1
   

Conservatives, please help with this contradiction.

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 08:57 pm
Baldimo wrote:
You going to attempt to pick at me or are you going to post something of relevance?


Boo hoo hoo . . .

Pointing out a serious flaw in the presentation of your statement certainly does constitute a relevant contribution.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:00 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
squinney wrote:
Okay, let me see if I'm following this:

Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.

Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.

The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?

US civillians are freedom fighters?

But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?

I think that your analogy is inappropriate. Hussein used chemical weapons to kill the Kurdish and other inhabitants of Halabja, intentionally targetting men, women, and children indiscriminately. He maintained extensive torture chambers and tortured and/or murdered citizens who dissented. I have also heard a few things about him having forcible sex with women he fancied, although I am not sure whether I could find a reference or not. Do you think this is very parallel with Bush?


Gee, I was hoping we would get an actual answer to squinney's question. The answer has nothing to do with her question. Shocked

Sure it does. Her question included an analogy as an integral part. I pointed out that the analogy was baloney. That is certainly relevant.


speaking of baloney, how does Hussein, or anyone, specifically target a group while simultaneously being indiscriminate in their actions towards them? Rolling Eyes Laughing
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
Baldimo wrote:
You going to attempt to pick at me or are you going to post something of relevance?


Boo hoo hoo . . .

Pointing out a serious flaw in the presentation of your statement certainly does constitute a relevant contribution.


How so? You have added to the thread how? I thought the subject had to do with a contradiction. Not how I have used a term. I didn't know the title was "How Baldimo misuses phrases and how Set can avoid a real subject."

Ignore the subject and attack the poster. I knew you were a true lib.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:05 pm
Jump in pages after the thread is up and running, without reading what came before, and make a judgmental statement about those with whom you disagree, and don't forget to slap a label on them, one which you use with contempt--i just knew your were a true reactionary.

I was in this thread from page one, although you apparently missed that, having only shown up later, and lashed out at the first post you thought you were capable of taking apart.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:08 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. If I were resisting an invasion of the United States, I don't think that I would deliberately blow up non-combatants, or take civilian, non-combatant hostages, use them to blackmail their countries, and saw their heads of while they screamed in agony.


If you didn't do any of these things, would fighting (shooting foreign troops) while you were out of uniform using personal arms be morally justified?

It certainly could be depending on the purpose of the invasion, but I might not be covered by the Geneva Convention.


Then the difference between the U.S. and Iraq would be....?

I'm not sure how your question relates to anything in these posts.


Yet another evasion of actually answering a question. Either you don't understand the question or you avoid the question. You should be on the answer my question with a question thread. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:15 pm
My analogy was actually pretty good if I may say so myself. It doesn't have to involve religious fanatics, though I could through in some Southern Baptists if you need me to in order to understand the analogy.

Likewise, Bush doesn't have to actually use any WMD's on US citizens in order to understand the analogy, but if you like I can add details about how he has harmed American citizens through policies that allow more pollution, more arsenic in our water, and allowing oil companies to overcharge so that more citizens can't afford health insurance or food.

It's an apt analogy as stated, though some of you seem to want me to write you a bedtime story.

e-brown (who needs to update his avatar - please!!!! ) has asked a good question and I am interested in understanding what appears to be a contradiction.

Can we address the freedom fighter / terrorist question I posed?

(And these are American citizens fighting invading Saudi's and killing Americans that have sided with the Saudi's.)

These are the ones that Baldimo said should be shot on site.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:17 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
squinney wrote:
Okay, let me see if I'm following this:

Saudi Arabia invades the US. They decide our president is a nitwit, dangerous to his own people, has WMD's (and they really DO know where they are) and he must be removed. They also decide we would be better served by a monarchy, so they set out to invade the USA and make these changes with our (civillian) best interest at heart.

Americans are armed. We fight back. Worried about the impact, Canadian and Mexican civillian fighters cross the borders to help. Due to self interest /preservation (Okay, lack of a real army) Canadian and Mexican governments refuse to get involved and even agree to some sharing of oil deals just to show how friendly they are to the Saudi's.

The Canadians and Mexicans are insurgents?

US civillians are freedom fighters?

