PDA

View Full Version : A President's Thought


Pages : [1] 2

Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Taliesin
07-18-2007, 10:47 AM
Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Hogan
07-18-2007, 03:24 PM
Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and co-operation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace....

Too bad terrorists don't believe in peace - only your death.

gdandscompserv
07-18-2007, 03:40 PM
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Hogan
07-18-2007, 03:53 PM
A hearty, cool glass of milk is another lactose-intolerant man's nightmare.

gdandscompserv
07-18-2007, 06:28 PM
A hearty, cool glass of milk is another lactose-intolerant man's nightmare.
lol
Aint that the truth.

Cady Goldfield
07-18-2007, 06:46 PM
We bargain from a position of strength, not from weakness. I'd rather grant peace because I'm powerful; not beg for peace because my neck is under the boot of another.

And thank heavens I'm not lactose-intolerant. :D

Taliesin
07-19-2007, 03:35 AM
John

If Terrorists are those who kill and torture to maintain power - what does that make the USA's current President and VP???

Looking forward to your evasive reply

MM
07-19-2007, 07:15 AM
This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken. If even a slight rumor that our soldiers have killed civilians gets out, there's an inquiry. and that's from a rumor, not cold hard facts. We have severe rules of behaviour. Our enemies? Strapping bombs to anything in sight and blowing up anyone at all.

Yeah, there's similarities between us. For those that can't read well, that last sentence is all sarcasm. If you really can't tell the difference between us, our president, and the way we're conducting this war, why don't you go ask Daniel Pearl how he was treated by terrorists. Oh, wait. They beheaded him and he was only a journalist. Can't ask him. How about the 3000 innocent civilians at the twin towers? Oh, yeah, they decided to purposefully strike civilian targets and kill men, women, and children.

All this "Bush lied, people died", "Bush is a terrorist", "Bush is a nazi", "this war is our Vietnam", etc is some of the worst intellectual dishonesty I've seen. It comes from people who can't reason, think, or have any intellectual substance at all, but rather fall back on sloganed rhetoric that's usually just being spewed back like a tape recorder being replayed again and again.

Our current president has kept U.S. citizens safe ever since the terrorists murdered innocent people on September 11th, 2001. There is a very huge difference between our actions and the terrorist's actions.

And one man's terrorist is most decidedly not another man's patriot. A patriot would never use a knife to hack off a journalist's head. A patriot would never use a plane to kill innocent men, women, and children. A patriot would never use a bomb strapped to his/her chest to kill innocent kids. Would you liken one man's patriot to the Dahmer's of the world? Those that prey on the innocent?

If you really can't tell the differences, I suggest a visit to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc and find a place among the terrorists. Just give that thought some undivided attention and think about long and hard. Think about truly doing it, being there. And if those thoughts somehow give you an uneasy feeling, then you know in some part of yourself that there are differences. Here, you won't be killed. There, your chances are a lot greater that you'll be tortured and/or murdered. Here you can say and write what you want. There you would be killed for those actions.

If you really can't tell the difference between our actions and these:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraq

then there isn't any need for us to converse.

Mark

Hogan
07-19-2007, 07:50 AM
John

If Terrorists are those who kill and torture to maintain power - what does that make the USA's current President and VP???

Looking forward to your evasive reply

One man's evasiveness is another man's answer.

Taliesin
07-19-2007, 10:36 AM
Mark

Nice Try ... BUT... - The only difference between killing innocent civilians by bombs dropped by planes and worn by suicide bombers is that suicide bombers only do so once.

BTW I did like your line "A patriot would never use a plane to kill innocent men, women, and children". (Please see Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bomber Harris etc)

The suggestion that 'Our side' (including us Brits) do not torture is absurd.

The fact that the arguments put forward to support invasion of Iraq were all lies told by GWB and his Poodle Tony B-Liar are fact. The consequences including literally thousands of deaths are also undisputed fact - are you really suggsting FACTS are intellectual dishonesty? Or is it intellectually dishonest to consider all facts, even the invonvienient ones.

If a terrorist is some who used force and kills people with the powers at command for his own power and benefit - the GWB is one. (But no he's not a Nazi)

Now since this is a simple argument - let's put things in perspective

To claim that 'our side' are all misunderstood angels - is dishonest
To claim that we have not killed innocent civilians - is dishonest
To claim that we do not torture detainees - is dishonest

Nor, and this is the real point, can you claim any 'moral superiority' over anyone when your standards are rapidly sinking towards his. - And the only thing that keeps 'our' standards higher is being called to account by people who do not accept arguments like 'it's war so it's justified', "they do it, so we can".

I also conclude that you belive that Mr Eisenhower lacked the expertise to deal with war and evil enemies that good ole' GWB does.

Hogan
07-19-2007, 11:21 AM
Careful David, you lay on the moral relativism any thicker & you'll "...undermine [your] ability to justify [your] own existence...".

Taliesin
07-19-2007, 12:01 PM
John

relativism is saying there is no right and wrong -it's all relative - that's Mike's positon - ('what they do is worse therefore what we do is OK' or 'we look like nice guys in comparison to them')

Mine is even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong. Which is about as far from relativism as GWB is from MENSA

Hogan
07-19-2007, 12:38 PM
John

relativism is saying there is no right and wrong -it's all relative - that's Mike's positon - ('what they do is worse therefore what we do is OK' or 'we look like nice guys in comparison to them')

Mine is even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong. Which is about as far from relativism as GWB is from MENSA

That is not Mike's opinion - he believes there is a right & wrong.

You are comparing certain actions of the Prez & VP to be on par with terrorists... You are comparing war waged by a nation against another to a terrorist cutting the heads of innocents or suicide bombers.... Meaning you are saying it is the same, it is equal, there is no difference - THAT is 'it's all relative'. Now you may say, all war regardless of who does it is wrong, but sometimes it is necessary. THAT you do not see.

Neil Mick
07-19-2007, 02:37 PM
Boy, I really go through a trial, every time I consider posting here. You cannot imagine the moralistic knots I put myself through, every time I reach for the keyboard. You see, I disagree with the latest moderation policies here, and so I am going against my declaration not to participate.

But to sit here and read such a declaration of willful ignorance begs...no, SHOUTS...for a reply. Who knows? Maybe this post will never make it online. Perhaps I'll hit the cancel button before I'm through.

If not...then consider it a lapse of weakness, in service to my need to be heard. :p

This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken. If even a slight rumor that our soldiers have killed civilians gets out, there's an inquiry. and that's from a rumor, not cold hard facts. We have severe rules of behaviour.

"Severe rules?" Oh really? Sorry, Mark, but you seem to be forgetting about the 100,000 or so PRIVATE CONTRACTORS, bound to no rules of inquiry, no penalties. If one of these guys gets caught, he generally is sent back to the States, with no punishment at all.

Our enemies? Strapping bombs to anything in sight and blowing up anyone at all.

Which makes SO much difference to the innocent dead (and uncounted) Iraqi's, shot on the roadside, or murdered in secret, by US forces, I'm sure.

Whether you're beheaded, blown up by a suicide bomb, raped and tortured by US forces, or bombed by US planes (as we did to Iraq between 1998-2002, in violation of international law), dead is dead.

Do you think it really matters HOW it was done, once you're dead?

why don't you go ask Daniel Pearl how he was treated by terrorists.

OK...then I'll go talk to Maher Arar, or Jose Padilla (locked up so long his mind is gone), of the unknown victims of extroadinary rendition, or...

How about the 3000 innocent civilians at the twin towers?

Gosh, you and Rudy Guiliani DO have something in common, don't you...? A certain, um, propensity to mention a certain day, when thousands of other "9-11's" are going on every day, courtesy of our--and our close friends (Israel, et al)--tax-subsidized military.

Our current president has kept U.S. citizens safe ever since the terrorists murdered innocent people on September 11th, 2001.

Nah...all he did was "make it rain." We pay him: and if it rains...look! He made it rain!

If not, then he obviously needs more money, to "make it rain."

There is a very huge difference between our actions and the terrorist's actions.

Sure is...it's called the "US military budget."

Yes, a very, VERY big difference, indeed.

And one man's terrorist is most decidedly not another man's patriot. A patriot would never use a knife to hack off a journalist's head.

Nah...they'd just jail 'em for years on end, without charge. That makes us the "good guys,,," right? :rolleyes:

Sami Al-Haj and Bilal Hussein: Their Names Mostly Unknown in U.S., Jailed Journalists Have Spent Combined Six Years in U.S. Military Prisons Without Charge (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/19/1455232)

We take an in-depth look at the case of two reporters whose imprisonment by U.S. forces has gone largely ignored in the corporate media. Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj has been jailed without charge at Guantanamo for the past five-and-a-half years. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein has spent more than a year in a U.S. military prison in Iraq, also without charge. U.S. officials haven't made public any evidence of wrongdoing.

If you really can't tell the differences, I suggest a visit to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc and find a place among the terrorists. Just give that thought some undivided attention and think about long and hard. Think about truly doing it, being there.

An excellent idea...let's go together. Let's live among the innocent people who have their doors kicked in, their oil opened up to national interests (read: stolen), their country "made safe from tyranny."

Yeah, let's do that....if we could survive the mass lynching we'd get for turning their country into a training ground for terrorists, if we weren't made deaf from all the shouting, we'd probably get kidnapped by men desperate to make ANY money to feed their families, or simply shot onsite by men forced to become insurgents or (the smallest minority of all) actual terrorists who WOULD kidnap and kill us...

After all that, in those few seconds left to our lives...perhaps you'd consider that all this violence wouldn't be HALF so bad if there weren't 769 US bases around the world, or that Iraq six years' ago was free of Al Qaeda and suicide bombs...but I doubt it.

The truth takes awhile to sink in.

And if those thoughts somehow give you an uneasy feeling, then you know in some part of yourself that there are differences. Here, you won't be killed.

Unless your name sounds Arabic.

There, your chances are a lot greater that you'll be tortured and/or murdered.

Now that we've so properly set the stage.

Here you can say and write what you want. There you would be killed for those actions.

You DO realize that the US censored the Iraqi press, don't you?? :eek:

If you really can't tell the difference between our actions and these:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraq

then there isn't any need for us to converse.

Mark

No, Mark: there is a GREAT NEED to converse. Conversation brings in new information. New information breeds curiousity, a need to validate.

Or, it could bring in greater polarization. Really, the choice is up to you.

But to respond directly to your comment...

* Abu Ghraib
* Guantanamo
* Extraordinary Rendition
* Use of Torture, and redefining torture
* Mass Deportations and jailings of hundreds of thousands of Arabs

After all this, even then, I'd say that we were "different" from terrorists and failed states. You see, I could point to Habeas Corpus and state that anyone accused of a trial could demand a reason.

Not anymore. Now that Habeas is gone, we are truly no better than they.

Now...will I weaken and hit "send..." or will I cancel....?

Marc Abrams
07-19-2007, 03:28 PM
David:

President Eisenhower, a man who served in the last "world war" learned from his experiences and that led him to be able to make such a profound realization and statement. Obviously that does not apply to our current coward-in-chief and the puppet masters behind the scenes.

Cady:

Non-positional based bargaining fits within David's paradigm. This paradigm shift works better. It asks that the parties move beyond looking at their stated positions and what they might gain from taking those positions and asks that they work from a position of what all of them might gain together in reaching some kind of agreement. There is a whole collaborative movement within the legal and mental health fields that are spreading the word about this powerful, better method.

Fairness is for fairy tales. Consideration and cooperation do allow people to work towards a greater good, such as accepting differences among people PEACEFULLY. O'Sensei came to this realization and towards the end of his life sought to move the study of Aikido towards people existing in Harmony. I wonder how many people view their practice in that manner.

Marc

Cady Goldfield
07-19-2007, 03:45 PM
Marc,
So, are you saying that it's fine to be weak and helpless --- that Providence will provide, and it's a superior state to be in than that of being self-sufficient and capable of defending/taking care of oneself? ;)

Your mention of M. Ueshiba actually makes my point. He was anything BUT weak and helpless. He was supremely powerful because he had a better-than-average level of mastery of internal structure. That's why his students couldn't best him. He was the one who could apply the "boot to your throat" and then decide to be merciful; he wasn't the meek, helpless mouse pleading for mercy beneath a dominator's boot.

-Because- he had this immense power, he was in the position to preach peace... not plead for it. He could choose to be "meek," and not have to be so because he had no other choice. See what I'm sayin'?

It's all well and good to bless the meek, etc., but the bottom line is "it's a jungle out there," and the more power you possess, the better a position you are in to both be peaceful and benign, and to make sure that others play nice too.

Marc Abrams
07-19-2007, 04:48 PM
Cady:

I have NEVER advocated being weak and/or helpless!

You are viewing my response from another paradigm. Let me go into non-positionally based bargaining a little deeper for you. Your particular strength vs. the other person's strength are not relevant positions in this paradigm. The paradigm that you are working from leads only to countless conflicts over long periods of time. If an entity feels as though it has "lost" to a stronger entity in a bargaining situation, you have set-up the future as being "wait until it is my time..." Short-term gain, long-term loss for all sides. Now let us assume that we both are willing to take a position that finding a solution (albeit imperfect) based upon a mutually agreeable goal, then the give and take is done towards a mutual point, without the sense of having won or lost. Each entity wins by contributing towards the mutual goal and also establishes a healthier means of interacting.

I believe that O'Sensei spoke about peace not out of some egotistical sense of profound power, but from the painful awareness of what budo had been used to do, and a greater awareness of budo as being a vehicle to allow people to live peacefully together.

I am not a tofu-eating, new-age fool. The older I get (statistically speaking on the downslope of the hill of life!) the more I want to see people move and act in a manner that actually contributes towards making our world safer for my children and soon to be (September) grandchild. I fully advocate the pro-active killing of zealots who want to kill first. I fully advocate trying to work with everybody else towards looking at our stakes in the world at large . We need to see how we choose to live so that we can become aware of our choices to abuse ourselves and our planet, or be caretakers of ourselves, the next generations, and our planet.

Your position of more power, more choice is more illusionary and short-term, than real over a long course of time. Everybody wants to see superman fail. History has also born out that power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. When people have a mutual stake in a greater good, better things happen over the long-haul (not unlike employee-owned companies). The issue seems to me to be that it is not how much power you have, but how you use what you have to make a positive difference.

Thinking back over my life, it has typically been people without a lot of power (blue collar workers, etc) who have pitched in and helped me when bad things happened. This did not happen out of a sense of power, entitlement, or what they might gain, but from a sense that we are all in this together and an act of kindness just makes our world that much nicer. They might be the weak and meek, but they stand no more chance of inheriting the earth than the powerful and strong. That position is one based on gaining ownership and power. This earth is ours to live on, on a temporary basis before we become part of the soil. I think that if we all had more humility and cared less about what "power" we might have, we might actually become nicer people (myself included).

Marc

Cady Goldfield
07-19-2007, 05:50 PM
You are missing my point, Marc, which is that Ueshiba could come to that "painful realization" AFTER having acquired the power that provided him with the privilege of being able to be his own man. He was in a position to make -choices-... something denied to the weak and subjugated simply because they are... weak and subjected!

Again, we bargain from a position of strength, not one of weakness. In a position of weakness, one can't bargain -- only plead and beg. The former is in a position to make choices; the latter isn't. Pleading for mercy or just accepting subjugation or death, are not real choices.

God bless the child that has his own... not necessarily wealth, but the power to defend himself so others must respect him.

Marc Abrams
07-19-2007, 08:05 PM
Cady:

I simply disagree with your premise. Have you ever played poker? Many mistakes have been made throughout history by those who misread their perceptions of power and weakness.

Bargaining does not always have to exist within the paradigm that you are locked in.

People other than O'Sensei have come to similar conclusions without ever having "ascended" to places of power.

marc abrams

Cady Goldfield
07-19-2007, 10:22 PM
Before any kind of negotiations or bargaining of any sort can take place, the parties involved must have respect for each other. Respect doesn't happen if one party is perceived as weak and impotent. This is biological in nature; as animals, humans "read" each other's weaknesses, and it will directly affect the way they bargain with each other. That is the way it is.

Have you ever been at the mercy of another? How did it feel? The Mahatma Gandhi's methods worked only in the face of the morally-decent Brits. He was puzzled that passive resistance wouldn't work for the Jews in the face of the Nazis, who did not subscribe to the concept of "moral conscience."

Good luck with your beliefs, Marc. I hope you never find yourself plopped down in the real world, where the Law of the Jungle prevails. In the hands of the wrong party, power may be wielded for evil, but might and power are not in themselves evil. They are personal attributes and gifts for those who realize their value.

Taliesin
07-20-2007, 05:08 AM
John

Before i go of on my hols

- I know how hard you are working to misunderstand what I say. So let's try it another way. (Given your confessed inablity to understand that two wrongs don't make a right)

The argument that what 'we' do is not as bad as what 'they' do therefore it is justifed - is relativism (we are right because in comparison to someone else we don't do quite such terrible things is a relativist argument)

Try and take a few minutes or hours to grasp that fact.

Now if you're ready move onto the second point. There is right and there is wrong. To say two actions are wrong is NOT the same as saying they are equal. For example

It is wrong to attack someone for no apparant reason with a baseball bat causing them serious injury, say broken ribs.

It is also wrong to shoot them in the head killing them.

The perpertrators of both those actions are criminals in the same way that using your power to kill and torture people for your own political ends is terrorism. GWB & OBL are both terrorists under this definition, in the same way that they guy with the baseball bat and they guy with the gun are both criminals.

So let me conclude with the same pojnt i made at post 12

"even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong"

Marc Abrams
07-20-2007, 07:44 AM
Cady:

I can't speak for you, but in my past I did have to exist in the "real world." Obviously, I am alive today because I acted properly. I do not live with my head in some fantasy cloud. Why is it that I can work with people in conflicts and have the be successful in non-positionally based negotiations? If that idea was so unrealistic, it would not be applicable in reality.

If you really read what I said before, I have no problem ridding "evil." I believe that your concept of "respect" is short-sighted. We, as humans, have the capacity to engage in abstract reasoning. We can look beyond our own short-sighted, short-term power gains and work towards a common goal where we all come out ahead.

I call myself a pragmatic optimist. I expect the best and prepare for the worst. I have no problems dealing with worst or the best. I work with the hand that I am dealt. That does not mean that I cannot take whatever opportunity presents itself and work towards to mutually better future for us all. I am sorry for you if you cannot look beyond your expressed paradigm.

Marc Abrams

Hogan
07-20-2007, 07:59 AM
John

Before i go of on my hols

- I know how hard you are working to misunderstand what I say. So let's try it another way. (Given your confessed inablity to understand that two wrongs don't make a right)

The argument that what 'we' do is not as bad as what 'they' do therefore it is justifed - is relativism (we are right because in comparison to someone else we don't do quite such terrible things is a relativist argument)

Try and take a few minutes or hours to grasp that fact.

Now if you're ready move onto the second point. There is right and there is wrong. To say two actions are wrong is NOT the same as saying they are equal. For example

It is wrong to attack someone for no apparant reason with a baseball bat causing them serious injury, say broken ribs.

It is also wrong to shoot them in the head killing them.

The perpertrators of both those actions are criminals in the same way that using your power to kill and torture people for your own political ends is terrorism. GWB & OBL are both terrorists under this definition, in the same way that they guy with the baseball bat and they guy with the gun are both criminals.

So let me conclude with the same pojnt i made at post 12

"even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong"

Huh? I be stoopid... Sey agin? Too menny wurds! My hed hurtz! Eye need yu to help mi understan!

James Davis
07-20-2007, 10:34 AM
Before any kind of negotiations or bargaining of any sort can take place, the parties involved must have respect for each other.

Amen to that.

Jonshez
07-20-2007, 06:18 PM
I usually avoid this sort of topic as they can decend into flames very quickly. However with this being an aikido site, and we're talking about conflict I thought I would post this thought. I'm going to keep it simple so as to avoid any possible confusion.

We are taught in the dojo that harmony with our assailant is more effective than opposing them (whatever you take harmony to mean!).

So far (according to wiki) the cost of the war in Iraq is estimated to come to $400 billion. This figure doesn't include the humanitarian cost.

If the coalition forces had spent just 10% of that cost on supplying fresh water, access to education and medical care in the countries they are occupying rather than attacking that would have been $40 billion, a still enormous sum.

Is it unreasonable to think that assisting these countries rather than attacking them might have dried up much of the grassroots support for the terrorist organisations?

Jon

David Orange
07-23-2007, 11:29 AM
GWB & OBL are both terrorists under this definition, in the same way that they guy with the baseball bat and they guy with the gun are both criminals.

"even if what we do isn't as bad as what they do - it's still wrong"

Well, the glaring worst of it is that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I think we were on a good track with Afghanistan, but the chickenhawk dropped that whole effort and poured unbelievable resources into getting even with Saddam for a personal grudge.

That's what makes our war in Iraq criminal--not the guys over there fighting for what they believe we're there for: the chickenhawk who plunged our mighty nation into quagmire for a personal grudge and still let Osama go free!!!

The result? Al Quaeda is stronger now than ever and we are much more likely to have another terrorist attack on US soil. And if and when we do, no one should point the finger anywhere other than George Walker Bush.

W: the Worst.

David

Ryan Sanford
07-23-2007, 12:54 PM
**I basically just pwned you in every way there is to be pwned. :p

**section paraphrased by Ryan Sanford.

I like how nobody tried to argue with you, Niel. :D

Neil Mick
07-23-2007, 01:56 PM
**I basically just pwned you in every way there is to be pwned.

**section paraphrased by Ryan Sanford.

Hey! I never said that! :D

I like how nobody tried to argue with you, Niel. :D

I'd like to see 'em just try to argue relativity out of the phrase "dead is dead." :cool:

Hogan
07-23-2007, 03:38 PM
...

I'd like to see 'em just try to argue relativity out of the phrase "dead is dead." :cool:

Depends on what the definition of 'IS' is.

jennifer paige smith
07-24-2007, 10:14 AM
E=mc2?

GLWeeks
07-24-2007, 10:36 AM
This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken. If even a slight rumor that our soldiers have killed civilians gets out, there's an inquiry. and that's from a rumor, not cold hard facts. We have severe rules of behaviour. Our enemies? Strapping bombs to anything in sight and blowing up anyone at all.

Yeah, there's similarities between us. For those that can't read well, that last sentence is all sarcasm. If you really can't tell the difference between us, our president, and the way we're conducting this war, why don't you go ask Daniel Pearl how he was treated by terrorists. Oh, wait. They beheaded him and he was only a journalist. Can't ask him. How about the 3000 innocent civilians at the twin towers? Oh, yeah, they decided to purposefully strike civilian targets and kill men, women, and children.

All this "Bush lied, people died", "Bush is a terrorist", "Bush is a nazi", "this war is our Vietnam", etc is some of the worst intellectual dishonesty I've seen. It comes from people who can't reason, think, or have any intellectual substance at all, but rather fall back on sloganed rhetoric that's usually just being spewed back like a tape recorder being replayed again and again.

Our current president has kept U.S. citizens safe ever since the terrorists murdered innocent people on September 11th, 2001. There is a very huge difference between our actions and the terrorist's actions.

And one man's terrorist is most decidedly not another man's patriot. A patriot would never use a knife to hack off a journalist's head. A patriot would never use a plane to kill innocent men, women, and children. A patriot would never use a bomb strapped to his/her chest to kill innocent kids. Would you liken one man's patriot to the Dahmer's of the world? Those that prey on the innocent?

If you really can't tell the differences, I suggest a visit to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc and find a place among the terrorists. Just give that thought some undivided attention and think about long and hard. Think about truly doing it, being there. And if those thoughts somehow give you an uneasy feeling, then you know in some part of yourself that there are differences. Here, you won't be killed. There, your chances are a lot greater that you'll be tortured and/or murdered. Here you can say and write what you want. There you would be killed for those actions.

If you really can't tell the difference between our actions and these:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/iraq

then there isn't any need for us to converse.

Mark

Thank you for this post Mark, I agree completely...

Neil Mick
07-24-2007, 02:30 PM
then there isn't any need for us to converse.

Thank you for this post Mark, I agree completely...

And there you see it. That's how democracy dies, step by step...

1. We cede power to one small part of government (October 12, 2002: Congress voted away their right to tell the President when he can go to war. This Act released the President to declare war on anyone/thing, so long as it could be tied to the "danger" emerging from Iraq) because of fear;

2. They (meaning the Executive Branch) lie, cherrypick intel, wave flags and break international laws, corrupting the essential nature of our government (cf, "unitary Executive," a term unknown in Constitutional scholar circles, pre-Bush);

3. A lot of unnecessary war ensues, all the while this Executive keeps telling the people, Congress, and the fawning media that we "need to wait (till September...no, I mean: November...err, 2009...um, no benchmarks can be set...)" until we can end this unnecessary war...

4. Our civil liberties get tossed. BushCo dances around the rubberstamping FISA court to fish through emails, financial records. Bye bye Habeas Corpus.

5. Millions killed, displaced, wrongly imprisoned and tortured (on all sides) from all this: and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said.

Now, THAT, is how democracy dies. Not because a few men and women abuse their power...but that enough people in this country decide that there's nothing to talk about...nothing to do, really: while the stealing is going on.

Hogan
07-24-2007, 03:07 PM
...

5. ...and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said.....

You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

Neil Mick
07-24-2007, 05:29 PM
You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

No, I think that you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming.

Israel didn't accidentally drop most of its cluster bombs in the last few days of the war last Summer (when peace was imminent); the US didn't accidentally include children's vaccines within the embargo list to Iraq, in 1998; and murdering innocents while bombing Iraq as a part of a genocidal Sanctions policy might be claimed to be "accidental:" but you can file that "accident" under "just following orders, Germany, circa 1942."

Hogan
07-25-2007, 08:03 AM
No, I think that you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming.

Israel didn't accidentally drop most of its cluster bombs in the last few days of the war last Summer (when peace was imminent); the US didn't accidentally include children's vaccines within the embargo list to Iraq, in 1998; and murdering innocents while bombing Iraq as a part of a genocidal Sanctions policy might be claimed to be "accidental:" but you can file that "accident" under "just following orders, Germany, circa 1942."

Oh no you DIDehN'T... this calls for a patented Neil Mick SNAP™...

"You brought up WWII... you lose".

NEXT!

Neil Mick
07-25-2007, 12:15 PM
Oh no you DIDehN'T... this calls for a patented Neil Mick SNAP™...

"You brought up WWII... you lose".

NEXT!

Great, John, I "lost:" you "win." :rolleyes:

Considering the question with any seriousness is beyond your capability, it seems.

So, enjoy your hollow "victory." :uch:

(PS: A very hollow victory, since you are simply parroting my style, without really understanding the usage of Godwin's Rule. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) From wikipedia:

However, Godwin's Law itself can be abused, as a distraction or diversion, that fallaciously miscasts an opponent's argument as hyperbole, especially if the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate. A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons)

Hogan
07-25-2007, 12:49 PM
A 2005 Reason magazine article argued that Godwin's law is often misused to ridicule even valid comparisons)

A source at the magazine tells me they added this proviso after reading your attempts to ridicule other valid arguments here...

So, um...congrats...

Neil Mick
07-25-2007, 01:09 PM
A source at the magazine tells me they added this proviso after reading your attempts to ridicule other valid arguments here...

So, um...congrats...

Look, you can continue to use hyperbole and misdirection to avoid the statement all you want, but the statement still remains.

you fail to acknowledge what is so plainly intentional...the evidence is overwhelming.

Intention and willful conspiracy to commit mass murder by BushCo is easy to document (cf, Downing St Memo, et al. And, failing to document willful intention leaves only one other option, incompetence; and I contend that incompetent leaders who commit acts of genocide are as bad as willful leaders whose policies lead to the same result). And if our leaders are creating policies and passing laws that are genocidal in scope and effect, then you really haven't a rhetorical leg to stand on, contending that there is any real difference between us, or the terrorists.

Yet you try to pass it all off as "accidental." Still waiting for any justification for this claim:

You fail to see the difference between intentional & accidental.

or a reasonable rebut to mine.

You cannot seem to respond to a simple statement without resorting to misdirection, which makes me (and, likely, most readers) think that you really don't have a serious answer to my statement.

In other words....

...wait for it....

NEXT!!! :cool:

Hogan
07-25-2007, 01:36 PM
...
You cannot seem to respond to a simple statement without resorting to misdirection, which makes me (and, likely, most readers) think that you really don't have a serious answer to my statement. ..

Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength?

ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again...

::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Ron Tisdale
07-25-2007, 01:59 PM
Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make.

It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. :D And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts... :(

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
07-25-2007, 02:32 PM
Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make.

It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. :D And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts... :(

Best,
Ron

Thank you, Ron: my sentiment exactly. Mike had his own set of issues, but at least he debated some of the time.

Conservatives seem less willing (able?) to carry on an extended discussion, nowadays. Not long ago, I had a conversation with an old friend of mine. Not pro-Bush (as fewer and fewer are, nowadays...he really could be the most unpopular President in history): but definitely Conservative.

The subject came up of what was your greatest fear? He said Iran (mine was the erosion of the enviroment..an old fear. We didn't pursue this topic for very long. I think we both felt the same on this: always have). He kept talking about nuclear weapons being sneaked in, et al. We explored his knowledge of Iran, which turned out to be mostly pictures of Irani leaders calling for the end of Israel coupled with clips of angry Irani's protesting the US, along with angry denunciations by US leaders of Iran arming and sending insurgents into Iraq (and this guy works within the Pentagon).

I pointed out that Iran is much more diverse than that, that the President of Iran holds very little power, that actually the Supreme Leader holds a fatwa against the use of nuclear weapons, that Iran is on the cusp of great change (most of its population is under 20) and political reform could well come about...in time of peace: certainly not if the US bombs Iran...that the charges of US leaders are unproven, and made by the same people who lied about Iraqi wmd's...

It was a good conversation. Did he walk away, converted to the "cause?" No, of course not. But, I'm sure that the next time he sees the usual mass-media pablum, he'll consider the issue of bombing Iran a little more carefully. Good. Mission accomplished.

It was a refreshing meeting of minds that you only occasionally see in the media in shows like "Bill Moyers." It would be nice to see more like that, here.

Ron Tisdale
07-25-2007, 02:51 PM
Gotta luv PBS. Thank god.

Best,
Ron

Hogan
07-25-2007, 03:16 PM
Well, Nick is right about one thing...snappy one liners do not a debate make.

It's far more interesting to read Mike Sigman's blatent insults to Nick. :D And there is more debating and alternative information in them than in any of the one liner posts... :(

Best,
Ron

I don't seriously debate false & misleading information given by people who refuse to accept information that is not Mick Approved™ - It's a waste.

Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Michael Varin
07-26-2007, 05:05 AM
This current war is probably the most humane war we've undertaken.

"Humane war" has to be the worst oxymoron possible. And I guarantee that if China was conducting a "humane war" in your backyard, you would cease to feel that way. War is never humane. That is why, like all use of force, it can only be justified in defense, or to throw off oppression. Period. The costs, even to the "winners," are always great.

Conservatives seem less willing (able?) to carry on an extended discussion, nowadays.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in the "conservative" position these days. I think that if more of them realized what, exactly, it is that they are conserving the discussion could resume.

And there you see it. That's how democracy dies, step by step...

1. We cede power to one small part of government (October 12, 2002: Congress voted away their right to tell the President when he can go to war. This Act released the President to declare war on anyone/thing, so long as it could be tied to the "danger" emerging from Iraq) because of fear;

2. They (meaning the Executive Branch) lie, cherrypick intel, wave flags and break international laws, corrupting the essential nature of our government (cf, "unitary Executive," a term unknown in Constitutional scholar circles, pre-Bush);

3. A lot of unnecessary war ensues, all the while this Executive keeps telling the people, Congress, and the fawning media that we "need to wait (till September...no, I mean: November...err, 2009...um, no benchmarks can be set...)" until we can end this unnecessary war...

4. Our civil liberties get tossed. BushCo dances around the rubberstamping FISA court to fish through emails, financial records. Bye bye Habeas Corpus.

5. Millions killed, displaced, wrongly imprisoned and tortured (on all sides) from all this: and at least TWO people HERE feel that any suggestion comparing suicide bombers to cluster-bombs dropped on innocents (or heck, ANY bombs dropped on innocents, cf the US bombing of Iraq; or the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc) means that the discussion is over and there's nothing more need be said.

Now, THAT, is how democracy dies. Not because a few men and women abuse their power...but that enough people in this country decide that there's nothing to talk about...nothing to do, really: while the stealing is going on.

Good list, Neil, but you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

By the way, the above list is not particular to the Bush administration. It has been carried out many times in many parts of the world and will continue to be used until we wake up and stop idolizing those who use it. Lincoln and FDR are some of the most glaring examples.

I often hear people say, "Freedom isn't free." Freedom does have a price, but it's not dollars spent on foreign wars, or soldiers' lives. It is always keeping a watchful eye, not on the terrorists, but on our own government.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

James Davis
07-26-2007, 11:26 AM
"Humane war" has to be the worst oxymoron possible. And I guarantee that if China was conducting a "humane war" in your backyard, you would cease to feel that way.
Trade deficit.
China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

War is never humane. That is why, like all use of force, it can only be justified in defense, or to throw off oppression. Period. The costs, even to the "winners," are always great.
All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?


There is a lot of hypocrisy in the "conservative" position these days. I think that if more of them realized what, exactly, it is that they are conserving the discussion could resume.
What, then, do you believe conservatives are conserving?


Good list, Neil, but you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!
I recall someone saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what they'll have for dinner.


I often hear people say, "Freedom isn't free." Freedom does have a price, but it's not dollars spent on foreign wars, or soldiers' lives. It is always keeping a watchful eye, not on the terrorists, but on our own government.

"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837
Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.;)

Ron Tisdale
07-26-2007, 12:00 PM
I recall someone saying that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what they'll have for dinner.

Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

AQ in Iraq -- wolf
Former Bath'ists -- wolf
Shia Militias -- wolf
Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think. ;)

Best,
Ron

Ryan Sanford
07-26-2007, 01:51 PM
Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him.
My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh? :p

Neil Mick
07-26-2007, 02:55 PM
Trade deficit.
China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

It won't matter a fig if global warming isn't addressed. And is it worth it to get a few ppl out of poverty (ie, corporate owners) at the expense of good working conditions and a lack of a guaranteed safe product (cf, the recent Chines recalls, and globilization)?

All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?

How much more proactive can we get, than preemptive?

Pre-pre-emptive? Our military wants to weaponize space...how much more proactive can we be, than "full spectrum dominance?"

I say we've gone so far over with the "defending ourselves" rationale (for well over 100 years' now) that its time we need to re-think what "defending ourselves" really means. Isn't the best defence, a well maintained society, for all its members? It is, at least, for me.

Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.;)

Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

Yes, agreed. Good comments, all.

AQ in Iraq -- wolf
Former Bath'ists -- wolf
Shia Militias -- wolf
Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Sorry, Ron, but what is going on in Iraq hardly qualifies as "democracy,,," and where is the US in this equation?

US establishment --- wolf avatar-god :hypno:
Americans -- apathetic, polarized and confused sheep

Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think

you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

Right. I guess when I said "democracy," I actually meant "the democratic process." I was thinking in terms of the relationship btw a people and their leaders. The more open and fluid it is, the more democratic the system. A true democratic process would have no need for secrecy from its society. When that democratic process becomes more opaque, less open (like a highway closed off, no traffic can get through), then you have the beginnings of a dictatorship.

At this point, the US possesses BOTH a democratic process, AND an international empire. But as with the Roman Empire, more and more of our economy will go toward maintaining our standing army (the Pentagon, which by now is acting as an economic pump, for certain, less humane, sectors of society, the economy, and corporations) as our reach extends, at the price of civil liberties.

When a society surrenders its political decisionmaking process to its security and standing armies, then you have the beginnings of a fascist state.

The US is several years' down that road: but I'm an optimist. We can go back.

Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him.

My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh?

snappy one liners do not a debate make.

Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength?

ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again...

::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Guess that that "sweet anticipation" wasn't so "sweet," after all, eh...? :p

Ah well...no worries for John...he can survive on his "snappy quips..."

Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Tho it makes for stringy and unappetizing fare, I'm sure...http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-024.gif

Neil Mick
07-26-2007, 03:07 PM
Trade deficit.
China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

It won't matter a fig if global warming isn't addressed.

All true. The question that comes to my mind is, 'When do we get to start defending ourselves?' Do we wait for the punch to land, or do we get proactive?

How much more proactive can we get, than preemptive?

Pre-pre-emptive? Our military wants to weaponize space...how much more poractive can we be, than "full spectrum dominance?"

I say we've gone so far over with the "defending ourselves" rationale (for well over 100 years' now) that its time we need to re-think what "defending ourselves" really means. Isn't the best defence, a well maintained society, for all its members? It is, at least, for me.

Good stuff. We just have to remember that it gets harder to watch every time it gets bigger.;)

Oh man, lots of good stuff there.

Yes, agreed. Good comments, all.

AQ in Iraq -- wolf
Former Bath'ists -- wolf
Shia Militias -- wolf
Iraqi populace at large -- one fat scared sheep.

Sorry, Ron, but what is going on in Iraq hardly qualifies as "democracy,,," and where is the US in this equation?

US establishment --- wolf avatar-god :hypno:
Americans -- apathetic, polarized and confused sheep

Guess what though? We don't have a true democracy...something about a constitution, I think

you are holding up democracy like most politicians do. Liberty is of the highest value. Democracy does not equal liberty!

Right. I guess when I said "democracy," I actually meant "the democratic process." I was thinking in terms of the relationship btw a people and their leaders. The more open and fluid it is, the more democratic the system. A true democratic process would have no need for secrecy from its society. When that democratic process becomes more opaque, less open (like a highway closed off, no traffic can get through), then you have the beginnings of a dictatorship.

At this point, the US is BOTH a democracy, AND an international empire. But as with the Roman Empire, more and more of our economy will go toward maintaining our standing army (the Pentagon, which by now is acting as an economic pump, for certain, less humane, sectors of society, the economy, and corporations) as our reach extends, at the price of civil liberties.

When a society surrenders its political decisionmaking process to its security and standing armies, then you have the beginnings of a fascist state.

The US is several years' down that road: but I'm an optimist. We can go back.

Someone was saying that most of the readers here aren't on the same wavelength as Niel here? Well, I'm a part of "most readers," and I totally agree with him.

