  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Recent comments
- > Mr. Fiore *is* informing
14 hours 46 min ago - There is a disease raging
1 day 1 hour ago - Quail is to Reagan as Palin
1 day 9 hours ago - The "Patriot Act" is the
1 day 11 hours ago - you're an idiot. marriage is
2 days 4 hours ago - Quiz for Sarah:
What would
2 days 13 hours ago - "Because Mr. Fiore is an
3 days 7 hours ago - On a somewhat related note,
3 days 10 hours ago - Another aspect of Sarah you
3 days 12 hours ago - Good depiction of Mrs Palin
3 days 13 hours ago
Current News
- The low road to the White House
- Campaigns Shift to Attack Mode on Eve of Debate
- Fed Considers Plan to Buy Companies’ Unsecured Debt
- Impartiality of S.E.C. Is Questioned
- Banks Suspend Fight for Wachovia
- A Dead Language That’s Very Much Alive
- Red Sox 3, Angels 2: Red Sox Are Out of a Squeeze and Into the A.L.C.S.
- Senator Warned a Friend That Jail Was a Risk
- A.M.D. to Split Into Two Operations
- News Media Feel Limits to Georgia’s Democracy
- Strasbourg Journal: A Pro-Church Law Helps a Mosque
- Talking Business: A Day (Gasp) Like Any Other
- Global Fears of a Recession Grow Stronger
RSS
Do Something!
Comments
Just so that it is out
Just so that it is out there, I think that arguing with "Unity + Victory to the heroic Iraqi Resistance!" is a futile effort. He is most likely a troll. His command of American English is too good to for him to be from Iraq. Having spent some time recently looking for information on English Language websites based in that part of the world, I can tell you that his grammar and syntax structure is WRONG for someone who claims to come from that area of the world. Even someone from EUROPE would be writing differently. His writing style is definitely AMERICAN. He does what he can to HIDE it, but it is fairly obvious when it is contrasted with a recent visit to websites from the area in question.
We pity him and move on.
We pity him and move on.
Well this is an interesting
Well this is an interesting argument y'all got going on.
I think it is interesting to note that diplomacy has done very little to secure peace through out history. But what has brought extended periods of peace? WAR!!!!! If you kill the enemy and the enemies children, then guess what? there is no enemy left! what a novel idea, there not even the enemies orphaned kids to rise up and start more trouble later. Yes its sad, but war generates peace. Baking cookies for terrorist just entices them to extort more cookies with threat of violence. Appeasement is the cowards way. And then Somebody who has actually been in a fight before has to show up and defend the cowards. Remember WWII, WWI?
Barack has said, "We live in the greatest countryin theworld. Please join me and help me change that!" And I fear that he did NOT misspeak. That is what the idiot wants to do.
Funny you should bring up
Funny you should bring up the two Great Wars.
I recall that both times, in cooperation with our allies, we were led to victory by DEMOCRATIC presidents. The surrender-monkey republicans were cowering in their isolationist corners.
Spoken by Shrub:
"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," Bush said at Israel's 60th anniversary celebration in Jerusalem.
"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
He forgot to mention that the senator was Idaho REPUBLICAN William Edgar Borah, who was an isolationist.
It is an interesting that
It is an interesting that you say war has brought extended peace. If there was no war, however, there would be eternal peace! True, there will always be tensions between groups, but with no war, the only thing left is peace. It's a cyclical problem; tensions rise during peace until someone declares war, then they fight until it is "resolved," and then the cycle repeats.
Diplomacy keeps peace; war is caused when diplomacy fails, not when it is working.
One of the definitions of diplomacy: the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way That doesn't include trying to kill your opponent as far as I can tell.
>f you kill the enemy and the enemies children, then guess what? there is no enemy left!
Theoretically, but there are always other people ready to take their place and "avenge" the death of the original enemy. You can't kill the entire country! And if you did, their allies would surely declare war on you. Killing and invading everyone who might possibly be sort of an enemy is a great way to start the next set of World Wars, which Bush has done a very good job of starting.
>Appeasement is the cowards way
Diplomacy and appeasement are two very different things, and we aren't trying to appease the insurgents. If you remember, however, Iraq isn't the one who caused 9/11. That was a group of terrorists who of course deserve to be caught/arrested/killed, but when we declared war on Iraq, it was unprovoked, although it was by means in an ideal condition.
>Remember WWII, WWI?
What do you mean?
>"We live in the greatest country in theworld. Please join me and help me change that!"
That's a spliced quote, is it not? All he wants to do is to improve America, like almost every presidential candidate.
Dilemma of American
Dilemma of American Rapists
Pull out of Iraq before getting Money Shot (stable puppet govt passes 'oil law')
or
Stay in and get Penis Bitten Off (vagina dentata syndrome)
Either way, you very deservedly lose
I only hope you fools will pick the option which more sharply accelerates your downward spiral to the inevitable crash.
