UESP Forums

I dislike when people claim Islam is a violent religion. I'm sorry, but does the bible not also have stories of war and genocide? Did Christians not fight in the crusades?

Don't accuse someone else of violence when you have a history of violence. It makes you look bad.

There's a lot of ignorance and misinformation about Islam. It's a shame.

As to the second part, I'd be inclined to agree with you- although NOT on the Sinn Fein comment. The day those stinking potato-munchers get downgraded from "terrorist" to "respectable human being" is the day I roll over and die! However, I should point out that even if the MB isn't a real serious terrorist organization, it's still blatantly anti-American and pro-jihadist. Even if it ceased to be so tomorrow, repudiating everything it once stood for, having ties to it would still be more than enough to get you on the Fed's [&@%!] list. Consider the KKK- they're not a "hate group" anymore. They're nice! and friendly! and totally toothless, to a degree that the MB and Sinn Fein will probably never achieve... but try arguing that when Agent Johnson hustles you out of your Pentagon cubicle and asks why your brother is the current sitting Grand Wizard of Georgia.

As for the first, I have to ask: who exactly are "the people who needed to know"? You're not honestly trying to say "we"- the voting public- should give the government a blank check, on the understanding that our current batch of unelected officials must know what they're doing?

I doubt anyone would seriously make this argument, and apply it consistently across party lines. I'm glad that HotW brought up Bachmann's alleged ties to terrorists, because this gets right to the heart of the matter. I was going to use a different example: say, Dick Cheney, and his ties to Halliburton, a group that used to serve as the Left's version of the Super Muslimo Bros, back when the media actually did it's job and held the ruling regime to task, instead of fellating whoever is in charge. But Bachmann herself works, too. If Michelle Bachmann is directly involved with financial institutions with known ties to terrorist groups (again, something that would cost a normal guy, like you or I, our security clearance and any chance at landing a government job of even middling importance), is this a "big deal"? Should we care? Should we say, oh, that's OK, I'm sure someone, somewhere, with our best interests in mind, did all the appropriate factchecking and decided she was specifically exempt from procedure; "above the law", so to speak.

And sure, bringing up these alleged ties at all is a crass partisan dig. It's a transparent attempt to smear Ms Bachmann's good name and damage her party's chances in the upcoming election; welcome to American politics, what else is new? But if it's also true, and worse, if it's something we the people have legitimate cause to care about, then the fact that it's part of a self-serving rhetorical campaign can be overlooked on the basis that it's also true and compelling. Again, I love ad hominem as much as the next guy- except for those stinking people we ALL hate, you know the guys I'm talking about- but let's not be idiots ourselves. We can't expect our leaders to act like rational, intelligent human beings if we ourselves can't do the same.

Let's hope this is photoshopped.

i doubt it....

Psssst wrong thread.

Also, nuts to the writer of that hackjob. "Both to release a trailer like this and then not to pull it immediately after today’s tragedy"?! Screw you. That trailer is awesome, and if we pull it, the terrorists win. Seriously, the last thing we need is MORE suits ruining an otherwise entertaining experience by being overly sensitive and touchy-feely. Remember how they took planes out of GTA IV because they wanted to be "sensitive" to the victims of 9/11? Remember how crappy GTA IV was without 'em?

It's not often I say this, but kudos, Warner Bros!

I'm tempted to just say, "learn 2 realpolitik," and I think you would understand what that implied, but I also understand that the kabuki theater of forum give and take discourages such an elegant rejoinder. So...

The people who needed to know were the people who signed off on Huma's clearance. Nothing more, nothing less. Not that the public has, or should have any input in this process. Huma's tenuous family ties to an "organization of interest" like the MBs would surely raise flags, but flags which are raised can also be lowered (more on that below).


Yes, yes, a hundred times yes. The first principle of the ideal vetting process is that the unwashed masses are kept strictly out of the loop (it distresses me greatly that you keep even hinting at it). The second principle is that there are standard guidelines in place to decide most kickouts. The third principle is that a process exists for judgment to be exercised in select or corner cases. Under this third principle falls everything from personal vouchers from trusted sources, extenuating circumstances, waivers, and so on. Take this last step out and the process is critically dumbed down.

Those were some general observations about the vetting process. Now, consider some of the factors surrounding the Huma vet specifically. 1) She's being chosen directly by a VIP cabinet member, and presumably comes with a personal vouchsafe from the same (Sec. of State). 2) This is the State Department, an organization which looks favorably on diverse backgrounds and life experiences. The vetting process for this organization would take into account extenuating circumstances like associates or family having "ties" to organizations or people from "problem zones." Should prompt some extra scrutiny, sure, but with proper due diligence otherwise promising candidates should be able to pass. 3) Huma married Anthony Weiner, a Jew from New York. What sort of card-carrying Muslim Bro or radical Islamic sympathizer would submit to that level of indignity? Though I suppose it would be a brilliant move for a deep cover Muslim Bro plant.

Special note on the US National Guard:

I may be wrong, but has anyone ever noticed that each State Guard unit does not fulfill the definition of a full fighting force? What I mean is, some states have infantry divisions, others have armor, artillery, communications and so on.