My whole generation is more liberal than previous ones, most of my friends think similar to me. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh?

Wow... you think you have the pulse of most readers? That you and most readers are on the same wavelength?

ahahaha.... you're funny... do it again... c'mon, do it again...

::eating popcorn in sweet anticipation::

Guess that that "sweet anticipation" wasn't so "sweet," after all, eh...? :p

Ah well...no worries for John...he can survive on his "snappy quips..."

Snappy one-liners are much more fulfilling.

Tho it makes for stringy and unappetizing fare, I'm sure...http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-024.gif

Neil Mick
07-26-2007, 08:39 PM
(why did my post repeat itself...? I didn't hit the button twice...weird...)

Hogan
07-27-2007, 08:08 AM
S.. Bet you can't wait for us all to grow up and take over Congress, eh? :p

God help us.

Hogan
07-27-2007, 08:10 AM
...

Tho it makes for stringy and unappetizing fare, I'm sure...http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-024.gif

When dealing with you, it is much more like a 10-course meal, actually.

Neil Mick
07-27-2007, 06:13 PM
When dealing with you, it is much more like a 10-course meal, actually.

Thus proving the adage: "One man's food, is another forum's poison" :p

Michael Varin
07-27-2007, 10:23 PM
Trade deficit.
China is kicking our asses, and most people aren't even aware of it. It can't be all bad if it gets some chinese people out of poverty, though.

First off, the trade deficit is often misunderstood and actually, not that important. Do you know when the US had its largest trade surplus? If I remember correctly, it was during the Great Depression! A real economic problem is inflation. Watch the video linked in my sig line Money, Banking, and the Fed.

What, then, do you believe conservatives are conserving?

A welfare-warfare state. The problem is that most believe they are conserving limited government, individual liberty, and free-markets, but it is simply not the case.

These are actually radical ideas. They were when this country was founded and they still are today.

jennifer paige smith
07-28-2007, 02:08 PM
God help us.

God help them.

Guilty Spark
07-30-2007, 04:20 PM
Hey Neil!
Where ya been hanging out!

You guys don't have much in the line of good choices for next prez huh.

Luc X Saroufim
07-30-2007, 05:00 PM
the word "terrorist" is thrown around too loosely, and has become hard to define. also, the Middle East is a 3-D rubix cube, not a 2-d melodrama of good vs. evil.

i defer to the Art of War when criticizing Bush's strategy:

1) Know yourself, know your enemy.

2) Force should always be a last resort. we just kinda waltzed right in.

Michael Varin
07-30-2007, 06:21 PM
You guys don't have much in the line of good choices for next prez huh.

Actually, we have an excellent candidate. His name is Ron Paul. He's vying for the Republican nomination. Electing him would be the first step in making a REAL change in a positive direction. It's just a matter of the people educating themselves, and not blindly voting for the names they hear repeated on TV.

Hogan
07-31-2007, 08:37 AM
Actually, we have an excellent candidate. His name is Ron Paul. He's vying for the Republican nomination. Electing him would be the first step in making a REAL change in a positive direction. It's just a matter of the people educating themselves, and not blindly voting for the names they hear repeated on TV.

He has as much chance of winning as Zsa Zsa Gabor.

James Davis
07-31-2007, 11:25 AM
Actually, we have an excellent candidate. His name is Ron Paul. He's vying for the Republican nomination. Electing him would be the first step in making a REAL change in a positive direction. It's just a matter of the people educating themselves, and not blindly voting for the names they hear repeated on TV.

I like Mike Huckabee, myself. Is there anything in particular that Ron Paul has said that struck a chord for you?

dps
07-31-2007, 01:21 PM
One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

And the terrorists in Iraq are patriots for whom?

David

David Orange
07-31-2007, 02:42 PM
You guys don't have much in the line of good choices for next prez huh.

A monkey will be twice as good as we have now, so I think we can make do with any of the top three dems.

David

David Orange
07-31-2007, 02:44 PM
And the terrorists in Iraq are patriots for whom?

The worldwide caliphate of Islam.

David

dps
07-31-2007, 03:20 PM
The worldwide caliphate of Islam.

David

This one?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2798

David

Neil Mick
07-31-2007, 08:36 PM
Hey Neil!
Where ya been hanging out!

You guys don't have much in the line of good choices for next prez huh.

I've been avoiding the fora. I'm pretty peeved about the changes in moderation. But oh well..

And what do you mean?? I LOVE Hillary!! Just listening to her talk amongst that field of US and Israeli flags at the last AIPAC fundraiser gives me GREAT CONFIDENCE about the future of peace btw the Palestinians and Israeli's.

And the Republican nominees fill me with even MORE...um...confidence! Why, just knowing that THREE of them don't believe in evolution, want to use torture more, and ONE of them wants to expand Guantanamo fills me with shudders of....

oh, ok, you get the idea. No, no confidence in all the "big candidates." But, I'm a 3rd party man till the end, so all the early-bird posturing (with the mainstream media's horserace bleating) interests me very little.

Still, there are a few good ones around the edges...Ron Paul, certainly (I actually met him back in the 80's, when he was running as a Libertarian); Mike Gravell, certainly Dennis Kucinich...

And the terrorists in Iraq are patriots for whom?

David

It all depends upon the clothes they wear, the ideologies they follow, and where they came from.

Some of them are patriots against the war against Islam, in from other countries (over half of them from Saudi Arabia).

Some of them are patriots for their Sunni brotherhood/neighborhood, fighting the Shia.

Some of them are patriots for their Shiite brotherhood, fighting the Sunni.

Some of them are Kurds, fighting the Turks.

Some of them are patriots for their particular clan, their families, or patriots for no one...just trying to but food on the table.

Some of the terrorists are patriots walking around in US (and private contractor) uniforms for folks back here, cheering on a war founded by lies, fed and hyped by the mainstream corporate media.

This one?

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2798

David

Ah...Daniel Pipes. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes#Support_for_Japanese_Internment_during_World_War_II) Boy, you sure do know how to pick 'em.

Pipes expressed his support of "the internment of Japanese Americans in World War II because...given what was known and not known at the time...the U.S. government made the correct and sensible decisions."[24] (See also his article Japanese Internment: Why It Was a Good Idea--And the Lessons It Offers Today.[25]) Pipes does not "advocate the internment of anyone today."[26]

Boy...THAT's a relief! :rolleyes:

Pipes the Propagandist: Bush's nominee doesn't belong at the U.S. Institute for Peace. (http://www.slate.com/id/2086844/)

I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him.

Then, I heard recently, Pipes has maintained that professor Edward Said of Columbia University is not really a Palestinian and never lost his family home in Jerusalem in the fighting of 1947-48. I have my own disagreements with Said, but this is a much-discredited libel that undermines the credibility of anybody circulating it. Professor Said is deservedly respected for his long advocacy of mutual recognition between Israelis and Palestinians; yet, once again, Pipes spits and curses at anything short of his own highly emotional agenda. In the February 2003 issue of Commentary magazine, he wrote an attack on the "road map" proposals, which included the words "the so-called Palestinian refugees," and which by other crude tricks of language insinuated that there had been no Palestinian dispossession in the first place. In which case, there is obviously nothing to negotiate about, is there? It's one thing to argue, as many Palestinians are prepared to do, that not every refugee can expect "the right of return." It's quite another to deny history and to assert that there is no refugee problem to begin with.

On more than one occasion, Pipes has called for the extension of Israel's already ruthless policy of collective punishment, arguing that leveling Palestinian villages is justifiable if attacks are launched from among their inhabitants. It seems to me from observing his style that he came to this conclusion with rather more relish than regret. And, invited recently to comment on the wartime internment of the Japanese—as a comparison case to his own call for the profiling and surveillance of Muslim and Arab-Americans—he declined on the grounds that he didn't know enough about the subject. One isn't necessarily obliged to know the history of discrimination as it has been applied to American security policy—unless, that is, one is proposing a new form of it. To be uninformed at that point is to disqualify oneself, as the Senate should disqualify Pipes.

dps
07-31-2007, 08:54 PM
Neil, is there a plan for a worldwide caliphate of Islam by the terrorist?

David

David Orange
07-31-2007, 09:33 PM
Neil, is there a plan for a worldwide caliphate of Islam by the terrorist?

I didn't realize that you had specified "in Iraq" in your earlier post. I'd say people like bin Laden are fighting for a worldwide caliphate of Islam--Islam governing the entire world.

In Iraq, I'd have to say that Neil painted a pretty accurate picture--though I like Pipes pretty well and I have to agree that internment of the Japanese in WWII was sensible. And I speak about 70% Japanese at home every day.

David

Neil Mick
07-31-2007, 09:33 PM
Neil, is there a plan for a worldwide caliphate of Islam by the terrorist?

David

I dunno...do you?

And, since I just pointed out that "terrorist" is a highly relative term, relative to who we are discussing (and whom is doing the labelling): I'd say that I'm far more worried about a plan for a worldwide Empire of US imperialism by the US terrorists, than I am about some fantastical "worldwide caliphate of Islam." :hypno: :hypno: The US terrorists possess the deadlier weapons, and are SUPPOSED to be the moral standard of the world. :hypno:

I have to agree that internment of the Japanese in WWII was sensible.

David

It was many things...racist, based upon fear...but "sensible??"

Hardly.

Neil Mick
07-31-2007, 11:12 PM
I didn't realize that you had specified "in Iraq" in your earlier post. I'd say people like bin Laden are fighting for a worldwide caliphate of Islam--Islam governing the entire world.

David

OK, I'm going to stop posting for awhile. But I have to respectfully note that I think you have it backwards. Ppl like OBL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) are NOT fighting for a "worldwide caliphate of Islam..."

bin Laden issued two fatwas—in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.[3][4]

It's all about military occupation of Islamic countries and holy sites, tha is drawing the faithful to fight in jihad.

It makes sense...if you consider the motivating factors of entering into a jihad...do you think that people would be MORE movitated by:

1. Calls for a "Caliphate of Islam" (and determining just whom would end up as caliph would certainly make for a violent exchange, I'm sure); or
2. Calls to end the military occupation of Palestine and other Islamic holy sites?

I don't know about you, but I'd be far more motivated by #2 (were I in that situation...). The victim mentality is far more effective a motivator than a "Caliph and Empire" battlecry...esp when said caliph isn't even specifically named.

Michael Varin
08-01-2007, 06:28 AM
I have to agree that internment of the Japanese in WWII was sensible.

That's appalling, David, but now I see why you don't have a problem with the "top three Dems." And I don't know about you, but I don't want to just "make do" anymore.

I like Mike Huckabee, myself. Is there anything in particular that Ron Paul has said that struck a chord for you?

Here you pick. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
In a word, freedom. I highly recommend looking more closely at him.

I vote for smaller, less intrusive government. Huckabee isn't really committed to that as a goal. Just off the top of my head he is pro-subsidies, his foreign policy is no change from what we've had for the last 60 years, and he wants a revenue neutral "Fair Tax."

dps
08-01-2007, 08:05 AM
ooops

dps
08-01-2007, 08:08 AM
The victim mentality is far more effective a motivator than a "Caliph and Empire" battlecry...

Exactly, use the more effective motivator to achieve thier( terrorist's ) goal of a Worldwide Caliphate of Islam.

David

Fred Little
08-01-2007, 10:32 AM
Exactly, use the more effective motivator to achieve thier( terrorist's ) goal of a Worldwide Caliphate of Islam.

David

Fundamentalism in all of its forms can be more than a bit problematic when joined with political or military power.

A bit closer to home, some of us are equally concerned about the goals of some US nationals, which have been described as "Christian Dominionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism)."

Of particular concern is a strain of Christian Zionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism), the best known proponent of which is Rev. John Hagee, which actively advocates the reconstruction of a Third Temple in Jerusalem, specifically so that biblical prophecies regarding the end times can be fulfilled and Armageddon can be hastened.

Allowing the terms of discourse to be defined by battling religious fundamentalisms, particularly when one has no allegiance to any of the three primary fundamentalisms in question, does not strike me as a particularly sane or safe course of action.

Best,

FL

Neil Mick
08-01-2007, 12:33 PM
Exactly, use the more effective motivator to achieve thier( terrorist's ) goal of a Worldwide Caliphate of Islam.

David

Which, of course, you (and the other ppl who write about it) know is their goal, so much better than all the other followers, because.....

If you're sensible...you don't plan on making castles in the sky and future plans for caliphates that haven't a prayer's chance of succeeding, when you're fighting an occupier.

The idea of an "Islamic threat" sounds more like a motivator for scaring people here rather than a plan for world domination. More in line (and mechanics) with the "Communist threat" scares back home, c 1950's.


A bit closer to home, some of us are equally concerned about the goals of some US nationals, which have been described as "Christian Dominionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism)."

Best,

FL

Hey Fred,

Long time no see. Yes, Christian Dominionism is a big concern. Just watch "Jesus Camp" if you don't believe me.

dps
08-01-2007, 01:35 PM
Yes, Christian Dominionism is a big concern. Just watch "Jesus Camp" if you don't believe me.

Then watch any of the videos on the web that show Islamic terroists beheading thier prisoners and then decide whom you should be concerned about.

David

dps
08-01-2007, 01:50 PM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html

(After the infidels have been expelled from the land of Islam, bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals, foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the establishment of one united government strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law. This vision harks back to the age of the caliphs, the successors to Muhammad who ruled Islam's domain from the 7th century to the 13th. What might a caliphate look like today? In bin Laden's view, it would look something like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he has praised as "among the keenest to fulfill [Allah's] laws." Bin Laden may imagine himself to be a potential new caliph. One of the titles he uses is "emir," which means ruler. However, he swears allegiance to (and thereby ranks himself below) the Taliban ruler, Mullah Mohammed Omar, so whatever political ambitions bin Laden may have are not yet on display.

Some bin Laden watchers speculate that he particularly has his eye on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as they possess, respectively, 25% of all proven oil reserves and the Islamic world's only known nuclear bomb. Bin Laden has referred to the Saudi oil fields as "a large economic power essential for the soon-to-be-established Islamic state." Asked by TIME in 1998 about reports that he was trying to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons, he replied, "If I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."

But for bin Laden, the game is not as simple as taking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council staff member now writing a book on religious terror: "He is looking for a world in which Islam regains the dominant role, and naturally that would include oil and nukes. But to say it's about oil and nukes suggests it's not a metaphysical struggle, which it is for him. He thinks this is a big moral battle in which he's got Allah's sanction to attack the West." In a 1996 proclamation, bin Laden asked, "O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us controlover them.")

David

Neil Mick
08-01-2007, 02:46 PM
Then watch any of the videos on the web that show Islamic terroists beheading thier prisoners and then decide whom you should be concerned about.

David

In case you missed my earlier post on this topic:

Dead is dead. Beheadings are just as horrible as being tortured to death for suspicion of being a terrorist by a lad given too much leash and subjected to too many episodes of "24." (or even...Gods forbid...WENT to Jesus camp... :eek: )

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html

(After the infidels have been expelled from the land of Islam, bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals, foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the establishment of one united government strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law. This vision harks back to the age of the caliphs, the successors to Muhammad who ruled Islam's domain from the 7th century to the 13th.

:hypno: Watch, carefully. Nothing up this sleeve...nothing up this one, either. Watch, how I go from prosaic musings of an extremist, to the projected scaremongering worthy of the Red Menace...(*Cue theremin music*)...:hypno:

What might a caliphate look like today? In bin Laden's

Isolated, somewhat marginalized (and CERTAINLY not in the majority)

view, it would look something like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he has praised as "among the keenest to fulfill [Allah's] laws."

Add a little speculation...

Bin Laden may imagine himself to be a potential new caliph. One of the titles he uses is "emir," which means ruler. However, he swears allegiance to (and thereby ranks himself below) the Taliban ruler, Mullah Mohammed Omar, so whatever political ambitions bin Laden may have are not yet on display.

A man giving himself titles...titles that are approved only by a few of his followers. Come on, David: apply a little common sense.

How's one man--a member of an extremist splinter-group--going to pull off announcing to the whole of the Islamic world that he is the "caliph," when Sunni's and Shia can't even agree??

It's counterintuitive. Also, when you consider that most of this "grand caliphate" of Islam (the in-vogue term, now that "Islamofascism" is starting to go out of style) is originating far more from the mouths of NeoConservatives and far-Right websites than you hear it coming from the Islamic extremists (which, again, are in the extreme minority. They wouldn't be a tenth so powerful, or have a 20th of the audience it does were it not for the big enlistment program that the US provides them in Iraq...), you have to wonder.

Some Bin Laden watchers speculate

ah...that word again...just like "some people say..." a common FoxNews ploy...

that he particularly has his eye on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as they possess, respectively, 25% of all proven oil reserves and the Islamic world's only known nuclear bomb. Bin Laden has referred to the Saudi oil fields as "a large economic power essential for the soon-to-be-established Islamic state."

OK, this is just wrong. It's taking Bin Ladin's quotes out of context. It is really sad, watching the quality of journalistic standards go down the toilet like that.

I could go on...but I don't think you're listening.

But no one's ever accused me of not trying. In summation, then: sure, you could probably find a few quotes around the rightwingblogosphere and surrounds of the musings of Bin Ladin and a few other terrorists that they'd like to be caliph of a Grand Islamic Empire.

I'd also like to point out that George W Bush has stated that it certainly would be easier, being dictator. Does this mean that we should take Bush at his word...that he really INTENDS to be dictator?

I'd think the latter far more likely, than OBL's active plans to become caliph. Bush would have to convince a lot fewer ppl, than OBL.

David Orange
08-01-2007, 08:41 PM
Then watch any of the videos on the web that show Islamic terroists beheading thier prisoners and then decide whom you should be concerned about.

David

What's a little beheading compared to being....a BIBLE THUMPER?????

Mere beheaders are harmless.

Ne?

David

David Orange
08-01-2007, 09:00 PM
Beheadings are just as horrible as being tortured to death for suspicion of being a terrorist by a lad given too much leash and subjected to too many episodes of "24." (or even...Gods forbid...WENT to Jesus camp... :eek: )

But going to Jesus Camp is a bigger threat than going to a bin Laden training camp.

Face it, Neil, your type would be among the first lined up to have your head chopped off because you would smart off. And you would either have your head chopped off or you would get with the program (THEIR program--bin Laden's or Mullah Omar's) real fast. Wonder which Neil would choose????

I'm thinking you'd say, "Which way to the burka store, sir?"

Watch, carefully. Nothing up this sleeve...nothing up this one, either. Watch, how I go from prosaic musings of an extremist, to the projected scaremongering worthy of the Red Menace...

Meaning....the communists never really intended to rule the world???

Don't switch the subject with (I can already hear it coming) "The US is trying to rule the world now..."

The question is "Did the communists ever intend to rule the world?"

If you're honest you know they did. And if you're honest, you know that there is a virulent strain of Islamist that intends to rule this whole earth with sharia law and put women in burkas.

But that's not as bad as Jesus Camp, huh?

I wouldn't send my kid to Jesus Camp, actually, but get real.

But no one's ever accused me of not trying.

I think the usual accusation is "not thinking." Or of thinking very one-dimensionally.

I'd also like to point out that George W Bush has stated that it certainly would be easier, being dictator. Does this mean that we should take Bush at his word...that he really INTENDS to be dictator?

I'd think the latter far more likely, than OBL's active plans to become caliph. Bush would have to convince a lot fewer ppl, than OBL.

I'd say Bush definitely wants to be dictator but he knows his term is ending and that he's screwed up so royally that we will likely have another Democrat in the Soiled House in a few months. OBL is willing to die a martyr, knowing his grave will be the site of huge pilgrimages for decades to come.

But much larger than any one man, the Islamist movement does absolutely intend to rule the world. And they don't give a whit about human laws.

David

David Orange
08-01-2007, 09:46 PM
Isolated, somewhat marginalized (and CERTAINLY not in the majority)

Remember, Neil, that the whole question is "To whom are the terrorists patriots?"

Remember that?

Someone said, "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."

Someone else said, "To whom are the terrorists in Iraq patriots?"

And the fact is, they fight for the worldwide ummah (nation) of Islam. They are patriots to a nation that transcends all nations. They can live in the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, England, Netherlands, France or any other nation on earth, but their only loyalty is to that religious nation, the "ummah" of Islam, and not to the nation where they live and not to their fellow citizens in those countries--many of whom whined and cried and bent over backward to get them into their countries.

So don't say they're isolate, marginalized and CERTAINLY not the majority because "they" are the ONLY ones we're talking about.

Sure, if you distort the argument, Neil can look smart, but when you stick to the honest truth, your claims fall apart.

David

Neil Mick
08-01-2007, 11:42 PM
What's a little beheading compared to being....a BIBLE THUMPER?????

Mere beheaders are harmless.

Ne?

David

Yeah, just a few, humble bible thumpers...just some friendly Bible thumpers, with a mission... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97NFNXk8aFc&mode=related&search=)

I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the Gospel, as they are over in Pakistan and Israel and all those different places...

Nothing at all to compare them with those eevel headchoppers over in the Middle East...

Neil Mick
08-02-2007, 12:02 AM
Remember, Neil, that the whole question is "To whom are the terrorists patriots?"

Remember that?

Someone said, "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."

Someone else said, "To whom are the terrorists in Iraq patriots?"

And the fact is, they fight for the worldwide ummah (nation) of Islam. They are patriots to a nation that transcends all nations. They can live in the US, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, England, Netherlands, France or any other nation on earth, but their only loyalty is to that religious nation, the "ummah" of Islam, and not to the nation where they live and not to their fellow citizens in those countries--many of whom whined and cried and bent over backward to get them into their countries.

So don't say they're isolate, marginalized and CERTAINLY not the majority because "they" are the ONLY ones we're talking about.

When I speak of "majority," I mean the mainstream of Muslim thought. If you're going to start talking about caliphates, etc: you're going to need a sizable block of Muslims to agree with you. So yeah: it IS fair to talk about the extremists as a "minority," under these circumstances...

Sure, if you distort the argument, Neil can look smart, but when you stick to the honest truth, your claims fall apart.

David

(all based upon your impressive list of reading material you've thoughtfully provided: along with knowledgable and objective sources and sound thinking about human behavior, in general...totally untouched by the corruptive influence of the rightwingblogospheric mind...)

I started to respond to your shopping list of insults and putdowns in your last two quotes, but I stopped myself. No need, really.

You're right, David: you know all about me. You know exactly how I'd act as a hostage of terrorists. A neat trick, that: since even I don't know how I'd act (of course, you, being perfectly self aware, know precisely how YOU'D respond. I'd probably scream like a little girl and kiss the picture of OBL within 5 minutes; while you...stalwart defender o' freedom and US goodness that you are...you KNOW that you'd just laugh and spit in their eye, no doubt singing a rousing chorus of the "Star Spangled Banner" to drown out their threats...).

Moreso, you have insider knowledge of the worldwide network of Islamic fundamentalism (never mind that it's more like a patchwork plethora of little groups--some of them in direct conflict--no! David knows all, sees all, and so his version must be right). You, over and above all the experts I've listened to, read, all the accounts of hostage-situations...all that is wrong.

The big difference btw you and me, is that I don't pretend to "know it all:" I just posit likely arguments, and question what is the "prevailing wisdom," that took us so far into understanding the Muslim heart and mind (yeah, we're doin a GREAT JOB on that front, aren't we?). Nor, do I even need to be "right," all the time.

So, no more need to argue, David. You "got" me, and all can see how "right" you are.

Uh huh.

Neil Mick
08-02-2007, 12:10 AM
Remember, Neil, that the whole question is "To whom are the terrorists patriots?"

Remember that?

Someone said, "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."

Someone else said, "To whom are the terrorists in Iraq patriots?"

David


It all depends upon the clothes they wear, the ideologies they follow, and where they came from.

Some of them are patriots against the war against Islam, in from other countries (over half of them from Saudi Arabia).

Some of them are patriots for their Sunni brotherhood/neighborhood, fighting the Shia.

Some of them are patriots for their Shiite brotherhood, fighting the Sunni.

Some of them are Kurds, fighting the Turks.

Some of them are patriots for their particular clan, their families, or patriots for no one...just trying to but food on the table.

Some of the terrorists are patriots walking around in US (and private contractor) uniforms for folks back here, cheering on a war founded by lies, fed and hyped by the mainstream corporate media.


NM

dps
08-02-2007, 08:10 AM
Yeah, just a few, humble bible thumpers...just some friendly Bible thumpers, with a mission... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97NFNXk8aFc&mode=related&search=)

Nothing at all to compare them with those eevel headchoppers over in the Middle East...

Yea, just a few, humble terrorist...Just some friendly terrorist with a mission.
Nothing at all to compare them with those eevel bible thumpers over in America.

http://www.militia-watchdog.org/main_Terrorism/terrorist_training_video_82205.htm

"That video, which included written instructions and a voiceover in Arabic, demonstrated the type of damage a suicide bomb vest can cause. In one demonstration, a vest is detonated on a mannequin positioned among metal cutouts placed around it in the shape of a bus. Another demonstration shows the effect of shrapnel when the bomb vest is set off in a crowd. Like the two new videos, the older video never shows anyone's face—only their hands and bodies."



David

David Orange
08-02-2007, 09:07 AM
The big difference btw you and me, is that I don't pretend to "know it all:" I just posit likely arguments, and question what is the "prevailing wisdom," that took us so far into understanding the Muslim heart and mind...

No, Neil, the difference is that I take actual human nature and things like gravity into account when I think. I don't just "reason" according to idiosyncratic abstractions drawn from an imaginary world where everyone is really good and it's just the evil US Gov't that makes them (FORCES them) to behave badly.

The truth is that GWB is an idiot who wants to rule the world and his enemy, OBL, is a shrewd b*****d who wants to rule the world. GWB thinks he owns the US and he has liberally wasted our resources and severely compromised our military for his own ego satisfaction. This cannot end well.

However, none of that changes the nature of Al Quaeda or the other Islamist factions that will personally blow up men, women and children to wipe out all opposition to establishment of worldwide Islamic domination.

So, no more need to argue, David. You "got" me, and all can see how "right" you are.

Yes, everyone can see that I'm partially right. But they've known a long time how ridiculously, screwily, imaginatively and naively wrong you are.

David

David Orange
08-02-2007, 09:11 AM
Quote:
David Orange wrote:
Remember, Neil, that the whole question is "To whom are the terrorists patriots?"

Remember that?

Someone said, "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot."

Someone else said, "To whom are the terrorists in Iraq patriots?"

David

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
It all depends upon the clothes they wear, the ideologies they follow, and where they came from.

Some of them are patriots against the war against Islam, in from other countries (over half of them from Saudi Arabia).

Some of them are patriots for their Sunni brotherhood/neighborhood, fighting the Shia.

Some of them are patriots for their Shiite brotherhood, fighting the Sunni.

Some of them are Kurds, fighting the Turks.

Some of them are patriots for their particular clan, their families, or patriots for no one...just trying to but food on the table.

Some of the terrorists are patriots walking around in US (and private contractor) uniforms for folks back here, cheering on a war founded by lies, fed and hyped by the mainstream corporate media.


And you should recall that I agreed with you on that. But it doesn't change the nature of Islamic terrorists or what their real intention is. It doesn't change the fact that Islamists do want to erase every nation in favor of instituting worldwide Islamic law.

David

David Orange
08-02-2007, 09:15 AM
"That video, which included written instructions and a voiceover in Arabic, demonstrated the type of damage a suicide bomb vest can cause. In one demonstration, a vest is detonated on a mannequin positioned among metal cutouts placed around it in the shape of a bus. Another demonstration shows the effect of shrapnel when the bomb vest is set off in a crowd. Like the two new videos, the older video never shows anyone's face—only their hands and bodies."

Did you hear the account of the woman who survived the attempted suicide bombing in England? She was sitting on the train (or bus) with her baby in a carriage when the terrorist, sitting near her, tried to detonate his backpack bomb. He looked at her and her child and turned the bomb in such a way to make the blast stronger in the direction of her and her child. Fortuately, unlike the previous train bombs, it failed to explode. The bomber was a legal resident (actually a citizen, I think) of England, but his motivation was not to support England or the English citizens who had accepted him among them and minded their own business. He was fighting for a world ruled by Islamic law.

Sweet chaps, really, if you can get to know them. A real bang.

David

Neil Mick
08-02-2007, 03:47 PM
(lotsa words) I'm partially right. (Lots more words) You're wrong.

David

As I said, you know it all. I'm naive, misguided, etc. Amazing how little I've learned in my 40+ years!

Yes, you are so right. I do have much to learn.

I pity the people who don't.

Those who think that they understand folks they've never met, come to mind...(yes, I'd just love to know how many Saudi billionaires-turned-terrorist you've actually met. Or EVEN, how many Saudi's :crazy: )

The truth is that GWB is an idiot who wants to rule the world

Ah, more mindreading

and his enemy, OBL, is a shrewd b*****d

Shrewd, and/or very, very lucky.

who wants to rule the world.

Again, those vaunted mindreading abilities. :hypno: :hypno:

GWB thinks he owns the US

It is dangerous to assume that know what powerful ppl are thinking. Failing mindreading, you are only left with assumption.

And, you know what happens when you assume...right? :p

and he has liberally wasted our resources and severely compromised our military for his own ego satisfaction. This cannot end well.

You see? This is a simple observation, devoid of assumptions. An empirical fact on which we can both agree.

However, none of that changes the nature of Al Quaeda or the other Islamist factions that will personally blow up men, women and children to wipe out all opposition to establishment of worldwide Islamic domination.

Sadly, your clear ignorance surfaces. Which "Al Qaeda" are you referring? Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Al Qaeda in Iraq?

There are several organizations using that name, that have only minor connection. In your attempt to oversimplify this into some religious "clash of nations," you engage in the same logical fallacy as the US during the Cold War.

But no matter, you're in good company. I'm sure that you can go on for hours about castles in the air, fueled no doubt by David Skaggs' relentless black/white fearmongering, which makes the international situation so amazingly simple:
:hypno:
Another demonstration shows the effect of shrapnel when the bomb vest is set off in a crowd. Like the two new videos, the older video never shows anyone's face—only their hands and bodies."

David

And, everyone KNOWS how "simple" the problems in the Middle East are. Eight Presidents just failed to have the two Dave's here, on their Cabinet...more's the pity. :D

Guilty Spark
08-03-2007, 11:38 PM
Actually, we have an excellent candidate. His name is Ron Paul. He's vying for the Republican nomination. Electing him would be the first step in making a REAL change in a positive direction. It's just a matter of the people educating themselves, and not blindly voting for the names they hear repeated on TV.

I'm sorry to say Michael I think that ANY decent, candidate you guys have will have their name and character dragged through the mud.
Who ever his opponents are will find some girl from junior high that he cheated on, some kid will remember him taking a drag from a joint at a party, they'll come out with this funny
"Ron Paul stepped in dog crap and wiped his shoe on the grass, do you want YOUR president treating YOUR country like that?"

I think it's a matter of months before that Jeff fellow from the survivor series makes a reality TV show about running for the next president of the USA> Thats about the level it's dropped down to. Canada sadly isn't very far behind you.

Nice to see you back Neil. I see you haven't seen the light yet!
I'm heading off to fight evil doers in a little while but I'm confident I can make a crusader out of you yet.

Just kidding, I've actually joined the other side :)


http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8979/dsc04184ia8.jpg

Taliesin
08-05-2007, 07:14 AM
Looks like you've all been pretty busy while i've been on my hols - Summer School with VERY special guest instructor Sensei Robert Mustard (whose sort of like a magician with the exception that when he shows you how he does all that stuff you're STILL amazed)

Anyway a few thoughts.

1. I do think that OBL wants power - and as much of it as he can get.

2. I do believe terrorism is simply a matter of the cynical exploiting the angry fro their own ends.

3. I believe that we should recognisee these attacks as crimes and not at all acts of war. - (Like the Oklahoma Bomber)

4. We should be honest about our own history (for us it would be the bombing of Dresden)

Lastly a question

What is the material difference between trying to

"Shock and Awe" someone

and trying to Terrorize them?

jennifer paige smith
08-05-2007, 11:06 AM
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101011015-178412,00.html

(After the infidels have been expelled from the land of Islam, bin Laden, like other Islamic radicals, foresees the overthrow of current regimes across the Muslim world and the establishment of one united government strictly enforcing Shari'a, or Islamic law. This vision harks back to the age of the caliphs, the successors to Muhammad who ruled Islam's domain from the 7th century to the 13th. What might a caliphate look like today? In bin Laden's view, it would look something like the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which he has praised as "among the keenest to fulfill [Allah's] laws." Bin Laden may imagine himself to be a potential new caliph. One of the titles he uses is "emir," which means ruler. However, he swears allegiance to (and thereby ranks himself below) the Taliban ruler, Mullah Mohammed Omar, so whatever political ambitions bin Laden may have are not yet on display.

Some bin Laden watchers speculate that he particularly has his eye on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as they possess, respectively, 25% of all proven oil reserves and the Islamic world's only known nuclear bomb. Bin Laden has referred to the Saudi oil fields as "a large economic power essential for the soon-to-be-established Islamic state." Asked by TIME in 1998 about reports that he was trying to acquire nuclear and chemical weapons, he replied, "If I seek to acquire these weapons, I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."

But for bin Laden, the game is not as simple as taking Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council staff member now writing a book on religious terror: "He is looking for a world in which Islam regains the dominant role, and naturally that would include oil and nukes. But to say it's about oil and nukes suggests it's not a metaphysical struggle, which it is for him. He thinks this is a big moral battle in which he's got Allah's sanction to attack the West." In a 1996 proclamation, bin Laden asked, "O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us controlover them.")

David

But does the George Bush have any more right to this same design than Bin Laden?

I agree with the observation that this is a metaphysical struggle. But I would frame it in a larger context to include the metaphysical/destiny agenda of the current U.S. administration and their radical cronies. I would also include the metaphysical aenda of the American People as potentially seperate from that of the will of the Admin. It is our metaphysical imperative to continue to search for truth and demand that our leaders lead in our interests and not in their own. Our children will live out this legacy, perhaps only second in gravity to immense climate change.

In my recent observations, Mr. Bush appears to have the same agenda as Bin-Laden (and some other un-named multitudes) and it is a race to see who will get there first.
The history between the entities and families involved is illustrative in understanding the power dynamics (or power dynasties) of people who once had a common plan and are now in a race to 'win'.
Unfortunately, when either of 'they win', we lose.
.
And it gets really complicated when we start mixing up our own good spirit and will and military record as a compassionate people with the idea that the present administration has the same goal.
Destabilizing the region and selling private contracts to your buddies to fix it is a pretty shady configuration.
Practically, if we want to clean this war up then all profit potential should be removed. Then we'll see what it is really about and who really is interested in democracy, freedom,and human well-being.

Otherwise, 'Cut and Run' or whatever we call diplomacy these days.

I know some folks in New Orleans who might be happy to see some help arrive.

Jen

Mike Sigman
08-05-2007, 01:22 PM
"It's not reason that is at the heart of modern-day liberalism but rather the claim to superior virtue and, even more important, to a special knowledge unavailable to the unwashed or unenlightened."

Neil Mick
08-05-2007, 03:20 PM
OK, I've been tiptoe'ing around this point, because I hate to bring out the "R"-word...but it's rapidly becoming the elephant in the room.

Earlier on, I made the point that terrorists are not relegated to one ideology, one religion, or even one country. As I have pointed out many times, terror is a tool, just like a hammer. Anyone who picks up that tool is a terrorist.

And so, time (and what news we gleam from the mainstream) reveals Bush's statement back in '02, "You're either with us, or with the terrorists," is shown to be increasingly specious.

On the one hand, we have masses of Arabs and Arab-American's rounded up for no other reason than a few immigration infractions and for the crime of "immigrating while being of Arab descent."

We have people like Jose Padilla (that is, when the authorities bothered to charge him with anything)accused of being a terrorist, but locked up for so long (5+ years' now) that his mind is mostly gone, believing that his interrogators are his friends. We have the US Justice Dept make a mockery of justice in their attempts to pin SOMETHING on him.

On the other hand, we have Orlando Bosch and Jose Posada Carilles, who OPENLY ADMITTED, on TV, that he helped blow up the Cubana Airlines flight, who blew up the whole of the Cuban Fencing Team, not only uncharged by the US authorities, but actually protected from extradition by the US, in spite of demands by Cuba and Venezuala that the US abide by international law and send this terrorist to justice.

We have Emmanuel Constant, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Constant)

the founder of FRAPH, a Haitian death squad organized in mid-1993 to terrorize supporters of exiled president Jean-Bertrand Aristide. After the 1994 U.S. and UN-led multinational occupation restored Aristide to power, Constant managed to escape to the U.S. He was later detained by INS officials in 1995 and prepared to be deported to Haïti to stand trial for involvement in the Raboteau massacre. However, in a December 1995 interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes, Constant threatened to divulge secrets about his relationship with the CIA during the early '90s. After this threat, as well as receiving intelligence that there was a plot to assassinate Constant should he return to Haïti, the Clinton administration ordered the INS to release Constant in May 1996,

where he spends his risk-free days in sunny Queens, NY.

We don't stop being merely a rest-spot for Terrorists That We Love to Shield. We also go after the people who are HUNTING the terrorists. Consider the Miami Five. After Bosch was not extradited in 1989, Cuban officials accepted that the US would shield terrorists (much like the way Pakistan is being accused of shielding terrorists on the run from Afghanistan).

Recognizing that the United States was going to harbour anti-Castro terrorists, Cuban agents infiltrated those networks. In 1998, high-level FBI officials were sent to Havana, where they were given thousands of pages of documentation and hundreds of hours of videotape about terrorist actions organized by cells in Florida.

The FBI reacted by arresting the people who provided the information, including a group now known as the Cuban Five. (http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20040314.htm)

The arrests were followed by what amounted to a show trial in Miami. The Five were sentenced, three to life sentences (for espionage; and the leader, Gerardo Hernandez, also for conspiracy to murder), after convictions that are now being appealed.

If the shoe were on the other foot...say, if another country were harboring terrorists: would WE show such restraint as sending out covert ops to observe, reporting our findings to the host government?

Nah. We're above such niceties. If our leaders are to be believed, we'd cut RIGHT to the chase:



Washington - Top Pentagon and State Department officials said Wednesday that U.S. special forces would enter Pakistan if they had specific intelligence about an impending terrorist strike against the United States, despite warnings from the Pakistani government that it would not accept American troops operating independently inside its borders.

