NationStates Jolt Archive


Owww! Maybe Western Culture IS to blame for Homicidal Terrorists...

Syniks
14-12-2005, 00:37
Basic Truth: No Cajones = Getting beaten up by Bullies looking for Cajones.

Of course, none of the sissification of the West has anything to do with our current troubles does it? :rolleyes:

Why do these rebels revel in killing civilians? I think they are exploiting a cultural obsession with death that has its origins very much in the West. Indeed, they seem to define themselves in direct opposition to what they perceive as a cowardly Coalition. The Coalition tries to avoid risky operations; the insurgents take outrageous risks. The Coalition promises to avoid taking casualties; the insurgents kill as many as they can. The Coalition suppresses images of the dead; the insurgents kill their victims for the cameras.

This insurgency is best understood, not as a band of freedom fighters or evil incarnate, but as a movement with an intuitive grasp of the West's fearful psychology. :headbang:

http://www.reason.com/hod/bo120905.shtml
Syniks
14-12-2005, 16:04
bumpage
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 16:14
Sissification the reason for terrorism? Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

If anything, your aggressive foreign policy over the past century has been a bur under the saddle of generations of people who've had to live under the oppressive regimes you've backed. Not to mention, you've ALSO pissed off the people who supported your pet dictators and assorted madmen when you finally decided they'd gone too far (Noriega, Pinochet, hmmm...Saddam?). It's not passivity that's the problem...not even close.

Now clearly, this is directed mostly at the US, but the West as a whole is not innocent in pushing their interests globally...often to the detriment of others. All this talk about being too PC and so on...go ahead and use softer words at home...it doesn't change your actions abroad.
5iam
14-12-2005, 16:19
Well, if that guy says so...
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 16:21
Well, if that guy says so...
Damn. You've made an excellent point. I retract my previous statements and concur that the sissification of the West is to blame for the violence of insurgents.:D
Cluichstan
14-12-2005, 16:25
I just think it's good to see someone else reading Reason. :cool:
Bolol
14-12-2005, 16:33
Anyone who knowingly kills innocent people in the name of religion doesn't have "cajones"...they're just scum. Hypocritical scum.
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 16:34
Anyone who knowingly kills innocent people in the name of religion doesn't have "cajones"...they're just scum. Hypocritical scum.

No, people who knowingly and intentionally kill innocent people in the name of religion are called "targets".
Bolol
14-12-2005, 16:37
No, people who knowingly and intentionally kill innocent people in the name of religion are called "targets".

Heh...

Either way...bad karma...
Eutrusca
14-12-2005, 16:38
Basic Truth: No Cajones = Getting beaten up by Bullies looking for Cajones.

Of course, none of the sissification of the West has anything to do with our current troubles does it? :rolleyes:

:headbang:

http://www.reason.com/hod/bo120905.shtml
Unadulterated bullshit!
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 16:47
Unadulterated bullshit!
Which part? You really need to be more specific.
Critz
14-12-2005, 16:51
As soon as we get complete control of our own country, we will be better prepared to rule the world.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 16:53
Radical leftists argue this is the price of war and occupation. Tariq Ali even compared the insurgents to the French resistance against the fascist Vichy regime; yet those noble resistors never filmed themselves cutting people's throats. Um...sorry...did I miss the part where people had camcorders back in those days, or easy access to film equipment in order to film the murders they committed? Because the resistance had PLENTY of blood on its hands. What...you just don't want to see it?


The war was an unmitigated disaster, but here's a scary thought: This ongoing death-obsessed debate about the war is also proving disastrous for Iraqis. Through our fevered debates about risk, fear, injury and death, we have shown the insurgents how to hit us where it hurts—by killing people. We have made injury and fatality into the currency of the conflict, and effectively given a green light to the insurgents to continue killing civilians if they want to make a big impact on the our frail and risk-averse consciousness. Our bombs killed; now our humanity kills. Uh, yeah, death bothers us...what...it shouldn't? We should create a culture of death and revel in it or risk losing? OF COURSE KILLING PEOPLE HITS YOU WHERE IT HURTS....what would it say about you if they just targeted material goods? And do you really think you can go into a situation where you could squash the resistance in a face-to-face fight, and not have them instead use guerrilla tactics on you? It's their only chance and we all know it. They can't raise up an army and hope to win...they need to snipe away at you and hope you'll be demoralised enough to pull out. Welcome to the definition of guerrilla warfare...you'd think you'd know it well after Vietnam?
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 16:55
We should create a culture of death and revel in it or risk losing?

http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm

FACT: The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 16:56
http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm
I think this only proves that you're on your way...but not quite there yet:)

The next step is having your children torture small animals. THEN you'll have a nation of people unafraid of death.
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 17:05
I think this only proves that you're on your way...but not quite there yet:)

The next step is having your children torture small animals. THEN you'll have a nation of people unafraid of death.
You're forgetting all the video games.

One of the problems I have with my youth air rifle team is that first time shooters think it's fun to point at each other, or to shoot anything that moves (I remember the potshots at the outdoor range).

It's why I insist that a parent be present as a personal coach for each shooter.

A firearm is an instrument of power. The power of life and death. And with that power comes responsibility - you must assume the mantle of responsibility, or be one of the truly bad people in the world.

You don't shoot at living things unless it's an authorized use of deadly force, or you're planning on eating it. This means that if a small bird lands on the range, if you shoot it, I will make you eat it right there. If a roach crawls across the indoor range and you shoot it, I will make you eat it.

I think that too many people think that it's the gun that makes people kill. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's your socialization or lack thereof that makes people kill wantonly.

Since guns exist and since violence exists, I feel that the only way I can make sure that a few people get the proper education is to educate them in the use of weapons AND the social responsibility that comes with it.

Otherwise, they'll watch TV and play video games - and that will teach them to shoot anything that moves or gets in their way.
Eutrusca
14-12-2005, 17:08
Which part? You really need to be more specific.

I dsagree with this: "Why do these rebels revel in killing civilians? I think they are exploiting a cultural obsession with death that has its origins very much in the West. Indeed, they seem to define themselves in direct opposition to what they perceive as a cowardly Coalition."

But not this: "Anti-war activists hope the gore will make us anti-war. And they, too, send a powerful message to the insurgents: 'Blood and guts changes minds. Give us more of it.'"

The terrorists would be killing people regardless of the attitude of the West toward anything.
Gothamique
14-12-2005, 17:10
Sissification the reason for terrorism? Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

I'll wait.

Done? K.

If anything, your aggressive foreign policy over the past century has been a bur under the saddle of generations of people who've had to live under the oppressive regimes you've backed. Not to mention, you've ALSO pissed off the people who supported your pet dictators and assorted madmen when you finally decided they'd gone too far (Noriega, Pinochet, hmmm...Saddam?). It's not passivity that's the problem...not even close.

Yeah, Syniks, you jerk. Like Sinuhue said, you're personally responsible for falling the Soviet Union's economy, cheapening their oil, winning the cold war, and keeping the South American drug cartels in check. Er. Hang on, lemme try again. I meant say that it's your fault that homicidal dictatorships and oppressive governments that killed hundreds of thousands, kept millions in fear, and stripped away basic civil and human rights to keep their iron grip have been disbanded and replaced by constitutional democracies. Wait, f*ck, hang on. What Sinuhue and I mean is, if you just ignore terrorism from religious zealots who are anti-gay rights, anti-atheist, anti-abortion, anti-alcohol, anti-marijuana, anti-Banarama, and anti-yoga and support a way of life that is pro-gay rights, pro-atheist, pro-abortion, pro-alcohol, pro-marijuana, pro-Banarama, and pro-yoga, the terrorists will just go away. After all, except for militant nationalism, imperialist communism, thirty two flavors of ethnic genocide, every border dispute ever, massive human rights violations, and economic depression on an international scale, war has never solved anything.

Now clearly, this is directed mostly at the US, but the West as a whole is not innocent in pushing their interests globally...often to the detriment of others.

How dare us filthy Americans take our safety out of the hands of French parliament and create a constitutional democracy in a country renowned for its luxurious rape rooms and free nationalist indoctrinating university programs. So what if a lot of the country didn't have fresh running water and electricity? That's why God invented Snapple and Gameboy.

All this talk about being too PC and so on...go ahead and use softer words at home...it doesn't change your actions abroad.

No. No, it does not.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 17:12
Anyone who knowingly kills innocent people in the name of religion doesn't have "cajones"...they're just scum. Hypocritical scum.
I think alot of the terrorists and insurgents who actually do the dirty work are young guys. Probably in their late teens and early twenties. Being a terrorist makes them feel as tough and brave as being in a gang does for people of similar age in the US. They're not mature enough to weigh the ethical implications of their actions, they're just trying to figure out what it means to be a real man.

Pure speculation on my part.
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 17:14
I think alot of the terrorists and insurgents who actually do the dirty work are young guys. Probably in their late teens and early twenties. Being a terrorist makes them feel as tough and brave as being in a gang does for people of similar age in the US. They're not mature enough to weigh the ethical implications of their actions, they're just trying to figure out what it means to be a real man.

Pure speculation on my part.
I've noticed that when people are young, they want to kill (I know I did). When you get older, you tend to take a more practical view to violence.
Non-violent Adults
14-12-2005, 17:19
I dsagree with this: "Why do these rebels revel in killing civilians? I think they are exploiting a cultural obsession with death that has its origins very much in the West. Indeed, they seem to define themselves in direct opposition to what they perceive as a cowardly Coalition."

