Eviscerated? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Just hitting the reply button and typing a bunch of words into the box that pops up doesn’t isn’t the same thing as eviscerated.
Oh Arturo, Prince of Irony!
Irony doesn’t mean pointing out that a criminal profile is not the same as your racist conspiracy theories. You’re using your dictionary to prop up a table with one leg that’s shorter than the others, aren’t you?
It’s okay, you go back to calling your own words “lies”, while you support a lawsuit to ferret out the cabal that controls Hollywood, and JAQ Off about how we have to be vewy vewy careful of Jews in the US government and probe their loyalty lest they consciously or through simple inability to perceive a difference between the US and Israel, betray our nation through ethnic-based treachery.
Hey, I get it. You’re saying we need to keep a wary eye on certain politicized set of American Muslims, but we should never do the same when it comes to a certain politicized subset of American Jews. Because that would be racist.
I guess terrorism is worse than espionage or something. Otherwise, your position would look pretty hypocritical.
As a racist, I understand that you’re not terribly bright. Let me walk you through this, yes?
I pointed out that magellan said we should have a criminal profile for Islamic terrorists. I have not opined on how to conduct criminal profiling, so naturally you’re lying about me having said anything about “needing to keep a wary eye on”.
I pointed out that you are a racist and you’re yet again calling for loyalty probes of Jews who are uppity motherfuckers, proven by the fact that they have politics that you don’t approve of.
Also, I could point out that you’re a lying racist, again, and “Jews in the American government who are uppity enough not to agree with Spoke’s politics” is not, even remotely, close to the sort of criminal profile that Magellan has suggested. As you’re pretty deep into your racist conspiracy theories, you may actually not detect a difference between “Uppity Jewboys who dare to disagree with Spoke’s politics” and “people who support terrorism.”
Most likely only if someone was a racist desperately trying to argue why it’s right to suspect Jews, simply based on their ethnicity, of being traitors for holding the ‘wrong’ politics, not like the Good Jews who know their place and aren’t uppity enough to think that they’re first class citizens entitled to their own opinions and politics.
Admittedly, someone may not be able to tell the difference because they’re also stupid, but the reason why you’re trying to conflate criminal profiling with your fear and hatred of Jews is pretty obvious. Not that you’re not stupid, mind you, but that’s rather obviously not your motivation here.
I’m in favor of all those things. The point remains that it is more prudent to have the first filter be “Muslim”, as not all radical Muslims might travel to the Middle East. The Fort Hood shooter, for instance. Why would you so object to such an innocuous step makes no sense and I can attribute only to to some holy PC mentality.
You increase the likelihood that you will be including a greater number of terrorists in the first pool. Then you apply the second, which is now more efficient because, take travel—if 1,000 people are identified as having travelled to Syria and 300 are Muslim and 200 are Buddhists and 500 are Quakers, using my method you wind up with a number of 300; with your you end up with 1,000. So, even if we both apply the same filters from this point forward, my way is more comprehensive and efficient.
Well, heavens! I ponder it and think, “Hmmm, within what group are radical MUslims likely to reside?” And I come up with…Muslims! Imagine that. That’s not being racist, unless you consider using logic as somehow racist.
By the way, I didn’t know Muslim was a race. Interesting.
It makes perfect sense. And it’s not a one or the other choice. The important thing is to use as many filters as you can, not fewer. Coarse. Fine. They’re all good.
BUt as I pointed out, there are two problem with your method. One, it misses those who have not traveled to to Pakistan (for example). The other is that without the “Muslim” filter you’ll capture in your pool Quakers, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. The result of doing it my way results in a much smaller, more helpful pool of people to apply additional filters to.
Again with the racism. Sigh. You still haven’t noticed that that is not what I’ve been arguing against with you. I already explained what moving the goalposts was to you. Evidently as once not enough. Tell you what, go look it up.
But let’s concentrate on the rest of this passage of yours. There is no point in looking back to history and seeing which religions or civilizations were more or less barbaric. Since I don’t live in 2894B.C., 389 A.D. or 1512, A.D. I don’t really care all that much. I’ve agreed that other religions have pasts that are every bit as barbaric. I’ve also state more than a few times that I don’t see barbarism as being a necessary component of Islam. But in today’s world, in the U.S., the threat from radical Islamic terrorists IS a problem. For the non barbarians among us any way.
See above.
I never said everyone was a knee-jerk liberal, but nice try. But this board doe skew quite left, particularly when you get to some non-PC issues. Now, when you’re looking up the Moving The Goalpost fallacy, move on to Appeal to The Masses. I’m tempted to throw in an Appeal to Authority, but the mods are not authorities on how to fight terrorism. But please, go fight your profound ignorance. You really should know these things when participating on a debate board.
