Muslims have gone too far

[Riot]

Originally Posted by miraja2

The numbers Rupert cites indicating that millions of people supported a truly despicable and murderous thug like Bin Laden earlier this decade are certainly evidence of that....as was the 2004 presidential election in the U.S.

Here's the kevlar. Enjoy

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's the kevlar. Enjoy

So you agree with Miraja2 that Bush was a "murderous thug"? If so, then I guess you feel the same way about Obama since he continues the policies of Bush in terms of continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I noticed that you haven't admitted that your belief that Bin Laden was not popular in the Muslim world was totally wrong.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

So you agree with Miraja2 that Bush was a "murderous thug"?

If you'll read my post again, I believe you'll notice that I didn't call Bush a "murderous thug." I reserved that language only for Bin Laden.
The comparison I made between the two was simply one of individuals who gave orders that directly led to the deaths of thousands of people but retained relatively high approval ratings in certain parts of the world. The two men clearly and indisputably share those traits but, as you point out, they differ on many others.
Obviously the supporters of each man continue to believe that the motivations of their guy are/were noble while the other's are/were just plain evil. Personally I happen to believe the motivations of both individuals were pretty evil, and I find the worldview of them both to be absolutely disgusting. Does that mean I think they were the "same?" No. I'm not sure there is much merit in ranking which individual's (or group's) ideology is more evil/harmful/revolting etc. than another's ideology. However, were I to engage in such an exercise, then yes, I would rank Bin Laden and Al Queda as being worse than the Bush administration....which is saying a lot.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

If you'll read my post again, I believe you'll notice that I didn't call Bush a "murderous thug." I reserved that language only for Bin Laden.
The comparison I made between the two was simply one of individuals who gave orders that directly led to the deaths of thousands of people but retained relatively high approval ratings in certain parts of the world. The two men clearly and indisputably share those traits but, as you point out, they differ on many others.
Obviously the supporters of each man continue to believe that the motivations of their guy are/were noble while the other's are/were just plain evil. Personally I happen to believe the motivations of both individuals were pretty evil, and I find the worldview of them both to be absolutely disgusting. Does that mean I think they were the "same?" No. I'm not sure there is much merit in ranking which individual's (or group's) ideology is more evil/harmful/revolting etc. than another's ideology. However, were I to engage in such an exercise, then yes, I would rank Bin Laden and Al Queda as being worse than the Bush administration....which is saying a lot.

Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I'm glad that you don't think Bush is a "murderous thug".

If Bush's wars were so evil, then isn't Obama just as bad as Bush? Obama is continuing the wars.

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I'm glad that you don't think Bush is a "murderous thug".

If Bush's wars were so evil, then isn't Obama just as bad as Bush? Obama is continuing the wars.

Hmm...well I didn't say I didn't think it, I just said I didn't say it in that post.
As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible. I have criticized the administration's actions there on numerous occasions, and hope that other liberals do the same. If we only criticize the Bush administration when they do crap like this and give the Obama administration a free ride, we are just as hypocritical as all the conservatives who suddenly started caring about the debt and deficit in January '09 after ignoring it for eight years.

[joeydb]

It's all fun and games until somebody gets their head cut off...

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by miraja2

As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible.

This is the key. I'm not sure it's practical or responsible to come into office, drag every last troop out of two war zones, and say you did it just because you don't agree with the wars.

So the best thing to do is what's happening in Iraq, which is admittedly happening slower than I'd like. Not a fan of increasing presence in another war zone....not at all. But to say that somehow having to deal with the $hit sandwich someone dropped in your lap in a responsible way is equally as bad as creating it in the first place is a little bit of a dishonest way to approach it.

[Antitrust32]

Bush didnt create the war in Afghanistan. Al Queda did when they declared war on the USA with the 9-11 terror attacks.

Iraq is a different story, but I wanted to get that clarified.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

This is the key. I'm not sure it's practical or responsible to come into office, drag every last troop out of two war zones, and say you did it just because you don't agree with the wars.

So the best thing to do is what's happening in Iraq, which is admittedly happening slower than I'd like. Not a fan of increasing presence in another war zone....not at all. But to say that somehow having to deal with the $hit sandwich someone dropped in your lap in a responsible way is equally as bad as creating it in the first place is a little bit of a dishonest way to approach it.

I agree with you. I don't have a problem with the way Obama has handled things in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Obama obviously inherited the situation. My only point was that if Miraja2 thought the wars were evil and had bad motivations that Miraja2 should be critical of Obama for even continuing the wars. It turns out that Miraja2 is critical of Obama's continuing of the wars. I don't have a problem with that. At least Miraja2 is consistent.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Hmm...well I didn't say I didn't think it, I just said I didn't say it in that post.
As for the Obama administration, in Iraq they are gradually implementing a phased withdrawal. I give them some credit for that, although I am not sure their efforts there really differ greatly from how the Bush administration would be handling Iraq now were it still in power. However, I wouldn't say that gradually implementing a slow end to a completely unnecessary war is "just as bad" as starting a completely unnecessary war in the first place.
As far as Afghanistan, I think the Obama administration's decisions to ramp up U.S. efforts there are absolutely horrible. I have criticized the administration's actions there on numerous occasions, and hope that other liberals do the same. If we only criticize the Bush administration when they do crap like this and give the Obama administration a free ride, we are just as hypocritical as all the conservatives who suddenly started caring about the debt and deficit in January '09 after ignoring it for eight years.

Fair enough. I respect that you are consistent about being against the war no matter who the President is.