harbin336

A Critique Part One(3 posts)
05/05/07 03:48am

A DANG - DInGIE Americans Critique of the article:Jews vs Christians by Barkatullah Marwat,cheif editor of the Marwat Post
posted on the excite discussion boards politics forum.

The very first line is a really interesting one,,especially if one were knowledgable about the attitude B.Marwat has displayed previous to this regarding Bush.
~Bush is nice a guy, but encircled by Neo-Conservatives who are reported to be 25 in
number sitting in the White House.~
He says Bush is a nice guy.Then goes on to use a common derogatory remark to refer to Bushs closet admin members,,I suppose.
What I find neatly blatant is his obvious attempt to first disarm the Bush supporters then negate it with the use of 'but' and cast a deratory aspect on these unnamed folks.
And the apparent focus on the number 25.I would allmost bet dollars to doughnuts that this has some religiously oriented significance for Marwat.Or it's one he wants some folks to associate him with.

And look at line two.Wouldn't most of you reading this agree that this appears to simply be an attempt to get 'Americans' to think or assume he feels as they do.After all,he doesn't actually identify what that feeling is,does he?
~If I were an American, I would be feeling the same as
most of you doing.~

This bit is a gem:
~But I think Nancy and Reid are not American, are they? If so, why
ain't they supporting Bush on the Bill. Why does not Bush arrest them under the act of
supporting terrorists openly and legally by calling off the war on terror going on Iraq
and Afghanistan where US Marines are deployed.~
To which all I can say is,,I don't know.I would like to think he doesn't exactly feel right now is the time to be totally going after fellow Americans.
Perhaps he has the 'effort' in mind rather than worrying about finger pointing.Do you think,maybe,that he is simply doing his job and accepts they are doing theres too?

Here's another angst fisher:
~According to MSN news, a panel on Pentagon has disclosed that most of the US Marines
fighting in both warring countries are developing some mental problems.~
Yes,,the horrors of war are terrible.And the horrors of fighting an enemy that hides in and among innocent civilians and attacks the same,,willfully and knowing,,is a pure agony.Most would call it hell,,except for the psychopathic murderers doing it.They call it jihad and a path to heaven.
Why do those people hide like that?Oh,,do you think it may be a calculated move to help demoralize a group of troops that actually care about NOT hurting innocent folks?
And that in turn does affect the ones who love and care for those troop members who are damaged by this kind of despicable tactic.

~> cont~>

harbin336

RE: A Critique Part One(3 posts)
05/05/07 03:49am

Then he pushes the 'pain prod' in a little further with this:
~So let me ask
how long they would be fighting?~
I would think he should be asking the Insurgents how long they will be killing Iraqis and other innocent folks?
So why isn't he?Because he's setting the reader up for the next line:
~Is it not making US isolated?~
Notice,,no periods.Almost like he's trying to 'relate' himself with US.
This string continues the 'steering':
~Why do you go out for a
vacation? .Is not for a change? .But let me know what kind of change Bush is giving to the
soldiers? ~
Then,,he digs a little deeper into the 'kind hearted American reader' psyche and connects the two targets of the psychopaths:
~In the beginning the soldiers were enthusiastic when they occupied Iraq but
now Iraq is a hell for not only US soldiers but also for the common people.~
Again,,no periods.

Finally,here's the zinger:
~Who is ruling the country? Answer is: the suicide bombers. ~
Now,,isn't that the point for someone trying to help the innocent folks they are terrorising and destroying?
All this did is bring it around to the fact that the psychopathic murderers need to be opposed.Look,,he even admits they are 'ruling'.And he seems like he thinks thay should,,well,to me,that is.

