Saturday, September 19, 2015

It Can't Happen Here?

As the bright 14 year-old Ahmed Mohamed learned in Texas, “Inventing while Muslim” can get you interrogated, arrested, and taken to a detention center for a mug shot and fingerprinting. The “not racist” and “not paranoid” Texas bigots show us how well FOX and the GOP have conditioned fearful Americans with their nativist indoctrination. 

Twit of the Tundra Sarah Palin blamed the kid, of course. "Right. That's a clock, and I'm the Queen of England."

Mission Accomplished by hate radio and FOX(R), “making America great again”, step by step, or would that be goose step, by goose step?   

Thankfully sane Americans have invited him to the White House, for tours of universities, and even offered scholarships to get him out of Bumpkinville TX. God bless America for having a few kind hearted and rational non-Republicans left.

Meanwhile other “good Americans” are showing their “Not fascist” hate.

This exchange came during a post-debate rally in Rochester, N.H., during a Q&A with Trump.  Trump pointed at a man in the audience saying, "Okay, this man. I like this guy."

"We have a problem in this country, it's called Muslims," the man said. "We know our current president is one. You know, he's not even an American. Birth certificate, man."

"Right," Trump said, then adding with a nod of his head: "We need this question? This first question."

"But any way," the man said. "We have training camps, really.. where they want to kill us."

"Uh huh," Trump said.

"That's my question: When can we get rid of them?" the man said.

Trump responded: "We're going to be looking at a lot of different things. You know, a lot of people are saying that, and a lot of people are saying that bad things are happening out there. We're going to look at that and plenty of other things."

Trump, of course, either agreed with the bigot, or lacked the moral aptitude to tell him he was wrong. At least John McCain showed us the common decency that Trumps lacks, when he corrected a stupid woman who expressed her fear of “Obama the Arab Muslim”.

You don’t have to be a racist bigot to be a Republican, but they sure do have a lot of them, don’t they? The fact the GOP won’t condemn these nuts says all we need to know about that party. As if they haven’t shown enough contempt for America by their loyalty to the Kochs and Adelson over the people, and  service to Wall Street over Main Street, and last but not least, their fawning to the Israeli far Right and shared lust for war with Iran.

This is the “exceptionalism” from the “We want our country back” crowed of ignorant and hateful neo-fascist Americans.

And like the fascists before them, they will blame ethnic groups they hate, and of course liberals, for all the evil in the world. Fascists always have their scapegoats, don't they?


This group, as with all racists and thugs, see none of the evil within their own hateful cult. They are the “good Americans” of our fascist sub-culture, who are only becoming bolder in their ignorance and hate.

American fascism is deliberately nurtured before our very eyes. Hell, yes, it can happen here. 

34 comments:

Jerry Critter said...

More and more, I am becoming embarrassed to be an American.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Better to be embarrassed than a shameless dolt.

T. Paine said...

Yes, it absolutely can happen here. Indeed it IS happening here, but it is doing so under the current leadership and an ignorant and apathetic public that cares more about "The Voice" and Bruce Jenner than they care about what our "leaders" are doing as they daily violate the constitution. Pull that beam out of your own eye first, Dubya...

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Um. OK. You seem to agree. I would be glad to be shown the errors of my views.

Upon reflection, the kid should have understood he was showing something unfamiliar, and it could be met with suspicion. That doesn't change the fact he was needlessly arrested and denied access to calling his parents. Schools are so "zero tolerance" these days that almost any object seems to elicit over reaction.

We have become a nation of self-inflicted paranoia.

T. Paine said...

This kid does NOT invent a clock. He takes an old Radio Shack clock and removes the cover off of it. He then places it in a pencil box and takes it to school to show his engineering teacher. His teacher looks at it and warns him to put it away. Instead, this kid takes it to his English class and sets the clock to start counting down, thus worrying his teacher.

Why in the HELL would a kid “make” a clock that looks like a bomb? Indeed this type of timing device is precisely what one would need to make a bomb. All that he would require to finish the project would be to add some explosives into the case.
In light of Islamists’ attacks on America and elsewhere, why would a kid “invent” such a thing? Is it because his father is an Islamist? Irvine, Texas, where they live, just became the first city in the nation to outlaw Sharia law. His father, with ties to CAIR, seems to want to provide a means for a lawsuit, it appears to me. Ahmed acted passive aggressively when the police were called. If it was indeed just an innocent “invention” and misunderstanding, why wouldn’t he have answered their questions accordingly to clear up the misunderstanding?

