Please... please... Stop the Insanity!

[elsol]

That's what they're doing. "If no one comes terrorise us, we'll terrorise ourselves, damn it."

Actually it's more like

"Look, people... we're doing something... look at the cops in their bright shiny uniforms! This is your tax dollars are work!"

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Gi_Venus]

How female that sounds....and how silly.

The reaction to the act of Hitler invading Poland brought a declaration of War by the Brits.

I suppose your advice would be to sit back and await your destiny to arrive dressed in a Swastika?

egads...

Laughing......That is a compliment to me...I am saying publicly we do not react, a discrete surgery here and there hits them were it hurts.....I think they should be pursued. just with a little subtlety, quiet stealth reeks havoc on the psyche.
I suppose you will call that female too.... indirect confrontation.
Nice thread by the way. I have been enjoying it very much.

One point you have to realize is that history may repeat itself but with the complexity of the modern world with all the many variables it is quite likely to take a different turn. But I will concede that there is a point where one has no choice but to wage war as in the case of the Germans and Japanese. I do not believe we are at that point in the Middle East but I can seeing it getting there if we blunder without intelligent manuevering.

 

[matriarch]

No, you missed (or ignored) the point.

The Nazi's still invaded Poland and the Communist's still occupied much of Eastern Europe.

The stated goals of the Koran and of the religion in general, is to re-occupy the entire middle east and recreate the glory of past Arab grandeur.

The entire civilized world, through the United Nations, stands in the way of Muslim domination.

Perhaps you are the last person on earth to recognize that?

amicus...

*sigh*.....sometimes you are such hard work to ignore.

I was going to post a long and convoluted response - I had even written it. But having re-read your post, and the tone of the language, the confrontational language you used, the aggressive language, I can see its pointless, so I've deleted it all.

It's as I've always known. I just had this fantasy, that just once, you could take off your blinkers and see both sides of an argument.

I don't think I can be bothered. Banging my head against a brick wall hurts far too much.

Good day to you. Enjoy your fantasies and nightmares.
I prefer my dreams.

Mat

 

[BlackShanglan]

I liked this part:

Miami police announced Monday they will stage random shows of force at hotels, banks and other public places to keep terrorists guessing and remind people to be vigilant.

Because, naturally, the best way to terrify the enemy is to announce through multiple media channels that you're engaging in random, pointless actions in an attempt to make them nervous. Bet that won't dull the effect at all.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Kisses to you both, Mat and Gi. You've carried yourselves wonderfully.

 

[SeaCat]

Hey, Cat, cable television is a great thing. On a good day I can surf from Ancient Chinese History to a live shot on the space station. I can watch and listen to the recently departed Carl Sagan and his Cosmos series and even visit a channel that has Arab scholars debating the very issue you brought up.

I am not and do not wish to be, either a bible scholar nor a 'Quaran' scholar as you put it. But I have listened to and heard, as you apparently have not, readings from the Koran, direct quotes where-in the impetus is to eliminate the unholy by all means, including the entire family.

So maybe you can snow some of the people here into thinking that Muslims are a peaceful lot, but history and the actual words of guidance indicate that you either do not know the truth or you do not post the truth.

Ami,

You have listened to and heard readings from the Koran? Oh my. You say these are direct quotes where the impetus is to eliminate the unholy? Oh Jesus save us.

Sit down and read the damned thing boychic. You will find something that might actually surprise you. You are guilty in your own words of doing what you accuse the rest of us of doing. Of taking other peoples views/words as gospel. (But then again I do suppose you are allowed to do this because you are not attacking the President.)

Ahhh what's the sense, I should have figured it out long ago. One can't reason with you. You are right, the rest of the world is wrong.

Cat

 

[Liar]

Because, naturally, the best way to terrify the enemy is to announce through multiple media channels that you're engaging in random, pointless actions in an attempt to make them nervous. Bet that won't dull the effect at all.

Shang, you're my hero.

 

[cantdog]

No awe compares to the awe you get when a passel of donut-fattened cops mobs a mall entrance or a downtown bank, either. Most likely the effect is magnified if you hate our freedoms.

As far as taking over the world is concerned? I think a literalist believer in Islam would have to come to the conclusion that infidels are pretty much scum. The book is loaded with references to these people, the Unbelievers, and the thrust of it is that it's pointless to waste a lot of compassion on them. In the last day of Allah's judgement, they will be cast into some pretty graphic bad shit, too. When they're going to spend an eternity in woe, what's the difference if they spend a few moments in woe in this life, just beforehand?

