Not for lack of effort by the righties who tried to break the boys neck 3-1.

Senator Fuck face was violent, not The Walrus. He punched over a moist tap, an expression of free speech, then his muscle goons really got violent.

The senator erased his condemnation by following it with the word "however". We all understand how that works. He was saying Muslims are evil, and their existence naturally leads to right wing terrorists, who aren't to blame.
Right wing people have already radicalized each other into full blown racists and aren't slowing on that front.

He was not attempting civil discourse, he was attempting racist scapegoating and victim blaming of the highest order....not a discourse at all but a diatribe.

Plenty of civil politicians have brushed off an egging, not him....not today's right.

Being the biggest backers doesn't mean it's being done for religious purposes.

I'm not debating some see it that way. You also have a bunch of people who didn't, too.

Where in that link did Tony Blair was quoted saying this was part of a Christian struggle?! It's loosely about believing it's a good versus evil thing. It's not about killing Muslims because Muslims are evil, or demoralizing Muslim culture to make room for Christian culture.. If you believe it was about killing Muslims, or advancing the interests of Christianity at the expense of Islam, you need your head examined. At no point was Blair ever on a Christian Crusade.

A VERY small group of evangelical Christian soldiers doesn't make the case.

Now, about Obama and Christianity. You do realize Obama at this point pretty much goes to church because it's a political liability if he doesn't. He quite possibly is the least religious president to ever be in office.

He is not intentionally trying to kill Civilians. #1. The statistics you sited are skewed concerning civilian casualties, although I'm not dismissing civilian casualties. Significant civilian casualties have been a mainstay in military action since WWII on all sides, after a brief reprieve in WWI and other wars leading up to it. You do the best you can to limit them while achieving your objectives. The reality is you won't achieve anything if you try to avoid any civilian casualties.

With that said, the article is discussing Predator drone casualties only, which is a small fraction of total casualties. And even then, you have a dispute on statistics, and I agree the US military is not going to give an unbiased number either. However, it's very difficult to tell what the accurate number is at this point.

See the above about civilian casualties as collateral damage. It would be difficult to achieve anything if the primary focus was to avoid them instead of achieving objectives.

Does all this add up to terrorism? No, for several reasons:

1. It isn't intentional, not any part of the objective in conducting them. Terrorist acts are specific explicit targeting of civilians. Often, the more civilians you kill, the better when you're a terrorist.
2. You sited bombings in Tripoli. Part of the objectives in that raid is to topple the oppressive regime in Libya, is it not? And yes, I completely accept that we're not just there for that. Libya has oil resources, etc. we're interested in, but it doesn't change the fact that part of the reason we're there is to free the Libyan people from an oppressive regime. It's pretty silly to site an operation that inadvertently killed civilians to achieve a better life for the Libyan people at large.

Extreme progressives are critical of Obama for many of the things you're siting. Obama isn't an extreme progressive, socialist, communist, etc. as much as QM and WP would love for you to believe. He's a moderate politician who leans to the left. If that's the indictment, I don't think anyone would disagree he's not the most liberal progressive politician since FDR. He's not. To say however he isn't progressive at all is not true either. Honestly, as much oil as there is in Libya, it's not worth military action. There's a bit of idealist progressivism to conduct air strikes against Libya.

And again, I fail to see how that's relevant to the debate of the religion of this guy. He is a Christian, there's no doubt about it. Granted, he's got a warped Christian ideology, but it is Christian. You can't say someone isn't Christian just because you don't agree with their interpretation.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^heropsycho:
The war on terror isn't being waged based on an overt Christian ideology. There's the difference. There are plenty of Muslims in the US military who see no problem fighting radical Islam. Not sure how you missed that, but it's pretty obvious. This guy performed terrorist acts because of his warped Christian ideology.
My second point is wtf does Obama and Progressivism have to do with any of this? Short answer: it doesn't. And yes, this guy is clearly a Christian of the super-nutty variety. Every religion, and even atheists, have their nuts. Why is this so shocking to anyone?
>> ^marbles:
>> ^heropsycho:
1. How so?
2. WTF does that have to do with anything in this video?!
>> ^marbles:
The war against terror is largely a "Christian" crusade and yet I don't see you guys up in arms about it.
Any "progressive" that supports Obama or the Democrat Party is about as much progressive as Breivik is Christian.