And then we have another case of “the police acted stupidly” proclaimed by our “Christian” president who sympathizes with Islamists. The poor Muslim boy is being attacked for “inventing while Muslim”. No. He did not invent anything. He removed the cover from an old clock and stuck it in a box. He then carried the OBVIOUSLY suspicious device to school. He refused to put it away as his first teacher instructed and instead set it to count down to an alarm in his English class.
I strongly suspect this was contrived and executed with express instructions from the boy’s father. And Dubya, the president, and the rest of the “enlightened” people rush to show that they aren’t “Islamophobes” by coming to his defense.

We really have become a very foolish people and will end up being our own demise accordingly.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

Um, Sharia law would be unconstitutional by definition. So the "Ant-Sharia law" frenzy is either stupid or just paranoid hate.

I don't pretend to know the kid's motive, let alone the father's. Maybe it was to see how easy it is to trigger over-reaction? That would have been stupid.

I've said the kid should have known better. I say the same for the faculty and cops.

Obviously the police and faculty knew it wasn't a bomb, or they would have evacuated the place, correct? If it really was a bomb, not evacuating would be the most stupid kind of inaction.

It only follows that putting the kid in handcuffs and arresting him as if it were a bomb wasn't required, and thus by any standard, stupid and/or abusive.

Arresting him for a "hoax bomb" would have been appropriate if the kid said is was a bomb. That is what a hoax is. He didn't.

It looks like you're doing all you can to not just spurt out "Obama's a Muslim Marxist". ;-)

Feel free to to go ahead if it expresses your beliefs. One poll says 44% of Republican voters would agree with you.



Jerry Critter said...

Putting Christian in quotes pretty much invalidates your whole comment.

T. Paine said...

Dave, I agree that the zero-tolerance stuff is indeed nonsense. Arresting kids because they have eaten their pop tart to look like a gun is the height of foolishness. This kid with his "clock" probably could have been handled better by the police too. Should he have been arrested? Probably not; however, I suspect his (and his father's) motives in trying to draw such a response was exactly as they intended.

Jerry, as for Obama being a Christian, well that is what he proclaims; however, based on his actions, statements, and his "Christian" mentor of Reverend Wright, he certainly does not represent any orthodox form of the faith, regardless of what he claims to be.

The fact that he continuously sides with Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood to the Iranian Mullahs over our allies and our own national interests does suggest that he is definitely favorable to them for whatever reason.

Do I think Obama is a practicing Muslim? Nope. Nor do I think he is a practicing Christian. Indeed Obama fancies himself as a self-made man and he worships his creator accordingly.

Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,

If I'm interpreting correctly, how could Obama be "Christian" if he "sympathizes with Islamists" who attack America?

And obviously anyone who ever says "police reacted stupidly", even if they linger to escalate a situation to arrest a tired and ill black traveler on his front porch, can't be a decent American Christian.

I think, for 44% of Republicans, this is sufficient "evidence" to support a certain belief system.

I'll say it again.

Beliefs trump facts. Ask the Donald.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Presidents are not elected to represent any orthodox form of religion. That would be un-American.

That's what the Pope does, as he notes the tyranny of the gross economic injustice, alienation, and inequality by de-regulated capitalism, and also by addressing the growing crisis of climate change.

Either the "Marxist Pope" or Limbaugh is correct. One is wrong. The choice is yours.

The Pope is conservative, but he is not Republican. Thank God.

Bush's "Good Christian" tax cuts for the rich and war of aggression based on lies...not so bad apparently. Jesus loves a good crusade, er, war for political gain and crony profit, right? The "Decider" acted no more Christian than Obama, who at least restored tax rates on the rich to help feed the poor, which is far more Christian than coddling the rich.

Religion has always been a cudgel used by the Right to demonize anyone who disagrees with them. They act like God votes Republican, despite the socialist inclinations of his son.






Jerry Critter said...

Obama certainly behaves more Christian than many if not most tea party republicans who have many of the same beliefs that you do, TP. Clean up your own house first.

T. Paine said...

Obama’s true faith or lack thereof, if he so chooses, is between him and God. That said, when he claims to be a Christian but doesn’t walk the talk, then people are going to call him on it since he is our president.

And the fact that he DOES seem to support those groups that are openly hostile to America such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian mullahs (Death to America; Death to the Great Satan etc.) sure makes me question his motives when it comes to protecting and defending the nation of which he was foolishly elected as president thereof. I don’t know if that makes him a bad Christian, but it sure as hell doesn’t make him a very good or smart American.

