I think this is the worst thing I’ve ever heard Jon Stewart say:
Afghanistan, we went in there because they were the guys that were holding Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and allowing them to do it. So, I understand we go in there and bomb them. I don’t understand this whole idea that when you have a war, then you have to go back after the war and be like “okay, the war is over, what do you want fixed?” It doesn’t seem to make sense to me any more that this is our strategy.
…At a certain point, you know what? You throw up your hands and you go – you don’t want democracy? F*ck it, don’t take it. You don’t want to be American, f*ck it, go settle your own state.
Jon, it’s not the Afghan people’s fault that they’ve never had a chance to vote in a genuinely democratic election, or that after their previous oppressive government was destroyed (the Afghan people were also not responsible for what the Taliban – sorry, the people sheltered by the Taliban – did to the US) it was simply replaced by a group of crooks who were completely unable to restore stability. And what did the US forces do in the meantime? Concentrate on fighting their own war, stuff the Afghan people who were in the way.
What’s with the sense of aggrievement? For what precisely are the Afghan people supposed to be grateful to the US?
Saying stuff ’em, let ’em continue to be oppressed by the people who are destroying the country now (some of whom the US put in charge), is like saying let’s just kill the lot of them for the crimes of a few. Oh, like you and Aasif joked minutes earlier.
Guys, calling mass murder “Kablooey” doesn’t actually make it any better.
Seriously, I don’t know where Stewart’s empathy went, but when one of the most self-aware and reasonable Americans in the media can come out with something so contemptibly callous (and be cheered by his supposedly liberal audience), it’s a sad indictment on sentiments in that country.
It’s particularly worrying on the day that the results of a decade of inculcating those attitudes in the young become appallingly apparent.
Is it possible it’s a piss-take? I haven’t watched the video link (having trouble with video downloads atm), but it does sound an odd position for Stewart to take.
I’m not saying I agree with everything Stewart is saying…but dare I say it, lighten up! The show is satire after all. The whole situation in Afghanistan is pretty fucked up. Are you saying that to joke about it is off limits?
The whole ‘Kablooey’ strategy was mocking the American approach to date.
That’s how I took it at first… but Stewart’s outburst to Aslan didn’t come across at all as satire. It came across as a sentiment of “f*ck ’em” that’s now spread from Apache gunners to liberal comedy show hosts. It’s not funny; it’s a huge worry.
Aren’t you linking two completely unrelated things which coincidentally are in the media at the same time?
Have you heard the video? This “f*ck ’em” attitude in the gunners didn’t come from nowhere.
It didn’t come from Stewart either, obviously – but he’s very influential. I suspect that attitude being expressed by him will have real consequences in encouraging the US public to give up on Afghanistan. And in motivating young soldiers there to be more contemptuous of the locals – with potentially devastating consequences.
I have seen the video. But it’s a different country and a different year.
I think the US public gave up on Afghanistan quite a while ago, frankly.
Sorry, I added another sentence to my last comment before seeing yours.
You might be right in the US public having given up on Afghanistan – but I expect better of Stewart.
The shame of it is that the Afghanis are such beautiful people who have been screwed over by so many empires (Britain, USSR, USA) and militant Islam for their own purposes. They struggle to have their own identity and stability
why bother posting about this..Jon clearly has no idea about al-queda or the taliban
What is the problem with what Stewart said:? The US job in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda. They are not obliged to do nation building.
In fact they have tried, but they are not going to succeed unless they rid the country of its barbaric religious beliefs. If they are serious about nation building, step 1 is to kill those teaching vile doctrines.
The yanks need to care less about democratic structures. They will never work in the face of the widespread institutionalised stupidity that comes when people have really stupid beliefs forced on them by their preachers and teachers.
You cannot hit a switch and change things overnight. First you need a culture of freedom and human rights. you will not get this while inhuman religious beliefs prevail.
“The US job in Afghanistan was to destroy al Qaeda. They are not obliged to do nation building.”
They destroyed the previous government, and set up another corrupt one in its place.
They broke it, they bought it.
“In fact they have tried, but they are not going to succeed unless they rid the country of its barbaric religious beliefs.”
Possibly best to do that whilst not pushing your own.
In hindsight we should have assisted the Soviets, not the Muja hiddens (spelling????) that morphed into al Qaeda and bit us on the arse, the Russians even approached the US to assist with a withdrawl, the US told the USSR to get lost. marvellous, we reap what we sow. We refuse to learn from our mistakes….
We are destined to fail. We are propping up a corrupt govt who have no regard for women’s rights and only put up with democracy because it’s put them in power.