1. Christian war hawks bombing and invading Muslim countries. Do some research.
2. Does this video not suggest Breivik is a Christian terrorist?


And as far as the war on terror as a Christian crusade, you have:
-Conservative Christians as the biggest backers of the Iraq war (link)
-Pentagon officials that see the "war on terror" as a religious war between Judeo-Christian civilization and Satan, with Islam of course cast in the latter role (link)
-President Bush using Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq (link)
-Prime Minister Tony Blair viewing his decisions to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle" (link)

-US Military trying to convert Arabs to Christianity (link)(link)
These examples are just the surface, they don't even really delve into the Zionist components of the wars.

As for your second point--short answer: it has everything to do with it. It exposes your own hypocritical POV. (along with many other's)
Obama is a self professed Christian. He indiscriminately kills civilians with military drones (some estimates put the civilian death rate at 90%, the other 10% are just suspects executed without due process)(link)
Is this not terrorism?
Is Obama not a Christian terrorist?
There is ongoing torture of uncharged suspects, many who are innocent civilians, many who we know are innocent civilians. (link)(link)(link)(link)
Just recently, NATO bombing runs in Tripoli would last for several hours, hitting civilian targets and killing innocents. (link)(link)
Is this not terrorism that is fully supported by Obama and progressives?

>> ^quantumushroom:

lies


What about this is Lies QM? This is video footage...they're yelling and causing a ruckus and saying that Muslims are evil. Just Evil doesn't matter who they are or what they do they are evil no matter what. That's insanity...just fucking insanity even you can see that.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Since its inception, islam has been a murderous death-cult. No exaggeration required.

A Murderous Death-cult made up of millions of human beings who don't hurt anyone.

Consent is just as bad as participation. Defending an ideology that has people tortured, mutilated and/or killed for such terrible offenses as trying to avoid forced marriage, wanting to own a mobile phone or have a boyfriend, or trying to protect your daughter from being killed by your husband and son for refusing an arranged and incestuous marriage... just to name a few; anyone defending such an ideology partakes in the guilt of its gruesome results.

Not to say that all muslims are evil (or some equally stupid generalisation), just that covering up the barbaric ideology they (often unknowingly) adhere to is not an example of "tolerance" but of dangerous ignorance.

(I didn't watch the video, just adding to the discussion.)

>> ^ponceleon:
Very nice. That said, I'll take this a step further for the right-wing types.
Even IF torure works, the question is whether we lower ourselves to the level of those who will do anything (even the unspeakable) to protect ourselves.


That argument doesn't really work for people who think aything is acceptable to protect Americans. If gouging out their eyes seemed to work then the would probably support that too.

I think the "ineffectiveness" argument would go further, assuming it was believed. It doesn't matter how little someone cares about the moral side of things... if something simply doesn't work then there isn't any reason to support it.

Both arguments are valid, I just don't think the ethical argument goes very far with those who only see Muslims as "evil".

As much as I applaud their intent on trying to educate the mccain supporters that think muslim is evil.. they seem to lack the intelligence to do so. I mean.. "I'm not gonna say anything cause I know how the press loves to distort things" ? Its freaking ANP, not fox news ya dumb bitch. If you have something to say, say it, otherwise get off my lawn. And the head talker not wanting to give his name? Sounds like someone didn't think his strategy through completely. You don't inform other people if you don't talk to them.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'crazy tracy, jesusfreak, muslims are evil' to 'crazy tracy, jesusfreak, muslims are evil, mom was atheist' - edited by theaceofclubz

No it's not accurate. If it was I would be beheaded now because I live in a Islamic country. But strangely am not.

