Breaking: Mass Shooting at Ft. Hood

[FaaR]

If you want to believe that "The West" included China, Nazi Germany, and the USSR, well then go right ahead.

A: I never mentioned China.

B: Since *I* was the one that wrote the post you originally responded to, I think I know what I meant. So please, don't try and put words in my mouth, mmkay. The major part of the population of what was then the USSR - AND Nazi Germany - *IS part of the motherfucking west, geographically, ethnically, culturally*. Period. Sorry for being a dick about it, but you're just being backwards on purpose here, and I find such antics annoying and insulting.

East/west politically is not the same thing as east/west geographically/ethnically. I was referring to the latter, not the former. Case in point: the middle east was never communist, nor part of the Soviet bloc/sphere of influence in any major way. Yet it is still "east".

Based on the context in which I've heard the term used, the common meaning refers to the post-World War 2 first world democracies to contrast them with the communist nations and Soviet Bloc and it's never included the Nazis.

East and west are originally ANCIENT terms, stemming back to the merchant fleets of the sixteenth-ish and onwards centuries that sailed out of European ports to map out, trade with, and sometimes colonize and take over the rest of the world. Asia extended eastwards, europe thus became west.

But all this is irrelevant to the basic discussion we were having.

Perhaps the U.S. had no rational selfish interest in being there, but I don't see how you could compare fighting communist dictatorship to terrorist attacks against civilians.

A: if you fight communist dictatorship, yet end up killing civilians (and quite a lot of them, while not particulary caring that you ARE in fact killing them), what's the real difference versus terrorism? Certainly there's no major distinction from the perspective of the people who end up getting killed, I don't think the Song My villagers for example really would accept the idea that the U.S. means them well, but to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs, and sometimes a lot of them.

B: the west has fought or sponsored plenty conflicts only to let a dictator end up in power. Freedom and democracy is only our motto when it suits our own geopolitical and economic purposes.

Collateral damage is an unfortunate part of warfare. The U.S. also nuked two Japanese cities in order to end a War that was in part initiated by Japan. Are you going to compare retaliatory warfare to terrorists purposely targeting civilians too?

The Japanese never bombed U.S. cities in WWII. Perhaps they would have, had they had the chance and the means (more like "most likely would have"; the japanese were tremendously war-like back then), but they didn't. "Retaliatory warfare" as you put it is an interesting euphemism for committing war crimes. Yeah, I certainly consider nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes. Along with the firebombings of Tokyo, and Dresden in Germany for example. Japan and the Nazis committed lots of war crimes also, which doesn't give us the right to act the same way. After all, WE are supposed to be the 'good guys'.

Some like to argue that 'we HAD to nuke Japan', no, we didn't HAVE to. "We" CHOSE TO, that's something else entirely. By that point, Japan was already largely broken and contained. They had pretty much no navy left, and very little in the way of an airforce. They had little to no means to gather steel and fuel for their war machine and defeat was inevitable. Nuking them into submission was just a better way to show just how badly they got whooped, that's all. And it saved many U.S. soldiers' lives of course, but not as many as it cost Japanese civilians theirs.

You see, the key issue here is you can't claim to be morally and ethically superior than your adversary if you go ahead and act WORSE than they do. And we westerners have a real problem here with that. We thump our own chests, but that's all. We're just as rotten a bunch of bastards as the next bunch.

I can't think of any non-Muslim terrorist bombings intended to promote some sort of ideology other than the Unibomber, abortion clinic bombings, and the Oklahoma City Bombing, all of which are relatively minor other than the Oklahoma City Bombing and which affected people in the nation and culture of the bombers' origin.

I could mention a couple examples of organized western terrorism: IRA, ETA and RAF, but there are more of course. Motorcycle gangs for example would qualify IMO; even though their primary motivation is gathering money through criminal activities they often do so through the violent spread of fear (IE: terror).

Anyway, regarding the more traditional terror organizations, IRA in particular cost the Brits a lot of lives over the years, and if you walk through central London even today you'll notice a lack of trashcans; a legacy from past decades when the IRA liked to dump timed explosives in them...

I didn't collect a list for the purpose of debating apologists for radical Islam.

Tssk.

Don't be a tard. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an apologist. I condone nobody's ill deeds, which you'd see if you just pulled your head out of your ass.

Perhaps if they hadn't tried to commit genocide against the Jewish settlers who were transforming worthless desert and swampland into fertile land and instead welcomed the Jews to their land and sought out peaceful relations

Right. And you Americans welcome Mexican "settlers" with open arms today? Please...

Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were tossed out from what is now Israel, their villages demolished, lands seized. There wasn't much wish for peaceful co-existence by the 'settlers', nor even any opportunity given by them.

It's clearly an unrealistic aim for Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran (to mention just a few) that Israel be destroyed. It's there now, and it's not going anywhere. However, you can't ever learn from past mistakes if you refuse to admit that mistakes were made, and in 20:20 hindsight it was clearly a mistake to forcibly create a jewish state smackdab in the middle east where other people had already been living for hundreds of years in many cases.

There were of course other alternatives, but from the perspective of Europeans, it was better the jews simply scooted off and ended up on a piece of land that used to be part of Jordan. Just because we'd just finished kicking Hitler's arse didn't mean everybody over here got rid of their antisemitism in an instant! Besides, europe's crowded, our nations' borders have probably been re-drawn more times over the years than anywhere else on earth. So people back then took the easy way out, and some people ended up suffering for it ever since.

the high-IQ Jews could have brought the benefits of Western Civilization to them and they could have a higher standard of living today.

OH PLEASE! Egocentricness much?

Just because someone doesn't live the same way you do doesn't mean they're stupid, or that they should have your way of life enforced upon them. Ever heard of the Amish for example...?

Blame the Mufti.

Right. Blame them, not the western colonialists who decided the destinies over the heads of the indiginous people. That's how we do things in the west! Just come stomping in guns blazing, kick over every anthill we see, stir up every beehive, take whatever we want and trash the place thoroughly, and then leave it to someone else to clean up the mess afterwards. "Been there, done that!", France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Britain says. Some other countries too.

