So she is giving tacit approval to any country that launches a pre-empitve attack on us, because they are afraid of our extremism?
Wars against 'religious extremist'
- Thread starter X3pilot
- Start date
"Unprovoked" still doesn't hold. The bltch slap didn't just occur out of nowhwere.
Disproportionate reaction? Sure.
Last edited:
Here's the quote.
Bold part quoted by gibson. He did take it out of context.
Where else did she say this without the context of praying for this to be the case?
She's a nutjob for sure, but I think this one needs to go.
my hearing & my reading are in fine working order.
just in case context means more than "selective hearing", here's all 9 min of it, with the particular part of concern just before the 4 min mark, where there's apparently some editing going on (fading in/out between segments - not the black screen stuff)
"we have to make sure we're praying for a plan and that it's God's plan"
in other words, just what she explained to charlie when he asked his condescending question.
do you care about context, or are you more interested in playing 'gotcha!'? if the latter, then you must believe that obama's a muslim who thinks we have 57 states.
He's going to help the country grow AND get rid of christian based initiatives!!
I love this man!
oh absolutely the b\tch slap was calculated & rationalized. russia is unconditionally supportive of north ossetians, and is their way in to re-establishing mother russia into south ossetia.
this may have played itself out already, but that putin's devilishly shrewd, so likely not.
And georgia knew this. They acted with full knowledge of a potential russian reaction. I'd like to think my future pitbull in chief is aware of these things. Especially when discussions of future miltary engagements come up. Oui?
Thank god she knows russia so well by proximity. Her view into moscow from the aleutian archipelago must have afforded her vast insights into putin's long term goals to a degree we can only begin to fathom.
Unlike the GOP I am concerned with context. However I fail to see how she did not make the claim that the war is the will of God. We could spend endless amounts of time arguing semantics on this issue. But the point remains that the intent of her statement, although arguable, was that it is God's plan.
Please explain to me how that statement conveys anything other than her view that the war is the will of God.
ok
so at worst she's a flip-flopper, and at best you can't follow her explanation
if you can't swallow the explanation she gave to charlie, then you must think abe lincoln was also a war monger (he was a republican, y'know)
must say, i haven't seen this kind of scrutiny for a similarly experienced veep since the kerry/edwards ticket.
oh wait...
Abe was a different kind of Republican than the hypocrites we have now. Fiscal responsibility and small gov't ideals are preached but not practiced by the GOP these days. If they were at all like Honest Abe, I'd be voting differently.
Nor have I feared the mid-term death of a candidate before. So what's worse?
true; no self-respecting republican would have a bat**** crazy wife.
a trollop who wears too much make-up...now that's a different story.
Sorry, but that was not an explanation as much as it was back pedaling and an attempt to redirect the focus of the question.
I take issue with this not because I want to argue semantics, but because there is a fundamental flaw in her view point. To make a statement that even insinuates that war is the will of God is detrimental to all Americans. The US is a huge melting pot of race, culture, and religion. Her statement that the war in Iraq is God's plan is not only arrogant but perpetuates the notion that one religion is more significant than another. Although Christianity is the largest religion in the US there are others. You cannot represent the beliefs of all Americans when you tout one religion over another. It is my sincere belief that true representation by our government officials should be devoid of any religious influence. Naive, maybe, but our nation was founded on two major principles, the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
sure it was.
more importantly, you have the fundamental misunderstanding both of what she said in church & to charlie. so you see it comes down to this: you believe what she says (in any or no context) when you can use it against her & justify your disdain for her, and dismiss what she says if it doesn't square with the view of her you have already shaped.
if we step onto the red trolley & go to never-never-land where she said this, there was certainly never a notion that "God's plan" means pitting "the one true religion" against islam. you're projecting the filter of what you perceive her interpretation of God to be: that he is graceless, unforgiving, vengeful, and arbitrary (to say nothing of imaginary)
speaking of fundamental flaws...
No, I heard what she said. You choose to deny it.
No, I see her for what she is, a religious right wing nut job with insufficient qualifications to perform the job she is applying for. If she were Democrat you and every other Republican would be tearing into her like pihrana on poodle that fell over board.
