Post #154,775
5/12/04 9:25:24 AM
|
Beheading...
I further back my original statements with the beheading yesterday of a 26 year old American by alleged members of Al Queida.
These people are ruthless, no mercy. Thus, in warfare, no mercy should be shown them. This is how they have fought for centuries. We're not fighting someone civilized here, but someone who has no care for International Law. The law of Islam is what they believe and it says that infidels must die in the most horrific ways imaginable, and in large numbers. With George Bush as our leader, with a strong Christian and pro-Israel background, we are infidels. If we fight like the British did against us in the revolutionary war in a "civilized" manner, we will LOSE in a big way.
Let's either take the gloves off and kill the enemy mercilessly, or get the hell out of the country. Those are the only two options.
Glen Austin
|
Post #154,778
5/12/04 9:36:33 AM
|
Get the hell out of the country
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #154,784
5/12/04 9:49:31 AM
|
Too late for that option.
They have been humiliated and retribution is demanded. In country we are just easier pickings. Unless we are planning on bring ALL US citizens back into the US and then suspending all incoming transportation, we will still be attacked.
|
Post #154,787
5/12/04 9:53:38 AM
|
True
But our presence there will do no good. Our stated goal for Irqa is not achievable. Why should we stay there?
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #154,789
5/12/04 9:58:52 AM
|
Hate to say this
But to "save face". The American "power" is only believable when it is "known" that it can and will be used. If a "bunch of ragheads" can force us to withdraw without achieving any of the stated goals, then we will become the targets of every group that "hates" us.
We should never have initiated a first-strike war. But now that we're there, we must accomplish something, or at least withdraw "with honor".
|
Post #154,792
5/12/04 10:03:58 AM
|
No matter what we do, the fundies will celebrate
The only possible "withdrawal with honor" is to fully acomplish the mission. Anything less than that will make no difference to them.
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #154,953
5/13/04 4:06:55 AM
|
Nixon's "Peace with Honor" in Vietnam, then?
(His campaign promise; the death of RFK left the place so numb.. the weasel actually made it into the oval office. I marked his ascension as the beginning year -1968- of the inexorable decline of the US. I seem not to have erred in that judgment of 1968.)
|
Post #154,983
5/13/04 12:42:23 PM
|
bomb the crap out of them and leave the place a mess?
then let them kill each other until there is one dominant leader again?
works for me.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #154,989
5/13/04 12:53:18 PM
5/13/04 1:04:44 PM
|
Been thinking that may be a part of the only solution.
First, we kill all the Muslims everywhere.
Then, we go after the Zionists and wipe them out too.
Then, we go after the Christians (they want Rapture? Let's give it to them).
We can probably afford to let the Buddhists hang around, and definitely the Classical Taoists, though the Hindus probably have to go. Then, if there are any human beings left on the planet that are still clinging to a medieval, superstitious, anthropomorphic religion, we take them out.
See, we have to do this because every damned one of those anthropomorphic superstitions (read religions) are a breeding ground for the believers to think they are "the one true chosen people of God". I don't see an end to this anywhere until we shed ourselves of all the ridiculous "God in Man's Image" excrement still lying around the planet and being consumed en masse by the seemingly countless number of underdeveloped minds amongst us. Unfortunately, that means taking out a good number of people. Personally, I find myself wishing harder every day for the big comet to hit us and let the cockroaches and mosquitos have a go.
Edit: I'd never heard of Dawkins until a friend of mine read this post. He gave me this link: [link|http://ffrf.org/articles/?t=others/dawkins.txt|http://ffrf.org/arti...thers/dawkins.txt] While I am not an aetheist, I must agree that he is dead-bang-on in this piece.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
Edited by mmoffitt
May 13, 2004, 01:04:44 PM EDT
|
Post #155,015
5/13/04 3:22:40 PM
|
Oh my. Somebody is preparing a plan for mass killing
and he forgets the most important element. Dude, FIRST, you kill JEWS! Are you, like, some kind of innovator or something?
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #155,022
5/13/04 4:08:22 PM
|
Close to, but not quite,
a Godwin alert. I am completely frustrated. I don't give a rat's ass what anyone "believes". If that were all that organized religion involved, that'd be great. But it isn't. Very, very, very far from it. More death and misery has been inflicted on this planet in the name of God than in the name of anything else. We'll never have peace until we give up our superstitions. Dawkins said it well when he said the following: Emphasis Mine.In the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, we have heard denunciations of the fanaticism in which terrorism is rooted, but we have heard nothing about the real cause of this fanaticism. Religion is the culprit, but no one dares say it. Instead, we have actually heard pleas for even more religion. There have been prayer sessions throughout the land, including even a "national day of prayer" and political speech after political speech that invariably ended with the obligatory "God bless America," but no public official has yet had the courage to say, "Religion caused this." [link|http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/6/016front.html|http://www.infidels....1/6/016front.html] Marx was almost right, but it isn't just an opiate - it is the most toxic poison on earth. bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,024
5/13/04 4:12:39 PM
|
dont blame the religious on the religion
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,026
5/13/04 4:19:18 PM
|
At their (religion's) core, they are all rotten.