“only put up with democracy because it’s put them in power.”
Actually they (Karzai et al) don’t even tolerate democracy now, the last election was a farce.
They broke it, they bought it.
The government of Afghanistan provided a haven for al Qaeda to plan attacks on the West. The job of the NATO allies was to take whatever measures they thought fit to protect their people.
Nation building is an optional extra, based on a mistaken belief that all people are capable of changing cultures at the flick of a switch.
“If they are serious about nation building, step 1 is to kill those teaching vile doctrines.”
While they’re at it, why stop in Afghanistan? The pope still believes in Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, doesn’t he? If he doesn’t, I’m sure there are plenty of cardinals, bishops, priests and assorted whackos who do. That’s pretty vile, isn’t it? So is their teaching on sexuality, not to mention the practice. Kill them all, I say! Let’s build a better world through religious cleansing. We have the technology to identify these people. It would be a crime not to use it.
Blood, if you are that worried about salvation, you should get yourself a religion. Try not to choose one that produces most of the world’s terrorists.
“….if you are that worried about salvation…”
What? Me worry? Who says I don’t have a religion? And even if I did choose Islam, I wouldn’t go along with any of that literal-minded crap. Instead, I’d focus on the deeper level of the teaching, sort of like the way you and Tony Abbott decide for yourselves which bits of Catholicism you choose to adhere to. You once disappeared from this forum when asked to give a rational justification for the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, for example. In my day, that would have had you excommunicated.
You once disappeared from this forum when asked to give a rational justification for the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, for example.
Absolute lies. I never duck a question.
The whole point about miracles is that they don’t require rational justification! If they were rational they wouldn’t be miracles. You have a long way to go if you are going to understand the ways of Allah.
“The whole point about miracles is that they don’t require rational justification! ”
The whole point of the question you ducked was that you had made the claim that Catholicism was a rational religion, unlike some others. You were then asked to explain the Assumption rationally, and you disappeared from the thread. Absolute truth.
Miracles, by definition, do not admit of rational explanation. It would be irrational to believe that they do.
At last we have our answer SB, not one that would be widely accepted but an answer nonetheless, and your spotless record is restored.
Now to return to the topic, maybe you can explain how we are going to go about (1) deciding what is a “vile doctrine” (you obviously don’t think EENS is one, but I do), and (2) killing everyone who teaches them.
Maybe we’ll have to divide up the job. You can kill all the Muzzies and I’ll sort out the rest. Is it a deal? Can I start with the Catholics?
An example of a vile doctrine is one that mandates jihad, such as:
You can add to that doctrines which prescribe death for homosexuality or apostasy or for criticising the sex-crazed murderous prophet.
Anyone who preaches that bullshit in circumstances where people are likely to act on it needs to be put down. Looks like I’ll be busy, and you will have nothing to do.
Is Splatterbottom the person formerly known as SB?
So EENS is OK then? Stoning adulterers is fine? Happy with this kind of crap from a canonised saint, are we?
“The Council of Aix-la-Chapelle forbids dancing, even at weddings. And St. Charles Borromeo, the Archbishop of Milan, says that three years of penance were given to someone who had danced and that if he went back to it, he was threatened with excommunication. If there were no harm in it, then were the Holy Fathers and the Church mistaken?”
Or this, on the Church’s reasons for excommunicating the parents of a nine-year-old girl who arranged a life-saving abortion for her after she became pregnant as a result of being raped by her stepfather:
“….the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated. Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified.”
So the Catholics are in the clear because no-one is likely to act on any of their shit? Is that how this works?
“Is Splatterbottom the person formerly known as SB?”
Isn’t it obvious? This kind of crap is way more conclusive than fingerprinting or DNA evidence.
maybe one day wordpress will have an “ignore” system…its fair to assume not all commentors are what they seem on the surface
As fascists go, he’s quite intelligent, so I’m happy for him to keep posting no matter what name he uses. It helps us to understand how people think in that other universe far, far away.
My initials are SB. WordPress knows my full name.
Blood, it looks like you are going to need a time machine to find examples of people preaching jihad and the killing of apostates, blasphemers and gays, unless you re-focus on present day examples.
But hey, why do something to help people threatened with murder in the here and now when you can enjoy the mental masturbation of retrospective righteousness.
“It helps us to understand how people think in that other universe far, far away.”
the downside is… good discussion gets derailed into nonsense
You are aware of the place of the saints and popes in Catholic teaching SB? And the fact that the abortion case happened last year? You know, 2009? No? Bloody converts, they’re all the same, no idea.
