Miliant Islamists really DO hate freedom...

[Darth Wong]

I think it's fucking hilarious that this shit-for-brains Bush apologist imbecile trots out an Islamic rant against the possibility of a governmental system allowing gay marriage as proof that Islam is evil, when Christian fundamentalists feel exactly the same way about any governmental system which endorses gay marriage, hence their endless ranting about the evils of the Constitution and the "activist judges" who interpret it.

[Coyote]

One-- Durandal, there was terrorism before the state of Israel was founded...

THAT'S THE GOD DAMN POINT. If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel? ...So instead of saying, "They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

We're drawing different conclusions from the same data. I say that Islamic terror as a response to our support of Israel is a red herring at best, because there has been anti-Western terrorism from the Islamic world before Israel was in existance.

Back then, the US was not the pre-eminent world power (And the prime effigy of all that is "Western"), but rather Britain and France, as the two colonial powers in the region. When Britain and France took a back seat to US power, America became the epicenter of "Western corruption" in the eyes of Islam and the prime target.

This happened at the tsame time of the founding of Israel, thus giving the Arab world a convenient "injustice" to rally around. Especially since it is land that "Western Christendom" savagely killed Muslims over back in the Crusades. Yes, support for Israel is just one more whine to pile on top of a whole treasure trove of previous whines, but it is the most recent and the most ballyhood by the "Arab Street".

I'm actually in agreement with you; the Islamic world as it is today hates a lot obout the West, of which democracy is one of the values which they dislike, but focusing on "they hate our democracy" is to focus too much on one simplistic answer-- at the same time, I think focusing on "our support of Israel" is yet another overly-simplistic answer.

It is both of these and none of these. If we stopped supporting Israel overnight, they would still be in Jihad mode-- they'd just have to reach back into their bottomles bag of bitchyness to find another injustice to rail about. Imperialism, supporting despotic governments for the sake of oil, being "immoral", whatever.

Like any religious nut group, they can string together a whole list of rationalizations to keep their hate flowing.

[tharkûn]

He said (and I'm paraphrasing) that; "if what the terrorists hated so much was freedom, then why wouldn't the terrorists attack the countries that are truly more free than the US, like The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, etc.?"

I suggest he talk to the family of one Theo Van Gogh and try and peddle that BS that they don't strike in the Netherlands. Or perhaps he might try to convince Ayaan Ali that she doesn't need round the clock protection from Islamic fanatics.

The truth of the matter is they are just working their way down the list. The go after the US because it is the biggest target, not because it is the only target.

If the terrorists hate our freedom so damn much, then why were they not attacking us before we started supporting Israel?

Because the Great Satan title was firmly held by the British at the time. In the process of becoming the dominant hyperpower in the world the US inherited anti-western animosity of the fanatical Muslim idiots.

But seriously let's ask your question another way, why did they wait decades after Israel was formed before attacking the US?

"They're attacking us because we support Israel and are moving in on their culture," he says, "Duh, they hate our freedom." Do you not see a problem here?

Yes that both alleged reasons are crap. The Muslim fanatics NEED someone to hate and blaim for their woes. They were supposed to have won the seige of Vienna, marched through Europe, and converted the whole world. Instead they became the weak man of Europe, were displaced in India and conqueored on the Russian steps. The Islamic world spent several centuries in geopolitical freefall and the theocrats NEED an explanation for it. Enter the Nazi solution: blame an obvious scapegoat.

If Israel didn't exist the basic underlying problem would still be their: the Islamic world sucks and it sucks worse in the more theocratic countries. The theocrats face a choice of bucking up and admitting that their religion and its triumphalist prophecy is wrong or finding someone to blame. Guess which one they have always done?

The fact that Muslims do not like democracy does not mean that they will attack every state that practices it.

No they will just attack the most convenient scapegoat for their self-imposed misery. If that happens to align with Israel, then it is a nice perk. The fanatics haven't changed their modus operandi over there in a hundred years. Pick somebody else to blame for your problems, list off dozens of greviences, and then channel all your social tensions at them. Popular targets have been the Ottomans, the British, the Jews, the Americans, and Christians.

[Durandal]

I'm actually in agreement with you; the Islamic world as it is today hates a lot obout the West, of which democracy is one of the values which they dislike, but focusing on "they hate our democracy" is to focus too much on one simplistic answer-- at the same time, I think focusing on "our support of Israel" is yet another overly-simplistic answer.

It is both of these and none of these. If we stopped supporting Israel overnight, they would still be in Jihad mode-- they'd just have to reach back into their bottomles bag of bitchyness to find another injustice to rail about. Imperialism, supporting despotic governments for the sake of oil, being "immoral", whatever.

Like any religious nut group, they can string together a whole list of rationalizations to keep their hate flowing.

Of course. But Bush's self-righteous "They hate our freedom" bullshit is a gross oversimplification. And when I point that out, people jump all over me for "defending the terrorists." Why are we arguing about this?

Yes that both alleged reasons are crap. The Muslim fanatics NEED someone to hate and blaim for their woes. They were supposed to have won the seige of Vienna, marched through Europe, and converted the whole world. Instead they became the weak man of Europe, were displaced in India and conqueored on the Russian steps. The Islamic world spent several centuries in geopolitical freefall and the theocrats NEED an explanation for it. Enter the Nazi solution: blame an obvious scapegoat.

If Israel didn't exist the basic underlying problem would still be their: the Islamic world sucks and it sucks worse in the more theocratic countries. The theocrats face a choice of bucking up and admitting that their religion and its triumphalist prophecy is wrong or finding someone to blame. Guess which one they have always done?

Okay, so what are you saying? That the reasons for Muslims not liking the United States are more complex than "They hate our freedom"? Thank you for proving my point and taking the thread off on a worthless tangent. My argument was that the reasons were more complex than what Bush's supporters, and apparently you agree. You disagree with my proposed alternatives, but the fundamental point remains the same.

[Darth Wong]

why did they wait decades after Israel was formed before attacking the US?

