My favorite part in this whole discussion is the fact that whenever someone "accuses" Obama of being a Muslim, people say "NO HE'S NOT!!!!", when in fact, the right question should be "And what if he were?". The mere use of the word "accuse" already implies negativity, as if he were guilty of something being a muslim.
I love when this sweet grandma-looking ignorant racist old lady tells Mc Cain "I'm afraid he's an Arab" (because Arab, Muslim, Terrorist, Satan, it's all the same right?) and Mc Cain says "No ma'am, he's a decent man". What's up with that!
All that matters is if he wants to do good for the American people and the world. So shut up.
@Adrurc: He is a secret Muslim who listened to his Protestant minister say bad things about America (because everyone knows it is the clergy's job to say only good things about temporal power).
But I think the silver lining here is that no one has accused our President of being a Jew. Yet.
Has it occurred to anyone that Al Qaida may have stopped attacking Americans on U.S. soil after 9/11 because it was so much easier to attack us over in Iraq?
That doesn't mean Bush succeeded in stopping terrorist attacks. It just means he moved thousands of Americans into a place where it much easier and more convenient for Al Qaida to kill them.
@MisterHippity: Has it occurred to anyone that Al Qaida may have stopped attacking Americans on U.S. soil after 9/11 because it was so much easier to attack us over in Iraq?
It's always occurred to me every time Bush or one of his cheerleaders talked about his great success in protecting us from the terrorists (you know, after giving them their biggest success on American soil.
The following is a true story. And it made me laugh out loud when I read this otherwise disturbing tale.
In one of my many former incarnations, I was an archaeologist. Yes. Really. And I worked for many seasons in far-eastern Turkey. Stunning country and, as a general rule, some of the most wonderful and hospitable people I've ever met. I was excavating with a team in a very small village, miles from anywhere. Many mornings we'd go back on site to find a number of hastily dug pits pock-marking our painstakingly excavated, level trenches. Which for an archaeologist is a nightmare - it disturbs the stratigraphic integrity of the site - when a random hole is dug, stuff from more recent, higher deposits tumbles down into the earlier, lower levels. When questioned, the Turkish villagers always blamed it on the Syrians..."they came over the border last night and dug the holes, looking for gold". Only problem with that scenario was that the Syrian border was hundreds of kilometres away.
An American President is always a target. I'm far less worried about some foreign plot that our home-grown crazies, whose paranoia is being fed daily by the right-wing outlets. Fox News truncated a comment of his, and Hannity et al have been shrieking that Obama attacked America. Vicious liars, they are. It's nonstop demonization happening.
Their paranoia meter is quivering on "high", and it's being stoked in a disturbing way. There's a lot of very violent rhetoric and imagery being thrown about by the right, and it's hideous. Dog-whistles.
The day JFK was shot, Dallas was papered with fliers, ads taken out, calling him a traitor. Right wing extremism, their violent, gun-centered philosophy has historically been a blight on this country. After Lincoln and JFK, it's distressing as hell.
@Baroness: I agree with you about the homegrown crazies being a bigger threat. However, I think it is because some idiots still cannot get over we have an African America President, not because of a Hannity-fueled aggression.
Extremism in any form is generally not so hot. You mention the Right's "gun-centered philosophy" and I have to agree with you to some extent. I really do not see the need for an AK 47 to go hunting. But let's not forget that the extreme Left can be a blight too. The ACLU's defense of NAMBLA is a blight on the US as well.
@momof3wildkids: The ACLU is not the "extreme Left" - (the ACLU has been critical of both Dems & Reps) They defend even the most unpopular forms of speech and expression, i.e. neo-nazis ("extreme Right") And the ACLU does not defend NAMBLA per say, but represented a chapter when it was sued in civil court based solely on the fact that a murderer/rapist had visited NAMBLA's website.
@Baroness: I'm from Pittsburgh, where three cops got shot this weekend because a right-wing nut job thought they were coming to take his guns away when they were just trying to get him out of his mama's house. The hometown crazy threat is all too real.
@once: I think extremism is in the eye of the beholder, dear Once. Ask any conservative if they think the ACLU is extreme Left and you will hear a resounding YES. Not saying that they aren't critical of both L and R, but I think you know who they generally target.