But not this: "Anti-war activists hope the gore will make us anti-war. And they, too, send a powerful message to the insurgents: 'Blood and guts changes minds. Give us more of it.'"

The terrorists would be killing people regardless of the attitude of the West toward anything.Bull-fucking-shit. When France invades the US in 2014, my actions will not depend on what the people in France think about it.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 17:20
Why wouldn't our reluctance to fight back incourage attacks against civillians? It works that way with all other forms of Bullies and Criminals? But tht Main Point of the article is not so much about Justifications for attacks against the US as it is about trying to understand the tactic of self-destructive attacks against innocents and our response to it. I really don't understand what about it is Eye Rolling or (Eut) Bullshit.

And do you really think you can go into a situation where you could squash the resistance in a face-to-face fight, and not have them instead use guerrilla tactics on you? It's their only chance and we all know it. They can't raise up an army and hope to win...they need to snipe away at you and hope you'll be demoralised enough to pull out. Welcome to the definition of guerrilla warfare...you'd think you'd know it well after Vietnam?Um... in Viet Nam the VC did not fight US Civillians - though they DID terrorize their own countrymen. Theirs was a Gurerrilla War against our Troops - not against Aid Workers, Buildings full of non-combatatants, etc.

In the bit of the article you quoted, you highlighted the wrong part:

The war was an unmitigated disaster, but here's a scary thought: This ongoing death-obsessed debate about the war is also proving disastrous for Iraqis. Through our fevered debates about risk, fear, injury and death, we have shown the insurgents how to hit us where it hurts—by killing people. We have made injury and fatality into the currency of the conflict, and effectively given a green light to the insurgents to continue killing civilians if they want to make a big impact on the our frail and risk-averse consciousness. Our bombs killed; now our humanity kills.

In the past, attacks on our civillians made us angry and want to WIN - i.e. destroy/subdue the attckers, now it makes many want to tuck tail and Quit - and that's BS.

(At least when I get both Eut and Sinhue to cry BS, I figure I may be on to something... ;) )
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 17:25
Yeah, Syniks, you jerk. Like Sinuhue said, you're personally responsible for falling the Soviet Union's economy, cheapening their oil, winning the cold war, and keeping the South American drug cartels in check. 'Your' is used in the impersonal and not the impersonal here. I thought it obvious enough to not warrant a grammatical disclaimer. Sorry for the assumption.


Er. Hang on, lemme try again. I meant say that it's your fault that homicidal dictatorships and oppressive governments that killed hundreds of thousands, kept millions in fear, and stripped away basic civil and human rights to keep their iron grip have been disbanded and replaced by constitutional democracies. Um, essentially yes. When you've actually directly put dictators in power, you should be held somewhat responsible for their actions. And when you support would-be-dicators in seizing power themselves, then yes, you should be held somewhat responsible for their actions.


Wait, f*ck, hang on. What Sinuhue and I mean is, if you just ignore terrorism from religious zealots who are anti-gay rights, anti-atheist, anti-abortion, anti-alcohol, anti-marijuana, anti-Banarama, and anti-yoga and support a way of life that is pro-gay rights, pro-atheist, pro-abortion, pro-alcohol, pro-marijuana, pro-Banarama, and pro-yoga, the terrorists will just go away. Don't misrepresent my point. "Sissification" does not create terrorism. But terrorism relies on resentment...and you've (yeah, that's the impersonal, not the direct) given the world PLENTY of things to be resentful of. Note I did not say ENVIOUS of.


After all, except for militant nationalism, imperialist communism, thirty two flavors of ethnic genocide, every border dispute ever, massive human rights violations, and economic depression on an international scale, war has never solved anything. Wow...war solved all that? Amazing! Yay for war! I'm confused though...in the various wars and conflicts going on in the world right now...how many are 'solving genocide, human rights violations, and economic depression'...and how many are CAUSING these things? Yeah.



How dare us filthy Americans take our safety out of the hands of French parliament and create a constitutional democracy in a country renowned for its luxurious rape rooms and free nationalist indoctrinating university programs. So what if a lot of the country didn't have fresh running water and electricity? That's why God invented Snapple and Gameboy. No, how dare the imperalist West assume that the rest of the world is their plaything, full of resources for them to exploit...creating little 'spheres of influence' like dogs marking their territory...dividing up the 'spoils', and playing with the sovereignty of other nations by installing or toppling governments...this week we're taking OUT dictators...last week we were putting them in...
Syniks
14-12-2005, 17:27
I dsagree with this: "Why do these rebels revel in killing civilians? I think they are exploiting a cultural obsession with death that has its origins very much in the West. Indeed, they seem to define themselves in direct opposition to what they perceive as a cowardly Coalition."Eut, the "Origins" of which the author speaks is simply that the Terrorists groups have identified that the West/US (unlike Israel) no longer gets mad when Terrorists kill civillians, they get weepy and compliant. Thus, they can obsess and act on causing death to us with more effect than they can against people with more Cajones - like Israel.

The terrorists would be killing people regardless of the attitude of the West toward anything.
True, but it makes it a more effective tool here than where people aren't so squeemish.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 17:28
I think alot of the terrorists and insurgents who actually do the dirty work are young guys. Probably in their late teens and early twenties. Being a terrorist makes them feel as tough and brave as being in a gang does for people of similar age in the US. They're not mature enough to weigh the ethical implications of their actions, they're just trying to figure out what it means to be a real man.

Pure speculation on my part. Not just speculation...the ones actually doing the bulk of the killing and dying ARE young...and it's been that way long before Iraq. Think about it...teens and youths tend to be fiercely idealistic, and somewhat unafraid of death...or at least not entirely convinced of their own mortality. Who do cults recruit? Generally young people, insecure and alienated, looking for an identity and a sense of belonging. Weird...that's kind of who gangs look for...should it be so strange that terrorist groups seek out the same types?

And more and more, gang members and martys are not just male...so I don't necessarily think it's confined to one gender.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 17:30
I've noticed that when people are young, they want to kill (I know I did). When you get older, you tend to take a more practical view to violence.
When I was younger, I fought a lot, took terrible risks, wanted to be a sniper and join some revolution and die for my beliefs. Sheesh! Violence is so much easier to justify when you don't really understand what it means.
Drunk commies deleted
14-12-2005, 17:33
Not just speculation...the ones actually doing the bulk of the killing and dying ARE young...and it's been that way long before Iraq. Think about it...teens and youths tend to be fiercely idealistic, and somewhat unafraid of death...or at least not entirely convinced of their own mortality. Who do cults recruit? Generally young people, insecure and alienated, looking for an identity and a sense of belonging. Weird...that's kind of who gangs look for...should it be so strange that terrorist groups seek out the same types?

And more and more, gang members and martys are not just male...so I don't necessarily think it's confined to one gender.
Probably not confined to males exclusively, but I've got to think that it will always be a mostly-male phenomenon. Testosterone is one hell of a drug.
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 17:34
When I was younger, I fought a lot, took terrible risks, wanted to be a sniper and join some revolution and die for my beliefs. Sheesh! Violence is so much easier to justify when you don't really understand what it means.
I actually did everything except the revolution part. Now I spend most of my time trying to prevent violence by the threat of violence.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 17:41
Why wouldn't our reluctance to fight back incourage attacks against civillians? I don't think it's an issue of you having any reluctance to 'fight back'. Here's the thing. You guys jumped in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty damn fast...showing a willingness to go to war. You have committed troops, and been willing to die in order to 'fight back'. What you have NOT been willing to do is fight an all-out, no holds barred, dirty war. Not that you haven't been totally clean in your fighting. But the point is that even the most bloodthirsty among you seem to realise you can not scream "DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!". You can not go in, start torturing, bombing randomly and so on....that's not a sign of weakness. That's a sign that according to your standards (which may not be as nearly as high as some would wish, but anyway) you will fight your war a certain way...and that doesn't officially include killing civilians and committing other assorted atrocities. How else can you do it?



Um... in Viet Nam the VC did not fight US Civillians - though they DID terrorize their own countrymen. Theirs was a Gurerrilla War against our Troops - not against Aid Workers, Buildings full of non-combatatants, etc. But they sniped at you, dogged your heels, and generally made life miserable for you...which was much more effective than meeting you head on. And guerrilla warfare is not confined to Vietnam. Guerrillas often target civilians they think support the opposition, just as the opposition often target the same civilians because they think they support the guerrillas. In guerrilla warfare, civilians get caught in the middle. I'm simply amazed that anyone is surprised...it's not like you didn't have experience with this in Latin America during the grande old days of dictatorships.

