posted
Look, I agree it is ridiculous. I just want you all to respond to what he ACTUALLY said, not what most seem to be thinking he said. You posted this:
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
as if it were a direct quote. That is NOT what he said. If you are going to quote him, quote his actual words. Many people on here like to blast Fox for skewing quotes, taking things out of context, etc. Hold yourself to the same standard.
As for an atheist country being dominated by Islam, it could happen. And no, I am not saying he is right, just speaking hypothetically. If an Atheist country were to be conquered by an Islamic one, the people don't instantly become Muslims. You now have an atheist country (the majority of the people) dominated by Muslims (the government and military).
I'm not trying to defend Newt here, I just want a little integrity in the discussion. Get it right.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a foreign conquest makes sense in context. He's talking about a "struggle over the nature of America" not a struggle over America itself. And if America was to be conquered by a Muslim state, I don't think an important worry would be whether they understood "what it once meant to be an American."
I think a more probable interpretation is he's pandering to his base which is worried that they'll lose the culture war to secular atheists who would put in power, not foreign Muslims, but American "Muslims" like Obama.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: As for an atheist country being dominated by Islam, it could happen. And no, I am not saying he is right, just speaking hypothetically. If an Atheist country were to be conquered by an Islamic one, the people don't instantly become Muslims. You now have an atheist country (the majority of the people) dominated by Muslims (the government and military).
Certainly an atheist country could be dominated by Islam. The question, and the one where Newt's incredible dishonesty comes into play, is how does it happen? He clearly wasn't talking about some foreign violent conquest of America, first of all, because he was talking about struggling over the 'nature of America' and 'what it means to be an American'. Not repelling invaders at the border, though he's a far right demagogue so that sort of rhetoric probably won't be long in coming in any campaign he's features in.
quote:I'm not trying to defend Newt here, I just want a little integrity in the discussion. Get it right.
I believe you're seeking integrity in the discussion, but I don't believe you've examined what Newt said very critically, and considered your own chastisement of the responses of others in light of his remarks. He did very clearly suggest that secular atheists are bad, unAmerican threats as well as radical Islamists-and then he went on to link the two together very specifically at some nebulous point in the future. I suppose that might have been an accident of language, but it seems pretty darn unlikely to me.
You really have to squint and look sideways at his remarks to see much else than blatant rabble-rousing and base-pandering, Wingracer. What it looks like to me is less that you're upset about dishonesty among those criticizing him than that he's been caught being so blatantly dishonest himself, and people get to say gotcha so gleefully.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took it to mean that when the atheists take over, we will no longer have God on our side to defend against the radical Islamists.
Mainly I think he is yelling out the buzzwords that fire up his base, and logic or consistency is not necessary there.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] What it looks like to me is less that you're upset about dishonesty among those criticizing him than that he's been caught being so blatantly dishonest himself, and people get to say gotcha so gleefully.
Not the case at all. I have said at least twice now that I think he is nuts. Whoever it is that said he was just pandering to his base is probably spot on.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I took it to mean that when the atheists take over, we will no longer have God on our side to defend against the radical Islamists.
Mainly I think he is yelling out the buzzwords that fire up his base, and logic or consistency is not necessary there.
Bingo, we have a winner. That is exactly what I was trying to get at but first had to shoot down everything else.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE] Certainly an atheist country could be dominated by Islam. The question, and the one where Newt's incredible dishonesty comes into play, is how does it happen? He clearly wasn't talking about some foreign violent conquest of America, first of all, because he was talking about struggling over the 'nature of America' and 'what it means to be an American'. Not repelling invaders at the border, though he's a far right demagogue so that sort of rhetoric probably won't be long in coming in any campaign he's features in.
My use of military conquest was just an attempt to show a simple example of how it could happen, not that I thought it would happen or that it was even what he was talking about.
What I think is that people like Newt have this belief that secular atheist government would be too tolerant of Islam. Radical Islam could then gain more and more power and influence within the U.S. government. Either directly by gaining office or more indirectly by being allowed to get away with more and more of their agenda. They like to paint liberals as both atheist and too nice, so this was an attempt to bad mouth them on two fronts.
