# EhMac and MacDoc's Anti-America problem



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I notice a common theme reading through the posts on this message board. Many posters, and especially it seems MacDoc, are given to making anti-American statements even when it has nothing to do with the issue, witness, for example, the posts in "NY Teen killed for iPod" thread, where MacDoc attempts to draw some specious sociological conclusions about America based on this news story.

Is EhMac a community for only leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes? And is MacDoc only running a business to cater to that segment? If so, why not advertise the message board and the business on that basis?


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

planethoth - ehMac is a Canadian board that allows anyone no matter their political affiliation to be a part of. The occurrence that there is a larger contingent of more vocally active left leaning members then right leaning IMO is more coincidence then anything. I wouldn't read too much into it.

MacDoc is critical of the United States for good reasons (he does cite them if you ask if he hasn't already cited them). They may be the opinions of an individual but opinions are formed based on some form of information. While I may be personally annoyed at MacDoc's line between American Society and the current American mindset, MacDoc is allowed to give his opinion.

ehMac is *not* a community only for "leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes"[1]. The political posts you often read on here are personal opinion, not a reflection of how the business is operated. I'm not in the know and MacDoc can tell you what's necessary but from my experience with MacDoc he may be opinionated, but he won't hold it against you if you need help. (So long as you're polite).

In conclusion, ehMac != (does not equal) anti-American, we're even hosted by an American hosting company. (Our XServe set-up in Kitchener didn't pan out correctly). From what I'm reading in your post unfortunately you've received a pretty poor first impression of both MacDoc and ehMac. I'm pretty sure I was the cause of that and I'm truly sorry.

MacDoc is a great guy to get to know and ehMac happens to be a place where you can meet dozens of insanely great people and learn a huge amount of information ranging from Anything Mac & iPod to the difference between LCD and DLP HiDef TVs to why Volkswagon cars sold in Canada are inferior to those found in Europe.

1 - There was only one that I have known to have graced this board and he has since departed.


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Is EhMac a community for only leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes? And is MacDoc only running a business to cater to that segment? If so, why not advertise the message board and the business on that basis?


Indeed -- Chealion's response is excellent. There is a certain irony to those who fight (perceived) hyperbole with (unperceived) hyperbole.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Nicely put Che.

Perhaps our wanderer might reflect that nothing said here against the Bush regime and American foreign policy of interference comes close to the vitriol expressed on antiBush American sites
There's some 3,000 or so here. http://www.linkcrusader.com/anti-bush.htm
let alone those in Europe and elsewhere.

You've parked yourself pretty clearly in the NeoCon jingoist camp with this choice of words


> leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes


.

Welcome to the rest of the world........and gratifyingly to many - a growing number of disillusioned and angry Americans who are ultimately the only ones that can call your leaders to account......fully. I wish them well in their effort.

THIS American effort I can applaud whole heartedly.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/










••••••••

Your 50¢ word of the day "xenophobes".........applied to Canadians!!! How foolish and revealing a choice of descriptor........ with some 1/3 of the nation allophones and 160 languages spoken in Toronto, many, including your own New York Times, consider the city and the country a marvelous example of multicultural diversity.
We have our issues as a nation but in general being xenophobic is NOT one of them. Differentiating ourselves from too close association with American policies and choices IS.

Funny choice of flags Americans choose wear when abroad.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6666338/

Canadian eh.

•••••

As for "specious links", they are most certainly echoed by the boy's family



> Since the fourth grade, Mr. Rose would spend the school year in Bushkill, Pa., with his father, Errol Rose, a construction worker who commuted to work in New York. He attended East Stroudsburg North High School.
> 
> *"We sent him to school in Pennsylvania so he wouldn't get involved in this,"* said Mr. Rose


Phantom social phenomena?? - no - a reality that the boy's family recognised and tried to protect him from.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I'm completely sick of hearing the BS that criticism of the US government is anti-American. I have close friends and relatives that are Americans and I lived there happily for several years. I am not anti-American. 

The USA is a great nation, that happens to be the world's most powerful one and it is currently not living up to its own ideals. That is what I will criticize them for, in the hopes that they might listen. It is my perfect right to do so, as a citizen of this planet, just as I will criticize my own government when they do not live up to our country's ideals.

The anti-American label is always used in an attempt to shut down argument. There are many millions of Americans who criticize their own government in an attempt to make their country and the world a better place, and I will join with them in solidarity. You can call that anti-Americanism, but I think it is as apple-pie-American as the Fourth of July.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I can strongly agree with Chealion's clarification of MacDoc and ehMac. As one who has been called a leftist/socialist American myself, even though I am also a Canadian citizen who has lived in Canada for 28 years, I also agree with GA's statement about the use of the word "anti-American". 

So, I flew the Canadian flag proudly on my front lawn on July 1st (as I have done since July, 1979), and flew the American flag proudly on my front lawn (as I have done since July, 1979). I can also say that I view MacDoc as a friend, and ehMacLand as a "home away from home". Paix, mes amis.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

planethoth,

Macdoc is only one among many individuals here with strong opinions and a desire to argue strongly for them. I have my own strong opinions, and from what I've read, you do too. But keep in mind that every one here is entitled to their opinion and entitled to be very vocal about it. Debate can get very heated.

Not every thread here is a heated political debate, however. If you want to see the softer side of ehMac, please do feel free to join us for a cup of coffee in the Shang. 

And welcome.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I notice a common theme reading through the posts on this message board. Many posters, and especially it seems MacDoc, are given to making anti-American statements even when it has nothing to do with the issue, witness, for example, the posts in "NY Teen killed for iPod" thread, where MacDoc attempts to draw some specious sociological conclusions about America based on this news story.
> 
> Is EhMac a community for only leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes? And is MacDoc only running a business to cater to that segment? If so, why not advertise the message board and the business on that basis?


Hey Phallus Cranium... what's with the blatant troll? Perhaps you should read some of the posts before going off half cocked (ha ha ha don’t pardon that pun) and painting everyone with some anti-American blanket brush. The simple fact of the matter is that many if not most post related to America are criticisms related to the current administration. And the current US administration does not represent America as a whole.

America is a great country, it founding constitution is an amazing document for its time, with some stunning language in it. Americans in general are an amazing people in the face of adversity. That being said… America has many flaws, which have been pointed out in some of the posts on this board. 

What we don’t need is some phallus cranium’s rant about how this board is full of anti American hate. If you don't agree with the examples and language put forth in these posts, why not provide some real examples and analogies that prove your point. Instead you go straight to to the neo conservative/fox news playbook and point a finger and label anyone who doesn't share your view.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I want to sincerely apologize to MacDoc for leaving him to fend for himself against the Rabid Right these past few weeks. Dave, I'll endeavour to participate more often... no need for you to be the only target of those who have issue with speaking truth to power.

M.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think it was my name was the shortest  Others responded well as well.
You make take up the dialogue as you do well - I'm sure your nick will get the appropriate reaction


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

Why is being anti-American a "problem"? Why are the words "anti-American" and "leftist" being linked in this way? If you don't want to read or participate in debate then why even visit this site? This is what we do, and in the most part we're pretty civil about it all (in true Canadian fashion). I can only echo what my fellow Eh-Macers (there must be a better word for us than that) have already said.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Attack Bush and youae anti-American? What a load! I am an American and I think attacking Bush is patriotic.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Interesting that we (the citizens of ehMac) would be considered Ant-American when we spend considerable amounts of time and energy discussing the affairs of our own country.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

« MannyP Design » said:


> Interesting that we (the citizens of ehMac) would be considered Ant-American when we spend considerable amounts of time and energy discussing the affairs of our own country.


You mean anti-Canadian right?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

let's havd a look at the article re: the Cdn. kid found guilty of threatening to blow up his school and read some of the "comments" and then ask who is anti whom?

http://www.rightnation.us/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t79459.html
a few select "comments" below
_
They watch too much Al-Jazeera up there.

Well, I guess it makes us even. Because this American doesn't like Canadian terrorist twits.

Well, it sounds like the parents are model guests of the United States, also. Maybe they all should be held as enemies of the US and prosecuted as terrorists?

Plop his butt down on a block of his own c-4, and blow his a$$ back over the border...hope he makes it...

Why don't we just send him on a all expense paid trip to Cuba? (You know the part I mean.)
_
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and here is a most illuminating comment from the defence lawyer;
_
Goldman argued there was *no direct proof that Biehn wrote the bomb threat on the bathroom wall, no evidence of intent* and that ignition tests by experts showed none of the materials he possessed actually burned. “The proof doesn’t match the allegations,” he said.* “Suspicion is not enough.”*
_
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
comment from someone with boots on the ground
_
“Certainly since 9/11, people are very shaken and overly cautious, and to the detriment of our civil liberties,” said Cathy Block, a composer who has worked with Travis at a community theatre group.

“Someone can point a finger and before you know it you’re being stormtrooped and your child is being taken away,” she said before the hearing began.
_
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
and finally comments from the mother
_
Biehn's mother said the family has been receiving threats ever since her son's arrest.

"There's been a few referring to, you know, 'Let's throw Travis over Niagara Falls,' 'Let's cane the parents,' 'Let's throw them back over the border,' 'We should all be tarred and feathered.'"

Biehn said authorities over-reacted when a bomb threat was found written on a bathroom wall at her son's high school, and the ensuing media frenzy only made things worse.

She believes the current climate in the U.S. is not conducive to true free speech.

*"They've gone above and beyond, so that people's rights are skewed," she said.

"It's supposed to be liberty, freedom – you're supposed to have a right to your own opinion.

"It's pretty bad if you cannot vocalize your opinion, and all of a sudden you're anti-American."* 
_


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

No one said criticizing American government was anti-American. I sure didn't.

I consider anyone who uses the word "regime" to describe the Bush administration and "neocon" as a perjorative term against people who disagree with them as, you know, pretty clearly exposing their xenophobia.

Certainly nothing in this thread leads me to believe I was mistaken... anyone who calls themself "Cuba Mark" and uses jingoist Chomskyite phrases like "speaking truth to power" certainly isn't refuting my comment.

If I was MacDoc, I would not use my business name when posting politically charged comments. It seems bad for business, left or right.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> anyone who calls themself "Cuba Mark" and uses jingoist Chomskyite phrases like "speaking truth to power" certainly isn't refuting my comment.


wow, one learns something new everyday
now being supportive of Cuba and quoting Chomsky (an American intellectual and professor at MIT) is considered Anti-American 

i going to stay tuned to see what else i can learn today

macdoc, you've been warned !!!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Noam Chomsky is an American who may as well not be. There is nothing admirable about him, "intellectual" as he may be, but his existence as a tenured professor at an American university is a credit to the United States as a free society. And please don't get me started about Castro and Cuba.

Meanwhile, only Chealion has bothered to make a reasonable post, while the rest are throw around cheap insinuations like "hate radio", "rabid right", etc.

It still doesn't change the fact that it is bad business for someone to post political comments under their business name...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Meanwhile, only Chealion has bothered to make a reasonable post, while the rest are throw around cheap insinuations like "hate radio", "rabid right", etc.


gee, i don't recall using "hate radio" or "rabid right" or thrown around cheap insinuations, but perhaps you see more than I've typed

oh and please explain;


> Noam Chomsky is an American who may as well not be.


reads like a non-sequitor to me

I see allowing the likes of David Duke to freely walk the streets of America as a credit to American democracy, but you see being a tenured world reknown professor at a prestigious American university in the same light


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Noam Chomsky is an American who may as well not be. There is nothing admirable about him, "intellectual" as he may be, but his existence as a tenured professor at an American university is a credit to the United States as a free society.


I would be interested to know how much Chomsky you have read....Do you realise where he comes from?

As far as 'bad for business'- I'll go to someone who knows what they are talking about regardless of political argument...thats a facet of capitalism...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> gee, i don't recall using "hate radio" or "rabid right" or thrown around cheap insinuations, but perhaps you see more than I've typed


No you did not Macspectrum. You see the Right in America are nothing more than brain dead waiting for their marching orders from the neocons. The words of the week for the brain dead are "hate radio" and "rabid right" - so far it's shown up on a few neocon talk shows.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Chomsky is indeed tenured at a "prestigious American university", and certainly is famous. So, this is all we need to know?

Noam Chomsky has done more to rationalize anti-American hate and the killing of Americans and Jews than any person in academia. I have no compunction about placing him in the same light with David Duke.

Chomsky wrote the foreword to a Holocaust denier's book, claiming he is all about free expression. Imagine! The great tireless crusader for free expression lent his famous name for a Holocaust denier's book, well isn't that precious.