Touche on the NAMBLA part of my post. I had my facts wrong. Mea culpa. I appreciate the correction.
@momof3wildkids: Seriously, I scarcely know much about it, but is NAMBLA some major force in American life that affects us all? Isn't it some horrid 70's leftover from the sexual revolution, fringe weirdos with ghastly ideas?
I'd swear that if NAMBLA didn't exist, some Republicans would invent it as a straw-man way to make liberals look bad. And discredit the very good work the ACLU has done.
@Baroness: I'm not saying that the ACLU hasn't done good work. They have and continue to do some good work.
I'm also saying that I don't like the fact that the defended the KKK, get their undies in a bunch over the 10 commandments posted at gov't offices, trying to "un-Christmas" December, helping children sue their parents, etc.... They can wield their power and their resources to essentially strong arm small communities and organizations into 'compliance' because they don't have the resources to mount a defense in court against the ACLU's very deep pockets. That sucks. Just because they have more money and resources, doesn't make them right all the time.
BTW, NAMBLA is alive and well in CT/NJ/NY. Not saying it affects us all, but the people it does affect -- it affects very strongly.
@momof3wildkids: All of those things -- defending the KKK, getting their undies in a bunch over the 10 commandments posted at government offices, trying to "un-Christmas" December, and helping children sue their parents -- seem like exactly the sort of thing I would hope the ACLU would do. Preserving people's right to litigation, protecting even hateful free speech, and making sure religion is separate from government -- all that is valuable and important work, and it always makes me sad when fellow Americans are dismissive of it.
@momof3wildkids: Conservatives are now claiming NAZIS were extreme Lefties now, so I'm not going to take their sense of direction too seriously at the moment.
@onebadclam: Well, you know that when you've got Bill O'Reilly parroting the ridiculous premises of Jonah Goldbergs lumps of shit, you have truly entered the Right Wing echo chamber.
While we sit here and argue about cheap shots - saying that people villified Obama for sitting in a Christian Church without mentioning the insanity of that particular reverend is a cheap shot, Owen - many in the world don't give a fuck about our American Liberal vs. American Conservative principals. They just see Americans. While a whacky Islamic fundamentalist may not relish killing Obama as much as he would Bush, it would still be a huge coup for a terrorist to kill an American President.
Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him. President Obama is correct. Terrorism hasn't stopped just because Barack Hussein Obama was elected. Before I get the use of the middle name jammed down my throat, it's an off quote from him this past weekend. Just in case you didn't see.
@ChillbearLatrigue: You appear to be missing the point of Owen's post. He's ironically contrasting this news event to the "Obama is a secret muslim" rumors that were spread by many Obama opponents (mostly through e-mail) during the election campaign.
The Rev. Wright reference isn't a cheap shot. He's just playing on the irony that many of the same anti-Obama activists claiming he was a muslim were also criticizing him for his connection to a Christian minister. Cuz he can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. GET IT??
And yes, we can all agree that Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43 ... except nobody (including Owen) ever claimed otherwise so what the fuck is the point??
@MisterHippity: Mr Hippity, please get off your horse. Of course you can "be" two religions... I know people who are Christian/Jew, Jew/ Buddhist, Christian/Hindu. I have to admit, I do not know any Christian/Muslims, but then again, I live in CT.
I agree with ChillbearLatrigue, as I usually do, that terrorists see AMERICANS not conservative/liberal. I also agree with Eatshootsandleaves (one of my fave books, btw) terrorists are horrible motherfuckers.
@eatsshootsleaves: Yeah, it was a typo. The last terrorist attack on US soil, was 9/11. It's just a point. It may have been luck, but in the 90's we were attacked relatively frequently.
@MisterHippity: I got Owen's point. I think it was a timely piece, because President Obama used his middle name in a speech this week to make a similar point: I have a Middle Eastern sounding name, but that isn't going to stop terrorists. Well, it's similar to saying terrorists wont attack a "secret Muslim."
