Agreed. As I said, also, I think they both just slipped and that neither remark is truly cause for concern.
Printable View
Agreed. As I said, also, I think they both just slipped and that neither remark is truly cause for concern.
I think I can understand how a lot of Americans will see someone saying "9/11 in America's chickens coming home to roost" as hateful against American people and not just policies. I got downright fucking pissed off when I heard Pat Robertson's suggestion. But here's the thing, While Reverend Wright blamed Americas policy and then made an outrageous statement that made him appear to justify 9/11, Pat Roberston justified 9/11 by blaming the Culture of America.
As I understand it UM, your justification of 9/11 is that these religious zealots are raised to praise violence and think of America as an evil entity worthy of suffering. Honestly, I agree with that. The terrorists in planning were not making a distinction between the Culture of America, its policies, or its people. They were all one evil entity. To American extremists like Wright and Robertson, America is still evil and 9/11 is still therefore as justified as it was to the terrorists themselves. Therefore, in a sense, they're both anti-american, whether they hate the culture or the policies, at the end of the day the ones who receive the violence are innocent Americans. The only difference is, Wright still likes our culture, and Robertson still likes our policies.
So justifying it is anti-american in some way, irregardless. Saying that the idea of what-goes-around-comes-around is a superstition is a bit much, though. The fact is, we were attacked for both our culture, and our policy. Osama blames both in his tapes. There was a deep resentment against our occupation in the Muslim World for the last 30 years and a deep resentment against our culture of Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. I can agree that our actions in the Middle East were horribly atrocious. I can also say by studying history and human nature, this country could expect repercussions, not right away, but in time. This is not some superstition that God was casting revenge against us, this is my opinion that usually people that are suppressed from freedom by the armies of some mutated religion, they'll find some secret way to get them back. Just as a a kid being bullied in school picks up a gun and starts shooting classmates. Some were bullies, some were innocent, but they aren't judges anymore, they're artists. They're sending a message without words. While it's horrible, it's a natural reaction due to human nature and the only real way to prevent it is to get out of the Middle East. In that sense, I do agree that our chickens came home to roost.
Robertson, on the other hand, also releases a tape where he might as well have been Osama bin Laden: they both blame God and they both say God did it because he hates the culture of America. That, I find personally offensive, because while I can study history and understand why I country I was born into received a deadly attack, I can't understand how someone could say it happened because of Drugs, Sex and Rock and Roll, pieces of my culture and my identity. So, God took lives because I smoke pot? Not only is that alone horribly offensive, but it does nothing to stop the activity from continuing in the future. The fact is, if these kids weren't raised as orphans to parents murdered in bombings or uranium poisoning they wouldn't be in a state vulnerable enough to become terrorists.
Their motivations are different, Osama bin Laden uses Allah's judgment as a scapegoat so he doesn't face the fact that he claimed thousands of lives. Robertson uses it to feed his ego by getting big old "I told you so." I think if most Americans understood the depth of the atrocities this country has committed in the Middle East, they would understand my opinion. Wright doesn't put it like that, he draws a straight, bizarre line that touches a lot of soft spots in American people.
I don't think it'll cost Obama any votes though because I don't think anyone voting for Obama watches Fox News with an IQ low enough to fall for the irrational arguments they imply. Those retarded Americans that are just jumping on some liberal bandwagon because of the times but would be uncomfortable if they thought their president went to a spiritual leader that condoned 9/11 luckily don't watch the only News Outlet that puts it that way. Only smart liberals and consveratives watch fox news, so only they hear that argument, and then they study really hard, go back to the liberal channels which now have a huge ratings boost due to all the corruption in the Republican Party, and they paint him just as white as Fox News painted him black. So yeah, that 30% of the country that still watches Fox News, they are totally against a man that goes to an anti-american spiritual leader, but the other 70% of the country is voting for a man whose priest believes the muslims attacked us because of deep resentment against our occupation there. Let's see, -15% due to voter fraud and the outcomes is... 55%-45% Obama wins!
You are preaching to the atheist choir when you tell me about Pat Robertson. I would rather Wright be president than Robertson. No argument on that.
Wright talked about America's chickens coming home to roost after discussing the WWII nukings and the supposed American government invention of the AIDS virus. Al Qaeda did not attack us on either of those grounds. Wright was pulling a Pat Robertson. He was saying we were getting what the higher forces decided we should get. He condoned 9/11 as a righteous supernatural act.
In response to your Fox News comment, Fox is not the only news network that ran the Wright story, and... don't you watch Fox News?
