Skip to main content

View Diary: Muslims are the New Jews: Bigotry courtesy of the NY Times (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Calling a kossack (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      a "douchebag" stands in my book as an unacceptable personal attack.

      I request you remove your uprate from a comment that clearly deserves to be hidden.

      The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

      by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:07:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no thanks (6+ / 0-)

        The comment justifying terrorism against Madrid and London was horrific and deserved everything it got.

        •  That comment is hidden (0+ / 0-)

          but Shane Hensinger's offensive and inappropriate comment is not.

          Why is not hidden?  Because user 95669 apparently thinks it's ok to stoop to base and demeaning language to insult fellow kossacks.  And user 95669 is willing to overrule two other trusted users so that the entire world can see Shane Hensinger in all his offensive glory.

          Please tell us what it is about the word "douchebag" that makes it acceptable discourse.  Or remove your inappropriate uprate.

          The notion that not talking to people is somehow punishment to them is ridiculous. Barack Obama, July 23, 2007

          by litho on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 04:46:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  way to bring out the user ID card (6+ / 0-)

            a big fat "whatever" on that. As far as the rest of your comments, the original comment defending terrorism is hidden because I TR'd it along with Shane. It was still there when you chose to ignore it and TR Shane instead. Calling a terrorism-defender a "douchbag" isn't even in the same stratosphere as actually defending terrorism. I can't understand how you could TR Shane but not the defender of terrorism. Hence, the uprate to Shane and the TR to Mr. Madrin and London Deserved It.

            It is much more embarassing for this web site to have a post that defends terrorism than have a post with the word "douchebag"--I've seen much worse here. Period.

            Personally I wouldn't want to be a "kossack" if the category includes people who defend terrorism, as you seem to be implying, so the demeaning language, not a big deal to me.

      •  Interesting. (5+ / 0-)

        Claim that someone supports senseless murder = no trollrating.

        Responding to said claim with the word douchebag = trollrating.

        Can we have a sense of proportion here, please? Considering the provocation, 'douchebag' is a mild response. You're engaging in ratings abuse, and I request you remove your TR, now.

        "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

        by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 05:01:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the shrekk person.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          litho, skrekk, MBNYC

          ...has explained his statement and, to be honest, the way i read it was as he intended it, and not how some have read it...

          the iraqi issue was used as a justification of the attacks in madrid and london.  it is quite a leap to say they were 'justified' as in 'right and correct'...  if the shrekk person had not cleared it up, i would agree that i was wrong in my reading , and you were right; but, he has cleared it up.  unless you know something about this person that isn't immediately apparent...

          •  Not really. (4+ / 0-)

            Check it again.

            Seems to me the attacks in Spain & the UK were justified as retaliation for the illegal, unprovoked invasion of Iraq.  

            'Justified' can be read both as a noun and an adjective.

            Why shouldn't the war be brought home to the attackers?

            ...suggests that it was an adjective describing the view of the person speaking. Either sentence is trollrateable in my book.

            "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

            by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 06:42:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  well, we can disagree... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

     seems he corrected himself, and had i not read it the first time through agreeing with him and his use of it as i understand it, i might be more inclined to agree with your reading...

            •  Maybe my language wasn't clear enough: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              james risser

              I'm not taking a stance on the issue of whether the 7/7 & Madrid bombings were "justified".  I said the perpetrators justified their attacks as retaliation for the unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

              However, I do think it's willfully blind NOT to expect retaliation for that invasion.

              •  I do take a stance. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                MajorFlaw, zemblan, Shane Hensinger

                The murder of civilians isn't justified. That applies when it's done by the U.S. or anyone else.

                I wouldn't have thought that to be a debatable proposition.

                "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 07:19:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  How strange (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MajorFlaw, MBNYC

                  that someone would refuse to "take a stand" on whether setting off bombs in trains, buses and subways and killing civilians is "justifiable."

                  We certainly agree that it's not justified when done by US forces or Blackwater. Why would we even have a debate on whether such attacks are "justified" when done by Al Qaeda?