Must be our superior western intellects and high I.Q. that makes us so good at these things...

Instead of recognizing the benefits that the Jewish people could have brought to them, they made several attempts at genocide and still focus on eradicating the Israelis instead of trying to improve their own society. They did it to themselves.

Right. And I suppose you blame the allies for defeating Hitler too? After all, German worksmanship, precision and punctuality is well known, Europe (and the rest of the globe) could SO have benefitted from being invaded and having a new order imposed on them...

Yes, I exaggerate. I know. You are more than suggesting though that the victims of an invasion are stupid for not willingly submitting to their invaders. That's... Well, I lack words, really.

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about all of these allegations of U.S. sponsored terrorism, so I can't comment. It's easy to make broad and unsubstantiated allegations on these sorts of subjects knowing that most people wouldn't possess enough specific knowledge about them to be able to respond appropriately.

It's not really specific knowledge. It's matters that have been publically reported in the news, I haven't got a doctor's degree from a university in "unethical and/or clandestine operations by western companies and government agencies in foreign countries", had such a degree existed...

What do you ask of me, that I provide you a crash-course in a half-century's worth of dirty deeds? Come on now, this is a public discussion forum, not a school classroom. A certain degree of responsibility lies on you to do your part as well, to have at least a modicum of knowledge and education.

"I've never heard of this! Therefore I choose not to believe you, you're telling lies!" is a terrible way to respond.

I could tell you to start here for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_the_Americas or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

...But you'd probably say that it's wikipedia, and therefore not a word can be trusted. It would be entertaining though to see you come up with a convincing rationalization for the iran-contras jobbie though, he he.

I'm not falling for it. I wouldn't be at all surprised if for all of these allegations a good counterpoint exists, such as opposing the spread of Soviet influence and communist dictatorship or opposing even worse regimes than the ones that were being propped up.

You're not...falling...for it? But stuff I've talked about is common knowledge. As for counterpoints, democratically elected marxist Salvador Allende being deposed in a US-backed coup and replaced by the staunch anti-communist and military dictator Augusto Pinochet who held on to power for over 25 years, had thousands of people killed, thousands more tortured and drove tens of thousands to flee into exile... How was THAT an improvement IN ANY WAY for example? Btw, Pinochet relinquished his seat as Supreme Galactic Emperor only after he'd instated a law granting immunity for himself, and later died having never answered for his crimes.

Still, even if I were to concede your point, it's not as though the U.S. government had its intelligence agents put bombs on airplanes like Libya did or as though Western fanatics have bombed discos and buses.

*sigh* ...And? Assuming you're correct (which is impossible to know), what difference does that make? A wrong is still a wrong.

Besides, western fanatics *have* bombed civilian targets.

What exactly is your point anyway? That the shootings at Ft. Hood were justified and that the shooter is just in carrying out his own personal Jihad?

Don't be stupid.

My point have been visible all throughout my posts, namely that self-righteously chest-thumping ourselves for being so much better than those damn dirty muslim/arab/terrorists/all of the above doesn't MAKE IT SO, because there's plenty blood on our society's hands as well; not just the U.S, but also much of Europe also.

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Is that a record for reply length?

 

[fritzfield]

Genau! Let's re-do 1790-1910 and just give it all back! We don't deserve anything. We are thieves. Of course, Native Americans would automatically want to be converted to Islam, n'est-ce pas?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

All black people are crack dealers. All Oriental people have rice dicks. All Native Americans are drunks. All Jews are greedy.

Did I miss any stereotypes, in your "educated" opinion?

First off, being a Muslim is a religious choice; people can choose, at least privately in their own minds, not to believe in it if they don't like the religion or are in actuality atheist. So, the very act of sincerely believing in it implies certain things about the believer. Is it bigoted or racist to say, "A devout Muslim prays five times a day," or, "A faithful Jew follows the Kosher dietary code?"

Now, some devout followers of this religion have established a track record of terrorist violence. Some have interpreted it as even commanding the faithful to commit Jihad. Even Fatwas have been issued against book authors an cartoonists. Some believe that the Muslim religion is at or should be at war with the United States and the West. That's not the same as saying that all devout followers believe that, just some or even a small amount.

So, given this context of knowledge, is it irrational or bigoted to make an educated guess that the shooter in a mass shooting at a U.S. military base just might be a Muslim, perhaps motivated by Jihad? That's not the same as saying that "all Muslims are Jihadists," rather, just that, "There is an excellent chance that this particular shooter falls into that category."

If that logic is too complicated for you to understand or if your political correctness commands you to pretend that all religions and beliefs and cultures are good and wholesome, well then go ahead and condemn my educated guess as to the religious persuasions of the shooter as racism or bigotry.

 

[Robor]

Story on Yahoo lists a short story about six of the victims

Hope this hasn't already been posted. Damn, it's really hard to read about these young men and women being senselessly cut down in the prime of their lives. :'(

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Jpeyton... these dudes friends of yours?

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/radicals.mosque/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

New York (CNN) -- Outside a Manhattan mosque where the imam preaches against terrorism, the brothers of the "Revolution Muslim" are spreading a different message.
Protected by the Constitution of the country they detest, radical Muslim converts like Yousef al-Khattab and Younes Abdullah Mohammed preach that the killing of U.S. troops overseas is justified. In their thinking, so were the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States -- and so are attacks on almost any American.
"Americans will always be a target -- and a legitimate target -- until America changes its nature in the international arena," Mohammed said in an interview to air on tonight's "AC 360."

Al-Khattab and Mohammed consider al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden their model.
"I love him like I can't begin to tell you, because he doesn't seem to have done anything wrong from the sharia," al-Khattab said, referring to Islamic law. "If you're asking me if I love him as a Muslim, I love him more than I love myself."
They hand out fliers outside the gleaming 96th Street mosque, where up to 4,000 people visit every day. Inside the sleek, modernistic house of worship, Imam Shamsi Ali preaches against the violence that now sweeps many Muslim countries.