No, thats bad logic. its like saying "I've been smoking 2 packs a day for 20 years, and still havent got cancer, ergo, smoking doesnt cause cancer". I agree with the core proposition in this film: Islam is a dangerous ideology, and it is , as an idiology, fundamentally hostile to everything I hold dear.

This is not , and never will be, the same, or even comparable to saying "All muslims are evil" or any stupid shit like that.

Islam is an idea, a meme, a construct of ideas, not all of them are bad, not all of them stick in the minds of reasonable people. Clearly, Muslims, just like any political or religious groups, come in all shapes and sizes.

Imagine "Heinrich", your average German, 1935 National socialist party voter, would he be a wife-beater, a babykilling, murderous jew-hating zombie? Of course not, but the ideology he has bought into, that he is promoting, voting for, and helping to spread, is dangerous nonetheless.

If I made a similar film about nazism, would you say I was spreading lies and hatred about Heinrich and most Germans his age? Would my film be seen as a hate-mongering propaganda movie, and if thousands of angry Nazis threatened to kill me and lay waste to my civilization over that movie, would I, the hate-mongerer, be to blame?

One point at a time:

"And I think it profoundly oversimplifies things to say that the American presence is widely loathed. Certainly, the Sunnis loathe the American presence. The Kurds love us. The Shiites are ambivalent at best. Some of the most reliable reporters on the ground in Iraq (Burns, Packer, et al.) seem to indicate a deep ambivalence rather than a widespread loathing."

You're right - not everyone loathes the Americans. But the vast majority of Iraqis resent the American presence because of its ineffectiveness, and the brutality of its troops. They are also starting to see through the lies that America used to justify the invasion. Historical perspective is important here. The roots of modern political Islam lie in the Islamic movements that opposed colonialism/imperialism - be it European or Ottoman - in the nineteenth century. If you look at the impact of British imperialism on the Islamic world in the nineteenth century you will see many paralleles with the current situation in Iraq. At first the British were liked - even praised - by the Islamic communities they colonised. For example, Muhammad Iqbal - one of the most important Muslim leaders in the subcontinent and one of the chief architects of an independant Pakistan - at first praised the British Empire as a 'civilizing factor'. He argued that: "England, in fact, is doing one of our own great duties, which unfavourable circumstances did not permit us to perform. It is not the number of Muhammadans [Muslims] which it protects, but the spirit of the British Empire which makes it the greatest Muhammadan [Islamic] Empire in the world." Yet only a few years later Iqbal was condemning the negative influence of the British Empire. In general, as time went by the colonised began to realise that the colonial/imperialistic program of the British Empire was motivated purely by self-interest - economic interest, strategic interest, etc. Disillusionment set in and resistance began to grow. The same is happening in Iraq. Furthermore, as the situation deteriorates it is no wonder that Iraqis are looking to other regional powers like Iran to help resolve the situation. It is also simplistic to say that the Kurds love the Americans. While the situation in Northern Iraq has improved it is important to remember that the Kurds had more autonomy than any other region before the illegal invasion. Furthermore, it remains to be seen whether the Kurds will achieve their long-term political goal of independence. America will not support an independent Kurdistan because such a situation would severly antagonise Turkey - a key ally of America and Israel. Therefore the Kurdish opinion of the Americans could change dramatically if their autonomy and long-term political goals are undermined by the Americans.

"To the extent that the continued American presence radicalizes polity in the Middle East, it is the world we now live in. Radical Islam will not go away if Gaza and the West Bank is handed over to the Palestinians, though its appeal to young Muslims may indeed be dented by such actions."

