Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
Is it so hard for you to recognize that by essentially saying that the cop was wrong – which is what those quotes mean to any thinking person – and therefore the murderer of a black “child”, he created an environment where blacks saw rioting as a more justified and appropriate behavior? [/quote]

Now we’re moving from “he incited them to violence” and a ludicrous allusion to Goebbels, which is how this began, to “he created an atmosphere…”

I have already said that he was very obviously wrong about Brown – though if you think those people were protesting Brown and not some general and amorphous grievance for which Brown (incorrectly) became a synecdoche, then you haven’t spent enough time around “those people.” And at least some of that grievance is objectively legitimate.

But either way, I have yet to see a hint of a shred of evidence of incitement to violence. I recognize that you can think he shouldn’t have said what he said. But you can’t call a duck a deer.[/quote]

Please keep your responses to me about what I (not others) have written.[/quote]

“Which is how this began” was an acknowledgement that you were not involved in the Goebbels thing, and I did not mean to insinuate otherwise. The post of mine that you quoted said “So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.” It’s perfectly legitimate for me to point out that incitement to violence is not what you’re alleging, at least not directly.

No, I don’t. Remarks creating an “atmosphere conducive to violence” do not look, in their opening paragraphs, like this: "First and foremost, we are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make. There are Americans who agree with it, and there are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction. But I join Michael’s parents in asking anyone who protests this decision to do so peacefully. Let me repeat Michael’s father’s words: “Hurting others or destroying property is not the answer. No matter what the grand jury decides, I do not want my son’s death to be in vain. I want it to lead to incredible change, positive change, change that makes the St. Louis region better for everyone.”

The President is not our babysitter. When he says that there are some things wrong with police procedure vis-a-vis blacks in this country – a statement with which I’ve already said I at least partially agree – but everybody needs to remain peaceful, he is neither inciting violence nor creating “an atmosphere conducive to violence” by any stretch of the imagination, and to suggest otherwise is nonsense. If that message encourages someone to be violent, that’s a problem with the person, not the message. People rioted and burned shit because they were idiots and criminals, not because of prepared remarks read on CNN about calmly airing grievances and bottle-throwing not fixing anything.

And they started before Obama finished his remarks, long before any of them heard anything he’d said – which eviscerates any causal relationship.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
– though if you think those people were protesting Brown and not some general and amorphous grievance for which Brown (incorrectly) became a synecdoche, then you haven’t spent enough time around “those people.” And at least some of that grievance is objectively legitimate.

[/quote]

Thanks for that, but I grew up in a housing project with mostly black friendships, many of which I still maintain today, decades later.

I’ll choose to ignore the possible intent behind the “those people” comment.[/quote]

There was none. I was parodying my own use of the term. I mean that sincerely, though now I see that it appears different.

Edit: Really: It was my way of acknowledging that I was saying those people for the second time in one sentence…about black people. Which wouldn’t sound good on a cable news show, if you know what I mean. I want to be clear that, though I disagree with you strongly here, I do not think and would not insinuate anything like that about you, I like you, and I respect your posts/contributions.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Smh, 10-20 years from now you are gonna be plumb sheepish about your views as a young man.

I have watched you go from raging liberal as a youngster to the moderate that you are now. My prediction is you will continue to gather wisdom and knowledge, move right, and end up as a conservative. Mark my words, and remember I, and I alone (!) predicted it here.[/quote]

I lose credibility on this because I already told you once that you were wrong, but…you’re wrong!

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do you dare entertain some examples of his socialist/Marxist bent WHILE in office or are the Geithner and Summers examples gonna be your hat rack?
[/quote]

Socialist yes. As I said, I’d probably describe everybody left of shallow-center-left as a “European-style socialist,” though I’m not sure the term “socialist” has much use in a discussion like this because its definition is much hazier than that of “communist.” He’s a liberal democrat. That does the trick, and it’s accurate.

But as for real Marxism/communism, no, there is essentially no evidence whatsoever. Beans tried Obamacare, but that’s poppycock for the reasons I gave. What’s left after that?

That pesky Obama… he seeks to overthrow capitalism through a proletarian revolution, to facilitate the social ownership of the means of production, and to create a classless society, and has taken tangible steps toward those ends. He is worse than the Constitutional Democrats, the Social Revolutionaries, and even the Mensheviks of the Social Democratic Labour Party! He’s a Bolshevik, a Communist I tell you! If I don’t respond, then the Cheka has hauled me off to the Gulag for corrective labour.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

While we all blather on and on and on for pages and pages over whether a lame-duck president might be (horrors) a communist, or even worse, might be soft on them dastardly muzzlums

The former head of the KGB enlists the support of the Muslim head of Chechnya to wipe out ISIS.

Perspective, everyone.

Let us try to regain it.