But, if in all of the fighting we and the insurgents kill some of the Americans that are lining up to take jobs as police officers, military etc. in service to the new Monarchy, we are terrorists?

I think that your analogy is inappropriate. Hussein used chemical weapons to kill the Kurdish and other inhabitants of Halabja, intentionally targetting men, women, and children indiscriminately. He maintained extensive torture chambers and tortured and/or murdered citizens who dissented. I have also heard a few things about him having forcible sex with women he fancied, although I am not sure whether I could find a reference or not. Do you think this is very parallel with Bush?


Gee, I was hoping we would get an actual answer to squinney's question. The answer has nothing to do with her question. Shocked

Sure it does. Her question included an analogy as an integral part. I pointed out that the analogy was baloney. That is certainly relevant.


speaking of baloney, how does Hussein, or anyone, specifically target a group while simultaneously being indiscriminate in their actions towards them? Rolling Eyes Laughing

It was his specific intention to kill everyone present no matter who or what they were.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:19 pm
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. If I were resisting an invasion of the United States, I don't think that I would deliberately blow up non-combatants, or take civilian, non-combatant hostages, use them to blackmail their countries, and saw their heads of while they screamed in agony.


If you didn't do any of these things, would fighting (shooting foreign troops) while you were out of uniform using personal arms be morally justified?

It certainly could be depending on the purpose of the invasion, but I might not be covered by the Geneva Convention.


Then the difference between the U.S. and Iraq would be....?

I'm not sure how your question relates to anything in these posts.


Yet another evasion of actually answering a question. Either you don't understand the question or you avoid the question. You should be on the answer my question with a question thread. Rolling Eyes

Why? I never avoid questions, although sometimes I get tired of a thread and just leave. I don't understand what your question means, and I don't undestand how it relates to anthing I said.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:20 pm
Re: Conservatives, please help with this contradiction.
ebrown_p wrote:
I have been in two completely different discussion in two different threads. An apparent contradiction has come up in the conservative position taken in these two not completely unrelated issues.

The first topic was the Second Amendment where it was stated that private citizens with guns would resist an invasion by external enemies. The communist era was listed as an example ("why didn't the communists invade") and a quote was offered from a Japanese general, the implication was he said ("we can't invade because they all have guns").

The second topic was the "insurgents/terrorists/whatever" fighting a guerilla war in Iraq. In this discussion is was alleged that un-uniformed fighters were evil and worthy of being shot on sight. The deaths of these fighters countrymen were blamed on these uniformed citizens attacking foreign troops with private arms.

Do you see the contradiction?

If the United States were invaded, would you as a private citizen use personal arms to attack the foreign troops?

If you would, wouldn't you be responsible when the foreign troops destroyed your town and killed your neighbors (accidently) trying to find you?

If you wouldn't, then doesn't that pretty much take away any "deterrent" effect of the Second Amendment?



The implied assumption in your rant is that the "insurgents" in Iraq somehow or other represent the Iraqi people.

They don't. What they DO represent is a negligable number of leftover baathists and diehard fedayeen-sadaam i.e. cutthroats and murderers from the Hussein family's own little version of something like Ceaucescu's orphan squads, and a larger number of foreign jihadis from neighboring countries.

The good news is that the ordinary people of Iraq are now starting to kill these assholes with their own weapons the same way Americans would.

One recent analysis (of the "insurgency") which I unfortunately don't have a source for:

Quote:


The insurgents in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond expelling the Americans. They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

Rather than employing the classic rebel tactic of provoking the foreign forces to use clumsy and excessive force and kill civilians, they are cutting out the middleman and killing civilians indiscriminately themselves, in addition to more predictable targets like officials of the new government. Bombings have escalated in the last two weeks, and on Thursday a bomb went off in heavy traffic in Baghdad, killing 21 people.

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains - and how the rebels' seeming indifference to the past patterns of insurgency is not necessarily good news for anyone.

The Times should have given me a call; I know exactly what the "insurgents" want... and the Times's befuddlement is to a large extent because of how they frame the question -- the mystery of the insurgency.

