<p>I hate, hate, hate, hate both. In fact, I generally think religion is a total and complete waste of time. That said, however, while Islamic fundamentalism is the bad religious flavor de jour, I don’t think that on the balance Islam is so much worse than other religions. It just happens that Islam at the moment is being manipulated by numerous crafty and guileless leaders for various other socio political goals.</p>
<p>Every religious friend I have is peaceful and moderate. Some of them are Islamic. I think that all of their various religions are delusional, pointless, and to some degree predicated upon the violent, intensely exclusionary God who they worship. But I don’t think that any of the Abrahamic religions are innately more violent than any other, and I think that saying so makes one religionist. (is that a word?) Remember that there have been plenty of religiously motivated terrorists from all religions throughout history, it’s just that recently it’s Islam.</p>
<p>No, right wingers don’t strap on explosives. They hide in woods in Suburban New York and shoot doctors doing dishes. Or they plant bombs at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta. Or they destroy a building in Oklahoma City. </p>
<p>Do these acts not rise, in your estimation, to terrorism? Does that word in your lexicon only apply to Muslim extremists? So the KKK threatening an ACLU office doesn’t count? A clinic bombing or the bombing of a nightclub catering to gay Americans doesn’t count?</p>
<p>One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Apparently they are freedom fighters when they are Christian fundamentalists, but terrorists when Muslim.</p>
<p>Higherlead: the most important principle of fighting well is to know your enemy. We have a formidable enemy among the Islamic terrorists, but you are woefully ignorant of Islam, as demonstrated by your posts. There are remarkable schisms between Arab/non-Arab, Shi’ite/Sunni, Modern/Traditional, etc. And there are plenty of moderate Muslims. </p>
<p>In Iraq, we have taken a secular Arab state – albeit one ruled by a tyrant who did sponsor suicide bombers – and turned it into a state that will trend religious and that will only give power to a non-Arab Shi’ite state (Iran) that has identified as a goal the eradication of Israel and that will soon have nukes. Even if you believe all the nonsense you are purveying here, you must realize that what we have done has been counter to trying to stop radical Islam and its terrorist spawn. To think otherwise, is just ignorant.</p>
<p>I am as against radical Islam as you are and so some of the best things we can do to stop it, if it is in our power to help stop it: 1) Without sacrificing our interests, act in ways that justify and support moderates within Islam. 2) don’t destroy secular states in that part of the world and replace them with chaos that leads to the rise of religious states. 3) take steps that support the growth of economies in that part of the world.</p>
<p>He paid families of folks who died, much the same way the U.S. pays the families of our suicide death squads in Iraq today, “so they won’t be shooting at us here.” (The difference being, I think, that the U.S. promised payments to the families in advance en masse.)</p>
<p>Mrs. Clinton just told a group of Veteran’s that the surge is definitely working - BUT she wants to bring troops home… </p>
<p>From an AP article today: … “Senator Hillary Clinton’s view that the president’s Iraq policy is ‘working’ is another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways. You cannot be for the president’s strategy in Iraq but against the war.” "</p>
<p>US fundamentalists did gain a major victory in Iraq, however.</p>
<p>Up till now, in Kurdistan, the government has simply ignored a national law stating that women cannot get a passport without the permission of a male relative. But no more. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She was one of the lucky ones. Her husband was still alive to grant permission. Women without living male relatives to vouch for them cannot get a passport at all. It can only be a husband, father, uncle or brother, and many Iraqi women have none of those left alive and in the country.</p>
<p>“In Iraq, we have taken a secular Arab state …”</p>
<p>I am not sure what was seclar about Saddam’s Iraq. Was it the Q’uran he allegedly had witten with his own blood or was it the words “Allahu Akbar” he had inscribed on the national flag? May it was his promise to liberate the holy sites in Jerusalem or making the study of the Q’uran compulsory in the schools? Oh wait maybe it was the Mother of All Battles Mosque he had built with the scud missile shaped minarets? You cannot keep a Q’uran written in your own blood just any old place can you?</p>
<p>Hussein was a Baathist, foremostly. That doesn’t mean he didn’t manipulate religious symbols, but the fact that you see no distinction between Iraq under Saddam or Wahhabist Saudi Arabia or Theocratic Iran pretty much spells out what I am talking about…</p>
<p>There seems to be a discrepancy between post 348 by 1sokkermom and the information given in post 349.</p>
<p>In post 348 sokkermom says what she claims Sen. Clinton said, and then gives a quote apparently from a political opponent of Mrs. Clinton’s. Sokkermom uses the quote without attribution in an attempt to show that Sen. Clinton is being disingenuous. To make matters worst, the way that sokkermom gave the quote it appears that the quote is from a news organization and not one of Sen. Clinton’s political opponents. </p>
<p>My first question is, is my reading of these two posts correct?</p>
<p>My second question is, is it deceitful to use a quote from someone’s political opposition and have it appears as a quote from a news organization?</p>
<p>My third question is, if the answer to my first two questions is yes, would sokkermon please explain her apparent deceitfulness?</p>
<p>My point, tommybill, is that Hillary seems to want to appease the Veteran’s by claiming that the recent surge is working and that the military is doing a good job. Yet, in the same breath, she wants to bring the troops home to appease the anti-war voters.</p>
<p>It is not a complicated comment. Please stop dissecting everything I say.
