JokeFollow

I don't get it.

Ironic how?

There. Editted my joke for clarity's sake, Poodle.

Yeah, but my racism is done in good taste with a tongue firmly inserted in my cheek, lol, Amb. If nothing else, I provide a foil for the rest of the drones around here spouting the company line of respectfully yahsuh-ing every ridiculous bit of PC tripe. If you can't laff there is something wrong with you.

Totem

Why would an Amish farmer default to yelling at strangers in German?

Case in point. This headline from MSNBC right now: "Civilians suffer in Pakistan’s war on Taliban." Never mind the war isn't on the Taliban, but rather the Taliban's war on Pakistani and Afgani society. The inference is Pakistan is wreaking havoc on a legitimate entity with legitimate issues.

No one calls them on it.

My posts here are a counterpoint to the ******** that gets espoused on this board-- things like the groupthink of the "bigotry" of California's Prop 8 for instance. The difference is I use humor rather than the cudgel like Varrus.

If that makes me like him in your eyes, well, so be it.

Totem

That's what I was wondering.

I've got a slightly un-PC joke, since we're on the topic.



Paulsol dies (sorry mate), and ends up in Hell, rather predictably. As he's standing there, amidst the flames and fury, the Devil comes up to him. "Cheer up Paulsol, you seem a bit down. What's wrong?" So Paulsol is all like "Well, I'm in Hell, that kinda sucks, I liked it back on Earth."

So the Devil tells him: "Don't worry mate, it's not so bad here. For example, did you enjoy eating when you were alive?" Paulsol replies "Yeah, I really did." So the Devil says: "Well, here in Hell, Monday is "Eating Day". We have the finest Caviar from Russia, the best Argentian steaks, the greatest Filet Mignon you've ever eaten, there's infinite quantity of all of kinds of food. And when you're full, you can throw up and start eating again, no problems of cholesterol. It'll be a 24 hour feeding frenzy with the greatest food ever cooked, non-stop, all day!"

Paulsol is a little happier, but still a bit gloomy. The Devil asks him: "Did you use to smoke?" to which Paulsol replies that yes, he did. "Well" says the Devil, "Tuesday is "Smoking Day". We have the finest Havana cigars, the greatest tobacco from Virginia, all the brands you want, in all the format you want, you'll spend your day smoking, and you don't even have to worry about cancer cos you're already dead!"

Paulsol starts to cheer up a bit. The Devil tells him: "What about drink? Did you enjoy drinking? Because Wednesday is "Drinking Day". Inifnite amount of 1787 Château Lafite, the greatest Dom Perignong, the finest Russian Vodka, the most delicious Cognac, we'll be pumpng alcohol in your mouth non-stop. You can drink all day and then puke and then drink again, and then puke again, and then drink again, and who cares because you won't even get a hangover!"

"What about drugs" asks the devil "did you enjoy those?" Paulsol says "Yes, I did". The Devil says "Well guess what, Thursday is "Drugs Day"! You can smoke all the weed you want, the finest hashich from Nepal, the strongest skunk from Asterdam, you'll have heroin pumped straight to your blood, copious amounts of cocaine up your nose, all the LSD, meth, acid, shrooms, ecstacy you can eat, and you won't even get addicted!!"

Paulsol is starting to feel pretty upbeat it all. The Devil says "What about gay sex? Did you enjoy that?" Paulsol frowns and says "Erm, no, not really."

So the Devil replies "Ah, you're not gonna like Fridays then."

The article is about Pakistan's military advances into the Swat Valley which Pakistan had agreed to give over to Taliban governance via agreement to submit to Islamic law both last year and this year. Since then, Pakistan has changed their mind and is trying to retake the region by force.

So it is pretty accurate. Not that I feel bad for the Taliban -- this is just one more example of our fine allies dropping the ball (quick, let's see some conservatives comparing the Pakistani government to Chamberlain! Appeasement!!!) but Pakistan is engaging in a war on a "legitimate" political organization which which it had previously thought "legitimate" enough to broker a cease-fire agreement with and give governning rights to.