I don't agree that the same assholes that were spreading rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim were the ones that were offended by his Wright association. I think that most of us saw the Muslim myth for what it was. On the other hand, the only thing that I thought to be untruthful about the Wright story was Obama saying that he attended the church for 18 years and had some how missed all of the bad stuff.
@ChillbearLatrigue: ""Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him."
Yes, because if it weren't for Bush, weakling Democrats would be allowing men with box-cutters to get on planes and repeat 9-11 every week, directed by their masters in their caves. No one else but Bush could ever have put a stop to that.
Bush is the one who ignored the warnings loud and clear, about the threat.
9/11 happened because of his negligence. And you say he saved us all from it happening, uh, again. Ugh.
@ChillbearLatrigue: Well, it was the last terrorist attack unless you count the anthrax attacks, or the thousands of Americans killed in terrorist attacks overseas...
@momof3wildkids: I also agree that: 1. Terrorists see us as Americans, not conservatives/liberals. 2. Terrorists are horrible motherfuckers.
Ok, now it's my turn to state my belief in a few obviously true things that nobody here ever disagreed with in the first place. Let's see ... I believe that:
- Murdering adorable kittens is a terrible thing to do. - Charles Manson was a bad man. - If you don't bathe for a few days, you'll probably start to get smelly.
I believe these things to be true with all my heart. I don't care what any of you Manson-loving, bath-avoiding kitten murderers may think!
@eatsshootsleaves: Sweetie, those are WARS. Doesn't change the deaths and the effect on their families, but it isn't terrorism. Any member of our gov't, left or right, who called them anything else was full of shit.
@Baroness: Except that the Clinton Administration didn't do much to stop the terrorist attacks prior to 9/11: the first World Trade Center Attack, the Khobar Towers, the US embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole. I don't think Democrats are weaklings, but I didn't see any results in the prior eight year administration. I'm also not saying that "no one else but Bush could ever have put a stop to that." I'm just pointing out that Bush did put a stop to it.
@eatsshootsleaves: To date, we still don't know the full story about the anthrax attacks. I guess it's thousands if you count attacks on the military and military contractors. Their sacrifice is just as great, but I think we are talking about a different situation when you contrast people knowingly going into a war zone and people headed to work in the Financial District.
@MisterHippity: Okay, so we are on a tangent. Again, I was just trying to tie in the President's speech with the article. I guess it didn't work for you. I have a few questions for you:
- What if the kitten is just as evil as it is adorable? - What if all of Charles Manson's victims turned out to be adorable kitten murderers and he was trying to stop them? - If you are in cryogenic suspension, does the bathing thing still apply?
@momof3wildkids: And you didn't address the anthrax scare.
Can you please refrain from addressing people as "sweetie" and referencing their use or need for medication in the future? I love sarcasm as much as anybody. Just not yours. Comes across as passive-aggressive, demeaning, and tasteless.
Let's get over trying to change the other side's opinions. Not gonna happen. Especially not in a snarky little forum, for goodness sake.
@aLostLady: In my mind, the Anthrax scare the 9/11 are entwined. They happened so close together and since it remains unsolved....
I'm not looking to change any opinions, nor should anyone try to change mine; but that doesn't mean I don't like to be challenged. I love to be challenged with thoughtful responses as it makes me think deeper about my opinions and beliefs.
My response to Mr Hippity was no more ridiculous than his response to mine. As for you not liking my sarcasm, meh.
@momof3wildkids: Um, no. First of all, don't call me sweetie. I'm a grown woman. Secondly, when soldiers die because a terrorist blows up a mosque, it's still a terrorist attack. And anyone, left or right, who calls it anything else is just being silly -- even the DoD refers to these sorts of attacks as terrorist ... You can say that these attacks were inevitable as a result of the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, but considering how ill-conceived that decision was, I'd hardly call that a point
in favor of the awesome terrorist-annihilating powers of George W. Bush. If you really want to say that only civilians can be killed by terrorists, the point still stands, however -- lots of civilians were killed in terrorist attacks after 9/11 during Bush's presidency. This doesn't even count many attacks on U.S. allies by the same groups we were supposed to have been eradicating.
@eatsshootsleaves: That first linked sentence was supposed to have read "...these sorts of attacks as terrorist attacks." I don't know why Gawker cuts linked text off like that...
