Topic: you say you want to go to heaven?
started by: lykosis
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 13 2002,22:23
we have a real and very dangerous enemy. we being everyone that believes in freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc... hard line fundamentalist are dangerous people...wether they be Catholics in the middle ages, or Muslims in the 21st century. these people see anyone that disagrees with their belief system as PURE EVIL, as tools of the devil. they have no interest in peace...they only have interest in victory. they have no interest in making deals...they can not deal with "the devil". these are very supersticious people WE are dealing with. i know what you've been told...i know what you've heard...but let me tell you something, you really have NO IDEA until you have been there...until you have talked to people that have been oppressed by these fanatics. most of these people can't read and can't write and they are being taken advantage of...USED as weapons for the "greater good". they don't know any better...that's all they've been taght their entire lives. i feel sorry for them, but i will not be sorry when they die...and die they must. fuck em, they want to go to heaven, well i say have a nice trip. yes, innocent people will die, and that is unavoidable and regretable, but that's the way it's gotta be...that's the way it will always be. wars kill 'innocent' people, because everyone is 'innocent', cept a handful of people that pull strings.
Posted by jim on Jun. 13 2002,22:37
Man... Throw an [ENTER] in there every once in a while... Paragraphs make for easy reading....
Posted by kuru on Jun. 13 2002,22:53
The thing is, they don't get to go to heaven if killed by a chick.So.
Where's my ammo?
Posted by editor on Jun. 13 2002,23:34
Happy Bday yesterday Jim!
Posted by TheTaxMan on Jun. 14 2002,00:06
(Non-factual propoganda)
Posted by rit on Jun. 14 2002,00:18
well, i can pretty much guarntee you thaty she did spend a year there. as for the other stuff she wrote, well, she get's all hyped up like that sometimes. i think that email she read from a friend of hers in palestine just really got her fired up. she tries not to let her emotions get to her. but by readiung that post, i would have to deduce that she failed this time around.
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 14 2002,02:25
I heard the following phrase:"They are evil and must be destroyed/dealt with."
come out of the current U.S. president's mouth as often as Bin Laden's.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 14 2002,02:48
| Quote |
| This was the scented rose in the bumgut of Satan, for here at 7.13 precisely, the fighting stopped. Soldiers, who moments earlier had been shooting each others' teeth out, put down their guns and joined in peaceful commune. Some played games, or like these men, planned a musical. The reason for this calm lay inside a shed, for here, the massed forces of two world powers were unified by nothing more than the distress of a cat stuck on a high shelf. No-one knows how it got there, but these brave fighting men, moved by the simplicity of the animal's plight, decided to forget their differences and try to get it down. But even as the men celebrated, their heads were blown clean off, for somebody, nobody knows who, had filled the cat with nitro-glycerine. |
| Quote |
| There's something about the way these people move that tells you they are a nation at war. Look into their eyes, and you can read the words 'I have a reservation at the restaurant of death'. It's a messy bistro, with a bad name for soiling its customers' clothes. We've seen only one napkin in four days. People here are confused, spending most of their time running about like idiots. Earlier today, we met a family who thanks to this war now have no home. A war which they feel anyway has nothing to do with them. |
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 14 2002,15:15
| Quote (KitKat @ 13 June 2002,21:25) |
| I heard the following phrase: "They are evil and must be destroyed/dealt with." come out of the current U.S. president's mouth as often as Bin Laden's. |
one difference
Bush is talking about terrorists only.
Fucknugget is talking about EVERYONE that does not believe as he does.
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 14 2002,18:13
| Quote |
| Bush is talking about terrorists only. |
From what I understand, his definition is very slack. Terrorists, potential terrorists, countries that we think have terrorists in it, countries we think help countries that have terrorists, countries that haven't embraced democracy as defined by us, countries we just don't like...
| Quote |
| Fucknugget is talking about EVERYONE that does not believe as he does. |
Oh! So target #3 and #4 are Big Ben and the Eiffel tower? Tell me why is it only the american flag I've seen burning lately?
Posted by kuru on Jun. 14 2002,18:23
Actually, Big Ben was targeted on 11 Sept. The hijackers made a mistake in calculation, thinking they would have more time to get their attacks off.
They had selected a plane in London's Heathrow airport that was bound for JFK, but because the US grounded all flights so quickly, the hijackers left Heathrow on the ground instead of in the air.
Evidence has also come to light that the Sears Tower in Chicago was a target, and only for the fact that the hijackers' plane was grounded in St. Louis is that building still in the air.
Other targets included the Eifel Tower in Paris, which again was spared due to the grounding of all flights.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 14 2002,18:42
| Quote (KitKat @ 14 June 2002,13:13) |
| Oh! So target #3 and #4 are Big Ben and the Eiffel tower? Tell me why is it only the american flag I've seen burning lately? |
You get into a fight with a group of people your best bet is to take out the bigest guy first.
It makes the rest think about what they are doing.
If you can force the US out of the fight you got a lot less to worry about.
That and we only see what the press wants us to see. The reason that you only see american flags being burned is thats what people are taking pictures of.
That and america is built on freedom. Freedom is counterproductive to their way of goverment.
With freedom your able to speak up on how crappy your life is and how bad the goverment treats everyone. With freedom you can get enough people to listen to your gripes and agree with you. With freedom you can gather in large groups and protest.
Get it?
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 14 2002,19:15
| Quote |
| You get into a fight with a group of people your best bet is to take out the bigest guy first. |
Are you implying the Taliban group is at war against the rest of the world? And that the first step is to render the U.S. powerless?