Back in the 1970s, Chomsky of course is also infamous for his never-retracted comment that the killings going on under Pol Pot in Cambodia were "exaggerated".

I could go on, but why bother? Chomsky is a dead issue to me, I will not cry for him when he is gone. Anyone who follows him is following a man who is a professional liar and demagogue.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I consider anyone who uses the word "regime" to describe the Bush administration and "neocon" as a perjorative term against people who disagree with them as, you know, pretty clearly exposing their xenophobia.


Or, in your case, exposing their ignorance...a person who is xenophobic is "a person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples".


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I could go on, but why bother? Chomsky is a dead issue to me


Conclusion "c." once again.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> If I was MacDoc, I would not use my business name when posting politically charged comments. It seems bad for business, left or right.


It doesn't seem to have hurt Small Dog in the 'States none.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Chomsky is indeed tenured at a "prestigious American university", and certainly is famous. So, this is all we need to know?


Yeah, I don't have much respect for MIT either...met a couple of their graduates. Sheesh!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

planethoth, re your comment that "Meanwhile, only Chealion has bothered to make a reasonable post, while the rest are throw around cheap insinuations like "hate radio", "rabid right", etc.), I thought that my posting (see below) was fairly reasonable. I don't see a single insinuation in anything I wrote. I thought that a few of us wrote "reasonable" replies to your posting.


I can strongly agree with Chealion's clarification of MacDoc and ehMac. As one who has been called a leftist/socialist American myself, even though I am also a Canadian citizen who has lived in Canada for 28 years, I also agree with GA's statement about the use of the word "anti-American". 

So, I flew the Canadian flag proudly on my front lawn on July 1st (as I have done since July, 1979), and flew the American flag proudly on my front lawn (as I have done since July, 1979). I can also say that I view MacDoc as a friend, and ehMacLand as a "home away from home". Paix, mes amis.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Hey Iron Mac, your use of the term "ignorance" is cheap. I am obviously not ignorant, so why bother? I didn't call you ignorant. That's just an insult.

A xenophobe is well applied to someone who can only find fault with America, which is the state of the hardcore Left at this moment in history.

And, everyone: I AM NOT AMERICAN. Stop saying things like "your New York Times", you are merely betraying the xenophobic assumption you have that the only one who could defend America is an American.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am an American and I miss reading the New York Times. I am a Canadian, and I enjoy reading the Globe and Mail. Paix.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey Iron Mac, your use of the term "ignorance" is cheap. I am obviously not ignorant, so why bother? I didn't call you ignorant. That's just an insult.


Your inappropriate use of the word "xenophobia" illustrates your ignorance. Your continued, inappropriate use of the word shows a wilfulness bordering on stupidity.



planethoth said:


> A xenophobe is well applied to someone who can only find fault with America, which is the state of the hardcore Left at this moment in history.


I suggest you once again look up the definition of "xenophobe".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Is EhMac a community for only leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes?


now that's cheap and does show your ignorance


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> It doesn't seem to have hurt Small Dog in the 'States none.


OK, if that's the niche MacDoc is going for, lefties only, why not advertise that? Or is it simply just one of those things you have to "be in the know" about?

Also, another fallacy that I would like to correct here: please stop calling me "neocon", not because i think neocons are bad, but because IT DOESN'T DESCRIBE ME.

Half of you don't even seem to know what the term means, that is a whole ideological persuasion. And yes, I also read the left wing media, how can I not? At least 80% of the mainstream media in the world has a left wing taint of some sort. This garbage with claiming I get all my news from Fox, good lord--where do you all get your news, Michael Moore and Howard Dean?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I also get my news from the CBC (radio and TV) and CNN. Paix.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oh, do you not find a single-minded obsession with the flaws of American society and government to fit into the definition of xenophobia? I would like to see you and Mac Doc critique Canadian society and government even one-seventh of what I have seen you say about Americans and their government on here.

You are losing it when you claim my ignorance and stupidity. You cannot verify them even if they were true, so stick to the subject.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

I read the Wall Street Journal...hardly a paper tainted by the liberal left. (Anyone know how to get yield to maturity out of the treasury bond market listings? Sort of confused here...page C12 in today's paper. Thanks!)

I also read the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> No you did not Macspectrum. You see the Right in America are nothing more than brain dead waiting for their marching orders from the neocons. The words of the week for the brain dead are "hate radio" and "rabid right" - so far it's shown up on a few neocon talk shows.


Um, well I guess now it is your time to eat crow then:

Quoting from Cuba Mark: "... against the Rabid Right..."

Quoting from MacDoc's ludicrous poster: " Don't let conservative hate radio divide us further"

So who is brain dead, exactly? Enough cliches in those four lines you wrote to fill a whole book of them.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

i'd like to throw in my $0.02 worth at this time. in fact, i'm going to quote myself from another thread on this very same board:



> this thread is a shining example of why i don't bother arguing anything on the internet. people have their opinions and there's no way you're going to change someone's mind by figratively jumping up and down and telling them how stupid, crazy, short-sighted, or [insert insult here] they are. assuming, of course, that they're not *trolling* (_bold added_).
> 
> of course, when it gets to the point of insults, it usually means that the debater has nothing else to go on...


that is all. please continue.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh, do you not find a single-minded obsession with the flaws of American society and government to fit into the definition of xenophobia?


Let's go over the definition again:

"A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign, especially of strangers or foreign peoples."

Unduly...is it unduly if he is able to back up his points? No.
Fearful...well, he is not fearful.
Contemptuous...is he contemptuous? Perhaps...but is it reasonable? If he is able to back it up by example then it is reasonable.
Foreign...not foreign since both countries are neighbours and have coexisted for over two hundred years.

So, does it fit the definition...no.



planethoth said:


> You are losing it when you claim my ignorance and stupidity. You cannot verify them even if they were true, so stick to the subject.


Well, it looks like I've still got it.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> OK, if that's the niche MacDoc is going for, lefties only, why not advertise that? Or is it simply just one of those things you have to "be in the know" about?


Allright mindnumb robot of the right, does that suit you better?

As far as I know, MacDoc's beliefs do not cross over to his business. Why are you looking to label in a divisive way?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sorry Iron Mac, you are parsing that definition a little thin there. I am not married to the word xenophobia, however, Canadians do indeed consider Americans foreign. In fact, the very ESSENCE of Canada is its reactionary monarchist opposition to the Americans.

Indeed, all xenophobes can find reasons, some of them perhaps seductively compelling, to dislike the other. There is nothing unreasonable to my claim that, on a Canadian message board, the predominance of vitriol directed at Americans is indeed has a xenophobic underpinning to it.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Allright mindnumb robot of the right, does that suit you better?
> 
> As far as I know, MacDoc's beliefs do not cross over to his business. Why are you looking to label in a divisive way?


Hey lunatic pseudointellectual of the left, why don't you eat crow about what you said earlier about me just using right wing talking points? After all, I was right and you were wrong. Or are you too small to admit your mistake?


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

Dr G:
The fact that PlanetHoth is ignoring your sensible posts and going after the ones that will expand his aggressiveness (IronMac et al) makes me think that this person is only looking for a fight- and is best ignored...


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

thejst, are you saying what i think you're saying:

*please do not feed the trolls?*


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

The debating tactics used on this board are certainly declining to the level of common internet rabble. Using "stupid", "ignorant", and "mindnumb robot of the right" is pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel. There seems to be a uniformity of opinion about politics here that doesn't seem to resemble a free exchange of ideas, rhetoric aside.

If there isn't a left-wing xenophobia inherent in calling me "mindnumb robot of the right", you can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

thejst, I am glad that someone else sensed that I am being ignored. Merci, mon ami.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oh sure, I am just looking for a fight. I am a troll, you got it. That's the last refuge of someone who has nothing to say, call the guy a troll.

Well, if I were a troll, I could do a lot better than go on a Mac message board to argue politics! How nonsensical is that. Since I have 15 people arguing against me, and only one of me, naturally I can't be expected to be able to answer every f---ing thing at once, can I?


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I have not argued with your views, so why not have a reasonable discussion with me?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> thejst, I am glad that someone else sensed that I am being ignored. Merci, mon ami.


No, I am not ignoring you. Consider it a compliment of sorts that I have found little to object to in your posts. You are more reasonable than most on here.

There is only one of me arguing against a whole army.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, i guess Canada really showed its "xenophobia" when on 9/11 canadian airports allowed u.s. bound planes to land without any fear of reprisal by those that bombed the u.s.

canadians housed and fed thousands of americans stranded in canada on that fateful day without expectation of any thanks or financial retribution

really xenophobic

also, when cdn. embassy officials in iran risked their own lives by forging cdn. passports for stranded u.s. nationals and helping them escape iran to safety

yeah again, xenophobic

and what do we get in return?

1. bush ignores canada in his "message of thanks" for countries that helped on 9/11 - ok, he's not that smart so we just chalk it up to his naivete and move on - after all bush didn't even hold a passport until he became president

2. tarrif on cdn. softwood lumber products flying in the face of the 6th or 7th ruling, by the WTO, against the u.s. placing such tarrifs

3. ban of Alberta beef and then when ban was lifted, but then a local judge decided to ban it again

4. cdn. kid is alleged to have made bomb threats and local people say he should be thrown over niagara falls, have his ass placed on C4 and blown up

5. nevermind Ann Coulter promoting hatred by saying that she hates Canadians that speak French and Tucker Carlson saying that without the U.S. Canada is essentially Honduras and these comments were made on national television

tell me again, who's the xenophobe?


----------



## CN (Sep 3, 2004)

Wow, this is crazy.

It's really no wonder, though. This thread is named, "EhMac and MacDoc's Anti-America problem", showing the author's desire to start a fight from the very beginning. I'm not sure if the planethoth's intent was to significantly alter MacDoc's beliefs, or silent his political comments, but I assure you that both are unnecessary, inappropriate, and will ultimately be ineffectual.

However, this thread has spawned a much larger political debate that is probably more valid (despite the troll comments) than the original thread subject (although that would not have been difficult).


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Oh sure, I am just looking for a fight. I am a troll, you got it. That's the last refuge of someone who has nothing to say, call the guy a troll.
> 
> Well, if I were a troll, I could do a lot better than go on a Mac message board to argue politics! How nonsensical is that. Since I have 15 people arguing against me, and only one of me, naturally I can't be expected to be able to answer every f---ing thing at once, can I?


But look at your original post - it's rather confrontational, at least in my opinion. As soon as I read it, I suspected you were posting it in the hopes of making your day a little more interesting...

Perhaps you should try re-wording your initial post and starting fresh so that we can understand what exactly you are after here.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yeah, i guess Canada really showed its "xenophobia" when on 9/11 canadian airports allowed u.s. bound planes to land without any fear of reprisal by those that bombed the u.s.
> 
> canadians housed and fed thousands of americans stranded in canada on that fateful day without expectation of any thanks or financial retribution
> 
> ...


Um, the subject is not the xenophobia of Canada per se. My comments were meant to show that a certain strain of nationalistic Canadian thought is xenophobic, but it does not mean that all Canadians are. This message board is definitely leaning towards the xenophobic strain.

Trade disputes are something else. These have nothing to do with xenophobia.

I don't care what some people on a message board said; American message board posters are obviously as idiotic as every other nationality.

As for Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, what do I care? I never said anything about them. I am not particularly their fan, but I don't see them as any more disgraceful than Naomi Klein or Linda McQuaig or any other parochial leftist-nationalist Canadian media whores. I could live without all of them.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Let me clarify once and for all:

No, I don't want to "silence" MacDoc. He can do what he wants. I just simply think it is bad business to confuse your business name with political beliefs. But again, his company, not mine.

Yes, I believe there is a strain of anti-Americanism on this board, and if this is not true, I would like to see half as many posts about the Canadian government and how stupid and corrupt Paul Martin and his ilk are, since you could certainly make a case for it. If you are Canadians, you should be concentrating FIRST on the actions of your own government and not someone else's.

Leave Americans to their own government. Take care of your own house first.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Let me clarify once and for all:
> 
> No, I don't want to "silence" MacDoc. He can do what he wants. I just simply think it is bad business to confuse your business name with political beliefs. But again, his company, not mine.
> 
> ...


Talk about wearing your heart on your sleeve. Unless you've not been watching the media lately many successful business people are very outspoken about their political beliefs, or haven't you been paying attention lately. Robert Murdoch, Richard Branson, Ted Turner all come to mind.

Again, have you not been paying attention to posts on the gun registry, de-criminalizing marijuana, Gomery and same sex marriage? 