In the bit of the article you quoted, you highlighted the wrong part:


In the past, attacks on our civillians made us angry and want to WIN - i.e. destroy/subdue the attckers, now it makes many want to tuck tail and Quit - and that's BS.How do you win? What exactly would winning entail, and how would you do it? I call bullshit because I do not for a second think you don't want to WIN. I think rather that it is not a fear of continuing, but a lack of belief that you can win a war this way. What are you going to do, really? Commit to staying there forever? Uncertainty as to how to 'win the war on terror' is not some sort of signal that you're a bunch of sissies. (just that you're in over your heads)
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 17:43
Probably not confined to males exclusively, but I've got to think that it will always be a mostly-male phenomenon. Testosterone is one hell of a drug.
Hehehe...I think the women go into it for many of the same reasons as the men...but not as a way of becoming a real woman...in fact, they kind of have to give that up entirely and be willing to martyr themselves for the cause. Which in my mind makes them MORE dangerous...but would explain why not as many women are doing it as men.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 18:04
I don't think it's an issue of you having any reluctance to 'fight back'. Here's the thing. You guys jumped in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty damn fast...showing a willingness to go to war. You have committed troops, and been willing to die in order to 'fight back'. What you have NOT been willing to do is fight an all-out, no holds barred, dirty war. Agreed. And that is largely the point of the article. When that willingness faded, Terrorisim became far more potent. Admittedly, because the Terrorists are NGOs, it's harder, but you can't win if you are too squeemish to fight and willing to capitulate.
But they sniped at you, dogged your heels, and generally made life miserable for you...which was much more effective than meeting you head on. Yep, and it's still not the same as civillian-targeted terrorisim. Hell, "Shooting from the trees" is somthing we perfected against the British... but we didn't go bomb London... we left that to Guy Fawlkes.
And guerrilla warfare is not confined to Vietnam. Guerrillas often target civilians they think support the opposition, just as the opposition often target the same civilians because they think they support the guerrillas. In guerrilla warfare, civilians get caught in the middle. I'm simply amazed that anyone is surprised...it's not like you didn't have experience with this in Latin America during the grande old days of dictatorships. I wasn't surprised by 9/11 - just annoyed that we didn't permenantly dispose of the right people FIRST - before even thinking about Iraq.
How do you win? What exactly would winning entail, and how would you do it? I call bullshit because I do not for a second think you don't want to WIN. I think rather that it is not a fear of continuing, but a lack of belief that you can win a war this way. What are you going to do, really? Commit to staying there forever? Uncertainty as to how to 'win the war on terror' is not some sort of signal that you're a bunch of sissies. (just that you're in over your heads) And yet, that is not what the article was about.

To "Win", two things have to apply: (1) Make terrorist attacks less effective - this means not letting the Thugs Glory in the Media Spotlight - until there is no more benefit in using the tactic. and (2) Be prepared to strike at identified terrorist targets immediately and dramatically - either as Governments or as Individuals - further lessening the benefit of the tactic.

The thing is, terrorisim is not going to go away - but we can modify our response to it to make it less effective - and here I think Israel has the right idea.
Gothamique
14-12-2005, 18:12
'Your' is used in the impersonal and not the impersonal here. I thought it obvious enough to not warrant a grammatical disclaimer. Sorry for the assumption.

Oh, I didn't realize that you were using the impersonal instead of the impersonal. How silly of me. Now so you don't sound pompous, how about you say "American foreign policy" instead of "your" since the english language doesn't work the way you are trying to twist it? And by "you," I mean you, in the personal form, i.e, the only form the word "you" is used.

Um, essentially yes. When you've actually directly put dictators in power, you should be held somewhat responsible for their actions. And when you support would-be-dicators in seizing power themselves, then yes, you should be held somewhat responsible for their actions.

And the safe alternative to supporting these guys would be what? Show me the George Washington of Afghanistan, I'll show you the spot where the Russians gassed him into a bug eyed, grey skinned puddle of corpse. How fun it must be to critique without the weight of thought pressing down. And of course, now that it's too late to change what happened in history, once these psychos are in power, there's sure as Hell no point in taking them out, right? Lets just all sit back, be pissed off over things we can't possibly control in the slightest, voice how pissed are we as loud as we can to stall any progress towards a better future, and point fingers from the safety and anonymity of the internet or a massive group of protestors.

Don't misrepresent my point. "Sissification" does not create terrorism.

Terror - intense, overwhelming fear.
Sissy - a person regarded as cowardly

Really? There's no correlation there? WELL, now that I know that being afraid of terrorism isn't the goal of terrorists, I ca- wait a minute...

But terrorism relies on resentment...and you've (yeah, that's the impersonal, not the direct) given the world PLENTY of things to be resentful of.

Like creating a protected Taiwanese state, creating a constitutional democracy in Japan, establishing a free South Korea, creating the Jewish state of Israel, conducting the fall of fascist Italy, being key in the protection of the United Kingdom (twice), helping to fall Nazi Germany, encouraging the reunification of Germany, the liberation of France (twice), the containment of communism in southeast Asia, billions upon billions in foreign aide, relief of major African nation debts, starting migrant worker programs and granting them basic civil rights and protections even if they're here illegally, taking down the Taliban, relentlessly striking in Kosovo to fall a genocidal dictator, instrumenting the fall of the Soviet Union, thus freeing the oppressed and poor former satellite states and releasing them into free capitalism?

Cuz I thought those were all good things.

Note I did not say ENVIOUS of.

Then why the crap are "we" getting so many immigrants? Do they know that "we" are assholes? Because if not, someone should get on a mic to all those boat people coming from The 'Nam and tell them to start paddling back.

Wow...war solved all that? Amazing! Yay for war! I'm confused though...in the various wars and conflicts going on in the world right now...how many are 'solving genocide, human rights violations, and economic depression'...and how many are CAUSING these things? Yeah.

This statement is kind of stupid considering that Iraq is holding their first democratic presidential election with more than one option on the ballot. Tomorrow. Twenty four hours. To-mor-row. You watch the news, right? It's happening to-mor-row. Oh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Saddam Hussein is in the middle of a war crimes trial wherein he and his buddies are on the fast track to execution for killing a couple'a hundred thousand people.

Not to mention what a huge success Afghanistan was. Women voting in the country where they used to get gang raped and honor killed for stumbling in public, thus accidentally showing an ankle? What's your grudge against that, exactly?

No, how dare the imperalist West assume that the rest of the world is their plaything, full of resources for them to exploit...creating little 'spheres of influence' like dogs marking their territory...dividing up the 'spoils', and playing with the sovereignty of other nations by installing or toppling governments...this week we're taking OUT dictators...last week we were putting them in...

The Imperialist West! Yes. "We" are having trouble finding space for two more stars for Afghanistan and Iraq on the flag. It's a good thing that "we" have Halliburton collecting all that delicious blood and oil for "us" while "we" figure out this conundrum. It's a good thing, too, since now America is the only nation in the world that can claim a tank of gas on a 1992 Ford Escort costs the low, low price of sixty dollars for two hundred miles of travel. It only costs "me" $150 whenever I want to go home for the holidays, so who can knock that?

Pardon me while I roll my eyes.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I'm not done yet. Hang on.

...

...

...

...

Almost.

...

Okay.

"This week we're taking out dictators." Kinda making my point for me, thanks. But if "you" support folks like Saddam Hussein, by all means, blurt it out and look crazy.
Marrakech II
14-12-2005, 18:18
Sissification the reason for terrorism? Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

If anything, your aggressive foreign policy over the past century has been a bur under the saddle of generations of people who've had to live under the oppressive regimes you've backed. Not to mention, you've ALSO pissed off the people who supported your pet dictators and assorted madmen when you finally decided they'd gone too far (Noriega, Pinochet, hmmm...Saddam?). It's not passivity that's the problem...not even close.

Now clearly, this is directed mostly at the US, but the West as a whole is not innocent in pushing their interests globally...often to the detriment of others. All this talk about being too PC and so on...go ahead and use softer words at home...it doesn't change your actions abroad.

Do you ever try and correct your mistakes? I wonder if it is any different on the world stage. What is wrong with correcting policy mistakes of previous administrations? I think the US has turned a foreign policy curve in the road. Now understanding how some actions can negatively effect one in the future. Now I want to also suggest that most of the actions taken were under a non-declared war with the Soviet Union and communism. A dictator is far easier to handle than a nation turned to communism. So I can understand what some of the thinking was in the past. However wrong or right it was.
Anarchic Christians
14-12-2005, 18:27
the containment of communism in southeast Asia

Out of all your claims this is the one that I'll handle.

I have friends who lost their families to your 'containment'. But that's OK because their godless commies right? Look at what your 'containment' mean to the people there. This isn't just a matter of your pissant ideaology 'winning' this is peoples lives and you can dismiss it in one sentence.

Wake up and smell the death. You fuck around trying to make the world into your 'democratic' 'capitalist' ideal. You don't care about the dead in the concentration camps or raped and murdered simply because a member of their family disapproved of the local dictator.

Every power in the world has done it and fanatics on both sides trumpet on about how they are right, how society must conform to their ideal because they are right.

And yet, I could walk into any civilian bar in the world and talk to people I've never met before, who Tony blair says should be my mortal enemy and we'd chat, we'd get pissed and we'd be friends. Your average person across the globe wants to be left in peace to pursue a little happiness and a decent living.

And they are the squares on which the pawns stand when the powers want more.

I'm sick of petty politics, sick of left vs right, sick of people who can't just settle down, shake hands and fucking well compromise.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 18:37
Oh, I didn't realize that you were using the impersonal instead of the impersonal. How silly of me. Now so you don't sound pompous, how about you say "American foreign policy" instead of "your" since the english language doesn't work the way you are trying to twist it? And by "you," I mean you, in the personal form, i.e, the only form the word "you" is used.Yeah, it makes MUCH more sense that I would hold Syniks personally responsible. I'm sorry you don't get the difference between the personal and the impersonal...I know they don't teach grammar much in schools anymore. Syniks seems to have got it though.



And the safe alternative to supporting these guys would be what? Show me the George Washington of Afghanistan, I'll show you the spot where the Russians gassed him into a bug eyed, grey skinned puddle of corpse. How about you show me how Salvador Allende would've possibly been worse than Pinochet. Or how putting Noriega into power was a good idea. Or how you can one day support a fantatic like Bin Laden, and then act suprised when he decides to turn on you. Or maybe you could explain how economic stability was so much more important throughout Latin America than the human rights you now say you support. Mmmm...dictators are yummy and keep business going...


