OT: Iowa Congressman says Radical Islam will dance in the streets
"Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, speaking to a local Iowa radio station, said that terrorists would dance in the streets if Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, is elected president -- precisely because of not only Obama's position on withdrawing US troops from Iraq, but because Obama's middle name is "Hussein," his father's Muslim roots, and his appearance -- or "optics," as King put it."
His "appearance." In other words, he be a darky.
The audio:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003722255
Ugh. This fear mongering crap has gotten so damn tiresome. And it simply blows my mind that elected leaders can pass off racist rhetoric like this as legitimate discourse. Some other links:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/republican-cong.html
A good example of the disgusting morons that help promote this myth is found in the comments of this link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1982410/posts (note the picture)
0 recs |
107
comments
Comments
Am I the only person
by jamcadbury on Mar 8, 2008 9:46 PM CST 0 recs
hmm
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 9:49 PM CST 0 recs
The KKK
Islamic extremists are a very real threat right now, and I am fairly certain that they would be pleased if we had a Barack Obama presidency.
by dstar442005 on
Mar 8, 2008 9:56 PM CST
up
0 recs
That's the stupidiest...
by slc ranger on
Mar 8, 2008 10:07 PM CST
up
0 recs
containment
by dstar442005 on
Mar 8, 2008 11:03 PM CST
up
0 recs
He's from Iowa
by Chris Martin on Mar 8, 2008 9:50 PM CST 0 recs
He's possibly shooting for re-election
That's painting with the broadest of brushes, certainly not true of all individuals, but net/net was a fact 1965-1975. Maybe things have picked up there, maybe not.
by Ed Coffin on
Mar 9, 2008 12:26 AM CST
up
0 recs
Hopefully McCain will denounce...
People like this have no place in the world. Don't vote for someone because of his middle name? Are you f@#king kidding me. Perhaps the left should start calling McCain...John "W" McCain.
by slc ranger on Mar 8, 2008 10:03 PM CST 0 recs
'W'
by Longhorn on
Mar 8, 2008 10:10 PM CST
up
0 recs
How so?
by slc ranger on
Mar 8, 2008 10:42 PM CST
up
0 recs
funny you should mention that...
also, wasn't it pretty common "knowledge" that Bush wouldn't be re-elected 4 years ago? Wasn't it like a slam dunk that everybody hated him, his public opinion was crap, and nobody wanted him back, yet he won and remained in office another 4 years?
there's so much chatter out there about Bush sucking, and everybody hating him, but he's the incumbent - we weren't looking for radical change, like the left is, and so there wasn't as much pro-Bush propaganda like there was anti-Bush propaganda. the truth is, those that want change are going to be more vocal about it and garner support from celebs like Wyclef and Oprah to spread the "good news about CHANGE"
While I don't think our country is anywhere near being perfect, I see status quo as a lot better of an option than radical change in many cases, and I am not motivated to garner support because I am pretty satisfied with my own personal situation and the situations of all of the people that I know - whether they be liberal or conservative or middle of the road.
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 4:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
job market
by ab03 on
Mar 9, 2008 5:32 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I respect your opinion Walter...
by slc ranger on
Mar 9, 2008 5:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
that's all I can ask of you
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 5:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
The Status quo being
Yeah, why would you want to mess with that.
by DJCahill on
Mar 10, 2008 6:09 AM CDT
up
0 recs
except
by ab03 on
Mar 8, 2008 10:13 PM CST
up
0 recs
it's not right, not pc at all...
And, not sure why you keep linking radical blogs. Who cares what they say? That's stupid.
by Longhorn on Mar 8, 2008 10:08 PM CST 0 recs
which one of those was a radical blog?
by ab03 on
Mar 8, 2008 10:12 PM CST
up
0 recs
damn
by Longhorn on
Mar 8, 2008 10:13 PM CST
up
0 recs
Sigh
Bunch of crap. It's accentuated when you're a religious Jew and have to deal with the paranoia; however justified my friends are for being wary, I can't believe they're actually taking internet muckraking as credible evidence of someone's beliefs.
by BudLight on Mar 8, 2008 10:12 PM CST 0 recs
+1
by Longhorn on
Mar 8, 2008 10:14 PM CST
up
0 recs
i don't understand the last line
by ab03 on
Mar 8, 2008 10:18 PM CST
up
0 recs
All of the rumors
by BudLight on
Mar 8, 2008 10:37 PM CST
up
0 recs
mis-remembering?
by Jayslick on
Mar 9, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
so the fact that somebody puts
wow.
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 4:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
if
besides you dont put your hand over your heart for anything but the pledge of allegiance. period. so yeah they would at the least be uneducated about the subject.
by Jayslick on
Mar 9, 2008 8:16 PM CDT
up
0 recs
or caught up in the moment, perhaps...