As for his friend Gates, if the good professor would have simply gotten some identification to show the cops that he was the owner of the house, that would have eliminated any further issues. Instead he starts playing the race card victim game. I can bet you that he would have been the first one logging a complaint if some “black man” had indeed broken into his house and the police confronted the guy without confirming that the burglar was the owner. Obama wants to jump in any time some historically oppressed group is at issue, even when those people may have been in the wrong. Typical knee-jerk progressivism at work!

As for me, I try to be a good Christian and often fail miserably. Take right now for example. I don’t want to respond to the race baiting and class warfare and other silly ass accusations with good humor and charity. I want to respond exactly in kind the way that crap is spewed at me.

Further, I am aware that presidents are not elected to represent any particular religious orthodoxy. But if they are full of shit and claim one thing and then act another way like Obama or Trump, they deserve to be called on it.

By the way, what we have in America is NOT deregulated capitalism. It has become exceptionally corrupt with cronyism under both parties, especially Obama’s administration though. As for anthropogenic climate change, I will respectfully reserve judgment until one side or the other can prove beyond a reasonable doubt their opposing theories, regardless of what Pope Francis has to say on the issue.

I will also ignore the umpteenth time you decry Bush’s “war of aggression”. As for Obama, that stupid son of a bitch has created millions more people living in poverty and on government assistance since he took office. The labor participation rate of this nation is near record lows STILL due to his weak ass recovery. He doesn’t want to help the poor. He wants to enshrine a permanent dependent class that will continue to vote for socialist positions. He is a damned disgrace to the poor, and yet most of them are too damned ignorant to even realize it.

Finally, I don’t know how many tea party member you know, Jerry, but I can honestly say that all of the ones I know personally have done remarkable good in helping their communities and the poor by donating their time and money. Most liberals think it is up to government to take care of the poor. Most tea partiers think it is up to families and communities to do so. I will absolutely stand by my own history and that of the tea partiers I know when it comes to authentic Christianity.

Dave Dubya said...

And the fact that he DOES seem to support those groups that are openly hostile to America such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian mullahs

You mean “Seem to me”, don’t you? Surely an international agreement to reduce centrifuges and uranium while opening for inspections is not “support” is it?

Doesn’t seem to be a rational claim. No supporting evidence is offered, so it’s another case of “Seeming is believing”.

You present Obama as the one who invented or dominates crony capitalism. This is disingenuous and a very narrow interpretation of the concept.

I refer to it as Bush’s war of aggression because that is what you call it when one party starts a war of choice. An invasion is aggression of the highest order. Untold thousands of innocents were killed in his “crusade”.

Your Pope is in direct disagreement with you, Rush, and the Republicans on economic injustice.

Please see my research into “Gates Gate” for a more accurate account of events.

http://www.davedubya.com/2009/07/gates-gate.html

I refer to the actual police report. The cop clearly escalated the situation AFTER learning Gates lived there, and AFTER learning no crime had been committed. At that point he had no reason to be there. He should have left the premises. He didn’t. He displayed his authoritarian personality and demanded Gates “Step outside”.

How was that not both unnecessary and stupid?

I agree Obama should have stayed out of it. It only riled up the racists even more.

T. Paine said...

Good God, Dave. Iran gets to have a 24 DAY notice before inspectors can enter some sites. Other sites they get to "inspect" themselves. Do you really think that an agreement that both Israel and the Arabs decry as dangerous and foolish is really a good idea? Can you even tell me when those wildly disparate two sides last agreed upon anything of significance?

Next, I wrote that crony capitalism has occured "under both parties". You seem to ignore that and think I am simply picking on poor Obama. I acknowledge that Republicans are also guilty of this; however, it seems to have taken on new dimensions of corruption under Barry.

As for my Pope, I will follow his teachings regarding religious dogma. I am not obliged to follow his opinions on scientifically unverified matters such as anthropogenic global warming.

As for Gates, if it things did occur as you presented them, then I admit I was wrong and agree with you. I really don't care enough to go look it up at this point.

Regardless, I don't understand why our president felt it was necessary to involve himself in such an inconsequential matter when no crime or arrest occurred. He simply loves to insert himself into such issues to defend those he thinks have been historically oppressed and thus further divide the country, it seems. And that does indeed inflame the racists of all colors.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,

From Israel’s oldest newpaper Haaratz

“Iran nuclear framework agreement: Not a bad deal”

Israel will have a hard time fighting this agreement, or portraying it as bad; if Iran upholds the terms, its nuclear threat will be severely mitigated.

If Iran fails to meet terms, all is null and sanctions are automatically restored. Nothing to lose.

Are you aware that nuclear residue is detectable long after 24 days? That is the maximum time for delay, not a chance to hide something.