Terror - intense, overwhelming fear.
Sissy - a person regarded as cowardly

Really? There's no correlation there? WELL, now that I know that being afraid of terrorism isn't the goal of terrorists, I ca- wait a minute... Sorry, you misread again. Try harder.

Sissification does not create terror.

Kind of like, oh, guns don't create murder.



Like creating a protected Taiwanese state, creating a constitutional democracy in Japan, establishing a free South Korea, creating the Jewish state of Israel, conducting the fall of fascist Italy, being key in the protection of the United Kingdom (twice), helping to fall Nazi Germany, encouraging the reunification of Germany, the liberation of France (twice), the containment of communism in southeast Asia, billions upon billions in foreign aide, relief of major African nation debts, starting migrant worker programs and granting them basic civil rights and protections even if they're here illegally, taking down the Taliban, relentlessly striking in Kosovo to fall a genocidal dictator, instrumenting the fall of the Soviet Union, thus freeing the oppressed and poor former satellite states and releasing them into free capitalism?

Cuz I thought those were all good things. And apparently you think they outweigh all the nasty shit you've done too. I guess that's a personal opinion...you see, if I were Chilean, I'd care less about Taiwan, and more about the role the CIA had in getting Pinochet into power, who then sent thugs out to torture and murder my uncle. My point is that you've created resentment...and resentment is going to be more powerful than gratitude...kind of like how you remember bad things more than the good? People are not weighing all your moves and then deciding if you are mostly good or mostly bad...they are looking at how US foreign policy has directly affected them. If it's good...they're happy, but they aren't going to die for you. If it's bad...they hate you, and want to see you fall. Unfortunately, this group also is more likely to include people who ARE willing to die...in trying to harm you.



Then why the crap are "we" getting so many immigrants? Do they know that "we" are assholes? Because if not, someone should get on a mic to all those boat people coming from The 'Nam and tell them to start paddling back. Not even close to addressing my point. Terrorists are not killing people and trying to attack you because they envy you. They don't say, "Man, I wish I had a McDonald's around here...but because I don't, and the US does, I shall blow myself up in protest". They aren't saying, "Man, I got turned down by US immigration, and since I can't go be an American, I'm going to blow myself up in protest". See the difference?


This statement is kind of stupid considering that *snip of post that has nothing to do with my point* Are you actually reading my posts? Because you don't seem to be talking about the same things as I. You said war solved all sorts of problems, as though it were some sort of cure for the ills of the world. I say that war can not cure the world...because you are focusing on the wars that have 'done good' does not mean that the ills caused by war are erased.


Not to mention what a huge success Afghanistan was. Women voting in the country where they used to get gang raped and honor killed for stumbling in public, thus accidentally showing an ankle? What's your grudge against that, exactly? Rawa (http://www.rawa.org/) would vehemently disagree that Afghanistan is such a success. Women are more at risk now than they were under the Taliban, and the country has broken back up into semi-feudal areas controlled by the warlords that held power previous to the Taliban. Not to mention that the Taliban were supported by the US in the first place. Afghanistan is a mess. It was a mess. It shall be a mess...war has not 'solved' anything.



The Imperialist West! Yes. "We" are having trouble finding space for two more stars for Afghanistan and Iraq on the flag. It's a good thing that "we" have Halliburton collecting all that delicious blood and oil for "us" while "we" figure out this conundrum. It's a good thing, too, since now America is the only nation in the world that can claim a tank of gas on a 1992 Ford Escort costs the low, low price of sixty dollars for two hundred miles of travel. It only costs "me" $150 whenever I want to go home for the holidays, so who can knock that? Economic imperalism is much safer, and more effective than occupation. The West is represents a mere fraction of the total population of the world, yet it consumes the vast majority of resources...resources from other nations.

"This week we're taking out dictators." Kinda making my point for me, thanks. But if "you" support folks like Saddam Hussein, by all means, blurt it out and look crazy.
Sorry, I never did. But your country did at one point. How crazy does that make you? What...you changed your mind and that makes things all better? How nice. I think I'll support a madman for a while, then recant...hmm....who should it be?
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 18:45
Do you ever try and correct your mistakes? I wonder if it is any different on the world stage. What is wrong with correcting policy mistakes of previous administrations? I think the US has turned a foreign policy curve in the road. Now understanding how some actions can negatively effect one in the future. Now I want to also suggest that most of the actions taken were under a non-declared war with the Soviet Union and communism. A dictator is far easier to handle than a nation turned to communism. So I can understand what some of the thinking was in the past. However wrong or right it was.
I have no problem with correcting mistakes. What I have a problem with is people who pretend that the mistakes were NOT mistakes. It makes no sense. Either certain policies were wrong, and mistakes, and corrections need to be made, or those policies were right, and nothing further needs to be done.

I can understand the thinking that caused people to believe that they could own other humans as chattel. But I don't try to say that their actions were 'right' because of the cultural context of the time.

What I'm on about is not "the US is so evil and I hate it and wish terrorists could beat you" but rather, "admit to your mistakes, accept that you made them, understand the consequences of your actions (right or wrong) and learn from your past". I think that your foreign policy has improved somewhat, in reaction to past mistakes...this is good...but some people within your government and general population don't actually think those things were mistakes, and would love to repeat them. You should not be ignoring the impact that certain policies have had on people's perceptions of you. Whether you or I agree or disagree with those perceptions is less important than understanding why they exist.

But terrorism does not exist in an isolated culture of hate. Fuel to the fires of fanaticism have been certain Western policies throughout the past century. I'm not saying that justifies terrorism. Nothing does. But generations of people have been raised on bitter mother's milk and anti-Western sentiments...again...sentiments that exist not in a vacuum, but as a result of direct experience with certain policies. It's hard to be balanced when a certain policy had the direct consequence of robbing you of family members.
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 18:47
And Syniks...I don't know what you're getting at here...that you think the US, in playing to 'win' needs to use dirtier tactics? That you're being too nice? Then you need to think about what you actually want. What would 'winning the war on terrorism' mean?
Ashmoria
14-12-2005, 19:40
i think the "reason" author is too involved in the notion that everything is the fault of the united states.

sure we have a huge effect on the politics of the middle east but we are not the whole story.

to think that we are the end-all and be-all of middle east psychology is to make this as complicated as the loops that had to be drawn to explain an earth centered universe.

there are more factors in the insurgency than just "us". there is the bringing in of "outside agitators". there is positioning themselves for the "endgame" that comes after the coaltion forces move out, there is the need to cow the local population and make them less likely to participate in the new government. there is the using of young men as bombs similar to our use of cruise missiles (expensive but necessary) there is making your group look more powerful/daring than the next group. there is the need to attract even more young male fighters. there is the shiite/sunni infighting. there is inter-tribal fighting. there are different clerics looking to become the next leader of the islamic fundamentalist iraq to come.

it goes on and on.
Eutrusca
14-12-2005, 19:43
Bull-fucking-shit. When France invades the US in 2014, my actions will not depend on what the people in France think about it.
You're going to have to break this down for me. I don't understand what you're driving at. :(
Khodros
14-12-2005, 19:56
And Syniks...I don't know what you're getting at here...that you think the US, in playing to 'win' needs to use dirtier tactics? That you're being too nice? Then you need to think about what you actually want. What would 'winning the war on terrorism' mean?

I don't think there's any way to permanently defeat Terrorism. We here in the US just like to declare war on all-encompassing phenomena, like with the War on Drugs, War on Crime, War on Poverty, etc. Last time I checked we hadn't won any of those either.
Gothamique
14-12-2005, 19:59
Yeah, it makes MUCH more sense that I would hold Syniks personally responsible. I'm sorry you don't get the difference between the personal and the impersonal...I know they don't teach grammar much in schools anymore. Syniks seems to have got it though.

Oh, I learned grammar in school. But see, I learned how to spot a pompous ass using a psychological device and pretending that it's used in the real world's English on an internet forum on my own. You're RPing your country too much or something, I don't know what your deal is. I don't care, either, I just felt like noting that you argue like a pompous ass. Snap back to reality whenever you're ready, professor. Seriously, I'll be here. Laughing at you.

How about you show me how Salvador Allende would've possibly been worse than Pinochet. Or how putting Noriega into power was a good idea.

I was watching Geordi LaForge on Reading Rainbow and arguing with my dad over the number of nanananana's in the Batman theme song while that was happening, so I don't give a damn. I moved the next block of text from later in your post to address your bullshit all at once.

And apparently you think they outweigh all the nasty shit you've done too. I guess that's a personal opinion...you see, if I were Chilean, I'd care less about Taiwan, and more about the role the CIA had in getting Pinochet into power, who then sent thugs out to torture and murder my uncle. My point is that you've created resentment...and resentment is going to be more powerful than gratitude...kind of like how you remember bad things more than the good? People are not weighing all your moves and then deciding if you are mostly good or mostly bad...they are looking at how US foreign policy has directly affected them. If it's good...they're happy, but they aren't going to die for you. If it's bad...they hate you, and want to see you fall. Unfortunately, this group also is more likely to include people who ARE willing to die...in trying to harm you.

But maybe you could answer exactly how many Latin American terrorists are crashing 747's into American landmarks these days? Maybe I can do it myself, hold on...

Carry the one...

