David Warren: The Cairo disaster
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Only a moron would have said that.
So, really intelligent people just keep saying the same things over and over, expecting different results?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, really intelligent people just keep saying the same things over and over, expecting different results?
No, really intelligent people know that overtly and strongly insulting over a billion people at once when you're the president is an unbelievably stupid thing to do.
-
John Carson wrote:
From right-winger David Horowitz, who is only semi-deranged:
That's a matter of opinion. I have never found Horowitz worth reading though I have tried (about 2 paragraphs is my max before the b.s. meter goes off so loudly I have to quit). By the way, while I think the speech was very good, I think it missed greatness. Too much moral equivalency that wasn't needed and/or was just plain wrong.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. I have never found Horowitz worth reading though I have tried (about 2 paragraphs is my max before the b.s. meter goes off so loudly I have to quit).
Horowitz has improved lately (translation: I agree with him more). He had a daughter with a disability who died recently as a result of disability-related issues. Her influence seems to have moderated him.
Oakman wrote:
By the way, while I think the speech was very good, I think it missed greatness. Too much moral equivalency that wasn't needed and/or was just plain wrong.
I think that David Brooks put it well: this is diplomacy, not scholarship.
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
That's a matter of opinion. I have never found Horowitz worth reading though I have tried (about 2 paragraphs is my max before the b.s. meter goes off so loudly I have to quit).
Horowitz has improved lately (translation: I agree with him more). He had a daughter with a disability who died recently as a result of disability-related issues. Her influence seems to have moderated him.
Oakman wrote:
By the way, while I think the speech was very good, I think it missed greatness. Too much moral equivalency that wasn't needed and/or was just plain wrong.
I think that David Brooks put it well: this is diplomacy, not scholarship.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
I agree with him more
Well he started off one layer removed from Ted Kennedy, he may be returning to his roots. Unfortunately b.s. is is b.s. whether it's thrown with the right hand or with the left.
John Carson wrote:
I think that David Brooks put it well: this is diplomacy, not scholarship.
Is that anything like, This is diplomacy by other means, not a soccer game? ;) I suppose he's right. Though Obama should remember that there is an election in 2010. Every time he gets "diplomatic," he makes Republican gains in the house more likely. If he loses his veto-proof majority, the man's schemes and visions go down the toilet.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So, really intelligent people just keep saying the same things over and over, expecting different results?
No, really intelligent people know that overtly and strongly insulting over a billion people at once when you're the president is an unbelievably stupid thing to do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, really intelligent people know that overtly and strongly insulting over a billion people at once when you're the president is an unbelievably stupid thing to do.
No, it would only be stupid if it were not true, otherwise it is a very brave thing to do. Perhaps having the truth dashed in their collective faces like one great bout of cultural waterboarding, is precisely what the Islamic world needs to hear, considering that no one has ever actually tried it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
No, really intelligent people know that overtly and strongly insulting over a billion people at once when you're the president is an unbelievably stupid thing to do.
No, it would only be stupid if it were not true, otherwise it is a very brave thing to do. Perhaps having the truth dashed in their collective faces like one great bout of cultural waterboarding, is precisely what the Islamic world needs to hear, considering that no one has ever actually tried it.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, it would only be stupid if it were not true, otherwise it is a very brave thing to do. Perhaps having the truth dashed in their collective faces like one great bout of cultural waterboarding, is precisely what the Islamic world needs to hear, considering that no one has ever actually tried it.
Only a blind imbecile thinks that calling a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs naughty names is going to stop them from wanting to kill you. All it will do is alienate the billion Muslims who supported you.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, it would only be stupid if it were not true, otherwise it is a very brave thing to do. Perhaps having the truth dashed in their collective faces like one great bout of cultural waterboarding, is precisely what the Islamic world needs to hear, considering that no one has ever actually tried it.
Only a blind imbecile thinks that calling a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs naughty names is going to stop them from wanting to kill you. All it will do is alienate the billion Muslims who supported you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
All it will do is alienate the billion Muslims who supported you.