This sounds quite foolish to my ear. Is it remotely possible to do that? I don't see 9/11 as a "war declaration on the world with the U.S. to start with", rather just some sort of mean to hurt the U.S. badly (along with the ego of millions of people! ) . Do you concede that would be a success...?| Quote |
| That and we only see what the press wants us to see. The reason that you only see american flags being burned is thats what people are taking pictures of. |
Well, again. You can't verify that. And actually, neither can I. But then, why would the (american? world?) press only show american flags burning? (And I ask this question in a neutral way.)
| Quote |
| With freedom your able to speak up on how crappy your life is and how bad the goverment treats everyone. With freedom you can get enough people to listen to your gripes and agree with you. With freedom you can gather in large groups and protest. Get it? |
Oh, I get this. Fully and completely, don't you worry. I enjoy it myself. But, please, don't stop here. Explain to me what is the link between your ability to to gripe against your president and 9/11? (As far as I'm concern, your personal freedom has no effect on their way of life... Even remotely.)
Edit: removed a smiley that got there because of the '!' immediately followed by '
' and it was really adding some bad attitude at the wrong place! Ouch! 
Posted by jim on Jun. 14 2002,19:29
KitKat, can you really be this lost in the sauce?America was not the only one attacked. It was just the only succesful attack.
Posted by kuru on Jun. 14 2002,19:50
| Quote |
| said by KitKat Are you implying the Taliban group is at war against the rest of the world? |
He doesn't have to. The Taliban/Al Qaeda freely admit it in every single propoganda tape they make. Including the one in which Daniel Pearl is decapitated. I've seen it; it's nothing but a statement of war against the non Muslim world.
| Quote |
| But then, why would the (american? world?) press only show american flags burning? |
Because to those who want the western world dead, America is the symbol of the western world. It's only the first target, to be sure.
| Quote |
| Explain to me what is the link between your ability to to gripe against your president and 9/11? (As far as I'm concern, your personal freedom has no effect on their way of life... Even remotely.) |
Because to them, free people are 'The Great Satan'. You see, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are not jealous of the freedom in the western world. They are angry that the entire world doesn't live the way they do. They want everyone dead who isn't a fundamentalist Wahaabist Muslim. The link between my ability to speak against the President and the attacks of 11 Sept. is that, quite frankly, the former was a principle cause of the latter.
We are free to speak out against the President.
And they attacked us because they hate that freedom and wish to wipe it from the face of earth.
I don't see as how I could be any more clear.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 14 2002,21:57
my dearest kitkat, you have to understand that in their society...questions mean punishment...severe punishment, sometimes death. there are people that have questioned it and still question it. they get 'dealt with' in ways that we can't even begin to comprehend. think middle ages torture tactics...it's much the same. as far as i'm concerned, the middle east is in it's own version of the dark ages...
i want you all to try and imagine what it would be like in this country if the most hardline Christian group you can think of was in COMPLETE control of our government. now imagine what that group would do to a country that was believed to be the embodiment of SATAN on earth.
the Crusades are an excellent lesson to learn from. religious fanatics fight a different kind of war.
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 14 2002,22:19
| Quote |
| They had selected a plane in London's Heathrow airport that was bound for JFK, but because the US grounded all flights so quickly, the hijackers left Heathrow on the ground instead of in the air. Evidence has also come to light that the Sears Tower in Chicago was a target, and only for the fact that the hijackers' plane was grounded in St. Louis is that building still in the air. |
Wtf? I stand mightily corrected. Sheesh. Mind if I ask you one source of that so I can read it for myself? I actually am surprised this is the first I hear about all this... Btw, googling "terrorist attack sears tower" haven't brought any article stating definitive proof, only stuff like< this >.
| Quote |
| He doesn't have to. The Taliban/Al Qaeda freely admit it in every single propoganda tape they make. Including the one in which Daniel Pearl is decapitated. I've seen it; it's nothing but a statement of war against the non Muslim world. |
Now, waaaiiiit a second. Time out! Are you saying you actually buy this Taliban propaganda s-h-i-t...? (Well, that's what it is IMHO.)
I'm challenging this "world domination" cause here. Have you (cold-headedly/cold-bloodedly) considered other scenarios? Like an oil deal gone sour. (google: taliban oil) Or something else? (google: bin laden ties fbi bush)
Personnally, I don't have definitive opinion. I consider there are enough facts floating around to question the legitimacy of any definitive and ultimate "cause". And amongst them, the "they hate us" argument...
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 15 2002,00:40
Religious fanaticism and the wars that are a "result" of such have a tendency to conveniently coincide with the instigator's more material concerns. Obviously religion is a useful tool for Bin Ladin when he tries to rally support for his cause, but we shouldn't forget that while we'd like to pretend otherwise, our enemies are rational people and commit rational actions which are often far more reactive than proactive.It's not like the arab world is entirely without cause for being somewhat upset at us. We support Israel, which makes perfect sense from our standpoint, since they're a soverign nation that we're allied with. But they're a soverign nation we (read: western world) created. And when we mass-emmigrated jews into the region and carved up a piece of land to call Israel (in which Palestinians were living) after world war II this amounted to nothing less than unconventional invasion. Whether justified or not, we (again, read: western world) essentially stole arab land (yes yes it was under British control at the time, but the population attack hadn't happened yet, and arguably the colonial movements that led to that situation amount to something similar anyway). Israel is a thorn in the side of the arab world, for reasons of prestige and security. The arab countries, while they fight amongst themselves, are more friendly to each other than to us (duh). So obviously it's safer for them to have other arab nations nearby, rather than western nations (which, for all intents and purposes, Israel is). The Israel issue is one of the things that has greatly provoked people like Bin Ladin (who mentions it during many of his little home videos, and not without a great deal of emphasis).