"What we try to do is reminding our people about the real Islam," Ali said. "We tell them what the real Islam is all about. Islam is about peace. Islam is about moderation. Islam is about friendship. Islam is opposed to any kind of hatred against anybody."

Law enforcement sources have told CNN the men walk right up to the line of protection under the First Amendment, but their message is not going unnoticed.
Al-Khattab handed CNN Correspondent Drew Griffin a business card from an FBI agent who he says is keeping tabs on him. The agent would not comment without clearance from his superiors, except to say, "Obviously, if they gave you my card, you know we are watching them."

The mosque has called police on Al-Khattab and Mohammed several times, and passers-by occasionally engage them in heated debates. Ali told CNN that ordinary Muslims are "disgusted with their behavior." But they insist they don't fight themselves, and don't incite others to do so.

Al-Khattab calls President Obama "a murderer, a tyrant, a scumbag," and says he wouldn't "shed a tear" if Obama were killed. But he added, "Would I incite his murder? That's not what I teach."

Mohammed calls himself an American "by default" who identifies with Muslims. Al-Khattab, a Jew who lived in Israel before converting to Islam, says he "would like to see a mushroom cloud" over the Jewish state -- "but before that, I'd like to see the people guided, and I'd like them to go back to their original countries where they're from."
But federal agents are not only watching them, they're watching some of those who are listening.

Neil Bryant Vinas, a young New Yorker who has pleaded guilty to plotting to attack trains on the Long Island Rail Road, met with al-Khattab. Al-Khattab said Vinas and "some brothers" traveled to Atlantic City, New Jersey, and had dinner with him. Al-Khattab said they considered him something of a hero because he left Israel and converted to Islam.

Al-Khattab also claims friendships with Tarek Mehanna, now under indictment in Boston, Massachusetts, on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, and Daniel Maldonado, who pleaded guilty before a federal judge in Texas to receiving military training from Islamic militants in Somalia.
Mohammed says he and his fellow radicals are "commanded to terrorize the disbelievers ... making them fearful so that they will think twice before they go rape your mother or kill your brother or go onto your land and try to steal your resources."
"We are defending innocent women that are bombed every day, innocent children that are bombed every day," he said.

But asked whether those who take their fliers should take up arms against Americans, he said, "We certainly have never said that."

 

[jpeyton]

Jpeyton... these dudes friends of yours?

Oh yeah, we're tight. Me and my homeboys kick it every weekend.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

A: I never mentioned China.

B: Since *I* was the one that wrote the post you originally responded to, I think I know what I meant. So please, don't try and put words in my mouth, mmkay. The major part of the population of what was then the USSR - AND Nazi Germany - *IS part of the motherfucking west, geographically, ethnically, culturally*. Period. Sorry for being a dick about it, but you're just being backwards on purpose here, and I find such antics annoying and insulting.

If you are insulted and annoyed them perhaps you should either grow up or just stop reading political discussion forums. When you adopt a condescending attitude and air of superiority, as you have, you invite insults and annoyance.

East/west politically is not the same thing as east/west geographically/ethnically. I was referring to the latter, not the former. Case in point: the middle east was never communist, nor part of the Soviet bloc/sphere of influence in any major way. Yet it is still "east".

East and west are originally ANCIENT terms, stemming back to the merchant fleets of the sixteenth-ish and onwards centuries that sailed out of European ports to map out, trade with, and sometimes colonize and take over the rest of the world. Asia extended eastwards, europe thus became west.

But all this is irrelevant to the basic discussion we were having.

Thank you for the clarification. Since this is a political discussion forum and the assumed context is political in nature, you really should clarify that you mean "geographically/ethnically". I have always heard the term "West" used in the political context and was completely unaware that anyone ever used it a "geographic/ethnic" context.

A: if you fight communist dictatorship, yet end up killing civilians (and quite a lot of them, while not particulary caring that you ARE in fact killing them), what's the real difference versus terrorism? Certainly there's no major distinction from the perspective of the people who end up getting killed, I don't think the Song My villagers for example really would accept the idea that the U.S. means them well, but to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs, and sometimes a lot of them.

Was it U.S. government policy, to massacre civilians at places like My Lai? If it was, then why didn't the U.S. just eradicate all of the Vietnamese? This incident was heavily condemned and is still condemned by the American public and it appears to be the work of stressed out, frustrated solders, perhaps suffering from PTSD, taking out their frustrations on innocent civilians.

B: the west has fought or sponsored plenty conflicts only to let a dictator end up in power. Freedom and democracy is only our motto when it suits our own geopolitical and economic purposes.

The Japanese never bombed U.S. cities in WWII. Perhaps they would have, had they had the chance and the means (more like "most likely would have"; the japanese were tremendously war-like back then), but they didn't. "Retaliatory warfare" as you put it is an interesting euphemism for committing war crimes. Yeah, I certainly consider nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki as war crimes. Along with the firebombings of Tokyo, and Dresden in Germany for example. Japan and the Nazis committed lots of war crimes also, which doesn't give us the right to act the same way. After all, WE are supposed to be the 'good guys'.

Then how do you propose that nations fight defensive wars? By showering the enemy with flowers and boxes of chocolates instead of bombs? Those bombings weren't war crimes; they were perfectly justified retaliatory attacks intended to cripple the enemy's war machine and/or to reduce the enemy's morale. During World War II, if it had been possible to end the war by pressing a button and magically eradicating all life in Germany and Japan in order to save the lives of a few American and British soldiers, it would have been justified since the Germans and Japanese initiated the conflict.

Perhaps the moral of these stories is that people do need to be concerned about and control their governments in order to prevent them from initiating these types of wars.

Some like to argue that 'we HAD to nuke Japan', no, we didn't HAVE to. "We" CHOSE TO, that's something else entirely. By that point, Japan was already largely broken and contained. They had pretty much no navy left, and very little in the way of an airforce. They had little to no means to gather steel and fuel for their war machine and defeat was inevitable. Nuking them into submission was just a better way to show just how badly they got whooped, that's all. And it saved many U.S. soldiers' lives of course, but not as many as it cost Japanese civilians theirs.

