Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on September 12, 2002, 11:32:59 AM
-
Who else but Fred Reed (http://www.fredoneverything.net/Mourning.html)
----------------------------------------------------------
Mourning As A Performing Art
Migraine Television
September 9--We’re going to do it, I know we are. We’re going to celebrate Bin Laden’s Victory Day. By all indications, it will be a media circus, like when Princess Di did—a grand battle in the ratings wars. We’ll wallow in mawkishness, and whimper, and humiliate ourselves. Watch. There will be manufactured solemnity, factitious reverence, sorrow by Disney, and an unremitting ooze of therapy. Heaven help us, we’ll probably get in touch with our feelings, and Heal. Maybe booths will sell cotton candy.
It’s embarrassing.
I suppose I have a bad attitude about the upcoming festivities. On my office wall is a row of magazine covers I shot for Soldier of Fortune in a previous life as a freelance photojournalist. One of them (November, 1983, written as Rick Venable) shows Marines coming ashore in Beirut, the lead guy carrying an M-203. I spent a week or two with those guys, patrolling downtown and suchlike. Shortly afterward, the truck bomb arrived. Moslem terrorists. Two hundred forty-one dead.
America didn’t do anything about those killings, then or later. There was no carnival of mourning on the anniversary. I guess the networks forgot. What do you suppose? As for dead Marines, who cared? After all, they didn’t go to Princeton, and you never saw them in pricey booze chutes in Manhattan.
Judging by appearances, the forthcoming coverage will be appalling both in quantity and moral fraudulence. The ad agencies, I have read, are pondering what tone to use on September 11. It is a delicate question. The trick is to gull the rubes without disturbing their sensibilities. (Singing toilet paper may not be just the thing. Unless it sang a dignified dirge maybe. Mining the dead for ad revenue is harder that it might seem.)
The Moslem world is going to love every minute of it. In fact, I see in the Washington Times that they are going to have anti-American rallies in London to celebrate the great day. How convenient, they must think: The Americans are going to crawl for us. I’ll give you odds bin Laden is comfortable somewhere, probably in Saudi Arabia, laughing and laughing and laughing. I would be.
Maybe he’s not really in Saudi. Maybe he’s in Vail, waiting for good powder. But he ain’t been caught. I tell you, he’s one slick A-rab. I don’t like the guy. I’d shoot him if I could, and poke holes in his towel. I have to respect the sucker, though. He changed the United States forever. We’re going to be a scared security state for all time, with the cops reading our email. The home of the free, land of the brave.
I assume, subject to correction by events, that we’ll have every television truck on earth at Ground Zero, and the rest at the Pentagon. There will be endless tributes to the Hallowed Dead, who will be treated as saints crossed with Joan of Arc. Actually of course they were just people who happened to be at work on the wrong day. Being hit by an airliner is no more heroic or tragic than being run over by a dump truck. This is the age of Oprah Consciousness, though. We’ll have contrived tears from televised airheads who didn’t know the dead and don’t care about them.
People get mad if you say it, but, fact is, we got stomped. One raghead with a few subordinate loons took down the Trade Center, turned us into a docile police state, made us spend billions bombing peasants in Afghanistan without issue, frightened us into letting our airlines go into bankruptcy, and now we have Homeland Security, which makes flying so unpleasant that most of us will take trains. The best we could do now is just to shut up. Naw. We’re gonna wave it around on prime time. We’ll let everybody watch it again.
Time was, this wouldn’t have happened. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we squashed them. When the Nazis attacked us, we invaded. But that was before Oprah Consciousness. Now the Moslems kill a few thousand people in New York, and the President immediately goes to a mosque. Don’t you love it?
After Pearl Harbor, did Roosevelt go to a Shinto temple?
The whole thing is surreal. We can’t even admit who did it.
Quiz: What people have been consistently kicking our teeth in for decades? Chippewas? Latvians? Tibetan monks? Or Moslems?