That is exactly what she is saying. How is it right that Palin along with her supporters promotes the idea that one religion is good and one is evil ?
I'm not projecting anything. I'm observing a dangerous combination of government and religion.
So are you saying that our nation was founded on a flawed idea ?
since it's already been established the context of the comments, let's listen again at just the segment which addresses a "holy war": http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=5783919
and if you still think she believes this is a holy war that's ordained by God, then you must apply the same rigor and arrive at the inescapable conclusion that obama is a muslim. after all, he said it himself:
article II of the u.s. constitution stringently disagrees
yes, that's why in all honesty i declare obama's a flag-burning unpatriotic muslim who thinks we have 57 states.
since you are far more informed than i on this topic, when has either palin or her supporters proclaimed any religion as evil? pay attention: i have given you more leeway by allowing her supporters and more than one religion. find it or move to canada
do you know fcuk all about any level of government & religion being combined? do you take umbrage that i vote in a church on election day, or that congress opens with a prayer to the all mighty God, or that obama has given a keynote address on religious renewal as senator?
i'm saying you're ignorant.
if the answer is revealed to you & still don't accept it, then you're either unteachable (rendering you stupid by definition), or malicious.
demonstrate you have appropriate understanding of why the framers created the constitution & i'll walk a little further with you. barring that, we're done. it would be foolish to continue.
God's plan, to a Pentecostal, is predicated on the fact that every other religion is false.
It's the first goddamned commandment. By pretending that you're not aware of this, you're also breaking number nine.
Meh. She said let's pray that she's on our side.
Subtle nuance but still just as insane.
It's like asking forgiveness instead of permission. I'm going to go on a killing spree and pray that it is god's will, that should justify it.
It's the implication of the statement that suggests Christianity must triumph over Islam. During the Bush administration the Muslim faith has unjustly become synonymous with terrorism. The GOP would be thrilled to have everyone believe that all Muslims are terrorist haters of America.
Given me leeway ? Oh thank you so much for allowing me to voice my opinion.
You think I'm ignorant, unteachable, stupid, or malicious because I don't sip from the same hate laden ladle of GOP cool-aid that you do. You are as arrogant and as condescending as the the Right Wing politicians you follow.
i called it bitchez: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/
(not exactly up to the same journalistic standard as huffpo or dailykos, sorry)
(not exactly up to the same journalistic standard as huffpo or dailykos, sorry)
Fixed.
Well that certainly hold for any of the Abrahamic faiths, it's not really applicable to this conversation since Palin is in fact a Pentecostal.
Pentecostal = Christian = Abrahamic Faith
The AG is not hard core like some of the other Pentecostal Denominations (UPC, Holiness, and etc) about "if you don't believe our way you're going to hell."
The AG is not hard core like some of the other Pentecostal Denominations (UPC, Holiness, and etc) about "if you don't believe our way you're going to hell."
Pentecostals play with snakes during church services down here. F***ing weirdos.
Well... not really any weirder than dragging a tree into your house during the middle of winter and hanging useless **** off it, and then outright lying to your kids telling them that a bearded, and morbidly obese man who flies around with reindeer is going to come down the chimney and give them a bunch of crap they don't need... but whatever.
Yes, but a tree and an imaginary fat man can't bite and kill you.
Oh, wait, maybe I'm wrong here. If the intent is ignored and the literal interpretation only is applied then the snakes are harmless as it is the venom that is to blame.
Jumpin Jeebus the answer has been revealed to me, I am healed.
Of course they do...I thought you were inferring that since Palin is Pentecostal that she was somehow not Christian. As an aside, the concept of Hell/Hades/Sheoul is falling out of some denominations' doctrine.
Then what's the motivation to follow all those stupid rules? Im sure we'll see a huge spike in neighbor's wife coveting.