Futher meddling in the arab world include operation desert storm, not only because we decided to play the hand of god and settle an arab dispute (this would sort of be like portugal, if you can imagine them to be a superpower, coming in during the American civil war and defending the South against the perceived Northern oppressors. Obviously we'd be upset about the whole affair). But also because of our lack of respect for islamic tradition (having US soldiers moving through mecca, even though at the behest of the saudi government is obviously going to upset those people who are less than supportive of America. Again, one of Bin Ladin's gripes.
Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to suggest that the US should take a complete hands off approach and not try to exert it's power, but let's not fool ourselves into believing that when we do we don't upset people and that when people are upset, it's simply because they're freedom hating godless communists and not rational people who don't like our way of doing things.
As always, my humble 2c
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 15 2002,05:12
| Quote |
| the Crusades are an excellent lesson to learn from. religious fanatics fight a different kind of war. |
why does no one seem to know what the crusades REALLY were...*sigh*
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 15 2002,13:43
*interest piqued*What WERE the crusades, CK?
Posted by Vigilante on Jun. 15 2002,18:39
An elaborate set-up for the third Indiana Jones movie.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 15 2002,20:55
the crusades were about english and french knights ralling together to defend europe against the ottomans. the europeans did not have a standing army at the time, where as the ottomans had thousands of brass cannons and their elite swordsman, the immortals. the ottoman army got as far as france if I recall, before they were pushed back. Although it was christians versus muslims, the war was not religiously based. It was purely a land-grab war.
Posted by Wolfguard on Jun. 16 2002,01:05
damm footstools...that will learn them.and the next crusades?
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 16 2002,16:18
I hope it's not like the CHILDREN'S CRUSADE...
Posted by RadioActive on Jun. 16 2002,18:58
| Quote (KitKat @ 14 June 2002,17:19) | ||||
Wtf? I stand mightily corrected. Sheesh. Mind if I ask you one source of that so I can read it for myself? I actually am surprised this is the first I hear about all this... Btw, googling "terrorist attack sears tower" haven't brought any article stating definitive proof, only stuff like< this >.
Now, waaaiiiit a second. Time out! Are you saying you actually buy this Taliban propaganda s-h-i-t...? (Well, that's what it is IMHO.) I'm challenging this "world domination" cause here. Have you (cold-headedly/cold-bloodedly) considered other scenarios? Like an oil deal gone sour. (google: taliban oil) Or something else? (google: bin laden ties fbi bush) Personnally, I don't have definitive opinion. I consider there are enough facts floating around to question the legitimacy of any definitive and ultimate "cause". And amongst them, the "they hate us" argument... |
so far your only argument against was "where's the proof that says that you are right?". well where's the proof that says that they're wrong and you are right? that's right, the proof is highly classified and the only thing we see is a highly filtered propaganda coming from all sides. true facts are not ment to be presented to us, mere mortals, by the US and other governments. so if you are going to argue, base it on something you know, rather then on the fact that you don't know much.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 16 2002,21:21
oh, are we back on the 'Bush wants to conquer the world' lie again? I thought we were on the 'Bush is killing your children with asthma' lie now.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 16 2002,23:07
bush wants to steal your cornflakes
Posted by wix on Jun. 17 2002,07:00
[quote=lykosis,13 June 2002,14:23][/quote]| Quote |
| we have a real and very dangerous enemy. we being everyone that believes in freedom of choice, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc... hard line fundamentalist are dangerous people...wether they be Catholics in the middle ages, or Muslims in the 21st century. these people see anyone that disagrees with their belief system as PURE EVIL, as tools of the devil. |
Why is it that you decide to give into the press so easily as to think that the only reason people are doing this is because they hate freedom and hate you. That's illogical and doesn't make any sense. These people have never said they hate the United States for it's freedom, but rather because of it's policies.
| Quote |
| they have no interest in peace...they only have interest in victory. |
This is what I find interesting, what, is peace? Is the treaty of versilles peace? Is simply stopping to kill each other 'peace'? Is giving into the other side peace? From a perspective of violence I suppose. After WWI the president of the united states proposed what would be known as the 14pts to give "Peace without Victory"-- the idea that we could come to peace (as opposed to violence), without actually demanding reparations, and further punishment for the actual war. Unfortunately this viewpoint was completely rejected. Had it not been, WWII might never had happened. But in the context that you talk about these groups are afforded NEITHER peace nor victory, so they strive for either one. They strive for policy changes by the only means they know how, and we hunt them down for it. They strive for victory and we say they are being unreasonable when it is the US policy never to negotiate with them. Ironically, I think the party that this sentance really describes is the united states.
| Quote |
| they have no interest in making deals...they can not deal with "the devil". these are very supersticious people WE are dealing with. |
They don't want deals with the devil, they want changes in US policy, and they are willing to work with us on these points. Bin Laden himself said he would stop should the US seek withdrawls from the region.
| Quote |
| i know what you've been told...i know what you've heard...but let me tell you something, you really have NO IDEA until you have been there...until you have talked to people that have been oppressed by these fanatics. most of these people can't read and can't write and they are being taken advantage of...USED as weapons for the "greater good". |
Is it any better in America, where the greater good says that if you love your county and wish to be patriotic you must agree with the government? And questioning the motives or demanding civil rights would be selfish?