It was the Iroquois who took over our embassy in Tehran and make fools of us for months, until Jimmy Carter sent in that comic-opera rescue team and independently made fools of us. Isn’t that what you remember? Iroquois?
The Norwegians blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, right? Damn those Norwegians. The Cole? The Starke? Presbyterians did it. I’m sure of it.
Is there no limit to our absurdity? (No. The question was rhetorical.) We all know who the terrorists are, but we won’t even search Moslems because that would be discrimination. We won’t arm pilots because guns are, Squeeeeak! so fwightening. We take away fingernail clippers as deadly weapons. This is the country that stormed Iwo?
It gets sillier. We’re going to wage an international crusade against terrorism, yet we throw little boys out of school for drawing pictures of soldiers, and we don’t let them play dodgeball because it’s so violent. The earth must be laughing.
A pretty good rule of diplomacy might be that you shouldn’t huff and puff if you aren’t going to back it up. It’s undignified. It invites more trouble. The Towers went down, and we huffed. Grrr, woof. Bush said fiercely that we were going to make terrorists everywhere wish they had never been born. For at least two weeks everybody was solidarified and America was on the march and companies sold Instant Patriotism kits, with a little flag for the aerial and a bumper sticker. Bow-wow-wow. Wurf.
And then we fizzled. We bombed Afghanistan some, but I can’t see that it did much. We sound as though we may do something unpleasant to Iraq. I guess that’ll get rid of terrorism. We’ll see. It’s hard to know what we’re going to do. These days wars are declared by the president, not congress.
I’ll root for us, but bet on them. The Moslems have got our number. They have the momentum. They appear to rely on what is becoming an international formula for defeating the United States: Don’t give the Yanks a point target, and draw the war out until they get bored. Do you reckon it’s working?
Fred Reed 2002
----------------------------------------------------------
miko :(
-
Beautiful. I don't know if you posted that piece because you agree with it or to poke fun, but, from my perspective, he pretty much hit the nail on the head.
- JNOV
-
I don't know if you posted that piece because you agree with it or to poke fun
I used the sad icon - that pretty much implies that I find no fault in his logic.
miko
-
Yup... very sad, but very true..
anyone who watched TV or had a radio on could not help but be barraged by the media orgy of self pity. I don't think it reflected the real feel of the people. I think most people are sad but resolute. We are being told by the media when to be weepy and pathetic, then angered by repeated loopings of the jets collisions with the buildings.. right in time for President Gump to wage war on Iraq.. coincidence?
-
Its Racist roadkill.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Its Racist roadkill.
Yep. He's implying all muslims are terrorists and hate the US. That's not true. It's a sweeping racist generalisation.
I wonder how he thinks the problem should be solved. I wonder who he thinks your congress should declare war against. Does he think that the US should go to war at all? He doesn't explain some points very well at all.
Pretty poorly written article in my opinion.
-
What planet are you from guys? Have you heard of such thing as context? History? Particular history of the planet Earth that Fred Reed is referring to?
What happened with those pesky germans and japanese which Reed uses as an example of what should happen to muslims?
Were all of them evil? Did we slaugher them all in a racist manner?
Americans smashed their military might and institutions that made them dangerous (and allowed evil fraction of them to make good fraction cooperate in hurting others) and then americans went out of their way to make their living conditions as good as ours.
What's wrong with that approach (other than our inability to repeat it due to general sissiness and cultural decay?)
miko
-
Who is this idiot and where did he come from?
I started to read the article and agreed with a lot of what he said about the "TV network mourning" crap. But as soon as he started with the "Moslems are the root of all evil" racist garbage I started to hunt for the power button to turn it off.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
What planet are you from guys?
miko
Earth... sorry Miko, I agree with some of what he says, but when people start calling other people contemptious names like "Raghead" or "cupcake" they lose my respect. Since you and Lone Star agree so much with his accessment that bombing Afghanistan accomplished very little then how come you supported it???
-
Same here, initially I thought he made some valid points but then he started the racist bullsh*t as midnight target put it so accurately.