C'mon, stop the blatant personal attacks on Macdoc and insipid trolling your posts represent.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

biggest difference between martin and bush is that martin and his predecessor haven't sent killing machines into a country under false pretenses

corruption can be dealt with but first one has to be alive to do it
the sad fact is that the "right wing" in canada cannot select a leader or political platform that isn't so distasteful to 70%+ canadians that even with a huge scandal hanging over the heads of the Liberals, they cannot form a gov't

as a self employed entrepeneur myself, i ask my right wing friends; "Why am I not supportive of the CPC?" I should be a poster boy for them

as Canadians we are bombarded by American news and culture, "living next to the elephant" so to speak and as such many Canadians prefer NOT to follow the societal model that U.S. currently represents

• we believe in health care regardless of ability to pay
• we believe in asking questions first and shooting later
• we believe in negotiaion and ONLY putting volunteer troops, who may be asked to pay the ultimate price, in harms way when all other avenues have been explored

The world, for the most part, has said no to this new found American imperialism. Hans Blix said that no WMDs existed, but the White House instead discredited him and his findings.
The U.S. invaded a toothless lion in Saddam Hussein.
The U.S. told the UN and the world that Saddam had WMDs and now that none are to be found, they change the story to 'regime change'

anyways back to our discussion of xenophobia


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> Leave Americans to their own government.


Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha .

Aw. Me achin' sides!

Aye, and everyone else's as well eh? Especially the ones they don't like, or can't control in their own interests.

But, seriously p, you're quite right. I've noticed a distinctly sinister tendency for these boards to show independence of thought as well as an awareness of what's happening in the world. The poor old Yanks get blamed for everything around here, just because they're trying to set the world right and save it from itself. They can be a wee bit clumsy now and then (remember the Chinese Embassy thing in Belgrade?), but it's a hard difficult job, all the more so if'n you're a bunch of sissy-boys who can't take a bit of ragging now and then.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Sorry, I can't argue this anymore.

Someone who brings up nonsensical details like the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy, or making up like "regime change" was not always a goal of the war, this is completely disingenuous method of argument. Have your parochial little echo chamber, it doesn't interest me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Um, the subject is not the xenophobia of Canada per se. My comments were meant to show that a certain strain of nationalistic Canadian thought is xenophobic, but it does not mean that all Canadians are. This message board is definitely leaning towards the xenophobic strain.


That is utter foolishness. 

xenophobia - noun; intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries 

If that were the case, than why does Canada have one of the most liberal immigration polices of any industrialized nation? Why is Canada's leading trade partner that "ahem nation to the south"? If anything I think that Canada, Canadians and they people who post here on ehMac are the antithesis of xenophobic.


Before using big words, perhaps you should investigate their meaning first.



planethoth said:


> As for Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, what do I care? I never said anything about them. I am not particularly their fan, but I don't see them as any more disgraceful than Naomi Klein or Linda McQuaig or any other parochial leftist-nationalist Canadian media whores. I could live without all of them.



*parochial leftist-nationalist Canadian media whores* Nope, no bias on your part eh?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sorry, I can't argue this anymore.
> 
> Someone who brings up nonsensical details like the accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy, or making up like "regime change" was not always a goal of the war, this is completely disingenuous method of argument. Have your parochial little echo chamber, it doesn't interest me.


Disingenuous? they are exactly the point given the context of this insipid thread you started.

_Have your parochial little echo chamber, it doesn't interest me._ 

If we should take this that you are leaving and won't be posting here. Bye Bye, you won't be missed.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> That is utter foolishness.
> 
> xenophobia |?z?n??f?b??; ?zen?-| noun intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries
> 
> ...



Hey dude, I know the meaning of xenophobia. I never said Canadians were all xenophobic. There is a significant strain that is xenophobic when it comes to things American. In fact, their dislike of Americans is so palpable that they can't even seem to get worked up about real enemies.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Yes, I believe there is a strain of anti-Americanism on this board, and if this is not true, I would like to see half as many posts about the Canadian government and how stupid and corrupt Paul Martin and his ilk are, since you could certainly make a case for it. If you are Canadians, you should be concentrating FIRST on the actions of your own government and not someone else's.


planethoth, there is a strain of anti-Americanism across Canada (not just on this message board) and in most parts of the world (including the US)...there are also many Canadians who are very concerned about the US and its effect on other countries (and on itself).


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Mrs. Furley said:


> planethoth, there is a strain of anti-Americanism across Canada (not just on this message board) and in most parts of the world (including the US)...there are also many Canadians who are very concerned about the US and its effect on other countries (and on itself).


Ok, Mrs. Furley, that is a reasonable point. My point was that the anti-american strain seems very predominant on this board. There is also a number of people who argue not just provocatively, which i think is fine, but in nothing but insults, which is completely lame.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey dude, I know the meaning of xenophobia. I never said Canadians were all xenophobic. There is a significant strain that is xenophobic when it comes to things American.


I don't buy that. You are inferring that since people may disagree with the actions of the United states that they then have an irrational fear or dislike for all things American. I think you couldn't be further than the truth. I think that you are having an irrational response to people who in many cases are pointing out specific instances where the actions of the United States have been identifiably and indisputably hypocritical or blatantly in the wrong. 

We can't help it if the US says something that turns out to be false.



planethoth said:


> In fact, their dislike of Americans is so palpable that they can't even seem to get worked up about real enemies.


Now this is SOooooooooo interesting. I really love this and truly hope you will answer the following question.

So, tell us. _Who are the real enemies? _


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Ok, Mrs. Furley, that is a reasonable point. My point was that the anti-american strain seems very predominant on this board. There is also a number of people who argue not just provocatively, which i think is fine, but in nothing but insults, which is completely lame.


Yes, I do see your point, but I actually think what you are seeing on this board reflects the Canadian population fairly accurately. From what I've seen and heard around me (not from a poll), the majority of Canadians are concerned - many of them express this very passionately. Although anti-Americanism does exist here, I don't believe it is quite as rampant as you may think it is. Just my thoughts...

As well, we do indeed criticize our own government, believe me!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I don't buy that. You are inferring that since people may disagree with the actions of the United states that they then have an irrational fear or dislike for all things American. I think you couldn't be further than the truth. I think that you are having an irrational response to people who in many cases are pointing specific instances where the actions of the United States may have been hypocritical or blatantly in the wrong.
> 
> We can't help it if the US says something that turns out to be false.
> 
> ...


We have real enemies. Iran should be our enemy. They tortured and killed a Canadian citizen and all our pathetic government could do was make a strong word of disapproval!

Bin Laden and his global jihad are our enemy, too--after all, Canada is on his list of countries that need punishment for helping get the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But what did our government do, without outrage from the people? Jean Chretien personally intervened with the Pakistanis to let an al Qaeda member who happened to be a Canadian on the flimsiest of pretenses out of custody!

And now this al Qaeda member's family is living in this country. These people who want the Islamic caliphate resurrected! Talk about imperialism!

If you go downtown Toronto you will see the Islamic Information Centre near the bus station. These assholes are passing around their literature, I was given one day. And who was at the top of the recommended reading list? Sayyid Qutb, who is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood. Do you know who the Muslim Brotherhood is, Jonesy? They had the President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat assassinated, did you know? Do you know what Sayyid Qutb wrote about Westerners and their evil decadence and corruption? Do you consider yourself free of that "taint" in their eyes? Do you know where bin Laden gets his ideas?

Yes, Islamism (read: NOT Islam) is the enemy, and they are running around our country, and why? You seem too stupid to wake up and see. They are downtown Toronto passing out their hate literature, meanwhile you have all your focus on the Americans. And oh yes, don't forget: Sayyid Qutb and Islamism came WAY before there were American troops in Iraq or Saudi.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> We have real enemies. Iran should be our enemy. They tortured and killed a Canadian citizen and all our pathetic government could do was make a strong word of disapproval!
> 
> Bin Laden and his global jihad are our enemy, too--after all, Canada is on his list of countries that need punishment for helping get the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But what did our government do, without outrage from the people? Jean Chretien personally intervened with the Pakistanis to let an al Qaeda member who happened to be a Canadian on the flimsiest of pretenses out of custody!
> 
> ...


I don't even have to respond (but I will if you want me too)... I see that ignorance, bigotry and racism are alive and well still.

Have at em boys, you have all the ammunition you need. I served him up like a turkey diner.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sorry Iron Mac, you are parsing that definition a little thin there. I am not married to the word xenophobia, however, Canadians do indeed consider Americans foreign. In fact, the very ESSENCE of Canada is its reactionary monarchist opposition to the Americans.


That's the definition so take it or leave it. Of course, with your track record it would be Conclusion "c." right? 
Given that a significant number of your posts in this thread uses the word "xenophobia" I would say that you're joined at the hip with it. 
As for monarchist opposition...LOL!!! I don't recall seeing any mention of that! If you can prove that then you're a lot smarter than I currently give you credit for.


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

planethoth said:


> We have real enemies. Iran should be our enemy. They tortured and killed a Canadian citizen and all our pathetic government could do was make a strong word of disapproval!
> 
> Bin Laden and his global jihad are our enemy, too--after all, Canada is on his list of countries that need punishment for helping get the Taliban out of Afghanistan. But what did our government do, without outrage from the people? Jean Chretien personally intervened with the Pakistanis to let an al Qaeda member who happened to be a Canadian on the flimsiest of pretenses out of custody!
> 
> ...


Gosh...I guess maybe that's what you've been waiting for the opportunity to say...?


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

planethoth said:


> In fact, the very ESSENCE of Canada is its reactionary monarchist opposition to the Americans.


Oh, so we're "lefties" AND monarchists. Is that possible? Also, last time I checked, America WAS a foreign country, unless Canada's been annexed while I was asleep.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

IronMac said:


> That's the definition so take it or leave it. Of course, with your track record it would be Conclusion "c." right?
> Given that a significant number of your posts in this thread uses the word "xenophobia" I would say that you're joined at the hip with it.
> As for monarchist opposition...LOL!!! I don't recall seeing any mention of that! If you can prove that then you're a lot smarter than I currently give you credit for.



I kind of like that label... Reactionary Monarchist


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Yeah did I say anything about Race, Jonesy?

You are the ignoramus, and you can't answer anything intelligent because you don't know anything about Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamism, isn't that right?

The Canadian citizen who Iran murdered was herself of Iranian stock, does that make me a racist to be outraged at her murder by the government of Iran?

You're a joke, bro, just argue by smears. That's the cheapest of all claims, calling me a racist.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Have at em boys, you have all the ammunition you need. I served him up like a turkey diner.


Deep within an hitherto unknown part of the Diefenbunker, klaxons wail mournfully punctuated by the soft slap of metalshod boots against the rubbercoated reinforced concrete floor as troopers run in automatic response to their training.

Loudspeakers sound off:

"All personnel to battlestations...this is not a drill...repeat, all personnel to battlestations!"

Targeting and weapons systems are powered up by eager hands even as blast doors fall into place...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

How stupid anyone must be to think calling Islamism an enemy is racist...


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

To take up da_jonesy's point:



> xenophobia - noun; intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries


Therein lies the fallacy in p's thesis. What gets aired on these boards is not xenophobia. There seems to be no irrational dislike or fear expressed. On the contrary, I find very rational, informed and cautious dislike of institutions. Among them are, I think, the current US Administration, the Pentagonal clowns who think they can bomb the rest of humanity into obedience, and a whole supporting cast of backwoodsmen from the religious right. These are dangerous people, and their doings should be openly discussed in a robust fashion.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> The debating tactics used on this board are certainly declining to the level of common internet rabble. Using "stupid", "ignorant", and "mindnumb robot of the right" is pretty much scraping the bottom of the barrel.


The word "ignorant" used in regards with you has been backed up.
The word "stupid" was not applied to you (yet) unless you were going to willfully continue to use the word "xenophobe" in the wrong context.
You're losing it there buddy.



planethoth said:


> If there isn't a left-wing xenophobia inherent in calling me "mindnumb robot of the right", you can't see the forest for the trees.


Yep...joined at the hips...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Yes, all of us who warn you about the danger of a pernicious ideology that believes in a renewed Islamic supremacy, we must be "racist".

The truth is there, take it or hide your head in the sand. You have nothing to say about this threat, do you?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> My comments were meant to show that a certain strain of nationalistic Canadian thought is xenophobic,


Yes, and those comments have been shown to be baseless.

Trade disputes are something else. These have nothing to do with xenophobia.



planethoth said:


> As for Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson, what do I care? I never said anything about them. I am not particularly their fan, but I don't see them as any more disgraceful than Naomi Klein or Linda McQuaig or any other parochial leftist-nationalist Canadian media whores. I could live without all of them.


Conclusion "c." yet again.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Nope, you have nothing to say about Islamists, do you?

