doug and i have both chimed in on the discussion, but most of the gargantuan BS is coming from joseph price (aka provojoe) and r. blades (aka mr. marbles). here are a few excerpts from the discussion:
UPDATE: as is the case in many discussions that pit liberal BYU students against conservative ones, this thread has degenerated into a battle over whose political ideology is more righteous. indeed, the post makes fascinating reading, and i cannot attempt to do it justice with a summary. provo pulse
when powell called the united states generous (in response to a UN official who called us "stingy") price called powell's statement "tacky".
price would apparently be opposed to putting any country on the terror watch list until we fully cleanse our nation of al-qaeda's presence. his rebuttal to one of my arguments was, "Al-Qaeda operates in the United States, too. Remember?".
he is also the king of cliches and overused talking points. i'll note the best ones here:
Life is not a football game
I hope Bush will think twice before "wrapping himself" in 9/11...
You can't understand the world from an easy chair.
blades is no dud either. he enters the discussion late, but piles on the BS real quick to catch up! for example, he suggests that osama bin laden doesn't hate americans and calls such an idea a false "paradigm" we all have.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
the thread is kind of getting that "democratic underground" feel to it.
then, blades, in sputtering disbelief, demands, "On what evidence do you base your statement that entire populations are taught that we are the Great Satan?".
maybe it's the fact that muslim schools, muslim religious leaders, and muslim political leaders all teach the young and impressionable that we are. see the results here and here.
update: it's getting worse. blades excused the fact that while arab leaders were sending condolences to the united states, palestinians were dancing in the streets on september 12 "because they thought the war against us was over" and they had won (not because they saw news reports that thousands had been killed).
he then goes on to claim that LDS church president gordon hinckley was actually advocating peace when he cited the war prophet moroni in justification for taking up arms against aggressors. laughably, blades called it a "semantic matter".
blades justified muslim aggression against us (like the september 11 attacks) because of US investment in saudi oil. seriously. he claimed this link supported his point.
the inconsistency of both price and blades' positions is appalling. for example, someone noted that blades had made both of these statements:
"I'll give you pictures of us celebrating the death of 90,000 Japanese civilians."
"I'm not saying that we were celebrating the death of Japanese civilians"
perhaps it was a semantic matter.
the blog administrator points out price's history of rabidly demanding the separation of church and state, and notes the inconsistency of his current position with that stance. in the thread, price argues for a theocratic government that will never fight a war, only turn the other cheek repeatedly, and have "unconditional" love (an unscriptural term) for our enemies. as i said, this is one of their many inconsistencies.
one of my favorite inconsistencies, which both seem to espouse, is, "muslims don't hate us!" alongside "muslims hate us because of x !"
i'll keep updating the discussion from here, but you can read the entire thread at provo pulse.
Posted by travis at January 6, 2005 10:25 AM | TrackBackA very, very mean post Travis.
In the spirit of fairness, I think your readers should hear some of your comments.
Here’s a good one to start with:
…the UN's jan egeland, who singled the US out as "stingy" for it's initial aid pledge…
Mr. Egeland definitely did not “single out the US as stingy”. He was in fact, quoted out of context by the Washington Times. For an interesting discussion of this fact and American charity in general, including video of the press conference, go to http://www.danieldrezner.com/blog/ and see the entry for December 30.
So Travis has misquoted Mr. Egeland. Although Travis has a history of misquoting people (see here http://provopulse.com/home/?q=node/view/571 ), I think this time it is not entirely his fault. Let’s blame both Travis for being gullible and careless, and the “Liberal Media” over at the Washington Times for being deceptive.
Here’s some great insight from Travis:
“al-qaeda has not "come together" with the nations of the world to respond to the tragedy. as far as i can tell, they haven't donated a single cent.”
It’s hard to describe in words just how silly that statement is. I think I’ll just let it speak for itself.