| Quote |
| they don't know any better...that's all they've been taght their entire lives. i feel sorry for them, but i will not be sorry when they die...and die they must. fuck em, they want to go to heaven, well i say have a nice trip. |
First, let me say, I do not think you really feel sorry for them, so why write that? Second, I don't think they are seeking this course of action for a religious sense as much as policy awareness. Your contempt for them is ironic considering you accuse them neither being willing to accept peace or victory.
| Quote |
| yes, innocent people will die, and that is unavoidable and regretable, but that's the way it's gotta be...that's the way it will always be. wars kill 'innocent' people, because everyone is 'innocent', cept a handful of people that pull strings. |
I don't justify the terrorist action, infact I think there are many more logical ways to address policy, but the point at which you say the innocent should suffer and die while we attack these people is rediculous. How can you seriously make the claim that they are the ones who are just simply blood thristy and hungry for hating freedom when you justify killing innocent lives in the hope we might catch one of these string pullers. The problem with terrorists is specifically their contempt for human life, they kill innocents. It's not that they challenge authority, but it's the way that they do it. Is it any more just for us to do the same thing for the namesake of killing a terrorist? Of course not.
In the 1960s the civil rights era hated freedom, the protesters to WWI (e.g. Eugine Debs) hated freedom, the people who demanded more checks on the government, writing the bill of rights, or even forming a new government seperate that of the British empire hated freedom. Need I remind you that all these men, had they not succeded would only have been labeled as terrorists. Radical ideas become liberal ideas, and liberal ideas become the accepted norm. It might just make sense to reread the post by Pravus Angelus, these terrorists have a rational mind, and rational goals. Their methods may not be conventional or liked, but that doesn't just mean they hate freedom-- nor, I might add, does that justify us forgeting our own freedoms, or humanity to catch them.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 17 2002,14:43
where are you from?where have you been?
who have you talked to?
Posted by Bozeman on Jun. 17 2002,15:30
| Quote (lykosis @ 17 June 2002,10:43) |
| where are you from? where have you been? who have you talked to? |
Who cares?
He raises some interesting points.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 17 2002,21:06
i care, cause i want to know where he/she is coming from. he/she made a statement that i have given into the press...that i have been convinced of lies. i want to know where this person is coming from...what information this person has. i was born in the usa...my grandparents are from lebanon...i have a lot of family in lebanon...i have a lot of friends spread throughout the middle east...i have spent time in the middle east...israel, lebanon, syria, jordan, palestine, afghanistan...i have beeen a memer of RAWA for 6 years...see www.rawa.org
why am i writing this? just so WIX knows i'm getting my info from other places than western press.
we shouldn't negotiate with them...we shouldn't even observe their fucking racist/sexist/oligarchy govts.
attitudes like the one wix expresses just piss me off...that's the kinda shit "they" feed on. "we can all live in peace and be happy if you just change some of your policies". fuck that...they need to change THEIR policies...i'm not interested in peace, and i don't pretend to be. i'm interested in human rights for everyone...i'm interested in education...i'm interested in representational govt. screw them and their backwards thought process/beliefs.
sorry...i'm ranting.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 17 2002,21:38
| Quote (CatKnight @ 15 June 2002,12:55) |
| Although it was christians versus muslims, the war was not religiously based. It was purely a land-grab war. |
uhh...land grab war...yes...religiously/financialy motivated land grab war...yes.
they (the crusades) were about what all wars are about...control.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 18 2002,00:25
| Quote |
| attitudes like the one wix expresses just piss me off...that's the kinda shit "they" feed on. "we can all live in peace and be happy if you just change some of your policies". |
It sort of sounds like you're trying to draw some sort of comparison between appeasement and diplomacy. What makes you think they (the arab world...?) "feed" on a segment of the american population recognizing the non-infalible nature of our foreign policy? Doesn't it seem far more plausible that at least part of the aggression these groups have towards us is the result of our support for Israel which, in their eyes (and not unjustly so), is a nation born of unconventional invasion. Perhaps also, our constant villification of the arab world may have something to do with them seeing us in less than a glorious white light? See the items I mentioned in my previous post..., what reason do you have for discounting them so easily in favor of a "crazy freedom-hating arab" perspective?
| Quote |
| fuck that...they need to change THEIR policies... |
If the league of Arab nations decided to designate a seemingly arbitrary (or at least, arbitrary to the secular world) piece of land, lets say Montana, and then procede to proclaim it an independent nation and mass immigrate muslims into the region (btw, this example works just as well if you have India immigrating hindus), and then arab nations would fund and defend this new independent Montana against the United States, don't you think we'd be somewhat upset at them? Upset enough to engage in some kind of military action. Sure you can say terrorism isn't a military action, but that's only easy to say from the perspective of a nation with an immense standing army against a foe with nothing in comparison. When you're the little guy, suddenly freedom fighting (aka terrorism) doesn't sound so bad.
It does nothing to our benefit to blind ourselves into buying into the "crazy freedom-hating arab" perspective. We should understand that our opponents here are rational people with ideals and interests. They are responding to our violation of their interests, and we should take that into consideration when reviewing our foreign policy. Maybe the "Freedom fighting all american posse" works great for propaganda purposes, but please don't let it drive american policy.