Why did the camel's back wait until long after the first straw was piled on before breaking?

[Admiral_K]

I think it's fucking hilarious that this shit-for-brains Bush apologist imbecile trots out an Islamic rant against the possibility of a governmental system allowing gay marriage as proof that Islam is evil, when Christian fundamentalists feel exactly the same way about any governmental system which endorses gay marriage, hence their endless ranting about the evils of the Constitution and the "activist judges" who interpret it.

I surely hope you aren't referring to me. Because if you are, then that has got to be dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.

I'm going to assume you ARE referring to me since I'm the one who posted the article. First of all, I simply stated that Bush had gotten it right on this ONE point regarding militant islamists (a group to which most terrorists belong). For that you stereotype me as being a "shit for brains Bush appoligist. Yeah that makes sense Mike.

So, after you've poisoned the well there, you proceed to strawman my entire argument. First you conveniently ignore the quote from the militant groups where they specifically state that democracy is an affront to their religion. You isntead focus on the "example" which was never brought up and was specifically chose because of the contraversy surrounding it.

Then you go on to further denegrate my argument by claiming I'm trying to "prove Islam is evil" when I was referring to one specific group: Militant Islamists. You also introduce the unmentioned, and irrelevent to this discussion, topic of Christian Fundamentalists and what they would do if in power. While I have no doubt a Christian Fundamentalist group would do many similar things that a Militant Islamist Group would (although likely with much less violence), it is a red herring to this discussion.

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

As for you mike, as someone who repeatedly portrays himself as a victim of being mis-quoted, and whose "hall of shame" is laden with individuals who attempted to strawman arguments and throw out red herrings I'd have to say I'm rather disappointed. I'm sure you'll exact some sort of "revenge" and brand some stupid title on me, so have at it.

[Darth Wong]

I think it's fucking hilarious that this shit-for-brains Bush apologist imbecile trots out an Islamic rant against the possibility of a governmental system allowing gay marriage as proof that Islam is evil, when Christian fundamentalists feel exactly the same way about any governmental system which endorses gay marriage, hence their endless ranting about the evils of the Constitution and the "activist judges" who interpret it.

I surely hope you aren't referring to me. Because if you are, then that has got to be dumbest thing I've ever seen you write.

Oh, I'm sure this will be good ...

I'm going to assume you ARE referring to me since I'm the one who posted the article. First of all, I simply stated that Bush had gotten it right on this ONE point regarding militant islamists (a group to which most terrorists belong). For that you stereotype me as being a "shit for brains Bush appoligist. Yeah that makes sense Mike.

Hey fucktard, you're apologizing for Bush's rhetorical bullshit; that makes you an apologist. That isn't a "stereotype"; that is a direct classification. Grow a fucking brain.

So, after you've poisoned the well there, you proceed to strawman my entire argument. First you conveniently ignore the quote from the militant groups where they specifically state that democracy is an affront to their religion. You isntead focus on the "example" which was never brought up and was specifically chose because of the contraversy surrounding it.

Guess what, Einstein: we have countless quotes from Christian fundies who say that the Constitution and its guarantee of human rights is an affront to their religion. George W. Bush is one of them. That was the point I was making, and yours only works if we presume that Constitutional human rights are not as worthy of respect as democracy.

Then you go on to further denegrate my argument by claiming I'm trying to "prove Islam is evil" when I was referring to one specific group: Militant Islamists.

Hey moron, guess what: if something is a result of being "militantly Islamic", then it is obviously Islamic in nature. Ergo, it has to do with the character of Islam.

You also introduce the unmentioned, and irrelevent to this discussion, topic of Christian Fundamentalists and what they would do if in power. While I have no doubt a Christian Fundamentalist group would do many similar things that a Militant Islamist Group would (although likely with much less violence), it is a red herring to this discussion.

It is hardly irrelevant, dumb-shit. I'm making the point that George W. Bush is the last person who should be criticizing another religion for opposing the principles of modern western democracy (hint for the stupid and ignorant such as you: those principles include constitutional human rights).

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. You haven't disproven a thing I've said.

As for you mike, as someone who repeatedly portrays himself as a victim of being mis-quoted, and whose "hall of shame" is laden with individuals who attempted to strawman arguments and throw out red herrings I'd have to say I'm rather disappointed. I'm sure you'll exact some sort of "revenge" and brand some stupid title on me, so have at it.

No, it's much easier to point out what a moron you are.

[Admiral_K]

[quote="Darth Wong"...

Hey fucktard, you're apologizing for Bush's rhetorical bullshit; that makes you an apologist. That isn't a "stereotype"; that is a direct classification. Grow a fucking brain.

Golf clap the "grow a fuckign brain" cliche. Well done. I fail to see how I "appoligized" for anything Bush said. Bush was mentioned only once, in my opening remark and was more of a comment in passing at that. The real issue was the Islamic Militants admitted loathing of democracy.

Guess what, Einstein: we have countless quotes from Christian fundies who say that the Constitution and its guarantee of human rights is an affront to their religion. George W. Bush is one of them. That was the point I was making, and yours only works if we presume that Constitutional human rights are not as worthy of respect as democracy.

Red Herring. Your introduction of Christian Fundamentalists is irellevent.

Even if it were, If you have an equivalent quote to "Democracy is against Christian Doctine", then I'd like to see it. You don't see Christian groups threatening to kill you if you vote for a democrat.

Then you go on to further denegrate my argument by claiming I'm trying to "prove Islam is evil" when I was referring to one specific group: Militant Islamists.

Hey moron, guess what: if something is a result of being "militantly Islamic", then it is obviously Islamic in nature. Ergo, it has to do with the character of Islam.

Hasty Generalization. Militant islamists have twisted the texts of their religion and perverted their meanings. You are essentially saying that because I'm stating that Militant Islamists have evil view points, that I'm trying to paint Islam as evil.

It is hardly irrelevant, dumb-shit. I'm making the point that George W. Bush is the last person who should be criticizing another religion for opposing the principles of modern western democracy (hint for the stupid and ignorant such as you: those principles include constitutional human rights).