We made a decision that it was better for tens of thousands of Japanese people to die than for one more American to die. That was totally justified since Japan initiated the conflict. Perhaps the Japanese should have thought about that before they attempted to conquer Southeast Asia and attack Pearl Harbor? Perhaps they should have surrendered earlier?

You see, the key issue here is you can't claim to be morally and ethically superior than your adversary if you go ahead and act WORSE than they do. And we westerners have a real problem here with that. We thump our own chests, but that's all. We're just as rotten a bunch of bastards as the next bunch.

You're saying that the U.S. and Britain acted worse in World War II than Japan and Germany? Are you able to make a distinction between the initiator of a conflict and the party that responds to it as a matter of self-preservation?

I could mention a couple examples of organized western terrorism: IRA, ETA and RAF, but there are more of course. Motorcycle gangs for example would qualify IMO; even though their primary motivation is gathering money through criminal activities they often do so through the violent spread of fear (IE: terror).

As far as I know, the IRA didn't go around targeting the Middle East. I'm unsure what you're referring to with the ETA and RAF.

Anyway, regarding the more traditional terror organizations, IRA in particular cost the Brits a lot of lives over the years, and if you walk through central London even today you'll notice a lack of trashcans; a legacy from past decades when the IRA liked to dump timed explosives in them...

Tssk.

Don't be a tard. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them an apologist. I condone nobody's ill deeds, which you'd see if you just pulled your head out of your ass.

OK, I'll take your word for it that you're not an apologist for fundamentalist Islam.

Right. And you Americans welcome Mexican "settlers" with open arms today? Please...

Hundreds of thousands of Arabs were tossed out from what is now Israel, their villages demolished, lands seized. There wasn't much wish for peaceful co-existence by the 'settlers', nor even any opportunity given by them.

Was this before or after the Arabs attacked the Jewish settlers? Before the Arab armies invaded and before the Mufti promoted anti-Jewish violence, did the Jews purchase land, did they take worthless and unused desert an swampland and convert it into fertile land, or did they suddenly show up with armies to kick all of the Arabs off of their land? If the Jews had been doing this for decades prior to 1948, why didn't the Arabs just eradicate them long ago before their numbers were larger?

It's clearly an unrealistic aim for Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran (to mention just a few) that Israel be destroyed. It's there now, and it's not going anywhere.

Actually, it isn't unrealistic at all. They are just going about it the wrong way. The best way to destroy Israel would be to make peace and to then try to increase the percentage of Muslims with Israeli citizenship and voting ability through immigration and reproduction, eventually resulting in the ability to out-vote the Jews and thus the ability to take over the government. This may happen, eventually, anyway.

However, you can't ever learn from past mistakes if you refuse to admit that mistakes were made, and in 20:20 hindsight it was clearly a mistake to forcibly create a jewish state smackdab in the middle east where other people had already been living for hundreds of years in many cases.

There were of course other alternatives, but from the perspective of Europeans, it was better the jews simply scooted off and ended up on a piece of land that used to be part of Jordan.

Just because we'd just finished kicking Hitler's arse didn't mean everybody over here got rid of their antisemitism in an instant! Besides, europe's crowded, our nations' borders have probably been re-drawn more times over the years than anywhere else on earth. So people back then took the easy way out, and some people ended up suffering for it ever since.

I think you are correct that establishing a Jewish homeland amongst the Arabs was a mistake. In retrospect, it might have been better to purchase and clear off the island of Madagascar or to give them land in Canada or the United States. In fact, since the Ashkenazi Jews, as a group, tend to have the highest or at least one of the highest average IQs in the world, it really would have made sense for the United States to just offer them all American citizenship.

OH PLEASE! Egocentricness much?

Just because someone doesn't live the same way you do doesn't mean they're stupid, or that they should have your way of life enforced upon them. Ever heard of the Amish for example...?

Let's get this straight. I'm an intransigent atheist and advocate of reason, individualism, and individual rights and you are wrong to try to imply or portray me as being some sort of an ignorant hillbilly bigot. I'm not in favor of forcing a religion or my philosophy down people's throats other than what is needed to prevent them from initiating physical force against other people. I don't have any problem with the Amish people or even peaceful Muslims. If you're trying to paint me as some sort of an ignorant hillbilly bigot, you've got the wrong guy.

Right. Blame them, not the western colonialists who decided the destinies over the heads of the indiginous people. That's how we do things in the west! Just come stomping in guns blazing, kick over every anthill we see, stir up every beehive, take whatever we want and trash the place thoroughly, and then leave it to someone else to clean up the mess afterwards. "Been there, done that!", France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal and Britain says. Some other countries too.

I agree that the American colonialists mistreated the native American Indians.

Must be our superior western intellects and high I.Q. that makes us so good at these things..

Well, there is a reason why the Europeans were able to develop or at least refine and make excellent use of guns and armor and the Indians only had bows and arrows. Could it be that Western culture and its Aristotelian heritage was objectively superior to that of the Indian culture in terms of its ability to support a higher population, perhaps longer lifespans and better health, and innovation?

Right. And I suppose you blame the allies for defeating Hitler too? After all, German worksmanship, precision and punctuality is well known, Europe (and the rest of the globe) could SO have benefitted from being invaded and having a new order imposed on them...

Yes, I exaggerate. I know. You are more than suggesting though that the victims of an invasion are stupid for not willingly submitting to their invaders. That's... Well, I lack words, really.

That depends on the identities of the invaders and the nature of the present government.

If a superior race of space aliens lands in Washington and offers to incorporate us into their empire and teach us about technological advances that are hundreds and thousands of years ahead of time and offers us longer life spans and a higher quality of life, if only we disband our current government and submit to rational alien rule, I'll be all for it.

Sadly, the Nazis were not an advanced and more rational civilization, but a group of almost religious-like fanatics bent on genocide and conquest.

It's not really specific knowledge. It's matters that have been publically reported in the news, I haven't got a doctor's degree from a university in "unethical and/or clandestine operations by western companies and government agencies in foreign countries", had such a degree existed...

