Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 21st, 2006, 12:01 AM        Suicide Bomber Makeover
Hamas is paying a spin doctor $180,000 (£100,000) to persuade Europeans and Americans that it is not a group of religious fanatics who relish suicide bombings and hate Jews.

Soon Hamas is going to try to appear as a legitimate organization simply vying for a democratic resolution to a problem whose hidden solution is human bombs in crowded Israeli markets, and before you know it Leftists are going to be pretending that the transition was made and Hamas will be the new al-Jazeera: your Arab friends, speaking moderately about the truth.

We are going to find out if a predator can portray itself as prey -- judging on how liberals view Hussein, they will be successful in their aims.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 21st, 2006, 01:17 AM        Re: Suicide Bomber Makeover
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
judging on how liberals view Hussein, they will be successful in their aims.
What? I'm pretty sure most liberals think Hussein is a sick fuck who had no business ruling Iraq. Registered Dems reading this, feel free to correct me if you disagree. But let us not forget who helped finance his rise to power in the first place (hint: their acronym rhymes with Eli Kay).

The libs may object to the way he was removed from power, or say that his link to Al Qaeda was perhaps about as solid as Governor Schwarzenegger's link to unauthorized Mexican day laborers in California (that is to say they're both groups of criminals who are tolerated as long as they don't cause too much trouble for the government) - but it would take a woefully misinformed fool to think that Saddam was anything less than a brutal dictator.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 21st, 2006, 01:39 AM       
This has already happened. When I first began posting here, I had to argue with people over the legitemacy of Arafat, with people who at the time defended him as an "elected leader". Hamas will likely be elected, this time through a proper election. There are reports that the EU, and US have approved this possibility, and won't stop it even though the organization is on our terror lists.

Keep in mind the scenario your describing already happened. The PLO were no different then Hamas. They splintered into several organizations, one of which became known as the Fatah party.... and that's who the PA are now. Leftists have already defended them going so far as to call them moderates, or "men of peace"....Fatah's military wing is called Al Aqsa Brigade, and according to a CNN report this week, the majority of thuggery in Gaza today is not at the hands of Hamas, but Al Aqsa.... the current recognized government party. Hamas are known for having neato social programs, and cool summer camps where you learn to be a suicide bomber, so it won't be long before Leftists focus on that aspect of the group rather then their genocide charter. Even now, when Leftists critisize Hamas it's often followed by a conspiracy theory that they're a front group for Israel.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 21st, 2006, 03:59 PM       
The IRA did it pretty well, too.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 06:13 AM       
(1) Hang the IRA.

(2) Liberals often say that Hussein was the only 'secular' leader, which is a joke when you look at his Presidential acceptance speech and his history of targeting Christians and Shi'ites being they were perceived as political liabilities.

Many leftists pretend that Hussein was not that bad of a man, and a certain enemy of Islamism and thus has nothing to do with the Islamist threat. A man who certainly had no chemical, biological, or atomic weapons and was not a real threat.

I consider that absurd.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Pharaoh Pharaoh is offline
Member
Pharaoh's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: England
Pharaoh is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 08:26 AM       
It's the peaceful majority of the world that needs a makeover. Terrorist groups already have the left's sympathy, whilst the victims of terrorism don't.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Chojin Chojin is offline
was never good
Chojin's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 1999
Chojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contest
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 11:09 AM       
I thought I recognized you. Look, if you had a problem with my Osama 01 Starter Jersey, you could have just said something instead of giving me dirty looks from across the food court.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 02:59 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
(2) Liberals often say that Hussein was the only 'secular' leader, which is a joke when you look at his Presidential acceptance speech and his history of targeting Christians and Shi'ites being they were perceived as political liabilities.
Right, and because he went about building a lot of mosques, we should assume that he was a very, very religious man. :/

When people say Hussein was a secular leader, they mean he didn't rule the country by the Koran. There was no Islamic/faux judiciary to check his power against, BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING CRAZY, AND WOULD NEVER SHARE POWER WITH ANYBODY!