Is it just me, or is the whole NG force reminiscent of Warhammer's Imperial Guard system?

It's pretty [&@%!] brilliant. Split up the militia units, so that no single state governmental entity has the power to rebel against the Federal government on its own. I bet the Civil War is responsible for that sneaky system.

Edit:

I already know the official military (Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines) mix and match the residents of various states into single units to avoid having units attached to home states, but it's interesting to see how they handled the NG. It's kind of funny that I can call them the IG and I wouldn't be too far off.

Well, Mister Zurmacht, your views are utterly abhorrent, but at least you're honest and able to formulate an internally coherent political view. Most people would hem and haw and avoid facing the inherently fascist implications behind such a collection of beliefs, or, more likely given the level of discourse here on UESP, simply ignore the problem altogether and accuse me of "being a troll". But you just throw yourself straight into the thing, without a single apology! Good show. Jolly good.

Anyways, yes, it's probably best that you don't bring realpolitik into this. Because then I'd say I do know how 2 realpolitik, and indeed, that's precisely why I- as an unwashed "outsider" who is not part of the political caste- am forced to conclude that it's in my own rational self-interest to oppose the [&@%!] every step of the way, demanding transparency and accountability from all those who would claim democratically-derived authority over myself and my fellow proles. At least until I get my first fifty million and land a job in the Senate.

Now, the idea of making judgements in select cases is the whole problem. Yes, there are systems in place to make allowances for waivers, so certain "ineligible" but nonetheless desirable individuals can get through the vetting process. But waivers are the exception; they only apply in a select few cases, and even then are typically only granted when the government finds it's in dire need of talent, right away. I myself had to get a waiver... for being the child of a British citizen. Doesn't sound like it would be that big a deal, right? Simple, no problem... and nearly cost me my job. Had I not tested off the charts and had a lazy investigations officer, I might have been screwed. So are you really going to argue that Hill-dawg is so strapped for talent that she needs a woman whose entire family belongs to the Muslim version of the KKK to serve as her wingman?

In fact, that's another big problem. As you said, "she's being chosen directly by a VIP cabinet member". This isn't a process that's accountable to a half dozen hyper-competent shadowy investigative divisions, running exhaustive background checks and spying on prospective employees 24/7. This is a process that falls largely on one person, and one person alone. Maybe the Feds places too much faith in the ability of cabinet members, such as Hillary, to select their own cronies? Maybe, if instead of just allowing Mrs Clinton to pick whatever girlfriend she fancies trading gossip with and elevate the girl to a position of dizzying, unelected power, the internal investigations bureaus took a more active role in vetting these people, then we wouldn't have crap like this happening. Yes, yes, I know, I'm starting to get somewhat fascist-y too, what with calling for increasing the power of a totally opaque secret police force over the professional lives of tangentially elected officials, but it's called checks and balances. It's what makes the United States government worth putting up with. At the very least, it should be clear to anyone that Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted with judging a person's character, or anything else, for that matter.

Second, yes, the State Department is insufferably PC and multi-culti. Especially with the Dems in charge. That's a good thing; it gives the State Department a broad outlook and a wide array of experiences with which to draw upon. But there's a difference between looking to fill positions with Ukrainian emigrees and former Colombian bean farmers, and filling positions with Jane Q bin Laden and radical Maoist revolutionaries (which this administration has also done).

Third, Jesus, you think her marriage to Weiner is some proof of her benevolent intentions?! Nevermind that her intentions aren't the issue (I'm sure she's a good, "whitebread American breed Muslim", just like all the other Muslims in the world). You do recall that her marriage to Weiner was one of the most catastrophic marital events in Washington history, right? If you'll allow me to indulge my inner FrostMage, it COULD be that her marriage was set up with the full foreknowledge that it would fail, spectacularly and publicly. This would then give her a deep personal connection to Mrs Clinton, drawing the two fellow travelers close together, allowing Huma (and her MB handlers) to gain Hillary's full trust and confidence.

Or, it could just be that Hillary's a dangerous whackjob who should never have been allowed anywhere near the White House. Would it have killed Obama to appoint Nader or Feingold?!*

*-edit- Actually, it probably would. Nader's too principled, and Feingold... well, Obama wanted people who were OK with Bush's policies, as Hussein fully intended to not only continue following them, but even ramp them up a notch or six.

Not doing yourself any favors with this admission. There's a world of difference, really an unbridgeable gulf, between engaging in realpolitik from a position of privilege and power, and being an enlightened but impotent "outsider" wag who takes potshots at both sides while clinging to a naive dream of populist idealism. Talking about "we the people," transparency, etc. in anything but a sarcastic tone.


Excellent! So certain cases (no one has claimed there are large numbers of exceptions being pushed through the system) get special treatment based on thoughtful consideration of the circumstances. Score one for meritocratic gov't over mindless by-the-book groupthink!


I'm not that pedantic guy who demands links and sources for every contention, but is this really the case? One dude makes up the decision chain for approving high-level U.S. security clearances? One per agency? I find it very hard to believe, and if it were somehow impossibly the case, it would be the one thing in your analysis that requires corrective action.

