Oh what a tangled web we weave
And what a tangled web we weave, when we just go along with those who practice to deceive, and let them have the stage to spread their lies unchallenged.
I have said, as long as I have made political comments, that there is only one thing Progressives need to do to wipe the Republican party off of the earth. That thing is to tell the truth. That's it, just tell the truth. But we've stood by for decades now waiting for the gutless Democrats in this country to figure that out.
The current case in point: We have a President who has had a six year long chance to be honest with the American people about Bush and Cheney's miserable, incompetent war of aggression in Iraq, and the hopeless position it has left us in. But he has never bothered to do that, scared to death of the mean things that Republicans will have to say about him. Now, he is caught in a miserable no-win situation, in which that very war of aggression has spawned what may be the most violent Islamist group in history. And the Republicans who caused this entire disaster through their gigantic act of war criminality are succeeding very well, with the assistance of the mainstream press, in blaming it all on Obama.
Had he consistently condemned what is clearly the greatest military blunder since Austria invaded Serbia in 1914. he would now be in a position to take a new tack based on something that might actually work. As it is, he tied a rope around his own neck, and it is strangling him.
Too bad. Too bad for us. Too bad that "well-meaning but gutless" wasn't enough to make a good President.
I have said, as long as I have made political comments, that there is only one thing Progressives need to do to wipe the Republican party off of the earth. That thing is to tell the truth. That's it, just tell the truth. But we've stood by for decades now waiting for the gutless Democrats in this country to figure that out.
The current case in point: We have a President who has had a six year long chance to be honest with the American people about Bush and Cheney's miserable, incompetent war of aggression in Iraq, and the hopeless position it has left us in. But he has never bothered to do that, scared to death of the mean things that Republicans will have to say about him. Now, he is caught in a miserable no-win situation, in which that very war of aggression has spawned what may be the most violent Islamist group in history. And the Republicans who caused this entire disaster through their gigantic act of war criminality are succeeding very well, with the assistance of the mainstream press, in blaming it all on Obama.
Had he consistently condemned what is clearly the greatest military blunder since Austria invaded Serbia in 1914. he would now be in a position to take a new tack based on something that might actually work. As it is, he tied a rope around his own neck, and it is strangling him.
Too bad. Too bad for us. Too bad that "well-meaning but gutless" wasn't enough to make a good President.
Comments
Well, not for long. Watch our current and subsequent actions spawn something worse.
After all, history does repeat itself.
Consider this statement:
"Let me remind you that throughout the history of civilization, nomadic people have not been recognized to have ownership of the land over which they pass. And that includes all Arabs."
Is the person who made the statement an anti-Arab bigot or not?
No one, as far as I know, is suggesting supplying a country to the Bedouins, who do still live a nomadic life, although Israel has done a lot to try to make their lives less harsh, as the open terrain they used to roam becomes more and more scarce. As far as I was able to tell, Bedouins do not recognize national borders (that's why they are the best dope dealers in Israel) and do not want the trappings of settled society.
Now, Ted: Blaming Bush and Cheney will always be correct, because no matter how much time passes, the fact remains that their criminal, corrupt behavior created this problem. Obama cannot be blamed for being unable to clean up their gigantic mess, the more so because Bush partisans have done everything possible to prevent Obama from moving forward.
No offence intended but….
Yes it is. It will always be correct. I do not give a flying fuck if Right wingers get sick of hearing it. In fact that is the whole point. The story of our times cannot be merely something that they feel comfortable with.
‘Bush who did so much to protect America’ is what it will become, like ‘Reagan who made America great again’.
The Right lives in a mythical alternate universe – it has to be scorned and ridiculed every day and in every way possible or eventually it will become the only version anyone is permitted to hear.
I'm not talking about the Bedouins in particular. I am referring to someone who described all Arabs as nomads.
Is the person who made the statement an anti-Arab bigot or not?
A simple "Yes" or "No" would suffice. Why do you insist on evading the question?