Unity + Victory to the heroic Iraqi Resistance !
Humiliation + Bankruptcy to the Great Satan !
Let me guess, "Christian",
Let me guess, "Christian", Republican, pro Bush, anti intelligence type? Didn't you HEAR the war with Iraq was WRONG, ILLEGAL, WE WERE LIED TO BY BUSH, We are NOT SAFER, we helped recruit thousands for AlOuida!! Hello, where have you been? At 3 trillion a month, you pay for this war, so will your kids. It's time to stop Republican Gov, paid, no bid contracts to cronies, and Corp welfare and get back to helping our own? Building roads, bridges, schools, health care, building the country back up...Or, are you against helping your own country out? The scariest thing going on right now is this "Christian crap" going around making everyone afraid to sound like the killers they are historically..( can anyone say crusades). Morality doesn't begin in a church, it's an inside job, you have it, or you don't.Lincoln, Jefferson and Taft, and many more were not christian..they were atheists. McCain= Bush period. Let's take a chance this time and elect someone with brains, not tall stories.
Terrible words, these. Why,
Terrible words, these.
Why, let's bring out the newest weapon in the political left's mighty arsenal: the awesome moral relativity gun.
For any forumite daring to presume that 'Dilemma of American Rapists'-man's views are a touch wrong, I've conveniently loaded the MRG with a full magazine of rich rhetoric taken from the 'Quasi-Marriage' forum:
"Right" and "wrong" are relative terms, relative to each person's beliefs, and neither you nor I nor anyone else can determine for another person what is right or wrong (for them). Your beliefs, your "right and wrong," your "immutable definitions" are merely your own, period.
We are all autonomous beings, as free to reject your beliefs and your arguments as to accept them willingly--for our own reasons, not yours. Everyone's beliefs are important in their lives. But your beliefs are not more important than anyone else's."
And the redoubtable golden bullet:
"I know that concentrating on trying to get rid of what is "wrong" or what a person doesn't like won't work, neither personally nor in a larger societal context, and it just puts an additional strain on things to even try, prolongs the agony so to speak."
It all makes sense now!
Fight on, heroic Iraqi resistance man! Fight, and spread your sacred beliefs far and wide, for your wise words shall not go untolerated.
Alas, I (the weak-minded one, fallen prey to the belief that 'wrong' exists) will tell you to cram it where the sun don't sh
Omni, you have a Demon read
Omni, you have a Demon
read this http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm and get well soon
Maxwell's physical argument
Maxwell's physical argument is curious (I hadn't heard it before). :)
If your argument is that I'm criticizing without providing a valid alternative, you plainly haven't visited the other forums (quasi-marriage in particular). One can only be accused of proselytizing so many times.
If your argument is that I'm closed-minded on the matter of morality, perhaps sir would care to explain how any of the points in the follow-up posts in this thread are wrong.
Regards,
COTO
My argument is that I want
My argument is that I want you to practise what you preach and follow the example of your suicidal jewish zombie leader guy by going to Iraq and publicly sacrificing yourself, preferably by nestling on an IED until it hatches in your flabby cracker ass live on CNN ... this noble gesture beamed around the world will inspire such waves of brotherly love and regret that your warcriminal ruling class will instantly abandon their genocidal aggression and call home their mindless chaindogs, turning the full power of their oppression inwards upon your worthless compatriots as the US-$TURD$ economy collapses to a singularity and implodes.
I am sure this will work, but even if it does not, it is certainly worth a try.
---------
and remember to proudly fly the banner:
Unity + Victory to the heroic Iraqi Resistance!
Everyone has a part to Play ... Rome wasn't burnt in a Day!
---------
heres a news titbit not fed to you by Penta-renta-FOXwhores:
---------
US Army General Taguba sticks Bush Regime for Torture Warcrimes
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/168117
Don't you have some women
Don't you have some women and children at a hospital that you should be hiding behind?
Hop to it, sir. Those Shia won't human shield themselves.
Here's a news tidbit not fed to you by any major U.S. newsservice. Worth a look:
The War Tapes
Religion and war Our
Religion and war
Our differences as individuals and groups of people are ironically drawing us closer to each other. But the closer we get, the more abrasive the differences become.
To quote another post: "Fight on, heroic Iraqi resistance man! Fight, and spread your sacred beliefs far and wide, for your wise words shall not go untolerated."
I personally wouldn't accept Muslim religious beliefs and rules of behavior any more than I would accept Christian beliefs and rules of behavior. Both of them are misguided. Extremist Christians and extremist Muslims are a lot alike.
Religion itself needs to be rethought and reevaluated by humankind. Basing actions with possibly severe consequences on religious belief is foolhardy.
its very good. kabin
its very good.
kabin
And I will kindly insist
And I will kindly insist that you Go ------- Yourself, OmniDummy!.
If this is your first time, you virgin warcriminal dickslurping little christianic whore sidedrip, I recommend you use an extendible police 12-inch baton, with auto-tazer locked on at 2-second intervals and a ribbed shaft for your pleasure.