What do you mean by "inspect themselves"?

Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”


http://time.com/3990001/29-scientists-obama-iran-nuclear-deal/
29 Leading Scientists Back Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal
Twenty-nine of America’s leading scientists—from Nobel Prize winners to nuclear experts—co-signed a letter supporting President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal on Saturday.

“We consider that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) the United States and its partners negotiated with Iran will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future non-proliferation agreements. This is an innovative agreement, with much more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated non-proliferation framework.”

“Concerns about clandestine activities in Iran are greatly mitigated by the dispute resolution mechanism built into the agreement,” the letter said. “The 24-day cap on any delay to access is unprecedented, and it will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.”

Jerry Critter said...

Given that there is no religious test for the presidency, being a good Christian or a bad Christian should not even be part of the discussion. After all, should you be criticized for "often fail miserably" at being a good Christian if you were president? Should you be criticizing the president for something you cannot do, even though I believe you try very hard?

T. Paine said...

First of all, I don't care what an op-ed piece in an Israeli newspaper says. It speaks for the Israelis on the whole about the same amount as the editorial board of the New York Times speaks for all Americans.

Second, I will point you to the section, "if Iran upholds the terms". They will not uphold the terms. They are the world's leading state sponsor of terror. They can self-inspect certain areas of their program. Are you really so gullible to think that they are going to be honest about reporting on themselves? They get to choose their own internal inspectors for certain locations, Dave. That is one of the "secret" side deals the IEAE made with them.

Next, I'll see your three dozen generals and admirals and raise you 200!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-urge-congress-to-reject-iran-deal/2015/08/26/8912d9c6-4bf5-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html

Also, I was trained as a nuclear reactor operator in the Navy. I am damned well aware of what can and cannot be hidden with a 24 day notice. Not all vital nuclear equipment will have a radioactive signature, Dave.

This is a political agreement that allows Iran to continue its nuclear program and then in ten years it can break out and have a working weapon, AND that is IF they DO abide by the agreement.

When they do violate it, and they will do so, there is no way that Russia and some other countries will agree to re-establish sanctions on Iran.

Obama is more concerned with having some sort of legacy than America's security. Ironically his legacy will likely be Iran as a nuclear power in the Middle East, at best.

I don't know why when our enemies tell us that they will kill us, that we don't take them at their word. Damn we are stupid!

T. Paine said...

Jerry, when Obama gives his "Christian" credentials when running for the office, it becomes relevant. I personally would prefer a good Christian as our president, but I would happily settle for an atheist that abides by the constitution. I don't know if Obama is simply a poor Christian like me or not, but he certainly doesn't abide by the constitution.

Next, I don't want to be president. I am truly not worthy. I want someone far better than I am to be governing our nation. Sadly, as flawed as I am, I am far more competent and worthy of being in the oval office than is Obama. And that is truly sad, because I am not anywhere as good of a man and a Christian as I should be, my friend.

Jerry Critter said...

TP, I sure don't want to be president either. In fact, I don't see why anyone would want to be. Perhaps that is part of the problem. Why would a person competent to be president, want to be?

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
We already know you don't care what anyone who disagrees with you says. I was just showing that sane voices exist in Israel.

So you have no evidence of what, or where, or how Iran "self inspects". They won’t. You are probably running on a false story retracted by AP.

Can you please document your assertion that debunks this: "I am disturbed by statements suggesting that the IAEA has given responsibility for nuclear inspections to Iran. Such statements misrepresent the way in which we will undertake this important verification work," IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano said.

“The separate arrangements under the roadmap agreed between the IAEA and Iran in July are confidential and I have a legal obligation not to make them public—the same obligation I have for hundreds of such arrangements made with other IAEA Member States,” Amano said in a statement. “However, I can state that the arrangements are technically sound and consistent with our long-established practices. They do not compromise our safeguards standards in any way.”

See:

Nuclear Watchdog Slams AP’s Iran Inspections Story as Misleading

Ah, the Republican neo-con wing of the military has spoken...again. When the neocons and military run foreign policy war is their only answer. Like true neo-cons and servants of their president Netanyahu, they invoke Israel in their first paragraph. News flash. Israel has nukes and can defend itself.

Among other unsupported assertions, their letter says Iran has been waging war against us since 1979!

Wow.

This is the same old neo-con war mongering. “To arms! To Arms! Saddam, er, The Axis of Evil is at the gates!”

And now they want to make their fantasy come true. It's not surprising that the lock-step GOP has military backing. Considering how Republican-dominated the military is, I have all the more respect for the courage of those who support the deal. Free thinkers are the best thinkers.