"We know the way." "We are the chosen." "Ours is the ONLY way to God."
We/They based on what you "believe" is insane. And in Mesopotamia that attitude hasn't changed in thousands of years. Why all the forks? Even "within a give faith" if not because some subgroup thinks they are closer to God than the rest. And that is arrogance. And arrogance leads to oppression and war.
But, I've been around long enough to know that you can't change what some one believes. And there is the problem.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,028
5/13/04 4:28:04 PM
|
We/they based on beliefs is no more insane
that we/they based on anything else. We/they is built deep into human brains. It may just be built into life as such. Do you relly think that eliminating religion will eliminate we/they? Take a look at communist countries at war with each other: USSR, China, Vietnam. They had no "superstition", yet they managed to fight. And inside those countries - elite killing plebs by millions. Was that done in the nam of religion? Nope, in the name of power. So, religion is just one way for our tendency to be nasty.
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #155,033
5/13/04 4:54:28 PM
|
We/They won't disappear with religion.
But, I'd argue that the we/they perceptions created by religious conviction are far more divisive than those otherwise constructed.
I'm just sick of all this "God is on our side" nonsense from both Al Qaeda and us and my problem with religion is that if you're convinced that "God is with you" in your battles then nothing shy of your death will make you stop fighting. That is the real danger of religion. China and the CCCP eventually made peace - why? neither was deluded into thinking God was with them. You can't say that about Zionists and Palestineans, nor the US and Islamic Fundamentalists - at least not while the sitting President claims God chose him to be President. Religion is making the world a vastly more dangerous place than it has to be.
It ought to be a requirement that you are an aetheist before you can hold elective office or command any army. Gah, sorry to rant on like this, but I've had enough...
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,047
5/13/04 5:35:34 PM
|
Religion is only effective because it appeals to people
The tendancies in people that you see reflected in religion are in people regardless. Attacking that symptom does not cure the problem.
See Cambodia for a well-known example.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,577
5/17/04 5:45:54 PM
|
Well said.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #155,081
5/13/04 9:48:18 PM
|
when you have more that one man and two woman
there is a pack mentality, leader follower. Thats why canines are our friend and cats only tolerate us. Extend that to a large group of people they demand leadership. Lets use the bible for an example. The Jews were led by prophets appointed by the big guy and were followed argueing and whining all the way. They demanded a king, saul got appointed. Now whether myth or fact the story mirrors human kind. Most of us like to follow someone we feel has leadership whether in personal religious or political life. Very few people have the personality to say I make my own mind and fuck everyone else because I know what is right in my mind. Peoples personalities demand approbation by others for self identity. Until that is overcome to where everyman can identify his own traits as standalone reliance this shit will happen.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,082
5/13/04 9:56:51 PM
|
Amusing misread
I came to politics, straight after looking at [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155000|this thread].
I did an amusing double-take at your talking about more than one man and two women...
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,079
5/13/04 9:42:54 PM
|
Re: dont blame the religious on the religion
I agree here.
Not all religious people are as extreme as that, and not all believe they are the "chosen" people of God. It's the few believers that use that as the crutch to support their causes, whatever they may be, and then act upon them, that are guilty of that extremism, not the general every day believer.
Nightowl >8#
"AHHHHH! Relatives coming out of the woodwork!!!!!!"
|
Post #155,124
5/14/04 8:37:35 AM
|
So, ....
It's the few believers that use that as the crutch to support their causes, whatever they may be, and then act upon them, that are guilty of that extremism, not the general every day believer.
the evil of religion is a matter of degree only. I see.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,156
5/14/04 1:05:37 PM
5/14/04 1:06:38 PM
|
Religion isn't evil
Those who abuse or misuse it are.
Nightowl >8#
Edit: added word "misuse"
"AHHHHH! Relatives coming out of the woodwork!!!!!!"
Edited by Nightowl
May 14, 2004, 01:06:38 PM EDT
|
Post #155,160
5/14/04 1:10:49 PM
|
Sounds like gun control
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
|
Post #155,170
5/14/04 2:41:58 PM
|
Hah!
Back off man, I've got a rosary and I'm not afraid to use it!
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
Post #155,172
5/14/04 2:57:19 PM
|
Careful or I'll douse you with Holy Water!
|
Post #155,174
5/14/04 3:13:22 PM
|
Knock it off, both of you!
The real weapon is the Bible. Ya know, getting hit wit one of those hardbound, fully-illustrated, fully-annotated monsters can really hurt!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #155,226
5/14/04 7:50:53 PM
|
The revealed religions . . .
. . Judaism, it's child Christianity and Christianity's child Islam, are based on documents written by men but claimed to be "The Word of God". Some researchers now think much of this writing was done during the reign of a single king to justify his political ambitions.