Granted, but the point is they're both anti-american because they condone terrorism against american citizens. One of McCain's spiritual leaders has said some of the same things Robertson has, granted he may not have married McCain to his wife or baptized his children, they both place their faith in extremist, anti-americans. Obama has distanced himself from Wright assertively and condemned the claimed outright. What has McCain done about the claims from his spiritual leader. It makes me uncomfortable to think of having a president that does not condemn the words of someone they considered a teacher when they're anti-american. Obama condemned them. They were out of line, but at least they show he was influenced by someone that taught him to look beyond conventional reality so maybe he'll have a little imagination.
How close is McCain to that pastor? I thought he called him "a" spiritual advisor but not "my" spiritual advisor. Maybe I missed part of the story, so what exactly is the relationship? Just having said that much about somebody does not seem like enough to call for a public condemnation upon learning the truth about him. Is the guy McCain's pastor, and for how long? If McCain went to that guy's church for twenty years and heard that kind of shit all the time and knew what his spiritual advisor was about, he won't be getting my vote.
Obama went to Wright's church for twenty years. That is a fifth of a century. His recent conemnation, which was nowhere near passionate enough, was a day late and a dollar short.
Wright never blamed the 9/11 victims for anything. He blamed the US Gov not the victims at all. I challenge you to come up with Wright saying anything of the sort (blaming the 9/11 victims for the attacks which befell them). He was blaming the US Gov mainly not the victims themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
He said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost." He said that after talking about things that happened sixty years ago and mentioned 9/11 as an act against the same entity that committed the act sixty years ago and so forth. He was calling the bomb droppers "America" and the 9/11 victims "America" and making a connection between the two very different individuals he refers to all of as "America" and saying that what one group did created some bizarre thing that resulted in an Al Qaeda attack on the other, as if it was called for by some superstitious element. Al Qaeda did not attack the victims because they dropped bombs in Japan or because they invented the AIDS virus, so Wright was therefore talking about something superstitious and involving guilt by label. It is not like he was saying evil spread to innocent victims. He was saying action came back to the actors. Right? That is exactly how you talk when you say babies in Israel get what's coming to them because of what "the" Israelis did. More than anything, he was expressing hate against the United States and saying the United States asked for 9/11, not that Al Qaeda was way the Hell out of line.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
again.....As i understand it he was not blaming the american people for it, he was going after the government and saying america does this (ie the GOV & Military) then then the chicken comes to roost or whatever that means. You know what goes around comes around. He wasn't blaming the 9/11 Victims. He was just sayin' america slaps somone and then you guys get slapped back. He wasn''t putting responsibility on the victims themselves and dont pretend he did even for one secounds, dont try and play a game of semantics here UM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
And for what its even worth have you seen even the whole sermon? All that was released were soundbites maybe you should take alook at the whole thing and not just soundbites. Soundbites can be very deceptive......
Though it's been said, I agree with dragonoverlord. While UM is right that his words (I guess) could be litterally interpretted as blame on "America as a whole", I think it's 100% obvious that it was not what he meant. Furthermore, I find it really really hard to believe that someone with what I know is Universal's considerable level of common sense refuses to acknowledge that by saying "America," he was not blaming 9/11 on the 9/11 victims, but on the government that arguably provoked the attack - unless for the ulterior motive of furthering the "guilty by association" stigma against Obama.
I still agree that he should have chosen his words more carefully, and that he put himself in this position of being persecuted for the way he said what he said, but I think it's overtly obvious what he actually meant, and it wasn't the way it's being spun.
Agreed. When Wright said "God bless America? No...God damn America," he was not imploring a deity to rain down firestorms, he was pointing out that our actions are not in keeping with our avowed principles and the natural consequences have followed. Was he attacking America from some outside position? No, he was speaking from within to say "We must change." It's a very common sentiment and commonly put in strong terms, and declaring it anti-American is a calculated action on the part of the Right to marginalize those who threaten a profitable status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright does have some wacky ideas on the specifics, and he used the opportunity to grab the spotlight and undermine Obama, but his core message was a voice of conscience, a spreading dissatisfaction that cannot be bullied into silence. As it reflects on Obama, I would much sooner support a leader who understands that "What we will one day be, we are now becoming," and doesn't expect to destroy ideas by striking down men.
Well said.^
And I think the most telling testament to the idea is that, in many of his "anti-American" excerpts, he refers to America as "We." The word "We" often implies pesonal involvement. Is he wishing this damnation upon himself, as well - being apart of the America (country) that God should damn? Of course not. He was using the word "We" as a label for "our nation's policy," just as he was using "America" as a label for those who execute that policy.