The statements were the clearest assertion yet of the Bush administration's willingness to act unilaterally inside tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan where al-Qaeda's top commanders are now believed to have taken refuge. But the officials also voiced strong support for Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who they said has repeatedly backed U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the region at great political cost.

"If there were information or opportunity to strike a blow to protect the American people," U.S. forces would immediately act, Peter Verga, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security, said during an unusual joint session held by the House Armed Services and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Really, you have to wonder if the implicit message is that terrorists are only those people who terrorize anyone the US thinks is worth saving...at the moment (as, they may decide that said commodities are expendable, in the next). And yet parodoxically, all the while we harbor terrorists and threaten other nations who do the same thing, all the while that we [url=http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh]covertly aid, (]U.S. willing to hit terrorists inside Pakistan, officials say[/url)

The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

train (cf, School for the America's, and Latin America), and spread the good works of terror everywhere (cf, OBL and the training of the Taliban), our foreign policy seems at-odds with even the interests of the US gov't. Bush recently accused Hezbollah of being a threat to the US, when any basic student of ME politics can tell you that Hezbollah is SOLELY interested in getting Israel out of Lebanon. In siding with Israel on the international scene, the US is increasingly working against its own interests...even to the point of going after groups not directly opposed to us.

And then there's that nasty business accusing Iran of providing terrorists and explosive devices to aid Iraqi insurgents...while we give GREATER MILITARY AID and ADVANCED WEAPONRY to the nation that it is well-known supplies HALF of the terrorists emigrating from outside Iraq's borders...our old pal Saudi Arabia.

But back to my initial point: the "R"-word. It seems like this is a continuing dirge with the same people coming back to sing the same tired song. "Terrorists =Islamofascists," or (now that that word is rapidly losing its appeal) "Islamic extremists," as if they are the only terrorists that exist in the world.

It's a short leap from this terrorcentric notion that most of the world's terrorists live and originate in Arabic nations (completely ignoring OK City, and abortion clinic bombings) to the idea that this is some metaphysical "clash of civilizations," as if the sudden onslaught of terrorist attacks is brought on by the whole of Islam upon the hapless West. Worse, these people--and many others in the rightwingblogospher who echo their sentiments--these people imagine that they understand the motives of an unknown but minority group of people that they have never met and likely never even been to their country.

And so, failing real-life experiences, they substitute that with what they're told. And so, Arabs get demonized (again); the US terrorists get ignored, and the spin cycle goes for another round of 360 degree-misinformation.

So, let me put this plainly: IMO, to engage in this sort of fantastic one-sidedness is to put all of the blame of terror on the Arabs and Arabic nations, is to engage baldly in cultural and religious racism. It oversimplifies the world situation and creates a dangerous "us vs. them paradigm."

***********************************************************

In listening to Bill Moyers the other night, I happened to catch a fascinating interview with cultural critic, Clive James. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08032007/profile2.html) He had several interesting perspectives relevant to this discussion:

BILL MOYERS: I was pleased to see that you had included in your dedication, Hirsi Ali. Because I interviewed her last year. And I found that quiet witness that she gives to her own conscious against these great overwhelming animosity from her--

CLIVE JAMES: I think she--

BILL MOYERS: --own believers.

CLIVE JAMES: --she is tremendous. And of course, she's right in the focal point of history now. Some people think she's trying to do too much. She wants to change the whole of Islam. And there are others, and me included, who think there's some-- some way that you should try and influence Islam in order that the moderates can stand up to the extremists.

******

BILL MOYERS: The lesson I take from this is that barbarism is a phenomenon that always lies just below the surface--

CLIVE JAMES: Just here.

BILL MOYERS: --just-- just there and in the 20th century got institutionalized in the state.

CLIVE JAMES: Yeah, yeah, it's even worse. It's not just here. It's in here. The propensity for barbarism in all other-- it's probably part of our original energy. When you throw a tantrum-- when you threw a tantrum when you were a kid, what did you say, "I'll kill you, right. You disagree with me I'll kill you."

That is now fundamental to politics in the world. Do what I say or I'll kill you. It's a tantrum. It's within the human personality.

It's always there. And it's held back as Freud saw. He thought that society was civilized to the extent that it had overcome nature. In other words, he thought-- he thought this-- this kind of tendency to massacre everyone that disagrees with you was natural. And I'm afraid it is. And-- civilization is that very thing. It's the-- the steady accumulation of institutions over the course of history which has brought us up to where we are now where we can disagree with each other without-- without falling to--

BILL MOYERS: This barbarism that sits there, dorm-- organized in the-- and powerful in the 21st-- in the 20th century hasn't disappeared. Darfur as you say, 9-11, the radical elements of Islam, I mean, it's still here. What-- what the duce good is humanism against this-- this intense barbarism?

CLIVE JAMES: Well, constant message of my book is you must pursue humanism for its own sake. And-- utilitarian-- a utilitarian view won't work. You've got to know and love these things for its own sake. You hope on the other hand that it will do something to off set the advance-- the advance of-- of barbarism.

****************

BILL MOYERS: You say in here that the best time to see into a society is at that moment of disillusion or when these forces converge. Do you see that now--

BILL MOYERS: --by western civilization?

CLIVE JAMES: It's like if you have the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia, when you're standing along it it's only when there's a gap in the reef that you can see the way that the reef is constructed. There-- these breakdowns of-- of-- of societies, of cultures which happened in Russia in 1917 and Germany in 1933, in Austria, 1938 and so on, they give you a hint of how a culture works. Because when the pieces break up you see how it all hangs together.

Everybody-- their life disintegrates, not just the writers. We-- we know all about the writers but the printers, the-- the-- the publishers, the illustrators, everybody concerned with the whole business of culture are scattered to the wind. And you see-- and the school teachers. You see how the society fits together. It's extremely complex and impossible to reproduce through one person's will. This was why by Burke was a great thinker.

Which underscores my point that whether or not OBL wants to be Emperor of the World makes little difference. Even the micropolitical climate btw terrorist groups is too at-odds and complex to be herded by the will of one, two, or even dozens of ppl.

BILL MOYERS: Is total-- is totalitarianism behind us? Is it an artifact of the 20th century?

CLIVE JAMES: It's behind us in that I think the-- liberal democracies in all their forms have no reason to fear it. Where there's a system that votes it probably won't come back in again. But it-- it-- it continues. Because I think it's-- it's a virus. It's a spirit. And it's in fanaticism. It's in extremism.

The biggest problem we face on the international scale is that-- is to protect the majority of Muslims, the vast majority of Islam, to convince them somehow that their extremists are their enemies and not just ours. And if we can't do that then we don't deserve to survive. And there's a reason why the majority is silent. And there's a very simple one. And that's fear. The extremists are very dangerous.

BILL MOYERS: Are you made uncomfortable by the large influx of Muslims into Britain?

CLIVE JAMES: No, I'm not. I'm made uncomfortable only by the fact that the imams are allowed to preach hatred in the mosques.

*************

Australia does a pretty good job, better than Britain. Because in Australia, a government spokesman-- he's actually the deputy prime minister-- had the strength to get up there on television and say to all Muslims, "You're welcome. Of course, you are. You're citizens. But you must-- your young people must give up a dream that this will ever be an Islamic republic. Australia will never have sharia law. Forget about it. What you've got here is law. And you must obey the law."

He actually got up and said it. This made it easier for moderate imams to shift the top guy. We won't go into detail here. But the top guy was bad news. And he'd been preaching all kinds of racial hatred for-- for years. And he really dissed himself when he said that women-deserved everything the got if they took their clothes off. Australian women take their clothes off very easily. It's a hot country. And he said-- he said every woman-- in a bikini was a message from the devil. And he wanted them all treated as if they were enemies.

And his own fellow imams managed to shift him. He was-- he was obliged to step down. In fact, he was fired.

BILL MOYERS: Yes, I remember that.

CLIVE JAMES: And-- what it gave them courage to do is they realized the state was unequivocally on their side. You've got-- you're dealing with a lot of people here. And only a few want to kill the rest. But only-- it only takes a few.

Terror has the advantage. For example, terrorism wants to destabilize your justice system. The minute you get people proposing new laws where people can be detained-- detained forever, it means terrorism is winning. That's exactly what terrorism wants. That will recruit more terrorists. It will turn the jails into Al Qaeda universities which is what is going to happen in Britain unless we're very careful.

Neil Mick
08-05-2007, 03:50 PM
U.S. willing to hit terrorists inside Pakistan, officials say

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_6465057

dps
08-05-2007, 05:53 PM
In my recent observations, Mr. Bush appears to have the same agenda as Bin-Laden (and some other un-named multitudes) and it is a race to see who will get there first.


There is a race and it is about power and influence in the world. To the victor goes the spoils. If we don't run the race we will definitely become the spoils. If we run the race and win we get to decide how the spoils get treated not the terrorist.

"O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

Osama Bin Laden

David

Mike Sigman
08-05-2007, 09:21 PM
"It's not reason that is at the heart of modern-day liberalism but rather the claim to superior virtue and, even more important, to a special knowledge unavailable to the unwashed or unenlightened."Maybe I should have just said ".... but rather basic dishonesty". Partisanship is only partisanship up to the point that it becomes blatant dishonesty. Even someone who publicly denounces his own country steadily, with no blame given to other countries and cultures, has to be able to recognize that there is something wrong with himself, if that is all that he does. Assuming rationality, of course. ;)

Regards,

Mike Sigman

dps
08-06-2007, 10:10 AM
***********************************************************

In listening to Bill Moyers the other night, I happened to catch a fascinating interview with cultural critic, Clive James. (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08032007/profile2.html) He had several interesting perspectives relevant to this discussion:

"It may seem unfair to condemn intellectuals who conspire to undermine vulgar democracy in favor of a refined dream for failing to foresee the subsequent nightmare. And Moeller was only one among many. But there were too many: That was the point. Too many ­well-­read men combined to prepare the way for a pitiless hoodlum who despised them, and they even came to value him for being a hoodlum: for lacking their scruples, for being a drum of nature."

Adolf Hitler How The Intellectual Climate In Germany Shaped The Future Führer.
By Clive James
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 21, 2007, at 12:41 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2160283/

The above quote is about the revolutionary conservative intellectuals prior to WWll. It applies to the revolutionary liberal intellectuals of our times.
They were not duped by Adolph Hitler, they were duped by themselves, Hitler only had to take advantage of them.

David

Neil Mick
08-06-2007, 02:05 PM
There is a race and it is about power and influence in the world. To the victor goes the spoils. If we don't run the race we will definitely become the spoils. If we run the race and win we get to decide how the spoils get treated not the terrorist.

translation..."us," versus "them."

And I may not know much: but I know that aikido is about getting around that particular paradigm. And I hear that the best place to start, is with oneself. It's where one can effect the greatest change; and we really need positive change right now, in this world.

The inevitable results of the "us versus them" paradigm are very clear, and we do not need to repeat the experiment. The definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly, and expecting a different result. It's time for a new paradigm.

I rest my case. :cool:

Neil Mick
08-06-2007, 03:43 PM
PS

Apples:

Adolf Hitler How The Intellectual Climate In Germany Shaped The Future Führer.
By Clive James
David

(Hitler: one man, only having to convince one nation that he's Der Fuhrer)

Oranges:

OBL, trying to convince the whole range of extremist Islamic terrorist groups, with all their divided loyalties (Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, whatever) nationalities, and tribalisms, throughout the world, that he's the Big Cheese, Now

David Orange
08-07-2007, 07:09 PM
OBL, trying to convince the whole range of extremist Islamic terrorist groups, with all their divided loyalties (Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, whatever) nationalities, and tribalisms, throughout the world, that he's the Big Cheese, Now

That's not the problem or OBL's aim.

He'd rather be a revered martyr than a Caliph having to deal with people.

All he has to do is convince all those tribes of something they're already strongly disposed to believe: that his god is the one and only god, that his prophet is that god's greatest prophet and that the West is their enemy. For people of that mind, simply destroying the enemy is enough for today, let come tomorrow what will.

David

jennifer paige smith
08-08-2007, 01:09 PM
[QUOTE=David Skaggs;185605]There is a race and it is about power and influence in the world. To the victor goes the spoils. If we don't run the race we will definitely become the spoils. If we run the race and win we get to decide how the spoils get treated not the terrorist.

"O Lord, shatter their gathering, divide them among themselves, shake the earth under their feet and give us control over them."

Osama Bin Laden"end of quote



I agree with a lot of this, David.

In the meantime, we are spoiling the Earth and last time I checked she wasn't very diplomatic about the whole thing either.

But that's enough for now. Thank You for the thought.

Neil Mick
08-08-2007, 02:46 PM
the West is their enemy.

For people of that mind, simply destroying the enemy is enough for today, let come tomorrow what will.

David

"Us," versus "them."

I don't need to fall into that paradigm, even if my "enemy" has fallen prey to it. That's why aikido works.

"In true budo there is no enemy or opponent. True budo is to become one with the universe, not train to become powerful or to throw down some opponent. Rather we train in hopes of being of some use, however small our role may be, in the task of bringing peace to mankind around the world."

"Budo is not a means of felling the opponent by force or by lethal weapons. Neither is it intended to lead the world to destruction by arms and other illegitimate means. True Budo calls for bringing the inner energy of the universe in order, protecting the peace of the world , as well as preserving, everything in nature in its right form.
If your opponent tries to pull you, let him pull. Don't pull against him; pull in unison with him.

Aikido does not rely on weapons or brute force to succeed; instead we put ourselves in tune with the universe, maintain peace in our own realms, nurture life, and prevent death and destruction. The true meaning of the term "samurai" is one who serves and adheres to the power of love".

“There is no discord in love. There is no enemy of love. A mind of discord, thinking of the existence of an enemy is no more consistent with the will of the kami.”

Even as my "enemy" (assuming that "they" do plan empires: and it's NOT a NeoCon pipedream) plots to build fantastic "empires of Islam," against the "crusader:" I don't have to put on any ideological (read: racist) crusader's armor to deal with terrorism.

Indeed, if I do...I have already lost.

dps
08-08-2007, 03:31 PM
...I felt the universe suddenly quake, and that a golden spirit sprang up from the ground, veiled my body, and changed my body into a golden one. At the same time my body became light. I was able to understand the whispering of the birds, and was clearly aware of the mind of god, the creator of the universe.

"At that moment I was enlightened: the source of budo is god's love - the spirit of loving protection for all beings... Budo is not the felling of an opponent by force; nor is it a tool to lead the world to destruction with arms. True Budo is to accept the spirit of the universe, keep the peace of the world, correctly produce, protect and cultivate all beings in nature.[11]"

"The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood. It is not a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek to compete and better one another are making a terrible mistake To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love."

O'Sensei

"To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do" but sometimes necessary to "keep the peace of the world", "protect", "to prevent such slaughter" in "the spirit of loving protection for all beings".

David

Guilty Spark
08-08-2007, 03:53 PM
There is a race and it is about power and influence in the world. To the victor goes the spoils. If we don't run the race we will definitely become the spoils. If we run the race and win we get to decide how the spoils get treated not the terrorist.

Well said.

Neil Mick
08-13-2007, 03:47 PM
... god's love - the spirit of loving protection for all beings...

keep the peace of the world, correctly produce,

protect and cultivate all beings in nature.[11]"

"The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter - it is the Art of Peace, the power of love."

O'Sensei

And exactly WHAT these quotes have to do with some prosaic "us v them" paradigm that you seem so stuck on...I'd really like to know.

The quotes I referenced all have to do with enemies, AKA "us v them (cf, the Cold War; the Allies v Axis; Europe v the East; Roundheads v Cavaliers ad nauseum); and how aikido is not focused upon making others into enemies.

OTOH, "Loving protection," and "preventing slaughter" has little to do with labelling a whole culture as the enemy, and hypothesizing that one extremist will one day become Calif of Islam.

"To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do" but sometimes necessary to "keep the peace of the world", "protect", "to prevent such slaughter" in "the spirit of loving protection for all beings".

David

..which is a nice, safe position to take, on a website frequented by martial artists.

Considering that we're talking worldviews and ideologies, however: such a worldview could easily turn, at worst, genocidal: and at best, discriminatory.

But since several of you are (willfully) not "getting it: let me draw the dots for the one who aren't being so willful.

1. Terrorists strike NYC, 2001. The President issues orders that hold OBL and Co responsible. Without giving the Taliban a chance to turn OBL over they bomb and invade Afghanistan, "accidentally" bombing the Al Jazeera station in the process.

2. It soon becomes abundantly clear that we cannot simply walk into a country and yank the malcontents out of a crowd, and march them off in chains. Cooler heads point out in order to catch OBL and other terrorists, we have to have the support of the Arab community.

3. The foreign intelligence agencies find themselves woefully unequipped to deal with finding intel on hostile internationals, especially in Afghanistan. They have almost NO Arabic-speaking agents at the start of the war; and ICE's mass detainments and extraditions of Arab's back home don't help the situation much, either.

4. We manage to depose the Taliban, install a former oil executive as puppet leader for Afghanistan. OBL is never caught; the much-touted reforms on the newly drafted constitution are forgotten; while the occupation drags on, nearly forgotten by the American people. The Taliban begins to rise in popular favor again: an alternative to the inability of the US to maintain security.

The heroin industry blooms.

5. Lacking the trust of the Arabs in Afghanistan and everywhere else (even amongst our so-called allies like Pakistan), the US leaders tell their soldiers that "the gloves are off." The occupiers offer rewards for "terrorists," and use mass-arrests and street-sweeps to apprehend "suspects."

6. Many people are tortured; an arbitrary and unnecessary system of quasi-justice is formed (completely outside international law and the Geneva Conventions); our own civil liberties and freedoms are being taken from us, and the general reputation of the US as the defender of freedom and human rights goes into the toilet.

Concurrently, many other countries follow suit, passing similar laws that curtail civil liberties in "emergencies." People die or are wrongfully imprisoned.

7. Back home, our President assures us that his chaotic foreign policy makes us safe, because there have been no attacks on US soil since we decided to turn Iraq into a running abattoir.

8. Meanwhile, the assaults against Islam and Muslims continue unabated. Invasion "cakewalks" turn into "long, hard slogs:" frontline (that is, from the safe, front lines of their desks, behind their monitors) warhawks in power get trounced out in a pathetic attempt to pretend that we have new strategies, and STILL, we villify the Arabs. Arabs get denied passage on airflights for wearing T-shirts with Arabic statements; and Arabic-language schools are under attack from the "leftwingbias'd" :rolleyes: media:

Principal at New NYC Arabic-Language School Forced to Resign (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/1346223)

AMY GOODMAN: The Khalil Gibran International Academy will be New York City's first public school dedicated to the study of the Arabic language and Arab culture. It's due to open this fall, but ever since plans for the school were announced early this year, it's been the object of a well-orchestrated attack from local rightwing media and neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes. The New York Sun has been relentlessly hostile, calling the school a place that could “groom future radicals."

In the latest setback, the principal of the school, Debbie Almontaser, resigned last week under pressure after she was lambasted by the media for publicly explaining that the word “intifada” literally means “shaking off” in Arabic. Her remarks, made last weekend, were in response to questions from the New York Post over the phrase “Intifada NYC,” which was printed on T-shirts sold by Arab Women Active in the Arts and Media, or AWAAM, a Brooklyn-based girl's empowerment organization. The shirts have no relation to Almontaser’s school. She was widely criticized for not denouncing the use of the word and condemning its use on the T-shirt. On Wednesday, a headline in the New York Post called her the “Intifada Principal.” This weekend, an editorial in the paper had the headline, “What’s Arabic for ‘Shut It Down’?”

In a statement on Friday, Debbie Almontaser said she was stepping down as principal of the school. She wrote, “I became convinced yesterday that this week’s headlines were endangering the viability of Khalil Gibran International Academy, even though I apologized.”

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he continued to support the school, but welcomed her departure. On his weekly radio program this weekend, Bloomberg said of Almontaser, “She's very smart. She's certainly not a terrorist. She really does care.”

Almontaser had a major hand in designing the Khalil Gibran the school. As described by its planners, it will offer a standard college preparatory curriculum, with instruction in Arabic each day and a focus on international studies.

Now I went and had a look at what "the opposition (your fave, Dave...Daniel Pipes)" had to say about this school. Yep, I like to hear what the "other side" has to say: and it took me only five minutes to "spot the mendacity:"

On New York's "Khalil Gibran International Academy" (http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/731)

My take on the school: In principle it is a great idea – the United States needs more Arabic-speakers.

Yes, even Pipes acknowledges the need for greater understanding...before he pulls out his big chopper:

In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands. For one powerful first-hand example of this problem at the collegiate level, see "Middlebury's Arabic Morass" by Franck Salameh. He explains:

even as students leave Middlebury with better Arabic, they also leave indoctrinated with a tendentious Arab nationalist reading of Middle Eastern history. Permeating lectures and carefully-designed grammatical drills, Middlebury instructors push the idea that Arab identity trumps local identities and that respect for minority ethnic and sectarian communities betrays Arabism.

For another specific case, see Shukri B. Abed, Focus on Contemporary Arabic: Conversations with Native Speakers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007); YUP conveniently has posted the table of contents (if backwards), where one chapter deals with "The Question of Palestine." The chapter contains eleven readings. To give an example of their flavor, the fifth of them states that the "Palestinian problem" is at base an issue of justice in which the Palestinians are the victims of a double standard.

Gods! Such a radical thought! :eek: That 500,000+ Palestinian's were forced off their lands in 1948, never to be allowed to return...while Jews are allowed to emigrate anytime they feel to Israel, is NOT a double standard??

Um, OK, never mind. It gets better...

For the heavy Islamic freight that Arabic instruction carries, see "Does Learning Arabic Prevent Moral Decay?" where one learns that some Muslims believe "Knowledge of Arabic can then help the Western countries recover from the present moral decay." (This is not as surprising as it sounds, for Muslims commonly assume that a non-Muslim who learns Arabic is en route to conversion to Islam; I experienced this many times during my Cairo years.)

OK, this is just plain silly on its face. Oh, I'm "sure" that Pipes met TONS of people under the impression that non-Muslims studying Arabic are on their way to conversion...riiiight.

This nonfact ignores that there are many, many Muslims who aren't even Islamic. In short,,,NEXT!

But Pipes is engaging in something that several post'ers here like to do, and that's put words in ppl's mouths. Here, let's look at what Pipes (http://jewishworldreview.com/0407/pipes042507.php3) was referring, when he mentioned "moral decay."

The Islamist dimension worries me as well. An organization that lobbies for Arabic instruction, the Arabic Language Institute Foundation, claims that knowledge of Islam's holy language can help the West recover from what its leader, Akhtar H. Emon, calls its "moral decay." In other words, Muslims tend to see non-Muslims learning Arabic as a step toward an eventual conversion to Islam, an expectation I encountered while studying Arabic in Cairo in the 1970s.

And now let's look at Pipes' source:

Bringing Arabic to U.S. / Canadian High Schools (http://hadi.org/ALIF/proposal/arabic-to-highschools.htm)

Arabic is the language of the Qur'an. In order to convey the message of Qur'an in North America and Europe, we have to first deliver its language. Knowledge of Arabic can then help the Western countries recover from the present moral decay. Shootings of the likes in Columbine High School, and an Diego schools are the symptoms and the signs (Ayah) from Allah. High School students in North America deserve better than the metal detectors to protect them. The whole system of education needs a moral shake-up. The Arabic Language Institute Foundation (ALIF), a Los Angeles-based organization is committed to this goal.

Generally, Arabs consider the West to be in a form of moral decay. They look at our violence and sex in our mass media and entertainment; our slavish media-attention to our movie-stars and ignorance of the greater issues, and they call it "moral decay."

Pipes extracts this to mean that Arab-language educators are out to make extremist madrassas, in our midst (note the ghoulish "war on Terror" banner):

A Madrasa Grows In Brooklyn (http://jewishworldreview.com/0407/pipes042507.php3)

Come September, an Arabic-language public secondary school is slated to open its doors in Brooklyn.

This appears to be a marvelous idea, for New York and the country need native-born Arabic speakers.

In practice, however, I strongly oppose the KGIA and predict that its establishment will generate serious problems. I say this because Arabic-language instruction is inevitably laden with pan-Arabist and Islamist baggage.

Watch again, while he employs his spin:

The Islamist dimension worries me as well. An organization that lobbies for Arabic instruction, the Arabic Language Institute Foundation, claims that knowledge of Islam's holy language can help the West recover from what its leader, Akhtar H. Emon, calls its "moral decay." In other words, Muslims tend to see non-Muslims learning Arabic as a step toward an eventual conversion to Islam, an expectation I encountered while studying Arabic in Cairo in the 1970s.

"in other words..." Pipes will now spoonfeed what he thinks Akhtar Emon was saying. And it just gets worse from there:

Arabs or Muslims, Ms. Almontaser says, are innocent of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001: "I don't recognize the people who committed the attacks as either Arabs or Muslims."

Oh, the horror, the horror...

Instead, she blames September 11 on Washington's foreign policies, saying they "can have been triggered by the way the USA breaks its promises with countries across the world, especially in the Middle East, and the fact that it has not been a fair mediator."

Save a spot in Gitmo for this one! :eek: But no: Pipes' good works are already evident: he and his cronies managed to force a strong force in bringing what he himself admits we very much need, to resign, based solely upon his own fears and the political views of the woman.

Not ONE SHRED of evidence so far has been brought forth, suggesting that these people wish to promote anti-Western views.

(thinking a culture corrupt does not = being opposed to it.

A few years' ago I had a conversation with a rightwing aikidoist, who felt that our culture was "polluted." He used the term "cultural pollution" several times, and I could hardly doubt that he thought himself pro-American).

Instead, we force our academics to resign based upon fear. Hardly an efficient means to "win the war on terror." :yuck:

Amir Krause
08-14-2007, 04:12 PM
Hi Neil

Happy to see you are back.

I support your view regarding the reaching of Arabic and Arabic culture, but would like to point out, that your grasp of the "currupt elements" in the western culture does not match the impression I got so far, when I heared quite a few arab speakers on TV:
Generally, Arabs consider the West to be in a form of moral decay. They look at our violence and sex in our mass media and entertainment; our slavish media-attention to our movie-stars and ignorance of the greater issues, and they call it "moral decay."

My impression was that quite a few Arabs find one root of western world curruption in the status of woman in our societies, compared to theirs. The women liberation, is generally viewed is corruption by many Arab speakers. I recently saw a documentry about this and heard some local Arab leaders talk of their opposing new trends wich enter the women in thier community. A similar thing happened recently with an Arab Israeli singer who joined the "a star is born" competition and got lots of resentment in her own community. Being a new celebrity, it was published beyond proportion.
There are a few other similar issues, such as parents rights over their children, precedence of law or custom, real freedom of religion and from religion. In general, it is a clash of liberal concepts and values, with another culture, which hasits own concepts and values, and is often not even open to debate on the fundamental tenents - given by God.
By the way, the above resentment and feeling of corruption is not unique to the Arab world, it is a trate of most traditional societies when facing the modern liberal west. And you can count the Orthodox Jews as one of those societies too. At times this even causes very strange and supposeddly impossible poltical couplings here, of the right extremists and the Arabs.

However, if one wishes to discuss fundamental concepts with another, he should at least learn a little about him. While learning Aikido we learn a lot about Japanese. What is so wrong in learning of other cultures? (I am assuming your learning process is not assimilation, but rather a critical study - indicating the negatives as well as the positives. Otherwise, you are not learning - you are being indocrinated, and all cultures love to do the latter in the disguise of the former)

Amir

(could not use the speller this time, sorry)

Neil Mick
08-15-2007, 12:57 PM
Hi Neil

Happy to see you are back.

Hi Amir,

Thank you...altho my partner is accusing me of being a forum-addict (the worrisome thing is...she's probably right :freaky: ).

I support your view regarding the reaching of Arabic and Arabic culture,

Good, then we are pretty much in agreement.

but would like to point out, that your grasp of the "currupt elements" in the western culture does not match the impression I got so far, when I heared quite a few arab speakers on TV:

My impression was that quite a few Arabs find one root of western world curruption in the status of woman in our societies, compared to theirs. The women liberation, is generally viewed is corruption by many Arab speakers.

I have several thoughts on this. Yes, Sharia law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) could be interpreted in some countries to be detrimental to women's rights, but...

Islam has no clergy, but women may become religious scholars. In practice, it is much more common for men to be scholars than women. Early Muslim scholars such as Abu-Hanifa and Al-Tabary held that there is nothing wrong with women holding a post as responsible as that of judge. Many interpretations of Islamic law hold that women may not have prominent jobs, and thus are forbidden from working in the government. This has been a mainstream view in many Muslim nations in the last century, despite the example of Muhammad's wife Aisha, who both took part in politics and was a major authority on hadith. Islam does not prohibit women from working, as it says "Treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."[20] Married women may seek employment although it is often thought in patriarchal societies that the woman's role as a wife and mother should have first priority.

Islam unequivocally allows both single and married women to own property in their own right. Islam restored to women the right to inherit property, in contrast with some cultures where women themselves are considered chattels that can be inherited.

There even is a feminist movement within Islam: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism)

Islamic feminism is a form of feminism concerned with the role of women in Islam. It aims for the full equality of all Muslims, regardless of sex or gender, in public and private life. Islamic feminists advocate women's rights, gender equality, and social justice grounded in an Islamic framework. Although rooted in Islam, the movement's pioneers have also utilised secular and Western feminist discourses and recognise the role of Islamic feminism as part of an integrated global feminist movement[1]. Advocates of the movement seek to highlight the deeply rooted teachings of equality in the Quran and encourage a questioning of the patriarchal interpretation of Islamic teaching through the Quran (holy book), hadith (sayings of Muhammed) and sharia (law) towards the creation of a more equal and just society.[2] In general, it can be categorised as one of the more liberal movements within Islam.

But sure, I'd say that many Muslim countries need a ways to go before they have what could properly be called equal rights. I also find the practice of female circumcision in many African Islamic countries to be particularly barbaric.

But, aren't these facets of the region, rather than Islam? Sure, many leaders claim Sharia law as they trounce on women's rights: but aren't they just using Islam as a "handy excuse" to enforce their barbarism?

I don't know, but this is somewhat tangential to the main issue of my debate. I was talking more about putting words and simplistic ideas in people's mouths and heads. When Akhtar Emon was talking about "moral decay," he stated:

Shootings of the likes in Columbine High School, and an Diego schools are the symptoms and the signs (Ayah) from Allah. High School students in North America deserve better than the metal detectors to protect them. The whole system of education needs a moral shake-up.

From this, Daniel Pipes assumes that

In practice, however, Arabic instruction is heavy with Islamist and Arabist overtones and demands.

In effect, he is suggesting that Islamic studies will "brainwash" kids into fundamentalist extremism, and that this is the goal of the Islamic educators.

I have a real problem with how Pipes gets from "A" to "B." He makes allegations without a single shred of evidence to base his fear.

Sure, Islamic culture (in some areas of the world) lacks the foundation of women's rights that I wish they'd have (and feel that one day, they'll attain), but this is more about a NeoConservative using fear and ignorance to attack a much-needed institution in this country.

I recently saw a documentry about this and heard some local Arab leaders talk of their opposing new trends wich enter the women in thier community. A similar thing happened recently with an Arab Israeli singer who joined the "a star is born" competition and got lots of resentment in her own community. Being a new celebrity, it was published beyond proportion.
There are a few other similar issues, such as parents rights over their children, precedence of law or custom, real freedom of religion and from religion. In general, it is a clash of liberal concepts and values, with another culture, which hasits own concepts and values, and is often not even open to debate on the fundamental tenents - given by God.

Yes...all agreed. Some Islamic societies DO have a long way to go, in their treatment of women. But again: the treatment varies throughout the Islamic world. Women in Afghanistan (or Africa), for example, have it worse off than women in Jordan.

By the way, the above resentment and feeling of corruption is not unique to the Arab world, it is a trate of most traditional societies when facing the modern liberal west. And you can count the Orthodox Jews as one of those societies too. At times this even causes very strange and supposeddly impossible poltical couplings here, of the right extremists and the Arabs.

However, if one wishes to discuss fundamental concepts with another, he should at least learn a little about him. While learning Aikido we learn a lot about Japanese. What is so wrong in learning of other cultures? (I am assuming your learning process is not assimilation, but rather a critical study - indicating the negatives as well as the positives. Otherwise, you are not learning - you are being indocrinated, and all cultures love to do the latter in the disguise of the former)

Amir

Yep, total agreement with you, again (gosh, this must be some sort of record! We AGREE so much! But actually, I bet we'd agree on a LOT of issues, if we sat down and had a discussion in realtime...) :circle: :square: :triangle:

Amir Krause
08-16-2007, 03:55 AM
Neil

I have a real problem with how Pipes gets from "A" to "B." He makes allegations without a single shred of evidence to base his fear.

I don't know Pipes, So I could not comment on any of his ideas or interpretations.

But sure, I'd say that many Muslim countries need a ways to go before they have what could properly be called equal rights. I also find the practice of female circumcision in many African Islamic countries to be particularly barbaric.

But, aren't these facets of the region, rather than Islam? Sure, many leaders claim Sharia law as they trounce on women's rights: but aren't they just using Islam as a "handy excuse" to enforce their barbarism?


I chose "women’s rights" as an example for a significant difference in values between a traditional society and the modern western liberal society. As I implied, you could find quite a few other such fundamental differences in values and concepts, including education, science, and tolerance towards other cultures.
A horrifying example of the last is the report I heard yesterday on the radio about the Suny Al-Kaieda massacre of some religious group which resided in a couple of villages near the Kurds in Iraq. Such actions, driven only by faith, are unimaginable in modern western liberal society. For contemplating such actions in the latter society, a leader would have to persuade his soldiers these people are a threat to their own, the difference in faith \ origin in itself would not be sufficient reason, and he would have to expect significant repercussions from within his society.
I wish to emphasize, I am not talking of Islam rather on traditional societies. Similar moral can be found in other traditional cultures, look at the genocides in Africa, or a totally different level (incomparable), the reasoning driving fundamental Jewish orthodox rioting for the protection of own against the law, or the reasoning driving fundamental Christians fighting against abortions.

People blame Islam, as though it is only a characteristic of the problem, a cultural clash between a certain traditional culture and the modern western liberal society.

When you try to look at modern interpretations of Islam, and show there is no reason for the surrounding cultural habits (as in your above quote). You are doing the same mistake, talking of the features of a characteristic, rather then concentrating on the real issue.
An Islamic believer could belong to the modern western liberal society.

Amir

Mike Sigman
08-16-2007, 02:48 PM
I have a real problem with how Pipes gets from "A" to "B." He makes allegations without a single shred of evidence to base his fear.Geez.... those wonderful, peaceful, Islamic "cultures":

http://www.examiner.com/a-883730~John_R__Thomson__Whose_genocide_will_it_be_.html

It must be Bush's fault.

Mike

Taliesin
08-17-2007, 03:44 AM
As opposed to wonderful, peaceful, 'Christian' cultures I suppose.

Mike Sigman
08-17-2007, 08:19 AM
I realize the West-haters will always try to spin it out with moral relativism, but look at the numbers that have stretched out over the centuries and continue into the present.... there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity. The rest of the world has moved on... Islam is still medieval and barbaric. The rest of the world is making microchips; Islamic countries are making potato chips and killing anyone who doesn't conform to their beliefs. Of course, there are those who simply trivialize the deaths of others in order to shelter partisan belief, but that says enough in itself.

John Kerry, BTW, when recently asked about the 2 million or so who died in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam when the US was pulled out of the war, said, "It didn't happen". He wrote an extremely silly letter to the WSJ trying to explain how people misunderstood his words, when he was called on it. Let's not be just as silly about what Islam is doing now, in the present, by trying to bring up the Crusades (you know, which started when Mohammed won his civil war, killed all Jews and Christians on the peninsula, and started taxing Christians to see the Holy Land?).

Mike

Budd
08-17-2007, 08:51 AM
I'm also wondering why it's okay for a religious leader on one side to call for the deaths of pretty much anyone (outside and within their own faith) not in their specific sect, but when a religious leader on the other side calls aspects of the original religious practice "barbaric", the representatives of the original religion then go kill multiple persons of the other religion in "protest".

Seems to be kind of proving the second group's point . . .

Taliesin
08-17-2007, 09:07 AM
Mike - as you're an American - perhaps to can explain what those nice christian soldiers did at Sand Creek, perhaps you to want to explain the 'Christian' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, perhaps you can explain the mass of 'Christian' (WASP)serial killers in the USA, or those nice Catholic Mafiosi, or the Christian KKK

And that's before you get to the history of Christians throughout the world - in places like, say, Northern Ireland,

By the way the argument that because they are committing 'worse' atrocities than 'us' we are the good guys IS MORAL RELATIVISM . - Saying both atrocities committed by 'our' side and 'their' side are both wrong is not. (because unlike your argument it is not based 'relative' merits).

Mike Sigman
08-17-2007, 09:22 AM
Mike - as you're an American - perhaps to can explain what those nice christian soldiers did at Sand Creek, Is this a joke? We're talking hundreds of thousands and millions of people being killed worldwide by Islam and you bring up the hundreds-of-years-old Sand Creek Massacre as a comparison? Don't get me started on the fictional "Indian as Victim" thing.... real history was quite different from what you saw on the BBC. Indians killed each other and decimated entire tribes at a rate the whites never surpassed. There is growing evidence that there were other peoples (from Asia, perhaps Europe, and the Pacific) before the current Indians migrated to North America.... all those people were killed off, as were the species of many animals indigenous to North America. There's always 2 sides to a story, David... not just the "hate-America; hate-the-West" version.

But back to Islam. Notice that in response to the overwhelming numbers of deaths perpetrated world-wide and over the centuries, all you could do was try to shift the discussion and blame somewhere else instead of commenting on the actual facts of what I said.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-18-2007, 05:26 PM
Hi Amir,

I am not talking of Islam rather on traditional societies. Similar moral can be found in other traditional cultures, look at the genocides in Africa, or a totally different level (incomparable), the reasoning driving fundamental Jewish orthodox rioting for the protection of own against the law, or the reasoning driving fundamental Christians fighting against abortions.

People blame Islam, as though it is only a characteristic of the problem, a cultural clash between a certain traditional culture and the modern western liberal society.