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 18 2002,02:04
| Quote (lykosis @ 17 June 2002,14:43) |
| where are you from? where have you been? who have you talked to? |
having a closed mind to new solutions is what prevents these things from getting solved. these people arent evil. they are just being used as pawns and if you grow up thinking that is your way of life then you cant know anythign else. hell i've seen 5 year old girls freely admitting that they would be proud to die for their cause. you may not believe it but they are just the same kind of people as you. you can be turned like that just as easily.
some people think that killing them is the answer other people have other ideas. being so locked up in hate is what caused them to start killing themselves for a cause. almost the same hate you have. If someone said you could end all the suffering today by strapping c4 to yourself and taking out 5 people for the sake of thousands would you do it?
Posted by wix on Jun. 18 2002,05:03
| Quote (lykosis @ 17 June 2002,13) |
| i care, cause i want to know where he/she is coming from. he/she made a statement that i have given into the press...that i have been convinced of lies. i want to know where this person is coming from...what information this person has. i was born in the usa...my grandparents are from lebanon...i have a lot of family in lebanon...i have a lot of friends spread throughout the middle east...i have spent time in the middle east...israel, lebanon, syria, jordan, palestine, afghanistan...i have beeen a memer of RAWA for 6 years...see www.rawa.org why am i writing this? just so WIX knows i'm getting my info from other places than western press. we shouldn't negotiate with them...we shouldn't even observe their fucking racist/sexist/oligarchy govts. attitudes like the one wix expresses just piss me off...that's the kinda shit "they" feed on. "we can all live in peace and be happy if you just change some of your policies". fuck that...they need to change THEIR policies...i'm not interested in peace, and i don't pretend to be. i'm interested in human rights for everyone...i'm interested in education...i'm interested in representational govt. screw them and their backwards thought process/beliefs. sorry...i'm ranting. |
| Quote |
| i was born in the usa...my grandparents are from lebanon...i have a lot of family in lebanon...i have a lot of friends spread throughout the middle east...i have spent time in the middle east...israel, lebanon, syria, jordan, palestine, afghanistan...i have beeen a memer of RAWA for 6 years...see www.rawa.org |
Yes, but do you read RAWA? Have you LOOKED at the website that YOU just sent me to?
< http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/s-photos.htm >
Is a pictorial labeled "Afghanistan under the US strikes." Tell me if you honestly endorse these masacures under the banner of attempting to capture the still illusive bin-laden.
I wasn't making the view point that you don't read other sources or that you aren't educated on the issue, but rather that your view point is psychotic. You tell us that these terrorists should be treated as animals, ignored, not negotiated with and killed because they kill people, and then you tell me you endorse RAWA. God man, tell me how this isn't a contradiction. On one hand you suppose that murdering people for a cause is terrorisim, yet murdering people trying to find the murderer is collateral damange. To me, your saying exactly what the terrorists say, "Our cause is worth it, we can encure a few lost lives on the way, because we are elivated by the moral highground."
| Quote |
| we shouldn't negotiate with them...we shouldn't even observe their fucking racist/sexist/oligarchy govts. |
At the point at which the American government commits the same crimes of murder, justifing these deaths as a necessity of national security, or claims a moral highground in doing so, why should they negotiate with us? It's an issue of both parties commiting horrible actions, and your point of view failing both sides from working to resolve their differences.
| Quote |
| attitudes like the one wix expresses just piss me off...that's the kinda shit "they" feed on. "we can all live in peace and be happy if you just change some of your policies". fuck that...they need to change THEIR policies...i'm not interested in peace, and i don't pretend to be. i'm interested in human rights for everyone...i'm interested in education...i'm interested in representational govt. screw them and their backwards thought process/beliefs. |
If there is one thing that Americans are really good about it's making ourselves feel that we have the moral high ground. Why is our form of government just? Or do you just accept that as a given? A representive government which commits unjust actions is no more just than authoritarian which commits unjust actions. So the issue becomes human rights so I pose this question to you:
Do terrorists really deny more human rights to us, than the United States does to a) the people (read: collateral damage) or b) the terrorists?
I don't think they do.
By the way, you can refer to me as 'he' rather than he/she <!--emo&
Posted by Necromancer on Jun. 18 2002,05:57
| Quote |
| WTC fatalities "lower than first thought"... It is now thought that the number of people who perished in the world trade centre attacks on 11th September may be as low as three. Original estimates of 6,000 were probably much larger due to an unprecedented "fuck me" factor, say psychologists. Counselors are on standby as New Yorkers face the trauma of discovering they've been more upset than they needed to be. On hearing the news Mayor Guliani said " I feel rather stupid" and locked himself in his house. The mayor already faces criticism over his proposal to keep Ground Zero shrouded in smoke after the dust cleared briefly last week and revealed that the South Tower was still standing. President Bush said this evening "these new figures make no difference to anything - three dead is still three too many - as Saddam Hussein is about to find out" |
Posted by Dysorderia on Jun. 18 2002,07:10
| Quote (wix @ 18 June 2002,00:03) |
| To me, your saying exactly what the terrorists say, "Our cause is worth it, we can encure a few lost lives on the way, because we are elivated by the moral highground." |
This is exactly why the "ends and means"(noble ends excuse the foul means) doctrine is flawed
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 18 2002,14:26
i have plenty of issues with the american govt, and i have plenty of issues with american air strikes. you havn't seen me endorse the use of carpet/precision bombing.i don't hate anyone...i assure you.
i'm sorry if i led you to believe that i think there is a political way to deal with these people...i'm sorry if i led you to believe that i actually believe your assertion that we are dealing with rational people that have acceptable desires/demands for diplomacy. i feel plenty sorry for the people that are being used...wait, no i don't. i feel dsorry for the people that AREN'T being used...for the people that KNOW the truth and refuse to bow down to an oppresive govt...i feel sorry for the people that are executed daily by these govts. fuck the ones that buy into the Israel/USA is evil and you must strap a bomb to yourself and blow up a minimall so your family will be better off.
murder is murder...wether it's in the name of war or not...wether you can justify it to yourself, a nation of millions, or your god...it's still murder...but you know what...some people just need killin.
i'd love to hear what you guys think would be the right thing to do...and don't give me that stupid "work with them to change our foreign policies so they aren't mad
" their govts are xenophobic...wether you want to believe it or not. they are scared to death of the western ideals of freedom, and they will do whatever they have to do to hold onto their little bit of power.