Any time I hear someone say that something is the "will of God", I file them under N for Nutcase, with a crossreference to D for Dangerous. I figure if god wanted something like the annihilation of Muslims done he would just do it himself, seeing as how he did have the wherewithal to create the universe and all that, kind of thing. He wouldn't give such a complicated assignment to the Republicans, I'm sure, since the head guy can't even understand or speak his native language fluently. Maybe if he (god, I mean) wrote it out in one syllable words, with accompanying pictures.
Just as a matter of interest and pardon any apparent rudeness on my part, but is it fair for a Muslim to say that hurricane Ike is the will of god, since it is devastating the homes and lives of the infidels? Katrina must have been one of his better efforts then.
If people would leave references to god out of it, since he is a figment at best, and own up to their own motives for their behavior, it would go a long way to promoting honesty and understanding. Which is, of course, why politicians and religious leaders will never do so.
Just as a matter of interest and pardon any apparent rudeness on my part, but is it fair for a Muslim to say that hurricane Ike is the will of god, since it is devastating the homes and lives of the infidels? Katrina must have been one of his better efforts then.
If people would leave references to god out of it, since he is a figment at best, and own up to their own motives for their behavior, it would go a long way to promoting honesty and understanding. Which is, of course, why politicians and religious leaders will never do so.
Not in my neighborhood. You oughtta see the wives, except mine of course. And I believe the rules say I'm allowed to covet her.
Sweet, my neighbors have really hot wives...
So yeah, anyone wanna take a bet it was some radical Seventh-Day Adventists who tried to blow up the US embassy in Sa'naa today?
Seriously, if you can't see a difference between an worldwide affiliation of religious extremists currently bent on bringing the *entire* world under the control of a single religious heirarchy through violence (using "defense" as their cover, mind you, but as only that), your academic relativizing blinders are too far implanted for there to be any sort of useful discussion on the issue.
This is not to say Islam is itself inherently worse than any other religion/religious organization/faction thereof, past or present, but it's just an analysis of current conditions. (And with that, one must admit that Islam's source documents do make it pretty easy to take polticization of the religion to the extreme and are directly usable in support of violence in a way that even the Old Testament isn't...but that is not to say that moderate forms aren't prevalent or are somehow incompatable with modernity.)
It's also not to say the US is handling the very real Islamic threat in a particularly effective way (not that I have too many great ideas myself, mind you).
Have other religions done terrible things? Do they continue to? Yep. But there's a difference of scale here that's so readily apparent that if you can't see it, you're not really fit to be part of the discussion.
Seriously, if you can't see a difference between an worldwide affiliation of religious extremists currently bent on bringing the *entire* world under the control of a single religious heirarchy through violence (using "defense" as their cover, mind you, but as only that), your academic relativizing blinders are too far implanted for there to be any sort of useful discussion on the issue.
This is not to say Islam is itself inherently worse than any other religion/religious organization/faction thereof, past or present, but it's just an analysis of current conditions. (And with that, one must admit that Islam's source documents do make it pretty easy to take polticization of the religion to the extreme and are directly usable in support of violence in a way that even the Old Testament isn't...but that is not to say that moderate forms aren't prevalent or are somehow incompatable with modernity.)
It's also not to say the US is handling the very real Islamic threat in a particularly effective way (not that I have too many great ideas myself, mind you).
Have other religions done terrible things? Do they continue to? Yep. But there's a difference of scale here that's so readily apparent that if you can't see it, you're not really fit to be part of the discussion.
The threat of terrorism to countries is highly overstated. They don't have the support of the people of nearly every country on Earth. I am much more concerned about the religious extremists in the South because they wield actual political control and influence.
The best way to neuter terrorists groups is to treat them like a street gang. Use intelligence agencies to track them down and remove their structure. The problem with trying to do the war on terror is that you can't crush the ideology by killing the people that believe in it, you have to attack the groups that are carrying out attacks and solve the source of the problem in the Middle East. The problem is Israel and Palestine.
Terrorists will only kill people and hurt buildings, the more violent they are, the less support they get from the people.
The best way to neuter terrorists groups is to treat them like a street gang. Use intelligence agencies to track them down and remove their structure. The problem with trying to do the war on terror is that you can't crush the ideology by killing the people that believe in it, you have to attack the groups that are carrying out attacks and solve the source of the problem in the Middle East. The problem is Israel and Palestine.