Alternatively, go to Iraq talking your stupid ------- and use your vacant, happy-clappy head to stop a Resistance sniper's bullet or your lardy ass to absorb 10kg of rusty IED shrapnel, you gutless sick fucking pig.
film izle
My point being that the
My point being that the alternative to 'religion'—which at its core is nothing more than an inflexible moral code—is the house of cards we call 'moral relativism'.
No greater a benediction has evil ever received. It amazes me how people fail to realize that if 'right' and 'wrong' are personal choices, the concepts lose all meaning. People lose the ability to judge, criticize, and to stand on a firm foundation to fight for what they believe. They wind up wallowing in hesitancy, fighting to accommodate and acquiesce and placate. They misquote Bertrand Russell, who was by no means a moral relativist. And, as has been pointed out by others, their beliefs are brushed aside as non-committal dross by men of conviction, evil or otherwise.
Moral relativism is the pablem enjoyed by children during an era of peace and prosperity brought about by sacrifices in WWII, now quickly coming to an end.
Demean religion all you like. Dust off your hands, declare everything to be 'good', and lapse into a comfortable reverie. Browse through textbooks opining about the 'mass hysteria' of religion, and overlook those describing relativism: a psychological pacifier in response to feelings of helplessness; the belief that if we simply redefine 'evil', we are freed from the responsibility to defend, judge, and stand against it.
My religious convictions have served me well.
And in fact my point in starting this thread was to bring to light the utter chaos and carnage that the Iraqis will suffer after a withdrawal--that is, an argument of compassion.
Of course, Mr. Iraqi Victory had to come along, and now most forumites are probably hoping for a US pullout just so the USAF can bomb him and his goats back to the Pleistocene... :(
Regards,
COTO
--- --- --- "My point being
--- --- ---
"My point being that the alternative to 'religion'—which at its core is nothing more than an inflexible moral code—is the house of cards we call 'moral relativism'."
--- --- ---
That is far from the only alternative to religion. Religion is unnecessary and in many cases detrimental.
The task you have set for yourself is impossible: to convince everyone to adopt your particular Christian "inflexible moral code," or, if they don't voluntarily accept it, to support laws and various forms of social pressure to force them to behave as though they accept it.
The reason you can't do that is because you don't control the minds, the feelings, the entirety of other people's psyches. Your voice and your reality are only one of many, each one as "true" as yours.
There is no external authority--not the Bible, not God. We are each our own authorities, like it or not, and we are each free to think and act as we wish, but we must necessarily live with the results and consequences of our own thoughts and actions. Those consequences are not determined by some god, but by ourselves as the direct effect of our own actions.
Therefore, we don't need "inflexible moral codes," nor do we need "moral relativism." This (life, reality) is not an either/or situation. We are free to experiment, and to learn from our experiments as we experience the results of our own activity, mental, emotional and physical. We are our own guides, our own teachers, our own authorities.
> Religion is unnecessary
> Religion is unnecessary and in many cases detrimental.
And here I thought I was the only one with faith.
> The task you have set for yourself...
...is, in this forum, nothing more than to get moral relativists to do some good ol' fashioned critical thinking. ;)
> The reason you can't do that is because you don't control the minds...
I'm just glad I'm not the guy trying to convince you not to jump off a bridge:
"Sir, that's a bridge! Don't jump off; there are sharp rocks below. They may be hard to see, but I've lobbied the park management for a sign, and they placed--"
"Butt out, Godboy! You don't control the entirety of my psycheeee-eeee-eeeeeeeee.... .. . . !"
> There is no external authority--not the Bible, not God. We are each our own authorities, like it or not, and we are each free to think and act as we wish...
> We are our own guides, our own teachers, our own authorities.
Which demonstrates, with a directness that I should thank you for, why the alternative to inflexible morals is... moral relativity. (But we've called it 'freedom to experiment' here, so maybe people won't notice that it's the same thing ;) ;)
Your championing of our sacred right to screw up as we please neglects two rather important facts. Firstly, that 'action/reaction' (a.k.a. 'deed/consequences') isn't actually a moral code. If President Bush were to, say, declare your home state 'Bushland', slaughter all of its inhabitants, string up your entrails at his palace, and live happily ever after until his death at 105, my niggling suspicion is that you'd find it a mite unjust, despite that Bush was 'being his own guide, his own teacher, and his own authority'.
That case being rather fictional, the action/reaction mentality has some very real historical precedents. Many proponents of the Third Reich believed that slaughtering the Jews was a service to both the world and to the 'Jewish vermin'; the Holocaust was meant to be a very real experiment in productive social engineering. In 1960's North America, the results of 'activity: mental, emotional and physical' was to sterilize the mentally ill and the mentally retarded as an act of compassion.