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 10:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
this argument
So, it goes, muslim extremists would be happy that obama becomes president. And as a result of their happiness they will blow things up? They will target the U.S. even more now that one of their own is running the country?
the closest thing is that he said it makes the U.S. look weak. Well, as long as we actually aren't weak, I don't think it's a problem. And the first time Obama orders a bombing of a terrorist compound in Western Pakistan, I'm pretty sure they'll stop thinking that.
by ab03 on Mar 8, 2008 10:17 PM CST 0 recs
Answering ab03
Something else: black and brown peoples around the world(including black and brown terrorists) will likely be heartened if Obama wins in November. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out. Rep. King does deserve scorn for forgetting what America is about, i.e. if Obama were the best qualified candidate for President, then America doesn't give a damn what any terrorist or anybody might think - good or bad - about our decision to elect Obama. Neither terrorists, no anyone else, will scare us or prevent us from electing our best candidate.
Similarly, Rep. King's logic is inferior re both "Hussein", and Obama's father's Islamic faith. We don't give a damn if these things encourage terrorists. Terrorists do not get to determine how we run our nation.
Rep. King's comments revealed inferior perspective and inferior logic. They did not reveal racism.
To abo3:
The only terrorist happiness I care about is their happiness that we elected a President who is perceived as soft on terrorism. It's valid to consider how much extra at risk we would be if our President were perceived as "soft". It's valid to consider to what extent terrorists would be emboldened by their perception of Obama.
If Obama gets bluffed by Al Qaeda, Iran, and the media in Iraq; and if Obama then folds a winning hand in Iraq; then it doesn't matter how many compounds Obama bombs in Pakistan. Obama's weakness will be apparent to every Jihadi in the world.
McCain is correct to ridicule Obama for saying he would leave Iraq, then return to Iraq if it became necessary to fight Al Qaeda. Obama's statement is naive in a dozen ways. Not only are Al Qaeda and Iran already attempting chaos in Iraq, but it's politically difficult(in America, in Iraq, and internationally) to suddenly insert American troops into any nation. It's logistically difficult - including b/c you are pulling National Guardsmen away from their jobs and families. The Natl. Guard wants to win now - when they've already been pulled away from their jobs and families. They don't want to come home, resume their lives, then get jerked around by Obama and sent back to Iraq. If Obama had the slightest familiarity with the military he would understand this. If he re-sent them, the Natl. Guard would go - but he would be jerking them around. (and whatever others are reading this, save your whining about stop-loss. That's in everyone's contract - and everyone knows it when they sign up. Stop-loss is kinda tough, but it is being overemphasized b/c of it's political value to Democrats. Letting Natl. Guard resume their lives, then yanking them back into Iraq, is about 50 times more disruptive than stop-loss. Or 100 times.)
Back to the issue: Jihadis emboldened by the weakness Obama would display via folding a winning hand in Iraq. A lot of conservatives understand this statement inside the context of a larger threat than Al Qaeda: the widespread, worldwide presence of Islamic terrorism/Jihadism. The fight against Al Qaeda/Osama is really just a skirmish. The larger war is to wrest the soul of Islam from the grasping clutches of the Islamic fundamentalism. The fundamentalists do not control Islam, yet they want to control it. The madrassas are turning out Jihad warriors every year.
The fundamentalists/Jihadists must be stopped before they become exponentially stronger. Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of freedom, democracy, and pluralism? Can they be stopped by the powerful allure of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? We shall find the answer to a greater certainty if McCain is elected, as McCain will allow the entire Iraq democractic effort to play out fully. If freedom and democracy do not win more Muslims towards moderation, and away from Jihadism, then Islam runs a very much larger chance of having millions of it's citizens eventually slaughtered by American and Western nuclear weapons. If political correctness handcuffs America into being unable to conduct smaller skirmishes such as Iraq, then America's only weapon of self-defense will become gigantic nuclear booms. Inside this context, if one recognizes a serious Jihadi threat to the soul of Islam, then the Iraq War begins to look like a humanitarian effort on several levels: remove Saddam and his regional meddling; liberate the Shiites and Kurds; lessen the chances of nuclear warfare in the future.
So, if one understands Iraq in this context, then one doesn't want a (perceived) soft U.S. President to take office. Such an occurance can only encourage more Muslims towards Jihad, and away from moderation.