You really should quote what you're referring to when you make these posts. I'm not sure exactly which part of my previous post you're referring to.

What do you ask of me, that I provide you a crash-course in a half-century's worth of dirty deeds? Come on now, this is a public discussion forum, not a school classroom. A certain degree of responsibility lies on you to do your part as well, to have at least a modicum of knowledge and education.

"I've never heard of this! Therefore I choose not to believe you, you're telling lies!" is a terrible way to respond.

The problem is that you can make broad statements about events such as the U.S. backing Pinochet knowing that you don't need to be particularly knowledgeable in order to make those statements but that someone who goes to refute you would need to be knowledgeable about it. It's a rhetorical trick often used in debates of this kind and I'm not falling for it. There is probably an expert on Chile out there somewhere who could make you look like a fool for being unable to refute very specific and detailed facts that point to how the United States was fully justified for its actions even if, in reality it was not. However, not being an expert on the subject, you would be unable to refute him.

That is why it is better to discuss broad philosophical principles and not specific concretes or to stick to the issue at hand in these sorts of debates. The amount of knowledge in the world is so broad that no one can learn it all in exacting detail. A lack of specific knowledge about something doesn't necessarily invalidate a person's philosophical point.

You're not...falling...for it? But stuff I've talked about is common knowledge.

But the details that add context to that "common knowledge" may not be very well-known and your assertion that something is "common knowledge" does not necessarily make it true.

As for counterpoints, democratically elected marxist Salvador Allende being deposed in a US-backed coup and replaced by the staunch anti-communist and military dictator Augusto Pinochet who held on to power for over 25 years, had thousands of people killed, thousands more tortured and drove tens of thousands to flee into exile... How was THAT an improvement IN ANY WAY for example? Btw, Pinochet relinquished his seat as Supreme Galactic Emperor only after he'd instated a law granting immunity for himself, and later died having never answered for his crimes.

I'd like to see what the Pinochet's defense and the American defense of the American government's actions would have to say to these allegations. Have you ever read briefs in a lawsuit? It's amazing how you can read one side's brief and then conclude that that side should be the prevailing party and then read the opposition's brief that adds or emphasizes facts that the other party did not mention which completely changes the overall content of the facts and your perception of which party should prevail.

*sigh* ...And? Assuming you're correct (which is impossible to know), what difference does that make? A wrong is still a wrong.

You seem to be overly certain that you yourself are correct.

Besides, western fanatics *have* bombed civilian targets.

Unprovoked and without reason in the Middle East?

My point have been visible all throughout my posts, namely that self-righteously chest-thumping ourselves for being so much better than those damn dirty muslim/arab/terrorists/all of the above doesn't MAKE IT SO, because there's plenty blood on our society's hands as well; not just the U.S, but also much of Europe also.

But our society today has evolved and become better than that. The fact that you would question and condemn previous actions taken by the European and American governments is a small bit of evidence of this.

I do think that Western Civilization is objectively superior to the Muslim and Arab civilization based on its ability to uphold and protect individual rights for its citizens, to offer more freedom to its citizens, to offer a higher quality of life, and to foster economic prosperity and life-improving innovation. The sad fact of the matter is that had it not been for the comparatively secular and atheist Americans and the Europeans, the Arabs and their primitive mystic philosophy would have never been able to discover the oil beneath the sands nor the combustion engine nor any means for pumping and refining it. That is not a racist statement; anyone can embrace the concepts of objective reality, reason, and individual rights regardless of their race and people of all races often do while many white people reject reason and embrace their own primitive religious mysticism.

This conflict between Western Civilization and the Muslim world is, at root, a battle between reason and primitive mysticism.

 

[FaaR]

When you adopt a condescending attitude and air of superiority, as you have, you invite insults and annoyance.

Oh gosh, I'm getting lectured by an arrogant american about airs of superiority? *boggle*

What's next, lions and lambs sleeping together?

I have always heard the term "West" used in the political context and was completely unaware that anyone ever used it a "geographic/ethnic" context.

Am I a mindreader or something? How can I possibly know what you've heard or not herd? I thought it was obvious from the context of my discourse, but oh well... Never mind though! We're both on the same wavelength now I think.

Was it U.S. government policy, to massacre civilians at places like My Lai?

What does it matter if it was or not when it happened? It and many other similar incidents over the years, including in Iraq. When you send soldiers with weapons into a place you have a responsibility. Just saying "it wasn't government policy" when scores of civilians lie dead doesn't really cut it in my book. Apparantly it does in yours, but I fail to see how that disclaimer makes us so much better than the terrorists.

Besides, it was certainly a government policy to blindly and callously carpet-bomb the countryside, carpet-bomb a neighboring country even, and douse huge areas of the jungle with poisons whose effects linger to this day.

The bombs linger too, I might add. Unexploded munitions from decades ago still turn up from time to time, and sometimes blow up a couple people or kids.

Those bombings weren't war crimes; they were perfectly justified retaliatory attacks intended to cripple the enemy's war machine and/or to reduce the enemy's morale.

Oh my god... What in your book ISN'T "perfectly justified" then?

What action can't you undertake in a war as long as it reduces enemy morale, shooting artillery shells loaded with mustard gas into crowded neighborhoods must be OK, it would cause morale to plummet that's for sure!

Your general attitude strikes me as monstrous, Churchill and others did in fact express regret over what they felt as a need to carry out these bombings, but you're just like, 'it's perfectly justifiable'. Whoah man, that's far out on the fringe. Human life doesn't seem to carry a whole lot of weight in your mind... Well, perhaps your own life does I suppose.

During World War II, if it had been possible to end the war by pressing a button and magically eradicating all life in Germany and Japan in order to save the lives of a few American and British soldiers, it would have been justified since the Germans and Japanese initiated the conflict.

No, it wouldn't.

Holy crap, you're nuts man. I totally can't see how you mesh your self-serving "we're better than them" speech with mass-murder of at least 100 million human beings including women and children.

Please never come over here, we're all stocked up on crazy on this side of the globe thankyouverymuch.