Magdouch? Really? Surely you can do better than that. At least Dadouchi keeps the same rhythm. Out of curiosity, is there anything you’re not horrible at?
That’s peachy, Dadouchi. Now how about you try focusing on the original claim you made to me that you STILL have not supplied one cite for. Here’s a hint: just because you link to another post doesn’t make it a relevant cite. For instance, if I claimed that you’re a full of shit hypocrite and you challenged me on it, I wouldn’t be able to link to just anything you said. That might go to your stupidity, but not your lying hypocrisy No, I’d have to provide a cite that goes to the heart of it. Like this:
[QUOTE=Damuri Ajashi]
…If you can’t defend your position then perhaps your position has no merit
[/QUOTE]
…and then link to our exchange in this thread.
So, any cites proving your claim that I want “all Muslims investigated”?
Of course, you could just admit you were wrong, retract it, and apologize.
::Bill Cosby voice:: “Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhhhhhht”.
Oh, it means exactly what I think it means. And that is what has been done to your claim that I said I want “all Muslims to be investigated”.
Kinda funny that you don’t realize it. and to think, you could have avoided all this humiliation by simply admitting your error.
Guess that means you’d have to me not as dumb or not as dishonest as you are, so I see the problem.
(Ah the ad hominem! Always your favorite logical fallacy!)
Is espionage a crime? But we shouldn’t profile for that crime? Because profiling is racist when it might be someone Jewish who is being profiled? But not when we’re profiling Muslims? Is that what you’re saying, Finn?
(Hey did you ever find cites for your lies about me by the way? Or are you still posting entirely from your iPhone?)
It’s interesting how desperate Spoke is to excuse his racism. Loyalty probes for those uppity Jewboys who disagree with his politics. It’s totally not racist since we might also look at people with connections to terrorism. Why, it’s totally not racist either to say that we need to investigate all blacks for watermelon thievery, since cops also have a profile for drivers that include going far too fast or far too slow.
It all makes perfect sense.
To remind those reading along, Spoke likes to bring up his lies once the thread has moved on to a new page, because he hopes to trick people. First he claimed that his own words were “lies”. Then I not only cited them, I pointed out exactly what lies he’d use to try to spin away his racism. As Spoke is a very predictable sort of racist, a quick analysis showed that, yep, he used exactly the lies I predicted he would. He then started lying again and demanded more proof for two of his claims which I’d just provided his own words to prove, and yet another, just so he could claim his own words were “lies”, again. It’s a very basic form of baiting.
But as I pointed out at the time:
Spoke, since he hates Jews and can’t defend his blatant racism, can’t come up with how he “misread” a statement of cultural facts that produce success in limited fields with “innate superiority” in “every field” that evinced “bigotry” and “Jewish Supremacism” (Google the phrase, see the hits for the first few pages).
He thinks he’s being very clever in trying to ask me to prove the same things I’ve already proven about him, or to get me to cite more things he can lie about and go on the attack yet again. Spoke would make a good scientologist but his avoidance of just how he mistook DSeid’s comments for “Jewish Supremacism” just shows that he’s a cowardly little dishonest racist who needs to change the subject and go on the attack because his racism is utterly indefensible.
Lying again I see, when you linked to the post in question that debunks your lie. Like I said, you’re not very smart. Of course, what actually happened was that I explained why it is that you’re wrong on both factual and logical grounds. I also pointed out that you’re a liar and a racist, so it’s not surprising that you’re in error since as a racist, you don’t have many options open to defend your racism.
Spoke, aren’t you supposed to be lying about how you’re not calling for loyalty probes of uppity Jewboys who disagree with your politics? Isn’t that your whole schtick? Or are you dropping your mask now because you think that a profile of Islamic terrorists allows you to equate your rank racism of “uppity Jews who dont’ share my politics” with a criminal profile?
Naturally, as a racist, your profile is not “politicians who disagree with spoke about Isreal” (which would be a fucking stupid profile anyways) but “only Jews in the government who disagree with Spoke.” As you’re a racist, your profile is “Jews who disagree with me.” Not “Politicians who disagree with me.”
This is the reason you dogwhistle about “close personal ties” to Israel for some and then ignore people who actually prosecuted the Iraq war, like Cheney and Rumsfeld. It’s only the Jews who you want to suspect or treachery and probe for loyalty, and then on no basic other than that they’re uppity Jewboys who dare to think that they’re first class citizens who are allowed to disagree with your politics. This is the reason you JAQ Off about how there isn’t “necessary a conspiracy of Jews in the US government” and “they aren’t necessarily Israeli agents”.