“But hey, why do something to help people threatened with murder in the here and now”
You are aware that you made a threat of murder yourself? Aren’t you? Or was it just your usual windy rhetoric, intended as provocation only?
“….the downside is… good discussion gets derailed into nonsense….”
True enough Karl, but it’s hard to let threats of violence go unchallenged, especially by a devotee of the religion that brought you the Spanish Inquisition.
“Splatterbottom // 9 April, 2010 at 1:20 pm
My initials are SB.”
No they’re not, they’re S.
SB: “Blood, if you are that worried about salvation, you should get yourself a religion. Try not to choose one that produces most of the world’s terrorists.”
Whilst not a religion, I would say Neo Liberalism produced more terrorists, and certainly more dead innocents. Neo Liberals do tend to be of the Christian faith as well…
Blood: “As fascists go, he’s quite intelligent, so I’m happy for him to keep posting no matter what name he uses. It helps us to understand how people think in that other universe far, far away.”
I wouldn’t confuse an ability to intertwine large words with the “wank”, “turd” and “power elite” a sign of intelligence.
A real sign is questioning authority – something SB isn’t capable of doing, unless News Limited tells him to.
I also wouldn’t have thought of him as a fascist previously but his recent banging on about working class organisations needing to be smashed and his love of the Tea Party leads me to believe that SB is indeed become glued to a fascist ideology.
“I wouldn’t confuse an ability to intertwine large words with the “wank”, “turd” and “power elite” a sign of intelligence.”
Fair point – but I did say “as fascists go”.
“I also wouldn’t have thought of him as a fascist previously ”
Neither would I, until he started talking about killing people who teach “vile doctrines”. That is fascist talk, undeniably.
Blood, if people are preaching terrorism with the effect that there is a continual supply of terrorists wreaking murder and mayhem on their society, then it might not be such a bad idea to deal with the matter at source. Killing the Taliban or al Qaeda leadership, or those that preach similar nonsense seems like a good idea to me. Killing the footsoldiers is fine, but largely ineffective.
Maybe you would say that but it doesn’t mean anything. There is no basis for either of these assertions, and I have no idea what terrorism has to do with any particular school of economic thought.
Stop backpedalling SB.
I love Bob Ellis. Whenever in a moment of self-reflection I think I might be travelling a little close to the edge, I need only recall the interstellar distance Bob has put between himself and reality.
“Maybe you would say that but it doesn’t mean anything. There is no basis for either of these assertions, and I have no idea what terrorism has to do with any particular school of economic thought.” – SB
Don’t give me that garbage. Neoliberalism built the Mujaheddin and all the bullshit that came from it. Neo Liberalism made the Contras. If they weren’t terrorists what were? If you consider the Zapatistas terrorists, well you (or anyone that thinks that) is obviously a braindead fuckwit, but then again they did form in direct response to neoliberalism. (I dunno if you do tho, for all your flaws SB I actually don’t think you are that ignorant.)
But there are countless people who have taken up arms in response to being ripped off by Neoliberalism.
No doubt that might make them terrorists to some, but they are just acting in self defense.
But yeah dead innocents, well 30,000 kids a day (its probably 40,000 now) die of preventable disease or hunger, in the 21st century cos of a worldwide econopmic system that formed under neoliberal principles, so you know whinge about Communism or mad Muslims all you like.
They haven’t killed over 30, 000 children every day this century and at least 25 years into the last one.
Thats uncountable numbers Well not really.
It is actually over 372 million children in the last 34 years.
Give me 3 cheers.
That is a completely demented rant, jules. Lay off the crack-pipe old son, raving dementia doesn’t look attractive on the page, no matter how much ejaculate it produces on your keyboard.
Neoliberalism is an economic doctrine of some merit, and was recognised as such when applied by Hawke and Keating. Although Hawke was a bit extravagant in his claim that no child would live in poverty by 1990, he didn’t actually kill many children implementing neoliberal economic policies and restoring our economy.
There was more to neoliberalism than Hawke, keating and what happened in Australia, and tho compared to what’s came after they look quite good, as far as real leftists go tho they sucked.
But there is more to neoliberalism than Hawke and Keating, its one of those rationalist systems of analysis that do really well in screwing really poor people and funnelling wealth away from populations into what have become transnational organisations.
In a country like Australia neoliberalism involves winding back 100 years of govt regulation on the market, but in countries without that history of the population regulating the market that serves it, neoliberalism allows the worst aspects of laissez-faire nastiness to surface.
I see that instead of discussing the Contras or the creation of the Mujaheddin, SB would rather just avoid the inconvenient topics, spout some vague assertions and claim the person who brought it up was ranting.
