viatroy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I personally think it's a matter of people who want oil finding a team of religious crusaders to fulfill their agenda. exactly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 As far as the "crusade" comment goes, that word has taken on a non-religious connotation over the years, and though it was an extremely poor choice of words, I don't believe he meant it in the sense the post would attach to it. It is an example of Bush not thinking before speaking, not of him hating Muslims. As far as the second link, the article itself says "religious devotion," not "Christian zeal". I don Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 As far as the "crusade" comment goes, that word has taken on a non-religious connotation over the years, and though it was an extremely poor choice of words, I don't believe he meant it in the sense the post would attach to it. It is an example of Bush not thinking before speaking, not of him hating Muslims. Sure, but I dont think we were discussing whether those comments were evidence of him hating Muslims. We were talking about (I think) whether Bush's actions are taken with a view towards good vs evil as defined (in part) by his faith. Christian zeal/religious devotion/no matter what you call it doesnt necessarily require Bush to hate Muslims. Look, I think Mr.Rain made a tortured analogy (no pun intended). But I do think it was an interesting point that deserved more discussion than to be dismissed out of hand. In other words, I am not going to agree that the similarities between Bush and Al-Qaeda are many, but there are certainly some disturbing links in the rhetoric and the mindset. And yes, I do agree that this war is being fought over oil, not religion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Moe_Syzlak Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I don't think it's religiously motivated... Muslim nations just happen to be sitting on the oil we want and need. The neocon core as a matter of principle are generally disdainful of religious belief, but they find the American religious right a convenient core of support.I agree but there does seem to be a level of religious justification for it as well. I mean Bush clearly feels he is guided by God and surely he believes that God to be infallible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Comparing Bush to Al-Qaeda on any level is irresponsible at best. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Care to explain that? I mean certainly it's easy to get into hyperbole when making a comparison, but that doesn't mean that valid, true comparisons should be disregarded and not considered. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I agree but there does seem to be a level of religious justification for it as well. I mean Bush clearly feels he is guided by God and surely he believes that God to be infallible. I've never believed Bush was calling the shots -- he sure didn't come up with his own policies. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Care to explain that? I mean certainly it's easy to get into hyperbole when making a comparison, but that doesn't mean that valid, true comparisons should be disregarded and not considered.What's to explain? I did consider it, and I think it's over the top and out of line. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
viatroy Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Comparing Bush to Al-Qaeda on any level is irresponsible at best. Linking Bush to Al-Qaeda is a piece of cake though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What's to explain? I did consider it, and I think it's over the top and out of line. Yes, clearly you have your mind made up, but I'm not sure I really believe that you considered all possible comparisons on all levels. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Yes, clearly you have your mind made up, but I'm not sure I really believe that you considered all possible comparisons on all levels.that's a lot of comparisons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
embiggen Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 that's a lot of comparisons. lots of levels too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 lots of levels too.I KNOW!@ Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 You were the one who said "on any level", not me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I guess I just find refutations of my viewpoint more compelling when someone actually addresses the points I've made rather than just writing an entire segment of the political spectrum wholesale without acknowledgement for the actual arguments being made. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 I guess I just find refutations of my viewpoint more compelling when someone actually addresses the points I've made rather than just writing an entire segment of the political spectrum wholesale without acknowledgement for the actual arguments being made.you made a point? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 The evangelical commander in chief is happy to send people on suicide missions that will take out large numbers of civilians. It's pretty much our middle east policy.If this was your point, then I think I addressed it sufficiently. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Okay, Jules. You basically addressed the choice of words, but not the substance. But I guess that's what really matters. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport...?videoId=174546 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Jules, I understand why you think it's crazy or hyperbolic to mention Bush and Al Qaeda in the same breath (and frankly, I agree with you in large part -- I'd say it is quite a stretch), but I don't understand why you think it's "irresponsible." What does that mean? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted July 9, 2008 Author Share Posted July 9, 2008 It could be argued, has been argued and is backed by credible corroborating evidence, that as far as state sponsored terrorism is concerned, the United States Government is, historically, one of its most fervent proponents. I know that sounds hyperbolic and on some levels ridiculous, but essentially, it is true Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 Jules, I understand why you think it's crazy or hyperbolic to mention Bush and Al Qaeda in the same breath (and frankly, I agree with you in large part -- I'd say it is quite a stretch), but I don't understand why you think it's "irresponsible." What does that mean?as in reckless, or without due care. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What do you think are the consequences that make it reckless? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 as in reckless, or without due care. Sure, but the terrorists yell Allah is great when they attack us, and then we stand on rubble and wave our flags and proclaim God Bless America. Don't get me wrong -- I would never pretend to equate the two. But there is something a bit odd with that picture and it is worth discussing (I'd say). Both groups fall back on their "isms" when they chart their courses of action. And isms in my opinion are not good. Or so said Ferris Bueller. Maybe I am watering down the point that was made above that you took issue with -- it's certainly reckless to argue that Bush is an evangelical nut who launched a holy war in Iraq to further his quest to convert the world to Christianity. But that's the extreme, and there are shades of grey here. I think the shades of grey are worth exploring and we can do it without being reckless. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted July 9, 2008 Share Posted July 9, 2008 What do you think are the consequences that make it reckless? I dont think there have to be direct and physical consequences. A reckless statement can inhibit worthy and honest debate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.