What Newt and his ilk fails to realize is that you don't have to be a Christian to see the evils of radical Islam, and they certainly do NOT have a monopoly on decisive action.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest, not just because he said 'atheist Muslims'. That's just the silliest, most overtly stupid thing he said. It was fundamentally dishonest on many other levels as well...but for you decided to equate critics with Fox News and suggest people were criticizing Newt unfairly.
And no, what politicians like Newt like to do isn't paint liberals as 'too nice'. That is emphatically not the rhetoric that comes out of the various far-right political camps in the current climate, much less when they start talking about secular atheist liberals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest, not just because he said 'atheist Muslims'. That's just the silliest, most overtly stupid thing he said.
And once again, he NEVER said that. As far as I can tell, the words "atheist" and "Muslim" NEVER appear side by side. Do you have a different transcript?
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: *shrug* Your example of military conquest was in response to a bunch of people explaining why Newt's words were dishonest,
And no, my example was in response to this statement from Darth Mauve:
"Wing, it still sounds ridiculous to me. If any country is dominated by radical Islamists, it can no longer be a Secular Atheist country--since the main goal of radical Islamists is to create Islamic States. The first rule of an Islamic state is to believe in God as described by the Koran."
It was the simplest hypothetical I could think of at the time to explain how it might happen, though admittedly, highly unlikely.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
The whole idea that you can be a fundamentalist Muslim and an atheist at the same time is ignorance beyond sanity. Yet I've seen the same argument made by Beck, and on some Christian Radio I've listened to.
One of Mr. Gringich's points about the evil of Islam is that when one of their fanatics does something bad the rest of the Islamic community does not complain nearly as loud as they complain when non-Muslims respond harshly. The fanatics blow up some buildings--the Muslims don't say much--but if we attack the country that supported them, they scream very loud. This, he states, is proof that all Muslims are really as evil as the fanatics.
This discussion of Newt's foolish comments has been derailed by a few moderate Christians. They are not screaming about Newt's terrible logic, but about the attack non-Christians made against that logic, and by extension, against Christianity itself.
If we follow Mr. Gringrich's logic, then all Christianity must be as evil, or as foolish, as Newt himself. If we follow that logic--moderate Christians don't exist any more than moderate Muslims.
Moderate atheists do exist because they have spoken up in this thread saying the first comment was a bit rude. They have yet to speak up condemning those who responded negatively to that comment.
As atheist who hasn't participated at all, a couple of things.
1. I VERY rarely tell people I'm an atheist in real life. I am not in the closet about it, but unless it comes up, I don't go out of my way to say something. 2. You use the comments in this thread as an example of moderate atheism existing. Well of course moderate atheists exist! It's the flapping of the extremists present everywhere that drown out the fact that there are moderates present everywhere. 3. Given what's said about Muslims by politicians, I think Muslims have to put up with enough crap by simply being Muslim where they probably are sick of arguing about it after nearly a decade.* I don't blame them if no one aggressively stands up all the time. I think most people are just trying to get by without being harassed. 4. I've seen plenty of news stories about Muslims who died in September 11 etc, etc, as well as pieces that point out that the people who turned in the guys with bombs in their shoes and underwear were both relatives of the perpetrators and Muslims. But it doesn't get a lot of press because those stories fall in the "good news" category. 5. There are a lot of Muslims and a lot of diverse sets of beliefs and interest and goals. People treat Islam like a monolith, when there's a lot of X group doesn't like Y group or Z group are actually a mostly Muslim country that people don't think about because everything is fine. The fact that our politicians can't tell a very diverse group of a billion people apart is really really worrisome. Take Iran. Women have been treated like crap since the revolution, but unlike, say Afghanistan, they still get college-level educations in numbers comparable to men. 6. Islamaphobia and anti-Islamaphobia and the ignorance with respect to #5 are rather distracting issues. As an atheist and a liberal, I very very strongly believe in the freedom of religion, and I am highly annoyed at the link between Islam and terrorism and "the American way of life" crap because Newt Gingrich is suggesting that people like me are unAmerican! It is very important to me that these people aren't the target of hate they don't deserve. 7. At the same time as #6, Islam has some serious issue that I am not comfortable with (misogyny and human rights issues). I have issues with Judaism and Christianity as well, and I feel like I can discuss those as issues with the religions themselves without that additional baggage that gets tossed in with Islam.
