I hate how our president creates words.
Literally creates them, out of whole cloth.
If we are referring to Middle Eastern terrorists as 'Islamists', can I start referring to the neo-fascist wing of the Repugnican party as 'Christianist'? Because these people are certainly nothing like the Christians I know.
The word 'terroristic' is not a word. Neither is 'Islamist'. The word 'terrorism' is losing its meaning to such an extent that it can be used, straight-facedly, in reference to fucking prank phone calls.
Yesterday or early this morning (I forget which),
mesila pointed out that questions were asked of Donald Rumsfeld (or was it Ashcroft? I get my millenarians mixed up) which were not 'will terrorists try to interfere with the elections?' but 'will they be able to?' --not a moment's thought as to how serious a threat exists to democracy in that we MIGHT not be able to vote. And not a single comforting word from Rummy (or Ashy) about it, either: to paraphrase, 'well, we're going to try to stop them from interfering but who knows what will come'. That, to me, is saying 'since we don't have rebels in our homeland to blame a suspended election on, we may be blaming it on terrorists from abroad'.
Meanwhile, the president goes on a motorcade around the country and flips off people protesting his environmental policies through the window of his bus.
Fuck you, George W. Bush. Fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you FUCK YOU.
I hope when you die, you find out that there is a hell... and exactly what happens in it to men who perjure themselves, men who covetIraq's their neighbor's oilpossessions, and all those other people promised to burn in the pit of eternal damnation.
Literally creates them, out of whole cloth.
If we are referring to Middle Eastern terrorists as 'Islamists', can I start referring to the neo-fascist wing of the Repugnican party as 'Christianist'? Because these people are certainly nothing like the Christians I know.
The word 'terroristic' is not a word. Neither is 'Islamist'. The word 'terrorism' is losing its meaning to such an extent that it can be used, straight-facedly, in reference to fucking prank phone calls.
Yesterday or early this morning (I forget which),
mesila pointed out that questions were asked of Donald Rumsfeld (or was it Ashcroft? I get my millenarians mixed up) which were not 'will terrorists try to interfere with the elections?' but 'will they be able to?' --not a moment's thought as to how serious a threat exists to democracy in that we MIGHT not be able to vote. And not a single comforting word from Rummy (or Ashy) about it, either: to paraphrase, 'well, we're going to try to stop them from interfering but who knows what will come'. That, to me, is saying 'since we don't have rebels in our homeland to blame a suspended election on, we may be blaming it on terrorists from abroad'. Meanwhile, the president goes on a motorcade around the country and flips off people protesting his environmental policies through the window of his bus.
Fuck you, George W. Bush. Fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you fuck you FUCK YOU.
I hope when you die, you find out that there is a hell... and exactly what happens in it to men who perjure themselves, men who covet
Is there a link for this?
Actually, dictionary.com has them both.
And I'm still going to call the Religious Right 'Christianists'.
There is a case to be made that the Religious Right would like to see some kind of Christian Fascism.
It seems most people would prefer to live in a dictatorship with which they agreed, then a democracy with which they disagreed.
Hence me pointing out that it's not really a word.
and off-topic:
Re: and off-topic:
Re: and off-topic:
The boy acted in a terroristic way.
The boy acted like a terrorist.
He was making terroristic threats.
He was making terrorist threats.</i>
it's a bit confusing to use this new 'adjectival' form there, isn't it? The other is both more brief and more to the point.
My especial beef here is that 'terroristic' is not a word applicable to an email saying 'I know where you live', in any way shape or form. But that's not stopping people from misusing this ugly little chimera by calling that a 'terroristic threat' (it's neither a threat nor like a terrorist).
It's not, honestly, good English.
Re: and off-topic:
It may simply rankle you more because we're always hearing TERRORIST TERRORIST TERRORIST and there are other bad grammar choices out there as well in that same big morass of linguistic stupidity.
Which is sort of like stupid linguine, but not quite.
Re: and off-topic:
Interestingly, American law is more hidebound than British law, which got a serious overhauling in the late 1800s, and shed a ton of the crap that we still see in modern American legalese.