Oh, right. ZERO. It seems like the kid who's uncle got tortured by Pinochet is more pissed at Pinochet. Imagine that. It seems that's also the reason I have no interest in who Pinochet is with regards to this topic.

Okay, now let me tally up how many Japanese terror related incidents there have been since fatman and little boy. Give me a minute... Holy crap, also ZERO! Hey, there's no Taiwanese terrorists either... And the only modern Russian terrorists are extremist muslims who want to live in a dictatorial theocratic Shariah... There's no South Korean terrorists, there's been no German or Italian terrorist culture in America since the anarchists in the twenties... Wow. It almost seems like whenever a constitutional democracy forms under America's guiding hand, the country suddenly stops killing, attacking and jailing innocent civilians. It's almost like a pattern...

It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!

Heh. Ya just could not stop moving your fingers because of all the liberal rage? Do me a favor and stay away from gamma radiation for a while, wouldja?

Or how you can one day support a fantatic like Bin Laden, and then act suprised when he decides to turn on you.

So you (that's *you* the personal you) support Soviet Russia when they gassed and killed thousands in Afghanistan in an attempt to control the region, its culture and its resources, a success that would have prolonged the Cold War and give Russia a significant advantage over the United States. Fascinating.

Or maybe you could explain how economic stability was so much more important throughout Latin America than the human rights you now say you support. Mmmm...dictators are yummy and keep business going...

Isn't this thread about terrorism? I'm sure your having an insane amount of fun bashing American foreign policy from twenty and forty years ago, but if I could kill your buzz for a second and ask what the fuck does Abu Musam Al-Zarqawi care about a bunch of mudvilles whose currency is mainly comprised of chicken eggs on the other side of the world? What the fuck does he even care about Iraq? He's from Jordan.

Sorry, you misread again. Try harder.

Sissification does not create terror.

Kind of like, oh, guns don't create murder.[/quote]

Paralyzing terror, or sissification, seems to not only be the goal of terrorism, it also does a great job at encouraging it. If it didn't work so damn well, why would they continue to use terrorist tactics? Sigh. I've got to say, for a bunch of cave dwelling inbreds that send ten year olds strapped with plastique to hug the brother of somebody you might know and splatter them across Al-Jazeera, they sure do have a great PR guy. They may be going to Hell, but at least they have your sympathy. Now did I use that "your" in the personal or impersonal form?

Not even close to addressing my point.

That's a fun way of dodging what I posted. You are on the run and a coward if you don't directly reply to every original point I make that is significant to this thread. I'd understand you ignoring what I'd taken time out of my busy and glamorous life to write in response to your moronisms if I was repeating myself, but this? Come on. You can do better than that.

Try harder.

Terrorists are not killing people and trying to attack you because they envy you. They don't say, "Man, I wish I had a McDonald's around here...but because I don't, and the US does, I shall blow myself up in protest". They aren't saying, "Man, I got turned down by US immigration, and since I can't go be an American, I'm going to blow myself up in protest". See the difference?

You were saying that America is a derelict shithole that has done terrible, horrible, irredeemable things to the world, and I brought up the point that if that was true, people wouldn't be risking life and limb, traveling across oceans and deserts, to get in. Admit it, America is the greatest economy on planet Earth, and our government, and civil and human rights record ain't bad either. America has done way more good than harm to the world, and if people are bitter about that, they can suck an egg as long as they aren't killing American civilians. They do that, their cultures tend to get aggressively redecorated.

Are you actually reading my posts? Because you don't seem to be talking about the same things as I. You said war solved all sorts of problems, as though it were some sort of cure for the ills of the world. I say that war can not cure the world...because you are focusing on the wars that have 'done good' does not mean that the ills caused by war are erased.

Your solution is what? Kumbaya circles and hands across America? Yeah, that worked fantastically with Vietnam, didn't it?

Rawa (http://www.rawa.org/) would vehemently disagree that Afghanistan is such a success. Women are more at risk now than they were under the Taliban, and the country has broken back up into semi-feudal areas controlled by the warlords that held power previous to the Taliban. Not to mention that the Taliban were supported by the US in the first place. Afghanistan is a mess. It was a mess. It shall be a mess...war has not 'solved' anything.[/quote]

Oh... My... God... He linked... to an opinion site... on the internet... Arguments shattered by... suspiciously well orchestrated opinion peace... Hard to find... objective non-opinion based sources... to counter...

Oh, wait, no it's not.

http://www.mod.uk/linked_files/publications/foi/rr/afghanpoll1.pdf

"The vast majority (92%) of people are satisfied with life compared to five years ago."

Ninety two percent of Afghanis are satisfied living in a mess according to Sinuhue. Fantastic. How morbid it must be to exist as a liberal. Seeing life as shit everywhere you look, praying for failure that it might validate your opinions. Mmm.

Economic imperalism is much safer, and more effective than occupation. The West is represents a mere fraction of the total population of the world, yet it consumes the vast majority of resources...resources from other nations.

And? All that proves is that our system works. Extremely well.

Sorry, I never did. But your country did at one point. How crazy does that make you? What...you changed your mind and that makes things all better? How nice. I think I'll support a madman for a while, then recant...hmm....who should it be?

Where's the Cold War part of that conjecture that makes that sound sane? Oh, I see. You left it out to make me look dumb. That's pretty clever, I gotta hand it to you. Now let's review we have learned in this thread about you:

1. You support the Soviet Union, despite all of the terrible things it did to its neighbors. You support imperialism.
2. You don't support America, and discredit all of the good things that it has done. You're anti-American.
3. You don't support the war in Afghanistan, and therefore would prefer that country be left to the Taliban and that the United States did not retaliate for the events of 9/11. You support inaction.
4. You don't support the war in Iraq, and therefore would prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power. You support dictators.
5. But you don't support Saddam Hussein, and would prefer that the Soviet Union controlled most of the world's oil venues. You support communism.

That would make you an imperialistic, anti-American ineffective communist pacifist. Golly, here's one to take home to Mom.
Eutrusca
14-12-2005, 20:04
Eut, the "Origins" of which the author speaks is simply that the Terrorists groups have identified that the West/US (unlike Israel) no longer gets mad when Terrorists kill civillians, they get weepy and compliant. Thus, they can obsess and act on causing death to us with more effect than they can against people with more Cajones - like Israel.

True, but it makes it a more effective tool here than where people aren't so squeemish.
The use of death as a tool does horrify many people, but I suspect the author ... and the terrorists ... may be underestimating the strength and resiliency of the American people. A handful of hysterical leftists does not a squeamish nation make ... unless the rest of us allow it.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 20:05
And Syniks...I don't know what you're getting at here...that you think the US, in playing to 'win' needs to use dirtier tactics? That you're being too nice? Then you need to think about what you actually want. What would 'winning the war on terrorism' mean?

What I'm getting at is that Terrorisim is a Media Game. Cut their exposure and you cut their effectiveness. But we are both too morbid and too squeemish to not want the "Free Press" to stop being an active participant in the success of Terrorisim. We love to gawk and be horrified - unfortunately in the sissified west that leads to calls for capitulation rather than outrage.
Sissification does not create terror.

Kind of like, oh, guns don't create murder.Um, Sissification creates the condition for making terror more effective - kind of like, oh, disarming Stalking Victims.
Syniks
14-12-2005, 20:08
The use of death as a tool does horrify many people, but I suspect the author ... and the terrorists ... may be underestimating the strength and resiliency of the American people. A handful of hysterical leftists does not a squeamish nation make ... unless the rest of us allow it.
One can hope, but a handful of hysterical leftists get an awful lot of sissified rules made... as I'm sure you remember from Christmas 1968. :(
Kecibukia
14-12-2005, 20:12
One can hope, but a handful of hysterical leftists get an awful lot of sissified rules made... as I'm sure you remember from Christmas 1968. :(

I'm sure you're read DuToit's "****ification of the American Male".

Truly a classic read.
Deep Kimchi
14-12-2005, 20:15
I'm sure you're read DuToit's "****ification of the American Male".

Truly a classic read.
Yes it is.
Gothamique
14-12-2005, 20:30
Out of all your claims this is the one that I'll handle.

I have friends who lost their families to your 'containment'. But that's OK because their godless commies right? Look at what your 'containment' mean to the people there. This isn't just a matter of your pissant ideaology 'winning' this is peoples lives and you can dismiss it in one sentence.

I know people who smuggled themselves across the ocean clinging to the side of a lifeboat to escape communism. Why would anyone in their right mind do that, and risk their family's lives at the same time?

Communism killed 100,000,000 people. That's not a bullshit number. That is one hundred million people. One zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero. Rant and rave all about socialized health care, communism killed one hundred million people. Feel free to praise the Soviet Union's nationally required recognition that God didn't exist and the state was more important, communism killed one hundred million people. America didn't go in to Vietnam to contain anything, it went to Vietnam to keep communism out, not in, after the French fucked themselves over. You want to blame anybody for pulling out and writing the death sentence of those who were executed by Pol Pot and all the other other little assholes in the area, you blame the press and public perception, and blame the legislatures that limited how soldiers could fight the war.

Wake up and smell the death. You fuck around trying to make the world into your 'democratic' 'capitalist' ideal.

I don't know what countries exemplify your "dictatorial" "communist" ideal, but if you could go ahead and do a role call, that'd be fun to watch.

You don't care about the dead in the concentration camps or raped and murdered simply because a member of their family disapproved of the local dictator.