And so far, war seems to be your preference as well. How'd that last one work out for us?

Will Iraq, Iran's new ally thanks to Bush and Cheney, be siding with Iran? Yes. ISIS and Iran are enemies. Want to help ISIS? Better invade Iraq again. Your dreams for war are expanding rapidly out of control again.

When will Americans wake up to the fact that our meddling over there always backfires? Why can’t we stay the hell out? The World Police and Corporate Empire must dominate, at any cost.

How many more trillions of debt and millions of deaths do you think will be required so you have no more fear of Iran?

You seem to have access to secret threat that Iran wants to kill us. Please share. Crowds forced to chant “Death to America” for mullahs is just rhetoric. Their people do not want war with us. Our own “mullahs” are just as hateful and agitating.

Iran has never physically threatened us. Not even after we shot down their civilian airliner without apology. It is rhetoric, not war, when The Great Satan engages in name calling with the Axis of Evil. Unlike Iran, the Great Satan invaded a country that didn't attack them. Why should the Axis of Evil trust the Great Satan? Escalation is what the far Right wants. They hate diplomacy and they embrace war.

Can there be uranium, plutonium, a nuclear reactor, or weapon, without radiation? If aluminum tubes still count as nukular equipment, I suppose you're correct. I bet they got Saddam’s nukular aluminum tubes to use against us. To war!

How about the scientists who oppose it? I would love to hear your lecture to them. Could they possibly know more than you do? ;-)


Dave Dubya said...

Jerry,
Why would a person competent to be president, want to be?

Great question. And conversely, I think generally, that those who most desire to be president shouldn't be president.

No wonder we get such narcissistic egos in office. Maybe we can't say a lot else for them, but Ford and Carter were the only exceptions in recent history.

And yes, TP, actors are narcissistic egos.

T. Paine said...

Dave, for someone that hates when the right accuses the left of hating America and its interests, it sure is interesting that you seem to defend and agree with the Iranian mullahs against the Great Satan of America.

And for the record, Israel has been under attack by Iran via their puppets of Hezbollah and Hamas for decades.

This dead horse has been beaten to a pulp. It is fruitless to continue to argue here. My time is better spent arguing with the wall.

Dave Dubya said...

you seem to defend and agree with the Iranian mullahs against the Great Satan of America

This isn't argument; it is accusation. It's in your blood, isn't it?

You're accusing me of "defending Iran" amounts to more of that tired old "hating America" crap.

Give it a rest, and try to understand what I say. If you're confused, ask for clarification. What I'm doing is defending America's treasure and blood against another foolish war. But you can't "seem to see that".

Either you have a serious problem with perception and understanding, or you just re-interpret my words to fit your beliefs. Either way it "seems" to be a black and white world to you.

It figures you have to accuse me of what you accuse Obama of, for even attempting diplomacy.

Meanwhile you ignore the scientific consensus again. Beliefs "seem to" trump scientists in your world.

More to ignore:

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who holds a doctorate in physics said, “My support of this agreement is informed not just by trust but by science. I am supporting this deal because I believe that it sets us on a path for a more secure future for the United States, for Israel and the world.”

“We did not negotiate this deal alone, but if we walk away we walk away alone,” Foster said.
Foster on Tuesday was joined by Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, whom he has known for years.

“I think it is something noteworthy when, again, my old FermiLab friend dug into this and has come out, I would say, endorsing the science that underpins this agreement,” Moniz said. Foster spent 22 years at Illinois’s FermiLab before coming to Congress.

“We’ve always said that the science underpinning it is the origin of the confidence that many of us should have,” Moniz added.

The GOP and their Likud buddies want war. This is more than clear. Just as I "seem to" defend Iran, you "seem to" want war at any price. You don't offer any alternatives. I hope this is a ridiculous over-simplification.

"Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran", right? So far that seems to be your wish.

Apparently you seem to want war with Iran for their support of Hamas? Good thing you weren't in charge when the Soviet Union supported North Vietnam. We'd all be vaporized.

It also seems whatever scientists say, your partisan beliefs demand you adhere to them over the science. I understand that much about you.

Or so it seems.... ;-)





Jefferson's Guardian said...

I'm going to throw out a bone and step back as the jackals claw and spit. Here goes: Given the widespread belief that Israel is also a member of the nuclear weapons club, and either denies the claim or refuses to comment**, wouldn't it seem prudent that a nuclear weapons investigation be conducted immediately?