The Times assumes that the killers in Iraq are, in fact, "insurgents." But insurgents have a political plan; no matter how brutal they may be, they see their violence as leading to a political change -- the government will be cast out to be replaced by a new government, typically themselves. Thus, they tend to create shadow directorates that mimic the functions of a government; they have spokespeople who explain their political goals; they try to seize territory to prove they can run it better than the current regime, solving for the people there whatever burning issue is driving the insurgency (land distribution, famine, whatever).

But this is to assume what the Times purportedly wants to discover. If you begin by assuming the killers are "insurgents," then you have limited your conclusions to some Vietnam-style political revolution. Put another way, if you start by assuming that they are insurgents -- then you must wind up concluding that they are insurgents.

But if you look with a more open mind, the closest-fit historical model is not that of the followers of Uncle Ho in Vietnam from the 50s through the mid-70s, or the Algerian insurgency against the French in the 1950s, or the attempts at independence by the Kosovars against the Serbs in the late 90s.

Rather, the best historical precedents are the Aztecs, who turned mere human sacrifice into an art form by killing more and more and more people until they literally may have slaughtered an end to their own empire. Their intent was not to achieve some political goal; they already ruled. Rather, they developed the theological notion that the more people they butchered, the more pleased their bloody gods would be.

With that gloss, the Iraq "insurgency" comes suddenly into crystal-clear focus, like the beginning of the TV show the Outer Limits: the killers in Iraq have no political goal. That is not the point.

The point is to kill. They have invented a whole new kind of murder... they are serial spree killers.

The distinction between a serial killer and a spree killer is that the first kills methodically over time, trying to evade capture so he can continue his murderous pastime; while the second has one violent incident in which he kills a bunch of people, then often kills himself or expects to be slain by the police. What we see today in Iraq is a combination of the two: terror bosses who methodically, over time, set up mass killing events, usually carried out by others who will die in the attempt, but sometimes remotely by themselves (sending a chained driver cruising the streets, then detonating the driver's car when he nears a target of opportunity).

But like serial and spree killers, like those who commit human sacrifice, the motivation is found not in the external world but in his own internal hell, in the voice that only he can hear, from his bloody, eldrich gods, who demand blood and souls, blood and souls in the name of Moloch, or Arioch, or Cthulhu, or Huitzilopochtli, who demand mass sacrifices in the Grand Pyramid (or the Great Mosque -- and it is significant that one of the favorite targets for the killers are mosques full of worshippers, as if they saw their red-dripping thunderclap as an explosive "amen" to the service).

This has significance in strategy. If this were a political insurgency, we would expect it to respond to changes in the political weather, even disbanding when it becomes clear that they have failed to win the hearts and minds of the people. But if the point is a holocaust of human sacrifice -- if instead of winning the people's hearts, they want to cut them out and display them to the cheering crowd, not particularly caring who the victims may be -- then they are like the Terminators of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie: they cannot be bargained with, or reasoned with; they will show no pity or remose; and they absolutely will not stop until all in Iraq are dead... or until they are destroyed themselves, every last one of them.

Widen your mind. Let's not try to shoehorn every "mysterious" event into the gloss of twentieth-century liberal ideas about political revolution and leftist insurgency. In Iraq, we are not fighting Ho Chi Minh; we are fighting modern-day Aztec priests who want to kill their victims for no reason other than to cut their hearts out and offer their bleeding, still beating hearts to Huitzilopochtli... so let us set our strategy accordingly.

0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:22 pm
squinney wrote:
...and allowing oil companies to overcharge so that more citizens can't afford health insurance or food....

And to you, this is in the same league as gassing a whole town to death, building an elaborate system of torture chambers for dissenters, murdering political rivals, and raping female citizens? What's up with your sense of proportion?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:22 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
1. If I were resisting an invasion of the United States, I don't think that I would deliberately blow up non-combatants, or take civilian, non-combatant hostages, use them to blackmail their countries, and saw their heads of while they screamed in agony.


If you didn't do any of these things, would fighting (shooting foreign troops) while you were out of uniform using personal arms be morally justified?

It certainly could be depending on the purpose of the invasion, but I might not be covered by the Geneva Convention.


Then the difference between the U.S. and Iraq would be....?

I'm not sure how your question relates to anything in these posts.


