What About Muslim Moderates?

[Plane]

The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.

Now should they call something good , "evil" too, because being disingenuous has a good reason?

[Michael Tee]

<<The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.>>

Oh but they do.  They do it all the time.  The Axis of Evil.  The Evil-Doers.  I'm sure you've heard this before.  More than once.  It's hilarious.  Why?  Because they themselves are so fucking evil that the rest of the world has a laughing fit every time they hear this bullshit.

[sirs]

<<Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims.  A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say>>

Well, I don't really believe that Brown thought he was going to convert many of THEM with his approaches to moderate Muslim groups.  He was aiming at the larger Muslim community, obviously.   Unfortunately most right-wing fruitbats seem to think there is no difference between the people Brown was aiming at and the people you call "terrorists" or "radical Muslims."  

Actually, since I'm apparently frequently lumped into this supposed fruitbat section, and DO recognize the difference, that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it.  Nice, if not lame try, though

[Plane]

<<The Government of the US and GB should call evil , "evil" , unless there is a compelling reason not to.>>

Oh but they do.  They do it all the time.  The Axis of Evil.  The Evil-Doers.  I'm sure you've heard this before.  More than once.  It's hilarious.  Why?  Because they themselves are so fucking evil that the rest of the world has a laughing fit every time they hear this bullshit.

The US Government has a limit on what it can do , our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.


There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .

That the people have to be consulted is the key.

[Michael Tee]

<<. . . our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.>>

no argument from me there except that the checks and balances related to the government's control over its own people, not the government's actions internationally.


<<There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .>>

It's pathetic.  When I was a kid it was generally accepted that the U.S. government was the most virtuous on earth, now you're scraping the bottom looking for any one that's worse?  Why aren't you more concerned with punishing those who have brought this kind of moral degradation to your country?

[Michael Tee]

<<Actually, since I'm apparently frequently lumped into this supposed fruitbat section . . . >>

Don't flatter yourself.  The fruitbats are hard-headed realists compared to you.

<< . . . and DO recognize the difference [between so-called "terrorists" and "radical Muslims" and the non-"terrorist" and non-"radical" Muslims] . . . >>

Well you sure had ME fooled.  Your earlier posts in this thread gave no such indication.

<< . . .   that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it.  >>

Yeah, so I replaced it with a newer theory - - that you switched opinions as soon as I demonstrated the stupidity and absurdity of your first one.

[Plane]

<<. . . our founding fathers expected that the evil nature of government couldn't be forever avoided so they enacted a system of checks and balances which enable the people to hold a leash on the evil actions that all government is prone to.>>

no argument from me there except that the checks and balances related to the government's control over its own people, not the government's actions internationally.


<<There are no governments less evil than the US Government , but this is not a strong boast .>>

It's pathetic.  When I was a kid it was generally accepted that the U.S. government was the most virtuous on earth, now you're scraping the bottom looking for any one that's worse?  Why aren't you more concerned with punishing those who have brought this kind of moral degradation to your country?

You misunderstand me , from the very first and at every stage since the US government has been evil , it is in the nature of government to attract the power hungry , the greedy , the lieing , the selfish.

There never has been a government of virtue , and there never can be one.

The people of America are a part of the process and are the main brake against headlong descent twards absolutism. This is the case within and without our frounteers.

What virtue there has ever been should be credited to the people and to certain persons who were good , and to a lesser extent to a system that allows the people to toss the bums out on a regular basis.

[sirs]

<< . . . and DO recognize the difference [between so-called "terrorists" and "radical Muslims" and the non-"terrorist" and non-"radical" Muslims] . . . >>

Well you sure had ME fooled.  Your earlier posts in this thread gave no such indication.

and of course, you can demonstrate this............................right?  That any muslim who disagrees with Bush and Blair is a supposed terrorist and/or radical.....................right?

<< . . .   that pretty much blows that theory out of the water, now doesn't it.  >>

Yeah, so I replaced it with a newer theory - - that you switched opinions as soon as I demonstrated the stupidity and absurdity of your first one.

Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on.  Until then, the only fruitbat in this conversation, is the one on the other end of the computer     
[/quote]

[Michael Tee]

You're too hard on America.  No one expected a purely virtuous government.  It was always virtuous, but only in comparison to its neighbours.  Now it's down to the same level as the rest of the world.  That can't be good.

Also the American people are good because the Constitution is good.  They're not inherently better than anyone else.  In some regions the people are a whole lot worse than most other people anywhere else on earth.  But because of the Constitution they can no longer act out on their worst impulses.

I look on the U.S. Constitution  as the unique gift of some unique men at a unique time in human history when a certain critical number of people were receptive to those particular ideas.  I believe if the Constitution were presented today to the American people without its historical and sentimental aura, it would be rejected.  In fact, I recall a study in the 1960s when the ideas of the Constitution, without identifying their origin, were presented to a survey sample for comment and a large majority of the survey considered the ideas "subversive."

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on>>

Nothing easier.  In my post in this thread, I said:

<<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates.  So it's not reaching out to anybody who isn't already on their side, in fact it's needlessly pissing  off the already pissed-off.>>

So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.

Your response to that was:

<<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended??  >>

In other words, a Muslim could be a "moderate," but if he or she was NOT a moderate, then he or she could only be an Islamic terrorist or a radical Muslim.  They're either on your side or they're terrorists and/or radicals.

[Plane]

You're too hard on America.  No one expected a purely virtuous government.  It was always virtuous, but only in comparison to its neighbours.  Now it's down to the same level as the rest of the world.  That can't be good.

Also the American people are good because the Constitution is good.  They're not inherently better than anyone else.  In some regions the people are a whole lot worse than most other people anywhere else on earth.  But because of the Constitution they can no longer act out on their worst impulses.