For any of these three cases (Bushland, Holocaust, Eugenics), I'm curious whether you believe an injustice was perpetrated. If so, why?, given that the perpetrators adhere to your vaunted 'own guides, own teachers, own authorities' trial-and-error morality.
A second misconception (the refuge of the relativist) is that things done behind closed doors somehow don't affect anyone else. It is the crippling, insidious belief that things such as violence, sexual deviance, hedonism, overconsumption, apathy and worse stay boxed up behind some veil. Public and private lives never mix. What people choose to do behind closed doors (or the more popular euphemism, 'in the comfort of their own homes') never bubbles to the surface; never helps to shape society; never hurts anybody.
I could go on for days on how... >_< darned ridiculous... this belief is. It's destructive and hopelessly myopic. It's bolstered by the belief that we can trial-and-error our way through life and that any 'consequences' that aren't immediately observable or attributable to our actions somehow don't count. It's the frog in a boiling pot of water that is our society's bane.
But anyway...
We're way off topic in 'McCain 2008'. I cringe when I hear the 'We are our own guides, our own teachers, our own authorities.' mantra; a.k.a. the 'I'll do what I want to when I want to, and to pot with your advice, you mind-controller.' rot that permeates our society, spoken in earnest with the belief that it's OK because it 'isn't hurting anybody'.
My thoughts, at any rate. :|
Your Mind-Controlling Pal,
COTO
"Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare."
- Dorothy Thompson
Here's my take on religion
Here's my take on religion as a guide. As a general rule, good people do good things and evil people do evil things. Only religion can make good people do evil things.
I am surprised at your attacks on moral relativism. Especially with your obvious belief in moral relativism for yourself.
Ethics and even the superstitution that you claim to believe says, and I quote, "Thou shalt not kill."
Yet it is okay with you for our military to bomb and invade Iraq, destroy their infrastructure and murder up to 1,200,000 of their citizens without provocation. Tell me about the moral code that says that is acceptable.
Your so called moral code says, and again I quote, "Thou shalt not steal." Do you support the Bush goal of controlling Iraq's oil and dividing it to enrich his oil company pals. That's stealing on a scale not seen since the Nazis. Or is that all relative?
It is so easy to slide into hypocracy, isn't it? The more self-righteous you are, the easier it gets.
> Only religion can make
> Only religion can make good people do evil things.
Ah, Steven Weinberg's famous quote.
Which (people oddly don't seem to realize) acknowledges that good and evil exist, and presumes that people are born 'evil' or 'good'.
As simple as the 'evil gene' theory is ("evil people do bad things, good people do good things", and morals have nothing to do with it except to inflame the human lust for power), the theory ignores the fact that human morality is a learned phenomenon.
Like it or not, we're slaves to the society around us. Your values are derived from your parents, friends, colleagues, and teachers. They come from books and TV, magazines, the Internet and radio. They aren't innately 'built in'. What is 'built in' are primal lusts, instincts for self-preservation, pleasure-seeking behaviour, selfishness, childishness, and other unpleasant things. We are, after all, creatures of flesh and blood.
If a society rots and the people borne of that society can't find a way out, they rot along with it. My reply to Mr. Weinberg's comment is that when a society is rotting, religion is also the only thing that can make 'evil' people turn to good things. It's the only higher ideal left.
I don't want to define my moral existence by what my society believes is right at this particular moment in time, as accommodating as this alternative promises to be. Call this belief a 'good person doing evil' if you wish, but living solely for my own gratification with 'right' and 'wrong' defined by what I've been able to see through my window into society seems foolish to me.
> Ethics and even the superstitution that you claim to believe says, and I quote, "Thou shalt not kill."
The original Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder.", but anyway...
> Yet it is okay with you for our military to bomb and invade Iraq, destroy their infrastructure and murder up to 1,200,000 of their citizens without provocation.
No. It's not.
> Your so called moral code says, and again I quote, "Thou shalt not steal." Do you support the Bush goal of controlling Iraq's oil and dividing it to enrich his oil company pals?
No. I don't.
> It is so easy to slide into hypocracy, isn't it? The more self-righteous you are, the easier it gets.
It is, and yes, that's true.
My point in raising the plight of the Iraqi people is that since the terrible act has been done, the people responsible for 'cleaning up' mustn't be too hasty to make the same sinful mistakes (or deliberate crimes) as the Bush administration.
The mantra 'out of Iraq' comes hand-in-hand with the understanding that the Middle East will explode into chaos and death when this happens. I've likened it to a drunken surgeon opening and doing terrible harm to his patient. The replacement surgeon decides per quo to just sew the poor man up and hope that everything turns out alright.
That's not to say that there isn't a good (an excellent, in fact) argument for pulling out of Iraq. Pick any one of the bazillion other threads in McCain Iraq if you want to know why. But, if a realistic, persuasive argument could be made that the sacrifice of a few thousand more U.S. soldiers could save the lives of millions of Iraqis, I'd hope that this would be one of the arguments that the replacement surgeon (the government you're going to elect) would consider before following the path of least resistance.