I apologize for the length of this. I don't guess I'm good enough or smart enough to make it much shorter.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 1:18 AM CST
up
0 recs
x
whatever, i'm not going to argue the merits of the iraq war with someone who refers to it as a humanitarian effort. all i know is that i wouldn't want to die policing another country that may or may not pose a threat to me in 50 years (assuming that war is the only way) and I don't expect anybody else to do it for me. i see the risk and i calculate that risking a thousand american lives a year isn't worth the small chance that american policing will yield a stable
government.
have you served in the military? are you speaking from experience when you say that people should be willing to go back? how old are you?
and, incidentally, i don't think obama plans on withdrawing troops and then sending them back.
by ab03 on
Mar 9, 2008 1:52 AM CST
up
0 recs
ab03
This is partially why I tried to explicate, in my comment above, what is the threat many conservatives perceive. Conservatives such as myself are not so worried about near-term terror attacks as we are about exponential growth of the fundamentalism/Jihad movement. It is only inside the larger threat (of growing worldwide fundamentalism/Jihad) that the perceived softness of Obama is seen as a very big problem for the U.S.
"have you served in the military?" I will not answer. This is the "chickenhawk" argument; and it is a discredited argument. Any answer I give would be a distraction from logic and reason.
I didn't say anyone "should be willing to go back". We miscommunicated somewhere on this.
"how old are you?" Again, I think any answer I give would be a type of distraction. I'm older than dstar. That's enough for now.
"i don't think obama plans on withdrawing troops and then sending them back". The bolded part is the problem. IMO, Obama is not Mr. New Politics of Hope. He's the same old politics which evades specifics and, when he must be specific, surrounds both sides of an issue whenever possible. I've heard Obama criticize Hillary for not setting a hard date/schedule for withdrawal from Iraq ... then, two sentences later, I've heard Obama say that, as President, he will "of course" retain flexibility to act according to changing conditions on the ground. ??!! President Bush is retaining flexibility according to changing conditions on the ground.
On Friday, a top Obama foreign policy advisor(Samantha Power) resigned from the Obama campaign and said this:
Power told a British television audience that Obama's plan for withdrawing from Iraq (like, apparently, his plan to renegotiate NAFTA) isn't really to be taken seriously. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator," Power explained. In perhaps the most sensible comment I've heard her make, Power added: "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009." She went on to describe Obama's stated plan as "a best case scenario."So, the problem w/Obama: we think this, we think that. We don't know. He is too clever by half. I'm beginning to suspect it will catch up to him.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 3:42 AM CST
up
0 recs
Please
by brettgardner on
Mar 9, 2008 11:01 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I'm voting for the Republican
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 2:29 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Your view of Obama...
Guess what, you Bush republicans have been wrong on almost everything the last 8 years. You have no leg to stand on. Why should anyone believe anything you say now. You say shit like Iraq would fall apart if we left now. How do you know? Did you have a good plan going in? Have things turned out the way you expected them to? Why should anything you say now have any validity. Just like with the economy it will take a democrat to come in and fix this mess, and they will. Whether you like it or not.
by slc ranger on
Mar 9, 2008 11:14 AM CDT
up
0 recs
slc
I love hope. I just think Obama is a regular polotico who is playing regular political games in his efforts to win votes. He is not some special paradigm shift.
I've never said this country will never change. Change is inevitable and ongoing. My worry is we are changing for the worse.
Re: Iraq
As I said to ab03, we cannot debate Iraq, b/c we do not agree on the threat our nation faces. slc, if you and I agreed about what constitutes the threat, then I might very well agree with your assessment of conditions in Iraq.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 2:39 PM CDT
up
0 recs
have you even talked to soldiers that have
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 4:56 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I have spoke to some...
Obviously with disagree on the reason for being over there. As I have always said, I'm as far to the left as they come, so you have to take my point of view with a grain of salt. Like with Huck I understand your point of view, I just disagree with it. And as you have said that is fine. It would be a very boring world if everyone agreed on everything.
by slc ranger on
Mar 9, 2008 7:17 PM CDT
up
0 recs
by the way, I am not a Republican.
by Walter Sobchak on
Mar 9, 2008 5:04 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I don't think it matters...
by slc ranger on
Mar 9, 2008 7:30 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Do we really think that declaring war on them
I'm not saying I know what the best way would be. But my speculation includes some kind of humanitarian and propaganda bombardment. The war is exactly the opposite of the propaganda we would need.
by a bebop a rebop on
Mar 9, 2008 11:02 AM CDT
up
0 recs
hi bebop!
"Humanitarian bombardment"
In Iraq and Afghan, we are doing humanitarian bombardment as much as we are logistically able to do so.
"Propaganda bombardment"
I'm with you. Our lack of public relations/propaganda bombardment is a pet peeve of mine. Since we want to win the people away from Sharia and Jihadism, public relations/propaganda is just as important as bullets(though including the "bullets" part may not fairly reflect exactly what you said).
The good news is the U.S. military is learning strategic public relations lessons as we go, and is adapting.
is war "the best way to win over the heart and soul of Islam to peaceful coexistence and democracy?"
This is THE KEY QUESTION, isn't it?
In Iraq, our goal is to protect the moderates, allow them to love freedom and democracy, then count on them to win the undecided fence sitters over to moderation.