No, only a blind imbecile would believe that a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs could exist at all if a billion muslims actually supported us. Clearly, they support the closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
All it will do is alienate the billion Muslims who supported you.
No, only a blind imbecile would believe that a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs could exist at all if a billion muslims actually supported us. Clearly, they support the closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, only a blind imbecile would believe that a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs could exist at all if a billion muslims actually supported us. Clearly, they support the closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs.
Are you serious? :~ You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
-
And Horowitz, as usual, is correct. Except that it is essentially the same speech that Bush gave on any number of occassions. It is essentially the same speech that western politicians have been giving on the situation for decades. As with all things Obama, there was absolutely nothing about it that stands out as remarkable or unique in anyway, but suddenly it is the most amazingly amazing speech that has ever amazed human kind. The big difference is that Obama really seems convinced that his aura alone is sufficient to compel change. A trully courageous leader would have stood up there and said something along the lines of "Sweet Jesus but you ignorant islamic assholes are really fucked up. Precisely how much of your shit do you expect the rest of the world to continue to put up with?"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except that it is essentially the same speech that Bush gave on any number of occassions. It is essentially the same speech that western politicians have been giving on the situation for decades. As with all things Obama, there was absolutely nothing about it that stands out as remarkable or unique in anyway, but suddenly it is the most amazingly amazing speech that has ever amazed human kind. The big difference is that Obama really seems convinced that his aura alone is sufficient to compel change.
The messenger does make a difference to the message. Anything friendly that Bush said about Islam and the Middle East would have been a) uninspired and incoherent, as usual, b) regarded as just politician-speak and not believed. You may have noticed that the reaction in the Middle East to Obama's speech and to Obama himself has generally been pretty positive. It is actually a good thing for the US to have someone who can sell the message of the US persuasively. Republicans in recent years have been pretty good at pitching to a domestic audience and pretty appalling at pitching to any foreign audience. The really "amazing" thing is that Obama travels to the Middle East, speaks candidly to the people there (including savaging Holocaust denial and telling a few other home truths) and he does it to general applause in the Middle East. Most politicians can't get over their defensive crouch long enough to actually reach out to people who are not natural or at least current allies. Obama's willingness to make a serious effort to do so is what makes him remarkable. It may yield positive results or it may come to nothing. Either way, making the effort increases US support around the world and makes it easier to get backing from countries who are on the fence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A trully courageous leader would have stood up there and said something along the lines of "Sweet Jesus but you ignorant islamic assholes are really f***ed up. Precisely how much of your sh*t do you expect the rest of the world to continue to put up with?"
It would have been courageous --- a least if delivered in Egypt. It would also have been stupid beyond belief.
John Carson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, only a blind imbecile would believe that a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs could exist at all if a billion muslims actually supported us. Clearly, they support the closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs.
Are you serious? :~ You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
Ravel, I would rather suspect that the saying attributed to General Sheridan "a good indian is a dead indian" can, by extension, be applied to all that Stan finds objectionable including Muslims, Communists, Socialists and Democrats. Whereas the truth is somewhat contrary to Stan's apparent blindness.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Except that it is essentially the same speech that Bush gave on any number of occassions. It is essentially the same speech that western politicians have been giving on the situation for decades. As with all things Obama, there was absolutely nothing about it that stands out as remarkable or unique in anyway, but suddenly it is the most amazingly amazing speech that has ever amazed human kind. The big difference is that Obama really seems convinced that his aura alone is sufficient to compel change.
