• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Julianne Malveaux, Semi-regular USA Today Columnist: USA, Bush Are 'Terrorists'

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by ProAmerican, Jul 14, 2005.

  1. Jonathan David

    Jonathan David Revolutionary Dancer

    It is precisely a reference to the words of Malcolm X and the death of JFK... probably why it ticks people off so much.... Ward Churchill got in trouble for using the same reference (amongst others) when he titled his paper "Some people push back: On the politics of roosting chickens"

    I was not aware of that last part of Malcolm X's comment... I wonder if she was referenceing it also or if she was simply saying that you reap what you sow.... I certainly didn't see any glee in her comments.

  2. Sinai

    Sinai Well-Known Member

    It's not. Both sides have the freedom of speech--but conservatives tend to have greater access to talk radio programs, while liberals tend to have greater access to the rest of the media.

    Both groups have used their "freedom of speech" to make some incredibly dumb comments that show the speaker fails to understand what he or she is talking about, though on the issue raised in the OP the far left seems to have largely cornered the market. About the only comment from the far right that I can recall offhand that may rank up there (or should that be down there?) was Jerry Falwell's claim that the moral tone of America was to blame for the 9/11 attacks.....
  3. MaryS

    MaryS Well-Known Member

    Speaking of "chickens coming home to roost", it's eerie how JFK's brother was murdered:

    In 1968, Robert Kennedy ran for President on the Democratic ticket. In June 1968, he took his campaign to California. In fact, he won the Californian primary on June 5, 1968, the anniversary of the outbreak of the Six-Day War. Kennedy's staff requested a photo opportunity with Yitzhak Rabin, the Chief of Staff in Israel during that war and was then Israel's Ambassador to the U.S., to commemorate the day.

    However, that photo opportunity never took place. On that evening, Kennedy was shot to death by a young Jerusalem-born Muslim named Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. As Rabin wrote in his memoirs: "The American people were so dazed by what they perceived as the senseless act of a madman that they could not begin to fathom its political significance."

    What was its political significance? According to a report made by a special
    counsel to the L.A. County District Attorney's office, Sirhan shot Kennedy for his support of Israel, and had been planning the assassination for months. In an outburst during his trial, he confessed, "I killed Robert Kennedy willfully,
    premeditatedly, and with twenty years of malice aforethought." [Twenty years, of course, date back to Israel's declaration of nationhood in 1948.] In a notebook found in Sirhan's apartment, investigators found a passage written on May 18, 1968 at 9:45 AM: "Robert F. Kennedy must be assassinated before 5 June 68."- the first anniversary of the beginning of the Six-Day War.

    It is well known that Robert Kennedy, John's Attorney General and younger brother, was also one of the President's most trusted advisors. What isn't so well known is that it was a younger Robert Kennedy, fresh out of Harvard and reporting for the Boston Post, who was in Israel when she declared herself a nation, and through the early days of her War for Independence. The Kennedy brothers also went to Israel in 1951 on a seven-week congressional tour of the Middle East. They left with a further respect for the young country's willingness to "bear any burden" in pursuit of their dreams. It seems likely that President Kennedy saw in the young country the friend in the Middle East he had really been looking for-a friend worthy of the dreams of Camelot.

    When Robert first met with Shimon Peres during the negotiations over the Hawk Missile purchase, the memory of Robert's 1948 visit was the first thing they talked about. The second was Israel's desire to break America's "elegant arms embargo." It seems unlikely that Robert didn't exert at least some influence on Peres' behalf to allow Israel to acquire the Hawk. Others saw Robert's influence in this decision as something that Arabs of the world could do without-especially after the U.S. arms purchased by Israel helped it win the Six-Day War of 1967.

    If the young Kennedy was to be despised for helping to end the arms embargo as the Attorney General, how much more would he be a problem as the President?