Didn't think so. You don't even know anything about them. So who is ignorant?

An enemy is on your streets passing out hate literature but you don't care. So who is stupid?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Take care of your own house first.


I believe that we're doing so at the moment.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Yeah did I say anything about Race, Jonesy?
> 
> You are the ignoramus, and you can't answer anything intelligent because you don't know anything about Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamism, isn't that right?
> 
> ...


Yeah whatever, you fell for it hook line and sinker buddy.

Look... perhaps you should be asking the question as to why Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamists are all up in arms about the Americans in the first place. The fact of the matter is that you are being completely (to use you own words) xenophobic about 1/5th the population of the planet. 

The incident in Iran fills me with rage and as far as I am concerned we should cut diplomatic ties with Iran until an independent third party investigation is created and an official apology is issued. But did you feel this strongly when 4 Canadians were bombed by a US f16? Where was your rage then?

If you think they are the enemy, do what Sun Tzu says and imagine yourself as them. Why do you think they want to resist western influence over them?

Perhaps you missed the boat in understanding what the REAL enemy is. 

The really enemy is greed, fear, bigotry and intolerance... or haven't you been living on this planet for any great length of time.

Consider yourself owned.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ah, the silence about Islamism is deafening! It appears maybe you don't know anything about it! Now then, I think there should be no more talk of the war in Iraq or 9/11 or American policy until you ignoramuses who think yourselves enlightened go learn about it. Maybe you might even come to agree with some of my points! 

Until then, NONE of you have any legitimacy to speak about the Americans and their policies in the Middle East, since you won't address one of the major factors in this very broad conflict.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

I think Mrs. Furley was right - planetoth's true agenda has been exposed. As a member of a minority religion, I'm constantly being exposed to the ideology of other people and sometimes I'm offended. Is this what you mean by "passing out hate literature on the streets"? This is Canada. We're allowed to express our beliefs/opinions. This is why many of us live here. The only "enemy" I fear is the United States and what they may do (and have already done) to this world.


----------



## Mugatu (Mar 31, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Nope, you have nothing to say about Islamists, do you?
> 
> Didn't think so. You don't even know anything about them. So who is ignorant?
> 
> An enemy is on your streets passing out hate literature but you don't care. So who is stupid?


I was actually cheering for you until all this 'Islamist' stuff came up. Why o' why did you have to say that. I mean, sure, it's your opinion but it is a little extreme. Isn't extremism what you were complaining about at the start of this thread?

I don't think anyone here is a xenophobe. Pretentious, definately, but not xenophobes.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Yeah whatever, you fell for it hook line and sinker buddy.
> 
> Look... perhaps you should be asking the question as to why Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood, or Islamists are all up in arms about the Americans in the first place. The fact of the matter is that you are being completely (to use you own words) xenophobic about 1/5th the population of the planet.
> 
> ...


I won't fall for your pseudointellectual leftist claptrap about "greed" etc.... When the Americans bombed the Canadians in a friendly fire incident, that isn't THE SAME THING AS A DELIBERATE TORTURE AND MURDER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, is it??

For your information, when Sayyid Qutb formed his ideas about America and the West they HAD NOTHING TO DO with Iraq, Saudi Arabia or any other later dispute. They had to do with his disgust about the fact that men and women dance together in America, etc... His was a philosophical-religious disgust first, then a political one.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Someone will have to explain to me about why it is "extremist", if this words means anything, that I oppose ISLAMISM, a reactionary political Islam that seeks to assert itself throughout the world, bring back an Islamic empire, and ethnically (or religiously, at least) cleanse the entire Middle East and other Islamic countries?

Please, take your crack at why I shouldn't be "EXTREMIST" about such ideas!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> We have real enemies. Iran should be our enemy. They tortured and killed a Canadian citizen and all our pathetic government could do was make a strong word of disapproval!


And what should our government do? Huh? Go on...tell us. 



planethoth said:


> Bin Laden and his global jihad are our enemy, too--after all, Canada is on his list of countries that need punishment for helping get the Taliban out of Afghanistan.


Yes, and we've committed forces to the war on terror or did you forget that?



planethoth said:


> And now this al Qaeda member's family is living in this country.


Are they Canadian citizens? If you want someone kicked out for their beliefs then you may want to consider moving to the U.S. 



planethoth said:


> If you go downtown Toronto you will see the Islamic Information Centre near the bus station. These assholes are passing around their literature, I was given one day. And who was at the top of the recommended reading list? Sayyid Qutb, who is the father of the Muslim Brotherhood.


Actually, he is not.



planethoth said:


> They had the President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat assassinated, did you know? Do you know what Sayyid Qutb wrote about Westerners and their evil decadence and corruption?


The same that the right wing moral majority says now? 



planethoth said:


> Sayyid Qutb and Islamism came WAY before there were American troops in Iraq or Saudi.


But imperial troops were in Iraq way before the Muslim Brotherhood.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Someone will have to explain to me about why it is "extremist", if this words means anything, that I oppose ISLAMISM, a reactionary political Islam that seeks to assert itself throughout the world, bring back an Islamic empire, and ethnically (or religiously, at least) cleanse the entire Middle East and other Islamic countries?


Try replacing "Islam" with "American" or "America" in that phrase.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Islamism is the enemy of us all. Canadians are very lucky they don't have the serious threats--yet. The United States, Israel, India, The Phillipines, Egypt, Australia, Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. have all been victims of Islamism. If you are not willing to fight that ideology, you might as well go join their jihad, as far as I am concerned. It is stupid to wave it off like it is just my own agenda or xenophobia.


----------



## Toca Loca Nation (Jun 22, 2004)

Ladies and gentlemen...

MacNutt has left the building.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> And what should our government do? Huh? Go on...tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey Iron Mac, u may be the most disingenuous of all. You are a liar. Sayyid Qutb is one of the founding members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Shut up with your little "right wing moral majority" crap, that is something you just pulled out of your ass. 
Notice, you didn't say "American troops" were in Iraq before the Muslim Brotherhood--because it would be B.S.! British troops aren't American troops, and 9/11 didn't happen in London or Manchester, so stop being funny.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> ah, the silence about Islamism is deafening! It appears maybe you don't know anything about it! Now then, I think there should be no more talk of the war in Iraq or 9/11 or American policy until you ignoramuses who think yourselves enlightened go learn about it. Maybe you might even come to agree with some of my points!
> 
> Until then, NONE of you have any legitimacy to speak about the Americans and their policies in the Middle East, since you won't address one of the major factors in this very broad conflict.



Give it a rest. Perhaps you should go back to your Fox News docudrama on Islamist armageddon before you start blowing you load here.

Look, the simple facts of the matter boils down to resources. The US sees the region as being resource rich (oil clearly) and therefor sees it of strategic economic importance. To that end, the US continues to exert considerable influence in the region (The backing of the Suadi crown, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain and Israel). Many of those countries governments are considerably oppressive. The oppressive nature of those regimes has given rise to resistance which is what is at the heart of Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism (as spurred by the writings of Sayyed Qutb) has had a recent renaissance, and is highly attractive to a population in the middle east where disenfranchised young unemployed people can readily grab onto it.

If there were no resources in the region, clearly the US would not be involved and there wouldn't be an Islamist issue globally.

That is concise summary of the situation.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

excuse me mr/ms. hoth, but if you are receiving "hate literature" from anyone in downtown toronto, you should graciously accept it, and then head on over to 52 division with the evidence to file a complaint. i believe publishing hate literature is a crime in canada.

good luck,

miguel


----------



## Snapple Quaffer (Sep 2, 2003)

> Islamism is the enemy of us all.


May I be allowed to quibble?

I believe Fundamentalism is the enemy of us all. Look in your own back yard as well as abroad. I refer you to the "Motes and Beams" department (as mentioned in the Bible).


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Make myself more clear: Sayyid Qutb was one of the Muslim Brotherhood's founders as a political group--the original group was only religious in nature, and it was started by Hassan al-Bana


----------



## thejst (Feb 1, 2005)

planethoth said:


> No, I am not ignoring you. Consider it a compliment of sorts that I have found little to object to in your posts. You are more reasonable than most on here.
> 
> There is only one of me arguing against a whole army.


Well, you did pick the fight, and the terms....Can't take the heat?


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Shut up with your little "right wing moral majority" crap, that is something you just pulled out of your ass.


Honestly, I don't know how you can type out something like this and expect to be taken seriously. I'm sure a few of us are trying to understand exactly what you are getting at, but you're making it increasingly difficult.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Typical, only recognize those aspects that support your theory, disregard all else. The fact, is Osama bin Laden was not unemployed nor impoverished. In fact, most of the 9/11 hijackers were from middle class backgrounds!

You can't rely on your sociological theories to explain what is a tangible ideology that has deep roots in Islamic history. The Americans did not create it.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Make myself more clear: Sayyid Qutb was one of the Muslim Brotherhood's founders as a political group--the original group was only religious in nature, and it was started by Hassan al-Bana


The Brotherhood officially became a political group in 1939. Qutb seems to have joined it after returning to Egypt in 1950. It's all there on the Internet...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Mrs. Furley said:


> Honestly, I don't know how you can type out something like this and expect to be taken seriously. I'm sure a few of us are trying to understand exactly what you are getting at, but you're making it increasingly difficult.


Why do you not take Iron Mac to task for writing something like what he did? Why should I take him seriously? Does my view have anything to do with Jerry Fallwell? No, so don't pretend it is OK to use that.

If anyone is willing to stop these insults, then I will stop too. If not, then you define the rules of engagement, not me.


----------



## Wolfshead (Jul 17, 2003)

planethoth said:


> British troops aren't American troops, and 9/11 didn't happen in London or Manchester


'nuff said.

Oh, and I, for one, take exception to you calling someone a liar just because you don't agree with them.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I won't fall for your pseudointellectual leftist claptrap about "greed" etc.... When the Americans bombed the Canadians in a friendly fire incident, that isn't THE SAME THING AS A DELIBERATE TORTURE AND MURDER FOR POLITICAL REASONS, is it??


Ok, my analogy was not exactly the same and perhaps too extreme in this case.

_pseudo-intellectual leftist claptrap_ eh? Perhaps this one is more to the point...

In this photo, explain to me who is the one being terrorized and why?


http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52018170&cdi=0


----------



## Mrs. Furley (Sep 1, 2004)

I just wanted to repost this because I think it says it all...



da_jonesy said:


> The really enemy is greed, fear, bigotry and intolerance...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> The Brotherhood officially became a political group in 1939. Qutb seems to have joined it after returning to Egypt in 1950. It's all there on the Internet...


On this point, Iron Mac is right, and I am wrong. However, this is also what is said about Qutb:

"Resigning from the civil service he became perhaps the most persuasive publicist of the Muslim Brotherhood."

"His commentary on the Qur'an has been extremely influential; some see him as the central theorist of twentieth-century Islamism."

So changes the substance of my point none.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey Iron Mac, u may be the most disingenuous of all. You are a liar. Sayyid Qutb is one of the founding members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Shut up with your little "right wing moral majority" crap, that is something you just pulled out of your ass.
> Notice, you didn't say "American troops" were in Iraq before the Muslim Brotherhood--because it would be B.S.! British troops aren't American troops, and 9/11 didn't happen in London or Manchester, so stop being funny.


I'm a liar? Well...go ahead and prove it. Better watch out...if you look over my posts I've managed to pin down and wipe the floor with someone named "MacNutt".


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

quote by planethoth;


> Is EhMac a community for only leftist anti-American socialist xenophobes? And is MacDoc only running a business to cater to that segment?


and then again;


> If anyone is willing to stop these insults, then I will stop too. If not, then you define the rules of engagement, not me.


something about being without sin and casting the 1st stone comes to mind


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Wolfshead said:


> 'nuff said.
> 
> Oh, and I, for one, take exception to you calling someone a liar just because you don't agree with them.


I didn't call him a liar for disagreeing with me. I called him a liar because his comment about "imperial troops" is casually thrown in there to pretend that this is connected to the Americans, and because he used this "moral majority" line which is his own invention.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> So changes the substance of my point none.


Would the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is considered a force for democracy in Egypt change the substance of your point? 

Oddly enough, once you beat them down enough they change their tune and want to work within the system in order to change it.  It seems that they're capable of learning while others are not.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> As for the moral majority...sheesh, have you forgotten those infamous Senate hearings where rock bands were pilloried? A lot has been written about the decadence and corruption of Western society and not all of it was from some Egyptian academic.


What? No comment on this?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

It remains to be seen whether the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy will be compatible. If they are willing to stop their sedition, OK, fine, but don't pretend like they are democrats.