Without U.S./Iraqi/Coalition military protection for the people, Al Qaeda and Iran would never allow moderate Iraqis to be won over to freedom and democracy.
The good news is the disciplined(though imperfect) and humanitarian behavior of our troops is it's own kind of good public relations for our cause. Our troop discipline, and our codes of conduct, are a large part of the "awakening" we currently see amongst Iraqi tribes. For the most part, the Iraqi people now see we are not at war with them.
Al Qaeda, especially when it was living amongst the Sunni tribes, was neither disciplined nor humanitarian. Their behavior led to their rejection by the tribes.
Iraq is a grand democratic experiment. If moderate Muslims are incompatible with democracy, the spector of horrific nuclear booms draws closer.
If political correctness handcuffs the U.S.; if pc prevents us from conducting military skirmishes such as Iraq; then we are stripping ourselves of interim measures of self-protective recourse. We will, then, take it and take it and take it from an enemy, until such time as we spasmodically strike back with the world's most horrible weapons.
I do not want that day to happen. I am hopeful that Muslims will embrace democracy. I am hopeful we will not allow pc to strip us of our ability to protect ourselves in some way short of nuclear pushback.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 3:19 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Just quit already.
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 3:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Air
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 3:56 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Huh?
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 4:03 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Air
I perceive the threat as fundamentalists/Jihadis who are attempting to gain control of Islam. They wish to institute widespread Sharia law. They argued, even in the 1990s, that America was attacking Islam(via many methods of attack - including cultural and economic). Therefore, they argued, as a matter of self-defense, they argue that every Muslim should declare Jihad on America.
The number of fundamentalists might be somewhere around 91 million. Last month, French news agency AFP reported that a new Gallup poll, which took six years to complete, showed approx. "93 percent of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims are moderates and only seven percent are politically radical, according to the poll, based on more than 50,000 interviews."
Seven percent of 1.3 billion leaves us with 91 million radical Islamists. They are the threat. They must be severely discredited inside their own religion - just as the KKK is severely discredited inside America.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 4:30 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Radicals
Jihadis attempting to gain control of Islam- If you're worried about that, don't. It will never happen.
The culture- Wow. That is so off base I'm dumbfounded. "Mothers calming their sons via fondling the boys' genitals." Where the hell did you get that? You are severely misinformed my friend. I'm not Muslim but have lived in that region for awhile. Lebanon to be exact and none of the crap you said about the culture is true.
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 5:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
FGM
by ab03 on
Mar 9, 2008 5:38 PM CDT
up
0 recs
ab03
In addition to Africa, there's a lot of FGM in Indonesia.
I disagree that age matters. This is conversation about ideas, facts, et al. Age, beauty, do not matter. Even claims of experience and expertise do not matter. What matters is the legitimacy of the ideas, facts, et al which are in the conversation.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 6:20 PM CDT
up
0 recs
x
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 6:26 PM CDT
up
0 recs
air
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 6:41 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yeah,
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 6:49 PM CDT
up
0 recs
air
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 6:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I
"The culture currently celebrates honor killing your daughter, as well as Female Genital Mutilation, as well mothers calming their sons via fondling the boys' genitals. It's little wonder the culture encourages men to believe they have no control over their sexual urges. It's little wonder the culture encourages belief in victimization over belief in responsibility."
That is my biggest problem. You have no proof and can't back any of the statements you made.
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 7:02 PM CDT
up
0 recs
air
If you are objecting that x,y,z do not exist, I give you links(and there are plenty more links where these came from).
Honor Killing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_Killing
FGM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Genital_Mutilation
Mothers calming boys via fondling genitals:
http://shrinkwrapped.blogs.com/blog/2008/02/the-arab-mind-2.html
Men having no control over their sexual urges: What do you think the abaiya and the burka are about? What do you think the stoning of rape victims is about?
Belief in victimization over responsibility:
There are a lot of links I could go to here. The main problem is that Arab and Persian societies are honor/shame cultures to the core. People inside Honor and shame cultures do not like to admit mistakes, as they believe that admitting mistakes dishonors them(in this, they are like some commenters here at LSB!). I always liked Dr. Pat Santy's outstanding take on this subject:
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 7:30 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Finally it makes sense.
Like I originally stated, just quit. If what you've stated is true then only a minuscule amount of people do that. To imply that the majority of the culture is doing it, is false.
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 7:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
air
I will say two things:
One: You would learn more from reading Shrinkwrapped, and from reading Dr. Santy, than from reflexively discrediting them.
Two: There are many links available on this subject matter. Many. But, I shall not provide more links whilst hoping against hope that you will approve of a particular source.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 8:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs
x
by AirJordan on
Mar 9, 2008 8:23 PM CDT
up
0 recs
air
Thanks for sharing your opinions in these comments.
by Huck on
Mar 9, 2008 8:31 PM CDT
u