Terrorists will only kill people and hurt buildings, the more violent they are, the less support they get from the people.
As far as methods go, I don't really disagree...but I would point out that the overall weapon against desperate ideologies is eliminating desperate circumstances.
Spending half of what we've spent on the entire Iraq debacle outright to help improve living conditions around the world probably would have paid dividends against terrorism FAR beyond anything military efforts would have provided. Real extremists would take with one hand as they try to slit our throats with the other, but that's a given...what we need to do is eliminate the circumstances that allow them to thrive and draw others into the fold. (However, we may be beyond that point, too, as many of the most committed are educated and westernized, and are drawn to a "struggle" for largely aesthetic reasons...although the actual manpower for the larger part of the attacks is manipulated and ignorant, too.)
That said, um, we're talking about Muslim extremism and resultant terrorism, not any other religious flavor, so again, the obvious knocks us on the head.
As far as it "not being serious," well, that's sort of an academic point, too. It's pretty goddamned serious when your life is at risk. But I think a hystrionic outcry, which America is pretty good at, plays into terrorist hands and accentuates your vulnerability rather than a more measured (especially vis-a-vis the media) response.
Spending half of what we've spent on the entire Iraq debacle outright to help improve living conditions around the world probably would have paid dividends against terrorism FAR beyond anything military efforts would have provided. Real extremists would take with one hand as they try to slit our throats with the other, but that's a given...what we need to do is eliminate the circumstances that allow them to thrive and draw others into the fold. (However, we may be beyond that point, too, as many of the most committed are educated and westernized, and are drawn to a "struggle" for largely aesthetic reasons...although the actual manpower for the larger part of the attacks is manipulated and ignorant, too.)
That said, um, we're talking about Muslim extremism and resultant terrorism, not any other religious flavor, so again, the obvious knocks us on the head.
As far as it "not being serious," well, that's sort of an academic point, too. It's pretty goddamned serious when your life is at risk. But I think a hystrionic outcry, which America is pretty good at, plays into terrorist hands and accentuates your vulnerability rather than a more measured (especially vis-a-vis the media) response.
It is partly desperate circumstances, but there is a giant "FVCK YOU" sign in the Middle East propped up by the U.S. Israel gets away with all kinds of ****, and if the Israel situation was calmed down, it would go a long way to stopping terrorism before it begins.
Part of the problem is poor conditions, a much larger part is Israel and western imperialism. The Middle East has always reacted violently to imperialism and has always kept fighting until it became too expensive for the occupying force to stay.
I don't consider it serious, because it won't affect whether the nation will be here tomorrow. The American people's reactions, the media's reactions, and the Bush administration's reactions will determine the path the country takes.
Part of the problem is poor conditions, a much larger part is Israel and western imperialism. The Middle East has always reacted violently to imperialism and has always kept fighting until it became too expensive for the occupying force to stay.
I don't consider it serious, because it won't affect whether the nation will be here tomorrow. The American people's reactions, the media's reactions, and the Bush administration's reactions will determine the path the country takes.
Israel and "western imperialism" are a cover for the true believers, who are QUITE happy to have those justifications for their actions and a mask for their ultimate goal.
That said, strip away that cover, and they will lose a lot of the general support they enjoy from otherwise more moderate Muslims, which is a good thing.
That said, strip away that cover, and they will lose a lot of the general support they enjoy from otherwise more moderate Muslims, which is a good thing.
Oh definitely, it originates with Qutb's time in the U.S where he saw the vanity that western thinking causes. One of his biggest problems was how much time Americans spent tending their lawns.
If you want to kill the movement, fix the injustices that go on, and then it will lose followers and support.
What do you think the religious views of the pilot who dropped that bomb on the Afghan village a month ago was? Statisically, I have a guess...
Of course, his religious views have nothing to do with it, right? That only matters when you're poor and on the short end of the global power stick.
We simply can't pretend that the religious views of the US and its leaders don't matter. Especially when the commander in chief and the current candidates running for the job are banging the gong for God's wars...