He said, "America." Also, he was not talking about American policy that inspired 9/11 (because Al Qaeda is insane). He talked about the bombings of Japan and the supposed American invention of the AIDS virus, which are not Al Qaeda beefs. Why would he talk about something coming back on America while talking about variables that did not influence the attack on America if he is not talking about some kind of supernatural righteousness? Such talk is a condoning. ]Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Did you see what I boldfaced? The people who did the slapping and the people who got slapped are not the same people, but Wright spoke as if they were, and you did too.
Yes, I have seen the whole sermon on You Tube.
He did say, "We," some, and that shows that he is speaking from within, but it shows that he was taking some of the responsibility. I can assure you that you will never catch me saying "we" anything when it comes to American foreign policies I don't agree with. I don't think like that. You will also never catch me saying, "God damn America," and meaning it. Quoting Wright is probably the only situation in which I will ever say it at all. Such a quote shows hatred for the country, not mere disagreement with policy. I don't see any way around that.
Now somebody please tell me whether Parseley is McCain's actual pastor and for how long he has been, if he is. Does anybody know? I keep seeing "McCain's pastor" all over the internet, and MSNBC and CNN keep using the perhaps deceptive terminology "McCain's pastor problem". Every time I look into it, I get vague beat around the bush stuff that doesn't clear up the issue. What is the story on that?
I was giving a simplistic analogy but in no why was i insinuating that was the case. I merely meant that america has bitched slaped alot of people and that eventually america will and has been bitched slaped back. You can't mess with alot of people without somoene coming around later and messing with you its gonna happen eventually, someones gonna be disgruntled enough to come after you. Capishe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
He says WE because he is an american and he is talking about America the country or whatever. But now we're just getting into semantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Right before he says "God dam america" he lists a bunch of things america has done which are very bad or something(lots of innoncents dead) like bombing Nagaski and Hiroshima. Then he says God bless america. nah nah god dam america, god dam america as in god dam america for what its done. (Not exact quote)
He wasn't showing hatred for the country but for the polices and what he has done. You are taking the words god dam america as meaning something of a loathing for the country when he was saying god dam america in terms of its actions or whatever.
and he wasn't blaming the 9/11 victims or putting responsibility on them for the attacks that befell them either so dont try and spin it that way either man.
C'mon Onerognaught and Taosaur help me out here :P
You lost me....I have no idea what your talking about. I guess it wasnt on the Daily Show...Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
What did you say there that you have not already said? You and Wright put the Japan bombers and the 9/11 victims under the same level and talk as though it is the way of God or Zeus or whaterver for one to take the responsibility of the other. It is not some righteous process of kharma or supersition or something. There is not even a connection. Al Qaeda did what they did because they are lunatic scum that was pissed off about a whole lot of shit that Wright was not talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
He did not say, "God damn those actions from way back!" He said, "God damn America!" The difference between those two statements is extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Oh no, I think I see the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
There is no way I am voting for mccain or obama. I am tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. I am voting for someone competent even if I have to write their name onto the ballot.
Like I said: I know you're smarter than that, UM. I've debated with you far too many times to let you slide on this, because I know that, under a different context, you would be (and have been) much more understanding. Maybe it's the personal nature of the subject or something, but you've certainly regressed on this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
You have been in far too many discussions in ED where members (including myself) have used the term "We" when referring to American Foreign Policy, even when We (the debaters) disagree with said issue. It happens far too often for me to just sit here and believe that you're being completely unbiased when, before, you have never batted an eye at it. Yet, here, where the semantics are the hinge of the entire argument, you are displaying selective amnesia.
In essence, you are calling me anti-American, because I have used the labels "We" and "The U.S." (analogous to "America") in my "The U.S. Does Not Torture" thread, and countless others. Are you saying that since my stance in that one thread (for example) was that the U.S. does torture, that I am giving myself responsibility for the same government "interrogation" that I was speaking out against?
You are being entirely inconsistent on this one issue. If you believe Wright is anti-American, that's your prerogative, but you are undermining years of DV debate by suddenly taking such a stance, on the "we" / "America" argument alone.
You have never seen me say "we" when it comes to things I am highly against. I always distance myself when it comes to things like stealing land from Inidians, slavery, the Tuskegee experiment, and manifest destiny. I avoid use of that word intentionally to illustrate that not all Americans are responsible for it. I do way "we" when it comes to the good things our country has done because it is stuff I support.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
You are putting way too much into this small part of the big subject. I don't have a problem with Wright for saying "we". I just used that fact to help illustrate that he does blame America on the whole (which is now 300,000 people) and not just in part for 9/11 due to the Japan bombings and other stuff that had nothing to do with 9/11. Do you see my point on that?