So I think it's hard sometimes, but that's why all this stuff gets mixed up. It's also why, paradoxically, a lot of liberals are against banning veils and all that.
*When I was in Alaska in February, my companion and I got into a discussion with a crazy woman who lives in little house on the side of the road along Seward Highway about the "ground zero mosque" (she brought it up). Once we told her that we weren't concerned, she pretty much told us we were brainwashed, and all with muslims had a covert plan to infiltrate the country all with a big stupid grin on her face. Repeatedly, like a broken record. Never mind that my friend has actually read the Koran, and lived in Egypt for a summer (and majored in Middle Eastern Studies, but she didn't want to say it). Never mind that I told her I had an Iranian woman as a roommate for a year! This woman never stopped and said- "whoa, you know something I don't- what are these people really like, do they ever let their secret sinister plans slip?", she told us we needed to "educate ourselves about the truth". Both families I actually stayed with were completely not like this at all.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lets get circular.
Newt said, "Islamic Atheists are out to get us poor Christians."
But, that is NOT what he said. Here is the most complete quote I have seen:
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9," Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. "I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
To me, it sounds like he is speaking of two different threats. Secular atheists within this country AND Islamic fundamentalists from outside.
No. The problem is that he is speaking of THREE different threats and believes that 1 & 2 are a problem and cause 3.
1. Secular atheists. 2. Islamic fundamentalists 3. My grandchildren will be growing up in a different culture than the one that I grew up in.
If anything will cause #3 it will be our culture's increasing obsession with material consumption and pleasure over the needs of a people, an increase in selfishness, and cultural collapse due to economic issues exacerbated by the preferential treatment of bankers, oil and big business, the eventual collapse of ecosystems, and the inability of a large group of people to afford shelter, food and health care which is related to the above.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with the idea that he's just gunning for buzzword bingo on this one. The conservative core is effortlessly riled up and made pliable by appeals to fear* involving buttons like 'secular,' 'atheist,' 'muslims,' 'islamic,' 'terror,' and the Death of Real American Culture and all that, so he's just stringing them together in a baldly utilitarian manipulation.
One method of which was to link secular atheists and radical Muslims, two of the 'worst' things in the eyes of far-right social and religious conservatives. I suppose they could've thrown in homosexual socialist as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
They might — might — just have been clued in on the fact that continuing the No Homo war was alienating them to the great majority of voters who aren't old, and might be the second greatest way to lose tomorrow's elections behind only alienating Hispanics.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: They might — might — just have been clued in on the fact that continuing the No Homo war was alienating them to the great majority of voters who aren't old, and might be the second greatest way to lose tomorrow's elections behind only alienating Hispanics.
I don't know. There is still plenty of gay bashing going on. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Newt chime in on that subject again. And of course he will probably throw in Muslims and atheists again as well.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
911 was a conspiracy, I lose some sanity points for saying it, but if you look at all the proof, it stops looking like an attack and it starts to look really intentional....
Another piece to the pie is building 7, one of the buildings near the towers when they collapsed... If you watch video's you can see building 7 explode from the inside and colapse as the towers are too.
Even more so, the jet that 'crashed' into the pentagon, was entirely vaporized, just a blackish crater... compare that to a normal plane crash and a lot of it doesn't make sense.. --- It's all was just a dynamic plot to invade the middle east, and alienate people about other religions. --- Great post theamazeeaz... --- Isn't islamic athiest and oxymoron?
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: Another piece to the pie is building 7, one of the buildings near the towers when they collapsed... If you watch video's you can see building 7 explode from the inside and colapse as the towers are too.