@momof3wildkids: The Bush White House told us we were fighting Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq and Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan. We don't treat prisoners from those conflicts as POWs. You can't call the combatants "terrorists" and not call their attacks "terrorist attacks."
So, rather than keep us safe for eight years the Bush Administration oversaw the most concentrated series of terrorist attacks against US nationals in our history.
@momof3wildkids: Well, they did solve the Anthrax cases. The suspect killed himself just as they were about to announce his indictment. He was a disgruntled U.S. scientist working in our biological weapons program.
This was way back in 2008.
As for the Americans Bush exported to be murdered by terrorists, their deaths still count as death by terrorist, as much as people who want to believe that Bush somehow stopped those kind of deaths from happening to Americans wish to classify them as somehow excluded from such. For whatever weird, thoroughly partisan reason.
@Mediahohoho: I simply disagree with your definition of terrorist. Not saying their deaths have any less meaning, just that the words terrorism and terrorist mean practically nothing given the gov't definitions (under both Bush and Obama) as well as the media's.
As for the Anthrax case, well there is some debate on that since it never saw the light of day in a court of law. Not saying I agree w/the skeptics, I simply don't know if it is really considered 'solved' as there are still a bunch of unanswered questions.
@momof3wildkids: I believe the FBI considers it solved. And I remember reading in The New Yorker 2002 from someone who had previously been in the the U.S. biological weapons program a profile closely resembling the guy they had in their sites when he killed himself. However, I'm sure that not releasing this information to the public served the administration's goal of stoking up enough hysteria to attack a country wholly unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.
As for the question of terrorism versus enemy action, I think my broader point is that, despite his claims to the contrary, George W. Bush did a poorer job of protecting American lives than any president in recent memory.
@ChillbearLatrigue: I agree with most everything in your post, esp the part about others not viewing us as conservative/liberal Americans. Good observation, and I find it funny when we automatically assume people abroad must understand every single nuance of our politics.
However, Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him.
Everyone seems to have forgotten this, but last summer (while Bush was still president), there was that Al Qaeda shooting of the US consulate in Istanbul which killed several Americans. Fun times, and I was there when it happened. Just because there hasn't been another 9/11-scale event doesn't mean they're not still perpetrating civilian attacks on us.
Okay, seriously. I know this is the internet, and nobody cares about spelling or grammar, blah blah blah grammar nazi. But why does it suddenly feel like every article has been run through babelfish to arrive at "English?" They found Aasiya Hassan's body was found lying in an office hallway. What the hell? I should be focusing on the terrible tragedy in the article, which is what I would be doing if I could actually read the damn thing. One or two typos isn't that bad, but it feels like every single post has one or two or eight typos, and it's really horribly distracting, and sometimes makes the entire thing unreadable.
Now, I wait to get banned from commenting because I "missed the point," I guess.
Step out of your politically correct foxhole for a moment, and understand why this is news. Sure, it is not common practice to behead wives in Islamic society, but beheadings by Extremist Muslims are quite common in the news today.
The fact that that an American Muslim striving to bridge the culture gap through the media, who then murders his wife in a decidedly high-profile Muslim extremist fashion is HIGHLY ironic.
I wonder at what time of the day this murder took place. I assume she was murdered at the radio station. If so, how many people were in the building when it happened? How many of these employees were Muslim? How did he decapitate her? My guess is that it takes some time to cut someone's head off. She must have been screaming. How did nobody in the building come to her aid? To me, this is where the cultural mores really come to play.
@Moyle1Forskin0: There's no screaming--she may in fact have been on the phone when it happened. You can't scream when your throat is cut. You can be be-headed in a matter of seconds. Look at the recent Virginia Tech case.
@RealTomatoKetchup: Yeah, damn Pakistanis. They've only elected one female prime minister, twice, in their 50-year-history as a country. What backward apes!
My family is white, upper-middle class, most claiming to be Christian, and has been in the US since before the American Revolution. When my mother wanted help against domestic abuse, the excuse for no one wanting to help her was because "nice people's families aren't like that". She was told to stop doing things to make my father "need" to hit her. He never claimed hitting her was for "honor", but he did claim it was her fault for not being "submissive, like the church said she should be." As far as I can see, men who batter and kill women do it for their own reasons, then look for the cultural, religious or familial excuse to blame the victim with later.