Since you insist, and no, this isn't an episode of Law and Order where you can demand a yes or no answer, here it is:
I learned, while living in the Middle East that there is a cultural myth among Arabs that they are all descended from nomads from the Arabian peninsula. I say "myth" because, after a couple of thousand years, they can hardly really imagine that there was no intermarriage between them and other more settled groups. I discovered that many real Arabs do not even regard Egyptians as Arabs, because they are descended from settled populations along the Nile.
Is someone who believes this necessarily a racist? No, of course not; they are simply mistaken, like Americans who believe in American exceptionalism, for example. There are many very malicious falsehoods on both sides that enable people to justify their racial anymosity; this is hardly on the radar in that regard.
Here's the statement one more time.
"Let me remind you that throughout the history of civilization, nomadic people have not been recognized to have ownership of the land over which they pass. And that includes all Arabs."
The person who made that statement is claiming that all Arabs are nomadic. According to the statement, the Arabs who live in Cairo are nomads, the Arabs who live in Abu Dhabi are nomads, and the Arabs who farm lands at the foothills of the Atlas Mountains are nomads.
The statement smells of bigotry.
So, is someone who claims that all Arabs are nomads (present tense, not past tense!) nomads an anti-Arab bigot?
Yes or no, Green Eagle?
---
Incidentally, when you made your first evasion of the question, your mind immediately went to drug-dealing Bedouins. Not to such obvious counterexamples as farmers or residents of cities, but to drug-dealers.
Is someone who, upon hearing the words "black person," immediately thinks of drug dealers, a racist? If so, what are the implications?
It may interest you to know that I do not spend hours agonizing over my replies to contentious, belligerent comments like yours. I suppose I should have referred to those Arabs who continue to be nomads. As I have made clear on many occasions, the claim that Arabs were not settled residents in that area are clearly wrong. So sue me, you son of a bitch. I've made it really clear what I believe over and over again, and I'm not going to be apologetic because I didn't perfectly word a reply to a contemptible troll who didn't deserve a reply in the first place.
And that is all you are- a troll. You will not address anything of substance in the thousands of words I have written about the subject, but are solely involved in attempting to make a specious case that I am some sort of bigot. As anyone with half a brain can see, I am far more sympathetic to the plight of Arab residents of the Middle East than the vast majority of Westerners.
And as to your comments about marijuana, just about everyone I knew in Israel smoked weed, and they all knew that the best connections were Bedouins, because the Bedouins had no respect for national boundaries. I've consumed more marijuana in my life than you could even conceive of, and I certainly don't hold it against these people, many of them living on a subsistence level, if they sell a little weed on the side.
So, "Zog," you are nothing but a troll. Show us that you have an IQ above 80 and I might not start deleting your stupid comments, as I have no more patience with your bullshit.
I guess I feel that if people bother to reply to my posts, the least I can do is read what they have to say, but sometimes is sure doesn't seem worth the effort.
Congratulations on a job well done!
If it would help you with your quandary, send me first-class round-trip airfare to where you live, and I would be more than happy to show you how to use a web browser to find all kinds of other sites that spew your kind of drivel.
What do you say?
Good. Let's challenge some lies from the "They Hate us for their Freedom" thread.
POINT ONE. Green Eagle says, ". I will note that the German lands given up after World Wars I and II (Alsace, the Sudetenland, etc.) were taken by Germans, Alsace Lorraine in the Franco-Prussian war, and the Sudetenland earlier in World War II. In neither case was Germany stripped of land it hadn't taken by hostility."
Are you aware that Germany never took Prussia by hostility? Are you aware that the German state was organized by and built around Prussia?
Germany lost West Prussia to Poland after World War I. Germany lost East Prussia to Poland and the Soviet Union after World War I. In BOTH cases, Germany WAS stripped of land it hadn't taken by hostility.
Has Green Eagle ever studied German history?
POINT TWO. "I never, ever said all Arabs are nomads. That is clearly not true."
