Belafonte: Bush 'Greatest Terrorist In The World'

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Jan 8, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    D'oh. I know his heart's in the right place, but I really wish Belafonte wouldn't do these kinds of things that allow the focus to be put on him instead of on the problems. And you know this will be Limbaugh and Hannity and Coulter and Krauthammer et. al.'s latest whipping boy. Oh look how bad those nasty liberals are, they support communism blah blah blah.

    Link'd
     
  2. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #2
    What the hell is he talking about? Half of America's never even heard of Chavez, and the half that does signs him off as one of those 'leftist latin-american dictators'. We'd have to have another great depression for americans to support socialism in any form, at home or abroad.
     
  3. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #3
    Belafonte has been telling it as he sees it for many decades,in this case I agree.Whilst a lot of USeans may not know who Chavez is (or care) a lot do and quite a number are very supportive of what he's trying to do.

    PS Chavez is an American although not a native of the US.
     
  4. cslewis macrumors 6502a

    cslewis

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    40º27.8''N, 75º42.8''W
    #4
    Who?
     
  5. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #5
    I too wish Belafonte would shut up, and for the same reasons. He serves as an example of liberal "kook-dom" to those right-wing propagandists mactastic mentioned.
     
  6. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #6
    I'm not suggesting he shut up... just that he be more nuanced when he's abroad, and particularly when he's with someone like Chavez.
     
  7. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #7
    I disagree,trying to play the right wing looneys by appearing liberal and trying to please them is not the way forward.Tell the truth people will see it and accept it eventually,politics is not a game its serious(not what the Democrat and Republican charade that goes on in the US is politics).Trying to be electable just makes you as bad as them,just ignore them and organise you and your peoples lives,forget Government.
     
  8. Blackheart macrumors 6502a

    Blackheart

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Location:
    Seattle
    #8
    I'm "right-wing", but please also realize that there are certain conservatives in the "kook-dom" arena. Please don't group us all together. :)

    I've heard of Belafonte and Chavez... but really only their names. Not their stances.
     
  9. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #9
    I don't see how it is catering to the righties if he says Bush's actions have caused the unnecessary deaths of thousands of civilians, that his actions have undermined freedom and democracy both at home and abroad, that his actions have caused a lack of trust to develop between the US and many of our traditional allies, not to mention those who don't feel particularly close to us... Say all kinds of things without giving up the 'worlds greatest terrorist' soundbite.

    That's the difference between being nuanced and being blunt. While being blunt is attractive, there is a time and place for nuanced speech. Criticizing your country's leadership while abroad is one of those times.
     
  10. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #10
    I don't understand,if your countries(and I'm not at all sure Belafonte would call the US his country)leadership is crap surely its your duty to say so wherever you are in the world.
     
  11. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #11
    That's the point of being nuanced... you say what you mean without the bombshell headline. It's all about your goal. Does it help accelerate the cause or does it give your opposition more ammunition than it helps you?

    Nuanced is not yelling fire in the crowded theater, but rather calmly helping people out of harms way in order not to make things worse.

    Also you have to consider if it is literally true. Is Bush the worlds biggest terrorist? Not be any stretch of the imagination. He's not on Santa's list of the well-behaved for sure, but is Bush worse than Kim Jong Il? Robert Mugabe? Usama bin Laden? Any objective comparison would tell you that Bush has a ways to go before he reaches those levels.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    He said right-wing propagandists. ;) Just like not all Bush haters are socialist-commie-liberals. No offense to you socialist-commie-liberals.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #13
    World's greatest tyrant? No, Kim probably takes the title. Number One Terrorist? Quite possibly, in terms of deaths caused among innocent civilians, although Putin is running a close second. Still, you will only preach to the converted by using such language.
     
  14. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #14
    I am aware what nuanced means,but I still don't understand,surely yelling fire in a crowded theatre(in the case the theatre is on fire) possibly with further helpful information is the best way to alert people to the danger they are in.Because some of them are stupid and selfish enough to start stampeding is not a reason to keep the important news that they're in danger and need to use their brains to get themselves and others out from the majority.The reason these things are put forward is the Judeo/Christian idea that people are bad and need to be lied to for there own good(it actually predates Christianity and the earliest recorded use can be traced to our old "friend" Aristotle.Anyway I am off the point,if Bush Jr is not responsible for the largest number of non-combatent deaths and general misery in the world who is,the two examples you gave whilst complete bastards in their own right are not.
     
  15. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    So you don't ever see a time when nuance is better than blunt speech? It's always better to be blunt, no matter what the consequences?
     
  16. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #16
    Stalin, Hitler, or Mao would be my guesses. I don't believe that Bush has ordered the military to attack civilians directly. In wars, civilians get killed. It's war, it happens. The U.S has taken many steps to ensure low numbers of civilian deaths. Let me pose a question to you regaeding non-combatent deaths: You're in the army, doing your rounds, patroling the streets of Fallujah. A teenage boy comes out of a building with an assault rifle and is charging towards you. What do you do? He's a non-combatent.
     
  17. freeny macrumors 68020

    freeny

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Location:
    Location: Location:
    #17
    Would this be considered a "Godwin"? Does the mention of Hitler fall into Godwins law". If so this thread would certainly beat out the old record of 20 posts.
    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=171142&page=2
    this was originally pointed out by Palad1
     
  18. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #18
    a quick site search shows that there are no fewer than 6 threads with "hitler" in the title, fwiw.
     
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    The thing about those three is they're dead ergo not in the world,as for the scenario about being in the army I won't be in it,with no disrespect to those tha have been in the military,but there is no way I'm going to be anyones army,I was a CO at the time of the Vietnam war and even though my country only send volunteers,there was still no way I was going to march around with a gun pretending to protect the people who were ripping me off(politicians and big business)
     
  20. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #20
    Sorry mactastic I've been out all day and just looked in again.The term you use is blunt,the term I used was the truth,I can see very few places were the truth is going to hurt anyone.
     
  21. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    It's an illegal war: the US has no right to be there at all. Nor have we.
    I guess you just saturate the area with White Phosphorus. If there are any civilian casualties you don't count them. They were accessories to the insurgency by being there in their own homes. Tough cookies. Them's the breaks.
     
  22. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #22
    Oh Harry. Ugh. Did the neocons pay him for this? :)
     
  23. OnceUGoMac macrumors 6502a

    OnceUGoMac

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    #23
    You've degraded your argument to personal accuations, eh?:rolleyes:

    It's an illegal war according to whom? The Senate? No, they voted for the authorization. What makes a war illegal again? Where's the proof of Allied troops invading civilian houses and killing them without provocation? Since you feel necessary to twist words, let me clarify: Civilian deaths are an unnecessary part of war. I don't believe that Allied troops are intentionally killing civilians. If you have any evidence of this, give it to the media or better yet Congress.Name a single war that didn't have civilian deaths. If you can't, then your argument equating civilian deaths with wars being illegal becomes a moot point. On a final note, I havn't made any accusations nor attacks towards you nor your views. If you find a legitimate flaw in my arguments, then say so; but, please be courteous.
     
  24. bousozoku Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #24
    What personal accusations?

    Since when is an invasion into another country not illegal?

    It seemed that way when Iraq invaded Kuwait, so why would it be any different with the U.S.A. invading Iraq?
     
  25. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #25
    *clears space pulls up deck chair grabs popcorn and awaits Skunks response*:)
     

Share This Page