There seems to always be some group or other trying to explain away blatant domestic abuse (if not murder) based on "Yes, maybe *they* are like that, but *we* aren't." I think that's all this semantics argument is about. If we can pretend this guy was just some heathen, and "not like us", we don't have to worry about it so much.
Victims are still subtly blamed or ignored in our American, Western, "Christian" culture. Sure, it's not the same as being in a country where this is sanctioned by law, but we're nowhere near as far removed from this as we non-Muslims (non-poor, non-non-white, etc.) want to pretend.
I recommend the book *Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life* to anyone interested in this topic.
I'm confused as to why you slight "America's anti-Muslim bigots" when it sounds like NOW is the problem here. What the hell are they calling this a terroristic honor killing for? It's domestic violence and it's a tragedy. Period.
@friend_of_a_friend: I dont understand the terroristic thing at all, but it certainly strikes me as a honor killing due to the circumstances and how it was done which in my mind is just a cultural term for domestic violence.
@Jim Topoleski: It's not surprising that NOW would tie the word terrorism to Muslims. American feminists hate Islam. Apparently they don't understand that they don't own feminism. When Karen Hughes went to the Middle East and bragged to Arab women (who are at the front lines of a profound women's rights battle the likes no American woman has every experienced) about being a working mom who drives her kids to soccer practice, I cringed. Most American feminists are clueless.
@Jim Topoleski: The word "terroristic" is legal speak for a variety of intent: actions intended to threaten and terrorize. There are some good words in those big old heavy law books. You gotta love the profession for that at least. Well, that and they are the butt of some really good jokes.
04/07/09
I love when this sweet grandma-looking ignorant racist old lady tells Mc Cain "I'm afraid he's an Arab" (because Arab, Muslim, Terrorist, Satan, it's all the same right?) and Mc Cain says "No ma'am, he's a decent man". What's up with that!
All that matters is if he wants to do good for the American people and the world. So shut up.
04/07/09
But I think the silver lining here is that no one has accused our President of being a Jew. Yet.
04/07/09
That doesn't mean Bush succeeded in stopping terrorist attacks. It just means he moved thousands of Americans into a place where it much easier and more convenient for Al Qaida to kill them.
04/07/09
It's always occurred to me every time Bush or one of his cheerleaders talked about his great success in protecting us from the terrorists (you know, after giving them their biggest success on American soil.
04/06/09
In one of my many former incarnations, I was an archaeologist. Yes. Really. And I worked for many seasons in far-eastern Turkey. Stunning country and, as a general rule, some of the most wonderful and hospitable people I've ever met. I was excavating with a team in a very small village, miles from anywhere. Many mornings we'd go back on site to find a number of hastily dug pits pock-marking our painstakingly excavated, level trenches. Which for an archaeologist is a nightmare - it disturbs the stratigraphic integrity of the site - when a random hole is dug, stuff from more recent, higher deposits tumbles down into the earlier, lower levels. When questioned, the Turkish villagers always blamed it on the Syrians..."they came over the border last night and dug the holes, looking for gold". Only problem with that scenario was that the Syrian border was hundreds of kilometres away.
Looks like those Syrians have been at it again!
04/06/09
Their paranoia meter is quivering on "high", and it's being stoked in a disturbing way. There's a lot of very violent rhetoric and imagery being thrown about by the right, and it's hideous. Dog-whistles.
The day JFK was shot, Dallas was papered with fliers, ads taken out, calling him a traitor. Right wing extremism, their violent, gun-centered philosophy has historically been a blight on this country. After Lincoln and JFK, it's distressing as hell.
04/06/09
Extremism in any form is generally not so hot. You mention the Right's "gun-centered philosophy" and I have to agree with you to some extent. I really do not see the need for an AK 47 to go hunting. But let's not forget that the extreme Left can be a blight too. The ACLU's defense of NAMBLA is a blight on the US as well.
