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.