** "Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to 'introduce' nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase." ~~ from Nuclear weapons and Israel, Wikipedia, and cited from Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968. Office of the Historian. XX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1967–68. Department of State. December 12, 1968. Document 349. Retrieved July 3, 2012.

Jerry Critter said...

Absolutely JG. It is time to investigate and limit Israel's nuclear power.

Dave Dubya said...

JG,
Appealing to reason is useless. In a simplistic black and white world view, the (double) standards are in place. Just as "It's OK If You're A Republican" (IOKIYAR), I'm sure it's also OK if you're Likud.


Jefferson's Guardian said...

Jerry, I think so. I suggest that inspections start immediately.

Dave, you're right. American Exceptionalism, from the viewpoint of conservatives, implies that their self-obsession is god-given and therefore beyond reproach.

Iran can't have a nuclear program because...well, because they don't like Iran. Israel can, though, because conservatives like Israel, and so they look the other way. If conservatives can't see it, than it can't possibly be true.

T. Paine said...

"Iran can't have a nuclear program because...well, because they don't like Iran. Israel can, though, because conservatives like Israel, and so they look the other way."

Oh, and there is that other inconvenient fact that Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, has funded and fostered Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their puppet state of Asad's Syria to launch terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Yeah, other than that I cannot think of a reason why Iran shouldn't have nukes as they all chant death to America and death to Israel.

The fact that you all stick up for the terrorists is disgusting and sickening.

Jerry Critter said...

When you have the weapon, you don't have to threaten, you have the ability to act. When you don't have the weapon, all you can do is threaten...and maybe pray, both somewhat ineffective.

Dave Dubya said...

TP,
Stop pretending we want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The negotiated agreement will reduce their capability. Your wild accusations are out of control again.

I see the need for a few more rhetorical questions, that I hope may induce a moment’s reflection.

Why is it when someone disagrees with a Republican warmonger we are accused of “siding with the terrorists”? We’ve heard that fascist rhetoric before. You can gently shove it up your fictitious “nukular” aluminum tubes.

How are Republican chants of “Bomb bomb Iran” and “Axis of Evil” any less belligerent than crowds chanting for mullahs?

Have you considered for a second what the US has done to Iran? How much history do you know? Very little by all appearances.

How many Americans did Iran kill before Bush went to war in Iraq? How many Iranians did the US kill directly or indirectly by aiding Saddam’s chemical weapons targeting?

Why hasn’t the US even apologized for blasting an Iranian airliner from the sky? How would YOU react if a foreign government with such a past did that to one of ours?

So now you condemn an entire nation to be bombed by the US and Israel because their government supports Palestinians who’ve been brutalized by Israel. If we did that to the Soviets for supporting North Vietnam we’d all be vaporized, you know.

Your claim, “they all chant death to America and death to Israel” indicates your lack of understanding.

In the first place, they don’t “all chant” that. Ever wonder why they started doing that?

From “Death to America!” and the Iran Deal

Over the decades, I’ve heard “Death to America!” shouted routinely at Friday prayers, and at commemorations of the U.S. Embassy takeover and other demonstrations. The regime refuses to shelve the slogan. These days, however, students are often bussed in on anniversaries as crowd-filler; the perk is a day off from school. They chant when prompted.

Nasser Hadian got his doctorate at the University of Tennessee and taught at Columbia. He is now a Tehran University political scientist and influential voice in policy circles. His daughter is in graduate school at Tulane. “Saying ‘Death to America’ is meaningless,” he told me. “It’s actually not acceptable in our culture, because they’re saying death to a whole people. It’s said by only twenty per cent of the population. And only a teeny per cent of that twenty per cent believes in it.

“So whom does America want to rely on to judge public opinion?” Hadian asked. “The twenty per cent who do shout ‘Death to America!’ or the eighty per cent who don’t?”


I understand the slim to zero chance any of this may affect your beliefs, but you can’t deny being exposed to some truth.

T. Paine said...

“Stop pretending we want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The negotiated agreement will reduce their capability. Your wild accusations are out of control again.”

Dave, I have no pretensions whatsoever on this. The truth is that I don’t think you personally want Iran to have nuclear weapons. I am not so sure about our president, however. I suspect he thinks that if Iran gets nukes, it will balance the playing field against Israel in the Middle East. The scary thing though is that you and many progressives think that this agreement will prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Even in the exceptionally unlikely event that Iran does abide by every tenet of this execrable agreement, they will still have the ability to have a nuke within ten to fifteen years. Does that sound good to you, really?