Yet another evasion of actually answering a question. Either you don't understand the question or you avoid the question. You should be on the answer my question with a question thread. Rolling Eyes

Why? I never avoid questions, although sometimes I get tired of a thread and just leave. I don't understand what your question means, and I don't undestand how it relates to anthing I said.


I guess that is true cause you haven't said much. Perhaps you could go back to squinney's last post and answer that one for us. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 09:59 pm
Setanta wrote:
Jump in pages after the thread is up and running, without reading what came before, and make a judgmental statement about those with whom you disagree, and don't forget to slap a label on them, one which you use with contempt--i just knew your were a true reactionary.

I was in this thread from page one, although you apparently missed that, having only shown up later, and lashed out at the first post you thought you were capable of taking apart.


I don't know what you are talking about. My first post answered a question asked by Joe (place something here) Nation. Then I went to comment on something to do with the thread.

Here's my first post:
Quote:
Swayze was a freedom fighter for the simple fact that he was fighting the invading army only. He wasn't killing fellow Americans. If he were to kill Americans then that would have made him a terrorist.

Being a US soldier I don't have a problem (I do have a problem but for different reasons) with the "Insurgents" attacking coalition soldiers that is a sound tactic. I have an issue with them attacking civilians and blowing up car bombs while people wait to get jobs or people leaving a Mosque. That is what makes them terrorists and not freedom fighters.



You are still attacking me instead of taking part in the thread. Instead of being in the debate you are turning me into the debate. Rolling Eyes

Goodbye!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 May, 2005 10:00 pm
Bye . . .
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:20 am
There was a debate? I missed it? Damn, I wish I had seen that! Laughing
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 10:26 am
So, I guess no one can answer. Too, bad. I thought I was going to get this contra-diction thing cleared up.

(Can't even get an updated pic of e_browns grandbaby?)
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:31 pm
squinney wrote:
So, I guess no one can answer. Too, bad. I thought I was going to get this contra-diction thing cleared up.

(Can't even get an updated pic of e_browns grandbaby?)


I answered the post but got sidetracked by another poster.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 05:52 pm
And, I thank you Baldimo, but I was talking about Americans/Canadians / Mexicans shooting Americans that are assisting with the take over by agreeing to be trained by Saudies to be police officers, military personnel, part of the new government.

You said: Americans shooting Americans to help in the take over would be traitors and should be shot on site! I agree, but I was talking about the2nd Americans in your statement.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 06:26 pm
Re: Conservatives, please help with this contradiction.
gungasnake wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
I have been in two completely different discussion in two different threads. An apparent contradiction has come up in the conservative position taken in these two not completely unrelated issues.

The first topic was the Second Amendment where it was stated that private citizens with guns would resist an invasion by external enemies. The communist era was listed as an example ("why didn't the communists invade") and a quote was offered from a Japanese general, the implication was he said ("we can't invade because they all have guns").

The second topic was the "insurgents/terrorists/whatever" fighting a guerilla war in Iraq. In this discussion is was alleged that un-uniformed fighters were evil and worthy of being shot on sight. The deaths of these fighters countrymen were blamed on these uniformed citizens attacking foreign troops with private arms.

Do you see the contradiction?

If the United States were invaded, would you as a private citizen use personal arms to attack the foreign troops?

If you would, wouldn't you be responsible when the foreign troops destroyed your town and killed your neighbors (accidently) trying to find you?

If you wouldn't, then doesn't that pretty much take away any "deterrent" effect of the Second Amendment?



The implied assumption in your rant is that the "insurgents" in Iraq somehow or other represent the Iraqi people.

They don't. What they DO represent is a negligable number of leftover baathists and diehard fedayeen-sadaam i.e. cutthroats and murderers from the Hussein family's own little version of something like Ceaucescu's orphan squads, and a larger number of foreign jihadis from neighboring countries.

The good news is that the ordinary people of Iraq are now starting to kill these **** with their own weapons the same way Americans would.

One recent analysis (of the "insurgency") which I unfortunately don't have a source for:

Quote:


The insurgents in Iraq are showing little interest in winning hearts and minds among the majority of Iraqis, in building international legitimacy, or in articulating a governing program or even a unified ideology or cause beyond expelling the Americans. They have put forward no single charismatic leader, developed no alternative government or political wing, displayed no intention of amassing territory to govern now.