Next Travis displays his vast knowledge of Islam:
“…and did you know that it is the strict policy of islam to only give aid to muslims (or non-muslims if it will directly lead to their conversion to islam). can you imagine if a christian organization admitted that it only gave aid to christians?”
As evidence of this “strict policy” Travis points us to a posting on Little Green Footballs (Motto: “Hey, we’re not as bigoted as the Aryan Nation”). That posting points to a web site called “Islam Online”, where a professor from Malaysia is answering ad hoc questions about paying zakah to non-Muslim victims of the tsunami. Zakah, for those who may not know, is the charitable contribution required of all Muslim. For Mormons, it is roughly the equivalent of a tithing or fast offering. The Professor responds thusly:
“…As for non-Muslims, they might deserve donation or any other form of assistance but not Zakah…”
In other words, this particular theologian is opining that charitable donations are indeed acceptable (of course), but not Zakah (du`aa’) offerings. Much as a Mormon bishop might opine that fast offerings should be given to church members, but other charitable contributions may be distributed as needed. Travis is once again repeating a falsehood. I suspect in this case that he is doing so intentionally. In any case, it is certainly not “the strict policy of Islam to only give aid to Moslems”.
Here’s a quick little gem from Travis:
“…the tsunami utopia that you have prophesied will be short-lived, then they will go back to killing us…”
The Indonesians were killing us? Wow, I didn’t know that!
I think it's so cool how Travis characterizes those who disagree with him as terrorist sympathizers! Check this out:
…al-qaeda was looking to move terrorist (or, if you prefer, 'freedom fighter') camps to malaysia…
Swwweeeetttt Travis! Yup, anyone who disagrees with you must think the terrorists are freedom fighters! Nice smear.
Travis, by the way, is a history buff. Here he explains why there was a delay between the end of WW2 and the actual signing of the treaty to end the war:
“…when a country surrenders, that's often a ceremonial thing, after the war's outcome was obvious to both sides for some time. plus, the japanese needed time to execute and bury the tortured american GIs and raped chinese women in mass graves before they let us in…”
I’m sure he’s right. That must be the reason.
Well, that about sums up Travis’ contributions. I hope he enjoys having his contributions hacked and ridiculed as much as he enjoys hacking up and ridiculing other people’s contributions.
On a personal note: Travis, you could learn a lot from Mason. He may not agree with what is said, but he tries to understand it. You, on the other hand, are only interested in being right.
A very, very mean post Travis.
that was the point. how sharp of you to catch on to it!
Mr. Egeland definitely did not “single out the US as stingy”. He was in fact, quoted out of context by the Washington Times. For an interesting discussion of this fact and American charity in general, including video of the press conference, go to danieldrezner.com/blog/ and see the entry for December 30.
indeed, i did dig a little bit to find the actual quotation, but most seemed to only have the same description of the "stingy" comment provided by the washtimes. you are right that egeland did not single out the united states. in fact, watching the video, i thought he was very mindful of the need to be gracious and not name names of those he thought were stingy. americans, especially the journalist(s) responsible for the error, owe mr. egeland an apology.
in fact, it was the NY times [link]who singled us out as stingy. my fault for not finding the exact quote, but, as you noted, that was some pretty irresponsible journalism from the top down.
So Travis has misquoted Mr. Egeland. Although Travis has a history of misquoting people (see here http://provopulse.com/home/?q=node/view/571 )...
i posted a link to that very discussion here a couple of weeks ago. thanks for being redundant.
recently, while watching television, i overheard [what i called] the most retarded quotation of the modern era. i blogged it here, and mason of provo pulse kindly quoted me on his blog.
the discussion on provo pulse focused on my sloppy journalism, my failure to capitalize the name of diety, and my "abrupt" use of epithets. [link] i have added my response in the comments on that site, and below:
first catch up on the discussion here: provopulse.com/home/?q=node/view/571#comment
you continue:
Here’s some great insight from Travis:
“al-qaeda has not "come together" with the nations of the world to respond to the tragedy. as far as i can tell, they haven't donated a single cent.”