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
Touche on the NAMBLA part of my post. I had my facts wrong. Mea culpa. I appreciate the correction.
04/06/09
I'd swear that if NAMBLA didn't exist, some Republicans would invent it as a straw-man way to make liberals look bad. And discredit the very good work the ACLU has done.
04/06/09
04/06/09
I'm also saying that I don't like the fact that the defended the KKK, get their undies in a bunch over the 10 commandments posted at gov't offices, trying to "un-Christmas" December, helping children sue their parents, etc.... They can wield their power and their resources to essentially strong arm small communities and organizations into 'compliance' because they don't have the resources to mount a defense in court against the ACLU's very deep pockets. That sucks. Just because they have more money and resources, doesn't make them right all the time.
BTW, NAMBLA is alive and well in CT/NJ/NY. Not saying it affects us all, but the people it does affect -- it affects very strongly.
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him. President Obama is correct. Terrorism hasn't stopped just because Barack Hussein Obama was elected. Before I get the use of the middle name jammed down my throat, it's an off quote from him this past weekend. Just in case you didn't see.
04/06/09
"Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him."
I assume you meant "They did stop attacking us under him." Um, how is that, exactly?
Anyway, perhaps that is, too, a cheap shot. Let's just agree to something uncontroversial: terrorists are assholes. They are horrible motherfuckers.
04/06/09
The Rev. Wright reference isn't a cheap shot. He's just playing on the irony that many of the same anti-Obama activists claiming he was a muslim were also criticizing him for his connection to a Christian minister. Cuz he can't be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. GET IT??
04/06/09
And yes, we can all agree that Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43 ... except nobody (including Owen) ever claimed otherwise so what the fuck is the point??
04/06/09
I agree with ChillbearLatrigue, as I usually do, that terrorists see AMERICANS not conservative/liberal. I also agree with Eatshootsandleaves (one of my fave books, btw) terrorists are horrible motherfuckers.
04/06/09
@MisterHippity: I got Owen's point. I think it was a timely piece, because President Obama used his middle name in a speech this week to make a similar point: I have a Middle Eastern sounding name, but that isn't going to stop terrorists. Well, it's similar to saying terrorists wont attack a "secret Muslim."
I don't agree that the same assholes that were spreading rumors about Obama being a secret Muslim were the ones that were offended by his Wright association. I think that most of us saw the Muslim myth for what it was. On the other hand, the only thing that I thought to be untruthful about the Wright story was Obama saying that he attended the church for 18 years and had some how missed all of the bad stuff.
04/06/09
Yes, because if it weren't for Bush, weakling Democrats would be allowing men with box-cutters to get on planes and repeat 9-11 every week, directed by their masters in their caves. No one else but Bush could ever have put a stop to that.
Bush is the one who ignored the warnings loud and clear, about the threat.
9/11 happened because of his negligence. And you say he saved us all from it happening, uh, again. Ugh.
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
04/06/09
1. Terrorists see us as Americans, not conservatives/liberals.
2. Terrorists are horrible motherfuckers.
Ok, now it's my turn to state my belief in a few obviously true things that nobody here ever disagreed with in the first place. Let's see ... I believe that:
- Murdering adorable kittens is a terrible thing to do.
- Charles Manson was a bad man.
- If you don't bathe for a few days, you'll probably start to get smelly.
I believe these things to be true with all my heart. I don't care what any of you Manson-loving, bath-avoiding kitten murderers may think!
04/06/09
04/06/09
Still didn't comment about people who can be multiple religions though. Hmm.
04/06/09
@eatsshootsleaves: To date, we still don't know the full story about the anthrax attacks. I guess it's thousands if you count attacks on the military and military contractors. Their sacrifice is just as great, but I think we are talking about a different situation when you contrast people knowingly going into a war zone and people headed to work in the Financial District.
@MisterHippity: Okay, so we are on a tangent. Again, I was just trying to tie in the President's speech with the article. I guess it didn't work for you. I have a few questions for you:
- What if the kitten is just as evil as it is adorable?
- What if all of Charles Manson's victims turned out to be adorable kitten murderers and he was trying to stop them?
- If you are in cryogenic suspension, does the bathing thing still apply?
