RE: Pardalis: "anti-semitic garbage"

[Oliver]

Here's another transcript that you may like to consider. Nothing about US-Freedoms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3047903.stm

 

[RandFan]

Of course I do. Why do you think do I laugh about "They hate our Freedoms"?

Huh... and my links? Did you just ignore them?

Jebuz, why is this subforum called politics?

Huh? WTF are you talking about? You are the one ignoring my links. I concede that your links are part of a complex dynamic. You ignore mine.

Give it a try:

Give what a try?

 

[RandFan]

Here's another transcript that you may like to consider. Nothing about US-Freedoms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3047903.stm

{sigh}

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

First off, US Freedoms is a straw man and you know that. They would never use such language.

1. There are many groups of Muslims.
2. There are many people in each of those groups.
3. There are many motivations of those many people and groups.
4. That Al Qaeda doesn't mention sinful ways doesn't prove that is not a motivation. It just demonstrates that such rhetoric doesn't suit its purpose.
5. Even if it did it wouldn't matter because I have demonstrated that such groups do exist.

 

[Oliver]

Huh... and my links? Did you just ignore them?

Huh? WTF are you talking about? You are the one ignoring my links. I concede that your links are part of a complex dynamic. You ignore mine.

Give what a try?

I apologize - I indeed missed your links.

I don't know why you linked this one: "The "Great Satan" vs. the "Mad Mullahs": How the United States and Iran Demonize", because as the Title says, it's about Iran and the US, not Terrorists (I know some may argue otherwise now).

The Second Article is basically a collection of Sources, but it also states:

Many countries believe that the United States is the Great Satan because it is a country that has many of the same characteristics as Satan himself. According to this view, the United States can not be trusted because it is subtly tempting and seducing people into having diminished willpower and self control in order to benefit its own country.

source: http://web.lemoyne.edu/~ruhlanjr/great%20satan.htm

The closest thing you can get to understand terrorism, are uncensored transcriptions - these peoples own words. (Besides the translation)
Everything else is mostly crap and distortion from what I see. Especially in the English media.

 

[Oliver]

{sigh}

There are none so blind as they who will not see.

First off, US Freedoms is a straw man and you know that. They would never use such language.

1. There are many groups of Muslims.
2. There are many people in each of those groups.
3. There are many motivations of those many people and groups.
4. That Al Qaeda doesn't mention sinful ways doesn't prove that is not a motivation. It just demonstrates that such rhetoric doesn't suit its purpose.
5. Even if it did it wouldn't matter because I have demonstrated that such groups do exist.

Yes, it is a Strawman, coming from the White House and spread by the media.
Or how do you explain where this Freedom-myth came from if - Quoting You: "They would never use such language."

1. I know

2. I know

3. I know

4. Really? Shall I start a poll in here asking: "Did Al-Q attacked us for our Freedoms?". I bet at least 50% in here say "yes". Now according to your logic: If "Al Qaeda doesn't mention sinful ways" is true - HOW DO THESE PEOPLE KNOW if it is or is not true?

Just out of curiosity: Where did this widespread "Freedom consciousness" came from? (AKA: "Hate our Freedoms" - no matter if you believe it or not.)

5. Of course such Groups (Freedom-Hater) exist. And that's my point: Such a ridiculous thing doesn't motivate someone to blow themselves up unless the one who does so is completely insane. Ya know: The type of "I cut my toe off for ten bucks"-Guy.

You believe that insanity and radical islamists are the same?

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Who didn't see that comming?

Rhetoric.

 

[RandFan]

Everything else is mostly crap and distortion from what I see. Especially in the English media.

In other words, what fits your world view is not crap and what doesn't is crap.

I demonstrated that the rhetoric from Muslims fits my claim. You are being dishonest.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, it is a Strawman, coming from the White House and spread by the media.
Or how do you explain where this Freedom-myth came from if - Quoting You: "They would never use such language."

The wouldn't use the sound bite of hating freedoms. I demonstrate plainly that Muslims think we are sinful perverted. It's not my purpose to prove that Muslims simply hate our freedoms. My purpose is to prove that Muslim antipathy towards the west is complex and based in large part on their hatred of what our freedoms afford us. That IS demonstrable.

5. Of course such Groups (Freedom-Hater) exist. And that's my point: Such a ridiculous thing doesn't motivate someone to blow themselves up unless the one who does so is completely insane. Ya know: The type of "I cut my toe off for ten bucks"-Guy.

Oh yeah, a person who blows himself up is RATIONAL.

You are of course isolating a single cause and I have never made any such claim. I have said over and over that it is a complex thing. Please stop with the strawmen.

You believe that insanity and radical islamists are the same?

Strawman. No.

 

[RandFan]

Rhetoric.

No argument. But good rhetoric and quite apropos considering who it was directed at.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Terrorism is mostly based on a very view, often even one purpose or motive. Wrong?

I don't know if it's right, wrong or purple. WHAT are you trying to say here?

 

[fuelair]

Well, call me a romantic Dreamer or Liberal - but I think it would have been a good Idea to show the world that justice and equality of rights is what we, the western world is about. That would have demoralized many radical propaganda and ideologies.