These documents are a litany of bigotry, genocide, rape, murder and theft "in the name of God" to justify special benefit for a circle of "believers". I would certainly call this evil. Even so, truly good people brought up in these religions have been able to selectiveley interpret these document for good.
Unfortunately all too many, the majority, interpret this "Word of God" in its originally intended way as a justification for bigotry, genocide, rape, murder and theft, and their interpretation for "good" applies only to a circle of believers.
Regardless of occasional interpretation for wider good, I have to judge these religions as tools of evil. Those who interpret them for good could easily do their good in practically any other religious framework, probably more easily.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,294
5/15/04 8:49:21 AM
|
I wish I had said that. Well put.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,306
5/15/04 10:52:52 AM
|
I disagree complete...
Read my post below about Jesus being the "standard" of Christianity.
The problem with Christianity is that most believers don't ever "complete the dots". It's the reason I don't like fundamentalism, and I don't really like the "Baptist" once-saved always-saved because it leaves a bunch of people who don't really understand "the harder parts" of Christianity like the phrases in the other post.
The Bible is really a great book, but noone bothers to read it. Jesus said many things that would solve the problems of the world, but most people won't follow it.
Simple things:
1. Love your enemies.
2. Treat others as you would be treated.
3. Always live with integrity (honesty, don't steal or exploit others)
Yet, we seems to live the opposite of these.
|
Post #155,315
5/15/04 1:20:14 PM
|
Aren't you the guy that wants to carpet bomb . .
. . the entire Near East and let God sort the saints from the sinners? That doesn't sound like you pay any attention to the Jesus book at all, that sounds like the Old Testament, in spades.
Most Christians consider the teachings of Jesus to be ideally suited to the needs of their neighbors but prefer Joshua and genocide for their own needs. The Church itself brought in and adopted the Old Testament specifically to justify it's own crimes against humanity.
Occident, n. The part of the world lying west (or east) of the Orient. It is largely inhabited by Christians, a powerful sub-tribe of the Hypocrites . . - Ambrose Bierce
I am not a Christian, I'm a Pagan and that means I take responsibility for my own actions. I don't try to pass the blame off on God or some mythical "Son of God" who got nailed to a tree and "died for my sins". My sins are my own and I'll answer for them.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,327
5/15/04 4:37:01 PM
|
It's okay. God wants him to do that to the heathens.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,341
5/15/04 9:51:13 PM
|
Read my post below...
I apologized for my comments.
I hate Muslims, but by doing that, I'm a hypocrite, because Jesus did tell us to love everyone.
But, I'm not Jesus, I'm a freakin' sinner. But I should aspire to "something higher".
|
Post #155,367
5/16/04 1:49:18 AM
|
It is OK to be angry with Muslims now and then . . .
. . but hate is a long term degenerative condition, a positive feedback loop that results in ever more rash judgements, bad decisions and ultimately self destruction.
It's also helpful to be sure just exactly what Muslims you're angry with and who exactly you are at war with.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,326
5/15/04 4:36:12 PM
|
A good book.
Leviticus 25
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.
[link|http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Lev+25%3A44-46&version=KJV|http://biblegateway....44-46&version=KJV]
I take it the "unchosen" are okay to own.
Deuteronomy 20
1 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the LORD thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
...
4 For the LORD your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.
...
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee.
[link|http://biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=KJV&passage=Deuteronomy+20&x=11&y=11|http://biblegateway....nomy+20&x=11&y=11]
So, God wants you to kill people and take everything they have - including their women and this is a good thing if you believe in this religion.
You know, if I had to state my position on religion over again, I think I'd have just quoted some of these vaunted "holy books".
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,329
5/15/04 5:45:58 PM
|
The really funny thing . . .
. . is the Christians are all among the people who are supposed to be smitten and owned and robed from - the permission to smite, own and rob is given to Jews, and they aren't Christians.
Pressed, of course, the Christians mumble something about a "New Covenent" that transfers these permissions from Jews (now OK to smite, own and rob from) to Christians.
I'll need to see a notorized copy of that "New Covenent" with God's signiture (flaming, of course) on it before I'm going to believe that tall tale. Even SCO has a more believable story.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,330
5/15/04 5:50:17 PM
|
I think I can explain
there was a sword in a broad's hand rising from a lake, no thats a different story.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,331
5/15/04 5:52:33 PM
5/15/04 5:56:11 PM
|
whats yer point?
dang crap touch pad, now if you and I cannot agree on a clearly worded american english second ammendment to the constitution, how can you expect to understand 5 books of the old testament that the explaination of those short five books is 18 volumes of several thousand pages each written upside down and sideways in hebrew?
(Talmud)
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
Edited by boxley
May 15, 2004, 05:56:11 PM EDT
|
Post #155,333
5/15/04 6:50:04 PM
|
And political statements are still like that to this day.