OK, I think we have a meeting of minds, on this. Sure, traditional societies (or, societies bound by tribal connections) will sometimes use religion as a catalyst to attack someone else.

I don't think we disagree on that issue.

When you try to look at modern interpretations of Islam, and show there is no reason for the surrounding cultural habits (as in your above quote). You are doing the same mistake, talking of the features of a characteristic, rather then concentrating on the real issue. An Islamic believer could belong to the modern western liberal society.

Yes, there IS a big place for Islamic believers in modern western society. And, of course, it goes without saying that Islam affects the culture and politics, and the practice of Islam is affected, in turn, by the conditions of the people living there. Salafism, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafist) for example, is a good example of how religious attitudes change in reaction to physical realities.

Salafism is a reaction to the “corruption” of “modern” influences.

Perhaps the principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences.

A horrifying example of the last is the report I heard yesterday on the radio about the Suny Al-Kaieda massacre of some religious group which resided in a couple of villages near the Kurds in Iraq. Such actions, driven only by faith, are unimaginable in modern western liberal society.

Terrible news, wasn't it? :(

Iraq Suicide Bomb Toll Could Top 500

At least five hundred people are now feared dead from Tuesday’s massive suicide bombing in northern Iraq. The initial toll of two-hundred fifty had already made it the deadliest attack of the Iraq war. Rescue workers continue to pull bodies from the rubble of more than thirty destroyed buildings, including several homes. The bombings targeted a Kurdish area home to followers of the Yazidi religion. Three suicide trucks carrying two tons of explosives attacked almost simultaneously.

I don't know Pipes, So I could not comment on any of his ideas or interpretations.

Daniel Pipes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pipes)

Daniel Pipes (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian and counter-terrorism analyst who specializes in the Middle East. He has written or co-written 18 books, maintains a blog, and lectures around the world presenting his analysis of world trends. His work has attracted both admiration and criticism as a result of his view that Islamism is incompatible with democracy, freedom, multiculturalism, and human rights.

In short, Daniel Pipes is a fearmonger.

But, you have it lucky, in a sense, Amir. Your media has a much clearer picture of the situation than it is over here. On this side of the world, the picture is very simple…black and white.

As opposed to wonderful, peaceful, 'Christian' cultures I suppose.

Hi David,

I'm not sure why you're even bothering. In the world according to Mike: there simply IS no such thing as "moderates" in Islam. To read his posts, you'd think that all Islamic peoples support extremism.

To support his arguments, he offers up a sequence of conflations, generalizations and exaggerations, such as

Geez.... those wonderful, peaceful, Islamic "cultures":

http://www.examiner.com/a-883730~Joh...ll_it_be_.html

when any objective reader can easily research this to show how wrong he is. There are plenty of statements and examples of Muslim and Islamic groups who oppose violence:

U.S. MUSLIM RELIGIOUS COUNCIL ISSUES FATWA AGAINST TERRORISM (http://cair.com/FatwaJuly2005.pdf)
The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam's absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.
Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians’ life and
property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram – or forbidden - and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not “martyrs.”

Israeli Occupation Conflict 101 (http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/101conflict.shtml)

Q: I only hear about Palestinian terrorist or nationalist groups. Where is the Palestinian "voice for peace"?

A: There are many different Palestinian peace groups, just as there are many different Israeli and Jewish peace groups. Unfortunately, we hear little about them in the media, even the Israeli and Arab media. But they are active, and, just like the Israeli peace camp, some part of them is also reflected in Palestinian leadership.
It was Israel that cut off negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in January 2001 at Taba, when, according to all parties involved, a deal had never been closer. Ehud Barak was about to be voted out, and he felt unable to present compromises to the Israeli public amid the violence that was occurring and being at the end of his tenure. From reports from both sides, this included being closer than ever to an agreement on the Palestinian refugees, final borders and Jerusalem. Surely this indicates some willingness, on both sides, to reach peace.

There are many Palestinian groups and individuals who are working for peace and justice for both sides. These include the Palestinian National Initiative led by Mustafa Barghouti; the Miftah human rights NGO led by Hanan Ashrawi; the Palestinian Center for Rapprochement in Bet Sahur; the Holy Land Trust in Bethlehem; the Palestinian Center for Human Rights led by Raji Sourani; Wi?am, the Palestinian Center for Conflict Resolution, headed by Zoughbi Zoughbi; the respected psychiatrist Iyad al-Sarraj in Gaza, who has been the head of the Palestinian Independent Commission for Citizens' Rights; the joint Palestinian-Israeli women's peace group, the Jerusalem Link, whose Palestinian half is called the Jerusalem Center for Women. Many of these groups are known throughout the Palestinians territories and are enormously respected. They are all quite active, and there are many similar groups.

The Palestinian Initiative for Global Dialogue and Democracy (http://www.miftah.org/AboutUs.cfm)

Established in December 1998, with Hanan Ashrawi as its Secretary-General, MIFTAH's aim is to serve as a Palestinian platform for global dialogue and cooperation guided by the principles of democracy, human rights, gender equity, and participatory governance. To this end, MIFTAH undertakes the pro-active generation and presentation of policy proposals and the focused dissemination of reliable information.

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (http://www.pchrgaza.org/about_pchr.htm)

The Centre is an independent Palestinian human rights organization based in Gaza City. The Centre was established in 1995 by a group of Palestinian lawyers and human rights activists in order to:

Protect human rights and promote the rule of law in accordance with international standards.

Create and develop democratic institutions and an active civil society, while promoting democratic culture within Palestinian society.

Support all the efforts aimed at enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its inalienable rights in regard to self-determination and independence in accordance with international Law and UN resolutions.

The Holy Land Trust (http://www.holylandtrust.org/)

Mission Statement
Holy Land Trust seeks to strengthen and encourage the Palestinian community by providing it with the means to build a future founded on the principles of nonviolence, justice and peace. This is realized through creating local and global awareness programs, engaging in advocacy initiatives, and building of global networks and partnerships.

The Free Muslims Coalition (http://www.freemuslims.org/)

Taking our religion back one Muslim at a time
We believe in the re-interpretation of Islam for the 21st century where terrorism is not justified under any circumstances.

We believe in the separation of religion and state.

We believe that democracy is the best form of government.

We believe in the promotion of secularism in all forms of political activity.

We believe that equality for women is an inalienable right.

We believe that religion is a personal relationship between the individual and his or her God and is not to be forced on anyone.

Muslims Against Terrorism (http://www.rayhawk.com/classics/matusa/home.html)

Mike chooses not to acknowledge these groups, all the while conflating all Muslims with extremism. But more on that later.

Mike - as you're an American - perhaps to can explain what those nice christian soldiers did at Sand Creek, perhaps you to want to explain the 'Christian' philosophy of Manifest Destiny, perhaps you can explain the mass of 'Christian' (WASP)serial killers in the USA, or those nice Catholic Mafiosi, or the Christian KKK

And that's before you get to the history of Christians throughout the world - in places like, say, Northern Ireland,

By the way the argument that because they are committing 'worse' atrocities than 'us' we are the good guys IS MORAL RELATIVISM . - Saying both atrocities committed by 'our' side and 'their' side are both wrong is not. (because unlike your argument it is not based 'relative' merits).

But I'm a little surprised that you're trying to argue relativism with Mike...AGAIN. His M.O. is all too familiar: posit a series of strawmen and unsourceable facts to buttress his prosaic notions.

Take, for instance, his directive to

look at the numbers that have stretched out over the centuries and continue into the present.... there is no comparison between Islam and Christianity.

Yes...let's do that: let's "look at the numbers."

um....

Hello? Does anyone actually HAVE an accurate set of statistics for all the deaths caused by Muslim extremism, as opposed to all the deaths caused by Christian extremism (considering such historical highlights as the Crusades; the Inquisition; germ warfare unleashed on the Amerindian; the US Sanctions (over 1.5 million children "served")??

Shout out if you do: Mike's strawmen are looking a little deflated. ;)

So Mike bases his statements on unprovable "facts," peppered liberally with distortions...

Indians killed each other and decimated entire tribes at a rate the whites never surpassed. There is growing evidence

(I'd so love to see this "growing evidence," but if his past record of sourcing is any indication...perhaps not. Looking up Mike's references is more akin to watching a straw man's reflection endlessly repeated in a hall of mirrors...all style, but empty of much else beyond speculation.

IMO, you could file this "growing evidence" under "some people say..." and other pseudo-factual opinions proferred by those stalwarts at FoxNews and the like :hypno: ).

that there were other peoples (from Asia, perhaps Europe, and the Pacific) before the current Indians migrated to North America.... all those people were killed off, as were the species of many animals indigenous to North America.

Yeah, this PROVES how barbaric the Amerindians were..and so the US Army was perfectly justified in taking their lands, outlawing their culture (as was done via the Bureau of Indian Affairs), parcelling out tender gifts of smallpox-infected blankets, to the unknowing tribes, coining such wonderful sentiments on human kindness as "the only good Indian is a dead Indian (originally coined by a US Army general)." :rolleyes: .

In sum, Mike cannot seem to distinguish moderate supporters of Islam from the extremists. Imagine if everything I said about Christians were focused upon abortion clinic bombers and extremists?

If I were specifically talking about one race of people...distorting their religious beliefs as some mass-excuse for all the chaos and violence going on in the region where they live: you might surmise that I was a racist. And you know what? You'd be right.

Mike likes to delineate the "modern West" from "Muslims." Try an experiment--go back to Mike's previous posts on the subject. Whenever he mentions "Islam," he's talking almost entirely about extremists. But as Amir and I have amply illustrated above: Muslims DO have a place in Western society. It's unfortunate that some people can only see things through the wafer-thin lens of prejudice and racism.

What surprises me, though, is why you carry on the same debate with him, over and over again. At this point, I can practically write Mike's responses for him: he's getting so predictable. :hypno:

IMO, he should just save time and limit his responses to reconstituted old quotes of himself...he's hardly brought anything new to the debating table, in quite some time.

Taliesin
08-19-2007, 08:10 AM
Neil

Would not replying to Mike be depriving him of an opportunity to brandish his ignorance and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment?

BTW - even if Mike could dig up credible evidence (unlikely but theoretically possible) he would still be doing nothing but making a relativist argument - ie bombing Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Oklahoma City, wasn't as bad as what Moslems do.

Mike

I appreciate your dedication to Moral Relativism - Indian's killed each other, often to obtain bounties paid by Christians (for scalps), therefore the atrocities 'we' Christians committed aren't so bad, therefore we are the good guys.(After all there was never anything wrong with basing Slavery on the Bible)

and your inability to explain the mass of 'Christian' (WASP)serial killers in the USA (& UK), or those nice Catholic Mafiosi, or the Christian KKK -

or do you take the view that "the old truth is confirmed: 'What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Muslim does is thrown back at all Muslims.'" (To paraphrase a well known diarist)

PS: And if Sand Creek is too far in the past what about Me Lai (spl),

Neil Mick
08-19-2007, 12:18 PM
Neil

Would not replying to Mike be depriving him of an opportunity to brandish his ignorance and therefore amount to cruel and unusual punishment?

Isn't it cruel and unusual punishment to read the same posts every time the word "Arab" or "Islam" is mentioned? Who's torturing whom? :crazy:

BTW - even if Mike could dig up credible evidence (unlikely but theoretically possible)

OK, I have a great imagination! I am imagining an alternate universe where Mike presents credible evidence.

Concentrating....concentrating...

temperature rising...vision, blurring! Rage, taking OVER! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn--aCHqrPs) :D :D

Nope, sorry. It's just beyond my superpowers to imagine. ;)

he would still be doing nothing but making a relativist argument - ie bombing Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or Oklahoma City, wasn't as bad as what Moslems do.

Yes, beheading four contractors trumps millions of people systematically starved and bombed for 10 years (with an illegal invasion and occupation, for dessert), every time... :hypno:

jennifer paige smith
08-19-2007, 12:51 PM
Is this a joke? We're talking hundreds of thousands and millions of people being killed worldwide by Islam and you bring up the hundreds-of-years-old Sand Creek Massacre as a comparison? Don't get me started on the fictional "Indian as Victim" thing.... real history was quite different from what you saw on the BBC. Indians killed each other and decimated entire tribes at a rate the whites never surpassed. There is growing evidence that there were other peoples (from Asia, perhaps Europe, and the Pacific) before the current Indians migrated to North America.... all those people were killed off, as were the species of many animals indigenous to North America. There's always 2 sides to a story, David... not just the "hate-America; hate-the-West" version.

But back to Islam. Notice that in response to the overwhelming numbers of deaths perpetrated world-wide and over the centuries, all you could do was try to shift the discussion and blame somewhere else instead of commenting on the actual facts of what I said.

Mike Sigman

They aren't being killed by 'Islam'. They are being killed by bombs, guns, mines, starvation, dehydration and disease and ,perhaps, overpopulation.
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."-bumpersticker

So, in some peples hands 'Islam' is a gun. Just as in some peoples hands a sword is a means to kill rather than a method of powerful life generating wisdom (Takemusu Aiki Budo).

Not a relative moralism here I don't think either; Simply a more direct equation. Just add any 'ism' or 'ity' or 'do'.

David Orange
08-19-2007, 04:00 PM
...or do you take the view that "the old truth is confirmed: 'What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Muslim does is thrown back at all Muslims.'" (To paraphrase a well known diarist)

A person cannot define himself as a Christian except by his deeds. If someone murders, though he might call himself a Christian, he's going against all the Christian scripture. He cannot do it and "be" a Christian, though he can "call" himself a Christian.

However, there are many passages in the Koran and the hadiths that can be construed to demand the murder (literally "murder") of non-believers, Christians, Jews, atheists and other non-muslims. Many muslims and western apologists tell us that these passages refer to specific historical situations, certain conditions, etc., etc., so that they are not actual calls to murder. Yet fatwas of death are issued even today for people like Salmaan Rushdie. And Mr. Van Gogh in the Netherlands had a note stabbed into his chest citing Islamic reasons for his murder.

We can argue whether those killers are muslims but they can quote the Koran as justification. No one can quote Christ or any of his disciples or the apostles to justify any killing. Christianity in fact puts one at quite a disadvantage in secular matters.

Further, I'm not familiar with too many murderers or mass murderers who have even called themselves "Christians." Well...there's George Bush....but we're not talking politicians here. Did William Calley say that he was acting as a Christian at My Lai? Many people list Tim McVeigh as "a Christian murderer," yet I don't recall ever having seen where McVeigh called himself a Christian or that he attempted to justify murder with Christian scripture. It cannot be done.

But back to Bush. I remember someone on these boards saying he liked Bush "because he's not afraid to say he's a Christian."

But any snake-oil salesman is proud to call himself a Christian if it helps him peddle his poison and Christian scriptures say, "By their fruits you shall know them."

Bush is a cruel person who walks on the poor for the benefit of the rich. He has destabilized the entire world and is responsible for probably hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide. The only way I would associate "Christ" with his name would be in the term "Anti-Christ."

David

Mike Sigman
08-19-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm not familiar with too many murderers or mass murderers who have even called themselves "Christians." Well...there's George BushYou know, I'm not a defender of George Bush, but he's at least got a little humanity and a lot less ego in him than some of the opinionaters in our extremist elements. That was a fairly sickening comment.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-19-2007, 05:36 PM
A person cannot define himself as a Christian except by his deeds. If someone murders, though he might call himself a Christian, he's going against all the Christian scripture. He cannot do it and "be" a Christian, though he can "call" himself a Christian.

Yeah, what a kindhearted ode to loving peacefulness, is the Bible: :rolleyes:

19:12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.

19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.

19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

There have been whole nations, called to commit mass murder in the name of the Christian God. Wars have been waged, families mass murdered, over whether or not a Catholic priest really is the true spokesman for God; or who really deserves to be called Pope (at one time, three different people claimed the title).

So, "we're" so much better, because "their" book (written in a time of great political turmoil) calls for the "deaths" of "unbelievers?"

However, there are many passages in the Koran and the hadiths that can be construed to demand the murder (literally "murder") of non-believers, Christians, Jews, atheists

"Many?" No I don't think so.

Many muslims and western apologists tell us that these passages refer to specific historical situations, certain conditions, etc., etc., so that they are not actual calls to murder. Yet fatwas of death are issued even today for people like Salmaan Rushdie. And Mr. Van Gogh in the Netherlands had a note stabbed into his chest citing Islamic reasons for his murder.

And yet you conveniently ignore the fatwas calling for an end to violence (as the one I linked above); or the fatwa called by the Supreme Ruler of Iran, proscribing a ban against the use of nuclear weapons.

We can argue whether those killers are muslims but they can quote the Koran as justification.

As the devil can quote scripture to meet HIS ends...

No one can quote Christ or any of his disciples or the apostles to justify any killing. Christianity in fact puts one at quite a disadvantage in secular matters.

Yes, those witchhunters in Salem and Eastern Europe were at their wits' end, trying to find loopholes in the Bible that would justify their murderous schemes-for-profit. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I'm guessing that you thought that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," NOT as a call to slaughter pagans, huh??

Or, perhaps you'll argue that the witch-burnings were referring

to specific historical situations, certain conditions, etc., etc., so that they are not actual calls to murder.

Uh huh. :freaky:

Further, I'm not familiar with too many murderers or mass murderers who have even called themselves "Christians."

Christian Terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism)

Christian terrorist organizations

Army of God
Several Christians who have targeted abortion providers have had close ties to the militant organization Army of God, including the former Presbyterian minister Paul Jennings Hill, Michael F. Griffin, and the Reverend Michael Bray. Eric Rudolph, Clayton Waagner, and James Kopp all had links to the Army of God.

National Liberation Front of Tripura
The National Liberation Front of Tripura is a Fundamentalist Christian militant group in India, demanding a separate Christian state. Allegedly funded by the Baptist Church of Tripura, it is accused of ethnic cleansing and bombings that have killed hundreds, as well as forcing gunpoint conversions. They were declared a terrorist organization under the Prevention of Terrorism Act in 2002

Lord's Resistance Army
Lord's Resistance Army (formerly known as the Uganda Peoples' Democratic Christian Army, it mixed several belief systems. It has recently downplayed its Christian roots, but still springs from a predominantly Christian support base)

Freedomites
Freedomites (also Svobodniki or Sons of Freedom, Canada, 1902-present)

David Orange
08-19-2007, 06:03 PM
You know, I'm not a defender of George Bush, but he's at least got a little humanity and a lot less ego in him than some of the opinionaters in our extremist elements. That was a fairly sickening comment.

Bush is a fairly sickening guy. When he was governor in Texas, over 130 people were executed. None were pardoned. None had a stay issued. He even made fun of a woman who begged him for mercy and he mocked her. He has also overseen federal executions and let us not forget Shock and Awe.

He tortured small animals as a child. He is a classic sociopath.

David

Mike Sigman
08-19-2007, 06:14 PM
Bush is a fairly sickening guy. When he was governor in Texas, over 130 people were executed. None were pardoned. None had a stay issued Is it your idea that people shouldn't live by the laws of the land and the governors should decide what people do... not the courts? If the courts and people of Texas assign a punishment, you think their decisions should be overridden in such a way as to conform with YOUR idea of what is right? How much more self-absorbed can you get? He even made fun of a woman who begged him for mercy and he mocked her. Here's a chance for you.... give us the quote of George Bush "making fun" of a woman who has personally begged him for mercy. Not an opinion; a quote. Let's see who the real unethical villain is here... you or Bush. Give us the quote. He has also overseen federal executions and let us not forget Shock and Awe. Is this the time of day when you tipple or something? That makes no sense whatsoever.

But back to your first comment, which you're avoiding. You called George W. Bush a murderer. Do you stand by your statement? Even Clinton, who brought the whole 9/11 deaths things on the heads of 3,000 people can't be said to be a "murderer" for doing so.... at most he would be "criminally negligent" or "inept". Of course, I realize that feelings are the same things as facts to you fanatics, but let's try to keep the English language untainted by fuzziness, shall we? That way we can all communicate.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

He tortured small animals as a child. He is a classic sociopath.

David[/QUOTE]

David Orange
08-19-2007, 06:17 PM
There have been whole nations, called to commit mass murder in the name of the Christian God.

And where did the Scripture call for that?

You see, that's how easy it is to see that these were Antichristian movements. "Many will come in my name," Jesus said, specifying that they would be deceivers. Nothing about Christianity approves that.

Wars have been waged, families mass murdered, over whether or not a Catholic priest really is the true spokesman for God; or who really deserves to be called Pope (at one time, three different people claimed the title).

Ditto that. There is no call for a Pope in Christian scripture. No allowance for murder.

So, "we're" so much better, because "their" book (written in a time of great political turmoil) calls for the "deaths" of "unbelievers?"

You're twisting there, Neil. I only point out dispassionately that no one can murder in the name of Christianity, but passages in the Koran specifically command the follower to murder non-believers.

"Many?" No I don't think so.

How many do you need, Neil? Is one too few? Is two too few?

And yet you conveniently ignore the fatwas calling for an end to violence (as the one I linked above); or the fatwa called by the Supreme Ruler of Iran, proscribing a ban against the use of nuclear weapons.

I didn't ignore them. I didn't address them. I also haven't addressed nuclear power or fascia in this thread because they are not the point. The point is that Muslim scripture calls, in places, for literal murder of non-believers while no scripture in Christianity justifies it and every scripture in Christianity condemns it. People like you claim that the calls for murder in Koran either don't exist, were meant for another time or aren't believed. You ignore the many, many calls by Muslim leaders to murder various infidels.

As the devil can quote scripture to meet HIS ends...

If Satan casts out Satan, he is still cast out.

I'm guessing that you thought that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live," NOT as a call to slaughter pagans, huh??

Huh. All Bush had to do was declare Iraq a nation of witches!

As I said, neither Jesus, nor his disciples nor his apostles said that. There were some encounters with witches in the New Testament, but I don't think there were any killings of witches or calls for their murder.

David

David Orange
08-19-2007, 06:30 PM
Is it your idea that people shouldn't live by the laws of the land and the governors should decide what people do... not the courts?

Governors pardon the condemned quite frequently. Bush is fairly unique in never showing mercy--except to the well-placed and powerful, or members of his cabinet who lie and expose CIA agents and the like.

If the courts and people of Texas assign a punishment, you think their decisions should be overridden in such a way as to conform with YOUR idea of what is right?

I didn't question any particular case, but just that Bush is famous for never having shown mercy, even in a state where other governors at least occasionally pardoned someone. Here is an article on some of the cases--just a quote I pulled out of the middle, typical for Bush's record:

http://www.commondreams.org/views/061700-102.htm

That defense of the record ignores many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death penalty cases. Lawyers have been under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or been drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not "obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel's wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep."

This past week The Chicago Tribune published a compelling report on an investigation of all 131 death cases in Governor Bush's time. It made chilling reading.

In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.

In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.

.... give us the quote of George Bush "making fun" of a woman who has personally begged him for mercy. Not an opinion; a quote. Let's see who the real unethical villain is here... you or Bush.

Have you not heard of this case? I think the woman's name was Carla Fay Tucker. She murdered someone and "converted" to Christianity in prison. Bush actually met with her--I think because his Christian supporters begged him to--but he denied clemency. Maybe she deserved it, maybe she didn't. But when asked about it later, Bush said something like, "Yeah, she was beggin' me not to kill her. (In the condemned woman's voice:) "Please don't kill me! Please don't kill me!" (in Bush's sneering voice:) Heh!" He signed the death warrant and didn't think twice about it. Usually, he never even reviewed the cases before executions.

But back to your first comment, which you're avoiding. You called George W. Bush a murderer. Do you stand by your statement?

Yes, I do. He tortured animals as a child and has used his positions of authority to cause the deaths of as many people as he could.

Even Clinton, who brought the whole 9/11 deaths things on the heads of 3,000 people can't be said to be a "murderer" for doing so.... at most he would be "criminally negligent" or "inept".

He wasn't negligent when he warned Bush that Al Quaeda would be his biggest problem in office. It was Bush who was negligent in ignoring that.

He is the textbook example of a sociopath.

David

Mike Sigman
08-19-2007, 06:43 PM
An opinion piece from "Commondreams" is "from the middle"? You accuse Bush of being a murderer and a sociopath. You assert it, but you give no cites (unless you call the Far Left "commondreams" opinions a cite). Do you think you're making a truly rational argument which shows that Bush has more problems than you do?

Mike Sigman

Guilty Spark
08-19-2007, 06:44 PM
Why is shock and awe a bad thing?

statisticool
08-19-2007, 07:23 PM
Recently there was an accident in S. American where 3 Brazilians were injured.

Bush got the news. The footage of him shows him deeply concerned, thinking about it for 30 seconds, until he turned to his assistant and asked 'Just how large a number is a brazillian anyway?'

;)

David Orange
08-19-2007, 08:50 PM
An opinion piece from "Commondreams" is "from the middle"?

No, Mike. The quote came from the middle of the linked article.

Is that clear?

And that article was simply the first of bunches that came up when I googled "Bush + executions". I haven't tried "Bush + Carla Fay Tucker" of just "Carla Fay Tucker," as I will do later tonight.

You accuse Bush of being a murderer and a sociopath. You assert it, but you give no cites (unless you call the Far Left "commondreams" opinions a cite). Do you think you're making a truly rational argument which shows that Bush has more problems than you do?

Anyone rational in American society has already recognized it. What's his approval rating now? Only those actually inside "the bubble" still give him any credence at all. Look up the definition of "sociopath." If it doesn't have his picture, the description will match him nonetheless.

David

David Orange
08-19-2007, 08:53 PM
Why is shock and awe a bad thing?

Supposedly a "precision" campaign, I doubt that it really spared the innocent. And even if it did (like it did), it failed its purpose and everything since then has been a clusterfub. Bush has betrayed the US, the US military, every serviceman and woman, every institution of government and everyone except the super-wealthy, who simply don't know how he has screwed them yet.

David

David Orange
08-19-2007, 08:55 PM
Recently there was an accident in S. American where 3 Brazilians were injured.

Bush got the news. The footage of him shows him deeply concerned, thinking about it for 30 seconds, until he turned to his assistant and asked 'Just how large a number is a brazillian anyway?'

;)

In college, Bush worked in a mechanics shop. A woman left her keys in the ignition one day when she left her car for repairs. When she came back, she found Bush working feverishly to unlock the driver's side door. On a whim, she tried the passenger door and found it unlocked.

"It's okay," she said. "This door is open."

"Yeah," Bush said. "I already got that side. This side'll be another minute!"

David

Neil Mick
08-19-2007, 09:30 PM
And where did the Scripture call for that?

Does it really matter?

Look, many Islamic adherents call Islam "the religion of peace." And, I have no doubt in my mind that they believe that, and practice it. Many others ALSO call Christianity the religion of peace, as do Jews, with Judaism.

So, who's wrong, here? Which religion is the most "peaceful?" The answer is none of them, because the most loving religion of them all could be turned into a weapon. All it takes is a little spin.

You see, that's how easy it is to see that these were Antichristian movements. "Many will come in my name," Jesus said, specifying that they would be deceivers. Nothing about Christianity approves that.

Well, we can agree there that these movements are antithetical to the message of Christianity (as is Dominionism), but still--these groups are examples of humans perverting the religion to their own ends. No religion has the monopoly on peace.

Ditto that. There is no call for a Pope in Christian scripture. No allowance for murder.

Some Catholics might be inclined to disagree:

Upon This 'Rock' (http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Scr/utr.htm)

And I say also to thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16.18

It is highly likely that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel, or at least some portion thereof, in Hebrew or Aramaic. See Hebrew of Matthew.

It is unknown when Matthew was first translated into Greek, or by whom, or if, perhaps, Matthew himself wrote it also in Greek. Jerome says, "but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain."

This single verse of Scripture is the foundation upon which is laid all of Rome's claims to papal primacy, pre-eminence, infallibility, jurisdiction, etc. In fact, the very existence of the papacy, as distinct from every other bishopric in the Church, stands or falls upon the validity, or the invalidity, of Rome's interpretation of this verse of Scripture.

According to Rome's interpretation, Peter (gr. petros) and the 'rock' (gr. petra) are one and the same. This, in spite of the fact that the two words carry different meanings.

"In secular Greek pétra denotes a large 'rock,' but also a 'cliff'; or 'rocky mountain chain.' Figuratively it suggests firmness, immovability, and hardness. pétros is more often used for smaller rocks, stones, or pebbles."
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, by Geoffrey W. Bromily. © 1985 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company

Rome says that the reason Peter is called petros is because petros is the masculine form of the feminine noun petra (meaning 'rock'), and it was fitting that Peter's name should be masculine. However, I have never seen them offer an explanation for why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter. I believe it is because, by definition, petra more accurately typifies Christ, while petros more accurately typifies Peter. It is upon the petra that Christ is building his Church.

But Rome claims that, on the basis of this verse of Scripture, Peter is the 'rock' on which Christ is building his Church, and that the honor accorded to Peter alone is the rightful heritage of the bishops of Rome whom, they claim, are the successors of Peter and the 'vicars' of Christ. Further, they claim that, therefore, the bishops of Rome are endowed with primacy over all other bishops, infallibility in doctrines of faith and morals, and supremacy and jurisdiction over all the members of Christ's Body, the Church. See Matthew 16.18 for some examples from Vatican I & II of these claims.

You're twisting there, Neil. I only point out dispassionately that no one can murder in the name of Christianity, but passages in the Koran specifically command the follower to murder non-believers.


For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Reeal peaceful, those Christians...but, nevermind.

No, I don't think so. You're making a questionable theological summation that, somehow: Christians are "less violent" than Muslims because Jesus didn't teach violence, while Mohammed did.

Might as well suggest that aikido is a less "peaceful" endeavor than going to church on Sunday: because aikido originated from budo, whereas Christianity originated from more peaceful predecessors (Zoroastrianism, et al. Altho you might make a case against Mithraism, which involved the sacrifice of a bull). :blush:

How many do you need, Neil? Is one too few? Is two too few?

OK, you're right: wrong emphasis on your quote.

However, there are many passages in the Koran and the hadiths that can be construed to demand the murder (literally "murder") of non-believers, Christians, Jews, atheists

"Can be construed?" Exactly. A nutcase can construe his orders from God to mass-murder from the side of a cereal-box; while others construe the words of Mohammed as some sort of ideological struggle.

History belies your presumptions. The Moors treated their minority religions in Spain quite well, for a time (later, they got a little strict with their laws). Christian communities of the time often accused their Jewish minorities of poisoning wells to bring on the Black Death; or drinking infants' blood in their religious rituals, before running them out of town and then stealing their lands.

So, what difference does the "message make?" The important thing is what the messengers do with it.

I didn't ignore them. I didn't address them.

Exactly. In your rush to find the emptiness of the glass: you ignore the water-content, as well.

haven't addressed nuclear power or fascia in this thread because they are not the point.

Sorry, wrong.

The point

according to David

is that Muslim scripture calls, in places, for literal murder of non-believers while no scripture in Christianity justifies it and every scripture in Christianity condemns it. People like you

You KNOW you're in trouble, when you begin sentences with these three words.

It's called "stereotyping." :rolleyes:

Point of fact, David: there are VERY FEW "people like me."

Just ask anyone who knows me. :freaky: :crazy: :freaky:

claim that the calls for murder in Koran either don't exist, were meant for another time or aren't believed. You ignore the many, many calls by Muslim leaders to murder various infidels.

As do you ignore the many, many calls by Muslim leaders to stop the violence.


Huh. All Bush had to do was declare Iraq a nation of witches!

As I said, neither Jesus, nor his disciples nor his apostles said that. There were some encounters with witches in the New Testament, but I don't think there were any killings of witches or calls for their murder.

David

And again...what really matters is less what the text says, than how it's interpreted (or, misinterpreted).

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live: (http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Suffer.htm)

"THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE." This interpretation of Exodus 22:18 provided encouragement to the witchhunters of the Renaissance, and justified their putting to death those they had identified as witches. Tens of thousands of unfortunates who, in some way or other, had earned for themselves the title "witch" had little hope of mercy when faced with the seemingly unambiguous nature of this command.

David Orange
08-19-2007, 10:26 PM
Does it really matter?

Yes, it matters. The scripture defines what a Christian is--the individual does not: even if he is the POPE. If he violates the scripture, as many popes have done, he is no Christian and anyone who follows him is mistaken at best.

But if your scripture calls for you to murder....

No, I don't think so. You're making a questionable theological summation that, somehow: Christians are "less violent" than Muslims because Jesus didn't teach violence, while Mohammed did.

If they follow Jesus, who said not to kill under any circumstances, then they are less violent than people who kill for any reason--even if those people "call" themselves Christian or whatever they may.

"Can be construed?" Exactly. A nutcase can construe his orders from God to mass-murder from the side of a cereal-box; while others construe the words of Mohammed as some sort of ideological struggle.

How much construing does this take, Neil?

"[33.60] If the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city do not desist, We shall most certainly set you over them, then they shall not be your neighbors in it but for a little while;
[33.61] Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering.
[33.62] (Such has been) the course of Allah with respect to those who have gone before; and you shall not find any change in the course of Allah."

And that is just the first one I came to. No historical "situation" but a decree over "the hypocrites and those in whose hearts is a disease and the agitators in the city". That is what must be "construed": only the targets of the actions--not the actions themselves. Obviously, it covers such people as Salmaan Rushdie and Van Gogh.

So, what difference does the "message make?" The important thing is what the messengers do with it.

Garbage. The one who falsely deals with "the message" is a false messenger and bears no reflection whatever on the real message. And the one who diligently bears out the message--even if the message is to kill--is a faithful representative of that message.

Exactly. In your rush to find the emptiness of the glass: you ignore the water-content, as well.

Nope. It's not the subject. I know muslims. I work with muslims. There are some nice people among them, and very smart people. But that doesn't change what the Koran says.

Sorry, wrong.

the point according to David

Exactly: the point of MY posts--"is that Muslim scripture calls, in places, for literal murder of non-believers while no scripture in Christianity justifies it and every scripture in Christianity condemns it." I do know what the point of my own posts is. And that is the point I was making. So, sorry: right.

You KNOW you're in trouble, when you begin sentences with these three words. ("people like you")

It's called "stereotyping." :rolleyes:

Point of fact, David: there are VERY FEW "people like me."

Just ask anyone who knows me. :freaky: :crazy: :freaky:

It's a shame you believe that, Neil, because there are too many people just like you to shake a stick at. And the sad thing is that you are protecting the very people who would maim you for life just for being that kind of person. Bush's enemies are much more like Amadinajad's enemies than you think. Amadinajad isn't worried about the KKK or bigots: it's liberals he hates. It's liberals the Taliban hates. It's liberals they want to maim and torture. Bush, Amadinajad, Mullah Omar and Osama are all very similar in that way--which is why I would never count Bush among the Christians.

And again...what really matters is less what the text says, than how it's interpreted (or, misinterpreted).

Really? So if Bush "misinterprets" the Constitution, it's the misinterpretation that will stand the test of time?

False is false. Those who present false Christianity are false Christians. And those who try to discredit Christianity by pointing to false Christians as examples of Christians are at best fooling themselves.

Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live: (http://www.draknet.com/proteus/Suffer.htm)

"This interpretation of Exodus 22:18..."

Again, Neil, not said by Jesus, any of his disciples or his apostles. It's not a Christian text, but an old Jewish text. It's the ancient culture from which Christianity came--not Christianity itself. There is nothing, anywhere in Christian scripture that calls for the killing of anyone under any circumstances.

You fault me for "ignoring" all the peaceful stuff in the Koran, but you studiously and laboriously ignore the explicit calls to murder that are there and bend over backward to dig up and misrepresent things about Christianity. Why go to all that trouble to misrepresent both sides? Why not just take the truth of each and accept the truth for the truth?

David

Neil Mick
08-20-2007, 12:38 AM
Yes, it matters.

To you. In sum, there is no way to tell which religion spawned the higher body count. And really, who cares...an extremist is an extremist--no matter what religion he chooses to hoist as his flag.

The scripture defines what a Christian is

Ridiculous. A person defines what he is...and he takes what he chooses from scripture. How scripture affects a person is partly determine by the society that he lives; and partly determined by how he interprets scripture (at least, insofar as the religion's affect on the person's character).

--the individual does not: even if he is the POPE. If he violates the scripture, as many popes have done, he is no Christian and anyone who follows him is mistaken at best.

Well,,,this is your belief: but it does not jive with reality.

Popes, mullahs, and rabbis all interpret their wisdom from their holy words. Some of these interpretations are muddled by translation; or the meaning/significance of words change over time (cf, the previous link regarding "Thou shalt not...a witch to live.")

Let me give you one example. Consider the Auto-de-fe, or the Inquisition. Now, the Inquisition was based upon a misinterpretation of passage in the Bible, and used to jail, sieze property, and kill many innocent people (often as a means to take their property).

Now, there had to be SOMEONE working within the offices of the Inquisition who honestly was trying to be a good Christian (perhaps a low-level guard, or accountant). I mean, looking at today's society...is it really that hard to imagine someone trying to be good, but operating within a corrupt and misbegotten institution?

No, of course not. In fact, history is filled with accounts of people who had pretty kooky beliefs, but still tried to be the best human being they could, under the circumstances.

But if your scripture calls for you to murder....

...then, you check the translation and go find yourself a copy that is more in tune with your belief-system.

If they follow Jesus, who said not to kill under any circumstances, then they are less violent than people who kill for any reason--even if those people "call" themselves Christian or whatever they may.

Nope, sorry. This fails the reality test.

Your scenario is nice, on a hypothetical realm. But, people follow whomever they please, kill when they feel like it, and all say that their god condones it.

It doesn't seem to matter what the prophet(s) say.

Garbage. The one who falsely deals with "the message" is a false messenger and bears no reflection whatever on the real message. And the one who diligently bears out the message--even if the message is to kill--is a faithful representative of that message.

Whatever. You like to pluck out a few "messages" of Islam that you construe to be calls for wholesale murder: and you then condemn a whole religion that you barely understand.

I, on the other hand, see human nature, good and evil, enacted in the name of one Deity or another.

Nope. It's not the subject. I know muslims. I work with muslims. There are some nice people among them, and very smart people. But that doesn't change what the Koran says.

Why...some of my BEST FRIENDS are...:p

And it doesn't change what your shallow interpretation of what the Koran says, either.

