism or Christianity has to have the backing of government to take responsibility for their crimes. There were many communist guerillas and KKK Christian fundamentalists that acted outside government sanction. Wouldn't you agree?

And you want to claim that Christianity was the greatest source of evil for the 2nd half of the 20th century? You're either ignorant of history or you've got a really warped sense of what constitutes evil.

Ahh another either/or thing with you. I just don't limit my scope to a such a narrow period of time.

Who said I excused anything?

Your school yard tactic of "ohh yeah, well they did it too, and more of it" reeks of being an excuse.

I'm just putting things in perspective.

An admirable and crucial task indeed, but ignoring the involvement of the government claiming to stand for "the land of the free" while playing up other governments involvement, isn't putting things in perspective and is patently dishonest. I’ve noticed that about flag wavers, they’re violently allergic to any introspection.

We shouldn't have supported Saddam, but our support was never nearly as important as that of the USSR, China, and France. But unlike those countries, we actually acted to correct that past mistake.

Whether the government has corrected that mistake has yet to be seen, and the government hasn't really learned from that mistake has it? They're still supporting dictators.

You, though? You like to denounce us for ever having supported him, but when the decision came to whether or not to remove him, you would have none of it, you wanted him left in power.

Ahh, here comes the ad homs and demonization tactics. I supported the war and the removal of Saddam Hussein pretty much up to the point of the Abu Grauib (sp?) atrocities. My support for this administration has been eroding incrementally for the past year and a half because of their hypocritical domestic policies, incompetence, lies, and disastrous results.

Sorry if I don't take your criticism of our past mistakes seriously.

I see what you mean, it's much easier to create a strawman argument and dismiss it than it is to think.

 

[Tony]

What a fine example of moral relativism! Why, it's got everything: Bush = bin Laden, everyone is a terrorist, it's all just different points of views. It's really hard to get this morally vacuous, but you managed it spectacularly.

LOL. You're the moral relativist, I morally disagree with both Bush and Bin Laden. You think one of them is A-Ok.

I think I'll put you on ignore until I start seeing some video of our military cutting the heads off of muslims while chanting "Jesus saves!". When that day comes, I'll know you were right.

I guess child rape is fine with you then? As long as Americans aren't cutting off heads things are cool? See, I recognize and condemn moral atrocities. You apologize for them as long as they don't precisely mirror the atrocities committed by the enemy.

 

[Jocko]

I guess child rape is fine with you then? As long as Americans aren't cutting off heads things are cool? See, I recognize and condemn moral atrocities. You apologize for them as long as they don't precisely mirror the atrocities committed by the enemy.

Why do you keep bringing up the idea of US troops raping children? This is at least twice in the last week or so.

Recognizing atrocities is one thing. Inventing them out of whole cloth is another. I'm not sure you're able to tell the difference.

 

[Tony]

Sure. And I have no problem with regarding some points of view as being simply wrong. If you aren't willing to make that call, then you sink into a tar pit of moral relativism:

I'm willing to make that call. Both you and Bush, and Bin Laden's POV's are wrong. Your problem is that you equate not taking sides with moral relativism. In fact, I took a side once, I was on your side until I realized it is just as morally bankrupt as the enemy.