^ i identify as a liberal. if this story is true, i think it's tragic and evil.
into which pigeonhole should i be placed?
alasdair
into which pigeonhole should i be placed?
alasdair
The ISIS Megathread
- Thread starter bit_pattern
- Start date
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
I don't think many liberals would outright support this, but many wouldn't hesitate placing blame on "The Great Satan" or deflecting attention to some obscure Christian terrorists from 30 years ago.
those murders were entirely your fault. each of those isis killers were on the brink of rehabilitation, but only at the last moment read your replies in this thread and became convinced that the west is represented in your sentiments, and they and their families and communities will never be left alone to function with autonomy, so they redoubled their efforts to oppress western culture, and the first example they came across were kids watching football.
thanks obama
thanks losblancos
are you happy now? is that what you wanted? you want dead kids, do ya. you're sick.
when you criticise people for things they haven't even said - words you can't wait to stuff into their mouths - why do you even bother participating?
alasdair
realtalkloc
Bluelighter
Wow losblancos is taking on everyone. Nice job bud, keep showing everyone how ignorant you are, you're doing a better job than middleway.
Escher's Waterfall
Bluelight Crew
Understanding terrorism and how it develops isn't the same as condoning it.
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
http://www.alternet.org/media/noam-...-many-journalists-were-killed-israel-gaza-too
Alasdair here's a piece from Chomsky on Charlie Hebdo...you can see the mentality of the far left there. Sure it's not overtly condoning terrorism but it definitely deflects from the issue by mentioning NATO bombing a Serbian television station amongst other perceived affronts to free speech. If for instance there is a shooting at a synagogue and immediately following it I bring up dead children in Gaza it seems more or less like justification. We can try to understand why it happened but the terrorists themselves said they were avenging the prophet...its quite clear it was a cartoon and not French foriegn policy that caused this.
Alasdair here's a piece from Chomsky on Charlie Hebdo...you can see the mentality of the far left there. Sure it's not overtly condoning terrorism but it definitely deflects from the issue by mentioning NATO bombing a Serbian television station amongst other perceived affronts to free speech. If for instance there is a shooting at a synagogue and immediately following it I bring up dead children in Gaza it seems more or less like justification. We can try to understand why it happened but the terrorists themselves said they were avenging the prophet...its quite clear it was a cartoon and not French foriegn policy that caused this.
^ that does't demonstrate the mentality of "the far left". it demonstrates the mentality of noam chomsky.
again, when you criticise people for things they haven't even said why do you even bother participating?
alasdair
again, when you criticise people for things they haven't even said why do you even bother participating?
alasdair
harmacologist
Ex-Bluelighter
Indeed. Many people instrumental in the science behind building the bomb did not condone it use to achieve VJ-Day
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
Discussion goes beyond whats said overtly, thats incredibly one dimensional. Im peeling back the first layer to see the intonations of what is being said.
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
The Whites said:
He is making an illustrative comparison between how issues of media-openness, free-speech, and propaganda are treated and function (socio-systemically) differently when we're talking about actions undertaken by 'others' versus ours and our rulers, and also pointing to the need for wider context in analyzing these issues. To understand these types of arguments, one needs to distinguish causal explanation from questions of ethics. Taking your post above, I'm not sure whether you want to make this distinction.
This view is myopic--individuals, and especially organizations and institutions, tend to be determined by multiple factors and operate in relation to some social context. So yes, one could stop just at the point of an individual or organization's explicitly stated goals, but this is the thinnest possible causal analysis. I'd say the obvious next question is, what social forces produced these individuals, individuals forming these particular organizations tailored to these particular aims? And then how does the wider socio-political context affect these individuals as they operate within these organizations?
So yes, in some sense, a cartoon 'caused' the attacks, but this provides only the thinnest, least useful part of a complex, multicausal story.
Right...I find it a bit odd, though, that you're bordering on refusal to peel back additional layers...
As an anarchist (with no clear hyphenation
) focusing on the role of mass-media in cementing complicity to rule, and also holding an aversion to 'heavy' social theory, championing a near-positivist or 'common sense' approach, Chomsky is too idiosyncratic to 'represent' 'the left' in general.ebola
harmacologist
Ex-Bluelighter
intonation is variation of spoken pitch that is not used to distinguish words; instead it is used for a range of functions such as indicating the attitudes and emotions of the speaker, signalling the difference between statements and questions, and between different types of question, focusing attention ...
of course it does. but that's not the problem.
the problem is that, like droppersneck, you lump everybody into a box called "evil liberals" and then assume they all think exactly the same, then assume what your biased stereotype will think about a subject, then put those words in the mouths of people here and criticise them for it.
you're not interested in a dialogue. you're not interested ina discussion or learning. you're effectively trolling. and that's incredibly one dimensional...
alasdair
ebola?
Bluelight Crew
9mm Censor said:
Let's try not to critique each others' grammar, spelling, other typos, etc.--it adds nothing of value to the discussion and can be distracting. We also technically don't allow ad-hominems.
ebola
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
I hear similar characterization's of "right-wingers" all the time. Overwhelming all the liberal voices (bar Bill Maher) have been had their head in the sand whenever it comes to Moslem terror.
