Scum
-
Terry, If you are so willing to unleash a longwinded stream of insult and invective against me, someone who you clearly don't know or understand, I would be quite surprised to find that you have an accurate vision of anyone. I can only shake my head in wonder that you would imagine I believe half the things you insist that I do. And I ask: are you here to discuss, or do vent your spleen? If the latter is true, I will back down. It is important to vent one's spleen. I believe the Internet is a place with unprecedented potential for exchanging viewpoints, but I also recognize that it is very easy to misapprehend the other person's position. To answer the point I think you might be willing to discuss, I know that you are only against "terrorists". But what is a "terrorist"? No one calls him/herself a "terrorist", so a "terrorist" is a label that you put on other people. After all, we terrorized the Iraqi civilian population by bombing them. Does that make us terrorists? We terrorized the world this century by building an enormous nuclear stockpile. Does that make us terrorists? And who are the terrorists who want us to be their slaves? Slavery isn't practiced in fundamentalist Islamic countries, so why would they suddenly (were they, amazingly enough, to take us over) make us slaves? Yes, there are those in the Islamic countries who say they want to kill us all, but if you spend a little time looking you'll find Westerners who want to kill all Muslims. Does that mean that we ALL want to? Not at all. Terry, it seems clear to me that you are vilifying the "enemy" in order to justify your own anger. "Terrorist" is a convenient term because it can encompass any person you disagree with. Count the number of people who have died since we invaded Iraq, and then count the number who are TRULY terrorists. You write, "You can say all you want "Well Abdullah also thinks he is doing the right thing and BLAH BLAH f***ING BLAH!" the fact is Jeffrey Dahmer thought he was doing the right thing when he ate mens penises. So that doesn't mean jack sh*t." But it does. In order to prevent other Jeffrey Dahmers from cropping up, you study why he thinks he is doing the right thing (and I think you're playing games, because I don't believe he thought he was doing the right thing). You don't study why YOU think he's wrong. You study why HE thinks he's right. That's the only way to stop him. Otherwise you'll be in perpetual combat against him. Finally, you write: "Sorry pal, but I want the ter
Lemmsjid wrote: I can only shake my head in wonder that you would imagine I believe half the things you insist that I do. ........... I know that you are only against "terrorists". But what is a "terrorist"? Is this is one of those things? If you don't see the difference between [Saddam Hussein, The Taliban and Al Quaeda] and the USA then you must understand why I vented my spleen in your general direction. Without all of my personal feelings toward you, I will just say that I can't see eye to eye with any person that doesn't understand that we are in a conflict of vast proportions and the outcome of this will affect the lives of billions of people in the future. Talking about how the Taliban and Al Quaeda are no different than the USA is not a conversation I am able to have without finding myself deeply suspicious about the motives of the person talking. I don't care if you can explain to me how this endless cycle of violence is really a bad way to behave. You may have very detailed studies with respected academicians frowning and pointing with their long pointers to official charts and bar graphs all showing that violence begats violence and is therefore, like, totally not cool. But the real life facts are that if we do what the terrorists want us to do - NOTHING, then they will win. And by supporting this position you are supporting my enemies position. Lemmsjid wrote: And who are the terrorists who want us to be their slaves? Slavery isn't practiced in fundamentalist Islamic countries, so why would they suddenly (were they, amazingly enough, to take us over) make us slaves? Cool sarcasm! Don't worry - I can handle it. Anyways, I call a population where a woman can be murdered for walking around without a cloth over her face slavery. I call a place that is ruled by freaks that beat the shit out of anyone that they see applauding at a soccer game or laughing in public a nation of slaves. But lets play your game. OK - fine. We won't call it slavery - even though their daughters are given away at 11 or 12 years old to fat-assed 50 year old men. I'd call that slavery too. You go ahead and use whatever word for this lovely flower garden you picture in your mind if the terrorists win. And they would take us over in a heartbeat if we did what you want and not fight back. Or are you going to say, no - if they attack us then we can fight back and burn their faces off and shatter their bones with high explosives and shoot them in the
-