Even more so, the jet that 'crashed' into the pentagon, was entirely vaporized, just a blackish crater... compare that to a normal plane crash and a lot of it doesn't make sense..
asafkdljgsdf.
1. Aluminum is a readily oxidizable metal in the same chemical family as magnesium. In extreme heat, aluminum can begin to burn (similarly to magnesium), and can even burn under water by stealing the oxygen from water, and in particularly calamitous crashes, large portions of a plane can simply be burnt to black slag. Well before 9/11 I remember seeing a picture of a more typical plane crash where pretty much nothing 'plane-like' was left but the tail, which had snapped off and fallen away from the conflagration. Everything else was just a black pit. You could just as easily have pointed to it and said 'WHERE IS THE PLANE? CONSPIRACY?'
2. Most planes don't crash in the manner that the pentagon plane did. It hammered itself straight into a building. Momentum alone is going to cause the plane's relatively soft body to mush itself up into the building. What's supposed to be recognizable, minus perhaps the engines?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Triple post! Hatrack is addictive, if you have nothing else to do! Still a conspiracy in my eyes! ----- Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
You understand the difference between 'failed to explain' and 'didn't at this point in time explain,' right? If so: You're right, I haven't. That doesn't detract from the points I made at all, though, so .. hooray?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also you failed to explain why building 7 just explodes and collapses even though it's a pretty fair distance from all the action....
This is a very dishonest method of discussion, Rawrain. You made a bunch of (frequently made, frequently rebutted, ridiculous) points, and some of them were very soundly shut down. Completely ignoring the fact that some of the issues you brought to the table were demonstrated to be incorrect, you just said, "Well what about this?"
That's not how you have a good-faith discussion. In one of those you say, "Huh, I didn't know that," or, "Never thought of it that way, good point." Not doing so is not only pretty bad form, it makes you look pretty ridiculous-and that's putting it mildly.
How about that week off from Hatrack you were going to take? It would be good for you. You said you were going to do it. I think you'll find that - and it's funny that Charlie Sheen is having his business right now too - most people around here are reaching their limits on how much time they'll waste on you, with a few exceptions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, no matter how many times you point out gramatical errors it won' answer the statement for you. - Rakeesh, off-topic, I said I would take a week off after I post a landmark, no landmark posted.
Are you "telling" me to acknowledge Sam's post as accurate, or act like he informed me on a plausibility I didn't already know about?
pentagon 'crash' site A crash site Crashed into a mountain: Helios Airways Flight 522 Crashed: Kam Air Flight 904 Crashed into mountains: West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 I find it hard to find pictures of plane crashes with similar magnitude to the pentagon crash, strange.... if you really wanna prove me wrong find those 3 pictures, if they are identical to the Pentagon crash, I will compliment Sam on how right he was about large aircrafts disintegrating. ------- Building 7 remains unchallenged. ------- The events of 911 are relivent to the topic at hand, as the initial cause of all this hub-bub. If it's proven Muslim Extremists are responsible for the events, it's one thing, but if it's proven that our government or some secret seated shadows are responsible, it's another thing entirely.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You should archive these posts, Rawrain, and look at them ten years later. It'll be good for you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Curiously the FBI confiscated many of the videos that would've seen the plane hit the Pentagon.
http://vimeo.com/13726978 It's pretty great to watch long, and informal! You may want to skip the whole 'history of religion' part, which basically compares religions to astrology and each other. After the 911 talk, it goes on to talk about the economy, central bank and such..
Or maybe you shouldn't watch it because I suggested so, your choice 8D
posted
I have friends that witnessed the plane hit the pentagon. The news cameras broadcasting from DC were on her building's roof and having stayed at their apt before, I know with the windows they have a perfect view of that part of pentagon. While we have before discussed the ability to remember things that aren't true, this apt by habit and location would have witnessed the attack and they were talking about it immediately after. I guess the government convinced all those folks to lie believably to their friends about it, which with an apt full of upstanding LDS women, believable lying would be an impressive accomplishment.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's an exercise for you, Rawrain: try to disprove your OWN idea. That is, look for evidence yourself that rebuts your own suggestions (which, like many conspiracies, have the appeal to vanity that this one does: it makes you secretly wise, and other people dupes, and frees you from an obligation to become better informed).