Posted by KitKat on Jun. 18 2002,20:04
lykosis:That's, like... er... your first post again. Well... I guess this wraps up this thread...
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 18 2002,21:35
palestinians blew up another bus today. this time ~20+ highschoolers got their bodies ripped apart on the way to school. there is no negotiating with these people.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 18 2002,22:01
come on CK...they are obviously rational people...all we gotta do is move all the jews back to europe, and the whole problem will be solved. i mean shit, it's obvious that it's our foreign policy that's the problem. nevermind that the middle east has been at war pretty much since the beginning of recorded history...even when the ottomans had control...even when the persians had control...even when the babylonians had control.liberal guilt...yay.
also, i'd love to hear some views on palestine vs india (specifically, muslims blowing up people in india), and what that has to do with our foreign policy?
oh, and lets talk about indonesia...and the phillipines...are the atrocities there our fault too?
shit, i guess the good ole USA is just making problems everywhere.
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 18 2002,23:02
heh it's funny that you mention liberal guilt, because the liberals loved israel until 1967.
Posted by wix on Jun. 18 2002,23:56
| Quote (lykosis @ 18 June 2002,06:26) |
| Quote |
| murder is murder...wether it's in the name of war or not...wether you can justify it to yourself, a nation of millions, or your god...it's still murder...but you know what...some people just need killin. |
God when you figure out how this makes sense I'd like to know. You say,
a) murder is murder
b) even if you justify it, it is murder
c) but ... some people just need killin
Now statement c is a clear justification for killing people, which you qualify as murder by statement b, so, some people just need to be murdered is what you're saying.
Now are you trying to tell me that murder is a good thing? Or are you trying to justify that which you said you couldn't justify?
| Quote |
| i'd love to hear what you guys think would be the right thing to do...and don't give me that stupid "work with them to change our foreign policies so they aren't mad " |
We weren't advocating a change in policies or justifying their actions, but saying that your claims that these people are insane is just rediculous. They didn't just have a trigger in their head go off one morning and they said "Gee, I'd like to become and terrorsit and kill people now." They were pushed to that brink regaurdless of if you like it or not. If you want to take solutions, yes, I might be willing to argue that policy changes in the future could curb some of their actions, at least their ability to recruit new persons into their fold.
Posted by wix on Jun. 19 2002,00:12
| Quote (lykosis @ 18 June 2002,14:01) |
| Quote |
| come on CK...they are obviously rational people...all we gotta do is move all the jews back to europe, and the whole problem will be solved. i mean shit, it's obvious that it's our foreign policy that's the problem. nevermind that the middle east has been at war pretty much since the beginning of recorded history...even when the ottomans had control...even when the persians had control...even when the babylonians had control. |
Yes and even that war had a rationality behind it. War isn't nessicarily irrational, that's what everyone has been saying! The united states has had wars from the start of it's existance. Both were wars of power and control.
| Quote |
| also, i'd love to hear some views on palestine vs india (specifically, muslims blowing up people in india), and what that has to do with our foreign policy? |
Gladly, in History classes when you should have studied the european history in the area you would have known that it created the same number of problems in India that it created in Africa. The british empire was declining and as a result of it's fast retreat from the area they carved up the areas wrong (places like Kashmir and Bangledesh). This lead to tension simply because of foriegn policies. Second I'd say that American's attitutude towards economic aid and diplomacy in the area has caused many problems. And third it doesn't even nessicarily have to be OUR policies. They can still fight against each other's policies and be rational. The point Pravus Angleus and others were making is that the terrorist isn't just insane, and isn't just out to hate freedom, but has a cause in mind. Thus they do exactly what lykosis was advocating, justify innocent deaths for that cause.
| Quote |
| oh, and lets talk about indonesia...and the phillipines...are the atrocities there our fault too? |
Absolutely. In US History you should have learned of the philiponio insurrection. Briefly, since you can read more in a history book: After the USS Maine was sunk at the turn of the 1900s the US got into a war with Spain. It as a result of imperialist pushes by those like Henery Seward decided to capture certain lands like, yes, the Philipines. President McKinley decided that they weren't ready for independance and proclaimed "Our little brown brother's aren't ready for independance" and for about 3 years they commited gurreila warfare on us (eg, what we now call terrorism) to get us out of their land. We interned them into psuedo concentration camps. It's well documented and available, go read about it some more. Even if it had nothing to do with the USA the terrorists are still being rational
| Quote |
| shit, i guess the good ole USA is just making problems everywhere. |
Never once have we said this, all we have said is that terrorists are rational, not nessicarily out to screw you and your freedom. For you to turn me into a USA hating maniac simply because I question US policies is rediculous. Patriotism isn't accepting law simply because it is law. Look deeper than the skin and you'll find a cause.