Look, I'm not a Koran expert. Neither am I a biblical scholar. But the thrust of your argument seems to imply that the root of Islam is violence, and sorry...but I simply don't agree.

In looking up my links for this thread, I found a LOT of discussions of this nature on other fora. "Is Islam a violent religion," etc, etc, ad nauseum. And the conversations pretty much parallel this one.

Do you know what else I found in common, with this conversation? ALL of the "Islam-as-religion-of-hate" crowd were Conservatives who knew of Islam as secondhand...NONE of them were Muslims, and ALL of them used exactly the same sort of non-argument, that "most of the world's terrorists are Muslim, ergo..."

It's a shame you believe that, Neil, because there are too many people just like you to shake a stick at.

Thank you for so well illustrating my point. You know jack about me, except what I write here. And yet, you feel totally comfortable opining about my beliefs, my effect upon the world (and, of course, how I would respond to torture, as you did earlier in the thread).

And the sad thing is that you are protecting the very people who would maim you for life just for being that kind of person.

And the sad thing is that you are making assumptions about nearly 1/3 of the world's population. Quite an assessment, indeed! :eek:

Bush's enemies are much more like Amadinajad's enemies than you think. Amadinajad isn't worried about the KKK or bigots: it's liberals he hates.

I don't know exactly WHO Ahmenijad hates...I don't own that patented crystal ball that reads minds (I ordered one from eBay; but darn it! It's still NOT ARRIVED, yet!!!! :eek: ).

I know that he makes generic, but empty statements to rile the Israeli's, all the while having very little ability to enforce whatever kooky foreign policy notions he might/might not have.

It's liberals the Taliban hates.

The Taliban hate everyone who didn't view their childhood from the inside of a refugee camp.

It's liberals they want to maim and torture.

Wrong. They'll maim and torture whomever they get their hands on. If Mike Sigman and I were caught by the Taliban: do you think they'd save their worst for me, just because I was a Liberal?

(and no funny ideas from you, Mike! If we get caught: I'm pointing to you and shouting: "Take HIM!!! HE's the corrupt, evil Western Liberal!!! :D :p )

No: they'd treat us with equal esteem, because we both represent a foreign power that is inimical to their interests.

Bush, Amadinajad, Mullah Omar and Osama are all very similar in that way--which is why I would never count Bush among the Christians.

How very black-and-white (and therefore convient) worldview, of you.

Really? So if Bush "misinterprets" the Constitution, it's the misinterpretation that will stand the test of time?

Religion is based upon faith, based upon belief and interpretation of holy passages. Over time, interpretations of holy passages change the meaning, even as the adherents ever claim that "theirs, is the One True Faith."

Some take meanings from holy works and use them for their own purposes.

The law, on the other hand: is NOT based on faith...it's based upon written laws that were agreed upon by MEN.

See, David: that's the difference, and what you're not getting. Laws are accepted to be flawed, subject to historical context, and therefore designed to change with the needs of people (in a fluid society, not a dictatorship).

In a religion, what is written down is gospel, and therefore not open to much debate. Except, words change, meanings and contexts change, and thus religious tenets change. It's why the image of Jesus has changed so much over the centuries, in art and culture. Every successive generation changes the concept of Jesus, just a little bit.

False is false.

And everything is easily understood in tones of black and white. This is how religious wars start...with this unbending sentiment.

Those who present false Christianity are false Christians. And those who try to discredit Christianity by pointing to false Christians as examples of Christians are at best fooling themselves.

Lucky for me, I'm not Christian, I guess... :hypno: :hypno:

Why go to all that trouble to misrepresent both sides? Why not just take the truth of each and accept the truth for the truth?

David

Because one OTHER of the very few things I have learned in life is never to believe someone who tells me that they're "telling the truth..." that THEIR way is the True Way.

"There are many roads to the Way" O Sensei :ai: :ki: :do:

David Orange
08-20-2007, 11:17 AM
Neil Mick wrote:
There have been whole nations, called to commit mass murder in the name of the Christian God.

David Orange wrote:
And where did the Scripture call for that?

Neil Mick wrote:
Does it really matter?

David Orange wrote:
Yes, it matters.

To you.

No, it matters universally. If you say you kill in the name of a religion that says "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," you prove yourself a liar. However, if you say you kill in the name of a religion and that religion's prime text says "MURDER THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM," then it's a pretty safe bet you do represent that religion.

In sum, there is no way to tell which religion spawned the higher body count.

Obviously, you have no way to tell which are your hands and which are your feet, either. Do you see why I say there are many, many people "like Neil Mick"? I've read thousands of internet postings just like the undefinable, abstract, imaginary stuff you pump out--and as much as you pump, there's no way you could have written all of it. There must be thousands of people just like you. It seems you're all reading from some kind of "Manual of Political Correctness" that I have never seen because you all say the same kinds of things based on some strange logic that's perfectly consistent among you, yet strangely unrelated to anything in human nature or the world.

And really, who cares...an extremist is an extremist--no matter what religion he chooses to hoist as his flag.

I haven't addressed extremists at all--just the scriptures of the two teachings. Jesus and the scripture of his followers give no justification anywhere for any kind of killing, while Islamic scripture specifically orders in some cases (and arguably in all cases) for not only "killing" but specifically "murdering" unbelievers. So if you have a "Christian extremist," he has to be someone like a Quaker who absolutely will not kill or support killing in any way.

David Orange wrote:
Quote:
The scripture defines what a Christian is

Ridiculous. A person defines what he is...

So if you say you were uchi deshi to Morihei Ueshiba, you really were? You should open a sandwich shop, Neil. You need to do something with all that baloney you're pushing.

How scripture affects a person is partly determine by the society that he lives; and partly determined by how he interprets scripture (at least, insofar as the religion's affect on the person's character).

But there's no way you can get around the fact that Jesus and all Christian scripture prohibit killing and violence. The only time one of Jesus' followers used a sword, Jesus healed the damage he had done. There is no way any cultural milleu can affect that.

David Orange wrote:
Quote:
--the individual does not: even if he is the POPE. If he violates the scripture, as many popes have done, he is no Christian and anyone who follows him is mistaken at best.

Well,,,this is your belief: but it does not jive with reality.

Neil, if a "scientist" sticks pins in voodoo dolls and claims that it's "scientific experimentation" he's a false scientist.

If a thinker (and you should really pay attention here) bends and breaks the rules of logic, he's a false thinker. All your twisting just proves you don't give a rat's patootie for reality.

David Orange wrote:
Quote:
But if your scripture calls for you to murder....

...then, you check the translation and go find yourself a copy that is more in tune with your belief-system.

And if there is no copy or translation that differs? Make one up? That's what I think you will recommend since you have no problem making up "facts" to suit your whim. Truth can only be built on truth, Neil. Whatever whipped cream of delusions you build your castle on, it's going to crash into the hard ground of reality. Please try not to land on your head when it does.

David Orange wrote
Quote:
If they follow Jesus, who said not to kill under any circumstances, then they are less violent than people who kill for any reason--even if those people "call" themselves Christian or whatever they may.

Nope, sorry. This fails the reality test.

ah.....right....so people who don't kill under any circumstances are "just as violent" as people who kill indiscriminately.....

Neil, if there were a qualification test for imbecile, I doubt you could fit into that lofty scale. You would be somewhere further down the slippery slope.

...Your scenario is nice, on a hypothetical realm. But, people follow whomever they please, kill when they feel like it, and all say that their god condones it.

So? You can claim to have been O-Sensei's uchi deshi, but since there is a known definition of "uchi deshi" and O-Sensei is a known and recognized person, and you never were his uchi deshi, your claim simply would not be true, any more than if you claimed that you had written all Shakespeare's plays and your wife had written all his sonnets. When you violate your own scriptures, you may believe that you are a follower of that scripture, but a blind man can see that you're not. But you have somehow transcended blindness into some realm of super-blindness, in which ordinary blindness is equivalent to 20/20 vision. You are spectacularly unbelieveable to the degree that I can't believe you really believe your own words. Applied by anyone else in any other context, you would sneer at the claims you make.

...It doesn't seem to matter what the prophet(s) say.

The sage and the prophets define the truth of each religion. Violate that and you exclude yourself, regardless of what you think.

You like to pluck out a few "messages" of Islam that you construe to be calls for wholesale murder: and you then condemn a whole religion that you barely understand.

Don't be foolish, Neil. Show me where I have condemned Islam. I haven't. I have simply proven the difference between the scriptures of Jesus and of Mohammed. And you have simply denied proven facts.

And it doesn't change what your shallow interpretation of what the Koran says, either.

I haven't interpreted anything it says. I've simply quoted directly from it to prove what it does say. Take from it whatever meaning you like, but don't deny that it says it.

Look, I'm not a Koran expert. Neither am I a biblical scholar.

You don't have to tell anyone either of those things. Everything you have said so far proves that you are spouting ignorant opinion on both subjects.

But the thrust of your argument seems to imply that the root of Islam is violence, and sorry...but I simply don't agree.

There it is you, again, who is interpreting. I merely pointed out what is written in the Koran. It's there, you cannot deny it. Make of it what you will.

ALL of the "Islam-as-religion-of-hate" crowd were Conservatives who knew of Islam as secondhand...NONE of them were Muslims, and ALL of them used exactly the same sort of non-argument, that "most of the world's terrorists are Muslim, ergo..."

And none of those things characterize my posts in any way. First, the only way I am a "conservative" is in my Boy Scout belief in conserving water and natural resources. I'm a liberal in pretty much every other way.

David Orange wrote:
Quote:
It's a shame you believe that, Neil, because there are too many people just like you to shake a stick at.

Thank you for so well illustrating my point. You know jack about me, except what I write here. And yet, you feel totally comfortable opining about my beliefs, my effect upon the world (and, of course, how I would respond to torture, as you did earlier in the thread).

What you write here is, effectively, all of you there is. You prove that you have no respect for truth or reason, no logic, no science, no consistency. You will argue any point to support your claims--even points you would reject from anyone else on any other subject. Your posts could be copied and pasted from the websites of so many extremist groups it's ridiculous.

And the sad thing is that you are making assumptions about nearly 1/3 of the world's population.

Quote the assumptions I've made, Neil. Show me one assumption.

I don't know exactly WHO Ahmenijad hates...I don't own that patented crystal ball that reads minds (I ordered one from eBay; but darn it! It's still NOT ARRIVED, yet!!!! :eek: ).

No need for a crystal ball or to read minds when the person in question has published his beliefs and spoken publicly about them many times. It is liberals and liberalism that he hates--and that means, as Amir pointed out, rights for women, education for women, etc. Say all you want about women having more rights in Afghanistan than in the west. It's freedom in a very narrow cage.

Wrong. They'll maim and torture whomever they get their hands on. If Mike Sigman and I were caught by the Taliban: do you think they'd save their worst for me, just because I was a Liberal?

You think they would spare you because you support rights for women and same-sex marriages? They might literally have worse in store for you if you were found guilty of spreading those beliefs.

No: they'd treat us with equal esteem, because we both represent a foreign power that is inimical to their interests.

Possibly. But if you were spreading belief in same-sex marriage or various other things, including converting people to Christianity, you might well get it worse.

.....(another couple hundred words of double-talk and squirming.....ad infinitum)....

Yes, Neil....uh huh....uh huh....yeah...yeah....right....sure....Hey, look, my dog needs a bath now....yeah. Terrible flea problem. Sure....yeah, sure.....yeah....yeah. Yes. Of course, uh huh....okay. Well, gotta go, Neil. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Buh-bye.....

David

James Davis
08-20-2007, 12:03 PM
Now, there had to be SOMEONE working within the offices of the Inquisition who honestly was trying to be a good Christian (perhaps a low-level guard, or accountant). I mean, looking at today's society...is it really that hard to imagine someone trying to be good, but operating within a corrupt and misbegotten institution?
Hmmm. I don't know. What if they're a conservative and drive an SUV? Can they be forgiven? :rolleyes:


...then, you check the translation and go find yourself a copy that is more in tune with your belief-system.
Interesting that you should mention that. I was buying a copy of the Koran for my wife, and when leafing through the first version I picked up, I found a passage suggesting that a man shoud beat his wife. When I looked the same passage up in a different version, instead of "beat", the translator used the word "admonish". Even with what little japanese I know, I am acutely aware of how difficult translation of some terms can be.


Why...some of my BEST FRIENDS are...:p

Now what's that all about?

In looking up my links for this thread, I found a LOT of discussions of this nature on other fora. "Is Islam a violent religion," etc, etc, ad nauseum. And the conversations pretty much parallel this one.
A lot of people hear and repeat without really knowing.

Kind of like the press.;)

Do you know what else I found in common, with this conversation? ALL of the "Islam-as-religion-of-hate" crowd were Conservatives who knew of Islam as secondhand...NONE of them were Muslims, and ALL of them used exactly the same sort of non-argument, that "most of the world's terrorists are Muslim, ergo..."

This is what happens when people have the hell scared out of them. People made assumptions about other people that they didn't know, based on very little info. Remember the silly questions they asked JFK? People fear what they don't understand, and all too often refuse to pick up a book and learn. Even with the advent of the internet, it doesn't seem like anybody I know reads anything.:disgust:

I don't know exactly WHO Ahmenijad hates...I don't own that patented crystal ball that reads minds (I ordered one from eBay; but darn it! It's still NOT ARRIVED, yet!!!! :eek: ).
When it arrives, destroy it. I don't think you'd want to know what some people are thinking..

I do recall him saying something about wiping someone off the map though...:confused:

I know that he makes generic, but empty statements to rile the Israeli's, all the while having very little ability to enforce whatever kooky foreign policy notions he might/might not have.
Israel! That was it! Thanks.
He's hard at work trying to remedy that situation, though.

The Taliban hate everyone who didn't view their childhood from the inside of a refugee camp.
...and probably some that did.


Wrong. They'll maim and torture whomever they get their hands on. If Mike Sigman and I were caught by the Taliban: do you think they'd save their worst for me, just because I was a Liberal?
They'd probably just turn you loose on each other and place their bets!:D


The law, on the other hand: is NOT based on faith...it's based upon written laws that were agreed upon by MEN.
Agreed upon for the most part, I suppose. Still, it's a pretty big deal who gets to nominate those justices...

"There are many roads to the Way" O Sensei :ai: :ki: :do:


Amen to that.

Neil Mick
08-20-2007, 10:25 PM
Hmmm. I don't know. What if they're a conservative and drive an SUV? Can they be forgiven? :rolleyes:

I was trying to show that an otherwise moral person could find himself working within an amoral or corrupt institution, and still be a moral person.

Interesting that you should mention that. I was buying a copy of the Koran for my wife, and when leafing through the first version I picked up, I found a passage suggesting that a man shoud beat his wife. When I looked the same passage up in a different version, instead of "beat", the translator used the word "admonish". Even with what little japanese I know, I am acutely aware of how difficult translation of some terms can be.

Exactly! :cool: And this is something that David O. doesn't seem to "get."

I do recall him saying something about wiping someone off the map though...:confused:

I don't think so. Again, this was a mistranslation, echoed by the supine MSM, spun by Bush:

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)

Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map", an English idiom which means to "obliterate totally", and "destroy completely", such as by powerful bombs, or other catasrophes.

Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:

[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.

Iran has repeatedly rejected the allegations that Ahmadinejad has stated 'Israel must be wiped off the map'. On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said.

In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner stated that Ahmadinejad had said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question."

On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as an "occupying regime" being "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "Israel" being "wiped off the map".

A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:

He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away.

The same idiom in his speech on December 13, 2006 was translated as "wipe out" by Reuters:

Just as the Soviet Union was wiped out and today does not exist, so will the Zionist regime soon be wiped out.

Israel! That was it! Thanks.
He's hard at work trying to remedy that situation, though.

I have no idea "how" hard at work he actually is (considering that his actual power as president of Iran is somewhat limited), and how much of his speeches are simply playing to the "ugly" crowd.

Neither, I suspect, does anyone reading this sentence.

...and probably some that did.

True enough.

They'd probably just turn you loose on each other and place their bets!:D

Ehh...Mike'd break me like a twig!! :eek:

Agreed upon for the most part, I suppose. Still, it's a pretty big deal who gets to nominate those justices...

I was attempting to show the difference btw religious scripture, and laws...a difference that David O. seems unaware...

Mike Sigman
08-20-2007, 10:38 PM
I don't think so. Again, this was a mistranslation, echoed by the supine MSM, spun by Bush:

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel)These are the same people that said Hitler didn't really mean it prior to WWII. There are so many monitoring translators and websites that translate the intent to wipe Israel off the map that to say "it didn't mean that" simply means someone is on the side of doing just that. If a nuke hits Israel, I'm certain that Neil will be one of the first trying to diminish the importance of just that.

Mike Sigman

Neil Mick
08-20-2007, 10:51 PM
No, it matters universally. If you say you kill in the name of a religion that says "THOU SHALT NOT KILL," you prove yourself a liar. However, if you say you kill in the name of a religion and that religion's prime text says "MURDER THEM WHEREVER YOU FIND THEM," then it's a pretty safe bet you do represent that religion.

So what about if you kill, accidentally? Or, in a moment of passion or grief? What if you accidentally kill a vandal desecrating a cathedral, in an attempt to stop him?

I guess by YOUR extremist logic: then all of these ppl would no longer be Christians. But never mind...:rolleyes:

Obviously, you have no way to tell which are your hands and which are your feet, either.

Obviously, you're running out of intelligent things to say, and so you resort to mode B...condescension.

Do you see why I say there are many, many people "like Neil Mick"? I've read thousands of internet postings just like the undefinable, abstract, imaginary stuff you pump out

Garbage. I've read some people's opinions similar to mine, but never EXACTLY the same. And you hardly know my complete range of political beliefs, either. You couldn't. Unless, of course: you've got that famed crystal ball workin' overtime... :crazy:

--and as much as you pump, there's no way you could have written all of it.

Everything I have signed, is mine. Or, I've credited it. I don't plaguerize. If that's what you're accusing of me, then you really have proven that you don't know me at all.

But, I'm assuming that you're talking generally...

There must be thousands of people just like you.

Yeah...there've gotta be THOUSANDS of college aikido instructors/visual artists who are fundraising for Ethiopian dojos!! Why, I HATE it when I'm bumpin' into myself all the time at the grocery store!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Know why?? Because MY FAVORITE FLAVOR OF ICE CREAM IS ALWAYS SOLD OUT!!! :D :D

It seems you're all reading from some kind of "Manual of Political Correctness" that I have never seen because you all say the same kinds of things based on some strange logic that's perfectly consistent among you, yet strangely unrelated to anything in human nature or the world.

But you just contradicted yourself. If a bunch of us are all writing the same thing...then it HAS to be related to human nature, somehow!! :D

But don't let me stop you...you're on a hell-or-highwater mission to make it to Condescension-land: and you're al-most...there...

I haven't addressed extremists at all--just the scriptures of the two teachings.

Please. Previously, you talked about Islamic extremists plotting to take over the world: now you're on about how Islam is based on murder. Where's your acknowledgement of the rest of the Muslim community?

Do you even REALIZE that Muslims value community very highly? It's one of their principal tenets.

Jesus and the scripture of his followers give no justification anywhere for any kind of killing, while Islamic scripture specifically orders in some cases (and arguably in all cases) for not only "killing" but specifically "murdering" unbelievers. So if you have a "Christian extremist," he has to be someone like a Quaker who absolutely will not kill or support killing in any way.

A handy method of expunging yourself of your own extremists.

But, do you know what the difference btw a religion that sometimes condones violence with a high body-count; and a religion that espouses peace, but leads to many mistranslations and "missions" to "kill the unbelievers?"

In the end...nothing. Dead is dead.

Neil, if a "scientist" sticks pins in voodoo dolls and claims that it's "scientific experimentation" he's a false scientist.

Depends upon the experiment, doesn't it?

If a thinker (and you should really pay attention here) bends and breaks the rules of logic, he's a false thinker. All your twisting just proves you don't give a rat's patootie for reality.

No, David. You just like to say over and over, that you're right. Well, bully for you. I commend someone who is so steadfast in their own beliefs.

I have shown you the limitations of your own logic, and you like to call it "breaking the rules of logic." David, it's not breaking the rules: it's just that you're not really listening. It's something you often do online...I saw you do it in the thread while conversing with Tarik....you just don't pay attention.

And when socked in a corner, you just keep bludgeoning on with your own version of facts (usually, sans references), before you resort to insult.


And if there is no copy or translation that differs? Make one up? That's what I think you will recommend since you have no problem making up "facts" to suit your whim.

Sorry, David: I've referenced everything. Sorry that the world does not always line up to your rigid view of it. Must be tough, driving to work. :freaky:

Neil, if there were a qualification test for imbecile, I doubt you could fit into that lofty scale. You would be somewhere further down the slippery slope.

And, more insults...

See, David...you just proved yourself dead wrong. You claim to "know all about me," but if you REALLY did--you'd realize that you were wasting your time, in writing the rest of this post, because I stop reading, after the insults.

Next!

Neil Mick
08-20-2007, 10:57 PM
These are the same people that said Hitler didn't really mean it prior to WWII.

I never said he was an angel...

There are so many monitoring translators and websites that translate the intent to wipe Israel off the map that to say "it didn't mean that" simply means someone is on the side of doing just that.

Michael Sigman, political linguistics media expert :freaky: :freaky:

If a nuke hits Israel, I'm certain that Neil will be one of the first trying to diminish the importance of just that.

Mike Sigman

Typical. To quote you...

That was a fairly sickening comment.

Ryan Sanford
08-21-2007, 12:34 AM
Wooo, go Neil! :D

Taliesin
08-21-2007, 04:36 AM
Anther quote from the past with huge relevance today

"Whenever God erects a house of prayer
The Devil Starts a chapel there
And on later examination
The later has the larger congrigation"

Daniel Defoe

A philiosphy I believe is based on the recognition that where religion conveys power, power hungry people will join it and study it's holy books until they can make it say what they want and use it for their own power

Amir Krause
08-21-2007, 07:25 AM
To David Orange and the other Christians

(Note, I am Jew and know very little about Christianity)

Reading your posts, I understand Christianity is defined only by the scriptures of Jesus and his direct students???

Because in Judaism most of the practice follow the “Tora Shbelal-Pe”: oral directions do and don’t for the correct Jewish conduct, and not the Tora or bible. There was actually a very large rift in side Judaism around the first century, with a “Cult” called the Kruim who worshiped only by the scriptures and did not follow the oral tradition.

So, Are you saying it is different in Christianity? Is this true for all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, …) If so, how can there be so many different ways?

To me, your definition seems very strange. Since it is such contrast to the Jewish way, and because according to it, you have just decreed thousands of people out of Christianity; among them all the Crusaders, and the Popes supporting the crusades, all those who killed Jews in uncountable antishemic acts (up until about 200 years or so, Jewish communities lived better under Islamic rule then they did under Christian rule), all those who fought to occupy other nations or convert them by sword, etc.
I doubt any of you could safely point to his ancestry and claim they were Christians under the suggested rules.

I would further like to know how your definition deals with sinners? Are they supposed to be ousted of the Christian community (Jewish communities did and still do that for some actions/decisions), or is the persons definition as a Christian only acceptable retroactively (judging his actions with historical perspective is more just). If the community has not taken any action, can it be considered to be Christian based on those values?

No hard feelings, but I am trying to explain why the concept seems idealistic and very far from any real concept of religious communities to me.

Amir

David Orange
08-21-2007, 09:24 AM
James Davis, Jr. wrote
Quote:
Interesting that you should mention that. I was buying a copy of the Koran for my wife, and when leafing through the first version I picked up, I found a passage suggesting that a man shoud beat his wife. When I looked the same passage up in a different version, instead of "beat", the translator used the word "admonish". Even with what little japanese I know, I am acutely aware of how difficult translation of some terms can be.

Neil Mick wrote:
Exactly! And this is something that David O. doesn't seem to "get."

You're the one who said the "message" doesn't matter. But does it matter if it says "murder" or "kill"? You strain at a gnat but swallow a camel.


Quote:
James Davis wrote:
I do recall him saying something about wiping someone off the map though...

Neil Mick wrote:
I don't think so. Again, this was a mistranslation, echoed by the supine MSM, spun by Bush:

Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"

Yes, Neil. "erased from the pages of time" is a far more benign statement, isn't it?

But if you "can't wipe a country off a map," how can you "erase them from the pages of time"?

You're twisting this stuff so hard, you could make balloon animals out of it, Neil.

I was attempting to show the difference btw religious scripture, and laws...a difference that David O. seems unaware...

A very feeble attempt, Neil. Jesus goes into great detail about who his followers are. He says that many people will "claim" to be his followers, but they will only be out to deceive and destroy those who believe them. One example, from Matthew:

" 21Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

So "defining oneself" does not cut the mustard, nor the mustard seed. The scripture clearly sets out that "doing what he says" is the key--not "calling oneself" a Christian. The vast, vast majority of people calling themselves Crhistians are false Christians.

So define yourself as a PhD in Philosophy from Oxford. Saying doesn't make it so.

David

David Orange
08-21-2007, 09:55 AM
So what about if you kill, accidentally? Or, in a moment of passion or grief? What if you accidentally kill a vandal desecrating a cathedral, in an attempt to stop him?

I guess by YOUR extremist logic: then all of these ppl would no longer be Christians. But never mind...:rolleyes:

If you kill accidentally, any moron would not have to ask the question. Someone of sub-moronic intelligence would have to ask.

A cathedral has less meaning than a widow's hovel. Rob a widow is worse.

I can't judge that any one person is or isn't a Christian or will or won't get mercy from God. But I can say that if you kill in Jesus' name, you are very unlikely to see mercy from God. I think he said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall see mercy." He advises us to pray "forgive us as we forgive others," effectively. Don't forgive? Don't expect forgiveness.

Obviously, you're running out of intelligent things to say, and so you resort to mode B...condescension.

Like a scientist talking to someone who wants to attribute every natural effect to the influence of flying saucers....anyone talking to you will soon run out of "reasonable" arguments.

Garbage. I've read some people's opinions similar to mine, but never EXACTLY the same. And you hardly know my complete range of political beliefs, either. You couldn't. Unless, of course: you've got that famed crystal ball workin' overtime... :crazy:

I used to think there might be some value in Marxism until I met several self-styled Marxists. I found them, to a one, deadly BORING because they all spouted the same drivel, over and over until you were ready to chew your arm off to get away from them. Not only boring, but ignorant, unrealistic and completely contrary to human nature. I have no idea what you think about anything except what you write on these boards ad nauseum, but what you write on this subject is certainly cut-and-paste the same as hundreds of people who post drooling diatribes all over the internet--blaming Israel for everything, excusing every terrorist, allowing things on their side that you would never accept from a Jew or Israeli.

What if Ueshiba had ever once said that if someone insults aikido, you should find him and "murder (or 'kill') him," or that you should cut off his hand and his foot on opposite sides of his body? Would aikido have the same warm, fuzzy glow it has for you now? I doubt it.

Everything I have signed, is mine. Or, I've credited it. I don't plaguerize. If that's what you're accusing of me, then you really have proven that you don't know me at all.

Maybe you type it, but you didn't think it up. You obviously read it somewhere or sat in some political-correctness action committee meeting and heard it (or formulated a manifesto of it with the committee). But wherever you got it, it's cardboard-cutout, mimeograph-exactly the same as written by hundreds of other one-sided purveyors of the idea that black and white are exactly equal--except that white is evil.

But you just contradicted yourself. If a bunch of us are all writing the same thing...then it HAS to be related to human nature, somehow!! :D

It's only related to human nature in that people will go to extreme lengths to win the favor of those they want to impress--even at the expense of other people they don't consider important. You will say anything to gain the favor of your peer group in the Political Correctness Action Committee because you all disregard the same people. So you're always safe in defending terrorists because you all want to see Israel wiped....I mean....eliminated--yeah, that's the ticket: "eliminated" from the pages of history.

But don't let me stop you...you're on a hell-or-highwater mission to make it to Condescension-land: and you're al-most...there...

Ah, but when I get there, I'll have to stand because you and your Committee have taken all the good seats. You've been camped out there like concert-goers in line for the AC/DC tickets and you've left no room for me.

Please. Previously, you talked about Islamic extremists plotting to take over the world: now you're on about how Islam is based on murder.

You are very close to proving yourself a liar, Neil. Quote where I said that, or you've proven it.

Where's your acknowledgement of the rest of the Muslim community?

As I said, I work with a number of muslims and find many of them to be nice guys, very smart. And unlike your racist claim, I never said "some of my best friends."

Do you even REALIZE that Muslims value community very highly? It's one of their principal tenets.

I know they value "their" community very highly. And I know that the recent attacks in England and Scotland were carried out by some very well-placed individuals, in government-funded positions of high trust. I know that those who attempted to bomb the trains weren't concerned about the mother with the baby in a stroller as part of their community. I also know that those kidnapping individuals and bombing markets in Iraq only care about the Sunni or Shia community. Obviously, then, your statement above could have come from "Idiot's Guide to Community."

But, do you know what the difference btw a religion that sometimes condones violence with a high body-count; and a religion that espouses peace, but leads to many mistranslations and "missions" to "kill the unbelievers?"

I don't know of any religion that sometimes condone violence. Is this another thing you've "made up"?

David

David Orange
08-21-2007, 10:02 AM
A philiosphy I believe is based on the recognition that where religion conveys power, power hungry people will join it and study it's holy books until they can make it say what they want and use it for their own power

Nonetheless, the original meaning is still there and the liars will get their due. A Zen master was tending his garden one day and the local officials came by with a young pregnant woman.

"Master," they said, "this young woman says that you have made her pregnant."

"Ah, so desu ka?" the Master said. He took the woman into his home and cared for her.

After several months, the young woman called the authorities, who came to the Master's house and said, "This young woman admits that the woodcutter is the real father of her child. Because he is married, she was ashamed and put the blame on you."

The Master said, "Ah, so desu ka?" and went back to tending his garden.

After all, the truth is the only thing that is true and everything else will eventually come to light.

David

jennifer paige smith
08-21-2007, 10:08 AM
After scanning these posts and trying to suss out the what's what from the this is this's, I' can say that David represents a position on Christianity that is relevant and refreshing. He holds, not against Islam but against Christianity, the very principles that make's one 'Christain'.
There are texts within the old testament that are more similar than different to the Letters (limited, mind you) of Islam to which I've been exposed. But there was then the new covenant and the life of christ, The New Testament. Christians follow the christ path example.

Looked at clock. Late for work. sorry to end this post, pre-facto. Hold on.....
Jen

David Orange
08-21-2007, 11:12 AM
...in Judaism most of the practice follow the “Tora Shbelal-Pe”: oral directions do and don’t for the correct Jewish conduct, and not the Tora or bible. ...So, Are you saying it is different in Christianity? Is this true for all Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, …) If so, how can there be so many different ways?

I'm not saying that it's the "printed word" that's so important, but if a "tradition" contradicts the "founder," obviously, that tradition has gone astray, wouldn't you say?

If Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself," but the tradition evolves that we can "Kill your neighbor," then that tradition must be wrong, mustn't it?

But Neil would have you believe that that "evolved tradition" is just as valid as the original saying "Love your neighbor." Both would then be valid "Christianity."

But the real meaning of the word "Christian" is "like Christ," which means, "like Jesus."

How can we say we are "like Christ" if we do all the things Christ hated and warned against?

What we have here in this modern world is a Christianity that glories in war and retribution and knows nothing about mercy. That is purely opposite Jesus' words. We are wrong to follow that and think we will have Christ's approval. And Neil is wrong to point to that false church as real Christianity.

To me, your definition seems very strange. Since it is such contrast to the Jewish way, and because according to it, you have just decreed thousands of people out of Christianity; among them all the Crusaders, and the Popes supporting the crusades, all those who killed Jews in uncountable antishemic acts (up until about 200 years or so, Jewish communities lived better under Islamic rule then they did under Christian rule), all those who fought to occupy other nations or convert them by sword, etc.

....ummmm......yes. But it's not me. It's not like I said "E=MC2" out of my own mind. Einstein proved "E=MC2" and I quoted him. In this case, Jesus said who is and who isn't a "Christian" (actually, he defined who is his follower--the term "Christian" came after he had left the scene). I'm just affirming what he said: "Only those that do my father's will." So if you hate and kill, you're not his follower. That's why I say "the scripture" defines who is a Christian--not the individual.

...I doubt any of you could safely point to his ancestry and claim they were Christians under the suggested rules.

Ancestry isn't involved. A Jew or Hindu or Muslim or atheist could instantly become a Christian by believing Jesus' words, renouncing his personal hatred (not saying that Judaism, Hinduism, Islam or Atheism are hateful systems) and his personal desire for retribution, accepting that "vengeance belongs only to God," accepting that we cannot judge man, but must leave it to God, and resolutely walking in that way. Likewise, children of sincere Christians can become murderers. Ancestry is irrelevant.

I would further like to know how your definition deals with sinners? Are they supposed to be ousted of the Christian community (Jewish communities did and still do that for some actions/decisions), or is the persons definition as a Christian only acceptable retroactively (judging his actions with historical perspective is more just). If the community has not taken any action, can it be considered to be Christian based on those values?

I can't deal with Christianity on a community level because I can't identify community in the US anymore. It has vanished. In Christian terms, the mega-church, with its parking lot full of BMWs, Mercedes and Lexus and Cadillac SUVs, has replaced "community." And demographics tell us that those people overwhelmingly supported George Bush and Ronald Reagan as presidents, which is not a good sign of "Christianity" in my opinion.

However, on an individual level, a sinner has to repent and work to change his ways. Then it's between him and God. No man can judge whether God will accept another. So even historical judgment of his actions is useless.

However, again, on an individual level, sometimes it's better to personally choose not to associate with someone because they may well drag you down into their ways and their troubles. Or they could use your support to work their way into things they might otherwise have left alone.

I had a good friend who was heavily versed in the bible, but he thought it was okay to "rip off" those who were financially "better off" than he. He pulled eviction scams--stopped paying his rent, then when the landlord posted notice on his door that he was throwing the guy out, the guy went to the courthouse and filed a certain form that he knew all about. This automatically gave him 90 days' free rent, during which time, the landlord was subject to heavy fines and penalties if he threw the guy out. The guy would then stay rent-free until the day before the court had ordered that he be evicted. He would then skip out, leaving the apartment trashed, and go to a new place. He was getting evicted about once a year--sometimes more.

I thought this was just his incompetence until he tried it on an old man I knew, moved into the old guy's house and wouldn't get out, threatened to "own" the old man's house, etc. When I discussed this with him, be explained clearly how it worked. That was the first time I understood what he had been doing ever since I'd known him. He was a very nice and positive guy in so many other ways and had been a big help to me so many times, I just couldn't believe he would be doing something truly evil. And I might not even worry if he did this to a corporation that wouldn't perform basic maintenance anyway and would just write it off on their taxes, but he did this to old folks.

I helped the old man get that guy kicked out and quit associating with that guy. I saw him three or four times over the following ten years and only once sat down with him to buy him a cup of coffee and see where he stood with the world after I hadn't seen him for so long. He didn't seem to have changed, but I'm not the one to say. He died last year. Who knows?

...No hard feelings, but I am trying to explain why the concept seems idealistic and very far from any real concept of religious communities to me.

Christianity (per Jesus) is not about heritage, lineage, ancestry or community. It's rather like Zen: an individual, direct relationship to God. You can be enlightened, but your wife might not be. When Jesus called a man to follow him, the man said, "Let me bury my father first." Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead."

He accepted nothing but following him and doing his Word. This is even very strange to most folks who call themselves "Christian" in America today. They want money and wars and vengeance, but they still want people to call them "Christian." They have created a "land of the free" that has more people in prison than any industrialized nation on earth--more than Russia. Show these people Psalm 146:7: "The LORD looseth the prisoners" and it's foolishness to them. (And just to clarify that this does not mean "prisoners of sin," or something metaphorical, show them Isaiah 42: "I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house."

America has certainly turned that backward.

No hard feelings at all.

Best to you.

David

Neil Mick
08-21-2007, 12:58 PM
....anyone talking to you will soon run out of "reasonable" arguments.

This discussion is over btw us, David: because you're going into extreme name-calling mode (the typical endpattern of most of your drawn-out expositions, here). And when you get this way, you seem to stop considering anyone else's views with anything but disdain.

As I said, I stop reading your voluminous insult-marathons after the 2nd or 3rd insult, but this one caught my eye:


Yes, Neil. "erased from the pages of time" is a far more benign statement, isn't it?

But if you "can't wipe a country off a map," how can you "erase them from the pages of time"?

It's remarkably easy to imagine a regime "erased from the pages of time," when you aren't literal, and you don't have an agenda. It also aids comprehension to read, a little more carefully. Try it, sometime! The difference might be refreshing.


Consider the two phrases:

1. "Wipe a country off the map"

2. "this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

"A country" does not = "a regime occupying a region"

Example:

The Roman Empire has vanished from the ages of time;

but Italy still exists. Milan, as an independent county, however, has been "wiped off the map." Not the way a Persian might phrase it, but different, clearly, from the former statement.

Again, because I know you didn't get it the first time:

* The Soviet Empire has vanished from the pages of history. Russia, as a country, however, still exists.

You're twisting this stuff so hard, you could make balloon animals out of it, Neil.
David

Yeah, I guess I just tend to ignore the bilious posturings of some name-calling post'er over the findings of a tenured scholar of Eastern culture (with links provided). Silly me...:hypno:

David Orange
08-21-2007, 01:14 PM
Silly me...:hypno:

If only you were just silly, Neil. If only.

Even if you were just sort of dumb, it would be better than picking convenient interpretations to excuse the intent to obliterate a nation on racist and hateful bases.

But what you do is heinous, twisting like a devil to make the Bible say what is not in it, andto make the Koran not say what it says. And your motive simply seems to be petulance. You've set your mind that you understand that culture and that those who "fear" that their neighbor may bomb them or their children are worse than those who actually do the bombing.

And that's just sad. That's just sad. That's pathetic.

Hope you grow up, dude. Hope you have time.

David

Neil Mick
08-21-2007, 01:46 PM
If only you were just silly, Neil. If only.

Yes, "if only" posting references were "just silly," instead of doing the "sensible thing" (like, nodding like a car-toy whenever David says "boo")... :rolleyes:

...gad! When will we STOP this reference-posting terrorist-lover!! :eek:

Even if you were just sort of dumb,

...as opposed to your brilliance...

it would be better than picking convenient interpretations to excuse the intent to obliterate a nation on racist and hateful bases.