Actually, starting from that point is what has been the problem. When the opposing side refuses to play by the rules you either use their rules to defeat them or you lose. Since the opposing side here has the rule(s) "We will kill you and anyone else we can until the world is Muslim and Sharia'" we should be following the rule "We will destroy you root and branch." (No court games, no diplomatic games since they clearly know how to use those against us (oh - us is the Western world, not the U.S., we are just one aspect)). Note also that Muslims in general are not the target, the fundamentalists who practice violence are. In addition, the western world, except in the breech, has never been about justice and equality of rights - justice has never been equal or available for all groups over any lengthy period nor have rights ever been equal over any extended period - at best, they have been so on paper and in speeches - we still have major influence of specific religions in most western countries as well as large businesses and political groups. We just are closer to it than most non-westerns.

 

[Schneibster]

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_Middle_East

ZMag.org:
http://www.zmag.org/middletimeline.htm

Umd.edu:
http://www.languages.umd.edu/persian/iranianhistory.php

PBS.org:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_3.html

PBS.org:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/timeline/text/time4.html

CBSnews.com:
http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2007/05/29/in_depth_world/timeline2861913_0_content.shtml

Scaruffi.com
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/middleea.html

And many, many more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=cia++timeline+"Reza+Pahlevi"&btnG=Search

Unfortunately, you have not refuted Pardalis' original point that the site in question is anti-Semitic. Also, while it's nice to have lots of links, and some of them are relevant, and most of them interesting, perhaps you'd care to actually specifically point out where in these links which specific claims you are making are supported. You are, after all, the one making such claims; it is not unreasonable to require both that you be specific about what claims you are making, and specifically support them, rather than posting links to interesting, but as far as anyone can make out, irrelevant, articles. Posting a link to a two- or three-page article that makes claims aside from your own is not "proof," or even "evidence."

Now that we've gotten the whole "use of responsible sources" thing out of the way, let's get on to the "use of sources that actually support your position" thing.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Now that we've gotten the whole "use of responsible sources" thing out of the way, let's get on to the "use of sources that actually support your position" thing.

Schneibster, I agree with scarcely anything you say, but sometimes you are so FUNNY!

 

[Schneibster]

I do my best. Of course, I have good source material to work with.

 

[Pardalis]

Unfortunately, you have not refuted Pardalis' original point that the site in question is anti-Semitic.

Actually, the site I was calling antisemitic was this one:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

posted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735136&postcount=55

which I thought was Oliver's source.

Nevertheless, Oliver's real source (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm) as it turns out to be, has also an obvious bias.

 

[Oliver]

Actually, the site I was calling antisemitic was this one:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache...ient=firefox-a

posted here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2735136&postcount=55

which I thought was Oliver's source.

Nevertheless, Oliver's real source (http://rwor.org/a/v23/1120-29/1125/timeline.htm) as it turns out to be, has also an obvious bias.

Guess what? I visited WhiteHouse.gov a few minutes ago - and it seems this site has no bias. The articles there beamed down to earth from Planet X - directly onto this site. Watch out, Pardalis - besides Terrorism, there is still a communist threat or as you said, they have a history for Propaganda - you know, Propaganda like this one: (Enjoy)




Anyway: Since you love this childish tactic: Maybe you can answer this question honestly:

I often recognize people denying anything just because the source is "liberal", "right-winged", "anti-American", "communistic" or "from the democrats".

This is a pretty pitifully behavior and I never recognized that as much as in English Fora and many political discussion in the US-Media. Where did it came from?

 

[Pardalis]

Guess what? I visited WhiteHouse.gov a few minutes ago - and it seems this site has no bias.

Irrelevant as usual.

Where did it came from?

A mistrust in anything that has an obvious political agenda, regardless of what it is.

ETA: btw I'm not denying anything, that is again a strawman. I'm just being skeptical of certain sources. If "Revolutionary Communist Party" doesn't raise a red flag for you, then you are being naive.

 

[RandFan]

Guess what? I visited WhiteHouse.gov...

I'm very skeptical of such government propaganda. I would recomed that all people should be.

 

[Oliver]

Irrelevant as usual.

A mistrust in anything that has an obvious political agenda, regardless of what it is.

ETA: btw I'm not denying anything, that is again a strawman. I'm just being skeptical of certain sources. If "Revolutionary Communist Party" doesn't raise a red flag for you, then you are being naive.

See? You're doing it again: "Strawman here" and "Strawman there", if Pardalis dislikes something - we're not going anywhere.

Being skeptical is fine - ignoring something and call this ignorance "skeptical" is straightway stupid. Thanks for making my point.

 

[RandFan]

See? You're doing it again: "Strawman here" and "Strawman there", if Pardalis dislikes something - we're not going anywhere.

Being skeptical is fine - ignoring something and call this ignorance "skeptical" is straightway stupid. Thanks for making my point.

You completly miss his point. There is a good reason to mistrust your link as there is to mistrust whitehouse.gov. That's it.