Regards,
COTO
Coto, Good answer! I'll have
Coto,
Good answer! I'll have to think about what you've said.
--- --- --- "Which
--- --- ---
"Which demonstrates, with a directness that I should thank you for, why the alternative to inflexible morals is... moral relativity."
--- --- ---
No--
People don't need a moral code, a set of "laws" to gauge potential personal actions against in order to decide whether to actually do them or not, whether that moral code is from an outside source (religion, the Bible or other "holy" book) or determined by themselves (your "moral relativism"). People need neither. People can live constructively, cooperatively and creatively without a moral code.
@_o .... *! (Burbles lips,
@_o .... *!
(Burbles lips, and gives up.)
A for effort! Some Muslims
A for effort!
Some Muslims have a strict, inflexible moral code. What makes your Christian strict, inflexible moral code better than theirs?
Or, to put it more
Or, to put it more succinctly,
Life does not need a rulebook in order to be enjoyed.
Presumptious USan Idiot, why
Presumptious USan Idiot, why would you think I am religious?
I support the Resistance on purely political grounds which are not extreme but very simple and apply equally to all
Rule #1 is: your Nazi Oil-Pirates invade our country to murder, rob and oppress ... we kill you in legitimate self-defence
Is that so difficult to wrap your dumb USan brain around?
Unity + Victory to the heroic Iraqi Resistance !
Humiliation + Bankruptcy to the Great Satan(+ its Britzraeli Asspatch Tagnuts)!
"Presumptious USan Idiot,
The term "the Great Satan" sounds religious.
No, Dummy! That's just a
No, Dummy!
That's just a worldwide recognised accurate shorthand for your evil USaNazi Reich. Though coined by Khomeni, it imports no religious connotation to anyone who has been awake at all since 1979.
And before you ask, the corresponding 'Little Satan' = sidekick Israel.
Now have another twinkie and watch your ass expand, live on TV.
You realize, of course, that
You realize, of course, that the "heroic Iraqi Resistance" is al Qaeda, right? Not to mention other people who think that sending easily-manipulated people loaded with explosives into the midst of their countrymen to explode is a good way of enacting social change. The only thing "heroic" about these people is the depths of depravity they will reach to in order to press their own interests. If the leaders of these groups believed so greatly that human bombs are what Allah intends for their battle against their great enemy, helpless women and children, why have they not taken up a pack of bombs themselves? It proves their moral corruption and manipulation.
I could ALMOST see the argument for resistance against US/coalition forces... IF they weren't the only thing keeping Iraq from becoming 3 to 5 separate, warring states. Targeting your own people's noncombatants can never have any sustainable justification; it's equivalent to Vlad Tepes' impaling of a village of his own people to deter invaders... and pretty much anyone can tell you what he's remembered as.
You don't realise, but it is
You don't realise, but it is nevertheless a fact, that every noise from your empty head is simply a weak echo of Pentagon Propaganda planted there by your PNAC Overlords.
You can only spray this pabulum from inside a cocoon of arrant ignorance.
So come out, or continue to enjoy your slavitude and willing mental crippledom, idiot!
Over.
How about less personal
How about less personal arrogance, and more informed and reasoned rebuttal of my points? Oh, wait, you have no point other than being a spoiled child who thinks he has a cause to support, and thus CAN'T make a rebuttal other than "you're a poopy-face!"
Fail.
How about I keep humbly
How about I keep humbly attacking your intense personal stupidity, not the Pentagoner agitprop you foolishly claim as "my points"?
Your whining noises are typical for retarded fatass skYanks who cry foul when losing every war you started. e.g. Your chickenshit GameBoy marines are heard all over the internet bitching about how the Iraqi Resistance should 'come out and fight like men'.
That is richly amusing, in a stupid kind of way, as if these cowardly USan freaks expect their enemy to be stupid enough to parade out in the desert holding hands in a bunch, only to be napalmed from 40,000 feet? Not even the Nazis in occupied France were debased enough to demand this from the Resistance. Truely, it appears you have to be exceedingly stupid and auto-delusional (like a born-again skYank christianic loon) to believe the enemy is somehow moraly obliged to play to your technological advantage.
So snap your lardy pighead! The Resistance does not fight by your little rules of convenience, Dummy. They make their own and insert the consequences of your stupidity into your warcriminal flabby white asses, whether you like it or not, comprende? And it is nothing personal, just professionally taking care of some unfinished political business.
I follow their example, not yours.
Unity + Victory to the heroic Iraqi Resistance!
Everyone has a part to Play ... Rome was not burnt in a Day!
---------
here, try a titbit not fed to you by Penta-renta-FOXwhores:
---------
US Army General Taguba sticks Bush Regime for Torture Warcrimes
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/168117
You talk about "warcrimes",
You talk about "warcrimes", but have no understanding of what they actually are.