We made a decision that it was better for tens of thousands of Japanese people to die than for one more American to die. That was totally justified since Japan initiated the conflict.

So in essence, you agree with this shooter at Ft. Hood and the terrorists then. Since the U.S. initiated the war against Iraq, all Americans need to die, Allah Akbar and all of that?

...I take it you see that I can play the devil's advocate also if I like, just like you're so fond of doing...

Of course you realize that your position is completely crazy, yes? You can't morally condone mass murder against your enemies, but condemn it when it's being done against you. It's hypocrisy, to an astonishing level.

Perhaps the Japanese should have thought about that before they attempted to conquer Southeast Asia and attack Pearl Harbor? Perhaps they should have surrendered earlier?

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to sentence millions of people who had nothing to do with the conflict in question to death... I fail to see how you're any less dangerous and fanatical than the terrorists against which you rail.

Also you may want to note that Japan during the imperial era wasn't the kind of place where you publically expressed disobedience or dissent with the official line. People tended to lose their head you know...literally.

Are you able to make a distinction between the initiator of a conflict and the party that responds to it as a matter of self-preservation?

It was a general statement, and as usual you're being obtuse, either on purpose or because you're simply too damn narrow-minded to get it. I'm saying, you can't claim to have the moral high-ground if you use the same kind of methods as your adversaries.

This does include blowing up entire cities just to spare soldiers' lives, or magically eradicating all life in two countries just because their leaders started an armed conflict by the way.

If you want to have liberties and live in a free, democratic society, with moral standards and ethics and all of that, well, there's a penalty associated with that, and the penalty is that freedom sometimes costs lives. The cost can be in the form that at times armies need to march against people like Hitler, or that our liberties can be abused and Bad People bring bombs with them on a bus, or on an airplane, and murder innocents.

If you want a free society, you will always have to be ready to pay that price, there's no way around that. Liberty doesn't mix with a police state supervising everyone to make sure they don't commit terrorist acts, just as morals don't mix with mass murdering civilians of an enemy state.

You can't just SAY you have morals, you gotta SHOW it with your actions as well, and it's NOT morally justifiable to say, eradicate entire countries' worth of life to solve a military conflict. How could it possibly be?

You getting any of this or am I just talking to myself here?

I'm unsure what you're referring to with the ETA and RAF.

That's probably because you're American. No, it's not a badly veiled insult, haha. You may not have heard much about these simply because it didn't take place on your continent (and in the case of RAF - which does not stand for Royal Air Force by the way - you were probably a child, maybe not even born). Use your google-fu or something, it's not hard to scrounge up relevant infos.

did the Jews purchase land, did they take worthless and unused desert an swampland and convert it into fertile land

Israel was more or less created overnight, the western powers that were behind it didn't purchase the land or anything like that. Really, there's too much history behind all this to explain it all in one post (which is already way too big I might add) so why don't you just read some on your own. History is fascinating stuff anyway, and often VITAL to understanding exactly why things are the way they are.

It's easy to dismiss reality and say, "oh, the Muftis are just dumb and evil", see the Arabs simply as a sort of live-version of Star Wars stormtrooper "evil-doers" a la Shrubya Bush... In reality there's reasons behind everything, it's not just a case of "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists".

Of course there's evil Arabs by the way. Tons of 'em, especially today after so many decades of bad blood between them, Israel and the west in general, but reality is (almost) never simply black and white. Conflicts have foundations too, reasons for existing. It's not always just a matter of they are wrong, they are bad, we must kill kill kill. Hell, even the rise of almost universally hated and despised men like Hitler and Stalin have rich and complicated backdrops...

eventually resulting in the ability to out-vote the Jews and thus the ability to take over the government. This may happen, eventually, anyway.

You know... If it weren't for racists like you who want to see rifts between people and strive to create them if they aren't there, this wouldn't be any issue whatsoever. If there wasn't so much racial and cultural tension, Arabs in general and their descendants in particular would simply integrate into Israeli society and become one homogenous whole with it. There would be no need for any "takeover", how can you take over a society you're already part of, or even want to...?

As a parallel, I might point at North America, where immigrants from pretty much every European country came together rather peacefully and built new societies for themselves almost without bloodshed despite their mother countries not always having the best of relations. So there's some historical prescident after all... (Ignoring the resulting sufferings of the American Indians, and the African slave laborers, of course; seemingly no enterprise humanity takes on is entirely without flaws.)

Oh don't worry, I'm not portraying you as some kind of anomalous monster, there's tons of people just like you in Israel as well and they'd never permit any Arab takeover. Heck, there's at least one party in the Knesset that proposes genocidal (even nuclear) warfare against not just the occupied territories but the entire Arab middle east. There's enough haters to go around to keep the embers of this conflict going for a long time.

Then again, if the Arab population were to rise in Israel, it could have a dampening effect on the most hardline factions in the society, perhaps with a bit of luck and some genuine help from the rest of the world leading to some kind of reconciliation. Hell, one can always hope... In any case, Israeli Arabs aren't all some homogenous force working on a secret agenda with aims to collapse the state from within. That's just paranoid delusions, and such a takeover-plan if it existed would still take several or even many generations to execute; far too long to possibly have hopes of staying on track. Human beings are an impatient lot.

one of the highest average IQs in the world

IQs are more or less bunk. They're an amalgamated measure of a person's level of education in abstract thinking, self-esteem and a couple other factors, not a reliable measure of actual intelligence...

If you're trying to paint me as some sort of an ignorant hillbilly bigot, you've got the wrong guy.

Perhaps the hillbilly shoe doesn't fit, but you got the bigot part down pat I'd say.

Could it be that Western culture and its Aristotelian heritage was objectively superior to that of the Indian culture in terms of its ability to support a higher population, perhaps longer lifespans and better health, and innovation?

Or maybe it's that whitey simply has evolved to be more hostile and war-like, or that our overcrowded European continent with its limited living space (being surrounded by water on almost every side as it is) created countless armed conflicts which bred a NEED for evolution in warfare?

