Democrat calls Republicans 'jihadists'

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 10:51 AM

Given the standoff taking place with Congress and the administration, I realize emotions are running high, but to make such accusations? Why is this seem to be a regular with the Dems? We have comparisons to nazi Germany regularly, and now we're moving on to comparisons to terrorists...

And while Democrats rebuff Republicans and their accusations of shutdown politics, the majority is throwing some brickbats of its own.

“They’ve been stalling,’’ said John W. Olver, D-Mass., chairman of the House Transportation-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee. “They are nihilists. They are jihadists.”

Publius · 07-26-2007, 11:01 AM

I dont think Rep. Olver knows what either of those words means...

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:05 AM

jihadists aren't terrorists and terrorist's aren't all jihadists

but basically all the original zealots (jews) were terrorists, yet if he had said "they're zealots" this thread wouldn't exist

A jihadist is simply someone involved a jihad, say someone trying to lose weight to be a better muslim, that's a jihad

Is that really bad? To get in shape?

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

I dont think Rep. Olver knows what either of those words means...

He used both perfectly, nihilist can be someone who is destructive and bringing about chaos...infact "obstructionist" fits several definitions of nihilist quite well

Publius · 07-26-2007, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He used both perfectly, nihilist can be someone who is destructive and bringing about chaos...infact "obstructionist" fits several definitions of nihilist quite well

nihilism is far from what these guys are doing. Politically speaking, nihilists want to break down religious and political institutions into nothingness. The GOP is far from that, they want a strong government and strong religious influence upon that government.

He used the word inaccurately.

WickedLou9 · 07-26-2007, 11:17 AM

Our elected officials are all wingnuts. You have to be insane to run for public office these days.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

jihadists aren't terrorists and terrorist's aren't all jihadists

but basically all the original zealots (jews) were terrorists, yet if he had said "they're zealots" this thread wouldn't exist

A jihadist is simply someone involved a jihad, say someone trying to lose weight to be a better muslim, that's a jihad

Is that really bad? To get in shape?

Kind sir, please read up on the term 'jihad' and/or 'jihadist'. In this day and age, these terms are not used lightly, nor are they to represent positive acts or people.

The neologism jihadist is sometimes used to describe militant Islamic groups, including but not restricted to Jihadist terrorism. The term is deemed offensive by many Muslims who see it as vilifying the more complex ideology of jihad.

For the most part, they are used to represent Islamic militants. Given that this Congressman is not Muslim, I seriously doubt he used it in the 'more complex ideology of jihad' as he probably doesn't even know what that is.

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

nihilism is far from what these guys are doing. Politically speaking, nihilists want to break down religious and political institutions into nothingness. The GOP is far from that, they want a strong government and strong religious influence upon that government.

He used the word inaccurately.

No sorry, the GOP wants this session (1/2007-1/2009 of congress to break down into chaos of no accomplishments and be regarded to as close to nothingness as possible

Perfect wording

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Kind sir, please read up on the term 'jihad' and/or 'jihadist'. In this day and age, these terms are not used lightly, nor are they to represent positive acts or people.

For the most part, they are used to represent Islamic militants. Given that this Congressman is not Muslim, I seriously doubt he used it in the 'more complex ideology of jihad' as he probably doesn't even know what that is.

Not really, and you're making assumptions on what he "doesn't know"

in your circle maybe jihad is only used to describe what right-wing radio call terrorists

but jihad, even since 2001 right after the towers fell, has always meant to those with academic training to multiple meanings, and infact the most frequent jihad is a personal one that doesn't involve others or fighting

DosEquis · 07-26-2007, 11:29 AM

In a half ass backwards sence, i can't disagree that some of them are jihadists. The president frequently talked of religion before and during the conflicts in afghanistan and Iraq, and the opposing forces call it holy war, aka jihad.

Jihad does not equal terrorism. Those terrorism is a common tactic when fighting a jihad.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Not really, and you're making assumptions on what he "doesn't know"

Not really, and you're making assumption on what he 'knows'.

In your circle, maybe everyone you're around spend countless hours on the internet researching the historical definitions of every word ever written. But I doubt he's part of your circle.

Publius · 07-26-2007, 11:34 AM

@ Thorgrim being a 100% Democrat apologist, even when they make outlandish and unnecessarily inflammatory remarks.

motivez · 07-26-2007, 11:35 AM

Considering the amount of times the Republican party has said Democrats are trying to help the terrorists, I just can't seem to care too much about this.

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Considering the amount of times the Republican party has said Democrats are trying to help the terrorists, I just can't seem to care too much about this.

Not even comparable?

To disagree on policies, in particular foreign policies, because one thinks another might enable or 'help' the enemy, is a completely different issue than outright calling someone such names, don't you think?

motivez · 07-26-2007, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not even comparable?

To disagree on policies, in particular foreign policies, because one thinks another might enable or 'help' the enemy, is a completely different issue than outright calling someone such names, don't you think?

Both deplorable, but completely comparable.

I wont apologize for either, but I certainly don't care about this statement in the wake of years of the Republican party telling anyone (but mostly Democrats) that they're terrorist-enablers, coddlers, want to help the terrorists, etc.. for pretty much any disagreement.

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Publius

@ Thorgrim being a 100% Democrat apologist, even when they make outlandish and unnecessarily inflammatory remarks.

it's pretty easy to sit on the outside after the american voter rejects every candidate you try to send to congress or any state legislative body, and then go "oh, well, they're just unnecessarily infammatory"

This isn't softball, it's Congress

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not really, and you're making assumption on what he 'knows'.

In your circle, maybe everyone you're around spend countless hours on the internet researching the historical definitions of every word ever written. But I doubt he's part of your circle.

Actually it was a pretty well discussed fact after 9/11 when the political community was trying to better understand islam...

I'm going to make a "wild assumption" and say you didn't know the religious and regional demographic differences between Shia and Sunni...until you heard about it post-Iraq...that doesn't mean others weren't debating it in 2002 when we were just discussing military action of Iraq

I guess those who did know these "obscure historical definition"s should be somehow penalized?

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Both deplorable, but completely comparable.

I wont apologize for either, but I certainly don't care about this statement in the wake of years of the Republican party telling anyone (but mostly Democrats) that they're terrorist-enablers, coddlers, want to help the terrorists, etc.. for pretty much any disagreement.

So as a result, you'll accept what the Democrats do when they outright call the Republicans 'jihadists' or 'nazis' because, well, the Republicans said their policies enable the enemy in the past?

Is that something you really want to admit to?

Thorgrim · 07-26-2007, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Not even comparable?

To disagree on policies, in particular foreign policies, because one thinks another might enable or 'help' the enemy, is a completely different issue than outright calling someone such names, don't you think?

You're post is in error in basic logic, not all jihadists are terrorists

ballz2wallz · 07-26-2007, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Actually it was a pretty well discussed fact after 9/11 when the political community was trying to better understand islam...

I'm going to make a "wild assumption" and say you didn't know the religious and regional demographic differences between Shia and Sunni...until you heard about it post-Iraq...that doesn't mean others weren't debating it in 2002 when we were just discussing military action of Iraq

I guess those who did know these "obscure historical definition"s should be somehow penalized?

I think it's fair to say I didn't know a lot about the region until it was on the forefront of our lives. I think it's also fair to say that that is the case for most.

I think it's also fair to say that most of us don't live our lives trying to know everything about everything. Many of us have a focus in our lives that we try to be experts in.

Is it more admirable to know a lot about a little than a little about a lot?