Its very irrelevant. Christian fundamentalists may be for limiting rights of gays, etc but they work within the democractic system. Sure you have your occaisonal killing of an abortion doctor by a radical Militant Christian (they do exist, but not nearly on the same scale as Militant Islamists), but for the most part, they do their fighting with words and not bullets.

That being said, I wouldn't want to live under any sort of Theocratic government. I believe the seperation of Church and state is vital to the preservation of the rights we hold dear. But, again this is all completely off topic.

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

Appeal to Motive fallacy. You haven't disproven a thing I've said.

Well I can understand your confusion, but that part wasn't addressed to you. It was addressed to Durandal. Sorry, I was going two for one on that post.

MY goal here isn't to "disprove" anything you've said. Rather its to stop your strawman campaign against my argument. You've repeatedly tried to make this about Bush and Christian fundamentalists which it is not, and attempted to paint me as being a proponent of eithen when I've made no such claim.

As for you mike, as someone who repeatedly portrays himself as a victim of being mis-quoted, and whose "hall of shame" is laden with individuals who attempted to strawman arguments and throw out red herrings I'd have to say I'm rather disappointed. I'm sure you'll exact some sort of "revenge" and brand some stupid title on me, so have at it.

No, it's much easier to point out what a moron you are.

Better try harder.

[Darth Wong]

Golf clap the "grow a fuckign brain" cliche. Well done. I fail to see how I "appoligized" for anything Bush said. Bush was mentioned only once, in my opening remark and was more of a comment in passing at that. The real issue was the Islamic Militants admitted loathing of democracy.

Oh, you said it but it had nothing to do with your point? Puh-lease. The fact is that you said "The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base". Not only is "democracy" not the same thing as "freedom", but you made no other point in your post. Unless you're saying that your whole point was just to quote that FOXnews story, and your own commentary was irrelevant to your point.

Red Herring. Your introduction of Christian Fundamentalists is irellevent.

Not to your absurd attempt to use this as proof that the Bush Administration is not singing bullshit.

Even if it were, If you have an equivalent quote to "Democracy is against Christian Doctine", then I'd like to see it. You don't see Christian groups threatening to kill you if you vote for a democrat.

That's because Christianity has been watered down since the Enlightenment! You aren't a student of history, are you? Ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Ever read the Pauline epistles? And why the fuck do you still continue on playing this shell game between "democracy" and "freedom"? Christian groups hate "freedom" to this day; you don't see Christian groups clamouring to open up marriage to gays, loosen broadcast regulations, or stop prosecuting prostitutes, do you?

Hey moron, guess what: if something is a result of being "militantly Islamic", then it is obviously Islamic in nature. Ergo, it has to do with the character of Islam.

Hasty Generalization. Militant islamists have twisted the texts of their religion and perverted their meanings. You are essentially saying that because I'm stating that Militant Islamists have evil view points, that I'm trying to paint Islam as evil.

Militant Islamics have "twisted the texts of their religion"? Care to back this up?

Its very irrelevant. Christian fundamentalists may be for limiting rights of gays, etc but they work within the democractic system. Sure you have your occaisonal killing of an abortion doctor by a radical Militant Christian (they do exist, but not nearly on the same scale as Militant Islamists), but for the most part, they do their fighting with words and not bullets.

That being said, I wouldn't want to live under any sort of Theocratic government. I believe the seperation of Church and state is vital to the preservation of the rights we hold dear. But, again this is all completely off topic.

There you go again, pretending that the system of government in western countries is a pure democracy rather than a constitutional republic. As such, you ignore the point that Christian fundamentalists such as Bush himself do not respect the principles of western government any more than Muslim fanatics do. They just choose to aim their rhetoric at democracy instead of "activist judges" who are fulfilling their purpose as a branch of government.

MY goal here isn't to "disprove" anything you've said. Rather its to stop your strawman campaign against my argument. You've repeatedly tried to make this about Bush and Christian fundamentalists which it is not, and attempted to paint me as being a proponent of eithen when I've made no such claim.

Bullshit. Your first post said that the Bush administration propaganda about the Islamic terrorists being "against freedom" is actually substantiated by the fact that some of the radicals oppose democracy.

As for you mike, as someone who repeatedly portrays himself as a victim of being mis-quoted, and whose "hall of shame" is laden with individuals who attempted to strawman arguments and throw out red herrings I'd have to say I'm rather disappointed. I'm sure you'll exact some sort of "revenge" and brand some stupid title on me, so have at it.

No, it's much easier to point out what a moron you are.

Better try harder.

Why? Because you've already been reduced to pathetically claiming that you had no point at all, and the only purpose of your thread was to regurgitate a well-known fact with no message whatsoever? Or the fact that you are forced to continually substitute "demoracy" for "freedom" and hope no one will notice even though it's been pointed out several times? Sorry, you're just painting yourself into a corner.

[Durandal]

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

Care to address my argument?

MY goal here isn't to "disprove" anything you've said. Rather its to stop your strawman campaign against my argument. You've repeatedly tried to make this about Bush and Christian fundamentalists which it is not, and attempted to paint me as being a proponent of eithen when I've made no such claim.

Then you're trying to disprove something, aren't you? Let's go over this one more time, retard. Militant Islamists aren't attacking America because they "hate our freedom." That's an over-simplification of the issue and a false cause fallacy, and that is the explanation that Bush offers for why America is the target for terrorist attacks. There's a whole shit-load of history and politics in that region, some of which has to do with Israel and other factors, which would make them not like us.

[Skelron]

Then you're trying to disprove something, aren't you? Let's go over this one more time, retard. Militant Islamists aren't attacking America because they "hate our freedom." That's an over-simplification of the issue and a false cause fallacy, and that is the explanation that Bush offers for why America is the target for terrorist attacks. There's a whole shit-load of history and politics in that region, some of which has to do with Israel and other factors, which would make them not like us.

