Barrack Hussein Obama

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ned
Link?

What does it matter?

All things being equal, would you vote for a Christian whose parents were Christian at the time that they married, or for a Christian whose parents were [insert non-Christian religion here] at the time that they married? If you answered "no, I have no preference either way," then your question is stupid. If you answered "yes, I would prefer the TRUE CHRISTIAN over the HEATHEN CHRISTIAN," then you're an idiot. "OMG, Barack Obama's parents may have believed something contrary to what I believe, HE MUST BE A TERRORIST!!! IF YOU VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA (that's an awfully muslim-sounding name, isn't it???) then you SUPPORT TERROR!!!"

[Ned]

Loin, If what one's parents believe is irrelevant, then why did the Democrats bring up the matter of Schwarzenegger's father being a Nazi and why did people bring up the fact that Mel Gibson's father was an anti-Semite?

[LordShiva]

Because they were idiots too

[loinburger]

Did Schwarzenegger and Gibson actively oppose their fathers' political leanings?

"Your father is a douchebag."
"Oh yeah? Well I support my father's right to be a douchebag, as well as my right to get drunk and act like a douchebag in the same vein as my father!"

Strikes me as being a bit different than

"Your father is a douchebag."
"Yeah, but he's Muslim and I'm Christian, so only somebody like Ned who can't tell the difference between a Muslim and a Christian convert would mistake me for some sort of Jihadist."

The fact remains that you've said that all Muslims are, by default, supporters of suicide bombings and Jihad and whatnot. Derka derka. "Democrats (?) opposed Kennedy because he was Catholic, therefore I'm justified in opposing Obama because he's got a Muslim-sounding name." Jesus H. Christ. It has apparently sailed over your head that even the freepers are acknowledging that the "hussein obama = terrorist" tactic is idiotic, unless you're in the category of "muslim ancestry = jihadist!" idiocy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by loinburger
The fact remains that you've said that all Muslims are, by default, supporters of suicide bombings and Jihad and whatnot. Derka derka. "Democrats (?) opposed Kennedy because he was Catholic, therefore I'm justified in opposing Obama because he's got a Muslim-sounding name." Jesus H. Christ. It has apparently sailed over your head that even the freepers are acknowledging that the "hussein obama = terrorist" tactic is idiotic, unless you're in the category of "muslim ancestry = jihadist!" idiocy.

Loin, I said nothing of the sort. You have obviously gone off the cliff in your effort to rear-end me.

I said that most Muslims support OBL's goals if not his methods. They are, on the whole, anti-Israel and anti-West. I assume that most Muslims, however, would prefer the issue of Israel be resolved peacefully.

However, I support Israel and support bringing modernism to Islam, which means I oppose the goals of most Muslims. Because of this, I could not support a Muslim for president. This is not different in kind from a liberal not supporting a fundy Christain for president because most fundy Christians oppose abortion, an issue important to them.

Now I also said that I personally do not know what Obama stood for as I knew he was not a Muslim.

We got off on this whole tangent because one poster, from India, thought that the reference to Obama's middle name by his opponents was intended to inspire racist fears of Obama. I had to go through this whole explanation to lay out why the reference was to suggest that he was a Muslim and why that would cause Americans pause.

[Monk]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Because they were idiots too

I second that. The 'waaah, the other camp is doing it too' argument isn't really an argument, it's a way to escape having to explain yourself. The same technique was applied earlier in this thread, see post 96.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ned
However, I support Israel and support bringing modernism to Islam, which means I oppose the goals of most Muslims. Because of this, I could not support a Muslim for president. This is not different in kind from a liberal not supporting a fundy Christain for president because most fundy Christians oppose abortion, an issue important to them.

This "muslim == fundy muslim" tomfoolery is the problem. Knowing only that somebody is a Christian, do you automatically assume that they're a fundamentalist Christian? Because knowing only that somebody is a Muslim you're evidently assuming that they're a fundamentalist Muslim.

[Ned]

Loin, do you seriously dispute the fact that most Muslims, regardless of their radicalism, oppose Israel? Islamic fundies, the extremists, go further. They are willing to use force to get their way.

As to Christians, clearly there is not group-think here on the issue of abortion. Many Christians and even Catholics support it.

Fundamentalist Christians, however, do not.

Thus I can see justification for a liberal to not vote for a fundamentalist Christian for the reason that he supports what they oppose.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Ned

We got off on this whole tangent because one poster, from India, thought that the reference to Obama's middle name by his opponents was intended to inspire racist fears of Obama. I had to go through this whole explanation to lay out why the reference was to suggest that he was a Muslim and why that would cause Americans pause.

In fact you argued that the racism claim was bogus, since it's the "war on terror" that counts and not a "war against islam".

So, in the above quoted statement, is 'Muslim' a (freudian) slip of the tongue, or do you argue that many american voters will simply not make the distinction?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ned
Loin, do you seriously dispute the fact that most Muslims, regardless of their radicalism, oppose Israel?

Depends. Does "oppose Israel" mean "desire the destruction of Israel," or does it mean "criticize Israel in any way shape or form?" Because CAIR appears to oppose Israel's discriminatory practices without opposing its existence, so if your definition of "oppose" is the first one then I'd say that most American Muslims do not "oppose Israel."

[Ned]

Germanos, the war on terror is more than an active fight against al Qa'ida. It cannot be won unless we fundamentally change Islam so that it embraces what we call a respect for individual rights, women's rights, democracy, the rule of law, liberal toleration for others, the things we call Western civilization. This effort has been under way in Turkey for some time, and recently it has accelerated at the urging of the EU.

Today, it is clear, howerver, that most Muslims agree with the goals of OBL, even most American Muslims.

Given this, I think there is a an obvious problem with electing as the leader of the Western effort against al Qa'ida anyone who is anti-Israel and anti-West.

Now, those who are political opponents of Obama are raising the issue of his name to suggest that he himself is Muslim to those who don't know much about him and to suggest generally that he is the wrong man to lead the WOT.

It has nothing to do with race, IMHO.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned


Arrian, are you SURE it was only Republicans raising this question. You have to remember that in those days the so-called Bible Belt was a bastion of the Democrat Party. Also, there was the Democrat primary where the same issue was raised, IIRC.

That would be Oerdin you're speaking to, not me.

-Arrian

[Ned]

Originally posted by loinburger

Depends. Does "oppose Israel" mean "desire the destruction of Israel," or does it mean "criticize Israel in any way shape or form?" Because CAIR appears to oppose Israel's discriminatory practices without opposing its existence, so if your definition of "oppose" is the first one then I'd say that most American Muslims do not "oppose Israel."

Destruction? I agree.

But I think most would want Israel to be subsumed by a larger, Arab-dominated Palestine, similar to what happened in South Africa. They do not agree with Zionism. They do not agree that the foundation of Israel as a state was necessary. They see it as unlawful and a violation of Arab sovereignity.

[dannubis]

Ned, who are you to say what they have to accept ? They just need to learn to respect our values. Just as we need to respect theirs without necessarily agreeing with them.

[Ned]

Dan, once upon a time, that might have been possible. But with Israel in the ME, the West has to get involved or else. The whole conflict between Islam and the West is because of Israel.