The messenger does make a difference to the message. Anything friendly that Bush said about Islam and the Middle East would have been a) uninspired and incoherent, as usual, b) regarded as just politician-speak and not believed. You may have noticed that the reaction in the Middle East to Obama's speech and to Obama himself has generally been pretty positive. It is actually a good thing for the US to have someone who can sell the message of the US persuasively. Republicans in recent years have been pretty good at pitching to a domestic audience and pretty appalling at pitching to any foreign audience. The really "amazing" thing is that Obama travels to the Middle East, speaks candidly to the people there (including savaging Holocaust denial and telling a few other home truths) and he does it to general applause in the Middle East. Most politicians can't get over their defensive crouch long enough to actually reach out to people who are not natural or at least current allies. Obama's willingness to make a serious effort to do so is what makes him remarkable. It may yield positive results or it may come to nothing. Either way, making the effort increases US support around the world and makes it easier to get backing from countries who are on the fence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
A trully courageous leader would have stood up there and said something along the lines of "Sweet Jesus but you ignorant islamic assholes are really f***ed up. Precisely how much of your sh*t do you expect the rest of the world to continue to put up with?"
It would have been courageous --- a least if delivered in Egypt. It would also have been stupid beyond belief.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
It may yield positive results or it may come to nothing. Either way, making the effort increases US support around the world and makes it easier to get backing from countries who are on the fence.
One can only hope that when once again doing exactly the same thing results in exactly the same consequencies for even the most amazingly gifted leader in all of human history, even intellectually challanged leftists will be forced to conclude the obvious.
John Carson wrote:
It would have been courageous --- a least if delivered in Egypt. It would also have been stupid beyond belief.
I'm sure someone of Obama's amazingly amazing eloqence could have made it sound a bit more diplomatic: "We in the west will gladly extend the hand of friendship in helping to lift the civilization of Islam into the 21st century, or at least the 11th century, or perhaps some intermediate century if the load gets really heavy. A billion people are a lot to lift after all..."
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel, I would rather suspect that the saying attributed to General Sheridan "a good indian is a dead indian" can, by extension, be applied to all that Stan finds objectionable including Muslims, Communists, Socialists and Democrats. Whereas the truth is somewhat contrary to Stan's apparent blindness.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Ravel, I would rather suspect that the saying attributed to General Sheridan "a good indian is a dead indian" can, by extension, be applied to all that Stan finds objectionable including Muslims, Communists, Socialists and Democrats. Whereas the truth is somewhat contrary to Stan's apparent blindness.
At least Sheridan's plan worked. That is generally considered a important characteristic of a plan where I come from.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, only a blind imbecile would believe that a group of closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs could exist at all if a billion muslims actually supported us. Clearly, they support the closed-minded religious fundamentalist extremist nut-jobs.
Are you serious? :~ You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
No, I'm suggesting that we stop pandering bullshit to people who have no intention of changing or doing anything at all to restrain the extremist in their own society. The violence will only continue until they understand that if that won't control it, we will, regardless of how many of them are standing in the way whining about how mean we are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
No, I'm suggesting that we stop pandering bullshit to people who have no intention of changing or doing anything at all to restrain the extremist in their own society. The violence will only continue until they understand that if that won't control it, we will, regardless of how many of them are standing in the way whining about how mean we are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Yes, good idea. They should just go and stop the terrorists, as easy as that. I wonder why nobody thought of just walking up to them and telling them to cease murdering people before. As a side note, you have plenty of immoderates in your society as well. Why is that?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You seem to be suggesting that violent people magically disappear the moment nobody likes them anymore.
No, I'm suggesting that we stop pandering bullshit to people who have no intention of changing or doing anything at all to restrain the extremist in their own society. The violence will only continue until they understand that if that won't control it, we will, regardless of how many of them are standing in the way whining about how mean we are.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. When the horse is thirsty it will drink, and it will do that in its own good time. The same will be true of those extremists you trouble yourself about. Just have patience and give it time.
-
Ravel, I would rather suspect that the saying attributed to General Sheridan "a good indian is a dead indian" can, by extension, be applied to all that Stan finds objectionable including Muslims, Communists, Socialists and Democrats. Whereas the truth is somewhat contrary to Stan's apparent blindness.
Well, in my - admittedly limited - experience, mathematics is the only thing in which such extreme views of right and wrong can be supported. Maybe the radicals should pick up a calculus book and realise how petty their worldly concerns are.
