Comments on: Subtle and Clever Republican Advertisement

By: Fallacy

Fallacy — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 08:33:23 +0000

Seriously not getting his point, are you? IF no one other than westerners would hear terrorists being called jihadists, it wouldn’t matter what we called them because we are already opposed to them. However in real life Muslims in the Middle-East hear this as well. It’s not a good idea to give civilians the impression that terrorist guerrilla organizations are great because that can encourage them to support or join them.

Where is this logic falling apart?

By: Goldfinger

Goldfinger — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:16:40 +0000

Maybe you are missing the point. How can you tell? This discussion is getting nowhere. As I said, where I come from, people who follow and/or practice an -ism are called -ists. Period. That’s basic linguistics.
In the muslim world the word ‘mujahideen’ may be a positive connotation but in the western world it’s definitely a negative connotation.
It’s just the same with the word ‘Nazi’. If you were a Nazi it was a great thing being entitled as such. But for the rest of the world it was a very negative word. Same as with Stalinists, Nationalists, Creationists and so on and so forth.
It’s basic psycho-linguistics: If I let other people decide what my words mean I give them room in my world. And I’m not gonna let terrorists decide about my vocabulary and by that define what is good and bad.

By: AgZed

AgZed — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:51:22 +0000

Oi. Still missing the point entirely. In the Muslim world, being called a jihadist (or mujahideen, or qaid as the case may be), is a GOOD thing. It’s a wonderful compliment to bestow on someone to tell them that their cause is a jihad and that they are mujahideen. It’s akin to telling an American soldier today that they are as brave and noble as the men who went to war against the Nazis. It’s an incredible honour to have such a compliment given to you, and for it to come from your enemies makes the praise that much sweeter.

So I suppose my question is, why are people so insitant on heaping praise on people who are trying so hard to kill them?

By: Goldfinger

Goldfinger — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 00:05:32 +0000

Still, jihadism is an ideology (as mentioned above). That’s why they are jihadists and the active fighters (i. e. terrorists & guerilla troops) are called mujahideen. You can call them whatever you want though. I don’t mind.
And I don’t call them just terrorists because there’s differences between certain kinds of terrorism.

By: AgZed

AgZed — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:59:16 +0000

Goldfinger: Saying “I call them jihadists because they call themselves jihadists” is akin to the media calling me a saint because I call myself a saint, but the reason I’m in the news is for raping women and murdering children. Doesn’t that seem a bit daft to you?

Caio: Same situation as above, and the media is calling me a saint without any sign of irony or sarcasm, if you were to say, “WTF is this bullshit? This guy isn’t a good and saintly man, he’s like the exact opposite of a saint!” On that day, can I call you retarded and hold up this thread as proof that you yourself admitted you’re a retard? Because that would almost be worth it.

In any war, propaganda is important. The more people you can convince that you’re right, the less support the other side has. Giving ammunition to the other side to use against you, now that’s retarded.

By: chris_hates_freedom

chris_hates_freedom — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:54:04 +0000

@mrdooves

The fact that Iraq isn’t connected to bin laden doesn’t mean the 9/11 attack was orchestrated by the US government. Using our friend, logic: if you were going to manufacture a terrorist attack, wouldn’t you make one that had a strong connection to the country you want to invade? It’s like framing a man for murder so you can have his neighbor’s wife.

Its bullshit like this that make the REAL, and numerous, complaints against Bush lose their power.

By: Goldfinger

Goldfinger — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:22:28 +0000

It should say “themselves so”

By: Goldfinger

Goldfinger — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 17:21:55 +0000

Of course! The US government destroyed the WTC themselveso they could get the insurance money

By: Thrella

Thrella — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:55:33 +0000

Mr Dooves… Are you implying we invaded Saudi Arabia then? Because Iraq has less Oil then most states in the US.

Seriously.

Anyways, i still think it’s right to stay in Iraq. if anyone knows anything the only reason we got attacked in the first place was because we looked at Afghanistan and said “Fuck it” instead of helping them rebuild. Might want to avoid that with Iraq by, say, staying there and helping it rebuild. Don’t need a whole army there but a contingency force in case of something happening, and trained specialists to fix that mess.

Thats what we did with Japan. Kinda worked. Really well.

By: Caio

Caio — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:45:21 +0000

Everyone knows about that area 51 bullshit, Doves: We all have an opinion already and you talking like you’re going to enlighten us is pathetic. Fuck off.

By: nyokki

nyokki — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:21:07 +0000

I remember watching something on TV about how Clinton did have the opportunity, twice, to take out Bin Laden but didn’t because there were children and other civilians in the death zone. I can’t say where or even when I saw this. Maybe someone here knows?

