Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion.  You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general.  So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason?

Quote from: David Lucifer on 2005-10-31 19:38:18   

Quote from: Salamantis on 2005-10-31 15:45:34    Then suggest a feasible alternate conclusion.  You would be hard-pressed to contend that the majority of this list is not anti-Bush in particular, and to a certain degree anti-US in general.  So, if this general list stance is NOT the reason for the paucity of any substantive list critique of Islamofascism, then what IS the reason? I can't think of anyone who has posted to this forum that is generally anti-USA. Those who have criticized Bush have never defended the actions of the criminals Bush is (supposed to be) fighting. Here are some possible conclusions you have failed to imagine: 1) it is in fact not the purpose of this forum to discuss Islamofascism But Islamofascism is a memeplex, and a particularly nasty one at that.  It would seem to be solidly within the list purview to discuss it. 2) maybe no one has the time or interest to do so Maybe; although one wonders why, considering that the critical analysis of memeplexes is one of this list's reasons for being, and one that is so contemporarily threatening would seem to be crying and stamping its feet for list attention. 3) maybe those who do are discussing it in a more relevant forum And that would be...? 4) perhaps those that would like to discuss it are scared away by the flame wars that typically arise Flames DO seem to be directed at those who attempt to initiate such studies, true...but perhaps we could all rise above such pettiness...and perhaps not.  We won't know until we give it a good committed try... I'm sure there are many other possibilities, need I go on?

Please do.

I gather, Jake, that your reply means that you will not participate in such an endeavor?  Oh, well...

In case you haven't noticed, BTW, we ARE winning against the Islamofascists, in both Iraq and in Afghanistan (not to mention also in Lebanon, which underwent a successful indigenous democratic revolt, supported by Lebanese Christians and Muslims alike, against occupation by Syria, and in some other areas where the meme of democratic self-rule is beginning to spread from Iraq and Afghanistan by osmosis - the initiation of popular votes in Saudi Arabia and in Egypt comes to mind).  The frequency and severity of attacks against our troops continue to decline, our new military casualties occur at an ever decreasing pace, and the letters between Zawahiri and Zarqawi reflect their dismay at this turn of events.  The military training of indigenous forces proceeds apace in both countries, and each democratic vote in those countries is marred by less violence and includes more voter participation than the one before, as we continue to approach the day when we can indeed, unlike as we did in Vietnam, remove most of our troops while still leaving in place constitutional democracies capable of protecting both themselves and the lives and new freedoms of their citizens - which is good news both for us and for them.  Finally, after many years, under all sorts of administrations, of preaching constitutional democracy whilst propping up despots, we're ridding ourselves of that nasty political contradiction, and oppressed people around world are sitting up, taking notice, and in some cases even joining in.  I'm guessing - correct me if I'm wrong - that you might have been too mesmerized by the 'if it bleeds, it leads' and 'if it's good news for the US, it might reflect favorably upon the Bush administration, so it's not news at all' reportage, all-too-regrettably common among the mainstream media, to have divined this.  I sincerely hope that you do not consider these revelations to be bad news...of course, there hasn't seemed to have been much news at all coming out of those areas lately as far as the mainstream media is concerned (you'd have had to pay really close attention to the mainstream media to even know that a national and overwhelmingly constitution-ratifying vote was recently held in Iraq, with another vote, to select people to fill the positions contained in that constitution, to come in December), and in their case, no news is good news.

And Jake, if you care to remember (or just look at page 1 of this thread to refresh your memory), it was you who hijacked this thread, which I started, and which was entirely about understanding the particular contradictions and flaws contained within the recently mutated and profoundly troubling 'intelligent design' variant of the creationist memeplex so that we might more effectively co-evolve counters to it, by misrepresenting me for gratuitous ad hominem slagging purposes (since you seem to fallaciously consider the term 'neo-con' to be a slur implying creationist and socially reactionary leanings) - slagging I have not returned - and won't.  But neither will I STFU, as you so politely requested (since you're in no position to make it a demand).  My speech is not yours to muzzle, Jake.  Try living with that fact.  Neither is my credibility something that you are feree to grant or withhold - except vis-a-vis yourself, of course.  But please feel free to continue with your own speech; nothing I could say about you reveals as much to others about you as what you say to and about me.  Who is it here who seems to 'lose it' and ad hominem attack me every time I don't toe your apparent omni-issue Bush-hating party line and dare to present differing, but well-supported, views on the foreign policy plane (we are, after all, in substantial agreement on the plane of domestic social policy)?  Name-calling is a poor substitute for logical or empirical/evidential refutation. 

I don't choose to form my opinions on issues based upon either agreement with or opposition to the opinions of others regarding those issues concerning which I am forming opinions, but rather upon the basis of my own investigation and weighing of the evidence for and against those opinions I either run into or create and entertain, and am quite subtle and sophisticated enough to agree with someone on one issue and disagree with them on another, to varying degrees.  Oh, and Jake; I think quite well for myself (just check out the archives, like, say, the Best of Virus?); I was just offering an opportunity for others here to join in for a little collaborative thinking on a common task - many heads proverbially being better than one, and all that.  But it's OK with me if you'd prefer not to personally do any thinking on those issues to assist in or contribute to that task yourself.

I do notice that you began to be a little nicer to me until Lucifer began raising some objections, and then you reverted to long-established form (it's not slagging to point out that the other person has typically indulged in slagging one, especially when the evidence in the previous post is so blatant)...

Taking the high road without you,
Joe

PS: And, yes, Lucifer, I will endeavor to begin a thread specifically for the purpose of analyzing the Islamofascist memeplex.  Others are free to contribute to it, or to begin their own threads studying other memeplexes which they would prefer to analyze.  Thanx for the invite, whether it was reluctantly or enthusiastically extended. SOMEONE needs to attempt to perpetrate some actual memetics around here!  And all who are genuinely interested in attempting to advance our understanding of the Islamofascist memeplex are invited to participate...

I'm guessing you won't because you can't.  Dismissing or ignoring a personally unpalatable yet stubbornly persistent and maddeningly sensible contention is EVER so much easier than actually attempting a refutation by logic or counterexample, now isn't it?  And it avoids stressing one out via that nasty ol' cognitive dissonance...

Geez!  Talk about paranoia!  Do you actually believe that I'm some sorta Bushite plant, considering that I was a majot contributor to this list WAAY before he began his FIRST term?  That chimp ain't no chump as far as spreading constitutional democracy memes, though (see Lebanese Druse boss Walid Jumblatt's 'the democratic vote in Iraq is the equivalent of tearing down the Middle Eastern Berlin Wall' speech); you might even have to call him a champ at it...although he is most DEFINITELY chumpish concerning his domestic social agenda (Id've much preferred Kerry's), and both of their fiscal templates sucked on dry ice, for differing reasons (Kerry's tax and spend vs. Bush's borrow and spend - that's an area where Clinton had it over on BOTH of them).

You're gonna have to do better than THAT blunderful ad hominem.

At least I know you register a little news now and then.  BTW: how DID you like the Iran prez's recent 'wipe the US and Israel off the map' speech?

And some terrorism in location A is indeed state B sponsored, and some of it even by Iran, no less - they're called Hizbullah, and control Lebanon's Bekaa valley - or didncha know that?