I am assured over and over that there are millions of moderate muslims, and I have met some. Indeed, I have met no other kind. This is to the good. But the moderate muslim, like the moderate Christian, has to get to that estate by deciding not to take literally parts of his Book.

Once you take the thing literally, it's pretty uncompromising on the subject of Unbelievers. Literalist Christians go in for genocide and torture, too, as generations of pogrom and inquisition attest.

So it is the literalists we have to deal with somehow. And all religions are not equal about this. A fundamentalist Jain would be no threat to anyone, although he would take issue with pesticides on the crops.

The trouble with literalists is that you really are not allowed to reason with them about their faith. You can't ask them to compromise, you can't get them to consider questions of evidence for their bizarre ideas, and you can't drive a wedge with reason. What does this leave?

 

[BlackShanglan]

That's the damnable thing about arguments - whether based on religious revelation or posted to porn boards - that are not based in reason or evidence. It's impossible to use reason or evidence against them, as the believer has already rejected those concepts themselves. I don't agree with James Randi on everything he has to say, but I think him right in that; irrational beliefs create their own little bubble-realities, and it's damned hard for anything to get into them.

Such is the nature of sophistry. It's nearly impossible to learn or prove anything with it, but a steadfast rejection of all assumptions is damned hard to argue with. Argumentation, at its core, presupposes a desire to learn and a willingness to listen; without those, all one really has is description, reiteration, and abuse.

Shanglan

 

[cantdog]

And force doesn't work very well. It creates a lot of resentment and desire for revenge, but it doesn't generally have the effect intended. Unexamined ideas, even completely off the wall ones, persist even after force is applied. You can manage to squash a cucumber, an ant, a frog, or a human with physical force, but ideas are impossible to target like that.

Killing ideas always takes generations of patient will. I hope we can have the leisure for it. But there are some nasty weapons available these days to the private-sector fanatics, and even worse ones to the public-sector ones. When you behold a genocide or a large-scale atrocity, there is almost universally (if you consider fundamentalist Communism a religious system) a fanatic and inarguable belief to blame for it. I'm afraid the rest of us are due to suffer atrociously for many years to come from these people and their righteous causes.

 

[amicus]

*sigh*.....sometimes you are such hard work to ignore.

I was going to post a long and convoluted response - I had even written it. But having re-read your post, and the tone of the language, the confrontational language you used, the aggressive language, I can see its pointless, so I've deleted it all.

It's as I've always known. I just had this fantasy, that just once, you could take off your blinkers and see both sides of an argument.

I don't think I can be bothered. Banging my head against a brick wall hurts far too much.

Good day to you. Enjoy your fantasies and nightmares.
I prefer my dreams.

Mat

Hey Mat...thanks...you just gave me the lightbulb going off over my head with a new thought.

I am most likely a generation prior to yours. I begin to realize, with your choice of words, "confrontational, aggressive..." 'hard to ignore...'

I rather suspect there is an entire generation out there that is not familiar with men who do not strive to be politically correct. Men who have been emasculated by the times, men who have adapted to the political and social necessity of women being on 'top', in the vernacular not the literary sense.

I suppose most live in a world of compromise and capitulation. I chose not to. I fought and both won and lost many battles at all levels before I finally achieved my goals. And I did achieve my goals in each of the fields I chose to compete in.

I know, without a doubt, that to set a goal and achieve it, one must be confrontational and aggressive. One must know what one desires and then go after it, tooth and nail, if necessary.

I think the world has a shortage of people, men and women alike, such as that.

So I do not mind that you find a 'masculine' male upsetting to your demeanor.


Your closing lines: "...Good day to you. Enjoy your fantasies and nightmares.
I prefer my dreams...."

You can live in a dream world if you choose. My world has always been populated by reality, real things, real people, real ideas.

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Was going to try to find responses again to SeaCat, Cantdog and Shanglan, but the posts kind of meld together in my head.

Then the glimmer of an idea sprouted, as they are wont to do from time to time.

Supposing all three of you, ( and many more) were convinced, perhaps by a truly horrendous event, perhaps a nuclear event in Los Angeles, Caleeefornia with credit claimed openly by Iran and Syria and a coalition of Al Quaida associates and wannabe's and suppose, in general, the whole Muslim world applauded the attack against the infidels. Not likely, I know, but just for conversations sake imagine you were finally convinced that the Muslim world indeed, is dead set on confronting western ways.