No, I have not called you anti-American, I have not hinted that you are anti-American, I have not said anything you could deduce to conclude that I think you are anti-American, and I have never thought of you as anti-American. I was using the word "we" to help help show that Wright hates the United States, not because of use of the word "we" alone. It is his connection between two entirely groups of Americans involved in two very unconnected acts of war and his other comments that form the big picture I am talking about. Most Americans say "we" when talking about anything involving the government or people in the context of being American. I am an exception. I am talking about a big picture, not just one piece of it. It is what Wright said beyond "we" that has me saying this stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright basically said America did this, so America got that completely unconnected (through anything other than some weird superstitious nonsense) punishment. When you think about that and his, "God damn America!" comment, you get a picture of how much that guy likes his country.
God damn the South! God damn the South because we have spoken out against necessary interrogation methods and that is why we saw so many of our people murdered in gang turf wars last year! (I'm just kidding. I don't really hate the South.)
P.S.- Thanks for the compliments.
I think this is kind of a strange way to attribute whether or not "we" is a suitable word for such situations, but I understand more where you stand on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I simply don't agree with you on that. Because of the context of his words, I just don't believe he's blaming all of America on the attacks. I'm willing to admit that it's speculation on my part. I do think that you're in suitable enough position to say that, because of what he said, but I just don't believe that that's what he was doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I think there is a difference between feeling a karmic connection between past governmental atrocities and the 9/11 victims than blaming the victims or saying that they (the victims) somehow got what they deserved. I believe that the point was more than the U.S. government brought the attacks upon itself and that the karmic connection was the subsequent 'bloody hands' that came as a result of the attacks. Do you see what I mean? If I, as a teenager, went around killing the first born sons of other people and, as an adult, my first born son was killed by another, someone that believed in karma would say that I got what I deserved - the murder of my first born son. It would not be his position that my son was somehow deserving of his fate - only that my actions were the cosmic cause of that fate. That's how karma (and like concepts) works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Yeah, I understand this part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
We're just still in disagreement on this I guess. I still don't believe it's so much his "hating his country" than it is his hating the people that run it and are representative of his country in a global context. Ultimately, it's much harder for me to give credence to this position, I know, because Wright's words can't easily be defended. I still don't think they were as black and white as they've been interpreted, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
That's not the same. "The South" isn't a term that's usually used by proponents of the South, when addressing some representative governmental entity - at least not nowadays. Whether or not it was, back in the days of the Civil War, I don't know. But, if it was, I would be much more understanding of the idea that someone saying "God Damn the South for [such and such]" may not have meant that they hated the Southern Region (given certain context), so much as it probably meant they hated the that representative government entity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
I don't think that's quite right, either. While he may hold certain factions of government and business more responsible than others, and more than the average person, I don't think he was saying that there's someone we could crucify and make it all better. His intent seems clear to me: to call attention to the U.S.'s sins as a check on national self-righteousness and inspire his parishioners to work for change. While again I think he has some wacky ideas on who's to blame and how things went down, and obviously had ulterior motives in his more recent statements, I have to agree with his main point:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
American individuals and institutions have made it clear by their actions--from the Indian holocaust and black slavery through the Spanish American War, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Iran Contras, long disregard of AIDS, Rodney King, our conduct in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jena Six--that the value of one's life is contingent upon the color of one's skin and the weight of one's purse, both at home and abroad. So long as we continue to act on that basis, groups and individuals who we declared our enemies before they were born will rise against us. I don't mean that it's the fault of individuals in the U.S. that Saudi extremists took down the Towers, just that we helped to create the world conditions where it could happen, and our actions since have been in keeping with what got us here, virtually assuring more 9/11s to come.
Karma is neither magical nor judgemental; it's simply a recognition that actions and their consequences are often similar in kind, and the extent of causal relationships radiating from any given action can never be known in full or with certainty.
Agreed. ^
[Edit: Btw, UM, I don't know if it's been stated in this thread or not but, what are your feelings on the video in the OP?"]