    When Yasser Arafat's Black September terrorist stormed the Saudi Embassy in
    Khartoum in March of 1973 and took US Ambassador Cleo Noel, Charge
    d'Affaires George Curtis Moore, and others hostage, Sirhan's release was one
    of their main demands. On March 2, 1973, after Nixon rejected that demand,
    Arafat was overheard and recorded by Israeli intelligence and the U.S. National Security Agency giving the code words for the execution of Noel, Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid, who were shot to death. James Welsh, a
    Palestinian analyst for the N.S.A., went public with charges of a cover-up of
    Arafat's key role in the planning and execution of these kidnappings and
    murders. (There is no statute of limitations on murder.) If Sirhan had acted
    independently of the P.L.O., why were they willing to kill Americans to try to gain his freedom?
    author: Michael D. Evans

    note: regarding Kennedy's killer, Sirhan Sirhan, apparently he's still in a California prison according to wikipedia -
    The head prosecutor in the case was Lynn "Buck" Compton of Band of Brothers fame. Sirhan was convicted and sentenced to death, but the sentence was commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the California Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional. He was eligible for parole, but as of March 2003 he had parole denied twelve consecutive times. He is not expected to ever be paroled. Currently he is confined at the California State Prison in Corcoran.
    (excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan
  4. rosenherman

    rosenherman Sparkly rainbow butterfly kitten

    The President saved many thousands more innocents than have been killed in our war against terrorism.

    Her opinion has no value. It's poorly considered and massively incorrect.
    In fact, no person's opinion has any value. It is just an opinion.

    Conservatives have greater access to talk radio programs because conservatives have an audience. Liberals have greater access to the rest of the media because they are the rest of the media.
  5. rosenherman

    rosenherman Sparkly rainbow butterfly kitten

  6. Defiant

    Defiant Guest

    The only person quilty of being "arrogant" and "out of control" is this Julianne Malveaux.
  7. Defiant

    Defiant Guest

    Oh, yes, the good ol' US goes around seeking whom she may devour: innocent women and children of all religions and creeds --purposefully targeting civilians in murderous rage, not giving a single thought to limiting damages.

    Yup, that describes the U.S.!

    Your lines fall on deaf ears.
  8. Voegelin

    Voegelin Reactionary

    And she isn't alone. Consider the charges and rhetoric we've heard in the last seven months:

    The 2004 election was rigged (black box voting)

    Alberto Gonzalez supports torture (claim by Senators)

    Condi Rice is a liar (claim by Senators)

    Tom Delay should go back to Texas and serve his jail time (Howard Dean)

    Bush should be impeached (John Conyers D-MI and others).

    Karl Rove should be charged with Treason.

    Homeland Security cheif Michael Chertoff should resign (Senator Schumer yesterday)

    Justice Janice Brown and 9 other judges are "extremists" and should not be confirmed to the Federal bench (Democratic Senators).

    John Bolton is unfit to represent the USA in the UN (most all liberals).

    American military personal are engaged in conduct similiar to that of those under Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler (Senator Dick Durban).

    "Here comes the voice of reason" (Sen. Robert Byrd referring to himself yesterday on C-Span)

    Only way Republicans can fill a room with African Americans is to get the Hotel staff there (Howard Dean)

    Conservatives should not be upset by any of this. The goal should be to provoke more of it. Let liberals marginalize themselves right out of American politics. There is precedent. Some conservatives did it in the 1950s when started in on floride being a communist plot.
  9. praying

    praying Snazzy Title Goes Here Supporter

    It's still free regardless.
  10. Defiant

    Defiant Guest

    The beauty is we are free to refute these ridiculous charges. Indeed, we are free to call them "ridiculous charges". We should not say she should not say these things. We ought to use our (those who do not agree) free speech to shout her down and show everyone why her claims are ridiculous.
  11. Billy Batson

    Billy Batson Well-Known Member

    you're attacking her opinion about our nation's propensity toward violence and then you ask this question? are you for real? america never asks this question. look at our military industrial complex and the hawks on capital hill.
  12. praying

    praying Snazzy Title Goes Here Supporter

    I agree. It's a two way street no argument here.
  13. charmtrap

    charmtrap Iä-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn

    Of course you're free to refute her. That is, as they say, the beauty part.

    Though, shouting someone down is usually considered sort of rude. Reasoned discourse is better. If you have to resort to shouting, you've already lost the debate.
  14. ACougar

    ACougar U.S. Army Retired

    So they bomb a bus and we drop a 5000 pound bomb on a village, they shoot a government official and we open fire on a crowd of protestors. I'm not certain who is more terrorised, although I suspect it's not us.

    Terror is a tool, we call it shock and awe while they call it Jihad.
  15. sidiousmax225

    sidiousmax225 Well-Known Member

    I'm going to make a drinking game based on you. Take a drink everytime Voegelin says "democrat". Take 2 drinks everytime Voegelin says "Liberal". Drink the whole glass when he refers to either as being anti-american.