2
   

Comment: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys and fire-eating war

 
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 10:08 am
Asherman, I think you're a pretty decent guy, well loved in the community, but you really should look up "succinct".

It is an admirable word.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 10:20 am
Asherman wrote:
...Send our sons and daughters not to do the work of Satan, but to blow themselves up in the process of killing dispicable Infidel ...


Which reminds me of the two imams who met again after several years

"How is your little Abu?"

"Not so little anymore! He is jihadist"

"Thats the problem with kids these days they blow up so quick"
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 11:00 am
Asherman wrote:
Aye, America has its defects, and we will fix them if we feel they need fixing.

One solution to all the terrible things represented by the United States has been forcibly demonstrated on 9/11 and 7/7. Convert to radically consrvative Islam. Ban all images of people, or anything that might compete with the worship of Allah. Replace all legislation that gives women any rights with laws requiring them to be "modestly" clothed in public.

Ban any book or media that religious leaders dislike as an affront to their interpretation of the Koran. The Koran is written in Arabic, and so Arabic should become the primary langues of all humans. Replace the Anglo-American legal system with its decadent notions of innocent until proven guilty before a jury of ones peers, with religous courts trained only in interpreting the Holy Word. Hold public executions where offenders are either beheaded or stoned to death for violating any of the strictures in the Koran. Foreswear all forms of materialism that only divert the faithful from their worship of the devine. Join in the Jihad and bring all the heathens and infidels to Islam. Send our sons and daughters not to do the work of Satan, but to blow themselves up in the process of killing dispicable Infidel women and children.

Now if we are willing to all that, America will be pure and unblemished. We will be welcomed into the Islamic world of the 8th century, and won't have these terrible partisan political battles anymore. Right?

Priorities my dears. First, we defeat this gang of religious murderers and free those enslaved to them.


From the ridiculous to the sublime. Always with the leap to the extreme to obscure the facts. You make messes, kill innocents, and do nothing to correct the defects. The defects simply grow malignant and spread the world over.

Get off your high horse before it crushes you, you pompous propagandist!

Napalming villages is easily the equivalent of "killing dispicable Infidel women and children". Spreading Agent Orange across vast areas of the Vietnamese countryside is criminal.

Name me one "defect" that you've ever fixed. You've had the fix in, of that there is no doubt, but fixing the defects, don't make us laugh!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 11:13 am
woiyo wrote:

This in addition to the many other failed attempts to hit America, specificlly yesterdays news, should make poeple in this country just a bit more sensitive to the war on terror.


If the "poeple [sic] in this country" had been a bit more "sensitive" to other people in the world, this clearly would not be happening.

It's called blowback. It's what the CIA long ago warned would happen for the USA's uncalled for meddling in other countries affairs. It's for the murders, rapes, WMDs, the ... inflicted upon untold millions,

And still we hear this pathetic whining from these delusional people.

Quote:


Blowback
by Chalmers Johnson
The Nation magazine, October 15, 2001


For Americans who can bear to think about it, those tragic pictures from New York of women holding up photos of their husbands, sons and daughters and asking if anyone knows anything about them look familiar.
They are similar to scenes we have seen from Buenos Aires and Santiago. There, too, starting in the 1970s, women held up photos of their loved ones, asking for information.

Since it was far too dangerous then to say aloud what they thought had happened to them - that they had been tortured and murdered by US-backed military juntas-the women coined a new word for them, los desaparecidos-"the disappeareds." Our government has never been honest about its own role in the 1973 overthrow of the elected government of Salvador Allende in Chile or its backing, through "Operation Condor," of what the State Department has recently called "extrajudicial killings" in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America.

But we now have several thousand of our own disappeareds, and we are badly mistaken if we think that we in the United States are entirely blameless for what happened to them. The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001, did not "attack America," as our political leaders and the news media like to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy.

Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders who then became enemies only because they had already become victims. Terrorism by definition strikes-at the innocent in order to draw attention to the sins of the invulnerable.

The United States deploys such overwhelming military force globally that for its militarized opponents only an "asymmetric strategy," in the jargon of the Pentagon, has any chance of success.

When it does succeed as it did spectacularly on September 11, it renders our massive military machine worthless: The terrorists offer it no targets. On the day of the disaster, President George W. Bush told the American people that we were attacked because we are "a beacon for freedom" and because the attackers were "evil." In his address to Congress on September 20, he said, "This is civilization's fight." This attempt to define difficult-to-grasp events as only a conflict over abstract values- as a "clash of civilizations," in current post-cold war American jargon-is not only disingenuous but also a way of evading responsibility for the "blowback" that ': America's imperial projects have generated.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Sept_11_2001/Blowback_CJ_article.html

0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 11:44 am
Wow, I just got done reading that exact same article on Metafilter, JTT. Unreal.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 11:58 am
Hi Cy,

The really big coincidence will be Woiyo, Tico, Oralloy et al's postings following, saying the same thing happened to them.

Wait on it, wait on it, they've gotta be comin' soon. Smile
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 12:19 pm
Yes the west meddles...for oil primarily. But we dont want to steal it. If we could rely on the people to co operate with our extraction of oil and gas, we wouldnt have to keep imposing governments to do our bidding.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 12:44 pm
gustavratzenhofer wrote:
Asherman, I think you're a pretty decent guy, well loved in the community, but you really should look up "succinct".

It is an admirable word.


You managed to view the voluminous postings of Setanta on this thread, and didn't see fit to include him in your critique? How can that be?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 01:16 pm
It would be rather foolish for us to behave as though we're not at war:

Quote:
....New York's transportation system has emerged as a potential terrorist threat in several recent cases. A June book by journalist Ron Suskind highlighted a reported plot by al-Qaida terrorists to kill thousands of New Yorkers by spreading cyanide gas in the subway. In May, a man was convicted of plotting to blow up a subway station....


Source
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 07:16 pm
Setanta wrote:
It is not established that the defects of the Americans stipulated are imaginary.

England lost people in the twin towers, too. And they have supported us in Afghanistan without question. They have honored our losses, and shown us a respect which attitudes such as yours suggest to me that we might not deserve.


No assertion from me that Americans or our culture are without defects. Instead, I noted that it was unnecessary and unseemly for the author of the Guardian piece to expend so much energy in a gratuitous criticism of others in what purported to be praise of the English reaction to 7/7. The implied comparison was flawed and it lowered the overall level of the article. Do you dispute that?

No complaint either with respect to the English people or the policy of their government. My comments were directed to the author and publishers of the article in question. I believe they are fully merited.

setanta wrote:
You further ignore that they have a hell of a lot more experience of terrorism and its consequences than we have. The Provos invented that delightful little terrorist technique of a small explosion preceeding by a few seconds the main explosion, which then catches so many victims running away from the first explosion. They practiced and perfected the technique in England.

Have your ever donated to Noraid, Paddy?


Terrorism of various types is hardly new, either in Britain or the United States. We could as well start the clock with the Gunpowder Plot or the Seven Year's War. "Experience with Terrorism" is, in my view a somewhat over-hyped concept without as much meaning as it is usually given. Terror is simply a favored weapon of the weak against the strong in a conflict. It is as old as the history of human conflict. I believe our government makes too much of it in our "war on terrorism", just as I do those who suggest that others are meaningfully wiser and more experienced with it.

There was some years ago a well-developed support group for Noraid in Northern California. I knew some of its figures peripherally and very likely was proximate to some of their events, but no, I didn't contribute directly. My name is not Paddy.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Jul, 2006 07:22 pm
My thanks to George, Set and Asherman for making this the best thread I've read in a long time. Amazing what happens when the personal attacks are held to a minimum.