By the way, I resent the fact you call me a liberal, and discount my views as liberal guilt. My views on human rationality have nothing to do with a political ideology. I could be, for instance, an individualist anarchist and foster these views on logic could I not?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,00:42
the terrorists may claim to have rational goals, but they are most certainly insane.
Posted by rit on Jun. 19 2002,01:32
Its pretty sad that some people don't understand indiscriminate killing < discriminate killing, and sometimes those are your only realistic choices.Of course a terrorist has a cause.Timothy McVeigh had a cause. I don't think anyone would ever question that a person definitely tends to have something in mind when they blow themselves up. But, what if that cause is simply to kill jews? Didn't Hitler have that cause? Didn't Hitler blame the jews for problems in Germany, just as the Palestinians blame the jews today? What do Palestinians really want? Now, don't get me wrong, I don't advocate racism on any side, and I know that there are definately racist on both sides of this issue. Having said that, there is only one side that is using civilian specific targets. SPECIFIC
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,01:36
wow a noob with a grip on reality, what are the odds
Posted by editor on Jun. 19 2002,01:43
"there is only one side that is using civilian specific targets. SPECIFIC "al queada.
Posted by editor on Jun. 19 2002,01:44
(I take your point, good one at that)
Posted by rit on Jun. 19 2002,02:31
Not just Al-Qaida. These groups as well. Notice any similarities in the names of any of these groups?Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Aum Shinriykyo
Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Hizballah (Party of God)
Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
Japanese Red Army (JRA)
al-Jihad
Kach
Kahane Chai
Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE)
Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO, NCR, and many others)
National Liberation Army (ELN)
Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction (PIJ)
Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction (PLF)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)
al-Qa'ida
Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)
Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)
Posted by editor on Jun. 19 2002,02:57
Umm? no?
Posted by CatKnight on Jun. 19 2002,03:00
editor don't flame out of ignorance.Hizbollah, HAMAS, Islamic Jihad, and the PLF are the biggies in palestine.
Posted by wix on Jun. 20 2002,06:52
| Quote |
| Its pretty sad that some people don't understand indiscriminate killing < discriminate killing, and sometimes those are your only realistic choices. |
Why is it any less evil to kill someone as an unintented consequence? I understand the difference you're trying to make but first you have to establish a moral just for your actions before there becomes a difference. Intent isn't everything.
| Quote |
| Didn't Hitler have that cause? |
Of course he did, that's specifically what we're getting at. They were rational in there thinking, we were debunking the myth that they only just hate freedom and are out to get americans at all costs. Terrorists have goals.
| Quote |
| Having said that, there is only one side that is using civilian specific targets. SPECIFIC |
In order for a terrorist group to attack a military target, it takes not only considerable intellegence, but serious manpower and funding. Something that terrorist groups rarely have. After several years of planning a terrorist faction was able to take out two skyscrappers, and barely scare the pentagon (there is your military target). In just a couple months, we took out a nation. Terrorists obviously don't have the resources to fight wars, that's why they subvert themselves to these tactics. They see the use of civilian targets as a means to an end, a justification because they claim the moral highground. Thus, the logic becomes that it is indescriminate killing. They walk into a bus and ignite the bomb. They don't care what the accidental damage is because they, just like us, feel the end us justified.
Now logically, should the terrorists actually have the sufficient resources to attack their objectives, I don't think they would for a moment prefer civilian targets. So how is your comparision make them any more evil?
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 20 2002,14:42
ok wix, i think you're getting me wrong here, cause i keep seeing the word "justified" in your posts. i'd like to clear something up right now. i don't think that killing is ever justified...sometimes necessary? yes. justified? no. i'm not trying to justify anything...killing, bombs, explosions, death, murder, shooting, i think it's all pretty fucking horrible (pardon my language). you keep trying to drag this back to a moral debate, and i don't want to debate morals...i gave up on that years ago. i'm not trying to justify my point of view to anyone. i have reached my conclusions based on first hand knowledge of what goes on in these countries. i take human life very seriously, and having met quite a few US soldiers in my time, i think most of them do to. the people we are dealing with...do not.
Posted by ic0n0 on Jun. 20 2002,15:09
The Palestinian terrorists do not hold a moral high ground, they may have been dealt a bad hand in the game of life, but they certainly do not have the right to blow up innocent Israelis. I think for the most part Palestinians do have justified claims on a lot of things, but the actions they take against Israeli civilians and the methods they use cannot be seen as legitimate. Many Palestinians honestly believe that all Israeli’s and Jews for that matter are out to screw them even more then they have already been screwed, that just isn’t the case. There is just no way that the methods justify the ends in this case, no way. I do not have a solution to the conflict in my mind; I do not think that there can be one until both peoples stop killing each other, and that can not happen until the hate stops, and so on and so on. This conflict will not end in our lifetimes.