BTW, is there anyone who can discover even a remote connection between the xenofobic ranting of 'mr.' Reed and the thread title which has the words sane and rational in it......?
-
I did wonder why we didn't have cameras in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, to name a few, watching them watching our memorials on television .... guess it wouldn't have been PC to watch them cheer again as the buildings fell
-
Well, at least he admitted he was having a bad attitude. Too bad the rest of it was wrong.
His perception of Moslems is small-brained and narrow-minded. Somehow, I don't think Mohammed Ali, Ahmad Rashad, Az-Zahir Hakim, or Kareem Abdul Jabbar were part of a militant Moslem movement designed to overthrow the government and kill Americans (though Ali sure did beat the crap out of a lot of guys in the ring). Then again, Ali was at the Olympic opening ceremonies in Atlanta, and a bomb did go off. Prelude to something bigger? I don't think so.
-
It aint over till the fat lady sings.
-
Originally posted by senna
It aint over till the fat lady sings.
There ya go senna! Keep to the one liners it's easier to keep people on your side :D
-
Elf:
Contrary to your statement, I didn't support the action in Afghanistan, because I thought before it started that it would be ineffectual.
And, although I think it is unfortunate that the article uses terms like "raghead," the author makes very good points. Also, I didn't read the article to claim something like, "All Muslims are responsible for the acts of terror on 9/11," or "All Muslims are evil." I think the point he was making is that the perpetrators and enablers were Arab Muslims and that to ignore that fact in the name of political correctness is not only stupid but dangerous.
- JNOV
-
Elfenwolf:...but when people start calling other people contemptious names like "Raghead" or "cupcake" they lose my respect.
"Raghead" is like a "green beret" - referres to the fasion of their headwear rather than content of their cranium. He dislikes them but he does respect them.
And he would never say "cupcake" - he uses the word "diversity".
Thud: is there anyone who can discover even a remote connection between the xenofobic ranting of 'mr.' Reed and the thread title which has the words sane and rational in it
The title referres to how accurately Mr. Reeds views reflect reality rather than how pleasant they are to hear.
Our veterans (and Reed is one with Purple Heart) were known to call our enemies Japs, Jerries and Charlies, etc. and than bring japanese, german and vietnamese wives back with them. So I guess sometimes the 'xenophobic ranting' may be a transient condition.
And name calling is only considered disgracefull if used towards a weaker opponent. He clearly does not believe it to be the case. Maybe once they stop winning and start getting hurt, he will chose his words more carefully.
His perception of Moslems is small-brained and narrow-minded.
I got a completely opposite impression. That is what american people in general think - not him. Hie perception of them is as smart and crafty and worthy adversaries.
He does not believe that they were cowards or that 911 was terrorism but rather an event of a war that was going on for years.
miko
-
Two more lines.
I also wana say that terrorism and hijacking of football games would really suck.
Football players need halftime cas the quarterback is sometimes, kana slo thinker and players need to rest and toss the ball around a bit.
Woohoo, nuff said.
:D
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Also, I didn't read the article to claim something like, "All Muslims are responsible for the acts of terror on 9/11," or "All Muslims are evil." I think the point he was making is that the perpetrators and enablers were Arab Muslims and that to ignore that fact in the name of political correctness is not only stupid but dangerous.
- JNOV
Here is what I found in the article:
"The Moslem world is going to love every minute of it."
"Now the Moslems kill a few thousand people in New York..."
"What people have been consistently kicking our teeth in for decades?" ..."Moslems?"
"The Moslems have got our number."
"[The Moslems] appear to rely on what is becoming an international formula for defeating the United States"
I don't see how someone can not see this as a racist/religious generalzation. It's like generalzing and saying that Christians are responsible for the murder of abortion providers.
Originally posted by miko2d
"Raghead" is like a "green beret" - referres to the fasion of their headwear rather than content of their cranium. He dislikes them but he does respect them.
Please tell me that you are kidding. You are comparing the term "Raghead" to "Green Beret"?!?