But Durandal have you not worked it out yet, that dosn't matter here The fact that there is one area where they say Democracy is a threat makes it okay for Bush to use it as just about the only thing he ever says about why they are Terrorists and never to extrapolate and explain the point...

Any attempt by others to explain why it is a silly argument to make is outside the context of this thread suppodsedly

[Admiral_K]

Golf clap the "grow a fuckign brain" cliche. Well done. I fail to see how I "appoligized" for anything Bush said. Bush was mentioned only once, in my opening remark and was more of a comment in passing at that. The real issue was the Islamic Militants admitted loathing of democracy.

Oh, you said it but it had nothing to do with your point? Puh-lease. The fact is that you said "The Bush administration line about these groups "hating freedom" isn't without base". Not only is "democracy" not the same thing as "freedom", but you made no other point in your post. Unless you're saying that your whole point was just to quote that FOXnews story, and your own commentary was irrelevant to your point.

Actually I do have a point, which you have apparently missed so I'll summarize it below.

Red Herring. Your introduction of Christian Fundamentalists is irellevent.

Not to your absurd attempt to use this as proof that the Bush Administration is not singing bullshit.

Non Sequitur. Just because I point out that the Bush administration was generally correct on one point, doesn't mean I'm advocating everything the Administration is stating.

Even if it were, If you have an equivalent quote to "Democracy is against Christian Doctine", then I'd like to see it. You don't see Christian groups threatening to kill you if you vote for a democrat.

That's because Christianity has been watered down since the Enlightenment! You aren't a student of history, are you? Ever heard of the Divine Right of Kings? Ever read the Pauline epistles?

The best you can do is give examples from the times of the enlightenment?
Thats great, if your goal is to teach a history lesson, but completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand as I'm refferencing modern events.

And why the fuck do you still continue on playing this shell game between "democracy" and "freedom"? Christian groups hate "freedom" to this day; you don't see Christian groups clamouring to open up marriage to gays, loosen broadcast regulations, or stop prosecuting prostitutes, do you?

The basic tenet of democracy, rule by the people, the ability of people to choose their leaders, and by that measure to have a say in the manner in which they are governed, is something I would consider essential to true freedom. Ofcourse right wing fundamentalists will seek to get laws passed that reflect their point of view. They are no different than any other political voting block. However I'm not advocating a right wing fundamentalist government anymore than I am advocating a militiant islamic one.

Hasty Generalization. Militant islamists have twisted the texts of their religion and perverted their meanings. You are essentially saying that because I'm stating that Militant Islamists have evil view points, that I'm trying to paint Islam as evil.

Militant Islamics have "twisted the texts of their religion"? Care to back this up?

http://www.congregationalist.org/Archiv ... damra.html

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9967

http://www.thesala.com/episode04/03.html

There you go again, pretending that the system of government in western countries is a pure democracy rather than a constitutional republic. As such, you ignore the point that Christian fundamentalists such as Bush himself do not respect the principles of western government any more than Muslim fanatics do. They just choose to aim their rhetoric at democracy instead of "activist judges" who are fulfilling their purpose as a branch of government.

Why do you insist on continuing with this Tu quoque fallacy?

While right wing Christian groups DO have an agenda that they follow, you don't see them stating that anyone who votes against them will be killed.

I am aware that American government isn't a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, however neither will the Iraqi government which the Militants over there are opposing. The basic tenents of "rule by the people" most certainly are present in Western democracys, and hopefully will be present in the Iraqi government.

MY goal here isn't to "disprove" anything you've said. Rather its to stop your strawman campaign against my argument. You've repeatedly tried to make this about Bush and Christian fundamentalists which it is not, and attempted to paint me as being a proponent of eithen when I've made no such claim.

Bullshit. Your first post said that the Bush administration propaganda about the Islamic terrorists being "against freedom" is actually substantiated by the fact that some of the radicals oppose democracy.

The radicals oppose the right of the people to choose how they will be governed. Without that basic premise, true freedom cannot exist. And your use of the word "some" radicals is an attempt to paint this as a statemeny by some rouge terrorist group, when in fact 3 major groups signed off on it. This point isn't the exception, rather its the standard for these militants.

Why? Because you've already been reduced to pathetically claiming that you had no point at all, and the only purpose of your thread was to regurgitate a well-known fact with no message whatsoever? Or the fact that you are forced to continually substitute "demoracy" for "freedom" and hope no one will notice even though it's been pointed out several times? Sorry, you're just painting yourself into a corner.

The POINT, Mr Wong, is that the standard Media rhetoric that these groups are over there "fighting the American occupation" is not at the heart of the matter. These groups are fighting against the establishment of democracy. They are against the establishment of democracy because that would allow the people the freedom to change the way in which they were governed.

Apparently they don't feel that the people would willingly choose the restrictive government they endorse, therfore they as the minority are trying to impose their will on the majority.

Your references to the Christian right wing agenda, while it may have merit on its own, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You have constantly tried to make this into a Christianity vs Islam discussion which it is not. It is a militant islam vs democracy and its inherent freedoms discussion.

[Admiral_K]

Ofcourse, I guess its clear now. I guess I had you pegged wrong Durandal. You weren't defending the terrorists, rather you were simply doing your duty as a rabid bush hater, spreading hate to anything that might remotely be construed as "Bush support". I suppose its really not your fault, because I suppose asking you to not go into "bash Bush" mode would be like asking a monkey not to fling his feces.

Care to address my argument?

Why do you insist on trying to force me to argue something that I'm not?

MY goal here isn't to "disprove" anything you've said. Rather its to stop your strawman campaign against my argument. You've repeatedly tried to make this about Bush and Christian fundamentalists which it is not, and attempted to paint me as being a proponent of eithen when I've made no such claim.

Then you're trying to disprove something, aren't you? Let's go over this one more time, retard. Militant Islamists aren't attacking America because they "hate our freedom." That's an over-simplification of the issue and a false cause fallacy, and that is the explanation that Bush offers for why America is the target for terrorist attacks. There's a whole shit-load of history and politics in that region, some of which has to do with Israel and other factors, which would make them not like us.