Posted by rit on Jun. 20 2002,23:31
| Quote (wix @ 19 June 2002,22:52) |
| Why is it any less evil to kill someone as an unintented consequence? I understand the difference you're trying to make but first you have to establish a moral just for your actions before there becomes a difference. Intent isn't everything. |
I'm not trying to "morally justify" anything. Also, I didn't say that intent was everything, but it is sure as hell is something. Isn't it?
| Quote |
| Of course he did, that's specifically what we're getting at. They were rational in there thinking, we were debunking the myth that they only just hate freedom and are out to get americans at all costs. Terrorists have goals. |
Did anyone ever question if they had goals or not? Their goals are irrational. Their goals are to ELIMINATE ANY western influence in the middle east. Do you understand what that means? This isn't an entire culture rising up against oppression. It's FANATICS that kill people that disagree with them(muslim or not). It's FANATICS that blow up buses filled with children. It's FANATICS that fly airplanes into a skyscraper. It's FANATICS that will send the middle east even futher into the past. It's FANATICS that will eradicate any other forms of religion/expression/speech that they don't like. Look at what they did to all the Hindu art. That was just the begining. Would you like the Christian Coalition running every aspect of YOUR life?
| Quote |
In order for a terrorist group to attack a military target, it takes not only considerable intellegence, but serious manpower and funding. Something that terrorist groups rarely have. After several years of planning a terrorist faction was able to take out two skyscrappers, and barely scare the pentagon (there is your military target). In just a couple months, we took out a nation. Terrorists obviously don't have the resources to fight wars, that's why they subvert themselves to these tactics. They see the use of civilian targets as a means to an end, a justification because they claim the moral highground. Thus, the logic becomes that it is indescriminate killing. They walk into a bus and ignite the bomb. They don't care what the accidental damage is because they, just like us, feel the end us justified. Now logically, should the terrorists actually have the sufficient resources to attack their objectives, I don't think they would for a moment prefer civilian targets. So how is your comparision make them any more evil? |
They may claim the moral highground, but I'm standing firmly on the moral highground. My god man, do you stand for anything? Maybe we should give them more money so that they won't kill civilians on purpose.
Posted by Pravus Angelus on Jun. 27 2002,04:59
| Quote |
| you keep trying to drag this back to a moral debate, and i don't want to debate morals...i gave up on that years ago. i'm not trying to justify my point of view to anyone. |
It's not just a moral question. To justify something is also to answer the question of "why". You're advocating a position, and when we ask you to justify it, we're saying "give reasons for taking these actions or taking this position".
| Quote |
| Did anyone ever question if they had goals or not? Their goals are irrational. |
This is exactly the kind of perspective Wix and myself are arguing against. Their goals are perhaps poorly reasoned, but still rational and to a large degree the result of American foreign policy. I think you're missing the point we're making (although we've certainly gone out of our way to be clear about this). We are not suggesting that US foreign policy needs to be changed as dramatically as you seem to think we are. We're not saying ignore Israel and accept the views of the Islamic world. We're saying that the perspective put forth in the first few posts here is innaccurate and doesn't help us write new policy. When American congressmen and presidents are thinking of new foreign policy they need to be aware of the effect it might have on Arab nations, and they need to be careful about what might happen when we enact certain policy. They need to weigh the benefits of the policy against the increased risk against Americans. However, taking the perspective that these terrorists are just a bunch of freedom hating crazy psycho killer Arabs who despise people for a variety of random reasons, primarily the use of the letter 'i' does nothing to help us when we decide on new foreign policy. We're just saying people should critically analyze the causes of terrorism against America. That doesn't mean we think we need to totally reverse American foreign policy, but at least understand that it is part of the cause and take that into consideration. Sorry for the repetition, but I don't know how many times we make this point and yet somehow rit and lykosis don't seem to get it...
| Quote |
| They may claim the moral highground, but I'm standing firmly on the moral highground. My god man, do you stand for anything? Maybe we should give them more money so that they won't kill civilians on purpose. |
Okay I ususally manage to stay calm on detnet, but rit shut the fuck up. At no point did Wix make the claim we should fund their terrorist activities, and don't tell him he doesn't stand for anything (implied by your question...) because he has the good sense to want to think about diplomacy and the effects of foreign policy before rushing in to everwhere guns ablazing because god-damnit these guys are Arabs!
On attacking civilian targets. Guys, read the analysis we provided above. You can say all you want "hey, you can only attack military targets, otherwise you're an asshole!" but we advocate this only because we have a massive standing military and can do so comfortably. If we were a tiny group and needed to make an impact we would make an impact. I'm certainly not saying that targeting civilians is okay, but it is pretty damn convenient for us to consider the "moral" way to fight a war is in a way that only the US can win.
icono, on palestine. See my earlier analysis. You don't think the PLO has any right to attack civilians? Those "civilians" are for all intents and purposes invaders. Look at the way the jewish state was setup and you see nothing less than unconventional invasion. Again, they're a vastly inferior military power to Israel and the only way they stand a chance of getting anything is by making a big impression (Israel isn't going to give concessions to people who aren't harming them in any significant way). For the record, I think the US should support Israel, but I can certainly empathize with the palestinian position. And quite frankly, we'd do the same thing if the reverse situation happened.
btw, on "indescriminate killing". That's ridiculous. We intentionally attack targets that we know will cause civilian casualties. We accept these casualties as part of what's going to happen for us to achieve our goals. They're just as dead and just as innocent as anybody in the WTC.
Posted by lykosis on Jun. 27 2002,14:33
i got your point the first time. i think it's you that doesn't get mine.before you post anything else about, "because he has the good sense to want to think about diplomacy and the effects of foreign policy before rushing in to everwhere guns ablazing because god-damnit these guys are Arabs!" i think you should know...i'm an arab, and as rit tried to point out to you guys, the people doing the killing/bombing ARE NOT representing the masses in the middle east.
i wish i could take you there...noone is right in this situation...they are just fighting over power, and in the end, those poor people (the masses of people that don't blow shit up) will be no better off, cause noone has the will or desire to do anything about it. all anyone cares about is money...oh well...makes the world go around i guess.
i'm gonna quit thinking/arguing/debating/whatever about this now, cause it depresses the fuck out of me...