This is a VERY well-researched topic, easily accessed online by CREDIBLE sources. See if you can do this. There's no risk, because if you're right an attempt to disprove yourself fairly will fail. If you're wrong, you've gained by shedding a wrong belief.
This is pretty much one of the easiest tests of how to be a critical thinker and good-faith participants in a discussion I've encountered in awhile. I hope, but at this point don't expect, you can do it. I rather expect some gloating about how people haven't actually showed you were wrong, and some emoticons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My grandmother was on the army navy country club greens (or some other close field) playing golf next to the pentagon when the plane went right over her head.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright Sam wins Grandmother victory! Still curious about what the FBI gains by taking all of the video evidence from stationary cameras..
How does forensic evidence survive in temperature hot enough to melt steel...
Rakeesh it's not my idea, but it's a conspiracy theory, if it was entirely proven it would be just a conspiracy, though it's only a theory I still believe it's absolutely true, after all this country is that messed up.
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
FBI takes cameras because those cameras give different views of what happens. Same reason why when someone is robbed at the walmart parking lot, the police collect not just the walmart parking lot videos, but also the texaco and discount tire videos that show a different angle. It gives a more thorough picture of exactly what happened.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"His gas station, open only to Department of Defense personnel, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hillside that, hours later, would become a wailing knoll. "By the time I got outside all I could see was a giant cloud of smoke, first white then black, coming from the Pentagon," he said. "It was just a terrible, terrible thing to be so close to." "Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." The FBI was there within minutes, interesting...
http://infowars.net/pictures/may2006/170506FOIA.jpg request to see the tapes under the freedom of information act -denied ------------- If these videos show what is obvious then why does the FBI need to hold them? It's just ridiculous all of it.. the government lies lies and hides, and if you so much as try to step outside that, you will get denied... just like the whole roswell thing, you can get the papers NOW, but they are blacked out in all the sweet spots. ------------- Pop mech, and scie. are awesome magazines 8D I had a 3 year sub for one of my birthdays, some amazing stuff in both of them...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but that's just because I only look into matters of my concern, and when I look into them I look deeply into them. The way I see it, it's either is a conspiracy or it was made to look like one. I can't think of any reason to make something look like a conspiracy so my bet is on the 1st one.
We gotta save ourselves while we can, after that everything gets out of our control...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You say you looked deeply into it. Take a look at what the infowars FOIA request was actually for vs what you said it was for (hint: it says in the letter), and then look at the reasons the request was denied (hint: the letter points you at the reasons used).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conspiracy theories can be fun and some are quite convincing but I have found that most come from a lack of understanding about the facts of a case.
For instance, people like to claim that Oswald couldn't have made the shot on JFK because the Italian rifle he used was one of the least accurate weapons of WWII. That second part is true; however, at that range, ANY WWII long rifle is more than accurate enough to make that shot. Anyone that knows rifles and shooting would know that the gun, while second rate, is still good enough. Anyone that doesn't know shooting hears that and says "conspiracy".
Please note, I am not interested in starting a JFK debate. Just using it as an example. If you want to spew a bunch of other theories about it, start a new thread.
Posts: 891 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, Rawrain, you've consistently demonstrated that you're not worth being taken seriously. Even very easy things you won't investigate, choosing instead go flatter your own vanity by believing you've 'looked deeply' into things. Despite not having shown evidence of looking beyond whatever silly preconception you started a conversation with.
I won't spend any more time taking you seriously. Enjoy being super-right, dude! Everyone else just don't look deep enough!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just many unanswered simple questions that are kept secret for unknown reasons arouses suspicion in me and other people, so of course conspiracy arrives especially when people dying is involved.
I'm not taken seriously anyways, it would take a video of a plane NOT crashing into the pentagon to convince you guys otherwise, and of course let's see someone get them >__>
And no one ever answered the question about Islamic Atheists being an oxymoron...
Posts: 461 | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