OK Braincell, supply your
OK Braincell, supply your own definition then, if you will enjoy watching me whip your whiter-than-sour-cream ass with it.
Over.
Could someone please ban
Could someone please ban this a$$hat's IP?
As a U.S. citizen, a
As a U.S. citizen, a middle-aged male of European descent, I think his comments are very interesting, revealing and thought-provoking. I'm glad he posted them.
I think that the phrase "the Great Satan" is kind of weird and funny as applied to the U.S. (or any collective entity), but I can certainly feel and understand his frustration.
I would remind him though that only a small percentage of U.S. citizens are actually participating in the "rape" (good term) of Iraq. Many, like myself, are peace-loving people who do not wish to participate in war, even from a spectator's point of view.
The fact that peace-lovers cannot stop a war should not be held against them. Those who are determined to kill, rape, maim and plunder will find a way to do so, somewhere, some time, somehow. Only those who are actually involved in war can stop it by changing themselves, their desires, attitudes, beliefs, actions, etc. This includes the "victims" as well as those who victimize.
However, all of that said, I think that the original Mr. "unity and victory to the heroic Iraqi resistance, humiliation and bankruptcy to the Great Satan"'s post expresses a legitimate feeling and sentiment on his part, from his perspective. What constructive purpose would banning him serve? His beliefs, thoughts and feelings are as real and valid as yours, mine or anyone else's.
You cannot crush out of existence that which you do not like. ;-)
OK, Mr Innocent Liberal, I
OK, Mr Innocent Liberal,
I will remind you that wars of aggression should be about killing those who start them, correct?
Therefore, for proper legal discipline, the protection of future generations and as a good example generally - Bush, Blair, Aznar, Barroso = warcriminals who should be publicly hung on rope dipped in Iraqi Crude
This is the collective responsibility of mankind, no exceptions, even for lardbrain Yankis.
So snap out of sugar-high lethargy you fat USan bastards, engage any brain-remnants left over from your so-called 'education system' and 'media', stop plucking your puds and start pulling your overweight of political responsibility to neutralise or eliminate the fascistic enemies of mankind who have by stealth hijacked the power of your nation in an insane doomed attempt (PNAC) to threaten, domineer and monopolise the world.
If you have the WILL to resist, there is always a WAY - look to Iraq for the Lesson !
Don't tell me you can do nothing, that is acquiescing/collaborationist horseshit of the lowest order.
If you are brave, as you liars neutered by fear claim to be, you will have allies worldwide, we freedom-fighters outside your borders do not want to destroy the people of USA, only the warcriminal leadership/regime, which must be removed/revolutionised so that it can no longer issue deranged blackmail and threats to destroy the world.
You moan to OmniDummy "You cannot crush out of existence that which you do not like" while you lazy animal lean back to stuff twinkies up your ass on the couch and watch these minions systematically make it happen in real-time! That is truely diseased!
And if you are too stupid to see the Democratic party is the fully synchronised left jackboot of the fascist regime being brought down on your own head, well, enjoy life in the camp, you waste of space.
So where the f**k is the American Resistance ??
http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/129470
OK, Mr Innocent Liberal, I
No. To the extent you create, support and perpetuate violence, you are as guilty as those you fight against.
No, revenge and retaliation is not "the collective responsibility of mankind." Your own personal viewpoint is not shared by everyone, including myself. No matter how right or righteous you think you are, or how justified you believe your feelings are, your world and experience are just your own, not everyone else's. It is no one else's "responsibility" to do, for you, something that you think should be done
I agree with you that the last 8 years of the Republican Bush administration seems very much like the classical definition of a fascist government, that is a government run by big business, using the military as a private police force to secure and insure their own interests. This is truly a pitiful state for the U.S., and one that I believe must soon change.
I don't support you or your causes, nor do I support those who fight against you. Therefore, I have nothing to "resist." It is not my conflict.
It is not my conflict.
In your world, war is a fact. It seems to be an acute problem that, like any crisis, requires immediate and focused attention and action.
In my world, war is very distant. I wish it didn't exist at all, but I realize that for some people, it does. They actually experience it, sometimes very harshly. Should I place myself in your world? No. My world is more peaceful. I like it. I cannot solve your problems. You will have to solve your own problems. I can only resolve my own challenges and problems, and in doing so, I help those around me in my immediate vicinity. I make my own tiny little part of the world better.
You have the same responsibility in your own world. But your world is not everyone's world, and it is not my world. Just as another person may be in the hospital with a horrible injury or a medical crisis of some sort while I am sitting here in good health typing at my computer, the part of the world that is now in crisis is not my world. If and when conflict and crisis exists in my environment, I deal with it in my own way. Your way is not my way.
Thank you very much for this
Thank you very much for this information. evden eve nakliyat
"No. To the extent you
"No. To the extent you create, support and perpetuate violence, you are as guilty as those you fight against."
