27 Jun 09
Talking of the middle east - it's interesting how cheaply the accusation of 'anti-semitism' rolls off the tongue. No one here can find a single 'anti-semitic' remark or argument by me, not even once, in five years. I can say that because I don't have an 'anti-semitic' bone in my body. And yet several American blowhards here have chosen to hurl it anyway. All in the interests of stifling debate, I suppose.
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFFMF pointing the finger at others again, laughable.
Your brush off will make the little rightwing munchkin posters - like generalissimo and utherpendragon - happy, indeed, perhaps they are the sneery sniggery audience you are aiming at. But the rest, centrists, neutrals, leftists, the politically literate, will wonder why you didn't field any of the points I made. But they'll know the answer.
You must be out of your mind, if you consider yourself "politically literate".
27 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFMy invective is aimed at extremists and the incorrigibly ignorant.
I don't attempt to characterize my beliefs as "patriotism". My invective is aimed at extremists and the incorrigibly ignorant.
or rather, the people you disagree with. I've never seem you condemning extremists like scherzo, or ignorant posters like no1.
28 Jun 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFMy "brushoff" was due to the fact that you're trying to draw me into a discussion that had nothing to do with my original post.
Your brush off will make the little rightwing munchkin posters - like generalissimo and utherpendragon - happy, indeed, perhaps they are the sneery sniggery audience you are aiming at. But the rest, centrists, neutrals, leftists, the politically literate, will wonder why you didn't field any of the points I made. But they'll know the answer.
Paraphrasing:
I post: Secularization is good; theocracy is bad. I sure hope Iran secularizes and gets rid of their theocracy.
You reply: The US supported the Shah and lots of other bad tyrants in the Middle East. How could you leave this salient fact out of your point!?
My initial post had nothing to do with that, your shoehorned implications based on the thread title notwithstanding. I have and had no intention of getting into the tangential discussion that you bring up.
You made the point that I implied something based on the thread title. I denied incorporating the thread title into my point. You criticized that position. Fine; whatever. I feel no need to try to convince you of something that seems plain to me about my own intent. As far as I'm concerned, this issue is done.
Hence my alternatives were to simply ignore your demands that I enter this fray to justify something I had no intention of stating in the first place or post what I perceived to me a mildly humorous brush off. I chose the latter.
I'll let the "centrists, neutrals, leftists, the politically literate" decide for themselves how to interpret my posts and yours, thank you very much, though you do seem to love to speak for the other people on this board.
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76A long tedious post which does nothing to further the discussion about freedom in the middle east. Thanks. Your suggestion that U.S. support for tyranny is "tangential" to a discussion about freedom just about says it all, as does your humourless self-pitying tone about being called on your obscurantist flannel about others' belief systems and traditions.
My "brushoff" was due to the fact that you're trying to draw me into a discussion that had nothing to do with my original post.
Paraphrasing:
I post: Secularization is good; theocracy is bad. I sure hope Iran secularizes and gets rid of their theocracy.
You reply: The US supported the Shah and lots of other bad tyrants in the Middle East. How could you nk you very much, though you do seem to love to speak for the other people on this board.
28 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFThe right wingers, left wingers, centrists, reasonable people, unreasonable people, westerners, easterners, northerners and southerners who read this board all unanimously think that post is a pompous load of crap.
A long tedious post which does nothing to further the discussion about freedom in the middle east. Thanks. Your suggestion that U.S. support for tyranny is "tangential" to a discussion about freedom just about says it all, as does your humourless self-pitying tone about being called on your obscurantist flannel about others' belief systems and traditions.
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Still no response to my wholly pertinent points about developing freedom in the middle-east? Just a personal attack?
The right wingers, left wingers, centrists, reasonable people, unreasonable people, westerners, easterners, northerners and southerners who read this board all unanimously think that post is a pompous load of crap.
Apart from Iran and Saudi Arabia, what other regimes in the middle east are you claiming are "theocracies"?
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYour assumption that the middle-east lacks freedom due wholly to previous intervention from the US is simply untrue, mistaken, or made probably because of your idea that the US is responsible for every evil in the world in one way or another.
Still no response to my wholly pertinent points about developing freedom in the middle-east? Just a personal attack?
Apart from Iran and Saudi Arabia, what other regimes in the middle east are you claiming are "theocracies"?
Most of them, afghanistan, pakistan, all the countries in the
Arabian Peninsula, etc. They're heavily influenced by Islam, or Islamic states.
28 Jun 09
Originally posted by generalissimoWhere have I claimed that the middle east's freedom deficit is "wholly" due to the U.S.? And my idea is that the U.S. is responsible for "every evil in the world", is it? This is self-peripheralizing barrel scraping type debating, of the most barrel scraping kind, genralissimo.
Your assumption that the middle-east lacks freedom due wholly to previous intervention from the US is simply untrue, mistaken, or made probably because of your idea that the US is responsible for every evil in the world in one way or another.
28 Jun 09
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessNo. It's called the burden of proof. The one asserting a fact has the burden of proof. It's basic logic.
Another one too lazy to look up google?
Sigh...only becauue i'm feeling generous...
1. China - 1945 to 1960s: Was Mao Tse-tung just paranoid?
2. Italy - 1947-1948: Free elections, Hollywood style
3. Greece - 1947 to early 1950s: From cradle of democracy to client state
4. The Philippines - 1940s and 1950s: America's oldest colony
5. Korea - 1 Washington style
55. Haiti - 1986-1994: Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?
There's also the fact that "propping" is a vague term which is too easily used to imply and hint instead of clearly stating what is meant. How do you disprove "propping" up a government?
Of course it's well known the US and other Western countries have been meddling in the Middle East for a long time. Then again our badass Navy was born to keep these Muslim asshats from robbing our people blind on the high seas.