You keep trying to make this about America and terrorists. My point was that the groups currently fighting in Iraq aren't doing so simply because of American Occupation. They are doing so because they find the very concept of Democracy (and the freedoms it provides) to be an affront to their religion.

As far as terrorist attacks on the U.S., these groups hatred of democracys is but one of the reasons they attack us. However, since I'm not arguing that point your accusations of over simplification and false cause fallacy are completely unwarranted.

[Darth Wong]

Non Sequitur. Just because I point out that the Bush administration was generally correct on one point, doesn't mean I'm advocating everything the Administration is stating.

You don't have to, moron. You only have to apologize for one clear case of Bush Administraton bullshit to be an apologist. And this is such a case; democracy != freedom.

The best you can do is give examples from the times of the enlightenment?
Thats great, if your goal is to teach a history lesson, but completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand as I'm refferencing modern events.

And what about clothing, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, etc as I mentioned in the very next paragraph? Are those ancient history too? Christians do not stand for "freedom", and the more fundamentalist they are, the less freedom they tolerate. What's that big difference between them and Muslims again?

And why the fuck do you still continue on playing this shell game between "democracy" and "freedom"? Christian groups hate "freedom" to this day; you don't see Christian groups clamouring to open up marriage to gays, loosen broadcast regulations, or stop prosecuting prostitutes, do you?

The basic tenet of democracy, rule by the people, the ability of people to choose their leaders, and by that measure to have a say in the manner in which they are governed, is something I would consider essential to true freedom. Of course right wing fundamentalists will seek to get laws passed that reflect their point of view. They are no different than any other political voting block. However I'm not advocating a right wing fundamentalist government anymore than I am advocating a militiant islamic one.

Completely irrelevant to the fact that I provided examples where Christian groups oppose social freedom. Or are you saying that a society in which the majority agreed upon oppressive policies would be an exmple of "freedom"?

Militant Islamics have "twisted the texts of their religion"? Care to back this up?

http://www.congregationalist.org/Archiv ... damra.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9967
http://www.thesala.com/episode04/03.html

Wow, so you appeal to the authority of other people who say so. You call that "backing it up?"

Why do you insist on continuing with this Tu quoque fallacy?

It's not a Tu Quoque fallacy, you idiot. I'm not saying that radical Muslim groups do not oppose democracy because of the Bush administration's hypocrisy; I agree that some of them oppose democracy. Do you even understand how the Tu Quoque fallacy works, you idiot? Your problem is that you think "some groups oppose democracy" = "all of them hate freedom".

While right wing Christian groups DO have an agenda that they follow, you don't see them stating that anyone who votes against them will be killed.

Sure you do, they just tend to operate in places like Lebanon and the Philippines, not America. Who do you think committed the Sabra and Shatila massacres?

I am aware that American government isn't a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, however neither will the Iraqi government which the Militants over there are opposing. The basic tenents of "rule by the people" most certainly are present in Western democracys, and hopefully will be present in the Iraqi government.

There are far more critical tenets to western society than that, genius. Do you think that popular rule in, say, Jordan would stop the oppression of society there?

Bullshit. Your first post said that the Bush administration propaganda about the Islamic terrorists being "against freedom" is actually substantiated by the fact that some of the radicals oppose democracy.

The radicals oppose the right of the people to choose how they will be governed. Without that basic premise, true freedom cannot exist. And your use of the word "some" radicals is an attempt to paint this as a statemeny by some rouge terrorist group, when in fact 3 major groups signed off on it. This point isn't the exception, rather its the standard for these militants.

You honestly don't see the problem with assuming that democracy and freedom are the same concept, do you? You keep using this "without democracy, you cannot have freedom" line as if it refutes the criticism, when it does not. It is completely possible to have a democratic yet extremely oppressive society.

The POINT, Mr Wong, is that the standard Media rhetoric that these groups are over there "fighting the American occupation" is not at the heart of the matter. These groups are fighting against the establishment of democracy. They are against the establishment of democracy because that would allow the people the freedom to change the way in which they were governed.

So they oppose one particular kind of freedom therefore they "hate freedom"? This is your logic? You honestly don't see how that same logic could be applied elsewhere to show that the Bush Administration hates freedom too? You honestly don't see how that logic is hopelessly fallacious?

Apparently they don't feel that the people would willingly choose the restrictive government they endorse, therfore they as the minority are trying to impose their will on the majority.

And your evidence that this is all about desiring restrictive government rather than simply hating Americans is ...? Oh wait, don't tell me; you figure that despite your own rhetoric about how they're deliberately distorting their own holy book, their public statements are completely sincere statements of their full and complete motives

Your references to the Christian right wing agenda, while it may have merit on its own, are completely irrelevant to this discussion. You have constantly tried to make this into a Christianity vs Islam discussion which it is not. It is a militant islam vs democracy and its inherent freedoms discussion.

Democracy has no inherent freedoms, jack-ass. It is merely mob rule, and it only produces a free society if the mob wants it to.

[Coyote]

Bush's self-righteous "They hate our freedom" bullshit is a gross oversimplification. And when I point that out, people jump all over me for "defending the terrorists." Why are we arguing about this?

We're not-- it was clear to me from the beginning that you didn't support terrorism, I thought your first post in this regard was clear. I'm also of the opinion that accusing someone of being a traitor for trying to comprehend the enemy's motives is, well, stupid. The best military and political strategists try to figure out their enemy before making a move. It was a hallmark of Patton and Rommel both, to name but few.

You have a clear field of fire. I enjoy watching you uncoil on people who've earned it. I'll be over here eating popcorn.

[Coyote]

And what about clothing, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, etc as I mentioned in the very next paragraph? Are those ancient history too? Christians do not stand for "freedom", and the more fundamentalist they are, the less freedom they tolerate. What's that big difference between them and Muslims again?