Some excellent reading on Obama administration on Islam:
[h=2]On Thursday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest announced that the Obama administration would prioritize fighting Islamophobia in the aftermath of the terrorist attack onCharlie Hebdo in France. Never mind that most Westerners aren’t Islamophobic, but rather GettingShotInTheFaceForExpressingMyOpinion-Phobic.[/h]The real problem, according to the Obama administration, is lack of leadership in defending Islam:
There are some individuals that are using a peaceful religion and grossly distorting it, and trying to use its tenets to inspire people around the globe to carry out acts of violence. And we have enjoyed significant success in enlisting leaders in the Muslim community, like I said, both in the United States and around the world to condemn that kind of messaging, to condemn those efforts to radicalize individuals, and to be clear about what the tenets of Islam actually are. And we’re going to redouble those efforts in the days and weeks ahead.
This, of course, is not the first time the Obama administration has discovered a duty to illuminate the inherent beauty and wonder of Islam. Over and over again, the Obama administration, in high culturally imperialist dudgeon, has attempted to explain to the world the true meaning of Islam.
Here are five other examples:
President Obama, 2009: Immediately upon taking office, Obama did an interview withAl-Arabiya in which he explained that his job as president encompassed apologizing to the Muslim world for evil America, and explaining to Americans that Muslims are the cream of the religious crop:
My job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy.
If you forgot the provision of Article II of the Constitution that gives the president the authority to do outreach on behalf of Islam in the United States, that’s because it doesn’t exist. But don’t worry: Obama’s on the job.
President Obama, 2009: In speaking about Islam at Cairo University on June 4, 2009 – a speech to which the Obama administration invited the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood – Obama stated:
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
If you forgot the provision of Article II of the Constitution that places responsibility for fighting negative stereotypes of Islam in the hands of the executive branch, that’s because it doesn’t exist. But don’t worry: Obama’s on the job.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, 2010: Speaking with Al-Jazeera, the head of NASA explained that the mission of the space agency would now include outreach to Muslims:
When I became the NASA Administrator, [President Obama] charged me with three things. One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.
If you forgot the provision of the National Aeronautics and Space Act that grants authority to NASA to make Muslims feel good about medieval contributions to astronomy, that’s because it doesn’t exist. But don’t worry: Obama’s on the job.
President Obama, 2012: In the aftermath of the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama took to the podium of the United Nations to condemn a YouTube filmmaker in the United States exercising freedom of speech:
[A] crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. Now, I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.
It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well — for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and every faith. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion, we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them….The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.
If you forgot the provision of the First Amendment to the Constitution that gives the president of the United States the authority to officially criticize exercise of First Amendment rights under color of authority, that’s because it doesn’t exist. But don’t worry: Obama’s on the job.
Secretary of State John Kerry, 2014: Last year, as ISIS released video after video of the beheadings of Westerners, Secretary of State Kerry explained that his mission was to promote true Islam – which makes perfect sense, given his status as imam of Martha’s Vineyard:
[Our effort] has to start major efforts to delegitimize ISIS’s claim to some religious foundation for what it’s doing and begin to put real Islam out there and draw lines throughout the region.
If you forgot the provision of Article II that lends authority to the State Department to “begin to put real Islam out there,” presumably in violation of the separation of church and state, that’s because it doesn’t exist. But don’t worry: Obama’s on the job.
Even as the Obama administration pretends to push “true Islam,” the Obama administration completely ignored the words of Egyptian leader General Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, who just days ago called for a “religious revolution” in the Muslim world. Al-Sisi explained:
I say and repeat, again, that we are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world is waiting on you. The entire world is waiting for your word … because the Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands….It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible that this thinking — and I am not saying the religion — I am saying this thinking. This is antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world! Does this mean that 1.6 billion people (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants — that is 7 billion — so that they themselves may live? Impossible!
Al-Sisi seems significantly more qualified to lead an educational effort about Islam than Barack Obama. But for the Obama administration to recognize the truth of al-Sisi’s statement would suggest that their own ignorance about Islam has prevented them from effecting change for the past six years. And that is an admission that President Obama and his lackeys refuse to make, given their deeply held belief that Islam isn’t the problem in any way.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...nistration-said-its-job-was-to-promote-islam/
What 23
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,905
add some fucking substance to discussion for once.
Last edited:
![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
LosBlancos
Ex-Bluelighter
that's your response? other people do it so i do it too?
alasdair
It's my observation, whether it be Obama in the aforementioned article and his campaign to make sure Islam isn't seen in a bad light, which entails denying the link between Islam and the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq, funny thing that.
I could also include Michael Moore, he recently tweeted out that "snipers are cowards" coincidentally right when the movie "American Sniper" topped the box office. We get condemned for the collateral damage of drones, yet a sniper probably the most precise way of killing for the military gets flak from Mr. Moore. Lord knows how Michael would take down a terrorist, with his bare hands?
We've already discussed Chomsky's article.
Seem's like the prominent liberal figures pretty much walk in lock-step on their denial of a threat being posed to the West from this radical ideology, seems like a relevant observation.
pill_billy
Bluelighter
mabe this country is just tired of fighting wars in the middle east... fuck IS fuck AQAP fuck al queda fuck yemen fuck iraq fuck iran fuck saudi arabia, kazakhstan your kool, and fuck afghanastan and everyother country living in the 4th century... why the hell does america have to baby sit these shit holes... fuck oil... weve known for the last 40 years we should have been moving onto renewable energies... if we werent in these countries they wouldnt be wantin to fuck with us in the first place.... if IS wants to start up a new shit hole of a country and keep to themselfs and not fuck with us, more power to em... if the people living there have to much sand in their clit to do something then fuck em, they get the goverment they deserve.... not every civilization is advanced enough to deserve and appreciate democracy.... if these people want to run around choppin each others heads off like they were 1500 years ago then let em... as long as they keep to themselves, whos to tell them their fairy tale is any more ridiculious them americas? only difference is we dont act our out....