I look on the U.S. Constitution  as the unique gift of some unique men at a unique time in human history when a certain critical number of people were receptive to those particular ideas.  I believe if the Constitution were presented today to the American people without its historical and sentimental aura, it would be rejected.  In fact, I recall a study in the 1960s when the ideas of the Constitution, without identifying their origin, were presented to a survey sample for comment and a large majority of the survey considered the ideas "subversive."

We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.

Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?

[Michael Tee]

<<We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.>>

You're just completely ignoring what's been happening.

<<Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?>>

I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI.  Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war.

Winston's mother was American.  I'm sure he was favourably disposed to the U.S. all his life.

[sirs]

<<Perhaps when you can actually present an actual quote in context on my part validating your ludicrous opinion of my supposed "original opinion", you might have a leg to stand on>>

Nothing easier.  In my post in this thread, I said:  <<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates.  So it's not reaching out to anybody who isn't already on their side, in fact it's needlessly pissing  off the already pissed-off.>>

So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.

Your response to that was: <<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims might be offended??  >>

In other words, a Muslim could be a "moderate," but if he or she was NOT a moderate, then he or she could only be an Islamic terrorist or a radical Muslim.  They're either on your side or they're terrorists and/or radicals.

So, you used my words, and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking.  Your words have fluctuation as in"basically", while mine have this supposed concreteness to them.  It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said.  Pretty much what I thought.  Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims.  A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say".  That way, you won't look so feebly desperate

[Michael Tee]

<<So, you used my words . . . >>

Yes, I did.

<< . . . and reinvented them to apply to your way of thinking.  >>

Uh, reinvented?  I gave them their ordinary English meaning.

<<Your words have fluctuation as in"basically" . . . >>

Really?  How did "basically" change the meaning of what I said?  That shouldn't be a hard question to answer.  My original post in its exact words was this: 

<<I am merely suggesting what seems to be the obvious, that any British government support for any Muslim organization is the "kiss of death" for it in the eyes of any Muslims who are not already moderates. >>

Then, when I inserted the word "basically" into a reprise of my original quotation, the line read like this (again, my exact words):   

<<So, basically, I had said that - - apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate" would be offended by Brown's support of a "good Muslim" organization.>>

So, where is the "fluctuation" that you pretend to see in my words?

<< while mine [my words] have this supposed concreteness to them.  >>

You'll have to explain that one to me.  Who's doing the supposing?  You or I?

<<It couldn't possibly have been that I actually meant what I actually said.  >>

Anything's possible.  Usually, I think you mean whatever stupid thing you happen to be uttering at the time, till the total  absurdity of it is painfully exposed, at which point you start to back-track frantically, as you are doing here - - "I didn't say this, you didn't say that, I said X, you said Y" in some kind of pathetic kerfuffle, trying to becloud the issues and even the sequences of the thread itself, hoping desperately that nobody will take the trouble to trace back through the thread to see who actually said what.

<<Pretty much what I thought. >>

Funny, you and thinking don't seem to go together very naturally.

<< Next time, try to use a quote that can actually demonstrate what you say I say, like ......oh perhaps this quote "Actually, any muslim who practices the act of targeting and killing innocent women & children, including blowing up mosques, and those who advocates/supports such are terrorists or radical muslims.  A distinct difference, I'm afraid to say".  >>

Actually, I'll use the quote that best illustrates your narrow-minded either-or way of thinking, and that's the one I already used.  The quote that you'd like me to use is way off the mark, because my original remarks did not refer to "terrorists" or their supporters but clearly on their face, to anyone familiar with the English language, referred to Muslims who were not moderates - - again, in my exact words, since you seem to have trouble remembering what they are, reproduced here, "any Muslims who are not already moderates," or as I rephrased them, "basically . . . apart from Muslims who were already "moderates" - - any Muslim who wasn't a "moderate." 

So it should be clear from everything I wrote in this thread that Brown's actions would succeed only in pissing off any Muslims who weren't already "moderates" - - clearly, this would include Muslims who were "terrorists" and radicals, as well as Muslims who were neither "terrorists" nor radicals but at the same time were not "moderates" either.

Now, how did you respond to my claim that Brown was pissing off those Muslims?  In your own words,

<<You mean Islamic terrorists or radical muslims  might be offended??  >>

Very simply, sirs, you responded to my claim that Brown would offend any Muslim who was not a "moderate" with the clear and unmistakeable inference that any Muslim who is not a "moderate" has to be either a "radical Muslim" or a "terrorist."  Clearly a ridiculous and untenable allegation, from which you are now back-pedalling madly.

<<That way, you won't look so feebly desperate>>

Uhh, yeah.  Thank you for your concern, sirs, but I am not the one who is looking feeble and desperate here.

[Plane]

<<We are still more virtuous than our neighbors , the neighbors just don't always agree with this when they don't need something from us.>>

You're just completely ignoring what's been happening.

<<Winston Chirchill can be quoted many times with complements twards the USA , its government , its people..... but do any of these quotes date from earlyer than the rise of Natziism?>>

I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI.  Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war.

Winston's mother was American.  I'm sure he was favourably disposed to the U.S. all his life.

"I'm sure he said some nice things about his Allies or future Allies when he was First Lord of the Admiralty in WWI.  Future allies I guess since at that point the U.S.A. was not in the war."

That would be my point.

Charles DeGalle might be a better example, after his need for US assistance was less, he became much less complementary.

We are watching our "allies " become armchair quarterbacks all over the world , except for those ones that are in more direct theat , where we still get asked for help we still find that a freind in need is a freind indeed.