Stupid racist, juvenile tricks are for kids.
I admire FinnAgain’s sheer quantity. Dude, you put in some serious time putting your stuff out there.
Of course, its all a bunch of lies!
Yes, evidently some folks find the sheer volume of words to be convincing. Whether they are true words or not.
I generally find someone’s own words and the facts of the matter to be the most effective means of smearing them with the truth. 
For instance, I might point out that the GAO has said that while Israel is certianly aggressive in its espionage attempts directed at the US (just like the US is dealing with our allies or bugging the UN, or what have you), several other allied nations have been heavily involved in espionage in the United States as well including France, Germany and Japan, but Spoke isn’t advising that we conduct loyalty probes on people of French, German or Japanese descent. Why, even as recently as 2011 the GAO is still pointing out that America is vulnerable to unauthorized technological transfers. And even then, they looked at multiple nations and their actions in the United States and not “American Jews!” Why, the GAO found that Russian intelligence agencies and their surrogates saved them billion on R&D by stealing American technology. France had the director of the French secret service, DGSE, officially direct his agents to spy on the United States. Japan is so convoluted that they weren’t even sure if it was the Japanese government, or Japense bussinesses which were spying on us. And, damn, sometimes the person engaging in espionage is just a US citizen out for cash. Hell, we’ve got a Chinese nation accused of espionage, Americans performing espionage for Cuba, China again, espionage for Taiwan, an FBI agent spying for Russia, a CIA agent spying for Russia, a Belgian spying for Iran…
But Spoke isn’t fascinated with Chinese people, Cubans, Taiwanese, Russians, FBI agents, CIA agents, Belgians, Iranians, or people who may sympathize with any of those causes (or are amenable to being paid by them). And, really, he’s not making assertions, he’s Just Asking Questions about Jews in the US government.
Hmmmm.
Naturally that should have read “Chinese national accused of…”
But it sure would be amusing if all of China was involve in espionage.
I’d imagine that they’d have to queue up.
Rather than this straw man, a good parallel to spoke’s we-must-keep-an-eye-on-a-certain-politicized-subset-of-American-Jews is featured in this Pit thread.
Franklin Graham’s fantasies about the Muslim Brotherhood infiltrating U.S. government are more overt than spoke’s version, i.e. there’s-not necessarily-a-Jewish-conspiracy-within-our-government-to-subvert-policy-in-favor-of-Israel-but-we-must-be-vewy-vewy-careful. In cartoon terms, Graham is Yosemite Sam as compared to spoke’s Elmer Fudd.
Surprising that spoke can spare the time to keep posting in this thread. After all, he must be very busy with Civil War 150th anniversary activities - like making sure offended parents whose kids attend Nathan Bedford Forrest High School don’t insult the name of [del]the first KKK Grand Wizard[/del] a complex and misunderstood Southern gentleman. 
Y’know, it’s funny. Finn obviously has read the original thread. He’s using language from it. Yet he doesn’t seem to want to cite it to prove what a bigot I am, or to prove that he wasn’t lying about what I said there. How odd. Here’s the thread. Judge for yourselves. (And judge for yourselves whether Finn is lying about what I said.)
Deja vu all over again.
“But but but, after Finn predicted all the lies I’d use to distort my other comments, and how he’s pointing out that I still can’t explain my hunt forJewish Supremacists, which is totally a phrase I made up myself, he isn’t playing my game anymore!
Obviously when I was JAQing Off about a conspiracy of Jews in the American government who were potential Israeli agents, I wasn’t actually saying that. Finn is lying. He’s lying in the most despicable way, by pointing out what I actually said!!!”
Its not a certain subset of muslims. In the first instance its ALL muslims and then we can winnow it down from there based on other criteria but we have to start with ALL the muslims or we might miss one.
Its not surprising to see Finn apply a separate threshhold for racism against muslims than against Jews. Typical myopia.
C’mon Finn, we’ll make it simple and narrow it down to one of your lies:
OK, where did I say that? I’ve helped you out and linked the thread. Did I say that? Or were you lying?
***First off, I will point out, again, that as Spoke is a racist he can not and will not explain how or why he accused DSeid of being a “bigot” or of “Jewish Supremacism” or read a claim of cultural factors that lead to relative success in limited fields as Jewish “innate superiority” and success in “every field”. He is, of course, trying to change the subject. And he’ll lie about his own words now watch, come hell or high water, Spoke will almost certainly not provide an answer on how cultural factors that effect limited fields is “innate superiority” in “every field” that evinces “bigotry” and “Jewish Supremacism.”