Re: and off-topic:
AMEN
These statements by Rumsfield do nothing to stifle this fear.
Re: AMEN
Re: AMEN
And it makes me wish I'd gone to Canada already.
Re: AMEN
I wonder what their stance is on political refugees.
Re: AMEN
Re: AMEN
Re: AMEN
New York City was having a mayoral primary on 9/11/2001, It was canceled and rescheduled with no resulting loss to democracy.
The article mentions that, unlike NYC's Board of Elections, the federal government has no machinery in place to decide to postpone elections if need be.
Re: AMEN
Is the real reason the administration's considering it now an intention to underscore an October Surprise of bin Laden? Or is this so they can effectively junta the November elections?
Re: AMEN
All we're really looking to do is to be able to have a contingency plan in case a repeat of Madrid happens.
9/11 wasn't picked because of the mayoral primary but Madrid's timing was precisely to influence the Spanish elections. And the fact that it was successful just offers more incentive for al-Qaeda (or someone else) to try it here.
I'm impressed that so many people are worried about the Bush threat to democracy but no one seems all that bent out of shape about the much more likely probability of a terror attack designed to influence the election.
Some political consultants think al-Qaeda (or someone else) may actually do polling to see HOW a terror attack would affect the election before deciding whether to do so.
After all, they wouldn't want to inadvertently steel American resolve the way 9/11 did.
Re: AMEN
Islamist is indeed a word
The difference between Islam and Islamism is a bit wide-reaching, but essentially Islamism is a political philosophy which states that Islam should be a part of every part of life, including government. It advocates taking countries with Muslim populations and getting rid of every secular institution and replacing them with institutions that are more in keeping with Islamic law.
Often they talk in glowing terms about restoring the Caliphate - apparently knowing the history of your people is not Islamic, because the Caliphate as an institution was poorly-run, venally corrupt, prone to invasion, and on the whole far more open-minded to other views than the 'Caliphate' that many Islamists wish to restore.
It also has a fundamental rejection of 'Western' thinking, (like democracies) with the idea that Western thought is tained by Christian dualism (heaven and earth are separate, for example) of which I cannot completely remember the whole details but read a great article about. :/ But the idea that Islam is a more 'whole' religion that accepts spirituality in the world and thus are more spiritually 'pure' than their Christian bretherin, and therefore a theocratic goverment is ideal.
That being said, not all radical Islamic terrorists are Islamists. The Palestinian Liberation Army does not consider themselves Islamists, though Al Quaeda most likely does.
However, the President mentioning that Islamism is a threat to the Western world is a very big thing: he's essentially damning a whole philosophy, some of whose adherents are not necessarily anti-America (but most probably are) - Many 'hawk' columnists have compared Islamism to Fascism, and this is essentially another step.
Re: Islamist is indeed a word
http://www.icna.org/tm/greatmuslim3.htm
And here's an article on him in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,584478,00.html
Essentially, to boil it down, imagine it's the 1950's. The Islamic world is divided in the shattered remains of colonial states, leading to a lot of petty dictatorships, et cetera. There are two reactions to this: Kemal Attaturk's idea that the muslim world should have a more secular government and should be more 'western' (thus, the modern state of Turkey), and a growing resistance to all the governments imposed on the Muslim world throughout the region, with the idea that "We are different and we need different laws, rules, and philosophies." It basically rejects the US and Soviet Union's half-assed attempts to democritize/socialize the region and tries to go on its own.
After 20 years of having every proponent jailed, shot, tortured, et cetera, it explodes on the scene with a number of rebel movements in countries like Egypt, and a revolution in Iran.
Subsequent mismanaging by the countries in power (depending on how you look at it: there was an Islamist revolt in one of the major cities in Syria, and Syria responded by bombing the city literally to the bedrock), and the continuing existence of the state of Isreal, mean it's now essentially the problem of the one superpower: the USA.
Word dilution
HUGE FAVOR?
Think you could help?
Adam
Vallejo, CA
Huge favor?
Think you could help?
Adam
Vallejo, CA