If I don't care, then why the fuck am I supporting wars to save them? I'd prefer peace, but I'd also prefer a peace wherein I'm not turning the news on to see that Iran wants to blow Israel off the map, and whoopee, the Russians are helping with their nuclear ambitions. Fantastico.

Those who don't move to stop evil are complicit to it. The people dying in those concentration camps would have been executed anyway. That's the way psychotic dictators roll. Whether you want a strong government to stop them or not is personal opinion and therefore does not matter at all unless you vote. I for one am not going to be put in a position to be fucked around with, and I expect my government to have the good sense not to allow me to be put into that position. That's how I vote, and I vote not to be put into a position to be fucked around with by a psychotic dictator because I live in a 'capitalist' 'democracy'.

Every power in the world has done it and fanatics on both sides trumpet on about how they are right, how society must conform to their ideal because they are right.

And yet, I could walk into any civilian bar in the world and talk to people I've never met before, who Tony blair says should be my mortal enemy and we'd chat, we'd get pissed and we'd be friends. Your average person across the globe wants to be left in peace to pursue a little happiness and a decent living.

And they are the squares on which the pawns stand when the powers want more.

Stew in your own angst much?

I'm sick of petty politics, sick of left vs right, sick of people who can't just settle down, shake hands and fucking well compromise.

Compromise with who? Hitler? Hussein? Bin Laden? See, ah, a bunch people tried that. It seemed like it was going well at the time, but then...
Urakumin
14-12-2005, 20:31
establishing a free South Korea.

Bull. SK wasn't a free state until the 1990's. Syngman Rhee was a corrupt autocrat that the US funded heavily because he was anti-communist, and after he was deposed in 1960 (through popular rebellion, see 4/19 Incident), SK was under military dictatorships from 1961-1988 (see Park Chung Hee and Chun Doo Hwan regimes). The KCIA kidnapped, tortured and executed thousands of Korean citizens who were against the military autocracies complete denial of their political and civil rights. They even kidnapped Koreans living abroad who were critical of the government. Only strong international condemnation saved Kim Dae Jung, a dissident political leader who became president in 1998, from being executed by the Chun government in the 1980s.
Keve
14-12-2005, 20:34
That would make you an imperialistic, anti-American ineffective communist pacifist. Golly, here's one to take home to Mom.


pwned.
Anarchic Christians
14-12-2005, 20:47
pwned.

Yeah fucking right. Try adding to a debate eh?

I'm saying that all sides are a bunch of egomanaical wankers. Capitalist, Communist, libertarian, totalitarian, all of them. Millions have died for Communism, millions have died for Capitalism. We'll never know exact numbers but they are dead all the same and neither side was better than the other. What does make us better than Hitler in the end. We still kill people for thei beliefs, we just do it by proxy instead. maybe I am stewing in my own angst, hell I probably am but everywhere I look I see people driving on to hate each other. The so-called 'left' hates the 'right', the so-called 'right' hates the 'left' and as such they hate everything the other might stand beside.

Why does Bin laden have power? because people let him have it. because he hijacked people's dreams and used them for his ends. And the US helped him, fter all, he was against the Soviets too so he must be a good guy right?

Suharto, a good capitalist eh? just because he kills people on the merest suspicion of being left-wing soesn't mean we can't sell him arms does it? he's on our side and we're right, God's on our side.
Anarchic Christians
14-12-2005, 21:08
I know people who smuggled themselves across the ocean clinging to the side of a lifeboat to escape communism. Why would anyone in their right mind do that, and risk their family's lives at the same time?

Me probably. If Britain was taken over by a psychotic extremist tomorrow you can bet your boots I'd be organising the first raft over the channel into France and getting as many friends and family as I could out with me. Communism isn't the only ideaology with followers who'd kill you for opposing them you know, capitalists have done this shit too, Pinochet? Suharto? the House of Saud?

Communism killed 100,000,000 people. That's not a bullshit number. That is one hundred million people. One zero zero zero zero zero zero zero zero. Rant and rave all about socialized health care, communism killed one hundred million people. Feel free to praise the Soviet Union's nationally required recognition that God didn't exist and the state was more important, communism killed one hundred million people. America didn't go in to Vietnam to contain anything, it went to Vietnam to keep communism out, not in, after the French fucked themselves over. You want to blame anybody for pulling out and writing the death sentence of those who were executed by Pol Pot and all the other other little assholes in the area, you blame the press and public perception, and blame the legislatures that limited how soldiers could fight the war.

I'm a fucking Christian. Don't even try identifying me with Stalin. The Soviet Union was a hellhole, no two ways about it. But then so was Afghanistan uner the Taliban and we weren't too fussed as long as they were on 'our side'.


I don't know what countries exemplify your "dictatorial" "communist" ideal, but if you could go ahead and do a role call, that'd be fun to watch.

See, I'm not actually terribly communist. no country comes up to snuff on my 'roll-call' though. And none will for as long as politicians exist. Politicians but for a rare few have an idealogical agenda. Communism or Capitalism or something else, they all seek to acheive that when what they are needed for is to ensure the smooth running of the nation. It doesn't matter if the nation is run on capitalistic or communistic lines as long as people are left to their own selves to live life decently.


If I don't care, then why the fuck am I supporting wars to save them? I'd prefer peace, but I'd also prefer a peace wherein I'm not turning the news on to see that Iran wants to blow Israel off the map, and whoopee, the Russians are helping with their nuclear ambitions. Fantastico.

Wars to save them from the people we installed. So whats to say the next lot aren't going to be as bad? There's a lot of ill-will caused by the last bout of meddling during the Cold War which helped turn a lot of people from merely wishing the US would leave them alone to outright hatred of all things Western. Iran for example, ever since the Shah was overthrown have been liberalising but the US sticks it's oar in (Bush pretty much denied the Iranians had anything even approachng a democracy, great way to encourage them eh?) and BANG we get a hardliner as president.

Those who don't move to stop evil are complicit to it. The people dying in those concentration camps would have been executed anyway. That's the way psychotic dictators roll. Whether you want a strong government to stop them or not is personal opinion and therefore does not matter at all unless you vote. I for one am not going to be put in a position to be fucked around with, and I expect my government to have the good sense not to allow me to be put into that position. That's how I vote, and I vote not to be put into a position to be fucked around with by a psychotic dictator because I live in a 'capitalist' 'democracy'.

So in other words I'm right. Regimes as evil as any Soviet-backed one were put in place and you did not stop it. Hell it was encouraged, over the head of the local democracy if need be! What is the use of democracy if the right to use it is overruled?

Compromise with who? Hitler? Hussein? Bin Laden? See, ah, a bunch people tried that. It seemed like it was going well at the time, but then...

[b]Bin Laden has power because ordinary people will listen to him and think 'this guy makes good sense'. Until you end that, he and his ilk retain power. Compromising with Bin laden means nothing unless he compromises with you as well. talk to the moderate clerics of the area, have them step in and preach for peace through Al-Jazeera and through the madrassas rather than let their voice be stifled by the rush on both sides to battle stations.

Bold
Genaia3
14-12-2005, 21:24
Sissification the reason for terrorism? Excuse me while I roll my eyes.

If anything, your aggressive foreign policy over the past century has been a bur under the saddle of generations of people who've had to live under the oppressive regimes you've backed. Not to mention, you've ALSO pissed off the people who supported your pet dictators and assorted madmen when you finally decided they'd gone too far (Noriega, Pinochet, hmmm...Saddam?). It's not passivity that's the problem...not even close.

Now clearly, this is directed mostly at the US, but the West as a whole is not innocent in pushing their interests globally...often to the detriment of others. All this talk about being too PC and so on...go ahead and use softer words at home...it doesn't change your actions abroad.

Oh please, if terrorism is the poor mans response to globalisation then why is it that the majority of terrorists are drawn from the educated middle classes. Furthermore if it's about economic hardship then why are more terrorists not drawn from central Africa or even regions in South America where poverty is very acute. If it's because of propping up dictatorships then why was terrorism not more common during the cold war where the was a far smaller emphasis upon human rights and political freedoms and where the practice of supporting these nations was more common.

You cannot explain the actions of people willing to blow up buses full of schoolchildren on the basis of socio-economic hardships since the act is fundamentally irrational. The actions in themselves are not the actions of sane individuals, they are so charged with radical ideology that the only reasonable conclusion one can draw in the majority of cases is that terrorism is wrought out of religious extremism and hate.
Genaia3
14-12-2005, 21:35
Yeah fucking right. Try adding to a debate eh?

I'm saying that all sides are a bunch of egomanaical wankers. Capitalist, Communist, libertarian, totalitarian, all of them. Millions have died for Communism, millions have died for Capitalism. We'll never know exact numbers but they are dead all the same and neither side was better than the other. What does make us better than Hitler in the end. We still kill people for thei beliefs, we just do it by proxy instead. maybe I am stewing in my own angst, hell I probably am but everywhere I look I see people driving on to hate each other. The so-called 'left' hates the 'right', the so-called 'right' hates the 'left' and as such they hate everything the other might stand beside.

Why does Bin laden have power? because people let him have it. because he hijacked people's dreams and used them for his ends. And the US helped him, fter all, he was against the Soviets too so he must be a good guy right?

Suharto, a good capitalist eh? just because he kills people on the merest suspicion of being left-wing soesn't mean we can't sell him arms does it? he's on our side and we're right, God's on our side.