Seriously SB – it really is you that does the most ranting.
I agree with you as well Jules about the other effects of Neo Liberalism – starvation and preventable diseases wiping out thousands of people.
Although Keynes wasn’t too crash hot either.
SB is willfully ignorant. He likes having elitist PC lefties to blame for everything and he’s too chicken shit to consider that after all the crap he’s piled up in his mind on “the left” that maybe he’s been wrong all these years.
So instead he’s just becoming more and more deranged his rantings and love of all things GOP and Fox News.
This is precisely why they were so good for the country!
Whereas you seem to support leftist irrationalism.
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle – providing enough regulation to protect people from the excesses of an unbridled market, while still allowing the market to do what it does so much better than socialism, i.e. generating wealth.
Funnily enough, the high school geography course teaches the evils of transnationals without bothering to criticise socialism. The best kids can do is to regurgitate the bullshit, knowing that they are being lied to by ideological nitwits and deluded fools too dumb to question the mushy-minded orthodoxy dribbling from the prolapsed anuses of the education elite.
SB: “Funnily enough, the high school geography course teaches the evils of transnationals without bothering to criticise socialism”
um, what? I thought you were a little old to be hanging around high schools SB? Or do you turn up to history class just to make sure some PC Lefty teacher isn’t poisoning the minds of your children?
As I understood things, the guy who decides on what gets taught in High Schools in Victoria in regards to the Russian Revolution and it’s outcomes is a guy called Adrian Jones – and he teaches that the Revolution was wrong and led to Stalinism and all it’s evils.
I guess because Mr Jones isn’t as rabid and Richard Pipes it means in SB’s eyes he’s just a liberal do gooder though.
BT, I’m in NSW, and I was just helping the kids with their homework. Sounds like Jones has got at least one thing right, even though it is merely stating the bleeding obvious.
“Whereas you seem to support leftist irrationalism.”
Whereas you, SB, seem to support Catholic irrationalism.
PS: Bob Ellis’s article is magnificent, your cheap dismissal of him notwithstanding. What it does is put the crimes of both the Vatican and the Bush administration in perspective. But a sense of proportion has never been your strongest point, so I can see why it seems ridiculous from where you sit.
There is always an irrational aspect to religion. It is the same with the religion of leftism. The difference is that I don’t bring religious arguments into the public square to justify my political position. Leftists do.
It is exactly the lack of proportion, the failure even to discern the relevant issue that makes Ellis so laughable. The Catholic church does not have priests preaching pedophilia. It condemns it, whereas many Islamic preachers advocate sharia law, which is per se a crime against humanity. Every day people are murdered in the name of Islam.
“The Catholic church does not have priests preaching pedophilia. It condemns it”
That’s the whole trouble, SB. It doesn’t condemn it. It makes excuses for it, it hides it, it moves it around, it tries to avoid compensating people for it, it puts its own institutional survival ahead of the needs of victims, and it completely fails to acknowledge its responsibility for creating the vacuum in which it occurs.
Every day lives are shattered in the name of the Universal Church.
“The difference is that I don’t bring religious arguments into the public square to justify my political position.”
You did exactly that when you compared the alleged irrationality of Islam with the alleged rationality of Catholicism. Stop being so sanctimonious.
SB: “This is precisely why they were so good for the country!”
Yes, anytime a government can increase the gap between the rich and poor it’s a good thing. Stupid Lefties always trying to get in the way of that.
You can piss all over this blog as though it just a game but the fact is that you support policies that makes life harder for most people, including me and my family.
As someone who was a child in the 80’s and saw the wages of my parents stagnate because of the accord, I personally believe you’re a souless childish bucket of shit who needs a dose of the real world and a good kick up the ass.
In short – fuck you dick head.
I also notice there’s no critisism of you’re beloved GOP in support of the vile doctrine of Wahabism in Saudi Arabia.
But i guess you like to be picky when you denounce your religious extremists.
Blood: “That’s the whole trouble, SB. It doesn’t condemn it.”
That is an out and out lie of course. The church does condemn it. It forces the resignation from office by those involved in cover ups, and it acknowledges that in not having done so in the past it was gravely wrong.
“It forces the resignation from office by those involved in cover ups, and it acknowledges that in not having done so in the past it was gravely wrong.”
Fuck me. You are one seriously deluded dude. So when can we expect Papa Benny’s resignation?
So far I haven’t been able to detect against him, other than a shit-laden bandwagon, which you seem happy to jump on board. Eat it and grin!
When Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens arrest him apparently.