04/06/09
Can you please refrain from addressing people as "sweetie" and referencing their use or need for medication in the future? I love sarcasm as much as anybody. Just not yours. Comes across as passive-aggressive, demeaning, and tasteless.
Let's get over trying to change the other side's opinions. Not gonna happen. Especially not in a snarky little forum, for goodness sake.
04/06/09
I'm not looking to change any opinions, nor should anyone try to change mine; but that doesn't mean I don't like to be challenged. I love to be challenged with thoughtful responses as it makes me think deeper about my opinions and beliefs.
My response to Mr Hippity was no more ridiculous than his response to mine. As for you not liking my sarcasm, meh.
04/06/09
in favor of the awesome terrorist-annihilating powers of George W. Bush. If you really want to say that only civilians can be killed by terrorists, the point still stands, however -- lots of civilians were killed in terrorist attacks after 9/11 during Bush's presidency. This doesn't even count many attacks on U.S. allies by the same groups we were supposed to have been eradicating.
04/06/09
04/06/09
So, rather than keep us safe for eight years the Bush Administration oversaw the most concentrated series of terrorist attacks against US nationals in our history.
04/06/09
I just consider them delicious.
04/06/09
This was way back in 2008.
As for the Americans Bush exported to be murdered by terrorists, their deaths still count as death by terrorist, as much as people who want to believe that Bush somehow stopped those kind of deaths from happening to Americans wish to classify them as somehow excluded from such. For whatever weird, thoroughly partisan reason.
04/06/09
As for the Anthrax case, well there is some debate on that since it never saw the light of day in a court of law. Not saying I agree w/the skeptics, I simply don't know if it is really considered 'solved' as there are still a bunch of unanswered questions.
04/06/09
As for the question of terrorism versus enemy action, I think my broader point is that, despite his claims to the contrary, George W. Bush did a poorer job of protecting American lives than any president in recent memory.
04/07/09
However, Islamic fundamentalists didn't begin attacking the U.S. under Bush 43. The did stop attacking us under him.
Everyone seems to have forgotten this, but last summer (while Bush was still president), there was that Al Qaeda shooting of the US consulate in Istanbul which killed several Americans. Fun times, and I was there when it happened. Just because there hasn't been another 9/11-scale event doesn't mean they're not still perpetrating civilian attacks on us.
02/18/09
02/18/09
1. Why did he cut her head off?
2. Did he film it and, if so, why?
02/18/09
Let's ask the Council on Foreign Relations. The money man behind Hassan's company like to hang out with them.
02/18/09
Now, I wait to get banned from commenting because I "missed the point," I guess.
02/18/09
02/18/09
Actually, beheading wives is not that common.
02/18/09
02/18/09
Step out of your politically correct foxhole for a moment, and understand why this is news. Sure, it is not common practice to behead wives in Islamic society, but beheadings by Extremist Muslims are quite common in the news today.
The fact that that an American Muslim striving to bridge the culture gap through the media, who then murders his wife in a decidedly high-profile Muslim extremist fashion is HIGHLY ironic.
02/18/09
>> beheadings by Extremist Muslims are quite common in the news today <<
Not as common as beheading by Mexican drug cartel hit men:
[www.time.com]
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
She's lucky he didn't invite his buddies over for a good ol' stoning.
02/18/09
02/18/09
There seems to always be some group or other trying to explain away blatant domestic abuse (if not murder) based on "Yes, maybe *they* are like that, but *we* aren't." I think that's all this semantics argument is about. If we can pretend this guy was just some heathen, and "not like us", we don't have to worry about it so much.
Victims are still subtly blamed or ignored in our American, Western, "Christian" culture. Sure, it's not the same as being in a country where this is sanctioned by law, but we're nowhere near as far removed from this as we non-Muslims (non-poor, non-non-white, etc.) want to pretend.
I recommend the book *Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life* to anyone interested in this topic.
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
02/18/09
American men--and women--can hate Islam's misogynist basis without competing with/undermining or disrespecting Islamic women and their hatred of it.
It's not a contest.
02/18/09
02/18/09
Yah, there's a lot of nuance to chopping off a woman's head down at the office.
02/18/09