As you said earlier in this thread, you said it. Lev the Kahanist showed the place you posted it. Green Eagle, you were LYING. It would have best if you had admitted that you goofed up when you posted the response.
POINT THREE.
"Arabs sided with Germany in World War I and World War II." -- Green Eagle.
Have you ever heard of the Arab Revolt? I can't believe that Green Eagle never heard of Lawrence of Arabia, or how the Arabs helped the British fight the Ottoman Empire. The Arabs were siding with Germany's ENEMIES in World War I.
Has Green Eagle ever studied World War I?
And all the Arab countries which entered World War II? NONE of them joined the Axis. They all joined the Allies, and sided AGAINST Germany.
Has Green Eagle ever studied World War II?
POINT FOUR.
"As I have mentioned before, my number one recommendation is "Innocents Abroad," written in the late 1860's [. . .]"
This is not a lie. However, if one wants to understand the modern Middle East, I would recommend starting with something that was written AFTER the invention of the telephone.
POINT FIVE.
" You will not address anything of substance in the thousands of words I have written about the subject,"
I told you that Carthage is in modern-day Tunisia, not modern-day Algeria.
Have I addressed anything of substance yet, thou that hast the brain of a bird?
Are you aware that Germany never took Prussia by hostility?
I wouldn't take history lessons from the troll.
In 1226, Prussia was conquered by the Teutonic Knights, a military religious order, who converted the Prussians to Christianity.
"Arabs sided with Germany in World War I and World War II." -- Green Eagle.
True.
"Arabs" were not one group on one side. They were divided.
In March 1917, an Ottoman force joined by tribesmen from the Kingdom of Ha'il led by Ibn Rashid carried out a sweep of the Hejaz that did much damage to the Hashemite forces
The leader of the Muslims in pre-Israel Palestine, Grand Mufti Mohammad Amin Al-Husayni, was closely allied with, and actively assisted the Nazis throughout the Second World War.
“Kill the Jews wherever you find them, this is pleasing to Allah.”
- Mohammad Amin Al-Husayni, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, 1943
POINT ONE.
There was no state called "Germany" in 1226. There was no unified German state until 1871. By that time, most Prussians saw themselves as ethnically German.
The state known as Germany never gained Prussia by invasion; Prussia was an integral part of the state known as Germany at the time that state was created. In fact, the state of Prussia was the foundation that the state of Germany was built.
The Teutonic Knights, while identifying as German, were not the same as Germany.
Green Eagle stated, "In both the Italian and German cases, this unification was the product of popular sentiment, not military conquest, and therefore was legitimate." (See http://largegreenbird.blogspot.com/2014/09/they-hate-us-for-our-freedom.html) That was the Germany both Green Eagle and I were referring to. The Teutonic Knights, having ceased to exist centuries before said unification, had no role in that Germany.
POINT TWO.
I said that all Arab countries that entered World War II did so on the side of the Allies. It is obvious that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was not a country, so it doesn't disprove that statement.
Also, Green Eagle made that comment to Lev, a character who sees Meir Kahane as a hero and views all Arabs as heroes. His "solution" to conflict in the Middle East is to implement Deuteronomy 20.
One of Lev's comments: "But the Arabs adore Hitler, because he killed more Jews than those stupid Muslims could ever dream of."
The very next post, by Green Eagle, has this line: "Let's dispense with your inevitable gratuitous reference to Hitler. Arabs sided with Germany in World War I and World War II."
I think Lev, who used "the Arabs," would interpret Green Eagle's statement as also referring to "the Arabs." Given the context, that's how I interpreted it, and I see I misunderstood his meaning.
Still, when you're dealing with someone like Lev, you really need to bring up examples of Arabs who opposed Hitler. Otherwise, Lev's going to claim that the Mufti was the only Arab honest enough to state why all of them sided with Hitler, and say that's why you need to please YHWH by killing all the Arabs. (See Deuteronomy 20.)