Todays talking point brought to you by Menocchio
Today’s lesson in Logic 101 bought to you by courtesy of long-suffering Dopers. Try and learn from it.
Repeating well-known facts do not constitute incitement, your frankly bizarre verbal gymnastics and non-sequiteur asides notwithstanding.
And Clinton was impeached. I am glad to see you support the impeachment of President Bush for his crimes! And here I was thinking you were a mere subject of King George, when you aspire to be a citizen.
Well, now, let’s take a look at your arguments in this thread: New Pics of Abu Gharib.
Do you have any sort of proof that Al Gore has incited hatred? Photographs of people the moment before and after being abused aren’t sufficient for you.
I’d love to see how Al Gore’s actions have, in any way, convinced you that he has “incited hatred” when photographs of abuse at Abu Gharib fail to convince you of abuse at Abu Gharib.
Were you THERE? Were you standing next to some Saudi who, upon hearing Gore’s speech, tore the American Flag pin from his lapel and threw it away? Did your Saudi neighbor start giving you dirty looks right after Gore’s speech?
Do you notice a little inconsistency in your standards of proof? Even a little bit?
-Joe
A long list, including Bush I, who established U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia.
No there is no inconsistency, he spoke and said those things leaving little room for misconstruing what he meant to say and that was Muslims are being abused by the USA. Thats what Gore wanted to say, and said.
The comment I bolded is what irks me a lil’ you keep assuming I do not believe abuse took place, when I have never, even hinted at that. I have said the pictures, do not show the context of the actual abuse. As I stated before maybe the RAPEIST across the ass was written there by a guard who was brutally raped by the guy. Not that it would excuse it, but context context context.
Gore’s speech was in context, talk negative about Bush, say things that would seem to be intended to cause the Muslims to dislike America even more, in a Muslim country.
How much abuse can those poor Muslim’s take, from the crusades to Bush I invading Iraq, yeah that incited them. They would of stayed happy in the Middle East forever if it wasn’t for those damn meddling Westerners.
I thought I could write it and believe it, but then I started thinking about those cartoon’s and realized they where not originally published in a Muslim controlled state, so they got angered by something that by rights was out of there area of influence. Well I suppose if we as a world agree to no longer write anything negative about Muslims, nor draw any cartoons about there prophet all would be well.
Gore did this for attention, Gore did this because he was an idiot, Gore doing this just validated everyone that thought he would of been a piss poor leader of the USA. I am thinking more then one Democrat is happy a lot of mainstream press is going with the Cheney shooting off a gun, then Gore shooting off his pie hole.
There’s nothing wrong with a man in Gore’s position doing something for attention. Especially if it embarrasses the Bush Admin. There is absolutely nothing “idiotic” about Gore pointing out that his own country is sometimes wrong and the Muslims sometimes more sinned against than sinning. In fact, it demonstrates real leadership qualities, the kind we sorely lack from our leaders at present.
I wonder, do you reserve the same ire for those western newspapers that reprinted the Danish cartoons after the riots had begun? Or do you feel they too should have waited until:
Not happy, perhaps, but none of them would be anti-Western terrorists. Why would they?
To convert us infidels.
Yeah! We can’t have a leader of the USA admitting that the USA has done anything bad, even if it’s well documented and the whole world already knows about it! Real leaders go on lying and denying, no matter what!
There just aren’t enough :rolleyes: in the world…
This is just silly, if you cannot see something wrong with bringing up something that was done years ago, in the very throngs of same of the same people who want us dead, then I can see why you roll your eyes.
If he would of been talking to his fellow Democrats to try to garner some votes, I would be more understanding. The fact is he did it, in a Muslim nation, doing so does not help anything.
He wasn’t asked about this, do you not understand that. It would of been different if it was a press conference in Saudi where someone asked his views on how America treated Muslims after 9/11 he chose his speech, and gave it during a conference. He wasn’t in a position to have to lie or deny, he simply wanted to say it.
No, sorry, this isn’t making sense to me. What “throngs”? Gore’s speech was made at the Jeddah Economic Forum, a conference of bigwigs and fatcats from leadership positions throughout the world. There was nobody there who was unaware of the widely-reported post-9/11 mass incarcerations in the US, and all of them are what Islamist terrorists would consider either infidels or traitors.