Edited, May 28th 2009 8:07am by Jophiel

Now, now. Let's not examine the facts too closely, as they tend to obscure the bumpersticker analysis favored by the right wing groupthink deciders.

What nuance? It's simple and plain fact that the Pakistani government brokered a cease-fire with the Taliban in 2008 which included giving the Taliban the authority to institute Islamic law throughout the Swat valley region thus making them the local government for all practical reasons.

I'm not justifying it; I think it was a terrible mistake on the part of the Pakistani government and am continually amused (sadly, not in a ha-ha way) at how stridently the Right defends Pakistan and glosses over incidents such as this.

But that's neither here nor there regarding the fact that the MSNBC headline you're crying about is entirely accurate in its implication that Pakistan is launching military strikes into a region that is no longer really under the control of the Pakistani government but rather is under the control of a "legitimate" government Pakistan allowed to take root.

It's iconic

Me too. Something about Clinton, probably.



No one is "defending" it. But the Swat valley had Sharia law through-out the 90s, and it wasn't half as bad as what the Talibans did in Afghanistan at the same time. It was quite a popular tourist destination for Westerners at the time.

"Sharia law" doesn't mean much per se, only the application of Islamic principles, but these are open to interpretation. Sharia law doesn't necessarilly mean chopping off girls ****, and stoning adulterous women. That's only some people's version of Sharia law. It's the one that gets publicity in the media, and that gets Right-wingers all wet, but it's not the norm.

I'm trying to find a parallel, and I guess it's similar to the Christian Right in the US wanting to have laws that follow their religious beliefs, like preventing gays from being married, or forcing teachers to talk about creationism in schools. You can take this as far as you want, and some would take it further than others. Puritans in the late Middle-Ages were acting in the name of God and the Bible, and it wasn't very different to the most extreme cases of Sharia Law today. So "Sharia Law" is no different to "Christian Values". The only difference is in their practical application, which differ greatly from country to country.

What I would defend, to some extent, is the right of certain semi-autonomous regions to have some form of devolution, or local government, that allows them to be self-governed to an extent, if it has popular support. It doesn't make for a great bumper sticker, but it doesn't seem that extreme either. You could argue that this would entrench Taliban power over these people, but I would argue that repressive and bloody policies from Pakistan's central government only alienates moderates in those regions, thereby making them turn to people like the Talibans for armed resistance.

So, all this to say what? That knee-jerks reactions to deals like self-government in the Swat Valley are bound to be wildly inaccurate, since you have (let's be honest here) no idea what it actually entails. But, you heard the magic words "Sharia law", and got your knickers in a twist.



I don't think anyone here would defend that. Maybe Pensive in one of his more excited moments, but that's about it. What you won't find here, though, is people wetting themselves everytime Sharia law is mentionned. We don't think "OMG these people want sharia law it means they cut off girls **** and have sex with Bin Laden's beard."

The problem in Pakistan is complex. Pakistan is complex. Our answer has to calibrated to this complexity, or it will cause as many problems as it solves.

And our Western history is littered with poor and simplified reasoning like this. Remember when the bad guys were the Russians? We armed the fucking talibans to the teeth in order to fight them. And look where that got us, it indirectly created the civil war in afghanistan which lead to the Taliban coming into power and to Bin Laden taking refuge there to plan his operations. The horrific state of Central American states, with incredibly high levels of violence and drugs and murder, are the lingering consequences of US operations to defeat "Communist" governments there. That's just 2 exemples, but there are lots more.

And yet, all the right-wingers at the time were adamant that Commies were evil and that US actions were righteous, despite their complete lack of foresight, or care for local populations.

Some of us are saying that we should try not to repeat those actions, while others are calling us Taliban-fuckers for saying so.


Edited, May 28th 2009 2:41pm by RedPhoenixxx

The Amish actually still speak a variant called Pennsylvania Dutch, when they're at home at least.