-
Mickey:
That's just not how I read it. I think that in all of those statements, he is referring to those that participated in or reveled in the acts of terror wrought by Arab Muslims in the recent past.
In any case, if you are right about what he meant, then I do not agree with him. To relate one of my favorite movie quotes, "Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit."
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Mickey:
...he is referring to those that participated in or reveled in the acts of terror wrought by Arab Muslims in the recent past...
- JNOV
The word "reveled" seems rather vague. Does this include those Palestinians who celebrated 9-11 in the streets?
-
I use the term "raghead" as it is a compliment to the sand sucking, goat humping murders
I do not consider all Moslems ragheads, only the ones that would like to see my family and yours murdered and dragged through the streets while they shot their guns off, danced in the street and did the idiotic tongue holler...
Plus DOwNiNG really likes it when I use the term
-
I got a completely opposite impression. That is what american people in general think - not him. Hie perception of them is as smart and crafty and worthy adversaries.
Calling THEM crafty or calling THEM ragheads or calling THEM anything is just the point. Its the word THEM that is offensive and generalizing. Come on Miko, I know you are too intelligent to fall for something this trite and unthinking.
-
Elf:
Yes, it was that image that brought the term "revel" to mind. The author's phrase regarding "loving every minute of it" seems to accurately describe those folks' reactions to the attack.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by Mickey1992
Please tell me that you are kidding. You are comparing the term "Raghead" to "Green Beret"?!?
Don't they repectfully call or Green Berets "Pancake Hats"? :)
midnight Target: Its the word THEM that is offensive and generalizing. Come on Miko, I know you are too intelligent to fall for something this trite and unthinking.
Flattered. But consideration is a prerogative of a strong. We are losing here - our way of life if not our country, so there must be a time before it's too late to stop sorting and start shooting. The God will sort them out and we will appologise for excesses when the war is over.
Oedipus: I missed that. I did see the the rather large crowds doing just that in Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq and several other countries though.
Do those "other countries" by any chance include US, UK, France, Holland, Sweden and Canada? If so, you can catch the celebrations a year from now.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
We are losing here - our way of life if not our country, so there must be a time before it's too late to stop sorting and start shooting. The God will sort them out and we will appologise for excesses when the war is over.
miko
Hmmm, that sort of statements doesn't really add to your credibility. I'm sure you're familiar with the expression 'lowering yourself to their level'.... (BTW with the 'them' as referred to in 'their' I don't mean all muslims, as do you and Reed, just the extremist morons who'd bend and change any religion to suit their sick needs/goals)
BTW, I don't really understand why in all discussions related to 9/11, the Middle East etc. always the bunch of illiterate, indoctrinated and disillusioned palestinians who were cheering after the terrorist attacks are mentioned. I hardly ever hear ayone ventilate their anger towards the thousands of US citizens who sympathized with or condoned the Oklahoma bombing, while that was an attack just as despicable and cowardly as these ones, thus those people are equally at fault.
-
Originally posted by Thud
.......
BTW, I don't really understand why in all discussions related to 9/11, the Middle East etc. always the bunch of illiterate, indoctrinated and disillusioned palestinians who were cheering after the terrorist attacks are mentioned. I hardly ever hear ayone ventilate their anger towards the thousands of US citizens who sympathized with or condoned the Oklahoma bombing, while that was an attack just as despicable and cowardly as these ones, thus those people are equally at fault.
I don't really remember thousands of Americans dancing in the streets after the Ok. city bombing.............
-
That's indeniably true, but you know as much as i do that many had some sympathy for the act in question. Tell me, does your support or understanding for such an act weigh less if you don't dance in the streets?
-
MT
So the concept of "THEM" is racist and offensive now?
You are truly idiotic MT. How on earth do you classifly a group of people with out the word THEM? Do you think during WW2 that we should not have said we were at war with, THEM, the Japanese and Germans....
-
Thud:
I don't know of anyone who supported the despicable bombing in OK, although it is inevitably true that you are correct in surmising that some did. (And, I believe that if those who did or do were known, they would be reviled.) But to answer your question: Yes, I think that one's support or understanding does "weigh less if you don't dance in the streets," and for a number of reasons.