~ the moral equivalence of a stinking coward. You try to smear the victim with the guilt which pertains solely to the aggressive rapist, because she exercises her perfect right to self-defence. You filthy gutless wonder mindslave ... how can you even claim to be human!
"No, revenge and retaliation is not "the collective responsibility of mankind." Your own personal viewpoint is not shared by everyone, including myself."
~ You braindead vermin, I am not talking about REVENGE, but exemplary JUSTICE to be placed on the most deranged and dangerous warcriminals on the face of the planet. Your petty mind makes it sound like an overblown feud I am having with a neighbour. Knock your head on a wall a few times, see if that helps ...
"I agree with you that the last 8 years of the Republican Bush administration seems very much like the classical definition of a fascist government, that is a government run by big business, using the military as a private police force to secure and insure their own interests."
~ you admit the totalitarian nature of USaNazi state without even reviewing its genocidal actions abroad, then whine for absolution "but it's not my problem, not my battle" ... that means you agree on being a fascist yourself, Liberal Numbnutz. Now your facade makes sense! Quisling Dog!
"This is truly a pitiful state for the U.S., and one that I believe must soon change."
~ You know what is even more pitiful? It's the debased state of the enslaved mind your pathetic answers here display! And why do you think the situation "must change"? You damned fool just said you are determined never to pull your thumb outta bloated ass. Maybe you will wait for Obama to come kiss all fascism better, yes? Oh Jeezis wept, why do I even waste my time with retards like you ...?
"I have nothing to "resist." It is not my conflict."
~ so you have no opinion on world injustice, Mr Neutrality? Well I hope the fascist jackboot of the state quickly connects with your sleepy flabass very soon. That's the only wake up call you need. But when it does, I'm pretty sure you will fall from your knees onto your belly and crawl like a worm in dreck, begging forgiveness from your master. You disgust me! At least the fundie animals who rule you have the spine to take a position, perverse as it is.
"War is a fact."
~ yes it is, and it's happening in this World, the only one there is, right now, regardles of how deeply you plant your blubberskull in sand or up own ample ass.
"I make my own tiny little part of the world better."
~ haha, nobody even half-sane could believe that, you liar. How could anyone but other retards enjoy being around a base coward and moral cripple such as you?
"Your way is not my way."
~ bingo! That is true and I will never be like you, Collaborative Homelander Fascist Pig, benefitting quietly from the crimes of your overlords. Now hurry back to your bucket of nazi-govt-issue swill.
Ignoring the insults you
Ignoring the insults you ("Mr. Iraqi Victory," as you have been called) directed at me, you certainly express your very strong feelings in an interesting way. Boiled down to an essence, your words to the people of the U.S. regarding their current government and its actions might be expressed simply as:
"Wake up and DO something, you stupid fools!"
The populace of the U.S. might seem somewhat like the population of Germany at the time of Hitler's rise to power and his first military actions. Addressing them would have been a frustrating and confusing experience.
You have a very vivid, though narrowly focused and incomplete, view and image of current world circumstances. The focus is understandable however, because as a friend sometimes tells me, "it's hard to see the 'big picture' when you're neck deep in a swamp and surrounded by alligators."
Good luck with your attempts to educate and motivate people with your particular viewpoint. It sounds however like you feel that your own efforts may be futile, that the "stinking cowards," "filthy gutless wonder mindslaves," and "braindead vermin" that you address may be a lost cause.
Although I personally don't share your beliefs and views, and see things from a different perspective, your anger is clear and your point of view interesting and vivid.
Famous Last Words,
Famous Last Words, Fool!
"your anger is clear and your point of view interesting and vivid"
~ just remember to blubber that same lame and meaningless line at the DHS.GestapoGoon as he plants the iron jackboot in your face/ass ... I'm sure he will appreciate your dull sense of humour and spineless compliance ... but I do not!
"Famous Last Words, Fool!
Colorful words. But the only fate you are able to determine is your own.
> The fact that peace-lovers
> The fact that peace-lovers cannot stop a war should not be held against them. Those who are determined to kill, rape, maim and plunder will find a way to do so, somewhere, some time, somehow. [Their] beliefs, thoughts and feelings are as real and valid as yours, mine or anyone else's. You cannot crush out of existence that which you do not like.
Which is a shame, sir, because your indifference sickens me.
--> "your indifference
--> "your indifference sickens me."
It's not indifference. It's simply a recognition of the fact that peace lovers cannot force warmongers to be peace lovers.
Hating war does not create peace; peace is created by a desire for and love of peace.
Which is great on a fortune
Which is great on a fortune cookie.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Is your point not that principled wars don't exist, and that pacifists should throw up their hands and do nothing?
I'll remind you of the wise words of Mr. Edmund Burke:
All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
As to the neccessity of war (although not referring to Iraq), we'll agree to disagree. Diplomacy has its venerable place in history, but far more peace, including the peace you now enjoy, was purchased in blood at the end of a sword.