Instead, as I proved, Spoke is using predictable patterns of lying in order to allege that his own words are lies and will repeatedly try to change the subject by arguing dishonestly. He’s like a rabid Scientologist, when faced with the truth about him, all he can do is attack. He’ll almost certainly never explain the reason behind his hunt for “Jewish Supremacism” ***
Ah well, just so I can point out that Spoke is again lying in order to claim that his words are a “lie”:
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7765654&postcount=22)
They should also note, while being vewy vewy careful, that the members of the PNAC who actually made policy were folks like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Odd that Spoke focuses only on the Jews… They should also note that Spoke is playing very fast and loose with the PnAC to sell it as some sort of “Israel influenced” conspirator. For instance, in their letter to Clinton (signed by Rumsfeld and Cheney, well known secret Jews, or potential Israeli agents, or something), they argue that defanging Sadaam was in the best interest of “the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states”. Oddly enough, Spoke isn’t alleging a potential conspiracy on the part of the American troops, or of the United Arab Emirates. Funny, that. Okay, but maybe some other PNAC document stated that they were willing to sacrifice US interests for Israel, right?Oh, they thought that the US should be a preeminent military power and control vital regions for the sake of the US’s own selfish interests. So close, yet so far.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7765654&postcount=22)
How odd, Spoke is yet again distorting things to sell a conspiracy theory, how odd. What did "A Clean Break" advise (hint, it has something to do with a clean break" )
[
](Ocean of Games- Free Download PC Games)
Well, obviously that just goes to show that you can’t trust those damn folks, (except maybe Charles Fairbanks Jr., that name sounds pretty gentile). I mean, they said right there that they want Israel to stand on its own without the US military helping it at all. It’s obvious that we need to investigate to see if they were part of a conspiracy to subvert the US to use our military to help Israel. I mean, duh.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7765654&postcount=22)
Note the JAQing Off about the not-necessarily-a-conspiracy-or-actual-Israeli-Agents-all-of-whom-that-were-named-by-spoke-just-happen-to-be-Jewish. Also note the dog whistle about Wolfowitz et al having “close personal ties” to Israel. Also note that Spoke never did actually explain what these “close personal ties” were, but later tried to shift the focus to business deals and the like.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7765654&postcount=22)
Oh my, there was questioning going on. Reminds me of the JAQing Off about the “dancing Israelis” questioned about 9/11 involvement. But that’s just coincidental. They were questioned, after all, and Spoke got to mention AIPAC too.
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7765654&postcount=22)
How very strange… Spoke only mentioned Jewish folks, and claimed a nebulous “very close personal ties” that he never could actually define, and then suggests that even if they’re not actual conspirators and agents of Israel (Just Asking Questions, dontcha know), that maybe they’re so blinded by their “very close personal ties” that they’re unable to tell the difference between the needs and goals of their own homes, and that of a nation half way across the globe.
Curiouser and curiouser.
But surely he didn’t continue to JAQ Off about how we have to be vewy vewy careful and… oh…
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7766435&postcount=25)
Okay, but, surely this time, even though he was JAQing Off about a conspiracy theory, really, he was saying that anybody involved in the PNAC was a potential Israeli agent and wasn’t prepared to use other reasons to explain their involvement if they weren’t Jews and… oh…
[
](Is this a serious agenda by US Neo-cons & Israel? - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board)
Well, I mean, he says it’s a lie, so his prime concern must not have been his nebulous “close personal ties” metric and people who just-happened-to-be-Jewish who he was JAQing Off about who were either active traitors or Manchurian Candidates due to these “close personal ties” and… oh…
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7766435&postcount=25)
Surely though, this time he has to be right, I must be lying, and he wasn’t really alleging that the “potential Israeli agent who just happens to be Jewish and can’t tell his home’s well-being from a nation on the other side of the planet” special interest was coming together with the “yeah, they’re just greedy or have different politics” special interest and… oh…
[
](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7766435&postcount=25)
Well… damn. Okay okay, okay but he didn’t later go on to let his facade slip and admit that he wasn’t really talking about people with “very close personal ties” to Israel, but Jews who have politics that he doesn’t like. I mean, right?
Fuck!
And I was really pulling for him towards the end there. It’s so unfair when your own words lie about what you really think. 
I don’t see him spewing lies or being hypocritical. I do see him not exercising restraint at times, but…meh. Everyone has their foibles and pet issues.