I know, I know...it's hard to admit when you're wrong: and so you project unlikely ideas into my head, to balance your own (liberally seasoned with insults, of course).

But what you do is heinous, twisting like a devil to make the Bible say what is not in it, andto make the Koran not say what it says. And your motive simply seems to be petulance. You've set your mind that you understand that culture and that those who "fear" that their neighbor may bomb them or their children are worse than those who actually do the bombing.
And that's just sad. That's just sad. That's pathetic.

I must have forgotten a step in your usual SoP...putting words in people's mouths. Sorry, but I never said the above sentiments. Nor am I really interested in re-explaining myself, as you clearly are not interested. Your own view of me entertains you, all too much.

But thank you for proving my point. You really don't understand my sentiments: and so your claims that you've "seen it all" thousands of times online, are all the more specious.

Hope you grow up, dude. Hope you have time.

David

And the same, for you. I "pray" for your endless struggle for maturity.

Onward, "Christian soldier..." :p :p

David Orange
08-21-2007, 02:53 PM
Yes, "if only" posting references were "just silly,"

Big Deal Neil....there you go again.....

The problem, BD, is you can post 100 references and they'll say 120 different things. So you post a reference that a given passage can be translated "a different way": Guess What? It can also be translated the other way. You just reference the one that suits you. So you're at the salad bar of the intellect, picking what you like and pretending the rest of it isn't there, while people are murdered.

Silly, silly.

David Orange wrote:
Quote:
Even if you were just sort of dumb, it would be better than picking convenient interpretations to excuse the intent to obliterate a nation on racist and hateful bases.

I know, I know...it's hard to admit when you're wrong: and so you project unlikely ideas into my head, to balance your own (liberally seasoned with insults, of course).

So Ahmadinajad, Mullah Omar, OBL and the thousands upon thousands of terrorists, including all the remaining followers of Yasser Arafat, never really intended to destroy Israel???

You would undoubtedly buy the Brooklyn Bridge from Osama himself.

David Orange wrote:
You've set your mind that you understand that culture and that those who "fear" that their neighbor may bomb them or their children are worse than those who actually do the bombing.

Sorry, but I never said the above sentiments.

Yes, Neil, your posts add up to precisely that. You just won't look at it because if you really followed your own arguments, you'd wind up being your own grandfather and forced to commit suicide to rid the world of evil: I say you're talking screwy, George.

Your own view of me entertains you, all too much.

"My view"of you is what you write here. I don't know any more about you than that, but what you write here is so sad and tragic that I'd never call it entertaining. As I said before, it's sad and pathetic.

You really don't understand my sentiments: and so your claims that you've "seen it all" thousands of times online, are all the more specious.

I have seen some "idiot savantes" in my time--guys like the character in Rainman, or the guy in Tuscaloosa we used to call Harmonica Man, who can multiply 10-digit numbers in their heads, but they tend to drool and miss their mouths when they're feeding themselves. And I hear that these folks can actually teach one another how to do those massive equations in an instant.

So maybe if I were a drooling moron, I could understand your sentiments. You would pacify a murderous horde by sacrificing a nation of scientists, philosophers and artists. You would let the women of that whole region be confined to sacks for the sake of fairness. You're right. I don't understand that. Maybe if I can work up some drool.....

Good luck with all that.

Ryan Sanford
08-21-2007, 04:07 PM
"My view" of you is what you write here. I don't know any more about you than that, but what you write here is so sad and tragic that I'd never call it entertaining. As I said before, it's sad and pathetic.


If nothing else, then Neil is right about one thing...
You sure do like your insults... Even *I* know that mudslinging is no way to argue. :crazy:

David Orange
08-21-2007, 04:50 PM
If nothing else, then Neil is right about one thing...
You sure do like your insults... Even *I* know that mudslinging is no way to argue. :crazy:

Neil just uses ridicule. It's really the same thing.

I guess it's a character flaw, but anytime I encounter racism like that, it makes me mad.

And it may be convenient to ignore facts and manufacture non-facts to present as facts, but it's cheating and I always think a cheat deserves an insult.

Thanks for your observation, though.

David

Ryan Sanford
08-21-2007, 05:55 PM
Neil just uses ridicule. It's really the same thing.

That seems to me like the mentality of "He does it, so I can do it too," don't you think?

I guess it's a character flaw, but anytime I encounter racism like that, it makes me mad.

Racism? I seem to have failed to see that in his postings... could you point it out?

And it may be convenient to ignore facts and manufacture non-facts to present as facts, but it's cheating and I always think a cheat deserves an insult.

Again, could I by any chance get an example of this? I seem to have missed it. Mr. Mick seems to have cited nearly all of his sources, and they seem credible enough to me. Do they not meet your standards, and if so, in what ways?

Thanks for your observation, though.

You're quite welcome. :)

Neil Mick
08-21-2007, 06:22 PM
Big Deal Neil....there you go again.....

The problem, BD, is you can post 100 references and they'll say 120 different things.

Even if you were just sort of dumb,

So Ahmadinajad, Mullah Omar, OBL and the thousands upon thousands of terrorists, including all the remaining followers of Yasser Arafat, never really intended to destroy Israel??? (ignoring, of course: the absolute lack of evidence linking Achmadinajad with OBL and Mullah Omar...next, he'll be claiming that Saddam really HAD those wmds, or that he was part of the worldwide terrorist network)

You've set your mind that you

(read: "I've decided what's IN your mind, and you obviously THINK that you...

understand that culture and that those who "fear" that their neighbor may bomb them or their children are worse than those who actually do the bombing.

which, of course: I never said, or expressed. More attempts to misrepresent. Some "Christian values" proponent YOU'VE turned out to be...).

Yes, Neil, your posts

(Yes, David, you keep telling yourself that my posts

add up to precisely that. You just won't look at it because if you really followed your own arguments, you'd wind up being your own grandfather and forced to commit suicide to rid the world of evil: I say you're talking screwy, George.

(I sure am glad we're talking "rationally," because this sentiment sure sounds "irrational." But then again, I'm talking to someone who professes mindreading abilities of me, Achmadinijad, Christians and Muslims, throughout the world...what's one more mindreading trick, more or less...?)

"My view" of you is what you write here. I don't know any more about you than that, but what you write here is so sad and tragic that I'd never call it entertaining. As I said before, it's sad and pathetic.

(but at least I don't resort to insulting your intelligence, or pretend to understand your worldviews, based upon what you write here).

Healer...heal thyself.

I have seen some "idiot savantes" in my time--guys like the character in Rainman, or the guy in Tuscaloosa we used to call Harmonica Man, who can multiply 10-digit numbers in their heads, but they tend to drool and miss their mouths when they're feeding themselves. And I hear that these folks can actually teach one another how to do those massive equations in an instant.

So maybe if I were a drooling moron, I could understand your sentiments. You would pacify a murderous horde by sacrificing a nation of scientists, philosophers and artists. You would let the women of that whole region be confined to sacks for the sake of fairness. You're right. I don't understand that. Maybe if I can work up some drool.....

Good luck with all that.

Perhaps you missed this,,,?

This discussion is over btw us, David: because you're going into extreme name-calling mode (the typical endpattern of most of your drawn-out expositions, here). And when you get this way, you seem to stop considering anyone else's views with anything but disdain.

But, thanks AGAIN for proving me right. You have demonstrated for several posts now that you are less interested in advancing a discussion than in slinging insults. Well, I may not entirely approve of the moderating policy (or, I'd have flagged some of your more loquacious posts, by now)...

But watch this! With just ONE click (OK, 2 clicks) of the mouse, I can clear 90% of the insults OFF MY SCREEN!! :cool:

Is it magic? No!! Watch! Nothing up my (gi)sleeves...

CLICK!!!

All gone! :cool: B'Bye, "Christian soldier..."

David Orange
08-21-2007, 08:08 PM
That seems to me like the mentality of "He does it, so I can do it too," don't you think?

Ummmm.....I notice you don't call him on it, though. Any reason for that?

Racism? I seem to have failed to see that in his postings... could you point it out?

Where I'm from, we used to have a little group called the KKK. They claimed they didn't hate black people--they were just defending their families. And if you said, "Don't hate black people? You HANG them." They would say, "Well, that's just a few extremists--not ALL of us."

A person who defends murderers like that bends over backward to minimize what the group does and how the GROUP shelters them. That's how Neil defends and apologizes for the murderous group that wants to "throw Israel into the sea," "Kill all the Jews," "murder them wherever you find them," etc., etc., etc. Neil will minimize it by claiming it was a "mistranslation," misinterpretation, a lack of understanding of "their culture," whatever, but he will NEVER admit that it is a movement of murder and, call it what it is: RACISM.

That Again, could I by any chance get an example of this? I seem to have missed it. Mr. Mick seems to have cited nearly all of his sources, and they seem credible enough to me. Do they not meet your standards, and if so, in what ways?

A lot of the current spittle involves his claim that "Christianity" is "just as violent" as Islam. That's a lie on the face of it. Of course, you could argue that a lot of people who "call" themselves Christian are just as bloodthirsty as anyone on the planet--but that is not Christianity: Christianity is the movement of a man who said "Love thy neighbor as thyself, those who give mercy shall receive mercy, forgive us as we forgive others..."

I said that there is not one piece of Christian scripture that promotes or justifies violence but that verses in the Koran do. Neil continued to claim that christian scripture promotes violence and denied that the Koran contains verses commanding extreme violence.

We pointed out where Ahmadinajad called for the destruction of Israel and Neil tried to claim that it was a wrong interpretation--even though, whether he said "wipe it off the map," or "eliminate it from the pages of history," it means the END of Israel, right along with Arafat's followers calling for killing all the Jews. And other instances--those being just off the top of my head since I don't have time to wade back through all Neil's slippery dippities and rolly eyes. So he's racist, he denies basic facts, makes up pseudo-facts and tries to blur everything else.

That's just Neil Mick, like so many people who want to be seen as lovers of the peace. He loves it as long as it's at someone else's expense.

Best to you.

David

David Orange
08-21-2007, 08:15 PM
Perhaps you missed this,,,?

Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
This discussion is over btw us, David: because you're going into extreme name-calling mode (the typical endpattern of most of your drawn-out expositions, here). And when you get this way, you seem to stop considering anyone else's views with anything but disdain.

Ah...no, Neil. I didn't miss that: you are the one who kept responding to me, so obviously "YOU" missed it. Like you put Mike Sigman on ignore in another post and kept popping back in to reply to things he said: You have NO integrity, see? Can't even keep your OWN baloney.

But watch this! With just ONE click (OK, 2 clicks) of the mouse, I can clear 90% of the insults OFF MY SCREEN!!

Neil, you ARE 90% of the insults. Get 'em off your screen, they'll still be in your mirror.

Is it magic? No!!

Magic? Of course not: it's simple running away!

But you can't outrun the truth, dear boy. It's always right behind you.

ignore] CLICK!!! /ignore]

Brave, brave Sir NeilMick! He was not afraid!

Run away! Run away!!!!!

All gone! B'Bye, "Christian soldier..."

Good riddance, racist.

David

David Orange
08-22-2007, 12:02 AM
[ignore CLICK!!! /ignore]

All gone! :cool: B'Bye, "Christian soldier..."

Er....uh.....right.

As I said, Neil has no integrity. He just sent me this by PM:

""Name-calling...how very disrespectful--and how very expected. Typical of your type--egotistical "look-at-me's" who have to hog the conversation, then get it shut down.

Well, congratulations--you "win."

Don't bother responding...I won't read your spume.""

So Neil's "got me on ignore," but after calling me "Christian soldier," he PMs me to whine about my calling him a name...and to tell me that he won't read my response if I send one....

Brave, brave Sir NeilMick! Sir NeilMick ran away!!!

(in Ross Perot voice:)
That's just sad. That's just sad.

Too bad it comes out of the mere observation that the Koran does contain admonitions to commit some pretty extreme violence. However it's worded, there are commandments to "end the life" of non-believers. And there are clear commands to maim and torture people for other offenses--things like cutting off a hand on one side of the body and a foot on the other side, things like cutting off one's nose, cutting out one's tongue, and so on.

Note that I did not say that this means that all muslims follow these commands or believe in them. I didn't say all muslims are violent or evil. And I did say that I personally know some muslims who are obviously highly intelligent and nice people. I just pointed out that those things are in their holy book.

And Neil tried every way to "eliminate those facts from the pages of history", trying to say they were mis-translated or misinterpreted, misunderstood, mis-represented. But some of that, you just can't get around.

On the other hand, he insists that Christianity is "just as violent" as this religion that he has gone to great lengths to say is "not violent.":crazy:

Poor Neil.

But let's look at that a slightly different way, shall we?

Suppose someone tells you that aikido is violent and calls for the murder of one's opponent. If you say, "No it doesn't," they reply, "Oh, yes, it does. I met a guy in Podunk that teaches you throw people down to kill them, and when they're incapacitated, you cut their throat."

You reply, "Well, that's not real aikido. Look at what Ueshiba did...." and so on.....

Just as someone can claim that he's doing aikido, if he's gratuitously violent, we know that he's not doing aikido because of what "the founder" said and how the founder lived. The founder of aikido defined aikido and the founder of "Christianity" defined who his followers were and how you can recognize them. And killing non-believers is NOT one of those ways.

I don't know why Neil has to claim that I've slandered Islam, which I have not done, or why, in defense of Islam, he has to distort and misrepresent Christianity.

Again, as Mr. Perot would say, "That's just sad."

Please note: I'm pretending to write this to the general public reading this thread, but I know that Neil is really reading it since he lacks the integrity to really go on "ignore" when he says he will. That's one winning fellow, I'll tell you what.

Best to all.

David

Amir Krause
08-22-2007, 05:23 AM
David

It was a pleasure to read to concept you described in this post:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187019&postcount=148

Though I must admit I stopped reading both your and Neil posts in the last 2 pages, neither of you followed the philosophy I thought you presented.

However, I have one distinct problem with the concept you presented. It allows everyone to disregard the actions of his predecessors - "They were not XYZ and do not represent us, we should not act to correct\change the situation". Thus, Muslims should not take any responsibility for terror acts supposedly done in the name of Islam. Israelis should not care if some Israeli soldier is shooting at Palestinians and beating children. Christians can disavow all the great massacres done in the name of Christianity. Europeans can disregard the pollution of Africa being done for them ("I believe in ecological living and cleaner electricity, it's not my fault the Govt. is throwing the nuclear waste over there") or all the ill effects the European colonialism has brought to the world. etc. etc.

The concept you presented is too individual in my opinion, letting the corrupt be corrupted and simply claiming “they are not truly us” without taking the corresponding corrective actions - punish the individual\group, recognize your fault in not preventing it in the first place and look for ways to change it in the future.

You should also be aware that others may define Islam in a very similar way to your definition of Christianity. And, if we can not consider a sinner to your values to be a Christian, why should we define a sinner to their values to be a Muslim (same for Judaism \ Buddhism \ …).

This is the reasons the common perception of religious groups is not by comparing their actions to someone understanding of the scriptures. But rather, as a social group, which is built of multiple people claiming to follow that religion.
Unless I am mistaken, you both used this latter perception for Muslims; I fail to see your insistence of not using it about Christians,

Amir

P.S.
I will not enter the foolish argument about the value of statements. Given my place of living, I am too afraid of the possible outcomes in the end.

Hogan
08-22-2007, 07:50 AM
...Like you put Mike Sigman on ignore in another post and kept popping back in to reply to things he said: You have NO integrity, see? Can't even keep your OWN baloney....

He did that with me, too... you really can't trust him to actually do what he says he would do.

David Orange
08-22-2007, 10:02 AM
David

It was a pleasure to read to concept you described in this post:
http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showpost.php?p=187019&postcount=148

Thanks, Amir. I've always found your posts well-intended and thoughtful, and the PMs we've exchanged have been honest. I certainly don't expect everyone to agree with me and I appreciate those who disagree with honest thought.

Though I must admit I stopped reading both your and Neil posts in the last 2 pages, neither of you followed the philosophy I thought you presented.

Actually, Jesus was a bit of a down-putter if you tried to trick him or were just willfully stupid. He could be withering, but he was always ready to forgive--up to a point. Of course, I'm neither Jesus nor Morihei, but you have to work with what you have. Sorry.

However, I have one distinct problem with the concept you presented. It allows everyone to disregard the actions of his predecessors - "They were not XYZ and do not represent us, we should not act to correct\change the situation".

In my case, I'm not saying that vast groups of people don't represent "me": I'm saying they didn't represent Jesus because they went directly against his commands. Just like if someone decides aikido is too "swishy" or something and decides to make "his" aikido as deadly as possible. He's going in drastically the wrong way and adding evil to the world. In fact, there's a big movie star who, though he doesn't actually go around killing people, glories in presenting images of extreme violence through aikido. And since aikido is a means of subconsious-to-subconscious communication, he's implanting deep messages of extreme violence in the mass subconscious mind of the whole world. That's as bad as actually killing several individuals--maybe worse. But all I can do about that guy is speak out. And all I can do about the false Christians is to point out that they are violating the principles of Christianity, and therefore cannot be considered real Christians.

Thus, Muslims should not take any responsibility for terror acts supposedly done in the name of Islam.

If they oppose those acts, they have to speak out. Some do. I can understand why many don't. In Alabama, when the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was strong, people would come to your house, drag you out in the night and whip you with a cross burning in your yard. And many times, the local police chief and officers would be among those covered in robes. So when the whole system you live in is fixed, it's really hard to speak out. So I can understand their not speaking out. However, while the KKK "claimed" to be Christians, anyone could point out to them where the "founder" of Christianity specifically condemned what they were doing. In Islam, the terrorists can point to where "the founder" specifically commanded them to do what they do. So the average muslim is in a tight spot at best.

Israelis should not care if some Israeli soldier is shooting at Palestinians and beating children.

I would hate to be a soldier. That's why, at the end of the Viet Nam era, I rejected a congressman's nomination to the US Air Force Academy, where I had planned to go and become a fighter pilot. It was my lifelong dream. But I felt that American politicians had misused the US military and it had wound up doing horrible things, including the My Lai massacre and many other literally evil things. So I decided I would never join the service so they couldn't order me to go and do crazy things. I passed up the opportunity to fly the greatest aircraft known to mankind, passed up the benefits of being a veteran, passed up all that training and experience and the opportunity to command men and ready myself to make big money after the service. But I don't regret it.

In Israel, I understand that military service is compulsory. You go in at eighteen, I believe.

But a soldier and the citizens of his nation all have the responsibility to protest wrong behavior. And targeting children is wrong, but when a terrorist surrounds himself with children...

In that case, the terrorist feels that he is helping those children become martyrs, which is a greater thing than anything they could achieve in living in this world, by their way of thinking.

Christians can disavow all the great massacres done in the name of Christianity.

Well, Christians are responsible not for what those before them did, but they are responsible not to do those kinds of things themselves and they are responsible to explain that those were not Christian actions. Of course, if they explain that but then do the same things, it's meaningless. But just as you can't be justified by what your father does, you can't be condemned for what he did, either.

Europeans can disregard the pollution of Africa being done for them ("I believe in ecological living and cleaner electricity, it's not my fault the Govt. is throwing the nuclear waste over there") or all the ill effects the European colonialism has brought to the world. etc. etc.

No, they can't disregard ongoing evils, but they arent' responsible for what was done before them. They need to become involved in opposing further desecration and to some degree repairing the damage of the past.

The concept you presented is too individual in my opinion, letting the corrupt be corrupted and simply claiming "they are not truly us" without taking the corresponding corrective actions - punish the individual\group, recognize your fault in not preventing it in the first place and look for ways to change it in the future.

Yes, but Torquemada is beyond our reach, as is Hitler. All we can do is protest the one's who are in our reach--such as George Bush and Dick Cheney. We can protest the spread of nuclear materials and nuclear waste. We can strive to always tell the truth--the whole truth and ONLY the truth. That's why I vehemently oppose people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, the American Christian Right that promotes American actions that Satan would be proud of.

You should also be aware that others may define Islam in a very similar way to your definition of Christianity.

They may. But it's Mohammed's definition that counts. Just as it's Jesus' definition of Christianity that counts--NOT Jerry Falwell's and not George Bush's. And it's Ueshiba's definition of aikido that measures if you're doing "real" aikido or not.

You know, there's that famous line in the Bible, "Spare the rod and spoil the child." The search engine I just accessed quotes the King James Bible as saying "Proverbs 13:24 He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is careful to discipline him."

My father took that "rod" to mean a belt or a "switch," which is a small branch of a tree or bush, stripped of leaves and used to whip the bare legs of a child.

I take it to mean a "measuring rod," which means teaching my son boundaries and measures, proportion and values--all of which support the idea of "disciplining" him.

Most of the muslims I've ever met were nice people, generally very quiet and modest, often friendly, thoughtful and helpful. I don't hate anyone for being a muslim or any other religion. It's not for me to judge them at all.

And, if we can not consider a sinner to your values to be a Christian, why should we define a sinner to their values to be a Muslim (same for Judaism \ Buddhism \ …).

I don't think that person would be considere a muslim or whatever. However, the concept of "sin" varies greatly among the named groups. A "sinner" by Christian terms might well be doing exactly the right thing according to another religion.

This is the reasons the common perception of religious groups is not by comparing their actions to someone understanding of the scriptures. But rather, as a social group, which is built of multiple people claiming to follow that religion.

I think Jesus' Chrstianity is a wholly individual thing, like Zen. You're either enlightened, yourself, or you're not. It doesn't matter if your father or your mother or your brother is enlightened. All that matters is whether you are, and part of that means letting go of worrying about others' enlightenment. Likewise, Christianity. Jesus said, in Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple."

Unless I am mistaken, you both used this latter perception for Muslims; I fail to see your insistence of not using it about Christians,

I don't think I addressed "muslims" at all. I addressed specifically "what the Koran says." In places, it may have been unclear that I was also talking not about "muslims" in general or even Islam in general, but specifically about those groups of people who have, for decades, marched in the streets chanting "Death to Israel," and "Throw the Jews into the Sea!"

Of course, I know, now, that they were just "joking," and that the chants were mistranslated, anyway. When they marched along in those KKK-looking white robes and hoods, with knives, guns and bomb belts, fists in their air, blood all over them, chanting what sounded like "Death to Israel!" they really meant, "We'd like Israel to have a Happy Holiday!!!"

Yeh.....

I will not enter the foolish argument about the value of statements. Given my place of living, I am too afraid of the possible outcomes in the end.

Roger that, Amir. Best to you and all your family and neighbors.

David

Taliesin
08-23-2007, 07:48 AM
Personally I take the view that religion is more trouble than it's worth

Still, over here we've just recieved a news report that GWB believes there would be chaos in Iraq if US troops leave.

David Orange
08-23-2007, 09:35 AM
...over here we've just recieved a news report that GWB believes there would be chaos in Iraq if US troops leave.

Chaos? In Iraq?

Never happen. That place is stable as a...uh...as a nuclear plant in Japan!

If you recall, Bush spent a lot of time denying that our involvement in Iraq was comparable to our involvement in Viet Nam. Now he's saying it's exactly like our involvement in Viet Nam--but he says that's a good thing. Dang idiot.

He says it would be "devastating" if we leave, but the truth is, the devastation is because we went in to begin with. Compare the current situation to what we'd have now if we never went in. We'd still have Saddam, sure. But Afghanistan would be in a lot better shape and Al Quaeda would be far more worn down. Saddam didn't want them in Iraq and wouldn't let them in: he was afraid they'd work against him, which they would have if he hadn't had the country under such a tight lid. So if we'd left him in place, AQ wouldn't have gotten involved there and we could have completely eliminated the Taliban.

Like Viet Nam, the war in Iraq was predicated on a lie. In Viet Nam, it was the phony attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. In Iraq--wait: did I say "a lie"? The invasion of Iraq was predicated on an entire liturgy of lies. Saddam had WMDs and could deploy them in 45 minutes. Saddam was hosting AQ and would send them over here. We'd be greeted as liberators. We'd have the country in democratic good shape in a matter of six months (isn't that what Rumsfeld claimed?).

And more and more lies on top of lies. We had to go over there to stop them from coming over here. Now he says if we leave, they'll come over here. And the fact is, plenty of them are already over here.

All Bush cares about is his own a$$. His $ out the a$$. Him and his rich buddies. He does not care about other people's suffering except that he enjoys it. He likes to see "little people" suffer. We're like the frogs in the pond where he played as a boy: he holds the world captive and blows people up for a kick.

And to think that it was "Christians" who voted for him. And it was "Christians" who applauded the decision of the stacked Supreme Court to put him in office even though over half the United States voted solidly against his sorry hide.

I can say certainly that false religion is only good for the devil.

David

jennifer paige smith
08-23-2007, 10:58 AM
After scanning these posts and trying to suss out the what's what from the this is this's, I' can say that David represents a position on Christianity that is relevant and refreshing. He holds, not against Islam but against Christianity, the very principles that make's one 'Christain'.
There are texts within the old testament that are more similar than different to the Letters (limited, mind you) of Islam to which I've been exposed. But there was then the new covenant and the life of christ, The New Testament. Christians follow the christ path example.

Jen

Trying to get a word in edgewise in the midst of all this aguing, I will quote myself from a previous post.
Just checkin,.

jennifer paige smith
08-23-2007, 10:59 AM
Personally I take the view that religion is more trouble than it's worth

Still, over here we've just recieved a news report that GWB believes there would be chaos in Iraq if US troops leave.

There would be? Seems to me , there is.

David Orange
08-23-2007, 12:30 PM
Trying to get a word in edgewise in the midst of all this aguing, I will quote myself from a previous post.
Just checkin,.

Thanks for the comment. Since I sensed the mud 'rasslin' on the way, I thought you might regret having made that post, so I didn't respond.

To me, modern "Christianity" is almost entirely false and misguided. Modern "Christians" seem primarily material and motivated by greed and vengefulness. The churches don't dare oppose these ideas because they need the money from "Christians" like that. And the preachers are, increasingly, "professionals" who want a bigger congregation to pay for a bigger church, to create a bigger salary and more material goods and comforts for themselves.

But just reading the New Testament clearly proves that these organizations and their members are deceived and therefore doomed. These folks tend to be very big contributors to "charity," I will grant you, but they have also heavily supported America's wars of aggression and laws and institutions that oppress the poor and destroy families in the name of "family values". So which will weigh more heavily in the balance? I believe anything false does more harm than good.

Another thing that has interested me for years is the concept of the Antichrist. As described in the Bible, the Antichrist will be, above all, a master of deception. Lately, the "Left Behind" series of novels has aided that cause by infusing American right-wing "Christians" with the idea that it will be the Europeans and American liberals who will be deceived by some East-European leader of the UN. They are so sure that everyone else will be deceived that they can't imagine that they, themselves would vote for the Antichrist and cheer him on as he spreads carnage and oppression across the world. They hated Clinton as a "dope-smoking draft dodger," then elected a dope-smoking, coke-snorting alcoholic layabout wastrel who had never done anything but ruin businesses to be the leader of the free world because he claimed that Jesus had "changed his heart." He presided over the executions of 152 people as governor of Texas, never once extended or even seriously considered extending mercy, mocked the condemned and laughed at them all. He's leading American "Christians" to ruin as he ruined everything else he ever touched.

And as for the war, he warns that we don't want to spur the kinds of things that followed our departure from Viet Nam, such as boat people and the killing fields, but he neglects to notice that such things resulted from over ten years of US involvement in that country. If we hadn't built up the huge mass of arms, enmities and rotten situations that we created with lies, none of those things would ever have taken place. We supported a dictatorship and boat people and killing fields were the inevitable result.

If we stay in Iraq ten, twenty or thirty more years, the result will be the same when we leave as it would be if we left today: murder and revenge on unprecedented scales. All because GEORGE LIED.

Irritates me just a little.

David

Ryan Sanford
08-23-2007, 01:50 PM
They hated Clinton as a "dope-smoking draft dodger," then elected a dope-smoking, coke-snorting alcoholic layabout wastrel who had never done anything but ruin businesses to be the leader of the free world because he claimed that Jesus had "changed his heart." He presided over the executions of 152 people as governor of Texas, never once extended or even seriously considered extending mercy, mocked the condemned and laughed at them all. He's leading American "Christians" to ruin as he ruined everything else he ever touched.

And as for the war, he warns that we don't want to spur the kinds of things that followed our departure from Viet Nam, such as boat people and the killing fields, but he neglects to notice that such things resulted from over ten years of US involvement in that country. If we hadn't built up the huge mass of arms, enmities and rotten situations that we created with lies, none of those things would ever have taken place. We supported a dictatorship and boat people and killing fields were the inevitable result.

If we stay in Iraq ten, twenty or thirty more years, the result will be the same when we leave as it would be if we left today: murder and revenge on unprecedented scales. All because GEORGE LIED.

Irritates me just a little.

David
Finally, I agree with what you're saying! :)

Chuck Clark
08-23-2007, 02:33 PM
GEORGE LIED.

Well said. I agree and am also fed up with the situation.

Ron Tisdale
08-23-2007, 02:49 PM
Ditto.

Big Time.

B,
R

David Orange
08-23-2007, 03:03 PM
Finally, I agree with what you're saying! :)

Well, thanks. I don't know how anyone could disagree if they've been paying the least attention to what's happening.

It kills me that that little chickenhawk hid away during Viet Nam, told everyone this time that Iraq is nothing like Viet Nam, and now makes it the saving grace of his strategerie that it actually is like Viet Nam.

Well, it is!

Only big difference is that his Daddy had a way to get him out of Viet Nam.

The disaster won't be if we pull out: it was that we went in, in a rush, led by a liar whose only intent was to make himself a big man.

Talk about sickening!

David

jennifer paige smith
08-23-2007, 09:27 PM
Chaos? In Iraq?

Never happen. That place is stable as a...uh...as a nuclear plant in Japan!

If you recall, Bush spent a lot of time denying that our involvement in Iraq was comparable to our involvement in Viet Nam. Now he's saying it's exactly like our involvement in Viet Nam--but he says that's a good thing. Dang idiot.

He says it would be "devastating" if we leave, but the truth is, the devastation is because we went in to begin with. Compare the current situation to what we'd have now if we never went in. We'd still have Saddam, sure. But Afghanistan would be in a lot better shape and Al Quaeda would be far more worn down. Saddam didn't want them in Iraq and wouldn't let them in: he was afraid they'd work against him, which they would have if he hadn't had the country under such a tight lid. So if we'd left him in place, AQ wouldn't have gotten involved there and we could have completely eliminated the Taliban.

Like Viet Nam, the war in Iraq was predicated on a lie. In Viet Nam, it was the phony attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. In Iraq--wait: did I say "a lie"? The invasion of Iraq was predicated on an entire liturgy of lies. Saddam had WMDs and could deploy them in 45 minutes. Saddam was hosting AQ and would send them over here. We'd be greeted as liberators. We'd have the country in democratic good shape in a matter of six months (isn't that what Rumsfeld claimed?).

And more and more lies on top of lies. We had to go over there to stop them from coming over here. Now he says if we leave, they'll come over here. And the fact is, plenty of them are already over here.

All Bush cares about is his own a$$. His $ out the a$$. Him and his rich buddies. He does not care about other people's suffering except that he enjoys it. He likes to see "little people" suffer. We're like the frogs in the pond where he played as a boy: he holds the world captive and blows people up for a kick.

And to think that it was "Christians" who voted for him. And it was "Christians" who applauded the decision of the stacked Supreme Court to put him in office even though over half the United States voted solidly against his sorry hide.

I can say certainly that false religion is only good for the devil.

David

Thank you ;) .

I appreciate the previous considerations, too.

jen

Michael Varin
08-24-2007, 06:22 PM
All I can say is. . .

Vote for Ron Paul!

Guilty Spark
08-24-2007, 10:57 PM
Personally I take the view that religion is more trouble than it's worth

Still, over here we've just recieved a news report that GWB believes there would be chaos in Iraq if US troops leave.

Funny. There is obviously chaos there now.

However if US (And allied) soldiers pulled out I think it would be 10 or even 100 times worse.
Even more people would suffer.

The US owes it to Iraq (and I'd even suggest the world) to fix that country, period.

After that I'd find everyone in office who pushed for that invasion plan and make them retire sans cushy benifits.

Ryan Sanford
08-24-2007, 11:35 PM
However if US (And allied) soldiers pulled out I think it would be 10 or even 100 times worse.

Why do you think that? I think it's safe to say that a foreign occupational force contributes slightly to unrest, especially when the force is occupying a country in the midst of a civil war.

Even more people would suffer.

Some of them being our friends and family, if we continue the occupation of Iraq.

The US owes it to Iraq (and I'd even suggest the world) to fix that country, period.
That's a little tricky. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, are we supposed to go around the world "fixing" (read: reform their government and overthrow their leaders) things? Does America have a responsibility to do what it thinks is right for other less powerful nations? There isn't a clear answer to that question, IMO.

One thing is for certain though, if we are going to let our representatives (people in government) decide things like that, then we'd better start electing better representatives, because Mr. Bush's ideals, in my opinion, do not reflect the ideals of the majority (and certainly not mine).

I'm glad I'll be old enough to vote by the next election. :D

Neil Mick
08-25-2007, 04:28 AM
Good riddance, racist.

David

Cntrl+F is a pretty cool feature, in fora. You can find out how many times certain person(s) repeat a phrase, if you do a word search.

Know how many times I was called a racist, within this thread?

6. By one person. All using the same context.

And yes, I did block that person: but I log back in as a guest to check in on the response posts, just to see if I'm being slandered. To me, "ignore" means I cut them out of the conversation: because their abuse is over-the-top.

And when I did log in...look what I found.

Wow. To me, being called a racist is about the worst thing you can call someone--online or off. The few times I pull out the "R" word is as a reference to something else: or as a gentle warning, for the post'er to ease up (ie, "your post sounds racist)." You just don't call someone a racist, in my book. It's the line you don't cross.

Someone who is repeatedly told that he is a racist is bad, no matter what he says, or does. Racists marched around in the Nazi uniforms, murdered children for whistling at white women, sent Japanese-Americans into camps, murder people in Iraq just because their name is "Omar." Being a racist is unforgiveable.

But what is a racist?

racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist)

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It is so easy to misunderstand's views, online or off: and I have first-hand experience of how damaging words expressed right on this site can be. Being called a racist is a direct attack on me, as a person. It's inflammatory, kind of like waving a baseball bat around in a crowded theatre.

One post'er PM'd me and suggested that I respond, soon after my last post, here. I replied that it's best to just step back, let Jun shut this thread down. The puzzling thing is, here we are...and the thread's still open. Perhaps he's out of town... :confused:

Besides, there is no way to defend yourself against such a charge. Being called a racist is a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of charge. And so I won't even try. Anyone who would like a more detailed dialogue on the subject is welcome to PM me.

But for anyone who hasn't read my blog and my experiences in Cyprus, working with all those people, all those nationalities. Someone who calls me a racist is clearly ignorant about my past--my work within Christian, Jewish, and Quaker groups. At Cyprus, I worked, played and laughed with Jews, Palestinian's, Iraqi's, an Ethiopian (yes, you know who you are), Croatians, Egyptians, Scottish, Christians, Muslims.

My students and fellow aikidoists in my score+ years' training have come from all over the world. One day, I'd like to look back on my training and wonder if all skin-colors...all the varieties of human being on the planet..have had the chance to grab my wrist, as I had the chance to grab their's. Wouldn't that be :cool: :)

To me, these sentiments are antithetical to racism. Touch is a very personal boundary, and most racists, I imagine, react negatively to the touch of their enemy. But I am too close to the source, and therefore biased. You decide.

Neil Mick
08-25-2007, 04:30 AM
The US owes it to Iraq (and I'd even suggest the world) to fix that country, period.

The US owes it to Iraq to pay them reparations. We don't "need" to fix anything...and we cannot, so long as we are the Occupiers.

Iraqi's can fix things just fine, by themselves. The US needs to stop sending in the foreign corporations and contractors, and let Iraqi's fix Iraq.

David Orange
08-25-2007, 09:15 AM
Funny. There is obviously chaos there now.

Okay, there's a little chaos. And some horror and cruelty and mass murder and vengeance, but I'm sticking with Cheney on this: it's in it's last throes.

However if US (And allied) soldiers pulled out I think it would be 10 or even 100 times worse. Even more people would suffer.

Smart people knew that would be the inevitable result if we went into Baghdad. That's what Colin Powell, Schwartzkopf and George Bush the First knew long, long ago. That's why we didn't go "all the way to Baghdad" in the first gulf war. But Little George was too stupid and too proud of himself and he pushed and bullied (with his GOP bulldozer) and took ten miles every time anyone gave an inch.

There's no way we can stay there long enough for any other result when we finally pull out. It is going to happen now or later. It can happen after we ruin our armed forces or we can at least still save them before it does. I say pull out the military and send George over to answer for it.

The US owes it to Iraq (and I'd even suggest the world) to fix that country, period.

Our puppets have chosen to go on vacation right now. There's no fixing that country the way we've been doing it. NONE. We can let another 30 or 40,000 troops die to learn that or we can save a lot of soldiers and their families. We cannot save Iraq. If Iran takes over, it's on George Bush's head.

After that I'd find everyone in office who pushed for that invasion plan and make them retire sans cushy benifits.

Now you're talking super sense!

David

David Orange
08-25-2007, 09:17 AM
Whine, whine, whine.

Like I said. NO integrity.

David

David Orange
08-25-2007, 09:19 AM
One thing is for certain though, if we are going to let our representatives (people in government) decide things like that, then we'd better start electing better representatives, because Mr. Bush's ideals, in my opinion, do not reflect the ideals of the majority (and certainly not mine).

Sadly, unfortunately, it doesn't help if the loser basically owns the Supreme Court because his father appointed enough of the judges to get his way. And if his brother controls the crucial state and his brother's girlfriend controls the voter registrations for that state.

Sadly and unfortunately.

David

David Orange
08-25-2007, 09:38 AM
And yes, I did block that person: but I log back in as a guest to check in on the response posts, just to see if I'm being slandered. To me, "ignore" means I cut them out of the conversation: because their abuse is over-the-top.

Let's see..you "cut them out of the conversation" but you send them private messages and go back on the board to read their posts....and you reply "to the board," but not to the person you send the PMs to....