Without the harsh and decisive crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood by Mubarak, we would not be discussing the possibility that they may leave their terror behind.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> It remains to be seen whether the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy will be compatible. If they are willing to stop their sedition, OK, fine, but don't pretend like they are democrats.


Are you saying that they're *liars* now?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Without the harsh and decisive crushing of the Muslim Brotherhood by Mubarak, we would not be discussing the possibility that they may leave their terror behind.


How ironic that you bring up Mubarak...would you say that he's a shining example of Middle Eastern democracy?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Someone who blames Western imperialism for all their problems has a victimhood crutch to lean on. Very convenient. Arabs and Muslims in general are just poor little angels, victimized by big bad Westerners, right?

When you start demanding that the Arabs leave Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Syria, etc., all the places Arabs invaded and colonized, then you can also demand that all the imperialists apologize. The historical fact: Arabs were imperialists long before Europeans. You can't change it. You can't explain it away. So maybe Spain should whine about their social problems as being a legacy of the Arab conquest? Enough talk about imperialism, it is a red herring.

NOTE: I am not blaming Arabs or Muslims for anything in particular. World history is a history of conquest, this is the fact. Just be man enough to admit that fact and stop whining about it.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> How ironic that you bring up Mubarak...would you say that he's a shining example of Middle Eastern democracy?


Excuse me, Iron Mac, could I request another correction from you? Did I say anything about Mubarak being a shining example of Middle Eastern democracy? Did I?

If not, you might be relying on your straw men again.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Are you saying that they're *liars* now?


They haven't completely repudiated their ways, have they? No. So, remains to be seen. I am guessing no, based on history.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

I'm more interested in hearing from planethoth as to how he links Iraq with Islamic Fundamentalism prior to the US lead invasion.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Excuse me, Iron Mac, could I request another correction from you? Did I say anything about Mubarak being a shining example of Middle Eastern democracy? Did I?
> 
> If not, you might be relying on your straw men again.


I'm asking you a question. Is that too hard to understand?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> They haven't completely repudiated their ways, have they? No. So, remains to be seen. I am guessing no, based on history.


Oh get real! If Mubarak thought that they were a danger there is no way that they would stand as a political party.

And, in Algeria, they did repudiate violence.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Oh get real! If Mubarak thought that they were a danger there is no way that they would stand as a political party.
> 
> And, in Algeria, they did repudiate violence.


Mubarak is on shaky ground, he has far less wiggle room now than he did. It is a mistake to assume he can crush them like he did in the old days now.

No, I would not say Mubarak is a democrat. In as much as he is a not an Islamist, I would begrudgingly prefer him. But I do not like him.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Just be man enough to admit that fact and stop whining about it.


So then you are a supporter of American Imperialism as end unto itself and solely because they CAN.

How about just don't fill the interstices with garbage about due process.
You like Teddy Roosevelt.....just say so and be done with it. Instead your blathering on about justifications etc.
Empires need not justify - they do it because they can. You seem sooo reluctant to take the bully boy approach to historical forces.

Empires due tend to get their comeuppance tho.

Truman had a much better idea.


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

> As for the moral majority...sheesh, have you forgotten those infamous Senate hearings where rock bands were pilloried? A lot has been written about the decadence and corruption of Western society and not all of it was from some Egyptian academic.


What? No comment on this?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> I'm more interested in hearing from planethoth as to how he links Iraq with Islamic Fundamentalism prior to the US lead invasion.


I would be glad to tell you what the link is. There are multiple ones. Saddam was originally a secularist, but after the first Gulf War he increasingly encouraged Islamist ideology, even going so far as to put "Allahu Akbar" on the flag (it was not there previously) and building massive mosques including the not-completed "Saddam mosque". He shut down all bars in the country too. Is this a sign of secularism?

But I don't need to rely on Saddam's tenuous connection to religion. King Abdullah of Jordan has said that he tried to get Iraq to extradite al-Zarqawi from Iraq. Zarqawi had plotted terrorist attacks in Jordan. The Iraqis did not comply.

I suggest reading this article by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard, which became the basis of his book on the same topic: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp?pg=1

It sums up the connections better than I will in one post. Just because Saddam didn't do 9/11 doesn't mean he didn't support terrorism of the Islamist variety.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> What? No comment on this?


Nope, no comment. I don't see what it has to do with anything. I don't support those Moral Majority types either.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> So then you are a supporter of American Imperialism as end unto itself and solely because they CAN.
> 
> How about just don't fill the interstices with garbage about due process.
> You like Teddy Roosevelt.....just say so and be done with it. Instead your blathering on about justifications etc.
> ...


Nope, sorry, I am not in favour of "imperialism" of any type. My point was that it is bogus to rely on it as a explanation of all the problems. Your comments also imply there to be no difference between what TYPE of imperialism, i.e., whether it is a brutal one (say, Portuguese and Spanish imperialism) or relatively mild (say, British). The word is really meaningless now, because it has been used to describe things that have nothing to do with imperialism as we knew it.

I suspect by imperialism u mean power itself, which is not exactly correct.

The U.S. only "occupies" one country in the world, and they have a couple of territories, say, Guam and Puerto Rico. Some empire! I guess we should also hear about the Dutch empire, they ruthlessly occupy Aruba!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I am also going to offer my $5 towards a plane ticket for any of you Caucasians who wish to be intellectually coherent and admit that they are imperialists who are in fact living on stolen land from the (fill-in-the-blanks) native tribe, so you can go back to Europe and stay "where you belong". Imperialists.


----------



## miguelsanchez (Feb 1, 2005)

so let me get this straight:

1) you're not in favour of imperialism
2) you don't support the moral majority
3) you don't like mubarak and other dictators of his ilk
4) you _really_ don't like lefty anti-american types, or lefties in general
5) you don't like muslims...er...sorry "islamists" (whatever that means) and believe that the are "disposed to violence" as you mentioned on another thread.

ok got it. now on with the show.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I would be glad to tell you what the link is. There are multiple ones. Saddam was originally a secularist, but after the first Gulf War he increasingly encouraged Islamist ideology, even going so far as to put "Allahu Akbar" on the flag (it was not there previously) and building massive mosques including the not-completed "Saddam mosque". He shut down all bars in the country too. Is this a sign of secularism?
> 
> But I don't need to rely on Saddam's tenuous connection to religion. King Abdullah of Jordan has said that he tried to get Iraq to extradite al-Zarqawi from Iraq. Zarqawi had plotted terrorist attacks in Jordan. The Iraqis did not comply.
> 
> ...


A couple of anecdotal examples does not an Islamist haven make. Why not figure it out that the main support for Islamist extremists in the region comes from America's biggest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Why not figure it out that regardless of whatever small anecdotal examples you can come up with that Irag WAS a secular state prior to the invasion. So are you arguing that the Americans invaded to root out the Islamist hordes based out of Iraq?

OK, give me some examples of direct support for Islamist terrorist activities... and sorry one report (according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD) doesn't cut it. Lets here some example from some other sources. Some sources from the US as well as some from outside the US... lets see some corroboration. You know this is part of the problem of the Fox News approach to world events... one source isn't good enough.

PS. This is why I would never trust the Weekly Standard

_The Weekly Standard is an American conservative political magazine published 48 times per year. It made its debut on September 17, 1995, and it is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. It is viewed as a leading outlet of the influential neoconservative movement. Its current editors are William Kristol, chairman of the Project for the New American Century, and Fred Barnes._


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> A couple of anecdotal examples does not an Islamist haven make. Why not figure it out that the main support for Islamist extremists in the region comes from America's biggest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.
> 
> Why not figure it out that regardless of whatever small anecdotal examples you can come up with that Irag WAS a secular state prior to the invasion. So are you arguing that the Americans invaded to root out the Islamist hordes based out of Iraq?
> 
> OK, give me some examples of direct support for Islamist terrorist activities... and sorry one report (according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD) doesn't cut it. Lets here some example from some other sources. Some sources from the US as well as some from outside the US... lets see some corroboration. You know this is part of the problem of the Fox News approach to world events... one source isn't good enough.


Sir, this article had multiple sources, so it is not "one source". All the media we are privy to is a secondary source, whether it is Fox, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, CBC, or BBC. Hayes is a respectable journalist, and the Weekly Standard is a major publication. This was one source that summed up what I am saying, but it does not rest on it.

You missed the point, really. You wanted an explanation of what I think were the connections between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalism previous to the "invasion." You really believe that Saddam and al Qaeda never cooperated?

Hey, if we could go after Saudis I would be all for it! Except one problem--there you really go into a hornet's nest--Baghdad and Basra are not Mecca and Medina, if you catch what I am saying.

Truth be told, the Saudis were AGAINST the war in Iraq. Why? Because the restriction of oil production from Iraq under the sanctions meant they had a deeper grip over the price of oil. Please don't pretend all the Bush supporters like the Saudis. Don't pretend that it is so simple to get rid of these bastards. One of the virtues of the war was that it presents a long-term problem for the Saudis--Iraq will eventually produce a lot of oil which will drive the Saudi wealth down. Consider it the "Oil Counterweapon" as an answer to the 1970s when OPEC tried to strangle the West, yes, that was a Saudi-led initiative.

Also, don't pretend the Bush administration is the only friend of Saudis. EVERY U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt maintained friendly relations with these guys. And why? Because OIL MATTERS. It is not something you can wave off, as if a major price shock would not be extremely disruptive to the entire world economy. It is not imperialism to worry that the flow of oil is not held prisoner by certain regimes.

In short, there were many reasons for the Iraq war, and none of them were "secret". There are multiple interests converging on this issue. I have been saying all along, if you want to argue the Iraq war was bad policy, fine--that's entirely possible that it will be. But to argue it is a secret diabolical imperialist agenda, as most people on here seem to believe, is just plain lame.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

miguelsanchez said:


> so let me get this straight:
> 
> 1) you're not in favour of imperialism
> 2) you don't support the moral majority
> ...


Miguel, yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. All correct. Don't support any of them, in general.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oy, Jonesy now pulls out the "Project for the New American Century" card, as I call it.

Yeah so? People, get real. This was not a secret organization! This information is widely available! So, please, spare me the secret agenda nonsense.

Regime change as a justification for war? YES, in this case, YES!

Perfect? No! Of course not. I hope you will agree that the principle of insisting on perfect actions will mean you will take no action at all, ever.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oy, Jonesy now pulls out the "Project for the New American Century" card, as I call it.
> 
> Yeah so? People, get real. This was not a secret organization! This information is widely available! So, please, spare me the secret agenda nonsense.
> 
> ...



Look the Downing Street memos are quite clear. It didn't matter what excuse they came up with, WMD had the nice fear appeal to get the public support behind them, they were going after Iraq no matter what.

I'll post this again... Perhaps you should go back to your Fox News docudrama on Islamist armageddon before you start blowing you load here.

Look, the simple facts of the matter boils down to resources. The US sees the region as being resource rich (oil clearly) and therefor sees it of strategic economic importance. To that end, the US continues to exert considerable influence in the region (The backing of the Suadi crown, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Bahrain and Israel). Many of those countries governments are considerably oppressive. The oppressive nature of those regimes has given rise to resistance which is what is at the heart of Islamic fundamentalism.

Islamic fundamentalism (as spurred by the writings of Sayyed Qutb) has had a recent renaissance, and is highly attractive to a population in the middle east where disenfranchised young unemployed people can readily grab onto it.

If there were no resources in the region, clearly the US would not be involved and there wouldn't be an Islamist issue globally.

That is concise summary of the situation.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

To move on from a rather stale point, though, the Iraq war is a fait accompli, though the real mission is not over. Those like me who supported this action are reminded of the best argument against the war--the one you who opposed it should have used but failed to--to chasten ourselves.

No, it isn't about "imperialism".

No, it isn't about "greed".

Nope, not about "secret agendas" or the like.

It is about the law of unintended consequences, and particularly in this case that every action has a reflexive opposition, regardless of its merits. This is the real flaw in any government action, war or not. You cannot control every variable, even with the best intentions.

You who opposed the war did not fail because Bush is a criminal or Americans are warmongers. You failed to persuade the undecided because you used bankrupt arguments about "secret agendas" and Bush being a stupid cowboy. You failed because you exposed yourself as making apologetics for Islamist terror instead of dealing with the issue in such a way that would alienate you from those who legitimately believe it to be true.

I never, ever said it made someone anti-American to oppose this or that policy. Because the bulk of you are living in an echo chamber, you didn't want to see that.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Look the Downing Street memos are quite clear. It didn't matter what excuse they came up with, WMD had the nice fear appeal to get the public support behind them, they were going after Iraq no matter what.
> 
> I'll post this again... Perhaps you should go back to your Fox News docudrama on Islamist armageddon before you start blowing you load here.
> 
> ...