Do you have any allegiance to western democratic principles? Or do you think them not worth defending?

Would you take sides or sit on the side line or be demo feminazi and just criticize everyone?

Curious minds want to know.


amicus...

 

[BlackShanglan]

I do adore you, Matriarch. Give my best to the gosling.

Shanglan

 

[matriarch]

I do adore you, Matriarch. Give my best to the gosling.

Shanglan

Why........thank you Shang. Such unexpected accolades have the power to unwoman me where others have failed. The admiration is mutual.

Your best wishes will be passed to the gorgeous gosling, forthwith.

 

[cantdog]

Since you persist in eschewing real sentences, amicus, I am stuck with a sort of Rohrschach impression of your intentions.

Try again?


You can shoot random Sa'udi Arabians until doomsday, but radical Islamists will still exist. Hitler did not actually extinguish all the European Jews, and behold! there are still many millions of them. Did force, in his case, destroy an idea?

Will there be any shortage of radical Islamists after the U.S. has slaughtered Iraqis for ten years? Twenty? How much faith do you have in killing?

 

[elsol]

Since you persist in eschewing real sentences, amicus, I am stuck with a sort of Rohrschach impression of your intentions.

Try again?


You can shoot random Sa'udi Arabians until doomsday, but radical Islamists will still exist. Hitler did not actually extinguish all the European Jews, and behold! there are still many millions of them. Did force, in his case, destroy an idea?

Will there be any shortage of radical Islamists after the U.S. has slaughtered Iraqis for ten years? Twenty? How much faith do you have in killing?

The Nazi example doesn't work... he would have succeeded had someone else not gotten in his way.

It's completely different when someone has the true will to commit genocide... ask the Indians.

I have a LOT of faith in killing... see any Indians storming the White House with bows and arrows?

Killing does work... it just tends to make you the bad guy.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[minsue]

I do adore you, Matriarch. Give my best to the gosling.

Shanglan

She's god damned fuckin' adorable, that's for certain.

Good to see you, horsey. I've missed you.

 

[amicus]

Y'know, Cantdog, I wonder if you really live in the real world, or one of imagination.

Perhaps a thousand times on this forum I have come out against the use of force.

That could mean killing, in your terms; I usually refer to the imposition of enforced restrictions against an individual by government power.

But I have killed a man. And I have carried a weapon. And I have served in the military and would have killed if so ordered.

As I said in another post, your dogma seems to isolate you from the real world.

The United States of America held back for three years in world war one, not wanting to engage in what was viewed as an European conflict.

The United States remained neutral in world war two, even as the Brits had their backs against the wall; wrongly so, in my opinion.

We have supported Israel in the middle east because it was and is, 'the right thing to do.'

We took losses in Lebanon, attempting to ameliorate a deteriorating situation.

We have had embassies bombed by muslims in several countries.

A United Nations coalition, including middle east nations, liberated Kuwait after an Iraqi invasion.

The attack on the world trade center on 9/11/01 changed the world, changed us.

We have decided to pre-empt, if possible, any further attacks on American soil.

I don't know or care where you live or where your allegiance lies, but our efforts in the middle east are rational, purposeful, directed, planned, coordinated and meaningful on several levels.

I doubt anyone is happy that young american men and women are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Policemen die every day in this country defending the life and property of people from criminals.

We have been compelled by events and necessity to extend that protection to protect our interests in areas outside the United States. Most, except the radical left, understand and appreciate our concern and the validity of our actions.

For those who do not, kiss my ass.

amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

Amicus,

I'm sitting here trying to remember who it is you remind me of. The tone of your posts, your disgust with anyone who dares to disagree with you. Your condescending views, they do remind me of someone I heard about/studied at one time. Please keep posting and I promise that when I do remember this persons name I will let you know who it was.

Cat

 

[cantdog]

I'm sure the deployment in the middle east was for good reason. We lost control over Saddam when the Iran/Iraq war ended.

Similar scenarios have played themselves out elsewhere. Nasser comes to mind. The first actual ethnic Egyptian to run his country since the sixth century A.D., he had genuine popular support. This amounted to a democratic mandate. True legitimacy. Nasser found he could retain power domestically and oppose the superpowers just the same. He represented, therefore, a democratic power. We detest democracy, and oppose it whenever we can. We did so in El Salvador, we did it with Aristide in Haiti, and we are currently targeting Lula and Chavez in Brasil and Venezuela. You see, democratic leaders want to carry out an agenda inimical to corporate influence. They are answerable to the people, as opposed to the money. They don't do whatever we say, the way tinhorn despots do.