Notice that I'm simply not patting ourselves on the back for being inherently more superior, like you do. Again, just because other people live a different life doesn't mean they're inferior.

If a superior race of space aliens lands in Washington and offers to incorporate us into their empire and teach us about technological advances that are hundreds and thousands of years ahead of time and offers us longer life spans and a higher quality of life, if only we disband our current government and submit to rational alien rule, I'll be all for it.

Dr. Wallace Breen would like to have a chat with you, he has a working position open...as a Combine Stalker. ...Interested?

The problem is that you can make broad statements about events such as the U.S. backing Pinochet knowing that you don't need to be particularly knowledgeable in order to make those statements but that someone who goes to refute you would need to be knowledgeable about it.

There's really no point in refuting this though, or the couple other things I've mentioned. They really are historical facts. All you have to do is read up on them a bit. That the U.S. wreaked havoc in south and middle america during the cold war...well, what's so secret about that?

There's official U.S. gov't documents and testimony regarding the coup against Alliende, and the Ollie North trial ought to be public enough for you to have heard about it for example.

That is why it is better to discuss broad philosophical principles and not specific concretes or to stick to the issue at hand in these sorts of debates.

Like you deciding beforehand that the U.S. either didn't take part in any unethical dealings, or if they did, that it was 'fully justified' and all for the greater good of fighting communism? That doesn't leave much wiggle-room for discussing any philosophical principles now does it...

the Arabs and their primitive mystic philosophy would have never been able to discover the oil beneath the sands nor the combustion engine nor any means for pumping and refining it.

Lol, wut?

Did you either simply forget that before the renaissance period it was the Arab world which was the center for science, astronomy, matemathics and philosophy, or simply never learn it? In Europe during this time period, the church and despotic monarchs ruled supreme and anyone who defied them were typically either imprisoned, tortured until they recanted or put to death... It may be but for a random flap of a butterfly's wings so to speak, that the winds of history turned things around for us.

Mystic indeed... And you wonder why I keep calling you a bigot.

 

[Herr Kutz]

The Religion of Peace shows its true colors, yet again...

When will this "religion" be outlawed for spreading and encouraging hate and violence?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

The Religion of Peace shows its true colors, yet again...

When will this "religion" be outlawed for spreading and encouraging hate and violence?

You really think the US would outlaw Christianity?

 

[blackangst1]

There was a funny gaffe in all of this. In Obama's conference with tribal leaders where he remarked on the shooting, he gave a shout out to a "Congressional Medal of Honor" winner ( Dr. Joe Medicine Crow)...problem is, Dr. Crow never won it...he won the Medal of Freedom. Oops.

He really needs to stop giving speeches without a teleprompter

 

[jonks]

There was a funny gaffe in all of this. In Obama's conference with tribal leaders where he remarked on the shooting, he gave a shout out to a "Congressional Medal of Honor" winner ( Dr. Joe Medicine Crow)...problem is, Dr. Crow never won it...he won the Medal of Freedom. Oops.

He really needs to stop giving speeches without a teleprompter

I'm sure when we're done with the Obama presidency all his verbal gaffes will fit nicely into a pamphlet or newsletter mailing or something. It's a shame no previous president ever provided enough material to compile into such a volume.

*sig*cough*

A talented orator on or off the teleprompter, author of multiple books, the gifted wordsmith who penned most of his own speeches throughout the years and all of the important ones, and you guys stick with the teleprompter jokes. It's like when our braindead trolls here call him an idiot despite that whole graduated with honors from the most prestigious school in the world thing. There's supposed to be a kernel of truth in humor, it's what makes it funny. But keep fucking that chicken fellas.

 

[Lemon law]

I suppose the knee jerk reaction is always the same when any religious minority does something nutty, namely blame their religion.

Funny, given the USA is mostly a Christian nation, we never ask that same question when someone like Dahlmer or some else does something nutty.

As far as I am concerned, the Ft. Hood shooter was a simple garden variety nut under a lot of stress and resentments.

And while many of us are under similar stress and resentments, almost everyone does not snap and resort to that kind of violence. In short the guy is mentally ill, and metal illness is no respecter of religion, or better put, all religions including atheism are equal opportunity employers of the mentally ill. And the mentally ill can mis use religion to justify their actions, but in terms of logic, mental illness loses logic first in its very definition.

After that, we split legal hairs in the legal definition of insanity which is did the individual know their action was wrong or not. And also note that mentally ill people are less likely than the general population to be violent, but we can note that when mental illness is mixed with violence, we often get real sensational and irrational violence.

 

[Schadenfroh]

My condolences to the families of those killed and inured.

As far as I am concerned, the Ft. Hood shooter was a simple garden variety nut under a lot of stress and resentments.

And while many of us are under similar stress and resentments, almost everyone does not snap and resort to that kind of violence. In short the guy is mentally ill, and metal illness is no respecter of religion, or better put, all religions including atheism are equal opportunity employers of the mentally ill. And the mentally ill can mis use religion to justify their actions, but in terms of logic, mental illness loses logic first in its very definition.

I agree, this should not reflect negatively on Islam. Eliminate Islam and the minority of people that snap will be raving about aliens, reptoids, etc. instead when they commit random acts of violence. This has more to do with the individual and their mental state than anything.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm sure when we're done with the Obama presidency all his verbal gaffes will fit nicely into a pamphlet or newsletter mailing or something. It's a shame no previous president ever provided enough material to compile into such a volume.

*sig*cough*

A talented orator on or off the teleprompter, author of multiple books, the gifted wordsmith who penned most of his own speeches throughout the years and all of the important ones, and you guys stick with the teleprompter jokes. It's like when our braindead trolls here call him an idiot despite that whole graduated with honors from the most prestigious school in the world thing. There's supposed to be a kernel of truth in humor, it's what makes it funny. But keep fucking that chicken fellas.

Pull your nose out of his ass for one moment and chill the fuck out man. A talented orater he is. Speech writer? http://www.newsweek.com/id/84756?bc...BLFCG9lJSxv0AAAAFAAAAcrbsAKCMAAAAAAAAoF8GAA==

Got a joke for you: What do you call a troll who calls others trolls? a jonks.