Try not to regurgitate to much of this post-modern ethically subjectivist crap, what makes us better is that we fight to preserve the rights and freedoms of individuals providing that they do not encroach on those of others whereas he fought to kill and enslave those he deemed racially inferior.

The real danger in this world comes not from the minority that promote evil but rather the substantial portion of people that do not believe in an objective good, that see social and political freedoms and human rights as mere concepts and who are unwilling to defend them when they are threatened.

And of course the greatest irony of all is that most of those who so repeatedly sound their trumpets against the goodness of these rights and institutions are the ones who possess them.
Genaia3
14-12-2005, 21:44
And yet, I could walk into any civilian bar in the world and talk to people I've never met before, who Tony blair says should be my mortal enemy and we'd chat, we'd get pissed and we'd be friends. Your average person across the globe wants to be left in peace to pursue a little happiness and a decent living.


That's good, tolerance and personal freedom are fundamental tenants of liberalism, of course if you lived under a totalitarian regime you wouldn't able to "be left in peace to pursue a little happiness and a decent living".

Liberty isn't that natural state of things when everyone just chills, it's something that people have died for. Don't take it for granted.
Domici
14-12-2005, 23:46
I just think it's good to see someone else reading Reason. :cool:

Well, I'm not sure how much reason the guy is capable of if he thinks that we have a radical left worth mentioning in this country.

He seems to think that it's puzzling that the terrorists don't only kill US forces. It's the same reason that the first terrorist bombing that the CIA planned when participating in overthrowing the Sandanistas was the bombing of two civilian bridges.

To a terrorist it doesn't matter who they kill. They're not trying to just kill all the soldiers we send there, that would be suicide on their part. They're trying to undermine our authority there. That's what terrorism does. Victims of terrorists only blame the terrorist the first couple of times. After that they start blaming the people in charge. In Iraq the people are long past the point of blaming the terrorists. They blame us.

The annoying thing is, we fucking know this. The US has used the exact same strategy, and we know that it works. Why aren't we doing anything about it? Why are we just clamping down with the clamps, and the torture, and the stripping of civil liberties when we know that all it does is create more terrorism?
OceanDrive3
14-12-2005, 23:53
"cajones"..."cajones"..."cajones"..."cajones"...
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?searchid=442632

You guys do know what "cajones" means rigth?
Sinuhue
14-12-2005, 23:57
*snip*Now let's review we have learned in this thread about you:

1. You support the Soviet Union, despite all of the terrible things it did to its neighbors. You support imperialism.
2. You don't support America, and discredit all of the good things that it has done. You're anti-American.
3. You don't support the war in Afghanistan, and therefore would prefer that country be left to the Taliban and that the United States did not retaliate for the events of 9/11. You support inaction.
4. You don't support the war in Iraq, and therefore would prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power. You support dictators.
5. But you don't support Saddam Hussein, and would prefer that the Soviet Union controlled most of the world's oil venues. You support communism.
Well, gee...thanks for letting me know you're not worth expending effort on. You've created a Sinuhue that doesn't exist. I think I'll stick to talking to more reasonable posters who actually have a point and who aren't completely blinded by patriotism. Posters that include Syniks, Deep Kimchi, and other fiercely proud USians... who can actually hold a rational discussion.
Syniks
15-12-2005, 00:02
Well, gee...thanks for letting me know you're not worth expending effort on. You've created a Sinuhue that doesn't exist. I think I'll stick to talking to more reasonable posters who actually have a point and who aren't completely blinded by patriotism. Posters that include Syniks, Deep Kimchi, and other fiercely proud USians... who can actually hold a rational discussion.Occasionally ;)
OceanDrive3
15-12-2005, 00:07
... You've created a Sinuhue that doesn't exist. ...jaja.. una vez.. yo e creado (en mi mente) una Sinuhue... Y estaba sin nada.. nada-nada ..solo los aretes :D
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 00:17
jaja.. una vez.. yo e creado (en mi mente) una Sinuhue... Y estaba sin nada.. nada-nada ..solo los aretes :D
Well, I prefer that imaginary vision of me than of Sinuhue, the man, who hates the US, loved the Russians, supported dictators and blah blah blah with the rest of the bullshit the bullshitter bullshitted out.

Were they nice earrings at least?
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 00:19
Occasionally ;)
Seriously Syniks...did I argue any of the crap that buddy accused me of? Or am I in the Twilight Zone? And the crap he said to Anarchic Christians, who I thought was being quite reasonable and not actually taking sides...is this guy off his nut or what?
OceanDrive3
15-12-2005, 00:27
Were they nice earrings at least?si muy bonitos.. Todo estaba muy bonito. ;)
Syniks
15-12-2005, 00:33
Seriously Syniks...did I argue any of the crap that buddy accused me of? Not to my mind... but then we've been intimate longer and I know your thoughts.... ;) Or am I in the Twilight Zone? I like it that way. Raven Hair under Twilight Starrrs... :p the crap he said to Anarchic Christians, who I thought was being quite reasonable and not actually taking sides...is this guy off his nut or what?I'll have to re review that. In the gloss, I rather agreed with Gothamique's themes, but then I wasn't really reading too carefully since the thread sort of moved away from "Why Terrorism as a Tactic is more effective Now and in the West than it was ir is elsewhere."
Labido
15-12-2005, 00:47
I'm surprised the Twin Towers didn't fall decades ago. Terrorism has been a long time coming. The US has been flexing it's empyrical muscles, and every empire in the history of existance has crashed and burned.
Anarchic Christians
15-12-2005, 00:51
Well if the guy's Christian (which I assume he is) he can always check up on his bible. "Love thy neighbor" and all that crap

Back to the topic at hand I have my severe doubts that the US is being 'sissified' I run into far too many 'real men' from the US to believe that for a second. However, in this day of satellite communications and the Interet information returns to the populace much easier.

When you isolate a person from information save what you choose to tell them (essentially propaganda) then they will never see another side to the story than that which they are told. Now when people can see what is going on so much more (I won't say better because you, I and everyone else knows that no news is untainted by bias) they see other sides to the story than "OMG, Nazi's/Commies/Muslims is teh ebils! We must destroy them!" (yeah I'm exaggerating and fully aware of it).

Of course this is a side-effect of the liberties that seperate us from totalitarianism. Double edged sword really, catch-22 is always funny until you're in it :D
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 01:13
Oh, I learned grammar in school. But see, I learned how to spot a pompous ass using a psychological device and pretending that it's used in the real world's English on an internet forum on my own. You're RPing your country too much or something, I don't know what your deal is. I don't care, either, I just felt like noting that you argue like a pompous ass. Snap back to reality whenever you're ready, professor. Seriously, I'll be here. Laughing at you.Okay, I can’t resist on last comment tonight…

You say I sound like a pompous ass because you made the assumption that I was directly accusing Syniks of being the mastermind being US foreign policy over the last century. Well, I’d rather be a pompous ass than someone who reads that kind of strange slant into someone’s writing. I mean…be serious. You can't be that out of it.


Now let's review we have learned in this thread about you:

1. You support the Soviet Union, despite all of the terrible things it did to its neighbors. You support imperialism.
2. You don't support America, and discredit all of the good things that it has done. You're anti-American.
3. You don't support the war in Afghanistan, and therefore would prefer that country be left to the Taliban and that the United States did not retaliate for the events of 9/11. You support inaction.
4. You don't support the war in Iraq, and therefore would prefer that Saddam Hussein remain in power. You support dictators.
5. But you don't support Saddam Hussein, and would prefer that the Soviet Union controlled most of the world's oil venues. You support communism.

That would make you an imperialistic, anti-American ineffective communist pacifist. Golly, here's one to take home to Mom.

Now, if there is something you want to ask me about my beliefs…feel free. I’ll answer you with no problems. But don’t assume, and don’t tell me what I think. Forgive me if I don’t think you actually capable of reading all that into your brief interaction with me…considering that you were so totally confused by my use of the subject pronoun ‘you’…a confusion no one else in their sane mind seems to have.

If you want to start over, and behave in a more respectful manner, we can actually have a conversation (albeit one that admittedly strays from the OP...) about this. You seem more interested right now in one-up-manship than anything else, and making up arguments for people.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 01:17
Not to my mind... but then we've been intimate longer and I know your thoughts.... ;)
Yes, well at least you don't start shouting 'commie' and 'Saddam lover' when I don't agree with US foreign policy. Nor have you ever. I guess I'm getting too used to our rational posters...forgetting about the newbies who love to run in screaming their heads off, and making wild assumptions.

I like it that way. Raven Hair under Twilight Starrrs... :p I'll have to re review that. In the gloss, I rather agreed with Gothamique's themes, but then I wasn't really reading too carefully since the thread sort of moved away from "Why Terrorism as a Tactic is more effective Now and in the West than it was ir is elsewhere."
I don't know...I can't get a very coherent bead on Gothamique's themes...he's too busy answering questions that weren't asked, reading points that were never made, and basically making up things to talk about.
Syniks
15-12-2005, 01:20
Okay, I can’t resist on last comment tonight… And it's not about my complimenting your Hair? :(
<snippy bits of abuse at Sin>
Now I remember. After the first post I was ignoring Gothamique's (lack of) style and scanning for general political themes. I guess I should have paid more attention. My bad.

Gothamique - I know exactly what Sin meant and it had nothing to do wih ME. My only issue with it was not the (specifically) content but the context. Basically, her inital post did not really address (to my thinking) the jist of the article. However, the thread has ended up there anyway so... whatever.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 01:27
And it's not about my complimenting your Hair? :(

Now I remember. After the first post I was ignoring Gothamique's (lack of) style and scanning for general political themes. I guess I should have paid more attention. My bad.