Pretty sure that's not how it works, Doros.. Pretty close to the magical 99.9% sure that isn't how it works, at all, in fact. Too simple "unsophisticated" an answer for you? I'm playing the world's smallest violin for you. Can you hear it, up there? You know, up your ass in which your head is so deep? It's yet another tragedy, if you can't; it's so beautiful to hear.

Clinton may have had say in her choosing, but she was most definitely vetted. I'm not blind to the fact that certain levels of favoritism/back-scratching exists on every level of society/government/professionalism, but at the same time..I'm not paranoid enough to say, "That woman in such a key position for this nation's security...she ain't ever got done no vettin'". Could/has it happened? Of course; and each time, they've learned from their mistakes and have improved their processes. Just because this woman is Muslim, and happens to have Muslim family members and close who've lived in the same country/countries and attended one or two of the same facilities as some radical, fundamentalist Muslims, it's a bit low-brow to think that she, in any way, shares any of their views.

Using that standard, it's arguable that a majority of US pilots are bound to fly their planes into buildings because the 9/11 hijackers attended the same flight schools; or that tens of thousands of students are all bound to enact some terrorist-plan simply because a few of the members of the "9/11 terror cells" attended certain colleges/universities; or that George Bush is a Muslim terrorist because he's best-buds with Osama bin Laden's family and former friends.

(Of course, I also recognize that this is simply a desperate political-ploy on the part of Bachmann to distract potential voters from Romney's bad press, but it's one that even other Republicans are honest enough to denounce.)

btw...I called you a troll because someone was paying homage to the victims of a shooting, and you decided to tell them that they shouldn't care because there are other tragedies that almost never get mentioned, thereby intentionally trying to upset the poster and anyone else who wanted to share their laments, thereby not having any real purpose but to aggravate, thereby...dum duh duh da...trolling..so quit whining..


Pretty sure you won't ever see a wink of any actual, meaningful power, Will; bloviating that you believe in realpolitik, while simultaneously posting on an Elder Scrolls, fantasy-video-game, forum about it, ain't exactly a way to bolster credibility in a somewhat sideways political viewpoint. (not that you'd care--just felt an inclination to point this out)
I actually see the merits of such a political view, especially on the macro. But, I also recognize that societies--especially on a micro-level--only evolve by striving for ideals, and looking to improve. Viewing people as little more than a means to an end, or otherwise dehumanizing them, serves no real purpose but to make small men feel powerful. When dealing with countries, this is acceptable and even necessary. When dealing with national/local politics, this is stupid and small-minded.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and funny slideshow of Atheism and Religion pics.

I'm sorry, some of this stuff is just a tad bit insulting by generalizing the ignorant as the whole of religion.

All humor/jokes is/are insulting to someone.

It's just that you're generalizing various groups of people. I mean, in all fairness, those are pretty hilarious, but unfair.

. . . I'm not?

I understand what you're saying, but...

Number a) I didn't create that; a user on on www.eBaumsworld.com did. Give them your hate-mail.
Number b) You could say that about all jokes using stereotypes as the punchline (race, ethnicity, age, hair-color, etc).

The thing is, unlike some other stereotypes, a lot of people, unfortunately believe religious stereotypes. And I know it's not yours, but you posted it.

Si. Many stereotypes have at least a tiny element of truth to them.

Aye, they do, but I just don't want anymore needless religion/anti-religion wars going on here any time soon.

Then laugh. Laughter is the best diffuser to any hostile conversation...most of the time....

Trust me, plenty of lulz were had during the reading of that collection.

The problem, is that some peoplle do think like that, and will not see it as a joke, but will take it for fact/truth. It is a double (multiple) egded sword. Some will take it for the joke that it is intended for, others will be offended for some reason or other, and the real unfortunate situation, is when some take it for fact/truth.

In fact, the person telling/posting such jokes, is usualy a good indicator for how it was intended to be taken. If someone is constantly hardline, hatemongering against similar situations, you tend to take it that they intend it as fact, and not a joke. Of course, that does not stop them from claiming it as a joke, when someone gets offended by it.

...see, not everyone is the same, and see's things the same way. ...which is why these types of topics exsist.

Taken from the gallery:


This, I feel, sums-up my position pretty well. If the Religious-Right weren't so obsessively repressive towards people who really don't give a damn about their daft religion, I would never share so much as a peep about it. But, the fact is that so many are, and they're inability to keep to themselves usually ends-up harming others who would otherwise want to be left alone.

So yes, humor and jokes are tools with many uses; in this case, they are implemented to help vent my frustration. To say that people would be outright-offended by the joke-gallery, or otherwise somehow take it seriously, merely proves my point. If people can handle racial-stereotypes, gender-stereotypes, or even hair-color-stereotypes, but then can't handle religious-stereotypes...it's hypocrisy at its purest, and I should do nothing but shrug my shoulders.

(double-post, I know; this one doesn't fit with the previous one, at all, though)


YouTube Link


EDIT: Oh yeah, and Jon Stewart sums-up my point about Bachman, earlier, very nicely.

George Carlin knows what he's talking about.