Five slim clearly stated volumes are followed by 18 multi-thousand page tomes of scholarly back pedaling, "clarification" and spin doctoring.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,378
5/16/04 7:33:27 AM
|
It's worse than that
The common denominator amongst the fundies of *all* banners is an utter inability to discriminate between events and metaphor, combined with an abject historical ignorance of the role of myth in the human jelloware.
From such pervasive and ultimately fatal ignorance of even the uses of human language, + nukes now and forever.. that 'forever' just may not be a lengthy one. Or as Bertie Russell opined way back in '62, in the delightful little cartoon-illustrated tract I am pleased to possess -
Since the beginning
Man has never refrained
From any folly
Of which he is capable
RIP - Monumental Assholes
|
Post #155,454
5/17/04 10:37:20 AM
|
Ok, let's see
>>>>>>>>>
Judaism, it's child Christianity and Christianity's child Islam
<<<<<<<<<
Islam is more of Judaism's child that Christianity. More of Christianity's younger brother than its child.
>>>>>>>>>
These documents are a litany of bigotry, genocide, rape, murder and theft "in the name of God" to justify special benefit for a circle of "believers". I would certainly call this evil. Even so, truly good people brought up in these religions have been able to selectiveley interpret these document for good.
<<<<<<<<<
As opposed to, say, Greek myths or Indian texts? These documents are supposed to work in an imperfect world. The world where, if you don't kill, you get killed. It's easy to forget about it living here in US, but in most of the rest of the world, it's still very, very bad.
>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately all too many, the majority, interpret this "Word of God" in its originally intended way as a justification for bigotry, genocide, rape, murder and theft, and their interpretation for "good" applies only to a circle of believers.
<<<<<<<<
Can't talk about Christianity and Islam, but Torah was given to be interpreted, and much of this interpretation starts with Moses. Your "majority" is wrong. Basically, if Torah says that Earth is flat, and you can plainly see otherwise, you need a better interpretation. If Torah says that a woman is worth less than a man, and you can plainly see that it's wrong, by the same token, Torah needs a better interpretation. That's how Judaism works, and it worked this way since day one. Any "majority" that thinks otherwize is a mob, and should be treated as such.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Regardless of occasional interpretation for wider good, I have to judge these religions as tools of evil. Those who interpret them for good could easily do their good in practically any other religious framework, probably more easily.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Thank you for admitting that many good people do need a framework of religion to be good. I am sure you misspoke yourself, but it was gratifying nevertheless.
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #155,459
5/17/04 11:34:56 AM
5/17/04 11:37:20 AM
|
Re: Ok, let's see
The Judaic method of "interpreting" is clearly superior to the Islamic stand of the literal Truth of one book and only one book with no interpretation possible. One must, however, question the relevance of documents that require 100 times their own weight in interpretation. This very weight takes interpretation out of the public realm and places it in the hands of "experts", each with his own agenda.
Christianity is chaotic because there are no limits or controls on interpretation and it's easy for self appointed authorities to set up shop and gather a following.
I do not dispute the violence or intolerance of other traditional documents and most are over-ripe for replacement. The Buddhist texts were intended to modernize Hinduism and return it to its shamanic roots but on a higher plane. The people found the old ways more attractive and Buddhism faded from India.
The New Testament was intended to replace what had gone before, but the rabble rousers and assasins intent on establishing an authoritative Church brought in the Old Testament to justify a structure not at all supported by the original principles of Christianity. Some Christian sects do rightly reject the Old Testament.
You are incorrect that I misspoke in implying a religious framework can be useful - I recognize many benefits of such a framework. The problem with religious frameworks, as with political frameworks, is the power hungry see opportunity there and seek to warp them to their own advantage. Sometimes they have to be torn down and rebuilt.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #155,632
5/17/04 10:55:53 PM
5/17/04 10:56:46 PM
|
Ahh, I see.
You must be talking about the US Constitution:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One must, however, question the relevance of documents that require 100 times their own weight in interpretation. This very weight takes interpretation out of the public realm and places it in the hands of "experts", each with his own agenda.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<
:)
--
Buy high, sell sober.
Edited by Arkadiy
May 17, 2004, 10:56:46 PM EDT
|
Post #155,471
5/17/04 12:32:37 PM
|
Well Mike, I hate to tell ya
But I absolutely refuse to be lead to the slaughter simply because you think my religion is old hat. So... too bad for you. Dream up some other "final solution," this one ain't gonna happen.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #155,031
5/13/04 4:43:45 PM
|
Marx was right, just had wrong drug
Religion isn't the opiate of the masses, its more like a mixture of crystal meth and PCP (with a bit of peyote thrown in for flavor).
Hell, if it were the opiate of the masses, all the muslims would be to stoned to stone each other , or self-flagellate, or what eve other quaint rituals they have thought up over the years ot "prove" their "righteousness".
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #154,793
5/12/04 10:05:42 AM
|
And yes - we had not business starting that war.
We were not ready (but I have already said this).