Asherman wrote:
Priorities my dears. First, we defeat this gang of religious murderers and free those enslaved to them.
Idea
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 09:08 am
georgeob1 wrote:
There was some years ago a well-developed support group for Noraid in Northern California. I knew some of its figures peripherally and very likely was proximate to some of their events, but no, I didn't contribute directly.
After some thought, finally decided to make no comment on this.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 09:21 am
I would hope that funding for Irish terrorism from Irish-Americans has dried up since 9/11. Americans of Irish descent have a tendency to over sentimentalize the Auld Sod, and blindly contribute to almost anything with an Irish label attached. 9/11, I hope finally opened those contributor's eyes to what it was they were complicite in. Funding Irish terrorists was against our laws, but policing private contributions isn't easy unless you monitor banking transactions closely. That was not an acceptable option to past administrations, nor is it practical to cast the net that wide. 9/11 did indeed change things, and I hope that great reduction in Irish terrorism will be one of the results.

I'm pretty sure that many Americans whose money wound up in terrorist pockets are ashamed of themselves today. A small price they pay for the suffering they've caused.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 11:54 am
Apparently contemporary thought requires that any current or past revolutionary movement that employs or employed any form of what could be called terrorism be banished from civilized life & discorse, while equivalent tactics on the part of governments are much more readily tolerated. I find this both inconsistent and unrealistic. Terrorism is merely a tactic in a war or conflict. Indeed, even in organized warfare throughout the 20th century various tactics to promote frightfulness on the part of the enemy population were carried on quite liberally by all sides, particularly including the Allies in WWII. Is there really any difference between the motives for, or the results of, a terrorist placing a bomb in a city or aircraft dropping them from the air?

I believe the U.S. government's self-styled "War on Terrorism" is merely a conveniently labelled struggle against certain terrorist groups (Islamists, drug cartels, etc), but not against others, government and otherwise, who use such tactics. The lable is inaccurate and a bit hypocritical, despite its political convenience. Thinking people should not be confused by it.

It is certainly true that after more than a century of struggle the IRA (and particularly spin-off groups such as the Provos) degenerated to little more than a band of criminals and murderors whose self-perpetuating activities continued long past the moment at which they had any relevance to the political struggle that gave them birth. However it would be false to deny their contribution to Irish independence and later to the downfall of an oppressive and increasingly minority government in Northern Ireland.

While Asherman may fault the sentimentality of Irish Americans and "their tendency to contribute to almost anything with an Irish label attached", it simply remains a fact that throughout the 20th centruy the political action of Irish Americans had a great deal to do with the success of Irish nationalism. The motivation of these immigrants was not all sentimental - they came here to escape intolerance, economic exploitation and oppression at the hands of an absentee owner and colonial power that, while itself the self-styled model of advanced civilization, showed itself to be particularly indifferent to the fate and suffering of its largely unwilling subjects in Ireland. Despite the murders and the bombs, and even the backward behavior of the first generation of Irish political leaders, this was a successful revolutionary movement that ended centuries of exploitation and produced one of the most advanced and successful states in Europe.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 12:03 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
... Is there really any difference between the motives for, or the results of, a terrorist placing a bomb in a city or aircraft dropping them from the air?
hmm...never thought about this. How about a bunch of terrorists flying aircraft into city buildings?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Jul, 2006 12:12 pm
I agree. It is a conflict and they are merely applying advantageous (to them) tactics. However is it really any different from the fire bombing of Hamburg by the RAF or that of Tokyo by the USAF? I certainly don't see any moral difference. That doesn't mean I am any less eager to fight them or see the movement that supports our current enemy destroyed. However, I just don't see the need for hypocritical self-delusion about the methods they and we employ.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Bin Laden offers truce. - Discussion by au1929
Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera - Discussion by freedom4free
VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS - Discussion by McGentrix
Who is Daniel Pipes? - Discussion by perception
WAR ON TERRORISM - Discussion by Setanta
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 07:22:42