Its a bit like star wars, if Han Solo was gin soaked brain dead parrot, and Luke was a pompous hypocritical fundamentalist with an avowed disbelief in the force.
Pope Palpatine must be shitting himself.
“So far I haven’t been able to detect against him, other than a shit-laden bandwagon, which you seem happy to jump on board. Eat it and grin!”
What the hell does that mean?
Hitchens is my hero, even if we disagree on this. I’m predicting a deathbed conversion for him. By comparison, Dawkins is a drongo. I dare say his real motivation is a deep-seated desire to become Pope Nazi himself.
If a letter demonstrating clearly Ratzinger’s instruction to keep a case secret for the sake of the church’s reputation is not enough for you SB, nothing will satisfy you of his guilt. Perhaps, too, you need to have a look at John Paul II’s role in protecting the egregious Marcial Maciel.
BTW, on questions of religion and spirituality, Dawkins and Hitchens are both literal-minded, unimaginative drongos with no feel for the numinous and a total fixation on exoterism as the sole expression of the religious impulse, but I agree Hitchens is smarter.
“I’m predicting a deathbed conversion for him. By comparison”
Why? do you believe in fairy stories or something?
“Dawkins is a drongo”
Dawkins is a pompous git, but he can afford to be, he’s right (IMNSHO).
Blood I don’t think there is much on Benedict, not that I’ve seen anyway, and certainly not in terms of moving offenders on to other places where they have contact with kids.
RobJ even drongos get it right sometimes, especially those with not-so-humble opinions.
“Blood I don’t think there is much on Benedict, not that I’ve seen anyway”
You won’t find much if you’re not looking. You’re carrying on the ancient, ignoble Catholic tradition of Looking the Other Way.
Splatterbottom, thanks but I’m more interested in why you think Hitchens will make a deathbed conversion? he’s an atheist, what’s he going to convert from?
Rob, deathbed conversions always involve Catholicism. Even Oscar Wilde did it. The poor old bugger (yes I know) was completely ground down by then. SB is just trying to reconcile his hero-worship of Hitchens with his Catholic convictions. Bit of cognitive dissonance going on there, gnawing away at him like a scatchy label on a shirt.
Should be a lot more of it. Catholic convictions, I mean.
Thanks Bloods05, as I recall Constantine did it too – Thanks Emperor Constantine……./not.
No, Constantine did it just before embarking on a military campaign, which he won, thereby positively reinforcing his choice of religion. The rest is history.
The word “pontiff” comes from the Latin pontifex, a high priest in the time of the Roman Empire. It was not an accidental choice of name. The papacy is a continuation of Emperor worship.
Blood, I see a lot of long-shot speculation, but no damning evidence against the pope.
RobJ I think Hitchens is a candidate for a deathbed conversion because he is obviously highly intelligent. Don’t worry it is unlikely to happen to you. 🙂
“he is obviously highly intelligent.”
This is why he doesn’t subscribe to ridiculous fairy stories….unlike you 😉
Hmm, sorry i was under the impression that he was always a Christian but deathbed conversions were popular becuase you were unlikely to commit any more sins. I don’t doubt you bloods, just what I learned when I was a bit interested in Roman history.
The SB Equation:
High intelligence = favourable disposition towards Catholicism.
Expressed as a syllogism, following Aristotle, it runs thus:
Major premise: All highly intelligent people are favourably disposed towards Catholicism.
Minor premise: SB is a Catholic who thinks he’s highly intelligent but is actually a former leftist who had some bitter experiences with some leftist personages that he doesn’t want to talk about if you don’t mind, experiences which have left him with a twisted and heavily skewed perspective on politics, not to say religion.
Conclusion: SB is a big fat goose.
Rob, you seem to be confusing conversions with confessions.
A conversion is what SB did: he used to be a normal person according to sources close to him, but decided, in a moment of passion, to cross over to the dark side and become a Catholic. At the same time, by a dazzling coincidence, he became an anti-leftist nutcase. That is a conversion.
A confession is when you dump all your sins on a priest and get him to use the magical power conferred on him by God (or maybe some other priest/magician, I can’t remember exactly) to wipe them all off your soul before it passes into the next life, thereby ensuring you won’t have red-hot pokers stuck up your arse by demons for all eternity, and then some. That is a confession.
RobJ, I don’t know whether Hitchens is an Albigensian Perfecti. They delayed confession to the last moment to avoid relapsing into sin. There aren’t many of them around these days.
Blood, I can handle the ‘big’ and ‘fat’ jibes, but please don’t slander the gander.
“Rob, you seem to be confusing conversions with confessions. ”
Indeed I am, thanks bloods.