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #154,795
5/12/04 10:22:40 AM
|
I hate to say _this_
...but maybe the best way to save anything worth saving now is to "lose face" to a competent Iraqi. John Brady Kiesling has an interesting [link|http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040524&s=forum|idea] on how to get out of Iraq (scroll down to Kiesling's contribution). In the end a fractured Iraq can be held together only by a man wrapped, like George Washington or Ho Chi Minh, in the legitimacy that derives from successful armed struggle. [...] A victorious Secretary Rumsfeld could not impose Ahmad Chalabi. However, a retreating US military can designate Iraq's liberator. We must select the competent Iraqi patriot to whom we yield ground while bleeding his competitors. Giovanni I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
|
Post #154,822
5/12/04 11:45:09 AM
|
Ya know...
...the more I think about this option (posted here and in the Global/Regional Conflict forum), I sorta like it.
It will not play in Peoria...at least, not at first.
Of course, the assclowns currently playing at running things couldn't possibly put together a working plan to execute this properly. Nonetheless, it has potential, and is probably the only option that has a snowball's chance (short of the "turning the desert into glass" that is getting so much play these days).
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #154,902
5/12/04 5:29:07 PM
|
That requires two things:
-we need to find such an Iraqi Patriot
-we need somebody in Washington who actually thinks of the good of the country, not of the poll numbers next week and November vote.
Both seems to be missing.
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #154,904
5/12/04 5:40:45 PM
|
Agree -- and those will be hard to find
I'm not a complete idiot -- some parts are missing
|
Post #154,825
5/12/04 11:56:13 AM
|
Change goal
We simply have to publicly declare that the goal was to overthrow Saddam, and having done that we can go home. Heck, that was even one of the stated goals to begin with.
Jay
|
Post #154,877
5/12/04 4:20:39 PM
|
It would guarantee a "regime change" at home.
I can just see the feedback now: "Wot? We spent $87Bn and 750 lives for a blood feud?!?"
Wouldn't be prudent...(if yer a neocon, that is...)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #154,888
5/12/04 4:35:16 PM
|
jus a good ol' Hussain McBush feud.
|
Post #155,681
5/18/04 8:51:26 AM
5/18/04 8:54:49 AM
|
Oh, THAT country! Right on, Ark, 100% correct.
[Edit: Hadn't even read what you replied to; thought it was the old saw, "shut up and obey, or emigrate".]
Edited by CRConrad
May 18, 2004, 08:54:49 AM EDT
|
Post #155,690
5/18/04 9:39:24 AM
|
Please read me in my posts :)
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #155,714
5/18/04 12:00:20 PM
|
ooOOoo
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #155,720
5/18/04 12:34:32 PM
|
Stop Calumniating!
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #155,759
5/18/04 4:21:38 PM
|
Kind'a like with LeMoron, the problem here is, I DID!
What was lacking was the context, from reading what it was you were replying to.
Frightening parallel, isn't it, if people get the bad impression you'd want to correct by asking them to "read you in your posts"... FROM reading you in your posts! (*) Stark illustration of the dangers of too much brevity. (Wonder if Ashton has taken the overdoing-it aspect into account, in those Awards of his?)
(*): Though in this case, I suppose you could call it MIS-reading. And, to be honest, I must'a kind'a read the thread display lopsidedly or something, 'coz at the time I wrote the first version, I was under the impression that your post was in reply to Mike "The Troglodyte" Moffitt -- which, knowing the both of you, may have contributed to my willingness to assume the worst possible interpretation of your one-liner was the intended one. But then again, the corrective context *did* have to be supplied by *another* post... So, all in all, the Frightening French Parallel stands.
[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)
Your lies are of Microsoftian Scale and boring to boot. Your 'depression' may be the closest you ever come to recognizing truth: you have no 'inferiority complex', you are inferior - and something inside you recognizes this. - [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=71575|Ashton Brown]
|
Post #155,838
5/18/04 9:39:09 PM
|
"Let me say this about that..
I know you think you understood what you thought you heard me say; I don't think you realize that what I said is not what I meant.."
Guess who [said ~ that]
My unresearched recollection of something uttered by RM Nixon at a press conference; I imagine it's Out There, more accurately.
|
Post #155,847
5/18/04 10:20:54 PM
|
you mean besides me?
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,850
5/18/04 11:16:53 PM
|
It's also been attributed to Greenspan.
[link|http://sammarshall.blogspot.com/2003_04_01_sammarshall_archive.html|Linky] citing Greenspan and [link|http://www.words-worth.de/robin/2003_12_01_archive.php|linky] mentioning Greenspan, Nixon, and Sen. S.I. Hayakawa. Of course, Greenspan was around in Nixon's term(s), so he might have picked it up from him.
I have a vague recollection on seeing a tape with Greenspan saying it, but he may not have originated it.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #155,959
5/19/04 4:41:12 PM
|
I would vote for S. I. Hayakawa.