Further, you are the one constantly engaging in hyperbole as you declare that I and other conservatives simply want to go to war with Iran instead. Nothing could be further from the truth. Frankly, there wasn’t any need to go to war with Iran at this point. The economic sanctions were working and are what brought them to the table in the first place. Instead of negotiating with them from the position of strength we had, we basically capitulated on every significant item of the agreement. Meanwhile, we didn’t even secure the release of our four American hostages they are holding, while they managed to slip in agreements about their pistachio crops. Obama is a f***ing disgrace.

Next, I agree that we should not have helped Saddam against Iran. I am not fond of the idea of “the enemy of my enemy, is my friend” argument. We saw where that led us. No, America has not been squeaky clean with our dealings with Iran, but that sure as hell doesn’t warrant us to allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to become flush with cash and get a nuke anyway within a decade at best case.

Further, I acknowledge that it is not “all” Iranians that wish to destroy us and Israel and are chanting in the streets to that effect, just as it was far from all Russians during the cold war that wanted to destroy us either. But in both cases, their governing leadership does. And in authoritarian societies like the Soviet Union and the mullah’s Iran, it is the government that is in control there. They are the ones sending in the troops and launching the nukes.

You are very foolish to accept Kerry and Obama and the U.N.’s word on this agreement. You ignore all of the other facts that point to the dangerousness and foolishness of this accord, while couching this in a progressive versus conservative political issue. It is a about common sense, national security, and the prevention of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. I will not hesitate to tell you I told you so when this all comes to pass, my friend.

Dave Dubya said...


TP,
Thank you for your clarification.

From “The fact that you all stick up for the terrorists is disgusting and sickening”, to “The truth is that I don’t think you personally want Iran to have nuclear weapons” is a step towards reason, but fails to withdraw the false accusation. That’s as close to a retraction we can expect I suppose. We understand apology is a sign of weakness to the far Right, as evidenced by their false meme of “Obama’s apology tour”.

I suppose Obama will catch hell from the Right for apologizing for the Kunduz hospital bombing, as opposed to blame and accountability for the bombing itself.

Although easily done, I won’t bother to debunk your beliefs. However I will note the following unsupported assertions:

I suspect he thinks that if Iran gets nukes, it will balance the playing field against Israel in the Middle East…. they will still have the ability to have a nuke within ten to fifteen years…. conservatives simply want to go to war with Iran instead. Nothing could be further from the truth…. we basically capitulated on every significant item of the agreement…. They are the ones sending in the troops and launching the nukes… You ignore all of the other facts that point to the dangerousness and foolishness of this accord, while couching this in a progressive versus conservative political issue.

Actually “progressive versus conservative political issue” has an element of truth to it. Anything Obama is for, the Right is against, except for corporate written laws of the land disguised as “trade agreements”. In the Muslim world the divide is along the Shia/Sunni sects.

Regarding war with Iran: Obviously you haven’t read the Project for a New American Century manifesto by Cheney, Rummy and their ilk. And of course, Netanyahu, the Republican President of the US has urged military action against Iran. Can you cite ONE Republican or conservative who has openly disagreed with their leader? Even fake libertarian Rand Paul is fawning over his One True President. Or is “Messiah” the proper term?

At any rate, this statement reflects both a scientific viewpoint and political truth:

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.), who holds a doctorate in physics said, “My support of this agreement is informed not just by trust but by science. I am supporting this deal because I believe that it sets us on a path for a more secure future for the United States, for Israel and the world. We did not negotiate this deal alone, but if we walk away we walk away alone.”

Do you understand the isolationism and the ramifications the latter point suggests?

Your sanitized and highly understated admission is certainly a very generous summary of what the US has done to Iran.

“America has not been squeaky clean with our dealings with Iran”

But I credit you with a step towards truth, old buddy.

T. Paine said...

“From ‘The fact that you all stick up for the terrorists is disgusting and sickening’, to ‘The truth is that I don’t think you personally want Iran to have nuclear weapons’ is a step towards reason, but fails to withdraw the false accusation.”

The two statements are not necessarily inclusive of each other. The fact is that you have blamed Israel for retaliating against the “poor and oppressed” Palestinians when they launch mortars and rockets and send homicide bombers into Israeli civilian areas. Be assured, I would decimate every area from whence a rocket was launched at my country so that no two stones stood on top of each other if they had done so here if I was in charge. Frankly, Israel has shown great restraint in regards to the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed terrorists that prey upon them. Your past statements suggested that you were supportive of them and that Israel was the instigator, thus my statement. If you wish to clarify and retract your support of such scum, then I will happily retract my statement.