Sorry Jonesy, your facile explanation of Islamism fails on many accounts. Islamism is not merely a political reaction, it is also a cultural and religious one. It is wholly reactionary and xenophobic. It finds appeal with people who are employed and not unemployed. It finds, in fact, a lot of favour with people who ARE WEALTHY!

If there were no resources in the region, OK, the U.S. wouldn't be involved--did I say otherwise?? No, the U.S., and all of the world, has an interest, actually INTERESTS, PLURAL, in the Middle East. 

The majority of ethnic conflicts in the world are involving Islamist groups. This is a fact. So, I suppose the Abu Sayyaf have a problem with Filipino "imperialism"? Surely you dismiss a very serious ideology far too easily, it is not to your credit.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sir, this article had multiple sources, so it is not "one source". All the media we are privy to is a secondary source, whether it is Fox, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, CBC, or BBC. Hayes is a respectable journalist, and the Weekly Standard is a major publication. This was one source that summed up what I am saying, but it does not rest on it.


BS. That article and that rag is a pice of crap. Give me some other sources for that article... you can't. You found that link (circa 2003) somewhere buried on Anne Coulter's blog and accept it as gospel (who knows the actual blog or neo conservative action script you got it from it is still a load of sh*t). 



planethoth said:


> Hey, if we could go after Saudis I would be all for it! Except one problem--there you really go into a hornet's nest--Baghdad and Basra are not Mecca and Medina, if you catch what I am saying.


So you are saying that the US should attack one of its staunchest allies on the war on terror? 

But, no that wouldn't be a good idea would it? Because instead of a few demented yet capable resistance groups you would pretty much piss off 1/5th the population of the planet. Yup I agree that would be a bad thing. 



planethoth said:


> Also, don't pretend the Bush administration is the only friend of Saudis. EVERY U.S. president since Franklin Roosevelt maintained friendly relations with these guys. And why? Because OIL MATTERS. It is not something you can wave off, as if a major price shock would not be extremely disruptive to the entire world economy. It is not imperialism to worry that the flow of oil is not held prisoner by certain regimes.


But you certainly agree that Oil is the root cause for this issue then don't you?



planethoth said:


> In short, there were many reasons for the Iraq war, and none of them were "secret". There are multiple interests converging on this issue. I have been saying all along, if you want to argue the Iraq war was bad policy, fine--that's entirely possible that it will be. But to argue it is a secret diabolical imperialist agenda, as most people on here seem to believe, is just plain lame.


I don't where you got that from. I never said anything about a secret agenda... The issue here is that the argument they used to mollify the masses is certainly NOT the argument they use now to justify their actions.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

No, I said oil is a factor and a legitimate concern for foreign policy, not a "root cause". The root cause game is a pseudointellectual contrivance.

There is no one "root cause".

I don't read Ann Coulter's blog, sorry. It is only in your fantasy that you can demonize anyone who was pro-war as just being a follower of Ann Coulter.

It is as ludicrous as me calling you simply a follower of Paul Krugman.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> No, I said oil is a factor and a legitimate concern for foreign policy


i bet the japanese had the same idea leading up to the invasion of Pearl Harbor


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sorry Jonesy, your facile explanation of Islamism fails on many accounts. Islamism is not merely a political reaction, it is also a cultural and religious one. It is wholly reactionary and xenophobic. It finds appeal with people who are employed and not unemployed. It finds, in fact, a lot of favour with people who ARE WEALTHY!


Of course it is a cultural response, but the fact of the matter is that without western influence in the first place the response would not exist. This conflict is entirely of the West's making, based on its need for Oil.



planethoth said:


> If there were no resources in the region, OK, the U.S. wouldn't be involved--did I say otherwise?? No, the U.S., and all of the world, has an interest, actually INTERESTS, PLURAL, in the Middle East.


It always boils down to the resources in the middle east.



planethoth said:


> The majority of ethnic conflicts in the world are involving Islamist groups. This is a fact. So, I suppose the Abu Sayyaf have a problem with Filipino "imperialism"? Surely you dismiss a very serious ideology far too easily, it is not to your credit.


Hey I don't dismiss Islamist extremists and their ideology. A group of less than 20 - 30 people arranged and executed an impressive attack that would have been well out of the reach of most nations with conventional weapons and tactics. They exploited an inherent weakness in the transportation system and effectively used it to destroy the WTC. That same ideology gives rise to extreme fascist examples of Islam in what became the Taliban. But that being said extreme facist examples of religions and states can be attributed to Italy and Germany or even modern day Israel.

But this wasn't the first attack of this kind on the US. Funny how everyone forgets Timothy McViegh et al. and the bombing in Oklahoma. Was hey an Islamist? no. Was he a terrorist? you bet you.

Terrorism is a funny word that the western media has co-opted into a meaning of... all "those" guys that want to hurt "us". Now if you have a look at the societies in the middle east, ask some of them who they think the terrorists are? You will no doubt get a different answer.

The solution to the problem is to get out of the middle east... period. We have no business being there. The problem is that there is real NO leadership in the west. Government is so influenced by the business lobbyists that we will not see any real leadership on how to solve this issue. 

The answer is simple... we need to convert our economy from being oil based to based to some other form of energy. Our reliance on oil is our biggest weakness and no matter what the west attempts to do in the middle east, there will always be an Islamist faction that will want to do westerners harm. Remove the need for the resources and you remove the conflict.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i bet the japanese had the same idea leading up to the invasion of Pearl Harbor


A nonsensical non-point; in what way was the Japanese action in WWII similar to the Americans in the middle east? Do you think Americans wish to permanently occupy Iraq like the Japanese hoped to do with all of Asia? Come on, bro, that's weak.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No, I said oil is a factor and a legitimate concern for foreign policy, not a "root cause". The root cause game is a pseudointellectual contrivance.
> 
> There is no one "root cause".
> 
> ...


The root cause is a "pseudointellectual contrivance" ? Congrats you went from mild idiocy to completely over the top lunacy. So by your logic we should not look to the root cause of a problem, we should only brute force a solution to any problem. Nice well done.

And I said that it came from someone else's blog BTW (I used Ann Coulter only as an example) you can read the parenthesis.

PS. yeah there is only ONE root cause in this case... and it is resources, namely Oil. 

No Oil, no US involvement. No US involvement no conflict.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Oh sure, modern-day Israel is "fascist". What a laugh.

Compared to...?

I want you to look on the map. I want you to mark down all the countries in the Middle East. Go ahead, see if they appear to be less "fascist" than Israel. I dare you!

Ah, I see Egypt... no oppressive regime there...

Jordan, run by a king... illegal for Jews to own land there... no oppression...

Syria, a police state modelled after East Germany... nope...

Saudi Arabia, ah yes, beacon of freedom...

Iran, definitely a free society, i must say!

I won't continue, because it is demeaning to me. Your comment is typical of a leftist ideologue who is convinced that only U.S. and Israel are the problems in the world. Nothing to say about the Arab world's pathetic tribalism and arrested development?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> A nonsensical non-point; in what way was the Japanese action in WWII similar to the Americans in the middle east? Do you think Americans wish to permanently occupy Iraq like the Japanese hoped to do with all of Asia? Come on, bro, that's weak.


the U.S. was cutting off oil to Japan
Japan needed oil for industry nevermind their need to bring civilization to the barbarians

biggest difference was that the Japanese didn't pretend the U.S. had WMDs as their reason for invasion

the Americans detonated 2 atomic weapons in wartime for purposeful destruction of military and non-military targets

funny how the U.S. worries about others who have WMDs, but the U.S. is the only country in the history of the world who has used WMDs, eh?


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Oh sure, modern-day Israel is "fascist". What a laugh.
> 
> Compared to...?
> 
> ...


Please don't continue. Given the nature of what has happened to the Palestinians how can one not see Israel as a leaning towards fascism of a kind. Frankly given the tragic history of the Jewish people in the 20th century you would think they would be smatter than they appear to be in regards to the Palestinians. 

As for those other countries... yup, some of them are pretty awful places to live, and in my examples of fascism you will note that I applied the word in an equal opportunity manner pointing to Christian, Islamic and Jewish examples of fascist like behavior.

As for "the Arab world's pathetic tribalism and arrested development?" How can you say that and then defend yourself that you are not bigoted or racist?

As I said... please don't continue. You hate inspired input will not be missed.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

The Ann Coulter thing is tired, you could at least admit that instead of equivocating about it. But I will take that as your admission of being wrong about saying that.

If you took Islamist ideology seriously---rather than just the lip service for sake of argument--you wouldn't be telling me this nonsense like it is just because of oil.

How, exactly, do you propose we will get rid of the oil industry, if that is what u desire? What will u replace it with? How will u fight those people who have an interest in it? Are you willing to go to war for that?

And then what? You think there will ever be a time in history when people will be free of special interests? Do you think you are free of them?

Of course you can't just say, oh, i am a good liberal and I don't believe in war for oil. You have to come up with a realistic plan to back up your criticism! Otherwise, your critique is rather hollow.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Such a waste of a thread.

MacDoc and I have rarely agreed on many subjects including the US, but I respect his right to his opinions. He has never shown me any disrespect, nor I, he.

One thing I do know is that his opinions do not spill over into his business. I have before and will again, buy from MacDoc.

Besides, I kind of admire his fiestyness.

To label him in a thread title is a bit much, IMHO.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Please don't continue. Given the nature of what has happened to the Palestinians how can one not see Israel as a leaning towards fascism of a kind. Frankly given the tragic history of the Jewish people in the 20th century you would think they would be smatter than they appear to be in regards to the Palestinians.
> 
> As for those other countries... yup, some of them are pretty awful places to live, and in my examples of fascism you will note that I applied the word in an equal opportunity manner pointing to Christian, Islamic and Jewish examples of fascist like behavior.
> 
> ...


Sorry, you don't order me around. I didn't say anything that is bigotted, I stated a fact. The Arab world (i.e., the states of the Arab world) are backward. Period. Not a controversy, it is known to all.

The Palestinians are like a football in the hands of the Arab powers, playing politics with them. Who started the war, bro? Was there an Israel in 1920, 1921 and 1929 when the Arabs went around killing Jews in their riots?

Who started the 1948 war? Who started the war of attrition in 1956? Who lined up 400,000 soldiers around Israel in 1967? Who attacked Israel on the day of their holiest holiday in 1973?

Oh, oh wait. It was the Arabs! So your innocents aren't exactly so. Don't pretend that way.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

SINC said:


> Such a waste of a thread.
> 
> MacDoc and I have rarely agreed on many subjects including the US, but I respect his right to his opinions. He has never shown me any disrespect, nor I, he.
> 
> ...


That's great, maybe so! But I was right, the debate on here is generally one-sided and so far I am the only one presenting an alternative view of much.

Unlike Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner, MacDoc does not own a media company that deals with journalism. He owns a business that sells Macs. It doesn't seem wise to associate the MacDoc name with his personal political beliefs, regardless of what I think about them. That was my point.

I didn't make a claim that MacDoc deals with customers badly in his business. I have no experience with MacDoc except on this message board.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> The Ann Coulter thing is tired, you could at least admit that instead of equivocating about it. But I will take that as your admission of being wrong about saying that.


The only thing I admit is that your Weekly Standard article was a weak reference to a decidedly biased source, which came straight from a neo-conservative media playbook... or what they refer to as "talking points"



planethoth said:


> If you took Islamist ideology seriously---rather than just the lip service for sake of argument--you wouldn't be telling me this nonsense like it is just because of oil.


But it is... Look the west wants the oil in the middle east, so they set up companies, they import technology, business practices, media, etc... all of which incenses those predisposed to Islamist extremism. How much more simple does it have to be?

If you think there is something else, please feel free to educate us.



planethoth said:


> How, exactly, do you propose we will get rid of the oil industry, if that is what u desire? What will u replace it with? How will u fight those people who have an interest in it? Are you willing to go to war for that?


Well that's the leadership part of it isn't it. What is needed is an energy project on the scale of the Manhattan Project. To develop a technology which would allow the US (in this case) to become independent of foreign energy sources. Fuel Cell, Hydrogen, take your pick... It is a technology issue and if there is one thing the US is really good at, it is solving technology related problems.

Hydrogen is a good candidate as it can use the same if not similar infrastructure which is being used today for hydrocarbons.

Is it a challenge , yes. Would they be successful, probably. Can they do it? unlikely... why? see below.



planethoth said:


> And then what? You think there will ever be a time in history when people will be free of special interests? Do you think you are free of them?