--> "Which is great on a
--> "Which is great on a fortune cookie."
That peace is better than war is great in real life too. As the number of people who prefer peace increases, the number of people who participate in war decreases, one or several people at a time.
--> "Is your point not that principled wars don't exist(?)"
Wars exist, but participation is not mandatory. To support violence, even when one finds himself confronted with or in the midst of violence, is not necessary. If one is more or less blinded and hypnotized by the violence itself, he may not readily perceive the perfectly valid alternative courses of action from which he may choose.
--> "...far more peace, including the peace you now enjoy, was purchased in blood at the end of a sword."
That is your view. Reality is more complex and not so simply stated. To use your words, your statement above would be great on a fortune cookie.
I'd invite anybody out there
I'd invite anybody out there in Fioreland to elaborate on what they think would happen if the U.S. (hypothetically) pulled out of Iraq at the end of 2008. The withdrawal, for better or for worse, would be completed in ten months or less.
Although this isn't a 'stumping for McCain' gambit, I will kindly insist on one thing: please make no comparative mention of the alternative (staying in Iraq). That is, I do not want a 'lesser of two evils' analysis. The terrible problems associated with 'staying the course' have been well documented elsewhere in these forums, and although they are certainly relevant, I'm looking for a standalone analysis of the 'cut and run' option in this thread.
Specifically, I'm trying to gauge 'if', and 'if', 'how much' forumites are misinformed about the consequences stemming from the 'cut and run' option.
If you choose to reply (and I sincerely hope that you do), again I ask that you please be careful to avoid a comparative analysis. I realize that standalone analysis is more open to scrutiny, and (in a forum that is so vehemently anti-McCain) likely to be unpopular.
My great thanks to one and all who reply. :)
My tongue tells me... Bad
My tongue tells me... Bad things will destroy the middle east, if the mighty powerful and majestic US military leaves within the next year.
The current duly elected government of Iraq (CDEGofI)(almost completely formed from and by the majority Shee-ite [Shee - it?] religious sect) will have to make some major changes in order to stay in control. They have a few choices. Let's look at four possiblities:
First, come to agreement with the Soon-ee [Moonies? Loonies?] not-so-religious sect and work out some kind of coalition. This would be like Lebanon today. This is the wonderful stable future my hero is shooting for (pardon the pun) by using our fearless troops to buy time for the CDEGofI to swallow their anger at years of suppression and torture by Saddam (a Loonie [Soon-ee?]). This is the ideal outcome (if you ignore what is happening in Lebanon today as my hero is doing,) since it probably means the least number of Iraqis killed and maimed. Whether it will be less per day than are killed and maimed now is an open question. My tongue has not given me clear direction on that.
Second, the CDEGofI merges with the evil Mr. Sah-dear's army. Mah-dee, Mah-dee (echoes of "Dune"). This is baaaaaad! Merger is a technical term. Who knows who "initiates" the merger. If the Mah-di initiates the merger, some CDEGofI police or troops or whatever they are called this week will resist, but most will join up with the new rulers. Since the Moonies [Loonies?] will not be happy at ALL with this outcome, this option will launch a Baaaaad civil war with probably about the same number of killings and maimings we had a few years ago. The final departure of the powerful and majestic US military will look a lot like the final days of the "War in Vietnam" [starring John Wayne.) A war started by the Republicans (Eisenhower), escalated by the Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson), then ended by the Republicans (Nixon). Nuf said.
Third, the CDEGofI will ally with Iran dramatically improving the power and influence of the Axis of Evil (curses!). This is really, really baaaaaad! After all we can't have one democratically elected government allying with another democratically elected government especially if they don't like us. Think of the oil! Besides that would piss off the Saudi's - our wonderful supportive allies. They have not had their elections yet, but I'm sure they will -- soon.
Another point about options two and three. This would destablize the area and piss off Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and some of those other little countries with lots of oil and modern warplanes. Another country with no oil but many warplanes (all hail Zionism) will get cranky as well. I think I read that on some talking points somewhere.
Most likely of all is option four:
With the Tribulation ending, Jesus will come in power and majesty, and me and my chums will be raptured. In that case, I don't give a rip about you apostate heathens in Fioreland, or the Islamic heathens in Iraq. They will be "left behind" to battle it out with each other and the Anti-Christ in the Post-trbulation aftermath. I will be in total bliss with my tongue even deeper up the great and powerful George W. B......
And I will kindly insist
And I will kindly insist that you Go ------- Yourself, OmniDummy!.
If this is your first time, you virgin warcriminal dickslurping little christianic whore sidedrip, I recommend you use an extendible police 12-inch baton, with auto-tazer locked on at 2-second intervals and a ribbed shaft for your pleasure.
Alternatively, go to Iraq talking your stupid ------- and use your vacant, happy-clappy head to stop a Resistance sniper's bullet or your lardy ass to absorb 10kg of rusty IED shrapnel, you gutless sick fucking pig.
Post new comment