                  The logic is bewildering.

                  "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." Muadib

                  by Shane Hensinger on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 08:01:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I guess we're having this debate because (0+ / 0-)

                    you chose to read something in to my initial comment that wasn't there, and immediately chose to troll rate me for it rather than asking me to better explain myself.

                •  The reason I don't take a stance is this: (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't know what's in the minds of the perpetrators, or what they or their families have been through.  I'm very much of the opinion that a car bombing is the poor man's air force, and until we're willing to give the "terrorists" our advanced weapons in exchange for their IEDs, I think there is an equivalence to be drawn.  Nor do I have any illusions that our military kills just "combatants"; the vast majority of those killed in any war - be it WWII, Vietnam or Iraq - are civilians.  Remember our use of white phosphorous against the population of Fallujah, all because four Blackwater mercenaries were killed?  Or napalm in Vietnam (and again in Iraq)?  I'm also quite aware of our own government's sponsorship and use of terrorism around the world, so I think we have a very hypocritical stance on this issue.

                  I almost lost a brother in the WTC on 9/11, so I have strong feelings about that.  But I also grew up with several Iranians whose families were killed by the Shah, and who were tortured by the CIA/SAVAK before they fled Iran in the 1970s, so I can understand the rage on both sides.

                  The London bombings are more complex: none of the bombers were Iraqi, and all were born in the UK.  To me that means that their rage was not due to losing a family member in Iraq, but something more complex and less easy to solve: it says something more about the lack of integration of Muslims into British society.

                  Why do you think the US has been so slow to allow Iraqi collaborators to immigrate to the US?  Because we know that many of those Iraqis who have helped the US are really, really pissed at us.  That will come back to haunt us.

                  •  Listen dude (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    arielle, Eric S, Shane Hensinger

                    you have a problem with language, more specifically, an inability to use it in a way that isn't fucking offensive. Case in point, above, where you say - and contrary to James, I don't believe your feeble protestations that you didn't mean what you said - that terror attacks are justified. Then you go on to say that other people condone murder. Now you're babbling lurid tripe about the reasoning behind fucking car bombs.

                    What's at issue right here is not U.S foreign policy or the means and ends thereof. Whatever foul means we use for whichever ignoble ends, are irrelevant to London, Madrid and the WTC.

                    Rather, what's at issue here is your depraved belief that U.S. or UK or Spanish government actions provide a rationale for terrorist action against civilians of any of those countries.

                    Dead civilians = wrong, no matter who's doing the killing. Too bad you don't seem to grasp that.

                    "Listen here, my little Bolshevik cabin donkey" - Gen. JC Christian, Patriot

                    by MBNYC on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 09:50:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Then try to read more closely (0+ / 0-)

                      I said I don't take a stand on the morality of those acts.  You might have a problem with that statement, but I'm clearly not supporting acts of terrorism.  However, I vehemently don't support our illegitimate invasion of Iraq: that is without any moral justification whatsoever, and was clearly done to control strategic resources.  You have to be incredibly naive not to expect retaliation for that...unlike our initial attack on Afghanistan, which was widely seen as justified.

                      Somehow you seem more upset at the dozens or hundreds of people killed in London & Madrid than you are at the hundreds of thousands (at least) that we've killed in Iraq.  Are you thousands of times more outraged at that?  Or is it simply that London & Madrid are strikes closer to home?  Or that the perpetrators chose a soft civilian target rather than an impenetrable - and useless - military one?  I'd argue that by choosing to participate in the invasion & occupation of Iraq, that the leaders of Britain & Spain dragged their countries into that war.  Too bad it's not as antiseptic as you'd like.

                      If you don't believe that "government actions provide a rationale for terrorist action"
                      then you should watch "The Battle of Algiers" sometime.  It's usually precisely government actions that are used as the rationale for those reactions.  Terrorism isn't just violence against civilians - it's violence to gain a political end, and it's used by all sides in a conflict.  You might not agree with the violence, the rationale, or the end, but that's reality, dude.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site