Palestine is one of the greatest injustices in the world today. The Palestinian people have been appallingly treated for over fifty years by the Israelis and the Americans have not only stood idly by, they have funded it! It is not only a rallying point for 'radical Islam' but for all Muslims, and all other peoples who oppose injustice and oppression. The vast majority of people in the world are appalled by the way Israel treats the Palestinians and they cannot understand how America - a country which is meant to stand for freedom and justice - could not only allow this to happen, but could openly support it. Add to this the illegal invasion of Iraq, the illegal invasions of Lebanon, and American support for tyranical regimes throughout the Middle East, and you understand why the majority of Muslims - and a large number of non-Muslims - detest America. This is why they will not cooperate with the Americans. Contrary to what many American politicians, AIPAC, and the Israeli government argue organisations like Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas do not 'hate our freedoms' they hate the injustices that are committed by Israel and America on a daily basis. The prinicpal political objectives of these organisations are the liberation of Palestine, and the overthrow of the Gulf monarchies. America and Britain have only been targetted because of their blind support for Israel. Again, I'm not advocating that we stop supporting Israel, I'm advoacting that we start supporting Palestine and being more objective. All funding and aid to Israel should be suspended until they start recognising the right of the Palestinian people to live a life free from terror and oppression. But thanks to the concerted efforts of AIPAC this will never happen. And day by day more Palestinian land is stolen and more Palestinian kids are killed as Israel extends its illegal settlements - funded by US aid. People in Iraq do care about what is happening in Palestine - they can sympathise greatly with an oppressed people let down for fifty years by the Americans. And they do worry about the power of AIPAC precisely because AIPAC is preventing any kind of multilateral talks or engagement with countries like Iran and Syria who could help resolve the situation in Iraq.

"wumpus - if Iran were to attack Iraq they'd suffer even worse than the Americans are suffering now - while some Iraqis band together against Americans, the ensuing bloodbath against an Iranian invasion would be many times worse, despite the weak Iraqi government."

Very good point Krupo! If Sunni militants resent the American presence in Iraq, they would be twice as determined to get Iran out as they see all Shi'a Muslims as evil heretics.

"If the U.S. were to pull out, Iran will almost certainly move in to take over. There are already Iranian agents in Iraq mounting attacks against military and civilian targets, and with all the oil and resources in Iraq, it's an opportunity far too rich to pass up and if they don't someone else will. The key difference is that the U.S. is held accountable in the media everyday for everything it does and happens. Iran is not."

The US media is starting to hold Bush to account for his actions but it is five years too late. Furthermore, the enormous political bias of so much of the American media ensures that many people are kept in the dark. Furthermore, the power of AIPAC and other unquestioning supporters of Israel in the media ensures that many of the most contentious issues are kept out of the news. As I have said before, and as Krupo has argued, Iran does not wish to conquer Iraq - they are fully aware of the potential consequences of such an invasion. You talk about Iranian agents helping to plan attacks against the Americans and the civilian population of Iraq because this is what Bush, the neocons and AIPAC want you to talk about. The vast majority of attacks are perpetrated by Sunni militants - yet the Whitehouse has held several press conferences highlighting the role of Iranian agents. Why? Could it be part of AIPAC's continual campaign to sully Iran's image in the build up to a pre-emptive strike on Iran? You bet it could!

"The American campaign is aimed at defeating the armed insurgency and helping the country back on its feet. An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible."

No - the American campaign is aimed at establishing a new ARAMCO, removing a potential threat to Israel, and establishing a new American base in the Middle East. America is only interested in defeating the insurgency because it threatens their vision of an American and Israeli dominated Middle East. If America was truly interested in helping the country back on its feet it would have had a better plan at the beginning, backed up with the full support of the international community. Furthermore, it would be engaging with other regional powers like Iran and Syria in order to resolve the current situation. American troops have killed far more Iraqi civilians than Iranian agents. When you say that "An Iranian campaign would be aimed at suppressing the population and crushing any opposition by killing as many civilians as possible" you are simply wrong. The Iranians are no more cold hearted butchers than the Americans, and the Americans are just as ruthless when it comes to silencing opposition.