He tried to present himself as an Islamic leader, so that he could be perceived as a great Arab leader. The guy thought he was fucking Saladin. He tried to present himself as a very spiritual man, because it was important to him to reflect that image. It's called pandering, and I hear it happens all over the place.

Quote:
Many leftists pretend that Hussein was not that bad of a man, and a certain enemy of Islamism and thus has nothing to do with the Islamist threat. A man who certainly had no chemical, biological, or atomic weapons and was not a real threat.

I consider that absurd.
Speaking of absurdity, could you name some of these "leftists"? Who truly believes that he wasn't "that bad of a man"? I think you are confusing the positives people tried to highlight in Iraq with praising a dictator. Perhaps it's out there, but I'd like for you to show me who it is, ok?

And as for him being a part of the islamist threat-- what was Muqtada al-Sadr up to prior to our invasion of Iraq? How well was his family's message received by Saddam "the Islamist threat" Hussein???
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 03:15 PM       
I think you're right to question Saddam's sincerity when it comes to Islam... but is there really a huge difference if he's just a poser?

Iraq was only secular in the sense that the nation wasn't under rule of Islamic laws...sure he ruled arbitrarily from the insanity in his head.... but it wasn't secular in any sense of allowing religious freedoms. The Baathists made attempts to cleanse most of Iraq, and based their platform on racial, and religious superiority.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 03:22 PM       
Foir the most part I agree with you, and although you often could link the two (ex: Saddam paying suicide bombers in Palestine), I think it's erronious to link Saddam with the so-called "islamist threat."

I think that's a convenient use of language used by those who are constantly inventing different ways to rationalize invading the country.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 05:44 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kulturkampf
(2) Liberals often say that Hussein was the only 'secular' leader, which is a joke when you look at his Presidential acceptance speech and his history of targeting Christians and Shi'ites being they were perceived as political liabilities.
Right, and because he went about building a lot of mosques, we should assume that he was a very, very religious man. :/

When people say Hussein was a secular leader, they mean he didn't rule the country by the Koran. There was no Islamic/faux judiciary to check his power against, BECAUSE HE WAS FUCKING CRAZY, AND WOULD NEVER SHARE POWER WITH ANYBODY!
But there was some great quotations like: """If Allah Almighty, in his great wisdom and for reasons beyond our comprehension, decides to put you again to the test of fighting on a large scale, then the Almighty, the nation and history will expect you to deliver an effective stand," Mr. Hussein said, according to an official translation of his Arabic text.

"Afterward," he continued, "the enemy will fall on his face, despised, condemned and defeated, while your banner, the banner of God Is Great, will continue to fly high on its nest, dignified and honorable."""


He was not exactly as secular as you want.


Quote:
Quote:
Many leftists pretend that Hussein was not that bad of a man, and a certain enemy of Islamism and thus has nothing to do with the Islamist threat. A man who certainly had no chemical, biological, or atomic weapons and was not a real threat.

I consider that absurd.
Speaking of absurdity, could you name some of these "leftists"? Who truly believes that he wasn't "that bad of a man"? I think you are confusing the positives people tried to highlight in Iraq with praising a dictator. Perhaps it's out there, but I'd like for you to show me who it is, ok?

And as for him being a part of the islamist threat-- what was Muqtada al-Sadr up to prior to our invasion of Iraq? How well was his family's message received by Saddam "the Islamist threat" Hussein???
Muqtada al-Sadr was a Shi'ite.

Furthermore, you cannot find outright portrayals of Hussein as bein g a good leader by any means, but you always hear him downplayed as secular and not a threat and being without any NBCs (certainly you would agree he didnt have NBCs, hahaha).

I would say Michael Moore would have gone so far -- I do remember in Fahrenheit 9/11 when it showed the videos of Iraq days before the attack, portraying it as a normal and great country peacefully living and existing, waiting on the eve of destruction.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 06:07 PM       
Kult, do you even read posts before responding, or do you just hit quote, pick a couple words out, and start typing?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 10:33 PM       
Give me a source on this.