-
Yes, good idea. They should just go and stop the terrorists, as easy as that. I wonder why nobody thought of just walking up to them and telling them to cease murdering people before. As a side note, you have plenty of immoderates in your society as well. Why is that?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
As a side note, you have plenty of immoderates in your society as well. Why is that?
That is precisely the point - we don't have 'immoderates' in our society who are in any way comparable to those in the middle east - because we refuse to tolerate them. We as a society stand up to them and compel them to slink away into the shadows. The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two societies is only more evidence of how twisted the liberal mind is. What you demand of your own society, you do not demand of others, but when someone in your own society does demand it of others, that serves as evidence to you of the 'immoderation' of your own society that you cannot tolerate. It is a blatant for of cultural insanity.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. When the horse is thirsty it will drink, and it will do that in its own good time. The same will be true of those extremists you trouble yourself about. Just have patience and give it time.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The same will be true of those extremists you trouble yourself about. Just have patience and give it time.
Tell that to the 3000+ people who died on 9/11/2001.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
As a side note, you have plenty of immoderates in your society as well. Why is that?
That is precisely the point - we don't have 'immoderates' in our society who are in any way comparable to those in the middle east - because we refuse to tolerate them. We as a society stand up to them and compel them to slink away into the shadows. The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two societies is only more evidence of how twisted the liberal mind is. What you demand of your own society, you do not demand of others, but when someone in your own society does demand it of others, that serves as evidence to you of the 'immoderation' of your own society that you cannot tolerate. It is a blatant for of cultural insanity.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we don't have 'immoderates' in our society who are in any way comparable to those in the middle east
:laugh: Do you know how many people have been lynched in US history?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two societies is only more evidence of how twisted the liberal mind is.
That's not evidence. That's not even anything.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What you demand of your own society, you do not demand of others, but when someone in your own society does demand it of others, that serves as evidence to you of the 'immoderation' of your own society that you cannot tolerate.
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
we don't have 'immoderates' in our society who are in any way comparable to those in the middle east
:laugh: Do you know how many people have been lynched in US history?
Stan Shannon wrote:
The fact that you draw an equivalence between the two societies is only more evidence of how twisted the liberal mind is.
That's not evidence. That's not even anything.
Stan Shannon wrote:
What you demand of your own society, you do not demand of others, but when someone in your own society does demand it of others, that serves as evidence to you of the 'immoderation' of your own society that you cannot tolerate.
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Do you know how many people have been lynched in US history?
The key term in that question is 'history'. I also don't know how many witches were burned at the stack. Or how many slaves were raped, etc. However, we do have a fairly accurate count of the number of men in our civilization who sacrificed their lives putting an end to all of that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's not evidence. That's not even anything.
No, actually, it is very powerful evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
I know you don't. You simply aren't bright enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Do you know how many people have been lynched in US history?
The key term in that question is 'history'. I also don't know how many witches were burned at the stack. Or how many slaves were raped, etc. However, we do have a fairly accurate count of the number of men in our civilization who sacrificed their lives putting an end to all of that.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
That's not evidence. That's not even anything.
No, actually, it is very powerful evidence.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Sorry, but I don't know what you're talking about.
I know you don't. You simply aren't bright enough.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I know you don't. You simply aren't bright enough.
That's it, fuck you. You're the one incapable of constructing an intelligible thought. Your signature, for example, makes no sense. Maybe you should take a course in how to write less crappily.
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, actually, it is very powerful evidence.
No it isn't, because you don't know my political stance. You'd fail as a scientist.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The key term in that question is 'history'. I also don't know how many witches were burned at the stack. Or how many slaves were raped, etc.
No, one of the key terms in it was history. Another was 'lynched'. And 'people'. I also seriously doubt that ANY witches were burned at the 'stack'.
Stan Shannon wrote:
However, we do have a fairly accurate count of the number of men in our civilization who sacrificed their lives putting an end to all of that.
Have you tried to count how many of their people have died trying to end the madness?