[link|http://collections.ic.gc.ca/heirloom_series/volume5/224-225.htm|Samuel I. Hayakawa], great semanticist, author of [link|http://www.edu-books.com/Language_in_Thought_and_Action_Fifth_Edition_0156482401.html| Language in Thought and Action] in 1949 (a re-write of Language in Action, 1941). Having read the 2nd edition in the late 1960's, I promised myself to re-read Language in Thought and Action. Another reason I liked the guy was his leadership of U.S. English, trying to make English the official US language with an amendment to the US Constitution. \ufffdBilingualism for the individual is fine,\ufffd he argued, \ufffdbut not for a country.\ufffd There's nothing magic about English, it's the idea of a single language to bind the populace. Alex
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -- Winston Churchill
|
Post #155,988
5/19/04 6:44:20 PM
5/20/04 4:14:30 AM
|
S. I. Hayakawa - er, plagiarist extraordinaire
As I have mentioned en passant a few times -
His book was a rip-off of the seminal, earlier work (1935) by Stuart Chase, The Tyranny of Words. Chase also wrote, The Power of Words.
While you can't copyright an idea - one is expected at least to give attribution. SIH's smarmy self promotion long into his dotage, never credited the author of the thesis of his 'work'.
(He was a 'local', too - taught at SF State. I never got around to twitting the guy; no excuse. Massively full-of-Himself I deemed him.)
Yes, he embroidered and added material, but never IMhO was his opus as clear as Chase's - who focussed upon the [referent] for words, and how confusion about that (re each word chosen) is the root cause of all miscommunication. Chase also wrote for a child's comprehension level - obv clearly enough that Hayakawa Got It too.
Read both.
moi
Edit: sp. [twice!] and:
Chase introduced the idea of substituting blab wherever hi-falutin Words like Liberty, Truth, Goodness were being employed -- using political speeches as candidates. Were children exposed early to his (akshully quite Fun) book, there would be far less attention paid to the radio-demagogues - and far more laughter directed to the hoary fulminations of senile Senators.
But.. they aren't (exposed), the Nintendo Eloi.
Edited by Ashton
May 19, 2004, 06:50:38 PM EDT
Edited by Ashton
May 20, 2004, 04:14:30 AM EDT
|
Post #156,011
5/19/04 8:24:54 PM
5/20/04 7:17:49 AM
|
I put it on The List. Thanks!
|
Post #156,019
5/19/04 9:44:34 PM
|
I suspect your opinion is colored by the events when...
S. I. Hayakawa was president of S. F. State. The reference I had cited says: ... Dr. Hayakawa was already working on his first book dealing with the theories of general semantics advanced by Alfred Korzybski, a Polish scholar whom he met in 1938. The book also uses Hayakawa's own experience, being of Japanese descent and living in the US during WW-II, to make some points. [link|http://www.kcmetro.cc.mo.us/pennvalley/biology/lewis/chase.htm|Then, there is this reference]: Clearly, if Korzybski's work were to reach a mass audience, someone would have to take up the task to translate it into language T.C. Mits could understand. The first to do so was Stuart Chase, shown in the photo at right. His "Tyranny of Words" published in 1938 became a bestseller and remains in print to this day. Although "Tyranny" was an alley cat of Korzybski, Ogden and Richards, and a few other sources, nevertheless, it served to generate widespread interest in Korzybski's work. "Tyranny" also served as my introduction to Korzybski. I stumbled onto Chase's book while researching political language during the Watergate crisis in 1974. Chase whetted my appetite, and within a few months I had consumed nearly every other book he had written (and there were many). The next year I began my direct assault on "Science and Sanity."
Until he encountered Korzybski, Chase was mostly an economics writer. The title of his 1932 book, "A New Deal," was adopted as the official label of the Roosevelt administration. I wrote to Chase in 1974 and he was nice enough to write back and send me an autographed copy of "Tyranny." We corresponded quite a bit for the next couple years, but then we drifted apart. He died on Nov. 16, 1985 at the age of 97. His last book, published in 1969, "Danger: Men Talking!" continued to reflect the deep effects Korzybski had on his life. So, perhaps Stuart Chase wrote well, but the material is based on the work of others as well. Alex
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -- Winston Churchill
|
Post #156,031
5/20/04 4:49:14 AM
|
Boffo find -
Hadn't Googled Chase, to see what's out there in contemporary view. Just going on recollections from my own reading.
Yes, personal opinions of SIH were undoubtedly coloured by his approximation in political stance to - my Neanderthal Gramma, but that was predated by the matters mentioned.
Since I believe that precious few ideas are truly Original, but are most frequently small variants of a simpler kernel, expressed better? differently? -- no problemo with Korzybski (but only if one is an academic; speaks in those tongues).
I still deem that Chase said 'it' first, more concisely and more usefully: as a child could grok the ideas. Korzybski would ever reach only an academic audience. SIH simply made both writers' work into a fulcrum to launch an academic career of his own; I'm sure that he seemed "original" to those who had never read Korzybski or Chase.. (Not that he is alone in that method!)
My copy of Tyranny is indeed \ufffd 1938, but it is paperback - I thought it was composed a bit earlier. The Power of Words is \ufffd 1953-54.. a bit of a war in the interim.