More recent and chilling, right in the USA-- Richard Rudolph, the terrorist sniper that shot abortion doctors and also is suspected of bombing an abortion clinic, hid in the hills of the eastern US for over a year (I forget which state) and supposedly received a lot of passive support from locals who allegedly knew he was in the hills and kept quiet.

[Admiral_K]

Non Sequitur. Just because I point out that the Bush administration was generally correct on one point, doesn't mean I'm advocating everything the Administration is stating.

You don't have to, moron. You only have to apologize for one clear case of Bush Administraton bullshit to be an apologist. And this is such a case; democracy != freedom.

You sure like to throw that term "apologist" around don't you? Lets look at a definition of the word:

a·pol·o·gist n. - A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

I've clearly done no such thing. I've not defended or justified any of the Bush administrations doctrine, policy, or institution. The only I've done is point out that their statement about these groups "hating freedom" was correct to the extent that they are against "rule by the people". So please, cease and desist your blatant misuse of the word.

The best you can do is give examples from the times of the enlightenment?
Thats great, if your goal is to teach a history lesson, but completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand as I'm refferencing modern events.

And what about clothing, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, etc as I mentioned in the very next paragraph? Are those ancient history too? Christians do not stand for "freedom", and the more fundamentalist they are, the less freedom they tolerate. What's that big difference between them and Muslims again?

I already addressed those issues. I had asked you to produce an example of an equivalent statement of "Democracy is an affront to God" that the Islamic Militants released and you responded with some irreverant history lesson about Christianity.

By your own admission, Christianity is "watered down". By and large they don't kill people that vote against them. Fundamentalist Christian groups warn people they will end up in hell if they don't follow Christian doctrine, where as militants Islamists try to send them there.

And why the fuck do you still continue on playing this shell game between "democracy" and "freedom"? Christian groups hate "freedom" to this day; you don't see Christian groups clamouring to open up marriage to gays, loosen broadcast regulations, or stop prosecuting prostitutes, do you?

The basic tenet of democracy, rule by the people, the ability of people to choose their leaders, and by that measure to have a say in the manner in which they are governed, is something I would consider essential to true freedom. Of course right wing fundamentalists will seek to get laws passed that reflect their point of view. They are no different than any other political voting block. However I'm not advocating a right wing fundamentalist government anymore than I am advocating a militiant islamic one.

Completely irrelevant to the fact that I provided examples where Christian groups oppose social freedom. Or are you saying that a society in which the majority agreed upon oppressive policies would be an exmple of "freedom"?

Your theoretical "oppresive democracy" simply is not likely to exist. Given the choice, most people will choose freedom over oppression. And in a democracy, they get to make that choice.

Militant Islamics have "twisted the texts of their religion"? Care to back this up?

http://www.congregationalist.org/Archiv ... damra.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=9967
http://www.thesala.com/episode04/03.html

Wow, so you appeal to the authority of other people who say so. You call that "backing it up?"
[/quote]

Wow... another mis-use of a fallacy. Lets look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy for our readers who might not know the particulars:

This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area...
...Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

The sources I cited do have expertise in the area and are perfectly valid. If you wish to challenge their credentials then have at it.

Why do you insist on continuing with this Tu quoque fallacy?

It's not a Tu Quoque fallacy, you idiot. I'm not saying that radical Muslim groups do not oppose democracy because of the Bush administration's hypocrisy; I agree that some of them oppose democracy. Do you even understand how the Tu Quoque fallacy works, you idiot? Your problem is that you think "some groups oppose democracy" = "all of them hate freedom".

Telling me what I think now? What I Know is that 3 major militant islamist groups operating in Iraq signed off on that statement. You have attempted to make this a "Islam vs Christianity" discussion despite my constant attempts to drag it back on topic.

While right wing Christian groups DO have an agenda that they follow, you don't see them stating that anyone who votes against them will be killed.

Sure you do, they just tend to operate in places like Lebanon and the Philippines, not America. Who do you think committed the Sabra and Shatila massacres?

They also aren't nearly as active or numerous as their islamic counterparts, hence your giving me a 20 year old example.

I am aware that American government isn't a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word, however neither will the Iraqi government which the Militants over there are opposing. The basic tenents of "rule by the people" most certainly are present in Western democracys, and hopefully will be present in the Iraqi government.

There are far more critical tenets to western society than that, genius. Do you think that popular rule in, say, Jordan would stop the oppression of society there?

I'm aware that Democracy won't "solve all the problems" of an oppresive society. However, the protections placed on freedom by most democracys are a definate start on the right road.

You honestly don't see the problem with assuming that democracy and freedom are the same concept, do you? You keep using this "without democracy, you cannot have freedom" line as if it refutes the criticism, when it does not. It is completely possible to have a democratic yet extremely oppressive society.

Why do you insist on arguing the semantics of "democracy" = "freedom"? I've already explained what I meant by that statement. Militant islamists would stomp all over freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of individuals to choose their government.

And yes it is possible to have an "oppressive" democracy, however it is highly unlikely so long as the people yearn to be free. And if it is an actual democractic society, anytime it gets too oppresive then they will have the means of going back the other way.

To use the United States as an example, it seems every 10-15 years or so that you have a trend reversal. Right now, the U.S. is on a conservative kick after the relatively liberal 90s, wwhich itself was a backlash against the more conservative 80s. When you put choices of government in peoples hands, freedom is the usual result.

I'll get to the rest later as time doesn't permit me to do it justice now.

[SirNitram]

By your own admission, Christianity is "watered down". By and large they don't kill people that vote against them. Fundamentalist Christian groups warn people they will end up in hell if they don't follow Christian doctrine, where as militants Islamists try to send them there.

Bwahaha. Which is worse? A brief moment of terrible pain and then oblivion(Or possibly reward), or an infinite period of horrific torture and suffering? That you argue Christians are less bad for wishing people to go to Hell is laughable.

[tharkûn]

Okay, so what are you saying? That the reasons for Muslims not liking the United States are more complex than "They hate our freedom"? Thank you for proving my point and taking the thread off on a worthless tangent. My argument was that the reasons were more complex than what Bush's supporters, and apparently you agree. You disagree with my proposed alternatives, but the fundamental point remains the same.