We vastly prefer a thug, a despot who owes nothing to his populace and all to his corporate sponsors. Like the Shah, in Iran, or Duvalier, in Haiti. Well, we have some sweetly compliant puppets in Iraq, these days. Not al-Chalabi, as we had hoped, but some very adaptable people. The problem, of course, is the Iraqis.

For some reason, they do not see the author of the twelve years of horror that was the sanctions as a benign force. They oppose us. When we blow up their families, they somehow seem to resent that and begin supporting the insurgency.

I'm sure Saddam would have provided osculatory pleasure to your ass, in the 1980's, but in the late '90s, he had begun to stand for a certain cocky resistance to the United States. The harsher 'our' sanctions became, the stronger we made Saddam, politically. We killed hundreds of thousands, but we strengthened Saddam.

George sent the troops in, preceded by a sickening bombardment of the civilian population, and established his occupation. Rumsfeld planned poorly, though. He did not count on the clear vision of his enemy.

Iraq had, under Hussein, universal military service. Like Switzerland. All those men. All trained as soldiers, every one.. They made great guerillas. None of this has the smallest relationship to any attacks on American soil, of course. You are deluded to think so.

The attacks of September eleventh, 2001, owed absolutely nothing to the secularist government of Iraq. Iraq, though, sits on the second largest proven oil reserves on the planet. It was deemed desirable to establish more control there, but it had no scintilla of relationship to the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

I don't know how you missed the news, dude. There is no connection between Saddam's Ba'athist and secular despotism and the Islamist martyrs of 9/11. None. Pay the fuck attention, would ya?

Hamas is international. Its headqarters are in Teheran; it is no secret. The organization operates in Palestine and Egypt and Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, but its funding is from Shi'ite and Islamist Iran. Saddam, like nearly every government in the region, was actively engaged in opposing Islamist militias.

Look up the history, for heaven's sake.

Your cant about attacks on American soil is simply not relevant to Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. This is not esoteric knowledge, but commonly available news, dude.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Why........thank you Shang. Such unexpected accolades have the power to unwoman me where others have failed. The admiration is mutual.

Your best wishes will be passed to the gorgeous gosling, forthwith.

She's god damned fuckin' adorable, that's for certain.

Good to see you, horsey. I've missed you.

*happy sigh*

I can sleep well tonight. With visions of two AV's dancing in my head, no doubt. Awfully good to see you again, gosling - missed you as well.

Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

That's the damnable thing about arguments - whether based on religious revelation or posted to porn boards - that are not based in reason or evidence. It's impossible to use reason or evidence against them, as the believer has already rejected those concepts themselves. I don't agree with James Randi on everything he has to say, but I think him right in that; irrational beliefs create their own little bubble-realities, and it's damned hard for anything to get into them.

Such is the nature of sophistry. It's nearly impossible to learn or prove anything with it, but a steadfast rejection of all assumptions is damned hard to argue with. Argumentation, at its core, presupposes a desire to learn and a willingness to listen; without those, all one really has is description, reiteration, and abuse.

Shanglan

The important thing to remember Shang, is that you aren't just speaking to the person you are debateing with, you are speaking to everyone reading along. So yes, if you are dealing with a sophist, you aren't likely to change his mind. But, your arguments, espeically if you take the tac of pointing out his sophistry and how it works to obscure or ignore the evidence you present will make an impression on those who are not already dead set one way or the other.

In general, when you speak, you have a reasoned and well thought out point to make. And in general, you impress the living hell out of anyone who reads them. Debate with a reasonable and open minded person can be mentally stimulating and a challenge that is well worth taking. Debate with a fanatic is an exerdcise in futility. But as long as there is an audience, debate with a fanatic may produce good things as they, ultimately, may see both sides. With you, that is going to mean more often than not, your points will be made, marked and remembered.

 

[BlackShanglan]

My goodness. I am really feeling the loss of the old blushing icon.

Colly, your point on the presence of an audience is a good one, and one that I often forget on a bulletin board. That is, the audience I'm thinking of is the person I'm replying to, and I don't always consider that there is that broader effect. In this case, of course, I think that everyone else is generally on track in rejecting the irrational, but it's a very good point.

As for the rest - I really am awful at receiving compliments. But thank you most sincerely. You are much too kind, but pray don't stop being that way.

Shanglan