Neither Islam nor Communism is the enemy.[/quote]

I’m not sure what that has to do with the discussion but I think you’ve missed the point. Kadyrov is of the Russian nationalist faction in Chechnya not the separatist faction. He’s a United Russia party member and a Major General in the Russian Army. He’s the son of the former rebel Akhmad Kadyrov who was assassinated in 2004 after switching sides to the Russians.

As I said, the Communist jokes are a red herring. I’ve meticulously documented Obama’s career on the “new left”

Perhaps some people need to educate themselves about exactly what Obama believes and what his ideology is because I’m not actually making it up. He is a “Western Marxist”.

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What about this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/obama-told-civil-rights-activists-keep-ferguson-staying-on-course/[/quote]

You’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

Thank about that for a little while.

This thread has become a parody of idiotic argumentation.[/quote]

Keeping the peace by using words which help inflame the situation? Why should the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA insert himself into a potentially hazardous situation by condoning the stereotype of racist white cops who are out to shoot unarmed black citizens? He should have damn well stayed clear of that argument as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He could have called for peace and calm, and also avoided words which to some add fuel to the fire.

Saying: “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã???Ã??Ã?¢?? guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”…

what the hell do you think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them? Feeling targeted by law enforcement? Targeted for what? How do you know how people with the mindset to burn the town down would take this statement? He shouldn’t have said it.[/quote]

What do I think it means when he says that – at least part of which is absolutely correct (see post on S & F) – along with urging everyone against violence? I think you have not shown by any stretch of the imagination that he incited anyone to violence. Because in order to do that you’ve got to, you know, incite someone to violence.

And “what the hell do [I] think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them?” I think it means exactly what everyone else thinks it means, which is simply what it means. Again, you incite someone to violence when what you’ve said can be interpreted by a reasonable person (the Beatles didn’t incite Manson to violence) to encourage him to kill or harm. By no stretch of the imagination can an acknowledgment of people’s grievances and a plea for nonviolence be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence. Or, as I said from the beginning: So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.

And let’s not forget that, just above there, you’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.” That is your source. And it reads like satire.[/quote]

For the 10 time: he should have avoided the situation. Why insert himself into this situation? He could have called for peace and calm and then shut the hell up not back up the claims of enraged black folk who feel white policemen are targeting them. By doing so he made their cause, therefore their actions justified.
[/quote]

For the 11th time, this isn’t evidence of your claim of incitement to violence. For specific reasons that I have now offered, without their being addressed, multiple times.

[quote]
And you still avoided my question about Libya and the Middle East.[/quote]

This question?

So, Libya’s safer with Islamists gaining control of major parts of the country? I’m sure you must feel it’s safer living in ISIS controlled Syria as well? And what about Nigeria? Also a garden spot of the world under the areas controlled by Boko Haram?

I was going to write more, but what’s the use? As long as you are correct on one or two points you keep driving home, more power to you, and I hope it makes you happy. But you ignore the overall picture that the world and country’s gone to hell and Obama continues to look like an ineffectual leader.

(Obama’s leadership has been ineffective dealing with Russia, North Korea, Iran, Yemen, ISIS, Syria, Cuba, & the Ferguson situation. So, how am I wrong?)

[quote]Bismark wrote:
That pesky Obama… he seeks to overthrow capitalism through a proletarian revolution, to facilitate the social ownership of the means of production, and to create a classless society, and has taken tangible steps toward those ends. He is worse than the Constitutional Democrats, the Social Revolutionaries, and even the Mensheviks of the Social Democratic Labour Party! He’s a Bolshevik, a Communist I tell you! If I don’t respond, then the Cheka has hauled me off to the Gulag for corrective labour. [/quote]

Oh, for Trotsky’s sake, Bismark. Do you have to be so frigging literal?! Every good red blooded Murkin knows that you don’t actually have to be a member of the Communist Party, or implement any Communist practices, or even explicitly espouse any Communist principles, to be a gol-durned pinko commie rat bastard!

I mean, if the McCarthy trials taught us anything, it’s that anybody can be a commie, if we hate 'em bad enough.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/206038/two-cheers-mccarthyism/jonah-goldberg

Syrian commentator Hussam Shoei’b recently said that the immolation of the Jordanian pilot was “a clear demonstration of the barbarity of the Zionist entity,” adding: “In the past, they used to knead [Passover] matzos with human blood and eat them.” The statement was made on Hizbullah’s Al-Manar TV on February 6, 2015.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What about this:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/17/obama-told-civil-rights-activists-keep-ferguson-staying-on-course/[/quote]

You’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”

Thank about that for a little while.

This thread has become a parody of idiotic argumentation.[/quote]

Keeping the peace by using words which help inflame the situation? Why should the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA insert himself into a potentially hazardous situation by condoning the stereotype of racist white cops who are out to shoot unarmed black citizens? He should have damn well stayed clear of that argument as the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He could have called for peace and calm, and also avoided words which to some add fuel to the fire.