Thank you for your reply, Mike, much appreciated. And I do see what you're saying. I just look at the details a different way. For example, your aside where you say, "at the request of their government" is quite telling, and I think you're skimming over that aspect of things too much. What you're saying there is that they are being hypocritical for rejecting business that was solicited by their own governments. Many (most?) Arabs don't see "their government" as truly theirs. It was the United States' policy to prop up authoritarian, pro-Western governments in order to ensure economic stability there. And this comes directly after the colonial era, when Arab governments were explicitly not theirs. It is not surprising that people are still angry about that. Imagine if there was a powerful Muslim country propping up an authoritarian United States government? Imagine if until the middle of this century the United States government was run by profit motivated Arab companies? I, for one, would be bloody well pissed off. Second, I agree that radical Islamic extremists are scary, but let's call a spade a spade. Saddam was not by any stretch of imagination a radical Islamic extremist, and neither, for that matter, is Osama Bin Laden. Both acted from purely political motivations--Saddam because, well, he wanted power and authority, and Osama Bin Laden because he was pissed off at what he thought was the takeover of his country's government by outsiders. That is the problem I see with a lot of what is going on: we are quite willing to tar the Arab world with the same brush ("Muslim extremists") but then we get all huffy when they do the same ("We're all like the sadistic American prison guards..."). The fact is that popular anger fades when its source becomes distant. Examples of both kinds of results: * England still "occupies" Northern Ireland. The terrorism continues. * England no longer occupies America. Fading, residual anger on the part of Americans. * Scotland is now an equal member of the United Kingdom. This is several hundred years after a series of sadistically bloody occupations on the part of the English. * The Union no longer occupies the South. Fading, but still sometimes potent, anger in the South, but nothing that will cause imminent open warefare or terrorism. Here are more examples of "eternal" hatreds and power dynamics that have faded into (near) obsolescence: * It was once thought inevitable that Christendom would someday conquer the Middle East and put non-Chr
I have no beef with people who point out past mistakes. But to try and use past mistakes as a reason to not do the right thing in the present is counter productive to say the least.
//placeholder for witty verbiage
-
Lemmsjid wrote: I can only shake my head in wonder that you would imagine I believe half the things you insist that I do. ........... I know that you are only against "terrorists". But what is a "terrorist"? Is this is one of those things? If you don't see the difference between [Saddam Hussein, The Taliban and Al Quaeda] and the USA then you must understand why I vented my spleen in your general direction. Without all of my personal feelings toward you, I will just say that I can't see eye to eye with any person that doesn't understand that we are in a conflict of vast proportions and the outcome of this will affect the lives of billions of people in the future. Talking about how the Taliban and Al Quaeda are no different than the USA is not a conversation I am able to have without finding myself deeply suspicious about the motives of the person talking. I don't care if you can explain to me how this endless cycle of violence is really a bad way to behave. You may have very detailed studies with respected academicians frowning and pointing with their long pointers to official charts and bar graphs all showing that violence begats violence and is therefore, like, totally not cool. But the real life facts are that if we do what the terrorists want us to do - NOTHING, then they will win. And by supporting this position you are supporting my enemies position. Lemmsjid wrote: And who are the terrorists who want us to be their slaves? Slavery isn't practiced in fundamentalist Islamic countries, so why would they suddenly (were they, amazingly enough, to take us over) make us slaves? Cool sarcasm! Don't worry - I can handle it. Anyways, I call a population where a woman can be murdered for walking around without a cloth over her face slavery. I call a place that is ruled by freaks that beat the shit out of anyone that they see applauding at a soccer game or laughing in public a nation of slaves. But lets play your game. OK - fine. We won't call it slavery - even though their daughters are given away at 11 or 12 years old to fat-assed 50 year old men. I'd call that slavery too. You go ahead and use whatever word for this lovely flower garden you picture in your mind if the terrorists win. And they would take us over in a heartbeat if we did what you want and not fight back. Or are you going to say, no - if they attack us then we can fight back and burn their faces off and shatter their bones with high explosives and shoot them in the
