Security Risk or Anti-Arab Backlash - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2006, 04:34 PM   #31
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i suppose this is indicative of the situation the Bushies have put themselves in.

when you engage in rabid demagogury and the creation of mysterious boogeymen driving around in vans filled with chemical weapons in new jersey neighborhoods in order to drum up support for a war who's rationale was exceedingly dubious at best, how surprised can you be when this sort of thing comes back to bite you in the ass by very people you've scared into voting for you?

they made an enemy out of a caricature, and now they want the caricature to examine the ports?

"tone-deaf" doesn't even get close to describing the situation.
The caricature of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades. The demagogury has been tapped into repreatedly over the years by different groups for different purposes.

Security at the ports will not be affected by ownership.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 04:42 PM   #32
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


The caricature of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades. The demagogury has been tapped into repreatedly over the years by different groups for different purposes.

Security at the ports will not be affected by ownership.


oh come on. the "evil Arab" of post-2001 is vastly different from 1979.

can you really argue that the "evil Arab" wasn't made immeasurably more tangible first by 9-11, and then by the response, and then the Patriot Act, and then racial profiling at airports, and then using 9-11 as an excuse to invade an Arab country?

can you name another administration that has so willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype to justify its policies?

i still have no real opinions about whether or not this poses a security risk, but the Bushies have made their bed.

now they can lie in it.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:18 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
oh come on. the "evil Arab" of post-2001 is vastly different from 1979.

can you really argue that the "evil Arab" wasn't made immeasurably more tangible first by 9-11, and then by the response, and then the Patriot Act, and then racial profiling at airports, and then using 9-11 as an excuse to invade an Arab country?

can you name another administration that has so willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype to justify its policies?

i still have no real opinions about whether or not this poses a security risk, but the Bushies have made their bed.

now they can lie in it.
Vastly different caricature? Not at all. The primary difference was in the 70's, the "evil Arab" was that person over in Middle East - 9/11 just brought the image to our own shores, essentially a re-emergence of the old image.

I'd like you to give some examples of how the current administration has "willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype" to justify policies. The Adminstration has made efforts to counter public perceptions regarding Islam - including the recent condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons. The US has enemies - we see video and hear audio testifying to the fact we have enemies. I'd like to see how, beyond the reasonable response to self declared ememies the Administration so blatantly uses stereotypes to further the agenda items you list.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:30 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Vastly different caricature? Not at all. The primary difference was in the 70's, the "evil Arab" was that person over in Middle East - 9/11 just brought the image to our own shores, essentially a re-emergence of the old image.



you've just proved my point, as bolded above.

it's here, it's no longer abstract. Mohammad is coming to get you!


Quote:
I'd like you to give some examples of how the current administration has "willfully and wantonly tossed around the "evil Arab" stereotype" to justify policies. The Adminstration has made efforts to counter public perceptions regarding Islam - including the recent condemnation of the Mohammed cartoons. The US has enemies - we see video and hear audio testifying to the fact we have enemies. I'd like to see how, beyond the reasonable response to self declared ememies the Administration so blatantly uses stereotypes to further the agenda items you list.

as you've noted, this stereotype of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades, so explicit words aren't necessary as they are latent in the American -- indeed, Western -- imagination and need little prompting to invoke fear in the minds of your average American, especially after watching airplanes fly into towers on television.

i would say that the invasion of an Arab country that had nothing to do with the attacks was a wonderful way to blur necessary distinctions between different Arab countries and to say, essentially, and for the ease of the persecution of the vague GWOT, "see, they're all the same."
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:43 PM   #35
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:38 AM
For the record, Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians or members of ethnic groups related to Persians.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:45 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
as you've noted, this stereotype of the "evil Arab" has been around for decades, so explicit words aren't necessary as they are latent in the American -- indeed, Western -- imagination and need little prompting to invoke fear in the minds of your average American, especially after watching airplanes fly into towers on television.
I agree. It is quite different, however, from the Administration willfully and wantonly tossing around the "evil Arab" stereotype.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:46 PM   #37
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
For the record, Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians or members of ethnic groups related to Persians.
Caricatures and stereotypes are not built on factual details
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:47 PM   #38
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I agree. It is quite different, however, from the Administration willfully and wantonly tossing around the "evil Arab" stereotype.


then a correction: they've willfully and wantonly preyed upon the "evil Arab" stereotype in order to scare up public support for dubious policies.

need we delve into the horribly ironic shootings of Sikhs after 9-11?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 05:54 PM   #39
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
then a correction: they've willfully and wantonly preyed upon the "evil Arab" stereotype in order to scare up public support for dubious policies.

need we delve into the horribly ironic shootings of Sikhs after 9-11?
Was this generated, caused or conducted by the Administration? I know you are not fond of the Adminstration, but there should be some direct causal connection between these statements.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-22-2006, 08:41 PM   #40
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Was this generated, caused or conducted by the Administration? I know you are not fond of the Adminstration, but there should be some direct causal connection between these statements.


WMDs seem to be fine in the hands of North Koreans, but not in the hands of Iraqis.

not even invisible weapons.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 02:21 AM   #41
Blue Crack Overdose
Get me off the internetz!
 
Carek1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: wishing I was somewhere else....
Posts: 114,467
Local Time: 04:38 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't feel comfortable having ANY foreign owned company purchasing and/or running our US Ports. Why can't US Owned conglomerates own and run our Ports? Whether the UAE is a threat or not, I would personally like to see a very in depth investigation done before any decision is made.


Security at the ports will not be affected? I completely disagree. Our ports and surrounding waters are just as vulnerable to infiltration and devastatiion like our skies are/were--i.e. 9/11. I do not want to bear witness to another catastrophe like that in the US ever again.

Why can't our military or government run the ports in the US if there are no US conglomerates willing to buy them up and do the job?
__________________
Carek1230 is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 08:40 AM   #42
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Carek1230
Security at the ports will not be affected? I completely disagree. Our ports and surrounding waters are just as vulnerable to infiltration and devastatiion like our skies are/were--i.e. 9/11. I do not want to bear witness to another catastrophe like that in the US ever again.
They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

and as I said earlier....

Since 9/11 we have not enacted the measurements strongly recommended before 9/11.

Ports are already our most vulnerable point.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 11:00 AM   #43
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:38 AM
All matters of national pride aside, this doesn't seem like a security risk.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 11:49 AM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


They will not be affected. Security of the Port is not the operator's responsability.....

It is our governements....

and as I said earlier....

Since 9/11 we have not enacted the measurements strongly recommended before 9/11.

Ports are already our most vulnerable point.


Also, another element missing from the equation is that the foreign company will not be operating the entire port (of those subject to the contracts), just a small portion.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-23-2006, 05:29 PM   #45
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 12:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader




Also, another element missing from the equation is that the foreign company will not be operating the entire port (of those subject to the contracts), just a small portion.

Good point.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com