I believe that more people who read Chase, understood what they had read than.. Mr. K. And in our postliterate era, KISS has to be vastly more important than 'completeness of theory'.
Liked the progression cited; Chase galvanized an exploration: what more can one look for in a single 'book'? Now if only more children were to be exposed to TW, we might begin to end the era of dumbth, in just one generation. Always there is hope.
moi
|
Post #156,061
5/20/04 12:11:59 PM
|
No question of the need to teach the kids TW.
But, if you (to verb a noun) Google "Korzybski", you'll find some rather negative comments about him - not following the scientific method, starting a cult, etc. Still, it sure beats total ignorance.
Alex
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it." -- Winston Churchill
|
Post #155,882
5/19/04 9:58:44 AM
|
Nixon
I bought the black light poster the year he said it.
-----------------------------------------
It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why?
Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand.
Mike Royko
|
Post #155,884
5/19/04 10:06:26 AM
|
Didn't he "misspeak" when he said that?
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #154,897
5/12/04 5:11:34 PM
|
Fundamentalists of *any* kind, including ours:
have no respect for civilized, social conventions because They KNOW that God Wants Them To {Onward Christian Soldiers - - - >} "WIN". And ANY MEANS == perfectly OK, because GAWDWantsUs To WIN
cha
cha
cha
As if..
Lunacy is lunacy; housecleaning begins with the Beam in One's Own Eye; then the ripple effect might work. We love our euphemisms and we lack both the historical ken and the patience to do any Beam-removing.
I see more dirt snakes and rabble rousing, in any next. It's our Style.
|
Post #154,912
5/12/04 6:58:21 PM
|
I actually mostly agree with you
Where we part ways is that genocide isn't an option that I'll support. Which leaves me with one viable option that I'd support.
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #154,916
5/12/04 8:44:28 PM
|
there is several viable options
genetically link Pashto's and Jews, they do claim decendency. This will make the most warlike folks in the area turn on Arabs who are not. Well thats not that reliable.
Pass the governence via western recognition of the moderate Islam like Sistiani which we are doing but try to have the mantle of Islamic thought point to Malasian as opposed to Arab by the Muslim World.
Ram Bhudism down their throat, worked against the Mongols.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,175
5/14/04 3:14:03 PM
|
I just saw it.
It was horrible. Only religion could inspire some one to be that evil. What struck me was that even in their religion inspired insanity, there must have been some infinitely tiny shred of sanity left in them: they were masked. So, maybe religion's power over people is not absolute. I mean, somewhere deep in the recesses of their minds they knew what they were doing was barbaric beyond description. For, if that were not the case and they were actually convinced God was on their side, why hide behind masks while chanting "God is Great" as you murder some one.
Still, I don't believe anyone poisoned by any organized religion can ever be "de-programmed" enough to be allowed to walk around by themselves. I am so depressed about this; I genuinely don't see how things will get better until we burn down all the mosques, temples and churches and execute their associated mullahs, rabbis, priests and preachers. I never thought I'd advocate burning books, but burning all the Korans, Old Testaments and New Testaments might be the best thing we can do...
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,178
5/14/04 3:39:27 PM
|
Bull.
It ISN'T the religion that does it - people are just USING religion as an excuse to further thier own ends, stroke thier own egos, and control others.
Like they use guns.
Like they use law.
Like they use money.
Like they use education.
And even if you destroy all the tools that corrupt men use, you will have missed the real target; corruption will continue as long as people want to stand higher than thier neighbors - even if it means they have to stand on a pile of bodies to do it.
Abuse of religion is a symptom, not the disease.
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #155,180
5/14/04 3:52:45 PM
|
Exactly my point, Imric
The evil is in their hearts, inspired by whatever drives them at the time.
Nightowl >8#
"AHHHHH! Relatives coming out of the woodwork!!!!!!"
|
Post #155,179
5/14/04 3:51:34 PM
|
That wasn't inspired by religion
That act was inspired by hate, pure and simple.
And I can't believe you really honestly believe that destroying all the churches would solve a thing, religion isn't in the buildings, it is in the hearts of those who are religious. A building isn't necessary for religion, OR fanaticism (as in the case of those who beheaded the guy), to exist.
Blame the real problem, and that's our government, because they got us into this mess.
Nightowl >8#
"AHHHHH! Relatives coming out of the woodwork!!!!!!"
|
Post #155,181
5/14/04 4:04:23 PM
|
Knock it off already
You admitted that religion is not the _only_ thing that can inspire people to do that.
--
Buy high, sell sober.
|
Post #155,293
5/15/04 8:47:00 AM
|
Yeah, buy I maintain it is the most potent.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,188
5/14/04 5:03:54 PM
|
I have a co-worker that knew the guy who died
I've seen it as well. But worse has been done without religion being involved. See Cambodia and the USSR in the 20'th century.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #155,212
5/14/04 6:39:08 PM
|
Dont need religion to take off a head
there is plenty of people in Pelican Bay that would get in line to chop heads, lots more on the street some riding harleys others riding limos. The only reason there is more of it overthere is societal cohesion was broken over the sadaam years then disolved by us. These people dont need a reason as much as an excuse.
thanx,
bill
Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #155,295
5/15/04 9:05:53 AM
|
My last on this (and only for clarity).