Gothamique - I know exactly what Sin meant and it had nothing to do wih ME. My only issue with it was not the (specifically) content but the context. Basically, her inital post did not really address (ro my thinking) the jist of the article. However, the thread has ended up there anyway so... whatever.
No, not whatever...you're right, I strayed from the path...but it's because I was reacting to both the article, and the title you chose for your thread. The thing is, as has been said by another poster...hmmm....Ashmoria I think...is that you're being too hard on yourself, as in the US, and even the West, can not be fully to blame for terrorism. Bringing up aggressive US foreign policy was my way of highlighting why I think 'sissification' is not really at issue in terms of being a motivating factor for continuing terrorism. Terrorists are not sitting around telling one another, "Let's kill some civilians because it will make the US cry and run away". That doesn't work nearly as well as saying, "Look at what the US (and the West) has done around the world...they want to take over, so we must kill them and create a theocracy, thus stamping out the evil, imperialistic infidel!!!!!!!!" I know which speech would make ME more likely to strap on some sticks of dynamite.

In any case, I didn't actually intend to discuss US foreign policy, but what's-his-face jumped all over it, clearly believing any such reference must be akin to throwing down the guantlet.
Gothamique
15-12-2005, 05:50
Well, gee...thanks for letting me know you're not worth expending effort on. You've created a Sinuhue that doesn't exist. I think I'll stick to talking to more reasonable posters who actually have a point and who aren't completely blinded by patriotism. Posters that include Syniks, Deep Kimchi, and other fiercely proud USians... who can actually hold a rational discussion.

That's a fun way of dodging what I posted. You are on the run and a coward if you don't directly reply to every original point I make that is significant to this thread. I'd understand you ignoring what I'd taken time out of my busy and glamorous life to write in response to your moronisms if I was repeating myself, but this? Come on. You can do better than that.

Try harder.

Okay, I can’t resist on last comment tonight…

So I am worth expending effort on? Golly, I'm touched. I am just a massive crab in your vagina tonight, aren't I? Snip, snip.

You say I sound like a pompous ass because you made the assumption that I was directly accusing Syniks of being the mastermind being US foreign policy over the last century. Well, I’d rather be a pompous ass than someone who reads that kind of strange slant into someone’s writing. I mean…be serious. You can't be that out of it.

The "informal you" that you created made you a pompous ass. Don't try to write off excuses for your stupid, derrogitory gimmick to disguise personal attacks. In English, when we mean, "American foreign policy," we say, "American foreign policy." Not "you." When we say "you," we mean "you." As in, "you are an asshat."

Now, if there is something you want to ask me about my beliefs…feel free. I’ll answer you with no problems. But don’t assume, and don’t tell me what I think. Forgive me if I don’t think you actually capable of reading all that into your brief interaction with me…considering that you were so totally confused by my use of the subject pronoun ‘you’…a confusion no one else in their sane mind seems to have.

And I've got a better idea. How about instead of giving you room to bullshit your way out of the corner you painted yourself into, I show you the stupid statements that you've made that back up my claims? I'm not assuming anything, this is all crap that you said that I'm interpreting in this one (1) thread.

1. Despite the fact the foreign policies you described helped topple the Soviet Union and hindered its expansion, you said:

If anything, your aggressive foreign policy over the past century has been a bur under the saddle of generations of people who've had to live under the oppressive regimes you've backed. Not to mention, you've ALSO pissed off the people who supported your pet dictators and assorted madmen when you finally decided they'd gone too far (Noriega, Pinochet, hmmm...Saddam?). It's not passivity that's the problem...not even close

=> You support the Soviet Union.

2. You blame America for turning the world into a shithole, and disregard all the good its done for the world.

And apparently you think they outweigh all the nasty shit you've done too. I guess that's a personal opinion...you see, if I were Chilean, I'd care less about Taiwan, and more about the role the CIA had in getting Pinochet into power, who then sent thugs out to torture and murder my uncle. My point is that you've created resentment...and resentment is going to be more powerful than gratitude...

=> You're anti-American.

3. You believe that things were better when the Taliban had power.

Rawa would vehemently disagree that Afghanistan is such a success. Women are more at risk now than they were under the Taliban, and the country has broken back up into semi-feudal areas controlled by the warlords that held power previous to the Taliban. Not to mention that the Taliban were supported by the US in the first place. Afghanistan is a mess. It was a mess. It shall be a mess...war has not 'solved' anything.

=> You support inaction towards psychotic governments.

4. If I'm interpreting this quote correctly, you don't support the current war in Iraq, and therefore would prefer that Saddam Hussein remained in power, negating the first sentence that I'm including to keep your quote totally in context.

Sorry, I never did (support Saddam Hussein). But your country did at one point. How crazy does that make you? What...you changed your mind and that makes things all better? How nice. I think I'll support a madman for a while, then recant...hmm....who should it be?

=> You support dictators.

5. You would rather have seen the Soviet Union win the cold war than have America influence important regions.

No, how dare the imperalist West assume that the rest of the world is their plaything, full of resources for them to exploit...creating little 'spheres of influence' like dogs marking their territory...dividing up the 'spoils', and playing with the sovereignty of other nations by installing or toppling governments...this week we're taking OUT dictators...last week we were putting them in...

Economic imperalism is much safer, and more effective than occupation. The West is represents a mere fraction of the total population of the world, yet it consumes the vast majority of resources...resources from other nations.

=> You support communism.

I recognize that points one and five mirror eachother, but I felt that it was significant that you are not only in support of communism, but the most evil communist regime to have ever existed.

If you want to start over, and behave in a more respectful manner, we can actually have a conversation (albeit one that admittedly strays from the OP...) about this. You seem more interested right now in one-up-manship than anything else, and making up arguments for people.

Begging for mercy will do you no good, hippie scum. I don't need to start over, but if you feel like you need to, you can start by replying to my posts with actual substance instead of crying that the big bad imperialist conservative is being mean to you and looking to your forum friends to help you condemn me. "This guy's off his nut." That means I'm winning. You aren't replying to me because I'm not being civil, you aren't playing Queen of Nice either, and I have no impulse to feign respect. You aren't replying to me because you're out of rhetoric, are scared and don't know what to do or say. How dare you oppose democracy in Afghanistan? Who are you to distort that one article of rhetoric that supports your emotional impulses outweighs the opinions of 92% of a nation's population? Keep in mind that these quotes I pointed out are from one five page thread. One thread. If I clicked on your name and I selected "view all posts by user," I guarantee that I'm going to find more and, dare I say, more blatant examples of my points. Tempt me to do that, I dare you. You have three options now. You can come back and fight me, you can continue to hide behind your eighty eight cent plastic halloween mask of moral superiority, or you can shut the fuck up and catch whaaaambulance to democratic underground.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 06:01
How dare you oppose democracy in Afghanistan? Who are you to distort that one article of rhetoric that supports your emotional impulses outweighs the opinions of 92% of a nation's population?
Your flaming, and baiting are not going to get you much love around here. So no, I'm not going to bother with the bulk of your inflammatory, and inaccurate post. I like this part though...did you actually READ the nice little study you put up? Yeah. It was a survey of a single province in Afghanistan. Not the whole nation. A little over 550 households were surveyed...hardly representative of 92% of the nation's population.

But since you continue to make up points...draw false conclusions, and wrap yourself in logical fallacies...as well as being incredibly rude, I don't see the point in giving your statements any more merit than they deserve. Which is to say....none.
Sinuhue
15-12-2005, 06:15
Wait a minute...FireAntz? Sick Nightmares? Is that you?
The Chinese Republics
15-12-2005, 06:20
Wait a minute...FireAntz? Sick Nightmares? Is that you?Anybody want a bet? I'll bet 50 cent if it's FireAntz. :D
Maineiacs
15-12-2005, 06:27
Wait a minute...FireAntz? Sick Nightmares? Is that you?

It wouldn't really surprise me.
Khodros
15-12-2005, 06:49
...You are on the run and a coward....I am just a massive crab in your vagina tonight....The "informal you" that you created made you a pompous ass....your stupid, derrogitory gimmick....you are an asshat....hippie scum....

Gothamique, when someone posts arguments, respond to those arguments. Don't insult, degrade, or harrass your ideological opponents. You aren't 'winning' anything if you act like a loser. And Sinuhue will dare whatever she goddamn well pleases, because she's built up a reputation in these here forums that garners respect. Which begs the question: who the fuck are you?
The Most Glorious Hack
15-12-2005, 07:16
There's an actual debate going on here, so I'm not going to lock it.

However, if the insults, trolling, and general jackassery don't stop right now, I'm gonna lock this thing and run through every single post and start handing out forum bans like they're freaking candy.

Shape it up; now.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator
Maineiacs
15-12-2005, 09:12
Anybody want a bet? I'll bet 50 cent if it's FireAntz. :D


That sort of thing is kind of his style, you know.
Syniks
15-12-2005, 17:49
<Snip senseless abuse>
You know, I was really hoping you would just STFU and let the cream of the good points and themes of your posts rise to the top. Unfortunately, not only cream rises - so does scum. Your diatribes are the precise reason why solid "consevative" (classical Liberal) ideas get shouted down - because so many "advocates" insist on being pricks. :rolleyes:

Edit: Sorry Hack - replied before I read tothe end of the thread... No more feeding the Troll. ;)