Neil, that's not called "ignoring." It's called "sulking"!

Oh, and having no integrity!

And when I did log in...look what I found.

Everyone else already knows, Neil, because they haven't been pretending not to read my posts.

To me, being called a racist is about the worst thing you can call someone--online or off.

Well, it's about the worst thing you can be, isn't it? Online or off, in public or in secret. But if I said I don't hate black people and Jews while I speak out in favor of the KKK and excuse what they're doing as "not racist, but defending their religion," wouldn't I still really be a racist? Hmmmmmmmmm?

But what is a racist?

Let me guess: it's someone other than Neil?

You need to face the truth, Neil, renouce hubris and play fair--that means you live by the same rules you apply to others and apply the same rules fairly to everyone.

racism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racist)

Your source neglects one definition: supporting a racist group that calls for the destruction of a racial or ethnic group, including "ethnic cleansing" of an area. You support those who chant "Death to Israel" and "Throw the Jews into the Sea". You torturously explain how that isn't racist. If the KKK had had more people like you, my father would have had a harder time when they crushed them forty years ago.

Besides, there is no way to defend yourself against such a charge. Being called a racist is a "when did you stop beating your wife" sort of charge. And so I won't even try. Anyone who would like a more detailed dialogue on the subject is welcome to PM me.

NOTE: some people won't get a reply because Neil is pretending to ignore you. Really, you have to just post what you think and he will read it even though he says he won't. It's a matter of lacking personal integrity to do what he says.

That aside, Neil, you could just quit supporting racist actions and treat everyone fairly and no one would say you're racist again.

Someone who calls me a racist is clearly ignorant about my past

Racism isn't about the past. It's what you say and do today that counts. Of course, when our schools were integrated, a lot of teachers worked with the new black students, but they had choice descriptions of them in the teacher's lounge.

Renounce racism in your heart and you won't have the problem.

David

jennifer paige smith
08-25-2007, 10:05 AM
All I can say is. . .

Vote for Ron Paul!

Yes. check.

Ryan Sanford
08-25-2007, 02:14 PM
Everyone else already knows, Neil, because they haven't been pretending not to read my posts.
I've certainly read your posts, and I think you write excellent things sometimes. I completely agree with the following passage, very well put.

Smart people knew that would be the inevitable result if we went into Baghdad. That's what Colin Powell, Schwartzkopf and George Bush the First knew long, long ago. That's why we didn't go "all the way to Baghdad" in the first gulf war. But Little George was too stupid and too proud of himself and he pushed and bullied (with his GOP bulldozer) and took ten miles every time anyone gave an inch.

There's no way we can stay there long enough for any other result when we finally pull out. It is going to happen now or later. It can happen after we ruin our armed forces or we can at least still save them before it does. I say pull out the military and send George over to answer for it.
On the other hand, I think you really pull yourself down with those insults of yours, as follows...

Oh, and having no integrity!
Even if he really DOES have no integrity, it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to announce that. And calling Neil a racist? That really crossed a line, in my opinion.

Guilty Spark
08-25-2007, 03:56 PM
Hey Ryan, Shes gonna be a long one :)

Why do you think that? I think it's safe to say that a foreign occupational force contributes slightly to unrest, especially when the force is occupying a country in the midst of a civil war.

Your 100% right. In Bosnia one could really feel the locals wanting us to leave. While they usually weren't assholes about it, you could tell THEY felt it was time they stood on their own too feet.

I don't see Iraq that way. Not even close. If we remove our security forces now I believe their going to kill each other.
Here is how I see it. Iraq was a big house party. Half the guests didn't like the other half BUT the owner of the house, a real mean SOB kept them in like. The police (US) decided to go in and remove the owner of the house. Now the people there are at each others throats. The police stayed on the scene to try and control the fighting. Now that the fires have been lit (and remember some of these people, like the balklands, have fudes dating back to the 1400's+) do you think if the police left everyone would just go back to how things were?

I personalyl don't think so.

Some of them being our friends and family, if we continue the occupation of Iraq.
Agree 100%
I'm not going to suggest the life of an american soldier is more important than the life of an Iraqi.
That my friends life is more important than someone I don't know.
I firmly believe we owe it to that country to fix it by whatever means possibly, obviously my opinion being keep troops on the ground until their ready to get along.
What people like YOU need to do is vote and urge your friends to vote so that someone gets put in power who can
A)Clean this up and
B) Ensure it doesn't happen again.


That's a little tricky. As one of the most powerful countries in the world, are we supposed to go around the world "fixing" (read: reform their government and overthrow their leaders) things? Does America have a responsibility to do what it thinks is right for other less powerful nations? There isn't a clear answer to that question, IMO.
Agreed. There are some bad people and bad places in the world. I believing in getting those bad people out of power and while not overthrowing governments, giving people an actual CHOICE as to their governments. Voting. Many people in many countries don't have that choice.


One thing is for certain though, if we are going to let our representatives (people in government) decide things like that, then we'd better start electing better representatives, because Mr. Bush's ideals, in my opinion, do not reflect the ideals of the majority (and certainly not mine).

I'm glad I'll be old enough to vote by the next election. :D

Like I said mate. Vote. Get your friends to vote.

Hey David,

Okay, there's a little chaos. And some horror and cruelty and mass murder and vengeance, but I'm sticking with Cheney on this: it's in it's last throes.

I'm hoping your (he's) right but I wouldn't risk being wrong.


Smart people knew that would be the inevitable result if we went into Baghdad. That's what Colin Powell, Schwartzkopf and George Bush the First knew long, long ago. That's why we didn't go "all the way to Baghdad" in the first gulf war. But Little George was too stupid and too proud of himself and he pushed and bullied (with his GOP bulldozer) and took ten miles every time anyone gave an inch.

There's no way we can stay there long enough for any other result when we finally pull out. It is going to happen now or later. It can happen after we ruin our armed forces or we can at least still save them before it does. I say pull out the military and send George over to answer for it.

Ethically I don't think we can just say oopps we fucked up. We picked the wrong guy for a leader, anyways, sorry and good luck.


Our puppets have chosen to go on vacation right now. There's no fixing that country the way we've been doing it. NONE. We can let another 30 or 40,000 troops die to learn that or we can save a lot of soldiers and their families. We cannot save Iraq. If Iran takes over, it's on George Bush's head.

Sure it will be on his head but who cares? He'll be on a ranch somewhere eating steak having laughs with the CEOs of companies who are offering him positions.
Mean while our soldiers will now have to deal with Iran AND occupied Iraq.

I have no idea how to fix Iraq, I think leaving is ethically and stratigically wrong at this stage.

Hey Neil,

The US owes it to Iraq to pay them reparations. We don't "need" to fix anything...and we cannot, so long as we are the Occupiers.

Iraqi's can fix things just fine, by themselves. The US needs to stop sending in the foreign corporations and contractors, and let Iraqi's fix Iraq.
I firmly believe that the state of Native americans, native reserves and the issues surrounding them are a result of "paying them reparations".
Hand outs aren't going to work.
I do think all the foreign corporations and contractors in Iraq are a major cause of problems.
Before we even had boots on the ground companies were lining up with dollar signs in their eyes and already reaching for their slice of the pie.

The problem with US politics (probably all politics i guess)
is the VERY day a new president gets elected, the other parties are going to start attacking him, stabbing him in the back, bringing up a grade 9 test he cheated on, ANYTHING to discredit and weaken him.
It's actually quite disgusting. What needs to happen is once someone gets put in office, everyone gives him support (for the most part) so he can concentrate on what needs to be fixed AND fix it- not waste his time watching his back or dealing with bullshit.

Do that and you'll fix Iraq.

David Orange
08-25-2007, 05:10 PM
I've certainly read your posts, and I think you write excellent things sometimes. I completely agree with the following passage, very well put.

Thanks.

On the other hand, I think you really pull yourself down with those insults of yours, as follows...

David Orange wrote:
Oh, and having no integrity!

Even if he really DOES have no integrity, it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to announce that. And calling Neil a racist? That really crossed a line, in my opinion.

Well, review the chain:

Neil Mick wrote:
...I did block that person: but I log back in as a guest to check in on the response posts, just to see if I'm being slandered. To me, "ignore" means I cut them out of the conversation: because their abuse is over-the-top...

I replied,

"Neil, that's not called "ignoring." It's called "sulking"!

Oh, and having no integrity!"

See, he logs in "as a guest" because he doesn't have the integrity, man to man (or person to person as the case may be) to just argue it out. I said when he promised to put me on ignore that he didn't have the basic integrity to hold to that because he's shown time and again that he doesn't. He "puts people on ignore," but then pops in and answers their posts while making a big deal about how he's not going to read what they say. I think it's not only fair but appropriate to point out that he's violating his own lofty standards, which surpass everyone else's.

As for his racism, I find that a shame and I hate to bring it up, but that's his major offense. I agree with some things he says, but we diverge very widely on some things and a racist attitude is the basis of his positions on most of the points where we disagree. He has all these highly ethical positions, but when high ethics are based on condemnation of a whole race of people, something is drastically wrong with your mind.

So again, I think it's not only fair but appropriate and very much called for to call him on his extreme bias and despicable support of organizations that are not only racist but genocidal as well.

Still, I appreciate your comments.

David

Guilty Spark
08-25-2007, 05:28 PM
I don't know if I would consider Neil's remarks racist.
Heavily biased yes, boardering on predjuice sometimes maybe. Maybe it's semantics.

I think if you "ignore" someone then you should do just that. Ignore them. Logging back in as a guest is even farther from ignoring someone than just hitting unignore to see what their saying. That's not integrity. Some people are too emotional about these kinda arguments IMO.

There is telling someone that they are on ignore to let them know you are no longer going to continue the conversation and there is telling someone that they are on ignore as a subtle way of saying you and your argument are stupid and you're below me. People use it way too much around here.

Most of the times I have seen a user on aikiweb tell another user that they will be ignored it's been used to insult their character.

David Orange
08-25-2007, 05:47 PM
Iraq was a big house party. Half the guests didn't like the other half BUT the owner of the house, a real mean SOB kept them in like. The police (US) decided to go in and remove the owner of the house. Now the people there are at each others throats. The police stayed on the scene to try and control the fighting.

Man....first off, we're not the police. But if we were, we would have been going in on a false warrant. Now we're in court going, "Well, uh...the defendant had been abusing his wife." And the judge says, "That isn't on the warrant. The warrant says he had was selling meth and operating a huge meth lab. Your report show no sign of a meth lab or any methamphetamine on the premises..." It makes this look less like parody:

http://www.aikiweb.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13124

Second, we went in with way too tiny a force. Rumsfeld and Cheney cheated us all. I say reduce them both to paupers and take their estates for the national debt.

do you think if the police left everyone would just go back to how things were?

They're going back to how they were, no matter how long we stay. We could stay 100 years and it would only make a scratch on the face of that kind of history. We would have to stay 1000 years to make a difference. My kids don't owe Iraq anything because a d**mned fool rushed in their for his own foolish pride. The only way we can sustain a force there at all is to institute a draft and that is not fair. Bush cheated the volunteers who went. That's bad enough. But there's no way we should allow him or anyone following him to grab people off the streets and force them to go into that hell-hole that they never supported to begin with. It was built on lies and it's doomed to fail.

There are some bad people and bad places in the world. I believing in getting those bad people out of power and while not overthrowing governments, giving people an actual CHOICE as to their governments. Voting. Many people in many countries don't have that choice.

Thanks to Jeb Bush and Kathryn Harris.

Hey David,
I'm hoping your (he's) right but I wouldn't risk being wrong.

That was pure sarcasm. He was wrong. And it's not going to get better.

Ethically I don't think we can just say oopps we fucked up. We picked the wrong guy for a leader, anyways, sorry and good luck.

Well, I'm not sending my son over there to clean up after Curious George, who doesn't feel like he owes anyone anything. I say send George over and let them get their due from him.

Sure it will be on his head but who cares? He'll be on a ranch somewhere eating steak having laughs with the CEOs of companies who are offering him positions.
Mean while our soldiers will now have to deal with Iran AND occupied Iraq.

Well, that's exactly why we shouldn't send another honest American soldier over there. Put George on TRIAL. IMPEACH him and then send him to the Hague. Same with Cheney and Rumsfeld and Rove. Let the world judge them while there's still something left to judge. Don't make your son pay for that thief's crimes!

I have no idea how to fix Iraq, I think leaving is ethically and stratigically wrong at this stage.

Strategically, it will never get better, not for five-hundred years. Can the US pay for that, year after year? Most people are having trouble meeting their house payments. Millions don't have basic health insurance for their children. How long are we going to pay for George Bush's lies and hubris?

I do think all the foreign corporations and contractors in Iraq are a major cause of problems.
Before we even had boots on the ground companies were lining up with dollar signs in their eyes and already reaching for their slice of the pie.

And Haliburton has been #1 among them. Cheney stacked that deck just like he stacked the US energy policy that we're not allowed to know who consulted on. All the more reason to wrap it up. Viet Nam was exactly the same kind of thing. Corporations were getting filthy rich from US support of puppets.

The problem with US politics (probably all politics i guess)
is the VERY day a new president gets elected, the other parties are going to start attacking him, stabbing him in the back, bringing up a grade 9 test he cheated on, ANYTHING to discredit and weaken him.

The mystery of GWB is how he was able to quash "the question" that every other candidate had to answer in detail for decades before him: "Have you ever used drugs?"

The press asked Clinton. He said "I tried marijuana. I didn't like it. I didn't inhale." And the press followed him with that his entire two (honestly won) terms.

But Bush (who is well known to have been a heavy abuser of alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and probably lots of other stuff) just said, "I'm not gonna play gotcha politics" and he has never faced the kind of pressure that every other politician has faced before him. It's his machine, I guess.

It's actually quite disgusting. What needs to happen is once someone gets put in office, everyone gives him support (for the most part) so he can concentrate on what needs to be fixed AND fix it- not waste his time watching his back or dealing with bullshit.

Do that and you'll fix Iraq.

Iraq didn't need "fixing" until Bush got his hands on it. But Afghanistan did and it's still as broke as ever. Or very nearly. Anyway, OBL is still making statements and they're still selling T-shirts with his picture on them all over the world.

It's the American Presidency that needs fixing.

David

David Orange
08-25-2007, 05:54 PM
I don't know if I would consider Neil's remarks racist.
Heavily biased yes, boardering on predjuice sometimes maybe. Maybe it's semantics.

Like I say, we used to have a lot of KKK apologists in Alabama. In those days, pretty much every family had a few members in the Klan. If you spoke against it, you were speaking against your own family, maybe, your neighbor's family for sure. And a lot of people defended the Klan by defending their family members. And a lot of people who weren't members nonetheless agreed with the real aims of the Klan but helped minimize those aims. Their statements were not outright racist, but in supporting a murderous, racist organization, they were acting in racism. And Neil does that in support of Hamas and Hezbollah. My comment refers to the overall thrust of his statements across the board.

I think if you "ignore" someone then you should do just that. Ignore them. Logging back in as a guest is even farther from ignoring someone than just hitting unignore to see what their saying. That's not integrity. Some people are too emotional about these kinda arguments IMO.

Yes. Again, that's not ignoring but sulking.

I know you are sincere in your views. I hope you don't mistake my passionate views as disdain for your sincerity.

Best to you.

David

Guilty Spark
08-25-2007, 07:32 PM
Man....first off, we're not the police.
You're not?
Tsunami strikes and the cries for American help go out. (Then you bring people home and the ungreatful people complain about dirty washrooms and the bottled water heh)
South Korea wants american soldiers out out out. Until the north rattle their sabres then it's we love the USA parades.
Many people don't like the police, until they need help. Then if you're not there they are up in arms over why it took you so long :)

I believe when you said we're not the police you ment that the US doesn't have the right to go around playing cop.
When I say it I mean that anytime someone needs help, it's the US they go to. Big catch 22.


Second, we went in with way too tiny a force.
Probably. I'm out of my lane with this but it's not hard to envision someone sitting back saying a few rebels won't challange the most powerful army int he world. We'll send a few of the boys in, kick some ass take names and be done with it.


They're going back to how they were, no matter how long we stay. We could stay 100 years and it would only make a scratch on the face of that kind of history. We would have to stay 1000 years to make a difference. My kids don't owe Iraq anything because a d**mned fool rushed in their for his own foolish pride.
Our kids don't owe Iraq anything but we do. We need to be held accountable for our actions. Sadly our kids MAY pay the price because of our mistakes.


That was pure sarcasm. He was wrong. And it's not going to get better.

Ahhh I missed that, point for you ;)


Well, I'm not sending my son over there to clean up after Curious George, who doesn't feel like he owes anyone anything. I say send George over and let them get their due from him.

He's going to retire happy and get fat.

Don't make your son pay for that thief's crimes!
Again, Bush didn't vote himself in. Half +1 of the American peopel did.


Iraq didn't need "fixing" until Bush got his hands on it. But Afghanistan did and it's still as broke as ever. Or very nearly.
Disagree here. We're making a lot of progress there.


It's the American Presidency that needs fixing.
David

Agreed. Fix that mess and you'll be able to fix the other mess you guys made ;)

And Neil does that in support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

I think his bias against the states (well certain things in it) and Bush is so heavy that he is blinded when it comes to Hamas and Hezbollah.


I know you are sincere in your views. I hope you don't mistake my passionate views as disdain for your sincerity.

Best to you.

David
Not at all David (and thank you)
Poltics and political-speak aren't my thing. I realise you guys can talk circles around me.

I'm just speaking from the heart and within my limited POV.
I understand how passionate people can be over their views, I'm the same way. I've just seen how it can cause people to loose their cool sometimes so I do my best not to get frustrated when someone doesnt realise that I'm right!
(I kid)

dps
08-25-2007, 08:14 PM
Man....first off, we're not the police.

Who should be the police.

David Orange
08-25-2007, 08:20 PM
I believe when you said we're not the police you ment that the US doesn't have the right to go around playing cop.
When I say it I mean that anytime someone needs help, it's the US they go to. Big catch 22.

Yes, but we weren't "the police" to begin with. If someone asks for help, that doesn't give us the right to install a puppet government. And in the case of Iraq, they didn't ask for our help.

In fact, Rumsfeld and Cheney were instrumental in putting Saddam in place in Iraq, arming him, helping him murder his way to the top. Maybe we had an obligation to take him down (questionably), but even Cheney knew that the course we took was stupid. When we didn't go all the way to Baghdad in the first gulf war, Cheney said, in effect, "We'd be in a quagmire. We'd have to create a new government andthat's not what the US is about...etc., etc.," It was about 1992. He outlined clearly every bad thing that would happen if we went into Baghdad and by 2003, it was all coming true.

Probably. I'm out of my lane with this but it's not hard to envision someone sitting back saying a few rebels won't challange the most powerful army int he world. We'll send a few of the boys in, kick some ass take names and be done with it.

But we weren't looking at "a few rebels." We were looking at one of the largest standing armies in the world, in a huge country, and, according to GW Bush, thousands and thousands of trained terrorists.

General Shinseki was fired because he said we needed several hundred thousand troops to take over and keep the lid on if we did go in. Bush got rid of him post haste.

So it was known that we needed many times the number of troops we actually sent. It's like Bush went to great lengths to figure out the most screwed up thing he could do the USA, then did it.

Now, in The Art of War, Sun Tzu advises not to destroy an enemy army when you conquer it, but GW Bush knew better than Sun Tzu or Lao Tzu. He is a follower of Bozo. He dismantled the Iraqi army, did not confiscate their weapons, further distributed hundreds of thousands of brand new weapons with no idea where they all went. He didn't guard the nuclear facilities or the high explosive depots. He had our soldiers guard the oil fields and the banks. So what was once one of the largest armies in the world is now an insurgency. Our men are getting picked of two and three and ten at a time by IEDs and they still don't have decent body armor or armored vehicles. Their tours are being extended again and again, their time between deployments shortened and the number of deployments increased.

Rumsfeld said, "You go to war with the army you have," again going bass ackwards from Sun Tzu. You go to war with the army you have in two conditions:

1. If the army is impeccable and in shape for the job.

Otherwise:

2. You're an idiot.

Our kids don't owe Iraq anything but we do. We need to be held accountable for our actions. Sadly our kids MAY pay the price because of our mistakes.

I can't agree with that. At least not in terms of keeping our military there. The puppet government hasn't done anything but consolidate power for sectarian domination. The longer we stay, the deeper they dig in to annihilate the other sect. That's all they're doing, so our military being there isn't helping and whenever we leave, however many of our men and women are killed and their children left without parents, there will be a bloodbath and chaos when we leave. So let's get it over with. I opposed going in there from the first. I opposed GW Bush when he was running for the GOP nomination in 2000. I don't owe him or Iraq anything and my children sure don't.

Again, Bush didn't vote himself in. Half +1 of the American peopel did.

He didn't get more than 49% of the vote. The whole thing swung on Florida, where his brother was governor and the governor's girlfriend rigged the voter lists, expelling thousands of people whose names were similar to those of convicted felons. And there were hundreds of other irregularities as well.

But as if that weren't enough, when that dispute went to the Supreme Court, it was tried by people who owed the Bush family and they basically installed GW on a minority vote. History will look on that as the real end of American democracy.

I think his bias against the states (well certain things in it) and Bush is so heavy that he is blinded when it comes to Hamas and Hezbollah.

That and he's anti-Israel. He's very pro-muslim. Okay. That's a choice you can make. But he's sided, apparently, with the most radical anti-Israeli members among them. He seriously denies that those people have murdered thousands of Jews. He seriously denies that trying to drive the Jews out of Palestine is ethnic cleansing and he denies all the history of how a Jewish homeland was established there. Jews were buying land in Palestine back in the 1880s and were well established there by WWII, when they fought for the British and the Arabs fought for Hitler.

Not at all David (and thank you)
Poltics and political-speak aren't my thing. I realise you guys can talk circles around me.

I'm just speaking from the heart and within my limited POV.
I understand how passionate people can be over their views, I'm the same way. I've just seen how it can cause people to loose their cool sometimes so I do my best not to get frustrated when someone doesnt realise that I'm right!
(I kid)

I admire people who serve in the military. I admire your efforts and commitment and sacrifice. I just hate the politicians who will very casually dishonor all that for their own gain. And GW is the #1 Worst in American history.

As I always say, "W: the Worst."

Best to you.

David

David Orange
08-25-2007, 08:23 PM
Who should be the police.

Someone whose constitution at least empowers them to be the world police. Or maybe some nation hired or elected by the rest of the world to be the police for them. I don't remember that happening in our case.

And if we were the police, we'd have the obligation to act only on truthful bases and have our actions accountable in a court of law.

And those conditions don't apply to our actions in Iraq.

David

dps
08-25-2007, 08:25 PM
Someone whose constitution at least empowers them to be the world police. Or maybe some nation hired or elected by the rest of the world to be the police for them. I don't remember that happening in our case.

And if we were the police, we'd have the obligation to act only on truthful bases and have our actions accountable in a court of law.

And those conditions don't apply to our actions in Iraq.

David

Do you honestly think that is possible or probable.

David

Neil Mick
08-25-2007, 09:50 PM
On the other hand, I think you really pull yourself down with those insults of yours, as follows...

Oh, and having no integrity!

Even if he really DOES have no integrity, it certainly isn't your place (or mine) to announce that. And calling Neil a racist? That really crossed a line, in my opinion.

Yes, Ryan: you have to wonder at the motive of someone STILL carrying on and throwing mud, long after the conversation is over.

It's like a guy buying a red sports-car during midlife crisis...you have to wonder...what's he compensating for (*holding up little finger*)?

Neil Mick
08-25-2007, 11:39 PM
I think his bias against the states (well certain things in it) and Bush is so heavy that he is blinded when it comes to Hamas and Hezbollah.

"Blinded??" :confused:

In point of fact: Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the US. You DO know that, right? Hamas and Hezbollah are enemies of Israel, fighting Israel's encroachment in Palestine and Lebanon, respectively. And pardon me if I like to parse what leaders of different groups REALLY say, rather than just blanket dismiss them as insane nutjobs who all want to join hands together and wipe out all the infidels of the world. A good part of resolving conflict is understanding those who claim to be your enemy. Go back to the early posts of the Iraq War thread: you have lots of people there claiming that Hussein was mad, wanted to attack the US, etc. Well, time shows that they were wrong. Seriously, seriously, wrong. It's misinformation like this that gets us into otherwise avoidable, 6-year quagmires. Funny, but some of those folks accused me of supporting Hussein and terrorists back then, too.

What you see before you is hardly my unfiltered and complete views on these issues. Much of what I write needs to be taken under the context of the topic, and the nature of discussion. People come online here and bewail the Hezbollah shelling of Israel, last year. OK, that was bad, no doubt. But, where's the outrage over the Israeli's using most of their cluster-bombs in the last few days of the Summer war, when they KNEW things were coming to an end? The Israeli's, by comparison, were FAR more outraged at their leaders than their supporters here in the US. Something is really, really skewed in the way we talk about these issues: and a big part of that is the distorted picture we see of it, in the media.

But let's just take a step back and talk about what people talk about online, when they talk about terrorism. Almost 90% (estimated) of the discussion threads I've scanned elsewhere on this topic are referring to Islamic fundamentalism. And almost ALL of them conflate Islam with terror (much as David does..which makes it all the more a laff riot when he calls ME a racist!Pot...kettle...black, anyone?).

Now, why is that? Is it that most of the terrorists of the world claim to be Muslim? Really, there is no absolute way to tell, because the terrorists are notoriously bad at publishing their membership lists. :crazy: But anyone without ideological blinders on can see that terrorists don't identify themselves just as Islamic. In fact, some of the most effective acts of terror both in US and Israel weren't didn't even involve Muslims. Yitzak Rabin? Assassinated by Jewish rightwing extremists. The OK city bombings, VA-Tech, or the Columbine massacres? Nary an Islamic in the bunch.

So, where are these people getting their ideas? Why aren't there more threads out there decrying the "other" terrorists? Why is it that Rightwingers and the Israel-can-do-no-wrong types CANNOT seem to talk about anything else, other than Islamic fundamentalism?

Clearly, the media plays a role...as do our leaders. Bush mouthes "al Qaeda" over and over: you start to wonder if al Qaeda are hiding in our bathrooms, right next to the Bolsheviks! :eek:

But I talked earlier in this thread about how one-sided our labels are. Moving on...


Poltics and political-speak aren't my thing. I realise you guys can talk circles around me.

I think that you're more savvy than you let on...at least, when you're not talking about the "blindness" of others... :p

Hey Ryan, Shes gonna be a long one :)

urk. :uch:

I don't see Iraq that way. Not even close.

Funny, but the polls seem to disagree:

Poll: Iraqi's Out of Patience (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-28-poll-cover_x.htm)

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

...and THAT was back in April! :eek:

If we remove our security forces now I believe their going to kill each other.

They already ARE killing each other.

Here is how I see it. Iraq was a big house party. Half the guests didn't like the other half BUT the owner of the house, a real mean SOB kept them in like. The police (US)

The US are as much "police" of the world, as the mafia are the "police" of Italy.

decided to go in and remove the owner of the house. Now the people there are at each others throats. The police stayed on the scene to try and control the fighting.

The police stayed on the scene to try and control the oil.

Now that the fires have been lit (and remember some of these people, like the balklands, have fudes dating back to the 1400's+) do you think if the police left everyone would just go back to how things were?

I personalyl don't think so.

You analogy is missing something.

Iraq was the bastardized end-result of British power-schemes and broken promises at the end of WW1. Essentially three separate nations were stitched together without the support of the locals. In the 60's the CIA ousted a popularly elected leader and helped bring Saddam to power. Throughout the 70's and 80's, he was "Our Man In Iraq," fighting the "good fight" for us, over there. We gave him lots of cool weaponry and gadgetry to keep him from getting bored.

But Saddam decided that that wasn't enough. He had plans to grow into a regional superpower. At first the US agreed to let him invade Kuwait: and then we invaded, purposely destroying the Iraqi infrastructure in the process, in an attempt to force Hussein to the bargaining table.

So, after a debilitating war with Iran and 10+ years' of crippling and inhumane Sanctions, the US AGAIN invades, this time, with an eye to setting up a more permanent strategic position, as well as controlling the oil.

Flash forward to today. It's been six terrible years, in an Occupation where the leaders keep telling us (and the Iraqi's) that "progress is just around the corner." WW2 took only 4 years to win.

It's hardly a stretch to surmise that Iraqi's in general have begun to doubt the oh-so-noble intentions put forth by BushCo. We've long stopped being seen as the defenders of freedom...ESPECIALLY in Iraq.

Now, we're seen more as what we really are. Military adventurists, out for plunder. I don't know about you: but when racketeers pony up to my neighborhood with the stated intent to protect me, and 6 years' down the line I end up with no gas (all the while my gas is siphoned off to my "protectors"), no security, no electricity, all the money allocated either diverted (read: stolen) or misspent, and 4 brand new shiny bases being built...I'd be pretty stupid by then, not to question my "saviors."

What people like YOU need to do is vote and urge your friends to vote so that someone gets put in power who can
A)Clean this up and
B) Ensure it doesn't happen again.

Oh, but it will. On that, I am almost positive. You see, Grant: your formula would actually work if the only problem were our poor choice of leaders. If it were simply that we elected the wrong man: I would agree with you. But it's more than that. It's not just Bush who got us in Iraq. The MSM's blind, pro-war portrayal of the invasion as a videogame was a part of it: as were our supine Congress. We failed to understand that the inspections were actually doing the job: instead, we relied on the nonstop framing of "not waiting for verification to come in the form of a mushroom cloud," to taint our judgement. In short, Bush pulled a "Tonkin Gulf" on us. More to the point, our elections process is broken--corrupted by big-finance contributions; made suspect by electronic tampering, and the attempts at backroom manipulations by Rove and Gonzales.

Surely, then, we'll have another leader pushing us to war, on the basis of a lie. You know why I am so sure of it? Bush has yet to be called to account for it. This lying for political ends is a precedent that has not been addressed by Congress, and so it is highly likely that it will happen again. Heck, Bush STILL has the power to wage war wherever he likes (unlike any other President in US history) without asking Congress' permission, so long as he can tie it into the war on terror (not a big stretch for W).

Hey Neil,

I firmly believe that the state of Native americans, native reserves and the issues surrounding them are a result of "paying them reparations".
Hand outs aren't going to work.

Sorry, but you go to war: you're responsible for the damage you caused. Time to pony up the reparations. That's simply international law.

And, it beats all hell out of simply passing out blank checks to...whatever it is they're doing over there (which, by all indications, is NOT about rebuilding Iraq).

I do think all the foreign corporations and contractors in Iraq are a major cause of problems.
Before we even had boots on the ground companies were lining up with dollar signs in their eyes and already reaching for their slice of the pie.

Agreed.

The problem with US politics (probably all politics i guess)
is the VERY day a new president gets elected, the other parties are going to start attacking him, stabbing him in the back, bringing up a grade 9 test he cheated on, ANYTHING to discredit and weaken him.

No, actually, that stuff happens before he's elected. But insofar as US politics are concerned: a far, far more troubling aspect than the backbiting are the financial contributions allowed, and the circus that the Presidential nomination process has become. TV really spoiled it, esp from the '80's, onwards.

It's actually quite disgusting. What needs to happen is once someone gets put in office, everyone gives him support (for the most part) so he can concentrate on what needs to be fixed AND fix it- not waste his time watching his back or dealing with bullshit.

Do that and you'll fix Iraq.

I could not disagree, more. By this logic, we should just support the President's plan for occupying Iraq because he's the guy in office.

No. IMO, the opposite needs to happen. The MOMENT someone like W overextends his authority (which, really, is what the Iraqi invasion was, carried forward by fear): Congress should have initiated impeachment proceedings.

See, the writers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a govt'l crisis. Impeachment was a means to correct an imbalance, a process to limit one branch of gov't overreaching another. But for some reason, our President has Congress so cowed that impeachment is unlikely. Nor, is much of anything else, other than feeble protests while they pass out more blank checks.

It may surprise you to know that Congress can stop the war. TOMORROW. They did it in Vietnam...they told Johnson that, sorry, there simply is no money for the War.

BOOM! No more war, baby!

What we really, really, need right now, is a Congress with a spine: and a people committed to holding their feet to the fire. Presently, we have neither.

Michael Varin
08-26-2007, 04:59 AM
Neil made a lot of good points in his last post. I won't bother repeating them, but I will add that a non-interventionist foreign policy is one of the characteristics of a society that values liberty. If we believe that America is still unique, that the philosophy that led to the founding of this country is still relevant, we must lead by example.

Hopefully, the last several years have opened enough eyes to the fact that our federal government is out of control. That it has grown to dangerous proportions and has invaded areas in which it was never intended to enter.

Here is an interesting excerpt from a letter written by Robert E. Lee after the Civil War, which, by the way, was when we took our first major step towards strong centralized government.

I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.

David Orange
08-26-2007, 09:15 AM
Do you honestly think that is possible or probable. (World Police)


No. And since it's not, it's crazy for the US to decide for itself that it's going to act like the world police.

What if I had a neighbor up the street that I didn't like and I organized all my boys to go up there and bust up his house and kill him and imprison some of his family and set up a puppet head of household to my liking?

And what if that neighbor were you?

Wrong is wrong and we made a huge mistake rushing into Iraq not only against all the best modern assessments, but against all ancient knowledge and strategy. Our enemies there have been doing this kind of thing for thousands of years. Our nation is barely over 200 years old and now our military is stretched to the utter limit. Follow an idiot and end up screwed.

David

David Orange
08-26-2007, 09:19 AM
Yes, Ryan: you have to wonder at the motive of someone STILL carrying on and throwing mud, long after the conversation is over.

Neil, Neil, Neil. There you go again, silly, silly little fellow.

It's like a guy buying a red sports-car during midlife crisis...you have to wonder...what's he compensating for (*holding up little finger*)?

Now you're really showing your "character," Nell.

If the conversation were over, you would shut up and leave it alone. Every time you pop up and squeal, you're showing you have no character, no integrity and no spherical appurtenance.

But it's entertaining, Nell.

Keep it up. You're better on "sulk" than on open posting.

David

David Orange
08-26-2007, 09:24 AM
In point of fact: Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the US. You DO know that, right? Hamas and Hezbollah are enemies of Israel...

Yeah and they dress in uniforms like the KKK and Nell supports them.

It may surprise you to know that Congress can stop the war. TOMORROW. They did it in Vietnam...they told Johnson that, sorry, there simply is no money for the War.

BOOM! No more war, baby!

Really? Strange that the war didn't end until seven or eight years after Johnson left office.

David

Taliesin
08-27-2007, 07:13 AM
Interesting views

Still a few observations

GWB is, as far as I am aware, the only US President who is incapable of demonstrating that he was democratically (even under the block vote system) elected.

So if GWB want to establish democracy anywhere perhaps he should start in Florida and Ohio

This obligation to maintain order in Iraq never extened to the Kurdish area - a no-fly zone was established whilst the Kurds when to war with each other - it was called the brother war.

Nor can it honestly be claimed that the US is acting as the World Policeman - The US did everything possible to avoid legitimate intervention via the UN ( although it must be admitted they problably thought that people are more important than oil). I's more like a hit man taking out the leader of an alliance of gangs and then getting caught in the cross fire as he tries to steal the lioot.

Now there is the argument that pulling out of Iraq would cause chaos - as has been noted it isn't exactly ordered at the moment.

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 08:57 AM
So if GWB want to establish democracy anywhere perhaps he should start in Florida and Ohio .Perhaps you didn't read some of the letters written to the Guardian after they encouraged Brit citizens to try and interfere with the US elections? I think the general response to the Brits was "Butt out and go get some dental work done to fix those awful teeth." It's funny listening to the Brits, whose own inaction has helped lead to both major wars (not to mention minor wars like Bosnia, the coming Iran war, etc.) telling people how they should act.

BTW... in case you missed it, Bush won in both Florida and Ohio quite fairly. In Florida, though, the US Supreme Court had to twice smack down the overwhelmingly Democrat-stacked state supreme court and tell them "no, you cannot change the rules of an election once the election is over in order to favor a Democrat candidate". Although the liberal news vaguely suggested that Republicans elected Bush via the Supreme Court, they glossed over exactly why the case went to the Supreme Court to start with.... Democrats cheating, once again, in a democratic election (almost every case of election cheating in the US has been prosecuted against Democrats).

Look to those British teeth, David, and quit worrying so much about the US when you have so much at home you should be fixating on.

Mike

Mark Freeman
08-27-2007, 09:18 AM
Look to those British teeth, David, and quit worrying so much about the US when you have so much at home you should be fixating on.

Mike

What is it with the teeth! how can the level of a country's dentistry have anything to do with anything??

Are David's teeth not up to scratch? must he get them fixed before he can pass an opinion on a subject outside of his own domain?

Does this mean that when we speak we must keep our mouths closed so as not to betray our country of origin?

Just dropped into the forums after a long while away, nice to see you haven't lost your 'balance' Mike ;) :D

regards,

Mark

Guilty Spark
08-27-2007, 09:24 AM
"Blinded??" :confused:

In point of fact: Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the US. You DO know that, right?

I do not.
They are enemies of humanity I would say. Have you ever seen those little videos of 8 year olds running around dressed like terrorists with AK47s and fake suicide bombs strapped to their chest?
Thats not right Neil. That's like teaching (and training!) our kids to hate blacks, muslims, chinese. Training kids to make war. That's against the Geneeva convention you often site the US as breaking from.
It sets them on a course that has a good chance of seeing them detonating themselves in a market. Not on at all. We should train children to live not to die.

I'd prefer not to get into a Hamas/US/Israel/Hez argument with you. That's your bread and butter and heading off topic. (I know you didn't bring it up first)

I'll just say that I think the US and Israel are in bed together, Hamas and Hez Act like terrorists and are willing to use those tactics to achieve their goal and I got a kick out of Hamas getting elected in a democratic like manner. I'd have loved to see the US higher ups with stunned looks on their faces saying 'Didn't see that one comming'.