I just don’t see how you can argue that a public figure ought to avoid talking about well-documented facts for fear of pissing off the Muslim extremists. (Especially if you simultaneously believe that the media ought to be reprinting gratuitously offensive anti-Muslim cartoons as a free-speech gesture, without caring whether it pisses off the Muslim extremists.)
The only way I can interpret this as a rational line of reasoning is through John’ s earlier remark:
If this is about what you might call “patriotic etiquette”, and the complaint is that Gore was letting his team down during an away game by criticizing their play at home, well, then I see the point. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand why it could be considered bad form.
But the idea that he should refrain from talking seriously about a serious issue in US civil liberties just because it might provoke the scary Muslims—no, sorry, I don’t understand it at all. Sounds like appeasement, pure and simple.
Or is the point really that we’re allowed to piss off the Muslims as long as we’re deliberately insulting them, but we’re not allowed to embarrass ourselves by acknowledging that we did something wrong?
Actually, near as I can tell, Abbie Normal is saying that Muslims are too stupid or ignorant or crazy or some such thing to rationally interpret Gore’s words and weigh them effectively. I guess she (?) believes that they’re ticking time bombs (bad choice of words, I know) just waiting to go off if someone says the wrong thing.
There probably are some who are, but I seriously doubt this speech will have any effect on their small numbers.
Also, a minor nitpick: if you are writing the words “would” and “of” in sequence, generally the only word that should follow would be “course”. Otherwise, you are more likely meaning to write “would have”.
So it’s ok for the former VP to got to the middle east in an effort to embarrass the Administration? (I left out the “time of war” phrase so as not to rile any one up.)
And just what did he say … that the US indiscriminately rounded up muslims in the US after 9/11. Doesn’t indiscrimanately mean without regard to specific circumstances? That sounds like we rounded up every Muslim just for being Muslim. I think we may have indiscriminately detained every one with a visa violation. BFD!
Just another example of a left-wing whack job pushing to the left as far as he can go without garnering attention from his left-wing media buddies. Have we had enough media outrage over the Cheney hunting accident yet?
Keep pushing Al !!
:rolleyes:
Nobody claimed that the US indiscriminately rounded up EVERY Muslim, but we indiscriminately rounded up a whole lot of them. As a recent review of a book on post-9/11 safety points out, many of the people detained hadn’t committed even minor offenses like visa violations, and the whole exercise was remarkably unproductive in terms of actually catching any terrorists:
Yes, if the US government is indiscriminately throwing people into jail (and physically abusing some of them) for minor bureaucratic violations or for nothing at all, simply because they belong to a certain demographic group, and thereby giving itself an image as a “bad cop” indifferent to the human rights of Arabs and/or Muslims, I do think that’s a BFD. And I want national leaders to criticize it, and I want it to stop.
Why not? As I mentioned in my previous message, this is the only objection to Gore’s conduct that seems even possibly coherent. But I haven’t seen anybody actually make a coherent case for it, rather than just calling it “bad form” or similarly vague deprecations. Please explain to us exactly why you think it’s not okay for a former VP to make a speech that “embarrasses the Administration”.
Yes.
Too foolish a question to ask, really. If Dan Quayle had bad-mouthed the Clinton Admin in some foreign setting, the MENA or anywhere else, no Dem would have questioned the propriety.
It is a BFD, if Muslims in the U.S. were specifically, disproportionately targeted while other aliens with the same violations were left (relatively) alone. BFD also, if the length of detention was any longer, or getting a hearing any more difficult, than for other aliens similarly detained, or of any aliens pre-9/11.
From your lips.
He will, and more power to him.
My bolding
Yes Gore said that, notice how in one of my other posts in this thread I said
That was one of my problems with this speech he did not give any specific’s he wanted it to sound as bad as possible.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...6021300275.html
Sure makes a case for him saying what you are claiming no one said.
Now for part B, I am not against embarrassing a former or current admin. I am against any American trying to gain brownie points and by doing so potentially giving people who want to kill us, ammo.