Here are two: First, when you dance in the street, you rub salt in a raw, open wound. You have, in a very real way, added to the pain of those already suffering. Second, when you dance in the street, you let everyone know exactly where you stand. For those, like me, that would judge by one's actions and character rather than by name, race, or creed, when you dance in the streets in celebration of an unequivocally and obviously heinous act, your actions have spoken, your character has been revealed, and you have chosen sides.
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
MT
So the concept of "THEM" is racist and offensive now?
You are truly idiotic MT. How on earth do you classifly a group of people with out the word THEM? Do you think during WW2 that we should not have said we were at war with, THEM, the Japanese and Germans....
Careful Groinhurts, calling someone idiotic might piss them off enough to make them call you names. The point is you DON'T classify a group of people like that Idiot! You may speak ill of those who do you wrong, but lumping Muslems into a group such as this like saying Christians are devious and racist and hateful because you don't like the KKK. Get it?
-
Why do you assume that all moslems are considered enemies?
But I will tell you the WTC wasn't attacked by Buddhists and that we should certainly pay special attention to the moslem communities all around the world - because for good or ill thats where the terrorists come from or hide in.
But im sure the FBI investigators searched Harlem and Watts in their KKK busting days... Right?
-
Lonestar:
You're definately right about the open wounds etc.
But your post seems to imply that the number of people who supported or took kindly to the bombing for one or another reason is quite limited, while in TV interviews, columns, even on this BBS numerous people stated that they thought it was a terrible act but McVeigh did indeed correctly see a problem with the federal adm. and that the victims were more or less casualties of war, and this was a very widely shared opinion! many people I know were quite shocked by the sheer size and intensity of these feelings.
Maybe all these people in the US didn't dance because:
1. They were not in 'friendly territory', I assume and partially hope that they would be beaten up or worse when displaying their opinions on the Oklahoma disaster publicly. You know it's a lot easier to make a anti-western statement in Gaza or the West-bank than giving your approval to bombing fed buildings in most parts of the US.
2. The Northern-American culture does not exactly reflects the same on expressing political, religious or other important issues by means of mass demonstrations with flags, battle hymns, shootings and general hysteria as does the Muslim-Arabic culture.
For example: ever been to a muslim wedding? Then you'll understand what I mean under #2.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why do you assume that all moslems are considered enemies?
I don't, Fred Reed does. Read the article.
-
You mean this?
"Time was, this wouldn’t have happened. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, we squashed them. When the Nazis attacked us, we invaded. But that was before Oprah Consciousness. Now the Moslems kill a few thousand people in New York, and the President immediately goes to a mosque. Don’t you love it?
After Pearl Harbor, did Roosevelt go to a Shinto temple? "
Or:
"The moslems have got our number."
Well they were moslems, whats ur point? Why does this mean all moslems to you?
And about raghead..
Are you offended by Red, Nazi, Kraut, Yank, Commie, Russkie, Limey, etc...
And he said "one raghead" which is clearly a reference and insult aimed at Bin Laden.
-
Thud:
I wasn't around these parts back when the OK bombing transpired, and so was unaware that there was "grass roots" support or understanding on these boards for the actions of McVeigh and his co-conspirators. I suspect, though, that you are right when you state that part of the reason for their annonymity and public silence is that they are on unfriendly ground. (That is what I meant when I stated that if they were known, they would be reviled.)
As to your second point, I suspect that you are generally correct. I used to work right across the street from the White House, however, and frequently there were loud, raucous protests (e.g., singing, chanting, music -- no gunfire, though) in Lafayette Park. Many of those public protests were populated largely by Americans. (At least they appeared to be and sounded like they were Americans.)
- JNOV
-
Generalizing an entire religion is wrong Grunherz. Stop being a banal little boy and open your eyes.