First let me say that the entire thread is a worthless tangent. Terrorists hate democracy? Really a group attempting to use violence to affect change doesn't beleive that elections are valid means of making decsions? Sacre bleu.

Second your alternatives reek only slightly less than the president's. There isn't a simple answer to the Islamic terrorist problem and eventually they do want to attack the outside world, the whole point of restoring the Caliphite is so that it can continue to spread Islam. At best the hardline Islamicists might leave the Christians and Jews alone, but their "Golden Age" was pure bloody murder against Hindus, Pagans, and Buddhists. Israel is the flashpoint, not the fuel. Freedom is recruitment propoganda not the underlying cause. The Islamicists are scapegoating and will continue to do so until either the Islamic world stops being craptacular or the population refuses to buy into the scapegoat mythos.

[Admiral_K]

By your own admission, Christianity is "watered down". By and large they don't kill people that vote against them. Fundamentalist Christian groups warn people they will end up in hell if they don't follow Christian doctrine, where as militants Islamists try to send them there.

Bwahaha. Which is worse? A brief moment of terrible pain and then oblivion(Or possibly reward), or an infinite period of horrific torture and suffering? That you argue Christians are less bad for wishing people to go to Hell is laughable.

I'm arguing no such thing and you are a fucking idiot for suggesting so.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

You keep trying to make this about America and terrorists. My point was that the groups currently fighting in Iraq aren't doing so simply because of American Occupation. They are doing so because they find the very concept of Democracy (and the freedoms it provides) to be an affront to their religion.

snip.

Just out of interest, has anyone asked these insurgents why they are fighting? Just from what I have read, a lot of these groups fight for a number of reasons, and religion but one reason, albeit an important one.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Wow... another mis-use of a fallacy. Lets look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy for our readers who might not know the particulars:

This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area...
...Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

The sources I cited do have expertise in the area and are perfectly valid. If you wish to challenge their credentials then have at it.

Appeals to authority. This is where you base an entire argument on what someone else said. This is not, however, when you make your argument and use what someone else said as backup. "Scientist John Doe said that evolution is impossible, thus it must be impossible."

You didn't use any of those sites in your argument. You merely gave links. You simply throwing other people's works without comment is not only impractical and terrible arguing but also pathetic. One of the rudest thing one can do when asked for back up is throw links.

[Darth Wong]

I've clearly done no such thing. I've not defended or justified any of the Bush administrations doctrine, policy, or institution. The only I've done is point out that their statement about these groups "hating freedom" was correct to the extent that they are against "rule by the people". So please, cease and desist your blatant misuse of the word.

You say you have "not defended or justified any of the Bush Administration's doctrine" and then turn around and say that their claims about terrorist motivations are true, without realizing that you just contradicted yourself?

I already addressed those issues. I had asked you to produce an example of an equivalent statement of "Democracy is an affront to God" that the Islamic Militants released and you responded with some irreverant history lesson about Christianity.

The Constitution's human-rights guarantees and anti-establishment clause are an affront to God according to Christians, moron.

By your own admission, Christianity is "watered down". By and large they don't kill people that vote against them. Fundamentalist Christian groups warn people they will end up in hell if they don't follow Christian doctrine, where as militants Islamists try to send them there.

I see you chose to ignore the point I made about Lebanon, the Philippines, etc.

Your theoretical "oppresive democracy" simply is not likely to exist. Given the choice, most people will choose freedom over oppression. And in a democracy, they get to make that choice.

Bullshit. Public opinion in Jordan is massively weighted in favour of crushingly oppressive social policies, you idiot. If you made it a democracy, these oppressive social policies would still exist.

Wow... another mis-use of a fallacy. Lets look at the Appeal to Authority fallacy for our readers who might not know the particulars:

This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area...
...Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

The sources I cited do have expertise in the area and are perfectly valid. If you wish to challenge their credentials then have at it.

Wrong, dumb-shit. The Appeal to Authority fallacy is when you use ANYONE, even someone with credentials, as proof. There is a difference between citing an expert's data and arguments and saying "he said so, therefore it's true". Besides, religious studies are not like science; there is no pyramidal structuring of knowledge and anyone can study the source document himself.

It's not a Tu Quoque fallacy, you idiot. I'm not saying that radical Muslim groups do not oppose democracy because of the Bush administration's hypocrisy; I agree that some of them oppose democracy. Do you even understand how the Tu Quoque fallacy works, you idiot? Your problem is that you think "some groups oppose democracy" = "all of them hate freedom".

Telling me what I think now? What I Know is that 3 major militant islamist groups operating in Iraq signed off on that statement. You have attempted to make this a "Islam vs Christianity" discussion despite my constant attempts to drag it back on topic.

Hey fuckhead, the only "topic" here is your idiotic claim that democracy = freedom, hence 3 Islamic groups saying that they don't like democracy is proof that all the anti-US terror groups "hate freedom". Your bullshit is not supported by the facts unless you throw logic to the winds.

They also aren't nearly as active or numerous as their islamic counterparts, hence your giving me a 20 year old example.

Why do violent Christian radical groups have to be just as numerous or active as their Islamic counterparts in order to validate my point?

I'm aware that Democracy won't "solve all the problems" of an oppresive society. However, the protections placed on freedom by most democracys are a definate start on the right road.

Democracy itself places no intrinsic protections on freedom whatsoever. And by tying this to "most democracies" you are intrinsically including constitutions, which in turn validate my point about how Christian groups oppose these principles too. Moreover, you are ignoring examples such as Turkey, where the oppressive clerics and their supporters have been repeatedly shut down by force. Your whole argument rests upon the idiotic non sequitur that popular rule will automatically produce social freedom; a pure leap in logic which presumes that the people themselves want social freedom.

Why do you insist on arguing the semantics of "democracy" = "freedom"? I've already explained what I meant by that statement. Militant islamists would stomp all over freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of individuals to choose their government.