All of that said, you can be sympathetic towards the Palestinians and their terrorism and still be against Iran developing and acquiring nuclear weapons. It was my assumption that this was your position based upon your past statements. I will fully apologize sincerely if I somehow misunderstood you and you don’t support Palestinian or Iranian backed terrorists groups that have incessantly attacked Israel, and then hid in civilian areas in an attempt to hide from retaliation.

Apologizing for true transgressions, even as a nation, is a noble thing. Contrary to your statement, I find that to be a sign of strength and maturity. Apologizing for politically correct and contrived grievances, like our asinine president has done does not show strength or maturity. It only emboldens our enemies to further their aggression.

Admittedly I have not researched the specifics of the Kunduz hospital bombing, but based on the little I do know, I have no problem with Obama apologizing and making amends for this grievous mistake.

Also, I know there are folks both in leadership and in the rank and file that view Iran and the Middle East as a Democrat versus Republican problem. I could really care less about these idiots on both sides of the political spectrum. I am more concerned with reality and dealing with it instead of putting on rose colored glasses and assuming that Iran will behave now that we have made this agreement with them. This is almost literally making a deal with the devil.
As for Netanyahu, he may very well be forced to unilaterally act militarily against Iran WHEN they break this agreement and put the very existence of Israel into jeopardy. One wonders, if this were to occur during the remainder of his term, if Obama would defend Israel or our new friend of darkness, Iran?

Next, I don’t give a damn what some Democrat congressman physicist has to say about the Iran deal. There are even more military and scientific experts that disagree with this deal, along with nearly every nation in the Middle East with the exception of Iran and Syria. I have pointed this out to you in the past and have not even heard an acknowledgment of this fact from you. Doesn’t that alone tell you something, Dave?

Dave Dubya said...

So I take it this is what you see as my siding with the terrorists?

“So now you condemn an entire nation to be bombed by the US and Israel because their government supports Palestinians who’ve been brutalized by Israel.”

This is a true statement. Innocent Palestinian deaths and the destruction of their homes is exponentially greater than what terrorists have done to Israel. There’s no comparison.

Let me ask you this. Who started the conflict? Was Israel quietly minding their own business when those nasty Arabs got mad at them for no reason?

Statement of fact does not indicate support for terrorism. I support neither Palestinian terrorism nor Israeli state terrorism by ghetto-ization and group punishment by indiscriminate military force. Gunning children down on an open beach is state terror and nothing else. They care little for “collateral” death. Hell, they even repeatedly attacked a clearly flagged USS Liberty, killing 34 and wounding 171 sailors.

Could it also be slightly possible Israel “has not been squeaky clean” with their dealings with Palestinians? Perhaps not in your black and white world.

You are all too eager to jump to thoughtless conclusions. It’s a conditioned reflex for you to blame liberals for anything and everything.

You allege “rose colored glasses and assuming that Iran will behave”. Your fear colored glasses see only, “we basically capitulated on every significant item of the agreement.” You are the one guilty of assuming there are no conditions and monitoring, along with a delusional “self inspection” and paranoid belief that Obama the Marxist Muslim wants Iran to have nukes.

There are even more military and scientific experts that disagree with this deal

I have already stated my admiration for the courage of the generals and admirals who dissent from the Republican neo-cons in the military. Now you throw an unsupported claim about scientific consensus? I reject that out of hand and you cannot support it.

It doesn’t matter if you give a damn, the Democratic physicist was 100% correct when he said, “We did not negotiate this deal alone, but if we walk away we walk away alone.”

So what’s your plan after that happens? “Bombs away, President Netanyahu, sir!”

Spare me your simplistic lecture on Muslim countries’ support. You didn’t seem to process this statement: “In the Muslim world the divide is along the Shia/Sunni sects.”

You needn’t lecture me that Syria and Iran are the Shia countries. Perhaps I should explain more about this to you. We can add the Shia majority in Iraq to that list.

See a pattern yet?

Sunnis are worried, not about Iran’s nuclear power, but their expanding trade and economic influence when the embargo and sanctions lift. Does this make any sense to you?

Despite having overwhelming superiority in nukes, only Israel and the Right wing and other AIPAC owned politicians in the US are afraid. Could it be a repressed subconscious guilt that makes them afraid of an unreal and fear-fed hypothetical?

Doesn’t that alone tell you something, TP?

It tells me the US needs to stay the hell out of tribal and ethnic conflicts in the Middle East and develop our renewable energy independence.

Afghanistan, Iraq and ISIL should be enough clues by now, but too many Americans are very obtuse and frightened people.

After all I’ve just said, I wonder if you can see anything other than “Dave supports the terrorists!!! I KNEW it!”