The article I quoted was from an AP news article. I didn’t take claim to any reference other than to present it as a quote, not my own words. I threw it out for comment, and to generate further discussion. I was hoping that someone could provide a clearer explanation. Somehow I knew you would present a nasty condescending comment directed at me personally.</p>
<p>I am clearly not the only one confused about Hillary’s stance on the war. And yes, it is very important to me for reasons previously stated. Since you seem to follow my every post, I’m sure you know my own personal interest in understanding her view on the military, and particularly on her plan to deal with current and future troops in Iraq! I am intersted in all the candidates’ views on this issue. Since she is the so called fron runner on the Democratic side, her view needs to be clear. In my opinion, it is not. Period. </p>
<p>Please STOP making everything a personal attack. That is not the purpose of this type of discussion board. Thank you.</p>
<p>To other cc posters, I apologize for such a personal attack from tommybill. For that reason, I will refrain from further posts on this board. It is not fair to the rest of you. Tommybill has such an unhealthy obsession with analyzing anything that I say about Clinton that it makes me disgusted and a bit freaked out.</p>
<p>sokkermom, you made a statement about a politician which was apparently untrue, “supported” that statement with a quote which was out of context in a way which concealed the fact that it was untrue, and then when those facts were pointed out, said nothing. In fact, in your first paragraph of your most recent post, you repeated the unsupported accusation, instead of acknowledging what could otherwise be explained as a simple mistake. I could have passed on the quote you posted to someone else, thinking it was a fair representation of events, simply because I read it here. If I had done so, and then read Conyat’s correction, I would follow up with a mea culpa and move on. You’ve apparently elected not to do so, but rather to insist that your smear of HC is true and anyone who challenges you on it is “unhealthy.”</p>
<p>Even in an anonymous internet community personal integrity has a value. There are people here whom I vigorously disagree with about - well, almost everything - and while I think they’re tremendously gullible and/or wrong-headed about what they believe I nonetheless respect their integrity with regard to their presentation of what they think are facts.</p>
<p>I had the same response to the earlier posts that Tommybill had. The fact that I didn’t write out what he did doesn’t mean his doing so was inappropriate or wrong, simply that most of us just look the other way and ignore posts like that. But there’s nothing wrong with blowing the whistle on whoppers every once in a while.</p>
<p>I’m not going to comment on the political content of any of these posts. I will, however, comment on what I view as a continued form of abuse directed toward any vaguely conservative voice on CC. </p>
<p>Sokkermom – a poster who has never described herself as conservative, by the way – has been accused of lying (see post #354) and of lacking in integrity (see post #356.) From what I read, she made a statement based on what another politician said – clearly, the most egregious wrong doing imaginable on CC. So, for her possibly misguided interpretation of a remark by a public figure, she is pilloried in the most personal and insulting way on this forum. </p>
<p>There is never room for discussion when the only mode of debate is personal attack. What’s the point of talking about issues with only those who share one’s opinion?</p>
<p>I’ve pretty much given up on the concept of civil behavior on CC, and this is just more evidence of why it’s such a waste of time. Good luck, sokkermom, and thank you again for your family’s service to this country.</p>
I’m a bit puzzled how anyone reading the offending quote could think that this was anything but the opinion of another person and not “news” reporting. Granted, the media has been very sloppy in their editorializing in their news coverage, but even the most politically biased news organization is not so blunt in expressing its opinions as part of a news story. So, to answer Tommybill’s question - no you are not reading it correctly.</p>
<p>sjmom, the playing field of opinions here is pretty level, a fact that some people who are accustomed to communicating only with others who already agree with them find uncomfortable. I have repeatedly read complaints here from people who have been corrected (with factual backup) after having posted factual assertions which are simply false, that they are being picked on, harassed, stalked, etc. If I state an opinion and back it up with an assertion of fact I run the risk of being confronted with contradictory evidence. If so, I should acknowledge my error of fact (although I am free to persist in my opinions, of course) rather than attack the messenger for contradicting me. </p>
<p>If you make a factual assertion and it is demonstrated that that factual assertion is false you’re not a victim. There clearly are places out there in the world and on the internet where casual falsehoods are repeated and exposing those falsehoods is considered bad manners - even “uncivil”. It’s also clear that there are some CC posters who spend time in those other places and are shocked when the same social standards don’t prevail here. So shocked, in fact, that they see themselves as victims. But they’re not.</p>
<p>Well, if I see the quote from her as “We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, **it’s working. **” then it seems to be a fairly accurate portrayal of what Clinton said. I would think that to interpret it as anything but a Clinton admission that the surge is working would be spin.</p>
</p>