Furthermore, Pres. Bush did not invoke God to provide us with a Holy victory, make th eenemy fall on his face and for us to continue to fly the banner of God.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jan 22nd, 2006, 10:54 PM       
I'll give you 20, you lazy idiot.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Abcdxxxx Abcdxxxx is offline
Mocker
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Abcdxxxx is probably a spambot
Old Jan 23rd, 2006, 12:30 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I think it's erronious to link Saddam with the so-called "islamist threat."
I think the idea of a Islamict threat is really a post-9/11 concept. Historically, Saddam, and his Baathist have always supported a movement for what might be better phrased as Arabist supremacy, something which started with the Grand Mufti seeking refuge in Iraq from the Brits. It's a bit like watch major corporations get accused of collusion by an attorney general who falls on his face because their case only goes back 4 years into the books.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
Bush talks constantly about Gd and Jesus, even going so far as to declare "Jesus Day" when he was Govenor of Texas. He's still a secular leader.
Can you be a secular leader without allowing freedom of religion? At least we have that in the US, under Bush. It's a misleading comparison. If anything, it's proof that being secular doesn't make you innocent. Meanwhile -you couldn't hold citizenship in Iraq, Jeannette, because you're a Jew. The Saddam is secular argument doesn't fly.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 23rd, 2006, 04:41 AM       
This article noted:
"The proclamation received little attention at the time, except for some gratitude from a Christian organization that had asked many governors to issue proclamations supporting its annual day of charity, prayer and parades in Jesus' name.

It seems that this was a traditional event in the community, and thus this proclamation to me does not seem as a large, pressing issue though it certain blurs some lines that we have.

Personally, I think it was inappropriate in many ways to do as much, but it is less outrageous when you learn the background behind the incident.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jan 23rd, 2006, 12:04 PM       
I just want it noted before the next paragraph that I am a huge bleeding heart liberal with socialist leanings and very proud of it. I know lots of other liberals, and we think that the Invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea, that the president may have intentionally ied about the reasons for the invasion, and that many other countries posed more of a threat to us than Iraq did, and that if we are going to overthrow countries just beause their leader is a bad man, there are other countries and leaders that ought to have been in line for regime change way before Iraq.

But we all think that Sadaam was a very, very bad man, and a very very bad leader who did some very, very bad things. I have yet to personally meet anyone of any political stripe, or read anyone on this fairly liberal message board who thought Sadaam was not a very, very, very bad man who did very, very bad things.

The idea that there are 'liberals' who though Sadaam was a pretty decent fellow is a myth and only a complete idiot would believe it. You know, the kind of guy who joins the army and then gives serious thought to leaving because they won't let him get tattoos on his face and hands. A real knuckle dragging baboon, a sub human cretinoid, the knd of fella you can't believe has enough brain juice to keep his heart beating.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Kulturkampf Kulturkampf is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi-do, Korea
Kulturkampf is probably a spambot
Old Jan 24th, 2006, 04:01 AM       
I said that to sound cool at the time, mburbank.

really, I sort of want a mix of freedom and I want to go and be with a woman -- if I am not in Korea, I will be in Iraq or preparing to leave for there, and though I relish service of my country there is a weak spot in my heart for freedom & this woman, and I admit that tattoos on neck - hands - face is a motive, it is not the primary.

It ties in with 'freedom.'

BTW -- the head will not be until later in life. Neck and hands I will get done shortly after leaving the Army.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Chojin Chojin is offline
was never good
Chojin's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 1999
Chojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contestChojin won the popularity contest
Old Jan 24th, 2006, 07:40 AM       
You should get one on the small of your back. It'll give the dude something to look at.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jan 24th, 2006, 10:33 AM       
In keeping with the original theme of this thread (a silly concept on this board), I'd like to point out another factor that makes all of this Hamas stuff even stickier.

It looks like Hamas is shaping up to make gains in the elections, but i wonder if our very blatant and transparent support of the PA and Fatah influenced that? Hamas, aside from being crazy and blod thristy killers, often gets crtedited for doing genuine works in the Palestinian community. Thus, we have been financing projects and services in Gaza in the name of the PA, and trying to downplay our own involvement.

Don't get me wrong, I think we should be supportive like this, but interjecting ourselves in the favor of one party, during an ELECTION season, seems like a great opportunity for Hamas.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:46 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.