Terry, Thanks for your reply, and your points are well taken. You write, "Is this is one of those things? If you don't see the difference between [Saddam Hussein, The Taliban and Al Quaeda] and the USA then you must understand why I vented my spleen in your general direction." That is my point too--just from a different angle. The Iraqis have been called "terrorists" by the Americans. The Americans have been called "terrorists" by the Iraqis. The Palestinians have been called "terrorists" by the Israelis. The Israelis have been called "terrorists" by the Palestianians. The word "terrorist" is a broad brush that anyone can be painted with (notice how the FBI has started using anti-terror surveillance laws to nab ordinary criminals?). Which is why I question the motives of someone who uses the word "terrorist". It's the kind of word that politicians know makes people think of the thing that scares them the most. That is specifically why the Bush administration uses it. For example, during the buildup to the war on Iraq, they knew that when most people heard "terrorist", they thought "Iraqi", even though none of the actual 9/11 perps were Iraqis. A "War on Terror" sounds great. War makes people feel brave. Destroying terror makes people feel secure. So, again, who is a "terrorist"? A member of Al Qaida? An Iraqi soldier? An American prison guard? What if we suddenly killed all of the terrorists? Would they go away? Is there a terrorist gene? No. Basically, terrorists are people who are called terrorists by the people they are fighting against. To themselves, they are freedom fighters, insurgents, crusaders, what-have-you, who have been driven to target civilian populations because, in this day and age, it is a useless and impossible gesture to do battle against the militaries of industrialized, nuclear-ized nations. As long as there are violent people, there will be terror. As long as there is terror, there will be terrorists. By using the word "terrorist", we harm ourselves more than the enemy. By lumping our enemies into one group, we fail to understand the crucial differences between them. Bin Laden and Saddam are two different people fighting for two different goals. But as far as our administration is concerned, they both fall under the vague rubric of "terrorist". By misunderstanding the motivations of our enemy, we will, inevitably, make mistakes that will lead to our undoing. Just as late-binding kills performance by forcing the runtime to sift through layers of a
-
That is a growing problem I have with Bush. I'm fine with taking out Iraq, but we needed a much broader plan. Blockading all major Islamic ports, taking out airports and major road ways. Throughly isolating the major Islamic nations and demanding a hand over of all known terrorists. If they were not forthcoming than we should have drafted 10 million + Americans and swept the entire area from one end to the other with no more regard for 'human rights' than we gave to Hitler's Germans (Nazi or not). I continue to have little patience with the image of the "moderate" "peaceful" Muslim who is "justifiable angry" with the behavior of the west and of the US. The best of them are frigging assholes and the rest are cowards and murderers. We have to do what ever it takes to get it through their thick skulls that they are a failed, backward culture that has no place in the future of human civilization.
-
Nice attempt at retrofitting. I was talking about the post 9/11 world.
//placeholder for witty verbiage
Don't you agree that the future is the sum of the past? Usama and his cohorts could've been eliminated by Clinton, had he only bothered to put pressure on the saudis. The three last US presidents have bought you, the people, a pandora's box for oil. Isn't that sweet? The US should just find Usama and his cohorts, eliminate them, consume less oil, and screw the saudis from behind as hard as possible. That'll teach the saudis NOT to fund terrorists. A terrorist is nothing but a stone throwing idiot without funding. -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
-
That is a growing problem I have with Bush. I'm fine with taking out Iraq, but we needed a much broader plan. Blockading all major Islamic ports, taking out airports and major road ways. Throughly isolating the major Islamic nations and demanding a hand over of all known terrorists. If they were not forthcoming than we should have drafted 10 million + Americans and swept the entire area from one end to the other with no more regard for 'human rights' than we gave to Hitler's Germans (Nazi or not). I continue to have little patience with the image of the "moderate" "peaceful" Muslim who is "justifiable angry" with the behavior of the west and of the US. The best of them are frigging assholes and the rest are cowards and murderers. We have to do what ever it takes to get it through their thick skulls that they are a failed, backward culture that has no place in the future of human civilization.
Like the US handed over IRA supporters to the UK during the 80s ? The tigress is here :-D
-
Like the US handed over IRA supporters to the UK during the 80s ? The tigress is here :-D
oh my, what a perceptive observation... However impressive it sounds to say that there are, according to the 1990 U.S. Census, some 40 million Irish-Americans, the reality is that most of them think IRA stands for an Individual Retirement Account. [^] The US has been proactively assisting in London's anti-IRA efforts. [^] In any case, there is absolutely no rational comparison between Northern Ireland and the Middle east. You only need look at how far the Kennedy family has distanced itself from the IRA to get an idea of the amount of support the IRA has in the US "Irish" community - none.