I seem to have conveyed the impression that I think the only cause of evil in the world is religion. That's not what I meant.
The point of view that I was trying to express was that the evil perpetrated in "God's name" is the most heinous. And I maintain that there is no insanity like that inspired by religious fervor. The lunatics (and they are legion) who believe in a God or Gods in their own image are the most dangerous people around and the acts of barbarism they are capable of make all others pale in comparison.
For people engaged in horrific acts out of a sense that "God is on my side" there simply is no solution, no way to re-introduce them to civilization. The special brand of insanity brought about by religious conviction simply cannot be cured.
So, I still hold that "it's not religion, it's the corruption of religion" is a fallacy. The root cause of Islamic Terrorism or Christian Crusades or whatever is religion. If it were not religion, perhaps it would be something else that would inspire this evil, but because it is religion, there is no cure.
bcnu,
Mikem
If you can read this, you are not the President.
|
Post #155,304
5/15/04 10:17:37 AM
5/15/04 10:55:55 AM
|
I think it is Ironic that...
Jesus is the "standard" of Christianity, and he said:
"Pray for those who persecute you"
"If someone takes your cloak, give him your robe also"
"Forgive not seven times, but seventy times seven"
"The standard by which you judge, you will be judged"
"I have come this you might have life and have it abundantly"
"Love your enemies and do good to those who hate you"
"Give to everyone who asks of you"
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
How does the leadership of this country (now) and this religion (in the Crusades) decide to kill thousands/millions of Muslims after reading the above?
I think what we are doing is dishonest and politically motivated, to give oil companies even more power, to raise the price of oil and profits of Bush's consituency. And Bush carries most of conservative Christianity along with it.
Preachers in America have been muzzled because, if they speak out on political issues, the church loses it's tax exempt status. That's why we don't have a modern Martin Luther King, Jr.
I see just as much dishonesty in Kerry's constituency.
And with so much cheating, duplicity, and selfishness in our society, God is about to "judge" our country with hard times. I fear it because I really do care about people, and all I can do is prepare and tell you to. But, if you will live out Jesus' words above, society will turn around, we will help each other, even people like Ross, Ray Careaga, and Asthon that I don't care so much for. Jesus didn't tell us to help people we like, he told us to help people who treat us badly, too. And most Christians don't have a clue about that.
I apologize, because Jesus doesn't want me to hate Muslims, but because of what they have done at 9/11 and because they continue to desire the deaths of all Christians and Jews, I often feel (even reading these words from Jesus) that the only option is to "kill them all". But that truly is wrong, and I am sorry. I let my rage out here, because it isn't "appropriate" to express that kind of rage in my home. My 8 year old son doesn't need to hear the anger expressed here, I don't want him to learn it. And yet it boils my blood to hear of "indoctrination camps" where Muslims are systematically trained to hate Christians and Americans with a great zeal. And I really get set off when innocent people are beheaded. It makes me want to take up arms.
A Christian friend told me that the ONLY way to convert a Muslim is to do exactly what Jesus said, "Do good to those who hate you", because it doesn't make sense in their religion. "Why should you "do good" to me when I want to destroy you" is the common response. But then it makes them question why they do the things they do.
I hope this helps you understand my postings somewhat. I want to aspire to the ideals of Jesus and live HIS way. But my anger drives me to hate Muslims because of what they do. I wish they could read and follow the words above, just once. Is there ANYTHING like Jesus' words in the Queran? Is there some way that people like Bin Laden can be discredited by the moderate clerics in the religion? Are there words that I could give to Muslims that would cause all of us to move towards peace? I fear that there are not. But maybe I should read the Queran and find out for myself.
Glen Austin
Edited by gdaustin
May 15, 2004, 10:55:55 AM EDT
|
Post #155,309
5/15/04 12:20:24 PM
|
Don't use such a broad brush with your anger.
I understand your rage. But it's not with Islam.
But recall that Jesus is revered as a prophet in Islam.
Bin Laden isn't a religious man. He uses the trappings of religion to convert others to his political aims.
Blind rage is destructive. Direct your anger appropriately.
Hang in there.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #155,313
5/15/04 12:49:09 PM
|
It's really sad, because
both sides ( Bush, Bin Laden ) are using "religion" as a justification for thier actions, when I KNOW, at least on the Christian side, it's not consistent with what Jesus taught. I know that Bin Laden is doing the same.
Both sides are being manipulated. America by Bush, and Islam (Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.) by Islamic extremists.
Can't we AND they just do the right thing?
|
Post #155,314
5/15/04 1:19:57 PM
|
Vote with your, er, vote, then, come November.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