Saying: “Too many young men of color feel targeted by law enforcement guilty of walking while black or driving while black, judged by stereotypes that fuel fear and resentment and hopelessness,”…

what the hell do you think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them? Feeling targeted by law enforcement? Targeted for what? How do you know how people with the mindset to burn the town down would take this statement? He shouldn’t have said it.[/quote]

What do I think it means when he says that – at least part of which is absolutely correct (see post on S & F) – along with urging everyone against violence? I think you have not shown by any stretch of the imagination that he incited anyone to violence. Because in order to do that you’ve got to, you know, incite someone to violence.

And “what the hell do [I] think that means to a group of enraged people who feel whitey is out to kill them?” I think it means exactly what everyone else thinks it means, which is simply what it means. Again, you incite someone to violence when what you’ve said can be interpreted by a reasonable person (the Beatles didn’t incite Manson to violence) to encourage him to kill or harm. By no stretch of the imagination can an acknowledgment of people’s grievances and a plea for nonviolence be reasonably interpreted as an incitement to violence. Or, as I said from the beginning: So you don’t have any words inciting violence. OK.

And let’s not forget that, just above there, you’re trying to argue that Barack Obama incited violence in Ferguson by citing an article in which the most prominent figure involved in the protests says that “[Obama] said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.” That is your source. And it reads like satire.[/quote]

For the 10 time: he should have avoided the situation. Why insert himself into this situation? He could have called for peace and calm and then shut the hell up not back up the claims of enraged black folk who feel white policemen are targeting them. By doing so he made their cause, therefore their actions justified.
[/quote]

For the 11th time, this isn’t evidence of your claim of incitement to violence. For specific reasons that I have now offered, without their being addressed, multiple times.

[quote]
And you still avoided my question about Libya and the Middle East.[/quote]

This question?

So, Libya’s safer with Islamists gaining control of major parts of the country?[/quote]

You are literally quoting a post in which I answered this question. Why are you asking it again? A regurgitation of a question is not a counter-argument. And again, I don’t believe it’s safer, I know it’s safer. Note that my thoughts on Libya made use of things like numbers and facts, whereas as yours comprises a regurgitation of your question.

[quote]
And what about Nigeria? Also a garden spot of the world under the areas controlled by Boko Haram?[/quote]

Again – and for the last time – naming countries is not a criticism of a president. You’ve got to choose a decision and criticize it. You’ve tried that once here, and it didn’t go well. Now you’re just spitting out more proper nouns. Or are we playing a different game at this point? Sweden! Turkey! France! Dictionopolis!

[quote]
I was going to write more, but what’s the use? As long as you are correct on one or two points you keep driving home, more power to you, and I hope it makes you happy. But you ignore the overall picture…[/quote]

Correct on one or two points, or correct on the exact points you’re trying to refute? But, ah, while I may have the points, you’ve got “the big picture.” I always watch out for people with the big picture.

How? I don’t know. I’d say proficiently. You’re very proficient at being wrong.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

My point: Presidents are NOT supposed to be choosing sides – at least not until an investigation has taken place. [/quote]

This I don’t have any problem with. And insofar as Obama sides with the Brown camp, he is wrong from what is really an objective point of view. I just don’t think that one can say his remarks incited or created an atmosphere of violence. Yes, I allow that someone could have been encouraged by what he said – but, reading over the transcript, with its many explicit points about nonviolence, this someone is stupid and criminal and selectively deaf to such an extent that I won’t apportion culpability to anybody but him, including culpability in the form of anyone’s having created an atmosphere conducive to his misbehavior. It is the person, not the message, so far as I’m concerned – though I don’t object to the proposition that it is unbecoming of a president to take sides, or hint at his preferences, in what is really a local crime story.

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Gotcha.

The feeling is mutual, and so I was surprised when I read it, and that’s why I chose to “ignore” it. ;-)[/quote]

Thank you for this – in written correspondence the benefit of the doubt is a velvet comfort.

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Somehow this myth got started that the Muslims of yore were all peaceful and enlightened, while barbarically taking over lands and enslaving the people.[/quote]

Once they did conquer most of the Middle East and North Africa, they most certainly became more accepting of other cultures than Christians were.

Power is what matters, not the core tenets or the ideals. Those only matter for the fanatics, but how many of those are there to begin with?[/quote]

No they didn’t. Not at all. They conquered everywhere they went. Constant warfare. When the Mongols attacked them, then became Muslim, it ushered in a whole new wave of conquests. Timur, Babur, the conquest of India, the Turkish Ottoman Empire, ect.
[/quote]

Who started this myth of culturally sensitive, enlightened muslim barbarians anyway? They had some moments, whooptie-doo. Too few really. They took over lands and enslaved the people. That’s what they did mainly.