Amazingly enough,,this next set actually says more about the mind writing it than anything else:
~Have you ever visited a parent of any of killed soldier? They don't miss him? They don't
cry after him? Of course, they do in lonely moments...but who cares?~
Oh sure,,I am sure some would say at this point that he's being fascetious or something like that.Look:
~And that's where we
human have become stone-hearted. Killing our own fellows in the name of religion, race,
color, geographical location. ~
This indicates something about him if he thinks this is a valid arguement against being in Iraq or anywhere these types of thugs go into action.
After all,,those aren't the reasons the US is there.That's why the Psychopathic Murderous Fanatical Islamist Fundamentals are being opposed.
They are killing people to force religious and political ideologies down the throats of the innocent folks who want to be able to choose with out worrying about getting their heads cut off or being blown up.

You know,,considering the title of this article he wrote,,this just seems totally incongruous at this point,,all the above about Iraq and then this:
~Wish Bush had a son fighting in Iraq and have killed, then I would ask him how he is
feeling now?~

And this here,,he is really pumping the angst:
~When you have a love, sincere and loyal to you it's alright but once s/he parts way,
then feel the pain. If you feel pain on love being separated, then how will you feel
over your son, brother or love killed here in Iraq?~
I suppose if I didn't consider the source and the obvious intent,,I would probally really resent him trying to emotionally equate breaking up or divorce with the death of siblings and other close relatives.
Not that those two events can't be devastating,,I have been through all the above and they simply aren't quite alike enough to use this way.

This next is quaint yet also applicable to the man pointing it at his audience:
~If you point a finger at some, don't forget your other fingers diverted towards you that
means you are more guilty.~

~> cont ~>

From Excite Boards

Excite

Post Search

RE: A Critique Part One(3 posts)
05/05/07 03:50am

This one is a repeat concept of no periods and the other yada:
~My sympathies are equally both with families of American and Iraqis who have lost their
sons. But how long it will go on? for next 10 years, 100 years or affinity?~
And again,,with his 'but' he negates then diverts away from the concept of,,'how long will the murderous psychopathic insurgents continue?' as being a much more significant line of inquiry.
Instead he leaves it hanging psychologically in the laps of the ones he just claimed to sympathize with.

Then he does something again that he did previously:
~Being a dad, brother and lover, think deeply over what is going on Iraq and Afghanistan.~
He obviously either forgets or for some unfathomable reason to me,,he wants to ignore that if his audience is American,,it would behoove him to not talk so chauvinalistically.
I didn't like it,,and I would think some feminist factions would like it less than I do.Women are in combat too,,because they are fighting murderous psychopaths that target innocent civilians with death and terror.

Then he jumps away and begins this tact:
~Simple criticism is easier but practical measures are harder.~
This is a truth.But watch what's coming:
~I can criticise Bush and
Osma but I don't do something practically ....why? Because I am not an adviser to Bush
to give him some suggestions and proposals to think over the war and its aftermath. ~
He brings up Osama,,then forgets that Iraq didn't become a total Osama problem with out Osama being the problem,after we got rid of the genocidal tyrant Saddam,that he was too afraid of to take on.
Then goes on to only refer to not being bUshs advisor in a way that might be an indicator of jealosy or maybe envy

He also doesn't point out what he,,as an alledged Cheif Editor of a journalistic 'web publication' would quickly point at as a propagandistic psy-ops type action to influence public opinion if he seen his ideological opponents speaking like he is,,is what he is doing.
It seems to be his 'contribution' to the war effort.But for which side,,the innocents?If he was,,why wouldn't it show in his words more.

None the less,,we get to the end of the first part,,still with out even a mention of Christians nor Jews.
~No matter, the war goes on for years, but finally there will come a ceasefire. Because
negotiating table is what's the right place resolve or discuss an issue. ~
Of course,,These two statements do not necessarily follow in the real world.Do you actually think the negotiating table is what a 'murderous psychopath' wants?
If that were so,,then why don't the other Islamists world wide tell them that they should stop doing such and say,,'let's talk'?
Seriously,,why aren't they?
End part one of A DANG - DInGIE Americans Critique of the Article:Christians versus Jews by Barkatullah Marwat [2908] [9117]

Blog Front

Staks Index

Next