-
Don't you agree that the future is the sum of the past? Usama and his cohorts could've been eliminated by Clinton, had he only bothered to put pressure on the saudis. The three last US presidents have bought you, the people, a pandora's box for oil. Isn't that sweet? The US should just find Usama and his cohorts, eliminate them, consume less oil, and screw the saudis from behind as hard as possible. That'll teach the saudis NOT to fund terrorists. A terrorist is nothing but a stone throwing idiot without funding. -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Don't you agree that the future is the sum of the past? I absolutely do. The problem that I have is your selective memory only identifying what the US did wrong and what they missed that would have been right. This is an international issue, so those nations that choose to do nothing are as much fault as any one else. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The three last US presidents have bought you, the people, a pandora's box for oil. Isn't that sweet? WRONG. The Pandora’s box for oil was created by the industrial revolution changing from coal to oil. That followed by what the Western nations did post WW2 to create the situation in the middle east. As you said SUM OF THE PAST, this goes back a little further than a few US presidents. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The US should just find Usama and his cohorts, eliminate them Well short of laying the middle east a nuclear waste land, what options does the US have with no international concurrence? Or is this what you want? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: consume less oil We can when it makes sense to do so. As of today it is still more economic to use oil. For myself I am using 1/2 the gasoline I did 10 years ago. I can not say the same for all those driving monster SUV's. Which I will point out is the preferred vehicles for Europeans to drive when they come here and work for awhile. My point is those big vehicles are not just a US love, so do not make it such a simple US fault as you imply. Now if push really comes to shove from the ratios I see the US could get by with no middle east oil. Can you say the same? I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: Don't you agree that the future is the sum of the past? I absolutely do. The problem that I have is your selective memory only identifying what the US did wrong and what they missed that would have been right. This is an international issue, so those nations that choose to do nothing are as much fault as any one else. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The three last US presidents have bought you, the people, a pandora's box for oil. Isn't that sweet? WRONG. The Pandora’s box for oil was created by the industrial revolution changing from coal to oil. That followed by what the Western nations did post WW2 to create the situation in the middle east. As you said SUM OF THE PAST, this goes back a little further than a few US presidents. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: The US should just find Usama and his cohorts, eliminate them Well short of laying the middle east a nuclear waste land, what options does the US have with no international concurrence? Or is this what you want? Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: consume less oil We can when it makes sense to do so. As of today it is still more economic to use oil. For myself I am using 1/2 the gasoline I did 10 years ago. I can not say the same for all those driving monster SUV's. Which I will point out is the preferred vehicles for Europeans to drive when they come here and work for awhile. My point is those big vehicles are not just a US love, so do not make it such a simple US fault as you imply. Now if push really comes to shove from the ratios I see the US could get by with no middle east oil. Can you say the same? I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.
I'm not arguing ecology. What I'm saying is that the last 3 presidents have done *nada* to put pressure on the saudis, eventhough much of the terrorist's fundings come from there. By consuming less oil, you would not need the saudis for oil anymore. That would make the saudis more than willing to eradicate terrorist supporters. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now if push really comes to shove from the ratios I see the US could get by with no middle east oil. As for both Bushes and Clinton, push is past shove. -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
-
I'm not arguing ecology. What I'm saying is that the last 3 presidents have done *nada* to put pressure on the saudis, eventhough much of the terrorist's fundings come from there. By consuming less oil, you would not need the saudis for oil anymore. That would make the saudis more than willing to eradicate terrorist supporters. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now if push really comes to shove from the ratios I see the US could get by with no middle east oil. As for both Bushes and Clinton, push is past shove. -- Ich bin Joachim von Hassel, und ich bin Pilot der Bundeswehr. Welle: Erdball - F104-G Starfighter
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: I'm not arguing ecology. Niether am I, I am stating national self interests. We all are involved and are hostage to some degree of the industrial revolutions "evolution" and it's impact on our national economies, which are now international more than ever. Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: By consuming less oil, you would not need the saudis for oil anymore. I agree with you here but, what alternatives? Yes I think research on alternatives fuels are in order. (Edited order of statements) The US is probably spending more than the rest of the world combines here. Personally I would like to see our trucking industry loose much of their subsidies and revitalize the rail industry. We could with a little more patience change our demands. I do not see this happening however. As of today, oil is still economically more viable. I would love to retire get a an 80 acre lot with a stream and put in my own hydro-electic facility. I have found the parts needed to do so. Now I am digressing. So long as the Saudis are part of the world economy it is a world problem not just the US. OK lets say the US does eliminate their need for oil. Unless you have done the same the impact to the world economy is still there. Given the US is part of the world economy a collapse of Europe will hurt the US. In summary my heart would be overjoyed if Europe would be more proactive in offering solutions for the way ahead. So much of the time we spending finding blame versus offering suggestions for a better future for all. In the blame game you can allways go back the some period in time when it is the other guys fault and focus on that. It is a no win for both side. Lets stop doing so. We all have our national economic interests and they conviently drive what we then moralize as the correct thing to do. Accept that is a nature human trait and get on with the future. :rose: I do not mind getting old. It beats all the other options that can think of.