And militant Christians already stomp all over the first two, so why is the third one single-handedly equivalent to "freedom"? It's hardly "semantics" to point out the difference between apples and oranges, dumb-shit.

And yes it is possible to have an "oppressive" democracy, however it is highly unlikely so long as the people yearn to be free. And if it is an actual democractic society, anytime it gets too oppresive then they will have the means of going back the other way.

Yet again, you simply choose to ignore the example of Jordan and popular public opinion there.

[Admiral_K]

You say you have "not defended or justified any of the Bush Administration's doctrine" and then turn around and say that their claims about terrorist motivations are true, without realizing that you just contradicted yourself?

That is simply wrong. Thats like saying "Hey Maurice Clarrett was right about players getting money from boosters at Ohio State" and then saying I'm defending his actions and attitude. Simply acknowledging a factual statement by someone is not an endorsement of that person.

I already addressed those issues. I had asked you to produce an example of an equivalent statement of "Democracy is an affront to God" that the Islamic Militants released and you responded with some irreverant history lesson about Christianity.

The Constitution's human-rights guarantees and anti-establishment clause are an affront to God according to Christians, moron.

Thats mighty funny because the founders of this nation primarily were Christians. The concept of free will is very important to Christianity, and those who say otherwise pervert its meaning in much the same way these Militants do.

By your own admission, Christianity is "watered down". By and large they don't kill people that vote against them. Fundamentalist Christian groups warn people they will end up in hell if they don't follow Christian doctrine, where as militants Islamists try to send them there.

I see you chose to ignore the point I made about Lebanon, the Philippines, etc.

I briefly researched your point. I didn't find much. I never said that Militant Christians didn't exist, but they are far fewer in number and are just as guilty of perverting Christianity as Islamic Militants are. This isn't about Christianity vs Islam despite your many attempts to make it so.

Your theoretical "oppresive democracy" simply is not likely to exist. Given the choice, most people will choose freedom over oppression. And in a democracy, they get to make that choice.

Bullshit. Public opinion in Jordan is massively weighted in favour of crushingly oppressive social policies, you idiot. If you made it a democracy, these oppressive social policies would still exist.

Source? I tried to research this, but didn't find much. And your oppinion on what democracy might or might not do is strictly your oppinion.

Wrong, dumb-shit. The Appeal to Authority fallacy is when you use ANYONE, even someone with credentials, as proof. There is a difference between citing an expert's data and arguments and saying "he said so, therefore it's true". Besides, religious studies are not like science; there is no pyramidal structuring of knowledge and anyone can study the source document himself.

The sources I cited directly quoted from the Koran and how terrorists had perverted and twisted its meanings. They aren't simply stating "They have twisted the religion" without showing where and how.

Hey fuckhead, the only "topic" here is your idiotic claim that democracy = freedom, hence 3 Islamic groups saying that they don't like democracy is proof that all the anti-US terror groups "hate freedom". Your bullshit is not supported by the facts unless you throw logic to the winds.

WRONG Jackass. You have missed the point entirely. They don't hate democracy for democracy's sake. They hate it because of the freedoms it could provide. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. Its the fear that the majority of the people might choose "unislamic" laws. Its those fears that motivate them.

And when I started this discussion I was specifically targeting the "resistance" in Iraq. I simply wanted to point out that these groups aren't "fighting for their freedom", they are fighting to become top dogs in the next dictatorship. It is you and others who have broadend this to include "all anti US terror groups".

They also aren't nearly as active or numerous as their islamic counterparts, hence your giving me a 20 year old example.

Why do violent Christian radical groups have to be just as numerous or active as their Islamic counterparts in order to validate my point?

Um what is your point exactly?

I'm aware that Democracy won't "solve all the problems" of an oppresive society. However, the protections placed on freedom by most democracys are a definate start on the right road.

Democracy itself places no intrinsic protections on freedom whatsoever. And by tying this to "most democracies" you are intrinsically including constitutions, which in turn validate my point about how Christian groups oppose these principles too. Moreover, you are ignoring examples such as Turkey, where the oppressive clerics and their supporters have been repeatedly shut down by force. Your whole argument rests upon the idiotic non sequitur that popular rule will automatically produce social freedom; a pure leap in logic which presumes that the people themselves want social freedom.

I'm aware that democracy in and of itself is "no guarantee" of freedom. But, are you going to argue that a Sharia based society is more apt to provide freedom for its people? Democracy by its very nature has the mechanisms in place to provide personal freedom. Whether or not you believe human nature is inclined towards freedom is up to you.

The reason I brought up the whole "hating freedom" was the explanation provided by these groups. It wasn't simply the fact that the Iraqi people could choose their leaders. They feared the people having the freedom to make choices in their lives that went against Islamic tradition.

Why do you insist on arguing the semantics of "democracy" = "freedom"? I've already explained what I meant by that statement. Militant islamists would stomp all over freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of individuals to choose their government.

And militant Christians already stomp all over the first two, so why is the third one single-handedly equivalent to "freedom"? It's hardly "semantics" to point out the difference between apples and oranges, dumb-shit.

Militant Christians are no better than Militant Islamists. Again, this is not about "Christianity vs Islam".

And yes it is possible to have an "oppressive" democracy, however it is highly unlikely so long as the people yearn to be free. And if it is an actual democractic society, anytime it gets too oppresive then they will have the means of going back the other way.

Yet again, you simply choose to ignore the example of Jordan and popular public opinion there.

Again, I'd need to see specifics to address what you are talking about. However, any "data" collected in a country where people have to fear reprisals should they "step out of line" would have to be considered suspect.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

That is simply wrong. Thats like saying "Hey Maurice Clarrett was right about players getting money from boosters at Ohio State" and then saying I'm defending his actions and attitude. Simply acknowledging a factual statement by someone is not an endorsement of that person.

>.<

You are defending Bush's "rhetoric". Whether that is fact or not doesn't make a damn difference whether you agree or disagree with it. An endorsement of his justifications != endorsement of the person.