Rather than employing the classic rebel tactic of provoking the foreign forces to use clumsy and excessive force and kill civilians, they are cutting out the middleman and killing civilians indiscriminately themselves, in addition to more predictable targets like officials of the new government. Bombings have escalated in the last two weeks, and on Thursday a bomb went off in heavy traffic in Baghdad, killing 21 people.

This surge in the killing of civilians reflects how mysterious the long-term strategy remains - and how the rebels' seeming indifference to the past patterns of insurgency is not necessarily good news for anyone.

The Times should have given me a call; I know exactly what the "insurgents" want... and the Times's befuddlement is to a large extent because of how they frame the question -- the mystery of the insurgency.

The Times assumes that the killers in Iraq are, in fact, "insurgents." But insurgents have a political plan; no matter how brutal they may be, they see their violence as leading to a political change -- the government will be cast out to be replaced by a new government, typically themselves. Thus, they tend to create shadow directorates that mimic the functions of a government; they have spokespeople who explain their political goals; they try to seize territory to prove they can run it better than the current regime, solving for the people there whatever burning issue is driving the insurgency (land distribution, famine, whatever).

But this is to assume what the Times purportedly wants to discover. If you begin by assuming the killers are "insurgents," then you have limited your conclusions to some Vietnam-style political revolution. Put another way, if you start by assuming that they are insurgents -- then you must wind up concluding that they are insurgents.

But if you look with a more open mind, the closest-fit historical model is not that of the followers of Uncle Ho in Vietnam from the 50s through the mid-70s, or the Algerian insurgency against the French in the 1950s, or the attempts at independence by the Kosovars against the Serbs in the late 90s.

Rather, the best historical precedents are the Aztecs, who turned mere human sacrifice into an art form by killing more and more and more people until they literally may have slaughtered an end to their own empire. Their intent was not to achieve some political goal; they already ruled. Rather, they developed the theological notion that the more people they butchered, the more pleased their bloody gods would be.

With that gloss, the Iraq "insurgency" comes suddenly into crystal-clear focus, like the beginning of the TV show the Outer Limits: the killers in Iraq have no political goal. That is not the point.

The point is to kill. They have invented a whole new kind of murder... they are serial spree killers.

The distinction between a serial killer and a spree killer is that the first kills methodically over time, trying to evade capture so he can continue his murderous pastime; while the second has one violent incident in which he kills a bunch of people, then often kills himself or expects to be slain by the police. What we see today in Iraq is a combination of the two: terror bosses who methodically, over time, set up mass killing events, usually carried out by others who will die in the attempt, but sometimes remotely by themselves (sending a chained driver cruising the streets, then detonating the driver's car when he nears a target of opportunity).

But like serial and spree killers, like those who commit human sacrifice, the motivation is found not in the external world but in his own internal hell, in the voice that only he can hear, from his bloody, eldrich gods, who demand blood and souls, blood and souls in the name of Moloch, or Arioch, or Cthulhu, or Huitzilopochtli, who demand mass sacrifices in the Grand Pyramid (or the Great Mosque -- and it is significant that one of the favorite targets for the killers are mosques full of worshippers, as if they saw their red-dripping thunderclap as an explosive "amen" to the service).

This has significance in strategy. If this were a political insurgency, we would expect it to respond to changes in the political weather, even disbanding when it becomes clear that they have failed to win the hearts and minds of the people. But if the point is a holocaust of human sacrifice -- if instead of winning the people's hearts, they want to cut them out and display them to the cheering crowd, not particularly caring who the victims may be -- then they are like the Terminators of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie: they cannot be bargained with, or reasoned with; they will show no pity or remose; and they absolutely will not stop until all in Iraq are dead... or until they are destroyed themselves, every last one of them.

Widen your mind. Let's not try to shoehorn every "mysterious" event into the gloss of twentieth-century liberal ideas about political revolution and leftist insurgency. In Iraq, we are not fighting Ho Chi Minh; we are fighting modern-day Aztec priests who want to kill their victims for no reason other than to cut their hearts out and offer their bleeding, still beating hearts to Huitzilopochtli... so let us set our strategy accordingly.



Here's a link.
New York Times
or
Non-membership version.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 02:51:34