 

[blackangst1]

I suppose the knee jerk reaction is always the same when any religious minority does something nutty, namely blame their religion.

Funny, given the USA is mostly a Christian nation, we never ask that same question when someone like Dahlmer or some else does something nutty.

As far as I am concerned, the Ft. Hood shooter was a simple garden variety nut under a lot of stress and resentments.

And while many of us are under similar stress and resentments, almost everyone does not snap and resort to that kind of violence. In short the guy is mentally ill, and metal illness is no respecter of religion, or better put, all religions including atheism are equal opportunity employers of the mentally ill. And the mentally ill can mis use religion to justify their actions, but in terms of logic, mental illness loses logic first in its very definition.

After that, we split legal hairs in the legal definition of insanity which is did the individual know their action was wrong or not. And also note that mentally ill people are less likely than the general population to be violent, but we can note that when mental illness is mixed with violence, we often get real sensational and irrational violence.

Wow I hadnt read the planets were going to be aligned today (I agree 100% with your post lol).

Excuse me I think I need to buy a lottery ticket....

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree, this should not reflect negatively on Islam. Eliminate Islam and the minority of people that snap will be raving about aliens, reptoids, etc. instead when they commit random acts of violence. This has more to do with the individual and their mental state than anything.

If he was not Muslim then his deployment would not have forced him to make a choice between confronting his Muslim brothers or confronting us. Given that he was born in the USA and yet he still chose to side with his Muslim brothers over us tells you a hell of a lot about the influence Islam played in this.

Yes he snapped, but only because we forced him to make a choice. WTF was this traitor doing as a Major in our military? So long as we stay ignorant of the connection Islam played in this the longer we’ll allow further infiltration by those who are loyal to our killers.

That you’d excuse the role Islam played is a symptom of the root cause behind this. It isn’t that we have traitors among us. It’s that we’re so ignorant of who they are and why they betray us that we’re enabling them.

 

[Lemon law]

Its some what absurd for Jaskalas to say, "That you’d excuse the role Islam played is a symptom of the root cause behind this. It isn’t that we have traitors among us. It’s that we’re so ignorant of who they are and why they betray us that we’re enabling them."

Get a clue, we also have a lot of Christian traitors that betray us while we enable them.

Tell me again, how many US Muslims were inspired to join the FT. Hood shooter? Does zero answer your question!

 

[Sacrilege]

Its some what absurd for Jaskalas to say, "That you’d excuse the role Islam played is a symptom of the root cause behind this. It isn’t that we have traitors among us. It’s that we’re so ignorant of who they are and why they betray us that we’re enabling them."

Get a clue, we also have a lot of Christian traitors that betray us while we enable them.

Tell me again, how many US Muslims were inspired to join the FT. Hood shooter? Does zero answer your question!

The shooter is quoted as considering himself a Muslim first, and an American second. For a major in the U.S. Army that is a serious problem. Religion and nationality shouldn't be in competition, they are separate spheres of a person's identity. But amongst radical Muslims, they are Muslims at the exclusion of all other things. Their nationality is Islam.

You realize how ridiculous you look, tiptoeing around the Islam issue for fear of seeming politically incorrect. If there's one thing liberalism is good at, it is promoting cowardice.

 

[JKing106]

If he was not Muslim then his deployment would not have forced him to make a choice between confronting his Muslim brothers or confronting us. Given that he was born in the USA and yet he still chose to side with his Muslim brothers over us tells you a hell of a lot about the influence Islam played in this.

Yes he snapped, but only because we forced him to make a choice. WTF was this traitor doing as a Major in our military? So long as we stay ignorant of the connection Islam played in this the longer we’ll allow further infiltration by those who are loyal to our killers.

That you’d excuse the role Islam played is a symptom of the root cause behind this. It isn’t that we have traitors among us. It’s that we’re so ignorant of who they are and why they betray us that we’re enabling them.

So, when do you ship out to kill ragheads, pussy?

 

[Lemon law]

As long as sacrilige realizes in saying, "You realize how ridiculous you look, tiptoeing around the Islam issue for fear of seeming politically incorrect. If there's one thing liberalism is good at, it is promoting cowardice.", I can also realize that the opposite of sacrilige courage is the absolute stupidity of blaming some religious group for the insanity of one of its members.

YEEHAH, you really think we should take our guns and slay every Muslim in the USA. Pardon me, I lack the courage and more importantly the stupidity of your convictions.

Please do us all a favor sacrilige, get mental health counseling quick before you slip further off the deep end.

And in so doing, please do not blame the conservative political ideologies for your own sickness.

 

[blackangst1]

So, when do you ship out to kill ragheads, pussy?

Uncalled for, asshole.

 

[blackangst1]

As long as sacrilige realizes in saying, "You realize how ridiculous you look, tiptoeing around the Islam issue for fear of seeming politically incorrect. If there's one thing liberalism is good at, it is promoting cowardice.", I can also realize that the opposite of sacrilige courage is the absolute stupidity of blaming some religious group for the insanity of one of its members.

YEEHAH, you really think we should take our guns and slay every Muslim in the USA. Pardon me, I lack the courage and more importantly the stupidity of your convictions.

Please do us all a favor sacrilige, get mental health counseling quick before you slip further off the deep end.

And in so doing, please do not blame the conservative political ideologies for your own sickness.

If you dont have a problem with

The shooter is quoted as considering himself a Muslim first, and an American second.

Then it is clearly you who needs counseling. That is a huge problem for a major in our military.

 

[Sacrilege]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109...zZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNsaWViZXJtYW5zZW4-

"telling classmates that Islamic law trumped the U.S. Constitution."

"Another classmate told the AP on Sunday that he complained to five officers and two civilian faculty members at the university. He wrote in a command climate survey sent to Pentagon officials that fear in the military of being seen as politically incorrect prevented an "intellectually honest discussion of Islamic ideology" in the ranks."

Did political correctness allow this tragedy to occur? If Hasan had been discharged from the military, he probably wouldn't have been so conflicted about his life.