-
Originally posted by LoneStarBuckeye
Elf:
Contrary to your statement, I didn't support the action in Afghanistan, because I thought before it started that it would be ineffectual.
And, although I think it is unfortunate that the article uses terms like "raghead," the author makes very good points. Also, I didn't read the article to claim something like, "All Muslims are responsible for the acts of terror on 9/11," or "All Muslims are evil." I think the point he was making is that the perpetrators and enablers were Arab Muslims and that to ignore that fact in the name of political correctness is not only stupid but dangerous.
- JNOV
Actually I supported the Afghanistan action more than I can support an invasion of Iraq. At least me managed to scramble the Al Queda and, for the time being, render them less effective as terrorists. According to the Gov't. we've accomplished alot in Afghanistan in our War on Terrorism.
I agree the author made many good points, although I thought he came across as somewhat frustrated. However, his use of the slang "ragheads" shows a bias which taints his entire message.
Do you really believe there's more than just the usual nut burger fringe element who DOESN'T want ALL those responsible for 9-11 brought to justice? This isn't about left vs. right, at least in my opinion. It's about justice.
BTW I almost choked when you called MT a "shark." If that's the case you should show him a little professional courtesy. :)
-
"Generalizing an entire religion is wrong Grunherz. Stop being a banal little boy and open your eyes."
The primary identity of our current opponents is their religion, more than a specific race or nationalty - but of course primarly young middle eastern men nonetheless. We have to look at it that way. Dont fool yourself MT. They will become more sophisticated in shielding themselves by religion and by appealing to good hearted but naive people like you.
I have confidence that coming events will change your mind. I think it will most likey start here in CA.
-
Well I'm either a shark or naive....
I choose Shark!!!
:p
-
which race are we talking about here?
Originally posted by midnight Target
Its Racist roadkill.
-
Based on this definition of race from dictionary.com,
race1 Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
I'm going to go with Middle-eastern muslims.
-
we have american muslims who:
1. do not share genetically transmitted physical characteristics with the middle easter muslims.
2. Do not share a common history, nationality or geographic distribution with the middle eastern muslims.
This defies the definiton of race that you have posted.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Based on this definition of race from dictionary.com,
race1 Pronunciation Key (rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2.A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
I'm going to go with Middle-eastern muslims.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
This defies the definiton of race that you have posted.
Yeah. What's your point? I'm lost here. :confused:
-
my point is calling the guy a racist is as mistaken as him classifying all muslims as terrorists.
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yeah. What's your point? I'm lost here. :confused:
-
I think he's frustrated with political correctness going overboard and punishing things he doesn't believe need to be punished in this nation.
he's not satisfied with the results overseas because we have nuked anyone yet which seems to mean we are wuss's these days.
I'm fairly frustrated with our progress as well. But I don't think we need to be nuking the wrong folks just to nuke someone in hoping for satisfaction.
I believe we'll make plenty of mistakes in handling this situation and they will be eventually rectified.
he seems pretty bitter and that's the easy road.
we're all frustrated, it's not going to be quick and easy..suck it up and drive on.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
my point is calling the guy a racist is as mistaken as him classifying all muslims as terrorists.
Ah gotcha. Based on the defintion I gave you, I would have to agree.
-
Elfenwolf:
Do you really believe there's more than just the usual nut burger fringe element who DOESN'T want ALL those responsible for 9-11 brought to justice? This isn't about left vs. right, at least in my opinion. It's about justice.
I tend to agree that this isn't about left vs. right, but I'm not at all sure that what most people want is justice. I think that what most people want is retribution. Justice is an abstract concept that raises too many inconvenient questions about things like prior wrongs, mitigating circumstances, etc. Justice implies a balancing (indeed, I suspect that it was precisely this balancing that was being debated in the classroom discussion that inspired the "9/11 Opinions of Today's Youth" thread). That is not to imply that I think the scales could tip in but one direction, but retribution is much easier to figure out. Most people just want to pull the trigger without even thinking about the scales. Personally, I don't care about either, except to the extent they are subsumed by taking whatever action is necessary to guarantee our national security and taking our best shot at ensuring that nothing like that ever happens again.