No and No. Special Interests infest the political landscape in most western societies. It is an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism and democracy. The combination distorts the reality of most situations and issues. Special Interests exist on all sides of the political spectrum, however I would say that in the US the two political parties are both ruled by Special Interest groups. 



planethoth said:


> Of course you can't just say, oh, i am a good liberal and I don't believe in war for oil. You have to come up with a realistic plan to back up your criticism! Otherwise, your critique is rather hollow.


No, what is required is Leadership first and foremost. Legislation that strictly curtails the influence of special interest groups. Then once they are out of the way, a massive public project to move from an Oil based society to some other alternative fuel (like I said Hydrogen is a good candidate).

How realistic was the first atomic bomb in 1939? The Manhattan project proved it could be done. That type of approach to this problem would work.

So what is America left with after moving from Oil to an Alternative fuel... well certainly all of the intellectual property surrounding that technology. Global leadership in terms of energy. Increased security in that it no longer has to involved in the Middle East. Sound like the start of a good plan to me.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Sorry, you don't order me around. I didn't say anything that is bigotted, I stated a fact. The Arab world (i.e., the states of the Arab world) are backward. Period. Not a controversy, it is known to all.


These people excelled at art, music, mathematics, science and astronomy when your ancestors were picking fleas from their plague infested bodies or otherwise eating moss off of rocks in caves. 

Your comments are inflammatory and insulting. They are hate filled at best and racist at their worst. Unless of course you have an understanding of the language which I don't. So much for cultural relativity.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

OK, good, for once you presented at least a semblance of details for your alternative plan! That was a start, at least. Alternative energy is one thing, how will u replace the myriad of chemicals and plastics made by petroleum?

But one thing nearly made me piss my pants laughing, when you said, special interests are "an unfortunate byproduct of capitalism and democracy".

So in other words, byproducts of living! Inherent in life itself is conflicting interests. You will not get rid of them. But you can divert them into useful actions; such is precisely what capitalism does. No, I don't mean a zero-sum game. That is what leftists seem to believe capitalism is, but it is completely false.

Oil will remain a desirable resource so long as it is cost-effective. Over time, the "long run", if its price goes up too far, it will decline in usage and will be slowly replaced with another. Until then, oil is a player in the world.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> These people excelled at art, music, mathematics, science and astronomy when your ancestors were picking fleas from their plague infested bodies or otherwise eating moss off of rocks in caves.
> 
> Your comments are inflammatory and insulting. They are hate filled at best and racist at their worst. Unless of course you have an understanding of the language which I don't. So much for cultural relativity.


Um no, my ancestors already had developed written language and sedentary lives well before the Arab civilization did, thank you. You make too many assumptions based on what? Your own prejudices.

I don't believe in cultural relativity. Furthermore, I don't believe in some racist idea like you attribute to me, either. There was a time when Arab and Islamic civilizations were great and advanced for their time. Now they are not at a high point. This is a source of their discontent, surely. It can't ALL be blamed on Americans or British or the West--unless you are naive, which I will assume you aren't.

To say the Arabs once had a grand civilization is not the same as claiming they do RIGHT NOW. Mind the difference and forget these smears you try to pull on me.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> Um no, my ancestors already had developed written language and sedentary lives well before the Arab civilization did, thank you.


please explain
i don't speak "vague"


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> please explain
> i don't speak "vague"


This is not a debate about my ancestry, I didn't bring it up, he did. I will not go drag in the muck playing my people are better than your people. Not what this is about.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

planethoth said:


> This is not a debate about my ancestry, I didn't bring it up, he did. I will not go drag in the muck playing *my people* are better than your people. Not what this is about.


but i thought you claimed to be Canadian and since Canada is only 130 odd years old or so.....

of course if you are part of Canada's First Nations, then you might fit your criteria

the truth shall set you free, unless you are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Krystol, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> but i thought you claimed to be Canadian and since Canada is only 130 odd years old or so.....
> 
> of course if you are part of Canada's First Nations, then you might fit your criteria
> 
> the truth shall set you free, unless you are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Krystol, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld, etc.


You are clever and devious with words... my ancestors go back farther than Canada. By the way, the First Nations peoples did NOT have written language, so I don't know where you got that?

So what about my ancestry? Do I ask you yours? Perhaps you want to engage in some race-baiting? Well I won't give you the pleasure.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Um no, my ancestors already had developed written language and sedentary lives well before the Arab civilization did, thank you. You make too many assumptions based on what? Your own prejudices.
> 
> I don't believe in cultural relativity. Furthermore, I don't believe in some racist idea like you attribute to me, either. There was a time when Arab and Islamic civilizations were great and advanced for their time. Now they are not at a high point. This is a source of their discontent, surely. It can't ALL be blamed on Americans or British or the West--unless you are naive, which I will assume you aren't.
> 
> To say the Arabs once had a grand civilization is not the same as claiming they do RIGHT NOW. Mind the difference and forget these smears you try to pull on me.


Two things... 

1/. Unless you are Indo-Aryan, I highly doubt (whatever your pedigree is) that it had a civilization that predates the Sumarians.

2/. YOU were the one that started making disparaging comments about people of Arabian decent. If you can't take the heat don't start the fire. Your heritage is fair game if you bring up some elses.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Two things...
> 
> 1/. Unless you are Indo-Aryan, I highly doubt (whatever your pedigree is) that had a civilization that predates the Sumarians.
> 
> 2/. YOU were the one that started making disparaging comments about people of Arabian decent. If you can't take the heat don't start the fire. Your heritage is fair game if you bring up some elses.


Ah, but there is where you are wrong---I never insulted anyone's heritage! I stated facts about the state of the culture! This is not the same. It isn't about what was, it is about WHAT IS.

No, I am not Indo-Aryan. Good try, Mr. Anthropologist, but I won't discuss it on these terms. I could be an Arab, it would make no difference.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Ah, but there is where you are wrong---I never insulted anyone's heritage! I stated facts about the state of the culture! This is not the same. It isn't about what was, it is about WHAT IS.
> 
> No, I am not Indo-Aryan. Good try, Mr. Anthropologist, but I won't discuss it on these terms. I could be an Arab, it would make no difference.


Oh yes, get your facts straight too.. THE SUMERIANS WERE NOT ARABS!

Where would you get some nonsense like that?????


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

planethoth said:


> Oh yes, get your facts straight too.. THE SUMERIANS WERE NOT ARABS!
> 
> Where would you get some nonsense like that?????


Someone who thinks the Sumerians were Arabs has no legitimacy to challenge me about cultural correctness. Do you know where the Arabs came from??


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Ah, but there is where you are wrong---I never insulted anyone's heritage! I stated facts about the state of the culture! This is not the same. It isn't about what was, it is about WHAT IS.


HOLY SH*T BATMAN... I mean I've fought Sinc and Macnutt before, but you are completely bigoted!

I'm sorry, if you disparaged some else's heritage or culture that makes you a bigot.

_
Bigoted - adjective.

obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions 

expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance

prejudiced, biased, partial, one-sided, sectarian, discriminatory; opinionated, dogmatic, intolerant, narrow-minded, blinkered, illiberal; racist, sexist, chauvinistic, jingoistic; warped, twisted, distorted._


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Someone who thinks the Sumerians were Arabs has no legitimacy to challenge me about cultural correctness. Do you know where the Arabs came from??



The definition of who an Arab is has three main aspects:
Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the Arab League (or, more vaguely, the Arab world); this definition covers more than 300 million people.
Linguistic: whether their first language is Arabic; this definition covers more than 200 million people.
* Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. *
The relative importance of these factors is estimated differently by different groups. Most people who consider themselves Arabs do so on the basis of the overlap of the political and linguistic definitions. However, some members of groups which fulfill both criteria reject the identity on the basis of the genealogical definition; Lebanese Maronites, for example, often reject the Arab label in favor of a narrower Maronite nationalism. Groups which use a non-Arabic liturgical language - such as Copts in Egypt and Assyrians in Iraq - are especially likely to be considered non-Arab. Not many people consider themselves Arab on the basis of the political definition without the linguistic one—thus, Kurds or Berbers usually identify themselves as non-Arab—but some do (for instance, some Berbers do consider themselves Arabs and Arab nationalists saw the Kurds as Arabs).
A hadith of questionable authenticity[1], related by Ibn Asakir in Târîkh Dimashq and attributed by its narrator Salmân b. `Abd Allah to Islam's prophet Muhammad, expresses a common sentiment in declaring that:
"Being an Arab is not because of your father or mother, but being an Arab is on account of your tongue. Whoever learns Arabic is an Arab."
According to Habib Hassan Touma (1996, p.xviii), "An "Arab", in the modern sense of the word, is one who is a national of an Arab state, has command of the Arabic language, and possesses a fundamental knowledge of Arabian tradition, that is, of the manners, customs, and political and social systems of the culture."
On its formation in 1946, the Arab League defined an "Arab" as follows:
"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples."
The genealogical definition was widely used in medieval times (Ibn Khaldun, for instance, does not use the word Arab to refer to "Arabized" peoples, but only to those of originally Arabian descent), but is usually no longer considered to be particularly significant.
[edit]


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> HOLY SH*T BATMAN... I mean I've fought Sinc and Macnutt before, but you are completely bigoted!
> 
> I'm sorry, if you disparaged some else's heritage or culture that makes you a bigot.
> 
> ...


Well then, apply your logic equally brother! How many of you and your friends made "bigoted" comments regarding the Americans and their culture! I bet I could go back in this conversation and pick up quite a few!

With your logic, we can only criticize American civilization, but a critique of Arab civilization is bigotry!


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Well then, apply your logic equally brother! How many of you and your friends made "bigoted" comments regarding the Americans and their culture! I bet I could go back in this conversation and pick up quite a few!
> 
> With your logic, we can only criticize American civilization, but a critique of Arab civilization is bigotry!



You are dehumanizing an entire population, people here on ehMac are pointing issues mostly related with the current US administration and their policies. You don't see the difference do you?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The definition of who an Arab is has three main aspects:
> Political: whether they live in a country which is a member of the Arab League (or, more vaguely, the Arab world); this definition covers more than 300 million people.
> Linguistic: whether their first language is Arabic; this definition covers more than 200 million people.
> * Genealogical: whether they can trace their ancestry back to the original inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula. *
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Nope, no comment. I don't see what it has to do with anything. I don't support those Moral Majority types either.


Really? You called me a liar because of that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> da_jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > Very liberal definition of "Arab" you are using! Well, regardless, the Sumerians were not Arabs. They did not speak Arabic, were not genetically from the same tribes as Arabs, they were not Arabs. Period.
> ...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

This is dumb. You want to turn it into me being against Arabs, bull****. Pure bull****. 

That's convenient for you, since you can avoid discussing what their problems are, and dismiss me as a racist. It's the cheapest tactic of all, and you have no leg to stand on.

If you think, as MacDoc said, that violence is a feature of American civilization, why can't I point out the Arab civilization's penchant for tribal identities and its associated problems? It isn't racist, it doesn't assume they are biologically given to it anymore than EVERY OTHER CIVILIZATION has been at one point or another. To call it so is not racist, so take your comments back.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

Hmmm! Take an afternoon away from ehMac and ....

Much effort and time wasted on the well read wanderings of a bigoted troll!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> planethoth said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I'm sorry do you speak whatever language your ancestors spoke, whenever it was you think they were so superior to the Arabian civilization and those that it emerged out of?
> ...


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Hmmm! Take an afternoon away from ehMac and ....
> 
> Much effort and time wasted on the well read wanderings of a bigoted troll!


Hey iPetie, you didn't contribute anything to the discussion so you can shut up. Calling a person a bigot is a big word, boy!


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Well then, apply your logic equally brother! How many of you and your friends made "bigoted" comments regarding the Americans and their culture! I bet I could go back in this conversation and pick up quite a few!


Go ahead...let's see you try.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> This is dumb. You want to turn it into me being against Arabs, bull****. Pure bull****.
> 
> That's convenient for you, since you can avoid discussing what their problems are, and dismiss me as a racist. It's the cheapest tactic of all, and you have no leg to stand on.
> 
> If you think, as MacDoc said, that violence is a feature of American civilization, why can't I point out the Arab civilization's penchant for tribal identities and its associated problems? It isn't racist, it doesn't assume they are biologically given to it anymore than EVERY OTHER CIVILIZATION has been at one point or another. To call it so is not racist, so take your comments back.


Hmmm lets have a look at what you said...