By: Sticky

Sticky — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:53:47 +0000

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

By: MrDooves

MrDooves — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:26:07 +0000

It was Bush himself with the backing of the republican party that planned and organized the entire 9/11 incident. Those buildings were prepared ahead of time and rigged with explosives for a controlled demolition. There are no terrorists!
Who would dare piss off the trigger happy super power. NO! Bush orchestrated a way to get the army back into the
Middle-East to fetch his daddies long lost oil. It never made anyone nervous just
how obscure the connection is between Bin Laden and Iraq? In fact, there was no connection. He fooled you all. The dumbest man in political history had the entire nation following along!!!
So who is truly stupid in this equation?
I thought the internet made this sort of information easy to find!
Watch ZeitGeist…
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
It puts all the evidence in one place.
Probably the most important thing you’ll ever do.

By: TrayShadix

TrayShadix — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:23:15 +0000

^ HAH! Five points for refuting this central point – ten points for slamming conservapedia.

By: pauld

pauld — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:40:59 +0000

@krjack82: go back to 1998 youâ€™ll find that Bin Ladenâ€™s location was known and we had a team within range to take him out and Clinton said no. You know that's absolutely false, right? What you're talking about never happened. You know that, right? (Maybe you don't know that, and that's why you made the asinine assertion in the first place. In which case I suggest you do some research. Research somewhere other than Conservapedia.)

By: natedog

natedog — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:45:10 +0000

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o

http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/telegraph_stolenids.html

By: chris_hates_freedom

chris_hates_freedom — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:26:10 +0000

Personally, I think that billboard helps democrats more than hurts them.

By: Caio

Caio — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:16:23 +0000

Also, while I would say that the US harbours an old and destructive form of the colonial mentality, you, Agzed, made a retarded argument: Someone saying something is true isn’t objective confirmation that it’s true. Especially when it comes to abstract terms like “Tyranny” which are, while they have a basis in reality, and understood socially and culturally and are probably conditioned.

Also, “Tyrant” is a concept that I do not believe is mentioned in the Quran.

Also, triple post fucking a

By: Caio

Caio — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:12:10 +0000

Oh, yeah, just to add to Goldfinger’s point, “Mujahideen” is arabic for “Jihadists” and that seems to be the word of choice amongst terrorists and militant groups.

By: Caio

Caio — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:09:44 +0000

Everyone knows about the lesser/greater Jihad thing. No one cares.

By: jesupocalypse

jesupocalypse — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:05:41 +0000

SO fuck America and get out. DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, or gtfo. As long as any of you yanks continue to live and work and spend in that country you are supporting this world’s Mordor. You still have the choice to leave. Complaining about it on the internet solves nothing.

By: Goldfinger

Goldfinger — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:59:38 +0000

Basically, I’m calling them jihadists because they call themselves jihadists. They use some parts of the Koran as a very specious justification for their ‘jihad’ (and are leaving out others that would make them look very very stupid) and they use their specious conception of the term ‘jihad’ to justify the killing of every non-islamic person. Of course, the correct term would be ‘jihadist terrorists’.
Now, there may be a lot of other meanings to the word jihad and we can start calling everybody funny names until nobody knows who is meant by what – but that doesn’t get us very far. Because I bet “terrorists, murderers, cowards, baby-killers” are terms the US of A (and the rest of the western world) is characterised with by those terrorists.

By: AlecDalek

AlecDalek — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 10:33:55 +0000

It’s simple. They want to divert attention away from the fact that if there was anyone in office responsible, it was Republicans. I’m not saying they were, but it certainly wasn’t the Democrats.

By: AgZed

AgZed — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:48:52 +0000

Gah. That should be “they cringe” at the end of the first paragraph, obviously.

By: AgZed

AgZed — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:46:37 +0000

Goldfinger: Please do not refer to them as “jihadists”. It makes you look ignorant. I don’t mean to be rude, so I’ll explain. I have a lot of Muslim friends. They’re all decent guys, mostly interested in making money and getting with hot women. Something most of us would empathize with, methinks. But whenever they hear someone on the news babbling on about “the jihadists”, the cringe.

Why?

Well, because there are two meanings for the term “jihad”. One is a war against yourself, a battle with your own internal demons. Noble, yes, but if all jihadists just sat in a room full of incense while meditating, they probably wouldn’t seem too menacing, so let’s move on to the other definition: A noble struggle against an unjust, tyrannical oppressor.

Well now. Look at that. If a jihadist is someone involved in a noble struggle against an unjust, tyrannical oppressor, that sure doesn’t paint the US in a very good light, now does it? Every time some pundit refers to these people as jihadists, they’re basically saying, “Darn you people, why are you fighting against my tyrannical oppression!” Sounds like the bad guys in crappy comic books for chrissakes.

Now, I know the horse is dead at this point, but I’m giving it one last kick. Imagine if, at the height of the Cold War, the USSR invaded America. You’re watching footage on the news of hospitals being bombed, orphanages being shelled, and those reporting on these atrocities were calling the Soviets “Noble liberators” and “Friends of freedom” and “Admirable heroes”. Wouldn’t you be thinking, WTF? Why are they giving these people such glowing praise when they’re showing them murdering children?

Well, when you call terrorists jihadists, that’s essentially what you’re doing. There’s plenty of other perfectly good names for them: terrorists, murderers, cowards, baby-killers. Just stop giving them the legitimacy they so desperately crave by calling them jihadists.