It’s hard to describe in words just how silly that statement is. I think I’ll just let it speak for itself.
i don't think it's silly to note that while we're sending millions of dollars to muslims we don't even know, other muslims are ignoring them because they're too busy planting roadside bombs and planning assassinations to kill americans and even other muslims. what i said isn't just silly, it's hilarious.
let's see...on the zakah reference, i'll admit i was wrong. i got my information from a nazi website that i love, called LGF, and besides that fact, i also interpreted the information too narrowly. my mistake. i admit responsibility and apologize for perpetuating an untruth.
The Indonesians were killing us? Wow, I didn’t know that!
someone floated the preposterous theory that because of the tsunami, there will now be a lovely, pure unity of peace that will fill the earth. my opinion is that, while al-qaeda may let up for a while so a US aircraft carrier may safely harbor in their midst (unlike the USS cole) while it disperses aid, we'll be back to usual soon (the US as the 'great satan'). perhaps the use of the word "killing" jolted you? sorry.
…al-qaeda was looking to move terrorist (or, if you prefer, 'freedom fighter') camps to malaysia…
Swwweeeetttt Travis! Yup, anyone who disagrees with you must think the terrorists are freedom fighters! Nice smear.
as is my style, i intersperse little (what i think are) witty thoughts in my writing. notice, i made no such charge, only (what i thought was) a humorous suggestion. perhaps you could lighten up? thanks!
“…when a country surrenders, that's often a ceremonial thing, after the war's outcome was obvious to both sides for some time. plus, the japanese needed time to execute and bury the tortured american GIs and raped chinese women in mass graves before they let us in…”
I’m sure he’s right. That must be the reason.
it's not disputed that they kidnapped chinese women and used them as sex slaves; it's not disputed that they tortured american GIs. i mentioned it to point out that we weren't exactly dealing with shirley temple over there. as for the ceremonial thing, it's true. there are official documents that have to be signed and other arrangements to be made.
When Emperor Hirohito made his first ever broadcast to the Japanese people on 15 August 1945, and enjoined his subjects 'to endure the unendurable and bear the unbearable', he brought to an end a state of war - both declared and undeclared - that had wracked his country for 14 years.
He never spoke explicitly about 'surrender' or 'defeat', but simply remarked that the war 'did not turn in Japan's favour'. [source]
- - - - - - - - - -
Japan finally surrendered after the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both industrial and civilian targets, were destroyed by atomic bombs . The final surrender was signed September 2, 1945, on the battleship U.S.S. Missouri. [source]
by the way, laurence, i've just realized that all this time, i had neglected to quote YOU, my dear friend. here is my favorite of YOUR comments, sweatheart:
You're a Moron and a stupid ugly-head bum-sniffing silly-pants momma-boy pansy-wussy, and I won't play on the playground with you 'cause I don't want cooties and I'm telling your Mom you typed "Moron" on her computer and I hope you get grounded 'cause computers are only for grownups and your Mom is gonna be real mad when she finds out!
that was awesome!
on a personal note, please, come back any time. i look forward to learning from you, even though you are not as good as mason. He may not agree with what is said, but he tries to understand it. You, on the other hand, are only interested in being right.
Posted by: travis at January 7, 2005 04:23 PMFirst of all, let me say that I was impressed that you admitted you were wrong a time or two. I guess you proved me wrong, and I apologize for how I characterized you. You're clearly not as wrong-headed as I made you out to be.
That having been said, it doesn't seem to have even occurred to you that your original post was excessively personal in a mean-spirited way (as was mine). That's too bad.
Thanks for the invitation to stick around and post some more. I don't mean to be rude, but frankly I'm not a big fan of the style of dialog I see here. I thought it necessary to lower my level of discourse in this special case to prove a point (that I thought you were being excessively personal and down right mean), but I truly don't find it enjoyable to debate on such a personal level. Maybe I'll drop by and lurk every now and then.
Take care!