"Vengeance is mine," saith the Lord.
BTW I almost choked when you called MT a "shark." If that's the case you should show him a little professional courtesy.
LOL!
- JNOV
-
Originally posted by Kanth
my point is calling the guy a racist is as mistaken as him classifying all muslims as terrorists.
Semantically speaking you are correct. Calling him a generalist or a religious bigot just didn't seem to have sufficient impact. My apologies to Daniel Webster.
I was mistaken, he wasn't. Reed purposely lumped muslims into a single group. He wrote a bigoted article and it has nothing to do with mistakes, and everything to do with being a fatuous, idiotic, imbecilic, driveling, babbling, vacant, sottish, bewildered fool.
-
Well, when you read "let's hit muslims" it's you choice to interpret it as "let's exterminate every single man, woman and child on the planet that is a muslim regardless where they are or what repationship they have to the current situation".
Or based on context of our experience you could translate it as "let's catch some muslim terrorists and topple a few dangerous muslim regimes that support those and opress their subjects so that men, women and children of muslim persuasion around the world could live happy lives enjoying liberties and dignity".
As I said, we fought germans and japanese - we did not exterminate them.
It's good that US soldiers had more sense then some and when hearing an order to go fight japanese did not slaughter indicriminantely or demanded names and pictures of exact people they had to fight to avoid mistake.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Well, when you read "let's hit muslims" it's you choice to interpret it as "let's exterminate every single man, woman and child on the planet that is a muslim regardless where they are or what repationship they have to the current situation".
Or based on context of our experience you could translate it as "let's catch some muslim terrorists and topple a few dangerous muslim regimes that support those and opress their subjects so that men, women and children of muslim persuasion around the world could live happy lives enjoying liberties and dignity".
miko
Now THAT is just silly!
So if I were to say "lets hit the (insert Miko's surname here)'s " you could choose to interpret that as "lets get them all" or just "lets get those who are overly wordy". :rolleyes:
I think you must be just practicing your English again.
-
That's where I would use my experience to determine what you mean.
When WWII period people said "let's kill hitlers" everybody understood that they ment A. Hitler and B. Mussolini (who is not a Hitler at all) - the dictators of germany and Italy and their nearest ilk*, rather than a bunch of guys serving in US navy or minding their business elsewhere.
I would hardly recommend a columnist to the attention of the esteemed audience of this board who would be an idiot or raving maniac.
The article is written in a limited space as an indignant outburst about our society - muslims are just a tangenial issue there, believe it or not. Putting a bunch of small "lawyer" font on the bottom to the effect that it does not call for extermination, etc. would have ruined the angry and indignant effect.
Check his other articles about America. Also the ones on police. That guy is smart, experienced and quite balanced.
------
* Do I need to explain whom I ment by "ilk"? No innocent children for sure.
miko
-
Maybe Mr. Reed is on to something. Aren't all catholics on the hunt for little boys?
:rolleyes:
-
-
But dont go investigating such cases at Catholic churches... That would be insensitive. I suggest we only look at Mosques, Jewish Temples and Baptist churches.
-
First you explain why you purposefully lumped him into a group where he didn't belong "Bigot didn't seem to have sufficient impact"
Then you go ahead to say that you were actually simply mistaken and *he's* the one who purposefully lumped people into a group because he's a bad bad bad man.
it has nothing to do with mistakes, and everything to do with being a fatuous, idiotic, imbecilic, driveling, babbling, vacant, sottish, bewildered fool
What's yer excuse?
Originally posted by midnight Target
Semantically speaking you are correct. Calling him a generalist or a religious bigot just didn't seem to have sufficient impact. My apologies to Daniel Webster.
I was mistaken, he wasn't. Reed purposely lumped muslims into a single group. He wrote a bigoted article and it has nothing to do with mistakes, and everything to do with being a fatuous, idiotic, imbecilic, driveling, babbling, vacant, sottish, bewildered fool.