*"Nothing to say about the Arab world's pathetic tribalism and arrested development?"*

I think that pretty much sums it up... your words. By any definition that is a textbook example of bigotry. Ever have a moment when you regret writing something and can't ever take it back... planethoth has just experienced that.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> da_jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > Not every culture is the same at any given point! To say so is far from racist, and I can only assume your fascination with that is because of your own insecurities of being a racist.
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> Ever have a moment when you regret writing something and can't ever take it back...


Yes, but that will only happen when the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse come down my street handing out daisies.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Hmmm lets have a look at what you said...
> 
> *"Nothing to say about the Arab world's pathetic tribalism and arrested development?"*
> 
> I think that pretty much sums it up... your words. By any definition that is a textbook example of bigotry. Ever have a moment when you regret writing something and can't ever take it back... planethoth has just experienced that.


I stand by that quote. It is not bigoted. It was in response to you equivocating about Israel and the Arabs. And about your insistence that it is only Americans that cause their problems.

You want to call it bigoted, fine, go ahead--the truth of the statement will not be changed one iota by the namecalling.

That isn't the Arab HERITAGE, it wasn't RACIALIST comment, it is the CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. So screw your 'bigot' smear.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I stand by that quote. It is not bigoted. It was in response to you equivocating about Israel and the Arabs. And about your insistence that it is only Americans that cause their problems.
> 
> You want to call it bigoted, fine, go ahead--the truth of the statement will not be changed one iota by the namecalling.
> 
> That isn't the Arab HERITAGE, it wasn't RACIALIST comment, it is the CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS. So screw your 'bigot' smear.



Not a smear now... now a statement of fact given that you choose not to admit to your own mistake.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> planethoth said:
> 
> 
> > Racist no... bigoted? yes. Towards intolerant loudmouths such as yourself. We just had a long discussion in another thread about intolerance... I can't help it, I really hate people who are intolerant towards others. I don't know if that makes me as bad as you... but there it is.
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

da_jonesy said:


> now a statement of fact given that you choose not to admit to your own mistake.


Not admitting to mistakes and not addressing other people's points seems to be increasingly planethoth's _modus operandi_.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Not a smear now... now a statement of fact given that you choose not to admit to your own mistake.


NO I WILL NOT ADMIT THIS. This was not my mistake. It was not bigoted. It was a statement of the current state of things. A bigot would think the Arabs are inherently bad or inferior. I don't think that. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

IronMac said:


> Not admitting to mistakes and not addressing other people's points seems to be increasingly planethoth's _modus operandi_.


Hey brother, I admitted to at least one mistake already, regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Stop lying.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> NO I WILL NOT ADMIT THIS. This was not my mistake. It was not bigoted. It was a statement of the current state of things. A bigot would think the Arabs are inherently bad or inferior. I don't think that. Sorry, you are barking up the wrong tree.


The harder you try and claim the high ground in this the lower you sink.

Given your words how can they NOT be interpreted in any other way as being bigoted?


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey brother, I admitted to at least one mistake already, regarding the Muslim Brotherhood. Stop lying.


I said "increasingly". You still have yet to prove that I lied in your earlier posts.


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

planethoth said:


> Hey iPetie, you didn't contribute anything to the discussion so you can shut up. Calling a person a bigot is a big word, boy!


No I have not contributed to this thread. I just got home from work with my American (which I rather like) employer to observe what began as a rather interesting discussion from someone who was brave enough to challenge what are, in my consideration, some pretty intelligent people.

Only to watch the discussion disintegrate into what "I" believe was your true agenda. 



planethoth said:


> Sorry, you don't order me around. I didn't say anything that is bigotted, I stated a fact. The Arab world (i.e., the states of the Arab world) are backward. Period. Not a controversy, it is known to all.





planethoth said:


> Um no, my ancestors already had developed written language and sedentary lives well before the Arab civilization did, thank you.





planethoth said:


> Someone who thinks the Sumerians were Arabs has no legitimacy to challenge me about cultural correctness. Do you know where the Arabs came from??


Best of All


planethoth said:


> boy!


You are what you are, read between your own lines!


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

i can't believe you guys are devoting so much time to this ass. as i once overheard some drunken loon in a bar say to his buddy before a fight: 'just leave it alone man. it's not worth it'.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> The harder you try and claim the high ground in this the lower you sink.
> 
> Given your words how can they NOT be interpreted in any other way as being bigoted?


I don't care brother, no amount of reason will convince you. I stand by my comments. You obviously prefer the ostrich method of viewing the world. That's fine, go ahead, and now what do you gain from your claim of me being bigoted? You only get to keep your illusions.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> da_jonesy said:
> 
> 
> > Oh you are so clever, Jonesy. I love how you ignore the bin Ladens of the world, treat them like little children who just have problems b/c big bad America won't let them b free! Don't take them seriously, Jonesy, just ignore everything else that doesn't fit with your bleeding heart view of the world.
> ...


----------



## IronMac (Sep 22, 2003)

TroutMaskReplica said:


> i can't believe you guys are devoting so much time to this ass. as i once overheard some drunken loon in a bar say to his buddy before a fight: 'just leave it alone man. it's not worth it'.


Gotta keep in shape for when the real challenge comes back.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I don't care brother, no amount of reason will convince you. I stand by my comments. You obviously prefer the ostrich method of viewing the world. That's fine, go ahead, and now what do you gain from your claim of me being bigoted? You only get to keep your illusions.



Yo bigot dude... I already put forth a solution. Where's your plan. c'mon put your money where your mouth is and tell us your solution... or shhhhh is it a secret?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

IronMac said:


> Gotta keep in shape for when the real challenge comes back.


ROTFLMFAO!


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

I hope sincerely that the people of this board will refrain from ANY generalizations whatsoever. You cannot make comments regarding any civilizations, cultures, societies. No sociological or anthropological claims whatsoever. In fact, discuss nothing except with what you agree with, that confirms your assumptions about things. It is not important for truth to be told, only to feel good about yourself.

In this light, you must refrain from commentary on all things about American society, unless you have one set of rules for them and another for all others.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> I hope sincerely that the people of this board will refrain from ANY generalizations whatsoever. You cannot make comments regarding any civilizations, cultures, societies. No sociological or anthropological claims whatsoever. In fact, discuss nothing except with what you agree with, that confirms your assumptions about things. It is not important for truth to be told, only to feel good about yourself.
> 
> In this light, you must refrain from commentary on all things about American society, unless you have one set of rules for them and another for all others.


Huh? is this some sort of white flag?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

da_jonesy said:


> Huh? is this some sort of white flag?


No white flag. Sarcasm. You are a hypocrite, since I am sure you would not think twice about making generalizations about Americans. If you didn't yourself, you were defending the people on the board who do. Tell it to your friend MacDoc, brother. No more generalizations about societies or cultures... if I can't do it then he shouldn't be able to either.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

Anyone who protests about me making the observation that Arab culture is tribalistic should also protest when someone tries to make a conclusion about American culture based on someone getting an iPod stolen! The double standard is ludicrous. You said that isn't anti-American, so how could I be anti-Arab?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i'm still waiting to hear how "your people" had language and writing thousands of years ago and yet you are Canadian
you have already said you are not First Nations, so you could be Chinese I guess, but I don't know of any Chinese with such a hatred of Arabs

"my people" is the kind of thinking that gets people involved in hate mongering, bigotry and racism

What's next? God/Allah/Buddah told your people certain things He didn't tell "other people?"

there i go again with my "words"


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No white flag. Sarcasm. You are a hypocrite, since I am sure you would not think twice about making generalizations about Americans. If you didn't yourself, you were defending the people on the board who do. Tell it to your friend MacDoc, brother. No more generalizations about societies or cultures... if I can't do it then he shouldn't be able to either.



Ahhhh I see, it was a trick. Sorry I totally underestimated you. You see I didn't think you could comprehend (let alone articulate) what sarcasm is, as it is an advanced trait. My total mistake.

Dude... look you came up with the infamous...

_Nothing to say about the Arab world's pathetic tribalism and arrested development?_

followed by...

_I never insulted anyone's heritage! I stated facts about the state of the culture_

I really don't think you are in a position to dictate the tone of this conversation, do you?


----------



## iPetie (Nov 25, 2003)

planethoth said:


> No white flag. Sarcasm. You are a hypocrite, since I am sure you would not think twice about making generalizations about Americans. If you didn't yourself, you were defending the people on the board who do. Tell it to your friend MacDoc, brother. No more generalizations about societies or cultures... if I can't do it then he shouldn't be able to either.


Please provide specifics. Much of what MacDoc and others expound on is political and observational. And very, very specific. It does not, in my experience, denegrate gender, or race. 

Why don't you clarify for me how making a commentary on an iPod murder is the same as calling 1.5 billion people "Backward"?


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i'm still waiting to hear how "your people" had language and writing thousands of years ago and yet you are Canadian
> you have already said you are not First Nations, so you could be Chinese I guess, but I don't know of any Chinese with such a hatred of Arabs
> 
> "my people" is the kind of thinking that gets people involved in hate mongering, bigotry and racism
> ...


Give me a break, hatred of Arabs now. Sorry, you are just lame.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

planethoth said:


> Hey lunatic pseudointellectual of the left, why don't you eat crow about what you said earlier about me just using right wing talking points? After all, I was right and you were wrong. Or are you too small to admit your mistake?


Planethoth, I think that you should really go back on the meds. 

You have only spewed vile garbage without any merit. There is no point of debating an illogical troll.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Please provide specifics. Much of what MacDoc and others expound on is political and observational. And very, very specific. It does not, in my experience, denegrate gender, or race.
> 
> Why don't you clarify for me how making a commentary on an iPod murder is the same as calling 1.5 billion people "Backward"?


Excuse me, MacDoc used his armchair sociological analysis to determine that inherent in American society is violence that leads to these types of murders. OK, I consider that specious, but no matter. He said it, and you didn't object.

Now, I can see the constant warring between Arabs, killing each other every day, especially if they can't kill americans or Jews or some other "foreigners", blowing up the mosques of the other, attacking them at funerals (!). Would you say that Saddam Hussein and his nepotism towards his Tikrit tribe, is that not tribal? Would you say the fact that Fatah meetings in the Palestinian Authority are frequently featuring another Fatah member shooting up the place because he is upset that his faction was not on top? Or is this my imagination??? So there is no tribalism in Arab culture, is that correct to say?

Would you not call that an arguable "tribalist" mentality? And would you consider it good? I don't, so maybe I am a bigot. But if I am bigot, it doesn't change the facts.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Planethoth, I think that you should really go back on the meds.
> 
> You have only spewed vile garbage without any merit. There is no point of debating an illogical troll.


Hey "Artist":

Be honest instead of being a goddam liar, and admit that this comment was in response to you calling me "mindnumb robot of the right". You are completely dishonest in presenting this without that fact.


----------



## planethoth (Jun 14, 2005)

iPetie said:


> Please provide specifics. Much of what MacDoc and others expound on is political and observational. And very, very specific. It does not, in my experience, denegrate gender, or race.
> 
> Why don't you clarify for me how making a commentary on an iPod murder is the same as calling 1.5 billion people "Backward"?


First of all, there are 300 million Arabs, not 1.5 billion. But that means little, since of course I did not call them all backward. I said the culture of the Arab world (re: the Middle East regional states, minus Israel, Turkey and Iran) is backward. And I stand by that generalization. Not because I hate Arabs but because I think it is a genuine problem in the Arab world that also influences these conflicts.

Calling me a bigot doesn't illuminate anything.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

I had no idea letting this thread be would turn into this wonderful flame war. I'll deal with this more when I get home from work.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

*1 part gasoline, 1 part emotion, 1 part fire. Mix well. Run for the Hills.*

I'm disappointed in the behaviour shown in this thread, I'm not anybody's parent so it's largely irrelevant the circle knee jerk fest we saw is not something I'd like to see on ehMac.

First of all the name calling; has absolutely no place here on ehMac. (Regardless of who started it)

Pointing fingers or saying "Hey, you. You're an ***hole" is useless. The members here know what they did and I don't need to point out the futility of what has happened here.

What can one do when so many have so much complete disrespect for another ideology? 

Quotes worth purusing:


Toca Loca Nation said:


> Indeed -- Chealion's response is excellent. There is a certain irony to those who fight (perceived) hyperbole with (unperceived) hyperbole.


 (Applies to nearly any situation, especially those emotionally charged).



miguelsanchez said:


> people have their opinions and there's no way you're going to change someone's mind by figratively jumping up and down and telling them how stupid, crazy, short-sighted, or [insert insult here] they are. assuming, of course, that they're not *trolling* (_bold added_).
> 
> of course, when it gets to the point of insults, it usually means that the debater has nothing else to go on...


----------