Ok you didn't seem to understand me so im going to repeat myself one last time for you. Read slowly. I was saying in my previous post that america has messed with alot of people over the ages and left alot of them disgruntled.{when your a super power i guess its inevitable) and that americas policies overseas helped create the conditions necesary for people like the Saudi Hijackers to come about. The other guys Onero and Tao basically say something along those lines except they say it much better then I.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Im im remembering right he listed a bunch of things america did and then he said god bless america no no nah nah god dam america for suchand such or whatever. anyway forget it. Im not about to go searching for it on youtube. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Once again, there is no connection between the bombings of Japan plus the bizarrely claimed invention of the AIDS virus and the 9/11 attacks. They are unrelated. The only thing he could have been possibly been talking about is some kharmic connection that holds all Americans responsible for everything their government has ever done, even before they were born. What you said is all the more reason the 9/11 victims should not have been connected to people in the government in 1945. The two are unrelated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
Don't be a dick. Just explain how what you just said counters the points I keep making to counter your point. Repeating yourself does not qualify.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
Yes, that's what he said. Now respond to my points about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonoverlord
The attacks were not just on the government, and the government workers who were killed were not the same government workers who were involved in the acts he was talking about. Also, the government did not invent the AIDS virus. That claim adds another layer to the cuckoo factor involved in all of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Then why does he take the deaths of people in the World Trade Center, passgenger airplane, and the Pentagon in 2008 and talk about the bombings of Japan and the claimed invention of the AIDS virus as if there is some kind of connection between the entirely different groups of people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Wright is a Christian pastor, so the type of kharma he was talking about amounts to an act of God. That means he condones it. He was also talking about an attack on a lot of innocent people, yet he did not talk about them like they were innocent. He talked about them like they could just be called "America" and said they got what they got because of what "America" (same term) did in completely unrelated acts. It is just like when a Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell type says something like, "New Orleans got flooded by Katrina because New Orleans did so much homosexual stuff. God damn New Orleans!" Imagine what those exact words would have sounded like. What would be the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
The parallel is that an entire region is blamed because of what just some of its people did. Even if you were president of the South, my satirical comment would still stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I spelled it out plainly enough. All of the actions I listed are part of a pattern of behavior by which the U.S. tells the world, both outside its borders and within, that all lives are forfeit to the interests of our Anglo-Germanic Protestant overlords. In the Middle East in particular, our foreign policy may as well have been written by Jack Chick. We've given both our friends and present and future enemies in the region every reason to doubt our commitment to freedom, liberty and justice, and every reason to see us as an invading imperial power. Self-aggrandizing dicks like bin Laden will arise regardless, but we don't need to warm up the crowd for them by leaving a trail of chaos and destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Our activities in the Middle East are more pertinent than AIDS or Nagasaki to 9/11, but it all adds up to an image abroad as a wealthy, self-important thug--a mafioso. How much harder would it be for the world's Osamas if we sent the doctors and teachers before the missionaries and salesmen? If we built the infrastructure and met the people before we took the oil and dropped the bombs? If we devoted half our military budget and personnel to global (including domestic) outreach, education and infrastructure?
What if, for a start, we simply elect to our highest office someone other than the same half dozen wealthy, white, ex-colonial dynasties?
Nah, you seem pretty convinced that Obama's past association with Wright is a deal breaker for you and I know there is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
My only advice would be to compare their positions on the issues and if you still think McCain is the superior candidate, you can at least know you are supporting him for the right reasons.
I very much disagree with your assessment of what we are, and 9/11 was about very specific beefs concerning our free culture and our Middle East policies. Even if the Japan bombings were somewhere in Bin Laden's head and he did consider a very bizarre delusion that the United States government invented the AIDS virus, they were not key. They would have been backburner thoughts at most. 9/11 was not about what Wright talked about, and he never claimed they were key concerns for Al Qaeda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Taosaur
We do more for the world than anybody else. Did you know that we give more than HALF of the world's hunger relief food? We are just one country! We lead the world in foreign aid. We have liberated more nations than anybody else, and we played a vital role in stopping two world take overs. We stimulate the world economy more than any other country, and we lead the world in technology and business expansion. We are great for the world. It is so bizarre how people strain so hard to act like that is not true.
We had to use bombs to invade Iraq because we were not welcome there by the government we had to overthrow. We couldn't just walk in and immediately start building schools, which we are doing now. We are now preserving a new democracy and building the country to be far better than it ever was. That is a very good thing.
If McCain had been associated with the KKK, going to a leader's church every Sunday for 20 years, you know you would be speaking out against it. Strong associations are very relevant because they speak volumes about where a person's head is. Do they not? It is not a deal breaker for me any way. Obama passed deal breaker with me before he even began his campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot
How a presidential candidate feels about his country IS a legitimate issue. I have other issues with him too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Sleepalot