Clearly, the media plays a role...as do our leaders. Bush mouthes "al Qaeda" over and over: you start to wonder if al Qaeda are hiding in our bathrooms, right next to the Bolsheviks!
For sure. Watching one of his speaches kills me.
Evil this evil that. Alquaida alquaida alquaida. Axis of Evil.
Fear tactics 101. I think we spoke about it before didn't we? Caesar saying the trick was to keep your people in constant fear of barbarian invasion and they will do whatever you want them to. Thousands of years later it still works.

not talking about the "blindness" of others

When you're looking down a scope you have a tendency to get tunnel vision. You're so fixated on what you're looking at that you loose your prehepheral vision. Perhaps tunnel vision would have been a better word to use.
Still, some people are just blind. Like a parent who loves their child so much they can see no wrong. Then they turn around get caught up in drugs and the parent gives them money "for school trips" kinda thing.


Funny, but the polls seem to disagree:

Neil please, internet polls?
Just above we were talking about how the US ELECTION was rigged, I have a feeling you believe it was too. If you can rig the us election are you really going to trust a pool on the net?


They already ARE killing each other.

Right, and the forces there are intercepting a lot of it.
Yes or no answer, do you think if 'we' left Iraq today they would settle down and we would see less fighting and death?


Oh, but it will. On that, I am almost positive. You see, Grant: your formula would actually work if the only problem were our poor choice of leaders.

Right. And even if you managed to get a great leader the other party would go into overdrive trying to drag them down. If it was because they wanted what's best for the country I could understand it. I don't feel they do. They bring them down because THEY want to be in power. It's greed pure and simple.

Letting someone else do the driving isn't always a bad thing, if gives you a chance to watch for other threats.

In Afghanistan and Iraq it's the guys in the back seat's and the guys in the back of the vehicles that pick out the fellows in the crowd with cell phones in their ears counting vehicles on their hand as they pass by. When you're not driving you can get a better picture.
Problem with politics is that EVERYONE wants to be the driver. You're parties should work together and not work at making each other look incapable of doing the job.


Sorry, but you go to war: you're responsible for the damage you caused. Time to pony up the reparations.
Yup, liek you said, thats not passing out blank checks and it shouldn't be given to contractors and companies who were friendly to your political party and donated to your campaign. You scratch my back I scratch yours. Another huge problem with US politics.

I think the general response to the Brits was "Butt out and go get some dental work done to fix those awful teeth."

What an ignorant and stupid response by them, don't you think?
Nya nya you have funny teeth.
Lets start making fun of blacks with their hair or jews with their noses or maybe asians slanted eyes or americans obesity problem.

I've always felt when you attack someones personal attributes it's because you don't feel your argument can speak for itself. Look at Michael Moore for example. His political views aside, how often does someone resort to making fun of his weight and physical appearance when disagreeing with him?
Deflection.
It's a step below making fun of someone for the colour of their skin, actually it's about the same.

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 09:26 AM
Just noting.... once again.... that there are a few Brits who have many problems at home but who spend a rather large amount of their posting time complaining about America, Mark. You may have noticed that few Americans are graceless enough to waste time pointing out the downward spiral of Brits and Europeans into third-world status. It's their business and we won't stick our teeth into it. ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 09:44 AM
What an ignorant and stupid response by them, don't you think?
Nya nya you have funny teeth.
Lets start making fun of blacks with their hair or jews with their noses or maybe asians slanted eyes or americans obesity problem.

I've always felt when you attack someones personal attributes...Oh, I dunno..... it's about the same as calling someone "ignorant and stupid", in my book. There's a sort of elitist arrogance being pointed out with the teeth remarks.... and elitist arrogance seems to deserve whatever it gets, oftimes.

Mike

Taliesin
08-27-2007, 09:49 AM
Mark and Grant

Thanks for the intervention, but as an ex-rugby player I have to say my remaining teeth are in excellent condition.

Mike

Are you saying that unlawfully depriving people of the right to vote in case they don't vote for you is justified?

Are you saying that there's nothing wrong with programming voting machines to ensure the'right candidate' ? And ensuring they can't be checked?

Must say your understanding of the word 'fairly' seems to very different to ours (that's the one found in the dictionary)

Still I also like the butt out and worry about the problems in my own country line - when we're talking about the US in Iraq (not actually part of the US).

I take you don't understand why GWB trespassing in the White House is everyone's problem. (Admittedly mostly the Iraqis)

BTW - talking about a "downward spiral to third world status" - how are things going in New Orleans?

Mark Freeman
08-27-2007, 09:58 AM
You may have noticed that few Americans are graceless enough to waste time pointing out the downward spiral of Brits and Europeans into third-world status. It's their business and we won't stick our teeth into it. ;)

Thanks for being one of the few Mike ;)

Interesting note, fewer tourists from the US are travelling to Europe right now, as the weakness of the $ against the £ & Euro makes our little third world patch a little too expensive for our yankee cousins.

You've got the better teeth, we've got the better housing markets:p

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 10:06 AM
Are you saying that unlawfully depriving people of the right to vote in case they don't vote for you is justified? Strawman. Looking back through my posts, I find no such comment by me at all. I realize you only get slanted news in the UK, but malfeasances in Florida (and the rest of the U.S.) voting was masssively done by the Democrat organizations (see "Acorn" story, for instance). See what happens when the news only gives one side of a story? Bad behaviour is perpetuated.
Still I also like the butt out and worry about the problems in my own country line - when we're talking about the US in Iraq (not actually part of the US). The bad habit of butting into wars that are none of our business started with the World Wars that Britain got us into. God willing, we'll never do it again! The civil wars between city-states and petty empires in Europe has been going on for centuries and we should just let them work it out! I take you don't understand why GWB trespassing in the White House is everyone's problem. Actually, it's none of your business, David. You Brits lost your own empire due to ineptitude, so quit worrying about someone else's better job at doing things. BTW - talking about a "downward spiral to third world status" - how are things going in New Orleans?New Orleans and the State of Louisiana are part of the most corrupt place in the U.S. It's a different world entirely. Although the liberal media (like the BBC, you know, the media that admits they're liberal now?) has sided with the Democrats and tried to hide corruption for many decades, you can see where that corruption ultimately led... to the deaths of thousands of their fellow liberals.

But save New Orleans? Pooh. It's been a third-world city for as long as it has existed. It's been sinking into the swamp for hundreds of years. Let it go. Build somewhere else.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 10:12 AM
Interesting note, fewer tourists from the US are travelling to Europe right now, as the weakness of the $ against the £ & Euro makes our little third world patch a little too expensive for our yankee cousins.That's true, Mark. Fewer are going to Europe. Fewer manufactured goods are being bought from Europe, too. In an effort to shore up its economies where labour costs are too high, unions, welfare, etc., are all rampantly taking money, the protectionist tariffs are becoming stronger yet. And all this while getting free protection from the US military (and spitting in their face for doing it), which saves untold sums of money. I.e., Europe is in an economic cul de sac and things look bleak. Remember in the last Davos summit meeting it was predicted that Europe was about a decade away from being meaningless because Asia will eclipse it. Why should the US buy British tea-towels when the same thing is cheaper from China?

You guys need to turn your worries a bit more inward.

Best.

Mike

Mark Freeman
08-27-2007, 10:30 AM
And all this while getting free protection from the US military (and spitting in their face for doing it), which saves untold sums of money.


Free protection?? The greatest capitalist economy in the history of mankind ( until china and india overtake ) is giving away for free what they could be charging for :crazy:

Our little island alone will be shelling out approximately £30 bn ( thats around $60 billion,) to lease the updated trident missile system from you guys. We will never own it, you will allow us to deploy it around the world as a mutual protection policy. Hardly free.

Just how ungrateful can we be for $60 bn :confused:

regards,

Mark

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 10:39 AM
Free protection?? The greatest capitalist economy in the history of mankind ( until china and india overtake ) is giving away for free what they could be charging for :crazy:

Our little island alone will be shelling out approximately £30 bn ( thats around $60 billion,) to lease the updated trident missile system from you guys. We will never own it, you will allow us to deploy it around the world as a mutual protection policy. Hardly free.

Just how ungrateful can we be for $60 bn :confused: Well, the way you pretend the standing Army, Air Force, and so on of the U.S. aren't the main reliance of Europe proves my point. You take it and denigrate it. Europe as always only been in love with the US when the US could DO something for Europe. Other than those times, it despises the US. If you ever get a chance, go back and listen to the question from some Brit school (college) kids asking insulting questions of Robert Kennedy and Ronald Reagan during a debate. That short after WWII, the venom was already there. Then as the USSR began to make more threatening noises, the Europeans were great pals. Then the USSR went away and the US was the bad boy. Now that Russia is making noises again, the conversation is beginning to turn again.

I think the UK and the EU should tell the US to go take a hike and they'll defend themselves, thank you very much. Same with South Korea. Our only argument seems to be that some peoples have been provenly inept whenever world crises come along.

Look inward, Mark. Worry about the country that stepped smack into the middle of two World Wars.

Mike

Taliesin
08-27-2007, 10:41 AM
Mike

Please tell me you are merely playing the most extreme caricuture of a pig ignorant right wing Yank. You have no idea how frightening the mere suggestion that your answers are serious is

I mean look at your replies

It was the Democrats to blame for the problem in Florida - When the guys who purged the electroal role were all Republicans

World Wars that Britian got you into - let's forget about Pearl Harbor - an attack that "shall live in infamy" - but not in Mike Sigman's head.

Brits 'lost our Empire - actualy we granted most of our colonies independance voluntarily - but since you seem to know hardly any American History I'm not surprised you don't know any of ours.

GWB as President is none of our business - As long as he continues creating problems that affect us, (and our troops) then he is our problem. All we are doing is asking that those in a position to do something about it, to do so (Unless you honestly believe that GWB is doing an excellent job in your 'colony' in Iraq and that the US did so much better in Viet Nam than we did in Malaysia).

And finally you are saying that Louisiana is corrupt and has been " a third-world city for as long as it has existed". - Even if that was true (which I don't believe) - don't you think it's an indictment that you haven't been able to raise it's standards in over 200 years.

Guilty Spark
08-27-2007, 10:46 AM
Oh, I dunno..... it's about the same as calling someone "ignorant and stupid", in my book. There's a sort of elitist arrogance being pointed out with the teeth remarks.... and elitist arrogance seems to deserve whatever it gets, oftimes.

Mike

We'll have to take the cliche route of agreeing to disagree :)

I figure someone can easily learn not to be ignorant of others or act in a stupid manner. Changing the colour of ones skin or getting dental work is considerably more difficult, not really high on a priority list anyways.

I understand you're angle Mike and I've both seen and delt with it a lot. Hate it.
I just as much smile and wink at elitist arrogance than 'fire back' and let them think they've got a rise out of me.

Mark and Grant

Thanks for the intervention, but as an ex-rugby player I have to say my remaining teeth are in excellent condition.
But how are your ears david? :)
(I kid, don't take that out of context)

Taliesin
08-27-2007, 10:51 AM
Mark

I think it's called a 'protection racket'

Mike

'Insulting Questions of Robert Kennedy like why was he and his brother shot?

When has the US Army, and Air Force ever defended the UK ?

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 10:57 AM
It was the Democrats to blame for the problem in Florida - When the guys who purged the electroal role were all Republicans "Purged the roles"? Of all the voters? You must be mad? BTW.... if you'll bother to research the story of Dade and Broward County elections, which are run in toto by the Democrats, you'll not only get a fuller picture of the nonsense you're spouting, you'll also be quite surprised at the things never reported by the liberal press. World Wars that Britian got you into - let's forget about Pearl Harbor - an attack that "shall live in infamy" - but not in Mike Sigman's head. Churchill's famous comment from "The Sinews of Peace" - 1946

There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than
the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could
have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and
Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored to-day; but no one would
listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.

He's talking about the arrogant elitists like you, David. The arrogant West-hating snobs that got first the UK and Europe, then later the US and others into a stupid war which could easily have been prevented. Note the parallels with the now 6+ years of fruitless "negotiating" the Europeans have insisted will prevent a nuclear war involving Iraq. Don't call us; we'll call you.
Brits 'lost our Empire - actualy we granted most of our colonies independance voluntarily - but since you seem to know hardly any American History I'm not surprised you don't know any of ours. Er.... I think I know enough that "Rule Britannia" is an irony. GWB as President is none of our business - As long as he continues creating problems that affect us, (and our troops) then he is our problem. Pull out of NATO, David. Go it alone. Handle things with the aplomb and timeliness that you did with Bosnia (which "civil war" is still not handled, due to European intransigence, is it?).

Mike

jennifer paige smith
08-27-2007, 11:09 AM
Look inward, Mark. Worry about the country that stepped smack into the middle of two World Wars.

Mike

I'm worried about the country that may well just have started the 3rd, before those crazy brits 'stepped in'.

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 11:17 AM
I'm worried about the country that may well just have started the 3rd, before those crazy brits 'stepped in'.Er, Santa Cruz is not really part of anything, Jennifer. It, like Boulder, is more like "twenty square miles surrounded by reality". :D

Actually, I've been watching a related law-suit in the news:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200708/NAT20070806a.html

Best.

Mike Sigman

Guilty Spark
08-27-2007, 11:47 AM
If successful, the lawsuit -- filed against Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to compel him to enforce the Solomon Amendment -- would deny UC-Santa Cruz $80 million in funds.


As well they should be denied it now.

David Orange
08-27-2007, 12:21 PM
GWB is, as far as I am aware, the only US President who is incapable of demonstrating that he was democratically (even under the block vote system) elected.

So if GWB want to establish democracy anywhere perhaps he should start in Florida and Ohio

Millions of Americans agree with you. Maybe not 51% because he apparently did get that much in the last election. The GOP machine and the mainstream media seem to have pacified people's attitudes that it was a fait accompli and enough accepted it for him to "win" in 2004, but that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't been "installed" in 2000.

David

David Orange
08-27-2007, 12:25 PM
BTW... in case you missed it, Bush won in both Florida and Ohio quite fairly. In Florida, though, the US Supreme Court had to twice smack down the overwhelmingly Democrat-stacked state supreme court and tell them "no, you cannot change the rules of an election once the election is over in order to favor a Democrat candidate". Although the liberal news vaguely suggested that Republicans elected Bush via the Supreme Court, they glossed over exactly why the case went to the Supreme Court to start with.... Democrats cheating, once again, in a democratic election (almost every case of election cheating in the US has been prosecuted against Democrats).

Of course, Jeb BUSH being the governor of the state in question didn't hurt Geroge's "chances". Nor did having Kathryn Harris in charge of the voter rolls.

No, that one was nicely sewn up for Bush well in advance. And the Bush-stacked supreme court ensured it.

That wasn't "democratic." It was more like "Imperial."

David

David Orange
08-27-2007, 12:35 PM
Quote:
Neil Mick wrote:
"Blinded??" In point of fact: Hamas and Hezbollah are not enemies of the US. You DO know that, right?

Grant Wagar wrote:
I do not.
They are enemies of humanity I would say.

And you want to talk about Nazis?

Remember, in their rallies, they chant "We will finish what Hitler started."

'nuff said there.

Have you ever seen those little videos of 8 year olds running around dressed like terrorists with AK47s and fake suicide bombs strapped to their chest?

And giving them that faux Mickey Mouse, Farfar (?) for "children's entertainment" then having a Jewish soldier "kill" Farfar on the last show???? That's beyond seriously sick.

David

Michael Varin
08-27-2007, 01:08 PM
The bad habit of butting into wars that are none of our business started with the World Wars that Britain got us into. God willing, we'll never do it again! The civil wars between city-states and petty empires in Europe has been going on for centuries and we should just let them work it out!

Churchill's famous comment from "The Sinews of Peace" - 1946

There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than
the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could
have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and
Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honored to-day; but no one would
listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool.

He's talking about the arrogant elitists like you, David. The arrogant West-hating snobs that got first the UK and Europe, then later the US and others into a stupid war which could easily have been prevented.

Mike,

Are you actually saying that WWI and WWII were unnecessary and not in the interest of the average American? That they had nothing to do with our security and that we should not have been involved? That Pearl Harbor was merely an excuse to get the people behind something that the elites wanted to do?

This is unexpected coming from you, but I suppose I should know better than to make assumptions.

Of course, it is the correct history, which any genuine research will reveal.

Churchill also said:
When I survey and compute the power of the United States and its vast resources and feel that they are now in it with us, with the British commonwealth of nations all together, however long it lasts, till death or victory, I cannot believe that there is any other fact in the whole world which can compare with that. This is what I dreamed of, aimed at, and worked for, and now it has come to pass.
As a follow up, how is our involvement in Iraq (or other parts of the Middle East) different? How is 9/11 different from Pearl Harbor?

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 01:12 PM
Of course, Jeb BUSH being the governor of the state in question didn't hurt Geroge's "chances". Nor did having Kathryn Harris in charge of the voter rolls.

No, that one was nicely sewn up for Bush well in advance. And the Bush-stacked supreme court ensured it.

That wasn't "democratic." It was more like "Imperial."

DavidYawn. The Florida State Supreme Court broke the law of the land, twice, by trying to change the rules of a federal election *after* the election. That is historical fact and entered into the record. Democrats are crooks. These are the same Democrats that attempted to block military members from voting because it's a well-known fact that the majority of the military vote Republican. I.e., the Democrats aren't really the ones providing security to the US, statistically. They're the ones complaining.

Dons Flame-Retardent Underwear.

Over and Out. ;)

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 01:18 PM
Are you actually saying that WWI and WWII were unnecessary and not in the interest of the average American? That they had nothing to do with our security and that we should not have been involved? That Pearl Harbor was merely an excuse to get the people behind something that the elites wanted to do? We could easily have waited until Europe was completely decimated and Hitler's forces spent... and then, if there had been compelling interest, gone in. It's difficult to say it was "good for America", in either war, actually. "Allies"? What "allies" do we really have? They use us only when they need us. Think of de Gaulle, for instance. Think of Helmut Kohl in 1950's Germany running openly on an anti-American ticket. "Need" is a difficult-to-pin-down term. This is unexpected coming from you, but I suppose I should know better than to make assumptions.

Of course, it is the correct history, which any genuine research will reveal. Pooh.... I just like to throw in a few rocks at the perennial rock-throwing America-haters every now and then, just for amusement. ;) How is 9/11 different from Pearl Harbor?You can't surf the big ones in Iraq. :p

Mike

David Orange
08-27-2007, 04:40 PM
How is 9/11 different from Pearl Harbor?

For one thing, when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we didn't go "counter-attack" the French!:p

Terrorists in Afghanistan attacked us on 9/11 (Saudis, for the most part). Iraq had nothing to do with it.

No, Iraq was a freebie that George took for himself.

Oh, yes, and for Cheney and Haliburton. Sure as hell not for the USA.

David

David Orange
08-27-2007, 04:41 PM
Democrats are crooks.

Republicans are nosy, self-righteous key-hole peeping crooks.

And they're hypocrites.

If they pass an anti-gay law, they sure-as-shooting get caught soliciting gay sex in a public restroom.

If they point the finger at a Democrat for having sex, they sure-as-shooting get revealed as cheating on their wives.

If they start a war, they do it for profit--not for the national good.

David

Mike Sigman
08-27-2007, 06:07 PM
Republicans are nosy, self-righteous key-hole peeping crooks.OK, how's this. Democrats are much, much more certain (statistically) to be crooks than Republicans. Care to bet?

Democrats are much less likely to be defending the country. Care to bet?

And incidentally, the sort of common myth about liberals being more educated than conservatives..... the WSJ did a pretty good piece on a big study that shatters that myth, if you want to Google it and read it, so let's not go there.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Michael Varin
08-27-2007, 06:43 PM
For one thing, when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we didn't go "counter-attack" the French!:p

No, we "counter-attacked" the Germans.:straightf

During WWII we made our foray into the Middle East, as we replaced the British. It's a mistake to think that this started with GWB.

Guilty Spark
08-27-2007, 08:50 PM
Instead of going into Iraq I wish the US would have commited those forces to Afghanistan and sorting that place out first. There is a lot to be said for not fighting a war on two fronts if you don't have to.

David Orange
08-27-2007, 09:44 PM
OK, how's this. Democrats are much, much more certain (statistically) to be crooks than Republicans. Care to bet?

The Attorney General just resigned in shame.

I win.

Democrats are much less likely to be defending the country. Care to bet?

How about Clinton left us with historically phenomenal surpluses and warned George on his way out that Al Quaeda would be his biggest danger--then George ignored Al Quaeda, allowed it deliver devastating blows to the nation, then plunged us into an unnecessary war that is even more damaging than what AQ managed? I win again.

And incidentally, the sort of common myth about liberals being more educated than conservatives.....let's not go there.

I didn't go there. But if you want to, let's start with Bush's MBA and look at what he's done to the nation and education since.

Ooops. We all lose.

Zannen.

David

David Orange
08-27-2007, 09:46 PM
Instead of going into Iraq I wish the US would have commited those forces to Afghanistan and sorting that place out first. There is a lot to be said for not fighting a war on two fronts if you don't have to.

Not only that, but we could have established a solid operational base from which to slam Iraq later on---when we'd developed a "PLAN"!

But we screwed Afghanistan. And now we are screwed.

Old George. Gotta puke on him.

David

Taliesin
08-28-2007, 04:14 AM
Mike

"We could easily have waited until Europe was completely decimated and Hitler's forces spent" - isn't that what you did do in Europe - afer the Soviets had devestated Hitler's forces

My history tells me that the D-Day operations were launched from...er...where was it now...that place that destriyed German air superiority...

As far as Liberals - It was Liberals, who pursued military intervention in Kosovo

Still that's history which, for some strange reason, I don't think is your strong suit.

I'm also interested in the view that democratic elections are unlawful in Florida -

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 08:07 AM
"We could easily have waited until Europe was completely decimated and Hitler's forces spent" - isn't that what you did do in Europe - afer the Soviets had devestated Hitler's forces

My history tells me that the D-Day operations were launched from...er...where was it now...that place that destriyed German air superiority... Do you think it was the Brits' power that was the backbone of D-Day, David? Come D-Day, do you think the Brits would have been launching any operations without the Americans or that there would have been a British country at that time? As far as Liberals - It was Liberals, who pursued military intervention in Kosovo To what end? I don't know if you've been following the news in the last few days, but the Kosovo problem is still there and "negotiations" haven't done a thing. And BTW, if there was ever a pure "civil war", Kosovo was one.

Basically, the Europeans let a long-festering problem get out of hand by dithering and taking no action. Diplomacy failed. Many people died while the Europeans watched helplessly. Then they convinced their lap-dog Clinton to spend American money fixing the problem. If it had gone to a ground war, it would have mainly been American troops. There was never *any* rationale for Americans to be involved in Kosovo. None. At least Saddam made threats and had had a hand in the 1993 WTC bombing. Still that's history which, for some strange reason, I don't think is your strong suit. I can tell by your silence about the Churchill quote that you seem not to have studied him in school. I'm also interested in the view that democratic elections are unlawful in Florida -Source? Who said democratic elections are unlawful? You're not debating; you're just making sullen mouth noises, now.

Mike

Taliesin
08-28-2007, 10:31 AM
Mike with regards to D-Day my point was that we had already prevented invasion (something called the Battle of Britain) - that why there was a Britain by the time US troops became involved. - So I think there was a Britain at that time because there was a Britain - I told you I didn't think history was your strong suit, thanks for demonstating why .

The argument that the Kosovo problem is still there. Sorry Mike I don't really think that arguing about soverignty and independance is really the same problem as mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing - it's a 'Liberal' thing. BTW one side - (Serbs) slaughtering another (Ethnic Albanians) isn't a civil war.

I also like the "there was never any rational for Americans to be involved in Kosovo" - yeah human rights are only important where there's oil the USA can claim

Moving onto Churchill - Leaving aside that there is more to history than Churchill perhaps you can explain the relevance of the following

Tonypandy 1910

1926

"History shall be kind to me for I intend to write it"

Fulton, Missouri, 1946

With a bit of homework you should be able to give the answers to these.

As far as democratic elections being unlawful - isn't that why you claim the Florida supreme court was unlawful - because they wanted a democratic election.

jennifer paige smith
08-28-2007, 10:35 AM
OK, how's this. Democrats are much, much more certain (statistically) to be crooks than Republicans. Care to bet?

Democrats are much less likely to be defending the country. Care to bet?

And incidentally, the sort of common myth about liberals being more educated than conservatives..... the WSJ did a pretty good piece on a big study that shatters that myth, if you want to Google it and read it, so let's not go there.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Personally, I'm for the Raiders.

jennifer paige smith
08-28-2007, 10:41 AM
Er, Santa Cruz is not really part of anything, Jennifer. It, like Boulder, is more like "twenty square miles surrounded by reality". :D

Actually, I've been watching a related law-suit in the news:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200708/NAT20070806a.html

Best.

Mike Sigman

Actually Santa Cruz is part of a 'country'(California) that has the 7th largest gross national product in the world and the healthiest farmland anywhere in the U.S. as well as a direct, independent relationship with China.

Feel free to call us when your country needs help. Because we are a large radius of generosity surrounded by collapsing 'reality'.

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 12:04 PM
Mike with regards to D-Day my point was that we had already prevented invasion (something called the Battle of Britain) - that why there was a Britain by the time US troops became involved. - So I think there was a Britain at that time because there was a Britain - I told you I didn't think history was your strong suit, thanks for demonstating why . You've mentioned the Battle of Britain before as some sort of school-boy charm, David. And if you look back through the posts, I mentioned that my uncle George (a US citizen, like me) flew for the RAF via the CRAF prior to the US getting into the war officially. What you seem to gloss over is that due to serious errors by the German command structure, Britain was able to win by the skin of its teeth only. In fact, the key to the Battle of Britain was that Britain had been well-supplied by the US and other allies (but mainly the US). Without the US, there would not have been much there. If England had been left, after the B of B to fend for itself, it could have done nothing. It had nothing. The main problem, and I've said it before, for Britain was that it had arrogant, elitist liberals who did nothing to prevent the war and hence directly led to the killing of millions. And those people were not punished after the war.... they went around crowing about how firmly they had stood in the face of an onslaught that they had brought on themselves. And you're the offspring of such, it appears. Your rather skewed version of "history" is a joke in which you honor yourself. The argument that the Kosovo problem is still there. Sorry Mike I don't really think that arguing about soverignty and independance is really the same problem as mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing - it's a 'Liberal' thing. BTW one side - (Serbs) slaughtering another (Ethnic Albanians) isn't a civil war. No difference in Iraq or any other "civil war". I love how history seems to just start for you.... perhaps you should take a look at previous history where the Albanians slaughtered the Serbs. My question was... what good has the "intervention" done? What has been solved? Nothing. The Europeans have once again stopped all solutions and gone back into "negotiations".... just like they did with Hitler. I also like the "there was never any rational for Americans to be involved in Kosovo" - yeah human rights are only important where there's oil the USA can claim Let the EU do it. The EU and UK created the mess and then couldn't clean it up. If you don't want a powerful US, quit calling on us to bail you out. Build your own armies to counter the Russians. As far as democratic elections being unlawful - isn't that why you claim the Florida supreme court was unlawful - because they wanted a democratic election.You're batty. Try learning some facts rather than parrotting partisan shibboleths.

Mike

Ryan Sanford
08-28-2007, 12:24 PM
OK, how's this. Democrats are much, much more certain (statistically) to be crooks than Republicans. Care to bet?

Democrats are much less likely to be defending the country. Care to bet?

And incidentally, the sort of common myth about liberals being more educated than conservatives..... the WSJ did a pretty good piece on a big study that shatters that myth, if you want to Google it and read it, so let's not go there.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Would you mind citing your sources? I'm not certain that I believe you. :p

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 12:29 PM
Would you mind citing your sources? I'm not certain that I believe you. :pI'm looking for quick and easy money, dangit. I'll give you a clue on the first one, though.... think about the prison population and who is in it.

Mike

Taliesin
08-28-2007, 01:09 PM
Mike

I'll try again - so try reading this SLOWLY

We DID win the Battle Of Britain and we DID prevent an invasion of Britian- which isn't the same as England FYI. We also had dominance in the sea thanks to our capture and decoding of the Enigma machine, we also still had our Colonies like Canada, so your point about support is weak (although it is a clever variation on your previous point that with US troops we would have been invaded)

You're point is if things were different they would be different. Hardly a refutation of historical fact. The argument that history based on facts is a joke is only convincing in your own mind. History is based on the facts of what did happen and not what might have happened if things were different. (I believe historians call those 'counter-factuals')

And I guess you don't know who first declared War on Germany. (Clue it wasn't the USA)

Moving onto the Kosovo point - without going too far back since I cannot claim to be an expert in the history of that part of the world. In recent history Serbs, supported by their troops started a programme of ethnic cleansing. They were bombed into submission. Ethnic Albanians then took revenge. Now there is relative peace. Personally I think that people arguing over independance is better than committing slaughter - but then I believe they are different problems. Although I conceed your apparant belief that preventing slaughter and re-establishing a cohesive structure is 'nothing'. BTW the OSCE is the leading body with authoirity for Kosovo. Sill it's your right to believe slaughter is the same as debate.

Moveing on I take it your Homework on Churchill was too hard for you - damn there's all that history being based on those pesky facts again. (But then he was a Liberal)

And finally your advice to 'try learning some facts' - I do, although it helps to understand what the word facts mean - finding it out would certainly help you.

Looking forward to the next mutation of your argument

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 02:14 PM
Mike

I'll try again - so try reading this SLOWLY Don't bother. You'd like to portray England as not having needed the help of the US to have survived World War II, a war which was the result of England and France trying to appease Germany. If you think that most of the world believes that, you're fooling yourself. But thanks for all the thanks.... and now you know why most of the American people are far less interested in helping Europe in general in the next conflict that will be started by European inaction and dithering. And I guess you don't know who first declared War on Germany. (Clue it wasn't the USA) Are you really serious? World War II started because England and France kept appeasing and backing down to German demands. Only when Germany invaded Poland, and ally of GB, was England forced to declare war. All of England and France's dithering and appeasement wound up biting them in the butt and costing millions of lives. A fact which Churchill at least had the dignity to point out. You apparently grew up in an alternate universe from Churchill and I. BTW.... you should be *for* Churchill and not so against him; your fellow liberals, well into the war, were all for capitulating to Hitler. Even though you seem to sneer at the US and Churchill, you'd be speaking German without them and I'd enjoy a better pilsner whenever I visited!

Regards,

Mike Sigman

David Orange
08-28-2007, 04:39 PM
I'm looking for quick and easy money, dangit. I'll give you a clue on the first one, though.... think about the prison population and who is in it.

Victims of Roberto Gonzales and George Bush?

Who runs the prisons?

Mostly Repubs.

David

David Orange
08-28-2007, 04:43 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/patoliphant;_ylt=AlVQnV5SdshFm5eKXUBr7toDwLAF

http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/bensargent;_ylt=AgJdyUt2zkkAMDi2iAEf1880vTYC

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070827/cx_po_uc/po20070827;_ylt=AiZ6YsKdKwbJrwDffRXTCG80vTYC

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/uclickcomics/20070817/cx_tt_uc/tt20070817;_ylt=AiZ6YsKdKwbJrwDffRXTCG8VvTYC

Mark Freeman
08-28-2007, 04:56 PM
World War II started because England and France kept appeasing and backing down to German demands. Only when Germany invaded Poland, and ally of GB, was England forced to declare war. All of England and France's dithering and appeasement wound up biting them in the butt and costing millions of lives. A fact which Churchill at least had the dignity to point out. You apparently grew up in an alternate universe from Churchill and I. BTW.... you should be *for* Churchill and not so against him; your fellow liberals, well into the war, were all for capitulating to Hitler. Even though you seem to sneer at the US and Churchill, you'd be speaking German without them and I'd enjoy a better pilsner whenever I visited!

Meanwhile, back in the early 21st century, Britain, France and Germany co-exist in peace, they do no harm to us and we do no harm to them, we trade, we share values and visions, there's even the occasional sharing of bodily fluids, long may it continue.:)

History can be re-written, it's happened before, it will happen again, I'm sure.

The US has always acted independently in it's own best interests, why would it do otherwise? Helping other ally countries out in times of strife are not usually acts of altruism, rather acts of enlightened self interest. They think through the alternatives and act accordingly.

When you read and hear criticism of the recent actions taken by the US coming from Europe, it doesn't mean that we are 'America haters' 'It's just that generally, the people here think that GWB has been a thoroughly bad president for the US in terms of global goodwill and fostering productive relationships. We may be in your eyes, delusional in our thinking, perhaps, however there are a growing number of people in the US that seem to also think the same.

How will history be argued over on the 2057 aikiweb ( sorry Jun you can't retire, you have to keep the site going ). Hopefully the 'liberal' word will not be so over and inappropriately used. Hopefully we will have realised that trying to bomb people towards democracy, was a counter productive idea. Hopefully militant religious fundamentalists will have learned to 'chill out' and realise that there are no virgins waiting for them in paradise, they've been sold a lie, to further someone else's cause. Hopefully by then the 'faith' required to believe in crackpot thinking like 'creationism' will be seen for the delusion that it is rather than a 'virtue'. Hopefully by then we will have learned how to elect representatives that we can all respect. Hopefully by then, we will know the real truth about the reality of global warming. Durango might be a lot closer to the coast than it is now :D

Auf Wiedersehen;)

Mark
p.s. Churchill was a great wartime leader, who didn't fare so well in peacetime. Opinions about him now are unlikely to change how he is written into the national psyche.

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 05:00 PM
Victims of Roberto Gonzales and George Bush?

Who runs the prisons?

Mostly Repubs.Perfect answer, David! You just proved the part about liberals and intelligence. Of course Republicans just round up people and put them into prisons, you sly rascal!

Best.

Mike

Mike Sigman
08-28-2007, 05:21 PM
Meanwhile, back in the early 21st century, Britain, France and Germany co-exist in peace, they do no harm to us and we do no harm to them, we trade, we share values and visions, there's even the occasional sharing of bodily fluids, long may it continue.:) Straight from a generation raised on the warm and fuzzy BBC. Of course, you forget about the 50 million people, actual people Mark, who never got a chance to mix their bodily fluids after they got killed in an easily prevented World War II. I notice neither you nor David really want to admit that the appeasers had it totally wrong before WWII and that led to the deaths of so many. But what the hey.... great numbers of people dead are only statistics, eh? ;) The US has always acted independently in it's own best interests, why would it do otherwise? Not true. Clinton involved the US in Bosnia for no reason that benefitted the US. And many of the missions during and about World War II were for no reason other than maudlin sentiment, not calculation. What the US has been slow to see is that Europe is not really sentimental about the US at all... every gesture is calculated by the European cynics. When you read and hear criticism of the recent actions taken by the US coming from Europe, it doesn't mean that we are 'America haters' 'It's just that generally, the people here think that GWB has been a thoroughly bad president for the US in terms of global goodwill and fostering productive relationships. We may be in your eyes, delusional in our thinking, perhaps, however there are a growing number of people in the US that seem to also think the same. You've been listening to the BBC and the New York Times too much, Mark. Bush is neither here nor there, although it's interesting to note how you "peace and love" guys hate so much and so constantly that you can't control your tongues. :)

The sad point is that most people in the US now see all Europeans as self-serving and not worth aiding, given the accumulation of escapades starting with the foxy duplicity of Charles deGaulle and going into the present "allies" that only show their faces in Afghanistan in guaranteed non-combat regions. I'll suggest it again, Mark.... quit worrying so much about the US and its problems. Do you see us wondering out loud about how screwed up the Brits are? We have other hobbies.Hopefully the 'liberal' word will not be so over and inappropriately used. What? You constantly speak ill of people and then when it comes back at you, you resent it? Isn't that just a little too predictable? Hopefully we will have realised that trying to bomb people towards democracy, was a counter productive idea. World War II would still be going on if force hadn't been used, Mark. Don't get so emotionally proper. Hopefully militant religious fundamentalists will have learned to 'chill out' and realise that there are no virgins waiting for them in paradise, they've been sold a lie, to further someone else's cause. Hopefully by then the 'faith' required to believe in crackpot thinking like 'creationism' will be seen for the delusion that it is rather than a 'virtue'. Hopefully by then we will have learned how to elect representatives that we can all respect. Hopefully by then, we will know the real truth about the reality of global warming. Durango might be a lot closer to the coast than it is now :D I was watching your quick, obligatory remark about "militant religious fundamentalists" and then measuring how much more space you contributed to worrying about your partisan beliefs, Mark. Your "militant religious fundamentalists" are dismissed with the same aplomb that die Braun-Hemden were waved away by appeasers in conversations prior to World War II.

Regards,

Mike Sigman

Mark Freeman
08-28-2007, 06:27 PM
The sad point is that most people in the US now see all Europeans as self-serving and not worth aiding, given the accumulation of escapades starting with the foxy duplicity of Charles deGaulle and going into the present "allies" that only show their faces in Afghanistan in guaranteed non-combat regions.

Mike, a few points:

I hope you are not including the Brits in that, our troops are in the front line dying on a regular basis, killed mostly by the taliban with a few unfortunates copping the occasional 'friendly' fire. I believe we are helping you in the war in Afghanistan. And will probably continue to do so for many bloody years to come.

Lets leave WW1 and WW2 behind, I believe Churchill was right in the run up to the war, and he was right most of the way through it. I don't believe I have written a single word on here so far suggesting otherwise, enough already...

Doesn't the constant vitriol give you heartburn;)

I'm off to bed,

regards,

Mark

Fred Little
08-28-2007, 06:58 PM
Not true. Clinton involved the US in Bosnia for no reason that benefitted the US.

Mike:

Without arguing whether there was a direct benefit or an immediate national interest at stake on the ground in Bosnia, there is the small matter of giving NATO a reason for continued existence in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union.

For better or for worse, the Bosnian intervention probably extended NATO's life for a decade or three.

You could argue the "for worse" side, but significant segments of both the military and foreign policy communities (some ostensibly "conservative" and some ostensibly "liberal") see the preservation of NATO as a means of projecting American military power as a paramount US interest that was served by that particular intervention.

Whether the game was worth the candle (or the gain was worth the bodies) is another question entirely, and entirely too nuanced for this venue.

Best,

FL

David Orange
08-28-2007, 08:04 PM
Of course Republicans just round up people and put them into prisons, you sly rascal!

I'm not saying that's all they do, Mike.

They also keep each other out of prison. Like Mark Foley, for instance.

It balances out--at least the way they see it, huh?

David

David Orange
08-28-2007, 08:07 PM
Whether the game was worth the candle (or the gain was worth the bodies) is another question entirely, and entirely too nuanced for this venue.

I don't think so. We could use a bit more of that around here.

Thanks.

David